Elerond

This two perks make me think that it could be moneys worth investment A lifetime subscription to all GalCiv III DLC and expansion packs Create your legacy* – Suggest a star name and get special thanks credit As Galactic Civilization II got two excellent expansion, which together with game cost about $100 if you bought them when they were released. And Stardock has quite good track line with its games and when they fail like with Elemental War of Magic they usually make it so that buyer is satisfied at the end, for example they gave Fallen Enchantress (sequel to Elemental WoM) and Fallen Enchantress Legendary Heroes (expansion to FE) free to at least to every one that preordered Elemental WoM to compensate that game was buggy at start and it wasn't everything that they promised. And it is always nice to have your name in game's credits

Pirate Bay Founder Peter Sunde to run for European Parliament from Finland Finnish get to vote "real Swedish pirate" to represent them in European Parliament. And I am not even sure that he can't win.

There is little doubt that if there is war between Russia and Finland that winner wouldn't be Russia, but we spoke about military consequences and those would be heavy for Russia and to "liberate" as you put Finland they would actually need put quite lot effort behind their attack which would be expensive in monetary and loss of life wise that end result of such victory isn't worth of such investment. Making offense too expensive is the main idea behind Finnish defense strategy, not actually win wars against over 20 times larger countries. And one thing should be remembered when we speak about size of Finland's territory is that most of it is uninhabited forests (71,6%), lakes (about 10%, and there are 188 788 lakes around country), fjelds and tundra. which means that area that need to be defended is actually quite small, although it's fragmented all around country that effective defense is actually question of mobility and deployment instead of man power, albeit that Finland has deep reserve of over million soldier addition of its active soldiers and readiness reserve. And Finland's arsenal is much more modern than what Georgia has and Finland don't have territories that identify themselves more Russian than Finnish, which mean that there aren't such inner conflicts that Russia could exploit for its advantage, like it did in Georgia and Ukraine for example. As for Finland military strength I don't want to argue this tangent topic, so here is a quick Google for you: The Development of Russian Military Policy and Finland Series take special note of the last few paragraphs in the executive summary. I don't understand what you want me to find from that? It only tells what I told, that areas that need defending are fragmented all around country, which mean that deployment and mobility of troops is vital, and it also tells how much Finland have active (professional) soldiers (about 30.000) and Finland's readiness reserve's strength is about 230.000 men. But addition to that Finland has deed reserve which strength is over million men. Deep reserve is those men and women that have military training and are under 55 years old and which military can provide some sort equipment to go in fight, but their knowledge about armaments and tactics aren't kept on date by using military refresher courses, which mean that they should have at least short one before they are sent on battlefront. and last sentence "Its preventive value is great." that executive summary agrees with my statement that that Finland makes it defensive strategy around idea that it don't have to win war, but make it too expensive when compared to gains.

C++ and C# are so similar languages, that after you learn one learning other is quite easy.

Every action in UN has its impact and so does China's abstain in this matter, as does Israel's decision not to vote. Even though whole vote was for show, as Russia had veto power that it used to turn over the vote results, which was what every one excepted from them. China's vote of abstain was probably China's way to notify that it don't have any desire to take part of this conflict on either side. Because that was one reason why vote in questions was held as EU and USA wanted to know if China had any interests in this crisis. Israel's decision not to vote probably was to tell that they aren't very pleased how peace talks have advanced with Palestine and USA's role in said negotiations. It is just political game where countries indication of what their short term plans are or/and their dis/pleasure towards some previous issue without giving ammunition their political enemies at home.

you might have some nice sticks and stones, but I think that you grossly over estimate Finland strength and ability to push back the Russian bear with it. Overall you country peace time standing force is little larger then the one in Georgia, but with five time the territory and just as unfortunate large front. So if Russia decide to "liberate" some of your territory I have no doubt how it would end. There is little doubt that if there is war between Russia and Finland that winner wouldn't be Russia, but we spoke about military consequences and those would be heavy for Russia and to "liberate" as you put Finland they would actually need put quite lot effort behind their attack which would be expensive in monetary and loss of life wise that end result of such victory isn't worth of such investment. Making offense too expensive is the main idea behind Finnish defense strategy, not actually win wars against over 20 times larger countries. And one thing should be remembered when we speak about size of Finland's territory is that most of it is uninhabited forests (71,6%), lakes (about 10%, and there are 188 788 lakes around country), fjelds and tundra. which means that area that need to be defended is actually quite small, although it's fragmented all around country that effective defense is actually question of mobility and deployment instead of man power, albeit that Finland has deep reserve of over million soldier addition of its active soldiers and readiness reserve. And Finland's arsenal is much more modern than what Georgia has and Finland don't have territories that identify themselves more Russian than Finnish, which mean that there aren't such inner conflicts that Russia could exploit for its advantage, like it did in Georgia and Ukraine for example.

PC as platform references to IBM PC compatible computers and operating systems, but in 1990s "Wintel" combination had such dominance in markets that PC become synonym machines with such combination.

I can see now why MS may have had some problems with upkeep of their old codebase

I agree with Notch's general sentiment ....but I would like to see him say "no " to joining a reputable company that offers you $2 Billion ....somehow I think he would suddenly find the cause of social media gaming more agreeable As his earnings in last year only were over 130 million dollars, I would think that he could over look such offers like which Facebook did, where there was only 500 million dollars of cash and rest was Facebook's stocks that probably came with sale restrictions.

Which would mean that some reason game don't register that your stick's position and I would also say that problem isn't in your controller as you can pass second phase of abortion. Only thing that I can think to suggest you to try is to move stick quickly left and right after your push A and then hold stick to left and see if that helps game to react your action.

PoE is full of chance rolls, as every hit and resistance roll are chance rolls, but they try minimize binary rolls, where there is only possibility of success or failure, especially when it comes to kill or not to kill character. So luck play large part in PoE, but it effects is more widely scaled than typical hit or miss.

Do Randy say "au" and shake his legs, as that is time when prompt so come and you should move stick to other direction?

In last part you first need hold to stick towards left and when prompt comes quickly move stick towards right and hold until prompt and then left again and so on.

In PC version QTE prompts weren't very clear how you actually had to push buttons, which was reason why I failed in scene several times before I understood what I had to do, so maybe there is similar problem in Xbox 360 version. I found this help from http://www.gamefaqs.com/ps3/651581-south-park-the-stick-of-truth/answers?qid=367371

http://pcsupport.about.com/od/findbyerrormessage/a/binkw32dll.htm

In this walk through it seems to work fine https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NGtq_GfVet8 Link to start of abortion segment https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NGtq_GfVet8#t=699

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/new-bill-proposes-fines-for-online-maidan-video-game/496838.html

Thanks for clarifying. Do you have any specifics on which types of equipment are currently not compatible? I'm curious as I did read something about the artillery being predominantly Russian and a preponderance of the Russian BUK-M1 air defense systems (which were being replaced by a Norwegian designed system iirc). Artillery uses cannons (like 152 K 89, 152 TELAK 91 and 130 K 54), howitzers (like 122 H 63 and 122 PSH 74) and rocket batteries (like 122 RAKH 89) that use non-NATO caliber ammunition, and some air defense also has some BUK-M1s, but it is currently getting rid of those and new soldiers aren't anymore schooled to use them. Infantry has lot of weapons that use non-NATO ammunition. And I think that T-55Ms, that are used in mine-sweeping or clearance operations are also not compatible. And there is still some BMP-2 s in use, and there is also some MT-LBVs and MT-LBs. And there is probably more that I am not aware.

Yes, I was also going to write about how this is a problem for Sweden as well. For those of you who don't know, Sweden has a rather large military industry compared to it's small size (as recently as 2010 the 7th largest arms exporter while only being 22nd in the list of highest GDP). Being a part of NATO will (I think) put obstacles to selling weapons to certain countries, and in general to the independence of the military industry. The military lobby is a very influential group in Sweden, you can compare it to the pro-Israel lobby in the US. Even if 99% of people don't really care or know anything about the matter, it's a matter of extreme importance to a few very influential people that Sweden has it's own next-generation fighter jet, it's own next-generation stealth submarines et.c.. I can tell for sure that NATO military suppliers such as Lockheed Martin will NOT be happy to have additional competition in their respective fields among NATO countries, and vice versa. My understanding was that Finland and Sweden are capable of joining NATO now - their equipment is up to STANAG requirements, although Finland appeared to have some data technical compatibility issues with NATO systems, that have been solved. (I could be wrong so if you have up to date info suggesting otherwise please let me know.) http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/stockholm/06526.pdf The defense spending requirement (2% is required and Finland is at 1.4%) and the fact that the majority of people in each country are opposed to joining were the real drivers. The 2% restriction is currently met by only 7 of the existing members so it's not a real issue. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/1999/4/nato%20daalder/reportch3.pdf I'm not sure about the current defense spending in Sweden but I think the real obstacles to Sweden joining are political. Only Finnish peacekeepers, rapid deployment forces, navy and air forces are fully NATO compatible, and they are ones that have practiced in NATO-led practices, main Finnish Defense Force still needs equipment changes to be fully NATO compatible, although Finland has plans to make its whole arsenal STANAG compatible within next decade as it makes working in international environment easier even for non-NATO countries. EDIT: Finnish defense spending is currently 1.5% of GDP and 5.1% of government spending.

Well the primary air defense fighter of the Finnish Air Force now is the F-18. The "/A" was omitted for the Finnish designation apparently to underline the fact that it was for defensive operations only, though modernisation packages included the LITENING II targeting pod for target acquisition and prosecution with precision guided munitions. They have also acquired the AIM-120 AMRAAM of which their theoretical opponent has no real answer to (or at least one that is deployed widely) and the AIM-9X Sidewinder, which has HOBS capabilities though I do not know if helmet-mounted cueing systems were included in the deal (in any case, even without it the Bug still has its automatic acquisition modes of the AN/APG-73 to take some advantage of the missile's capabilities). AIM-120 AMRAAM acquisition was put on hold as in tests revealed that their motors had problems to work in cold (-54 degrees of Celsius, which is typical high altitude temperature, especially in winter), I am not sure if they have fixed problem and delivered missiles already or is they still on hold.

Do it Finland, join NATO. You need to ensure that Russia doesn't think they can just annex your country on some false pretense. Russia needs to realize there will be a military consequence for there aspirations around geographical hegemony There would be military consequences even if Finland don't join in NATO, as Finish Defense Forces are well equipped and it has quite large number soldiers to put front of hostile forces and some question if those military consequences would be any higher even if Finland joins in NATO, as NATO has been quite unwilling to do any military actions against Russia whole time that NATO has existed, especially when it comes towards places like Finland that has little strategic value for NATO and has only little amount natural resources that interest NATO countries. And last time Russia (USSR) attacked and tried annex Finland with false pretense end result was that international community put Finland compensate its losses.

As current cabinet has lot of heat from their welfare reform and nuclear plant deal with Rosatom, one can be quite sure that there will not be bill for joining in NATO before next year's parliament elections, which means that, if Russia don't escalate crisis in Ukraine anymore, Finland will not even begin to join in NATO at least before 2020, as constitutional change needs blessing from two parliaments if there isn't 5/6 majority in parliament, that will vote issue to be urgent.

2004 lot of countries that one could say are in Russian perceived sphere of influence more than Finland joined in NATO, like for example Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Biggest obstacle to Finland's joining in NATO is that some of our equipment isn't compatible with requirements of STANAG (Standardization Agreement) and would need to be replaced sooner than planed. Of course joining in NATO could rise political tensions with Russia, which of course could impact our trade and agreements with them, but as Finland is already member of EU and does military cooperation with NATO countries predicted impacts caused by joining in NATO are seen minor. And as by joining in NATO Finland also has high probability that its weapon trade in NATO countries rise, as currently Finnish military contractors can't make offers on most valuable contracts, as they are mostly only for member states and of course as members state Finland would get cheaper contracts on some of its equipment and get some equipment possibly to acquire some equipment that Finland is currently prohibited to buy, which would probably mean that military pending would drop from it current level. So joining to any multinational organization that has some actual economical, political or/and military power is of course more complicate than signing couple papers, especially when joining said organization is against current constitution, which currently state that Finland is nonallied country, but it's not Russia's influence that keeps Finland out of NATO. Elerond I heard that the Finnish army uses reindeers to transport its soldiers and military hardware and this is the main reason you guys can't join NATO as NATO doesn't allow animals to be used in times of war, is this true? Yeah they are part of our polar bear infantry platoon.

2004 lot of countries that one could say are in Russian perceived sphere of influence more than Finland joined in NATO, like for example Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Biggest obstacle to Finland's joining in NATO is that some of our equipment isn't compatible with requirements of STANAG (Standardization Agreement) and would need to be replaced sooner than planed. Of course joining in NATO could rise political tensions with Russia, which of course could impact our trade and agreements with them, but as Finland is already member of EU and does military cooperation with NATO countries predicted impacts caused by joining in NATO are seen minor. And as by joining in NATO Finland also has high probability that its weapon trade in NATO countries rise, as currently Finnish military contractors can't make offers on most valuable contracts, as they are mostly only for member states and of course as members state Finland would get cheaper contracts on some of its equipment and get some equipment possibly to acquire some equipment that Finland is currently prohibited to buy, which would probably mean that military pending would drop from it current level. So joining to any multinational organization that has some actual economical, political or/and military power is of course more complicate than signing couple papers, especially when joining said organization is against current constitution, which currently state that Finland is nonallied country, but it's not Russia's influence that keeps Finland out of NATO.

... I have a feeling that vegetable-flavored ice cream will take off any day now. We should have a Kickstarter. Chili-jalapeno-vanilla Ice cream was actually quite good tasting.