Elerond

It isn't reliable enough in general level so that it could be used as source for scientific papers, as most of it's articles can be edited by anybody and more often than not validity of sources that people post in articles aren't checked, which can and have lead in circle references, where Wikipedia article references article that references Wikipedia article. And its article writers have often bad habit to forget to give credit for original writers and studies.

1. Wikipedia is OK source, when it comes to definition of generic well known terms. 2. People seem to have confusion what democracy means, so I posted general definition from one source that everybody here have access.

"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or indirectly through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, religious, cultural, ethnic and racial equality, justice, liberty and fraternity. The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people", which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (kratos) "power" or "rule" in the 5th century BCE to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to ἀριστοκρατία (aristokratia) "rule of an elite". While theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in practice the distinction has been blurred historically. The political system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic citizenship to an elite class of free men and excluded slaves and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class until full enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. The English word dates to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents. Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by one person, as in a monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy, are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution. Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of all eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy, in which all eligible citizens have direct and active participation in the decision making of the government. In most modern democracies, the whole body of all eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy or democratic republic. The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages, the Reformation, the Age of Enlightenment, and the American and French Revolutions." - Wikipedia

That link says that number of murder rise from 2005's 881 to 1129 in 2006 and continued to rise in 2007 when number of murders peaked in 1202. And number of murders are still higher than what they were in 2005. And population growth don't alone explain rise in these numbers. Also total number of violent crimes raise from 2005 to 2007. From 2008 and forward there has been noticeable degrease in robberies and aggravated assaults (also murders and forcible sex offences are decreased also but only lightly and are currently in rise).

Perhaps it is because I've just consumed a rather large amount of whiskey, but I don't get it. Chart is upside down, so with quick look it looks like that number of murders committed by using firearms, have severely lowered after "Stand Your Ground" law passed, even though chart actually says opposite.

But if only proof (as she has told you where her corporation has been registered and in what from, which is something that everyone can check from public register) that she can give you isn't enough, then how she should prove it? So before I start speculate anything I want to hear what is enough for you, as if you ask her to do something she can't then this your demand of proof is only witch hunt, which I will take no part on. And I think that Bruce speaks about non-profit charitable organizations, not non-profit corporations, because non-profit corporation is corporation that don't have right to make profit or tax authorities will fine them. I give you that the not every country tax audits smaller corporations every year (they don't do that even here in Finland), but I don't know any country that don't demand that corporations kept records of their accountancy and ask corporations to sent them in every year (as it is something that every citizen even need to do). And I would also guess that in most cases problems with non-profit organizations is not that they aren't non-profit, but that they don't use money on things that they say they use, which is very big problem with charities and religious organizations. As it is very easy to make your corporation/organization/whatever non-profit as for example you can always give yourself a rise so that your accounts show no profits (which is enough for tax authorities as then you have paid income taxes from that sum). So again do you want them show their account information show that you can check that they haven't done tax fraud, or is your demand for to see proof that they have used their money in things that they have said they have used them or what? Because if they aren't non-profit as they have registered to be, then they are committing tax fraud, which I think is illegal in every country of world. But if you are worried that they don't use their money in things that they say they do, then it's different question, but one that is not about their corporation status as non-profit. Those problems that you spoke about non-profits in USA were about misuse of money http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/nation-july-dec13-stephens_10-27/

Public benefit corporations are in public register (where you can find that Feminist Frequency is public benefit non-profit corporation) so I don't see why one should provide more proof than that? Should they give copies of their bank statements? Or what? I am founding member of public benefit non-profit corporation that collects money for "cause" (running young center where people can play games and make and paint miniatures), but if people don't believe Finland's public corporation registry that says that our corporation is public benefit non-profit corporation, then only way that I can prove that it is non-profit is to show them our corporation's bank statements, which we need to show every year for tax authorities who will check them to make sure that we haven't made any profit (and if such thing happens we would get quite heavy fine for doing so). Of course I can't say if such procedures are place in California, but I would bet that is the case.

That's nice Elerond, but we already know this in the links I provided. The fact is it took an internet campaign against Anita Sarkeesian to have the artist's artwork removed from Anita's internet campaign. Anita should have just removed the artwork when the artist requested many times for her to do so. It should never have got to the point it did where an artist needs an internet campaign to get Anita Sarkeesian to do something that's right. And creating a non-profit organisation is one thing. Anybody can create one. I can go and create one myself if I wanted to. The fact is if you went to the artists homepage, where I quoted that Anita couldn't prove she was non-profit, you would see that the artist linked the official IRS charity site. So we still have Anita not officially non-profit. Just a dodgy registration which was registered a year after her Kickstarter campaign. And it goes back to what I asked Bruce about views on people who raise money concerning social issues but won't provide proof they are a Non Profit Public Benefit organisation. To this day, Anita can not provide proof she is non-profit. If you read the official statement it gives explanation why they did what they did. Which is that they didn't remove picture because artist asked its removing but that reason that it was not original artwork as they believed when they decided to use it. I can't say if this is true or false, but it sound that it could be true, as they also stated that they believe that they have legal right use picture without asking permission from original artist, and they gave the law which they think gives them this right and some links that explain fair use in USA. But without court order there are only claims from both sides. Registered corporations has to answer of it money usage to tax authorities, who are quite strict that non-profit corporations are non-profit and currently Tropes against women videos are owned by registered corporation called Feminist Frequency, which is registered as non-profit corporation. IRS site lists only those charitable and non-profit organizations that have tax exempt (meaning that they don't need pay taxes or they need to pay less taxes) status, what Feminist Frequency don't have. But you can find it from California's corporation listings, where it's listed as with non-profit and public benefit statuses. I gave you a link in one of such listings in my previous post. I can't say if it ok for Bruce if public-benefit nonprofit corporation collect money to inform people about social issues or do it need to be charitable organization to be acceptable. And I would also point out that I posted Anita's statement about issue only because when we speak about arguments in internet it is usually good to read point of view from both sides of the argument, because otherwise conversation becomes quite one sided. I avoided and avoid still give my opinion about issue as it don't have any relevance to me, as I don't have any interest to bash or cheer either side of issue.

Jews ordered to register in east Ukraine. If this is true, I would say that it's quite worrisome development.

Feminist Frequency's claim about being registered as non-profit corporation in California is true if you believe public records about corporations. http://www.wysk.com/index/california/walnut/mt8qeb8/feminist-frequency/profile

Official statement about situation from Feminist Frequency and Anita Sarkeesian. http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/79882515581/recently-it-came-to-our-attention-that-we-had

Inventory management has usually two aspect in it that most often don't have anything to do with each other. First aspect is tactical and strategic aspect where inventory's mission is to restrict how much and what stuff you can use in battles and on traveling between places. This stuff usually consist on weapons, armors, consumables (like potions, grenades, scrolls, wands, arrows, bolts, bullets) . Second aspect is economical, where inventory is used to restrict amount of money that player can have in game. Unlimited stash has little impact on first aspect of inventory management, as you can't access stuff that are in stash when you are travelling and especially when you are in combat. But as strategic/tactical inventory don't need to take account stuff that player needs to carry for economical reasons it can mean number of weapons, armors, and consumables that character's can have access is much more limited than what it is for example in IE games, which means that player needs to think more carefully what stuff s/he carrying in his or her character's tactical inventory. For example when you don't need to take account economical loot you can make strategic/tactical inventory such that character's can have access only couple weapons, very limited number of consumables and make it so that character's can only change their armor, boots, cloak, rings, amulet, etc. in safe places where you have access on stash. Economic aspect of inventory management will vanish with unlimited stash, but this can be balanced with changing how much loot there is in the game in the first place, and/or changing number of money sinks or making money sinks drain more money. As PoE don't try to be or want to be economic simulator, which means that economics are there only to create atmosphere and as one way to control player's progression in the game, which means that inventory management for economical purposes outside of selling and buying stuff has little purpose for that gameplay that it tries to accomplish, which means that unlimited stash has little impact on over all gameplay, although it means that player don't need to leave loot behind in any case (which was not very common occurrence even in IE games, but something that could happen if you explored too much), which is for some people something that is important for their suspension of disbelief. One aspect that I think they could add in stash is that it could have two tiers, where one is limited and you can access it in every safe place and second is unlimited and you can access it only in cities, your stronghold and similar places, which would mean that you have access only limited number stuff when you are exploring.

I would like to see that story of PoE is just god's of PoE playing P&P RPG, where loading is explained by god (which means that player is actually that playing god playing pc) playing pc that was not what s/he intended to do and direct interactions from gods in PoE world would be explained by them buying favors from GM or GM causing havoc for players' plans. Which would cause that games narration is such that narrators themselves don't even know what will happen and it could give insight how things happen in world of PoE only because their god want to have fun and they see world only as their playing ground. At least I think that it could be very interesting concept.

The Finnish people are in danger of not seeing Miley Cyrus and Justin Timberlake as well. I would say that is probably one of the positive things that this conflict has caused

So much for your Spetznaz everywhere theories. That's the only thing that's good about the EU, that it still hasn't homogenized to the point that everyone spouts the same rubbish. Except that was not what he said, he said that he believes that there is Russian spies infiltrated in separatist, but there is no evidence of actual Russian combat troops, and he don't believe that it's current Russia's interest to attack in East-Ukraine as it would be long time burden from them that would be difficult to get rid off. He also states that West and Russia have different perspectives on things behind Ukraine's and Crimea's crisis that come from history, economy, common national background and not at least experiences from second world war. Here is the article from Yle in Finnish. http://yle.fi/uutiset/eun_tiedustelupaallikko_venajan_etu_ei_ole_edeta_ukrainaan/7194750

I would say that probability of that is very high, I think that question will be more about what swag comes with the game.

Reviews seems to be heavily divided on it, some have liked very much and some think that it's very dull, and some think it is ok, but nothing remarkable. I played its first chapter last night, story seems to have potential and mechanics wise it is typical point and click game. My first impression of it is that it's OK, but it didn't necessary have enough magnetism to be memorably or keep me playing long sessions.

Chaos Gate is otherwise good game, but you need to run it on windows 95/98 in virtual machine to get it work properly on modern machines, which of course means that you need to find windows 95/98 disc from somewhere and suffer its installation. Although running game in VM gives some benefits like ability never shut down the game, as you can only close VM and when you start VM again you can continue where you left the game last time, and moving game to other machines is simple as moving your VM image to other machine.

As all classes have same usefulness level outside of combat in PoE which means that same should be true for combat also as otherwise it means that there would be classes that are superior compared to other classes. So classes should not differentiate each other in how well they work in combat, but what role they play in combat (which if it's over simplified could be compared to how classes work in many MMORPGs). Goal of class design should be make them play different from each other so that each is interesting to play and have in your party and that all classes have some unique advantage that make you regret that you don't have that particular class with you at least in some encounters, if not all. In current knowledge: Rogues are good in moving in combat without hindrance and they have potential to deal most damage in short time, although this is conditional to status effects and other things. Fighters are good to block multiple enemies, as they have ability to engage more than one and they can take more hits than most of other classes and they also are good to do reliable amount damage, so even though they can match rogues in damage peaks, they probably will not leave behind in amount of dealt damage in end of battle. Wizards are versatile class, that has best ability to adapt in multiple roles in combat, but currently it's hard to tell if they will be best in any role. Rangers have their animal companions and ability deal lots of damage in short time, but similar to rogue this is tied to status effects, but their animal companions make them play differently to any other class and give them ability to play roles that any other class can't play. Monks one would argue play similar role as warriors, but their abilities that powered by wounds they have suffered make them play very differently from fighters, making them good in somethings that fighters don't excel but they also can't do everything that fighters can do. Druids with their shape changing will play differently from any other class and even though they are said to be crowd control specialist there seems to be potential for more. Ciphers seems to have their unique approach towards combat with their ability to control their enemies, which in all probability make make them play much differently than monks and fighters which are closest of them in combat role wise. Paladins have ability to boost themselves and their party members and bring them back to fight from state on unconscious, but even though they are so called support class that don't mean that they stay out from combat, but instead they seem to be front line support unit, which gives them ability to even to replace front line classes as even though they don't necessary have same ability to block/stop enemies as those your front line classes they have ability to boost your other members so that you don't need their blocking/stopping abilities. So currently all classes seems to have that unique aspect that make you want to play with them or at least have one in your party, although it is still hard to say if they will get power balance right that it actually will be so, but one can hope that will be the case. And for the topic: PoE goals are very much opposite of innovative, as they try to go with classic look and feel in their gameplay, graphics, environmental design, quest design, class design, etc.. But there will be some innovation as they make new world, new ruleset and they use modern game engine. So one could compare it to Volkswagen's new versions of their classic Beetle, where you get lot of modern technology that are put in shell that has that classic feel (more or less depending on person). So PoE probably will not innovate anything absolutely new to gaming, but it will combine (in all probability) old things in way that it will feel something new and what you haven't previously experienced. Lots of time things that we call innovative are only things that combined already innovated things in new way or way that is easier to approach than what they have been previously.

They have not agreed to keep information in secret, they don't have position of responsibility that gives them access to governmental secrets, they have not break in government's data storage where they don't have right to access, nor they have paid anyone (at least as public knowledge goes about case) to do these things. Which is why they are free to write any information that Snowden has given them. In USA freedom of press principality that gives them this right comes from idea that press should work as tool to help people keep their government in line and this is because founders of USA had deep trust issues towards any government even though they admit that country don't work without one.

Snowden should be tried but I am not sure that he should be convicted, but court should determine that did he act as whistleblower that exposed governmental misconduct or did he act out malice with purpose to hurt USA. Because without such trial(s) there is little to nothing chance that any governmental misconduct will be rectified.

Dude you must really have trouble reading... Who here has said that Russia is the good guy. I put everybody who have said or implied that Russia's actions were justified in that category, you are free to disagree with my definition, although that will most likely ignore it.

Except that there has been shots fired in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and I would also point out that Germany's invasion in Czech was also quite bloodless, but it was still invasion, as are every occurrence where foreign army goes in country uninvited by its government regardless of do you think that government is legitimate or not, or do you think that country is evil or not, or etc.. And using wrong doings of others as basis of your own wrong doings is just plainly idiotic reasoning, if you want to be the "good guy"

Link? I don't have currently in hand and I didn't find any mention about subject with quick search, so it is possibility that I remember it wrong, but I can't shake of mental image that Josh have said that fight is over when all enemies have their stamina in zero.