Elerond

Wasteland 2 beta access wasn't part of any Project Eternity's tier. Wasteland 2 will probably be released sometime of this summer, which is when PoE backers probably will get their keys.

They have improved UI quite lot from release of beta and have said that they continue to do so. Combat system is good (there is variety of tactics to use, environment gives you different options, by offering covers, exploding items and bottlenecks) but in some encounters (in some random encounters you start next to close combat enemies that are also much faster than you ever can be and hit much harder can you and they usually start, which can make such encounter quite dull as you have high change to lose half of your team before you can do first action, and then there is some encounters where there is lots of low level monsters that take forever to move [thankfully there is option to make enemies moving animations play faster], but they don't pose any real threat towards you even with in such high numbers [which is probably because of skill current skill imbalance]) could benefit from some polish and rethinking. And there is cases where UI still causes some hindrances, but hopefully those will be fixed before the release. Skill system is currently very unbalanced but developers have said that it is on purpose as they want people to have access more skill and higher level skill sooner than what they can do in released version, so that people than give their opinion of them. And they haven't yet to release version where abilities have much impact on skills, which also causes some imbalance in the game. Graphics are passable they aren't on AAA level, but also they aren't in such poor quality that they would hinder gameplay. In my opinion aesthetics of game are OK and give Wasteland like feeling. Music in the game is excellent Writing seems to have its ups and downs but I try not judge it too harshly before final release. Voice acting in parts where there is such is such that it fits in the game and hasn't become annoying. Player actions seems to have consequences that have major impact how future missions play through.

Dunno how accurate those are. And that would be...? IIRC, DX9 is more flexible and gives you more control of CPU utilization and overhead (of course, if you know how to do that), unlike DX10/11, that's why DX12 is supposed to fix that. And DX9 is still capable nowadays: http://www.abload.de/img/2011-05-19_000232n85.jpg DX9 - 11 all have same problems with CPU utilization and overhead, although there has been some optimizations in DX11. But main problem is that DX till can only use one CPU core. And for developer DX10+ versions offer much more flexibility than DX9, but DX9 was only version that works in Xbox 360 and PS3 supports about same features, which is why games that are ported or made for consoles need to take consideration that it needs to work and look good with DX9 renderer. DX10 and 11 offer better 3D tricks for 2D planes, and as all backgrounds in PoE are 2D planes, and DX10 and 11 offer better dynamic light effects and control for those effects. And it should be remembered that when we speak that DX10+ is better in something that don't mean that DX9 can't necessary do it or that you can't make game look as good with DX9, but that developers need to spend less time to get same level effects, which mean that they can use that saved time to do other content in the game.

If game uses DX9 and is 32 bit, then Windows XP or newer If game uses DX10 then Windows Vista or newer if game uses DX11 then Windows 7 or newer if game uses DX12 then Windows 8.1 Update or newer But probably game will not have official support for Windows XP even if it works in it as Microsoft will stop all support for it before PoE is released. I think it is high probability that Obsidian will not use DX9 in PoE as newer versions of DX are much better in most things that they want to do in PoE, so my bet would be at least Vista or newer Windows. Game will as work (Mac) OS X, but you probably need at least Snow Leopard (10.6) And it will at least work also in Steam OS and other up-to-date Debian Linux based distros.

Top left is good place for most often used UI element in countries that use left-to-right-up-to-down writing, because people have internalized, because of reading, from young age that new things start from top-left corner. Which is also why one shouldn't put UI elements there if they aren't meant to be looked constantly, but instead of bottom bar which is last place where most people look, making UI HUD to be much less obtrusive, but still being easy to access. And for most people that use mouse with their right hand bottom-left corner is easiest and fastest place move cursor (which is why it is default location for start menu button in Windows for example) . So bottom-left corner is much better place for character icons if their main use in game is to select characters, and top-left corner is best place for them if their main purpose is to convey information for the player.

Any screenie?

Unity 5 seems to fix many bottlenecks that previous versions have and which have probably been cause for most of the problems that have caused games uses hardware in ways that isn't optimal in many cases.

It looks like that there is three UI element's in use (Character portraits, control panel and log). As their plan is to make game support different resolutions, I would guess, if they go with solid bar design, that they will keep UI elements separate even in final design and they will fill the caps between elements with background or overlay art, which will make making UI look good and usable in different resolution easier, than going with one element design and it also gives much more flexibility during testing as can move, add and remove UI elements with much more ease.

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. is essentially what we said already. however, am gonna disagree with you that wikipedia is an ok source to cite, under any circumstances. recall our statement, "anybody who cites wikipedia..." that were how we phrased our condemnation. if you is complete oblivious and need a starting point from which to start, we don't begrudge the use of wiki. that being said, to cite wiki is... laughable. "some guy on the bio social forum" "i read it while on craigslist" "it was on a flier i was handed outside a starbucks" if the above were your citations, folks would laugh, but wiki somehow gets a pass even though it is no more valid. HA! Good Fun! ps am thinking folks is getting lost on liberty more than democracy, but if they can't find it themselves, there won't be no learning. That is true and I would probably not written that post if I haven't already started to write it before you posted your message about the subject. I must disagree with you in using Wikipedia as source for terms, as when you use Wikipedia as source for definition of well known terms, everybody can go and check definition from Wikipedia by themselves and read their definition and their possible explanations. It is not any different than using any other encyclopedia (or actually any other source) as your source for definition of term, but it's more broadly available and easier to access than most other sources you could use and it's mostly neutral. Especially in conversation where people seem to have multiple definitions for term, I definitely think that using Wikipedia as source for definition of term is OK thing to do, as then people at least can use same definition, which everybody can easily check, even if it's insufficient or it differs from definitions of term in other sources, and people can talk subject on hand using with same definition of term instead of fighting with each other how term should be defined, as at the end of the day it don't really matter how term is actually defined if everybody that participates in conversation however have same definition for it. But using Wikipedia as source becomes much trickier and thing that is not generally recommendable thing to do when one uses it as source for subjects which factualness actually matter.

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