Elerond

I would say that it is better idea than let one country decide who has right to have root name servers and what kind domains there can be. But I have my doubts that things will changes to any direction, as there is already Governmental advisory committee where there are representatives from most of world countries and observers from lots of international organizations. The root name servers are distributed around the world for redundancy. Queries very seldom ever reach them because of caching technology. The root name servers are a . record and have records of the top level domains but the records are replicated between the root name servers. So it doesnt matter who manages them as many countries take house them Servers don't matter as much as content. They will try to dictate what content should be allowed, which will lead to what happens in despotic Communism: snitching about things that never happened to get someone in trouble and middle manager overregulating because they don't want to get in trouble with the higher ups. Plus if you think that they won 't come up with an excuse to go after competing servers then your are very naive. After all most people don't have enough tech know how to understand or care about this. I can understand that concern but end of the day the actual data is not the concern of the DNS system, DNS simply routes your query to the " www" or " "ftp " which is the actual server that contains the data. The root name servers dont know about the domains lower than the top level So yes some governments do block some internet sites but the ownership of the root name servers is important but it cant be used to block access to lower sites as this would crash many queries and make overall browsing inconsistent But they cant use competing servers as then you would need another similar system to DNS, like every company uses its own private DNS, and another competing DNS would be pointless as who would want to register with it ? For one they can dictate content, otherwise good bye being on the mainstream portion of the internet. Secondly, you're not seeing this situation as a whole; is like saying that controlling the roads has no bearing on you driving your car (Tolls will prove you wrong). The fact is that this will put globalist interests and national interests at odds when they're not aligned, which gives whomever is lining the pockets of the EU control over the Internet. They can't dictate the content. It is technically impossible.

They are Eurosceptic, they want to end free movement, dissolve the Euro, keep the common trade bloc, promote traditional family roles, are pro gun rights, etc. With multiculturalism a failure, immigration driving low skill wages down making the poor poorer, and the leftist feminist drive to destroy the traditional family I can see the appeal They are just similar party as our Eurosceptic and anti-immigration party here in Finland that is currently in government that is cutting income from poor (which they were against in election), giving tax breaks for rich (which they were against in election), giving stick for unemployed people (which they were against in election), cutting occupational immigration and focusing in taking more refugees (which is opposite what they said in election), cutting from education (which they were against in election), cutting from elderly care and health care (which they were against in election), and so on. Because it seems that populism don't work when you need to make decision in real world.

I would say that it is better idea than let one country decide who has right to have root name servers and what kind domains there can be. But I have my doubts that things will changes to any direction, as there is already Governmental advisory committee where there are representatives from most of world countries and observers from lots of international organizations. Considering the decentralized american infrastructure, it's constitution and the system of checks and balances, i would say that ICANN is operating at its least lousy place and any move is for the worse. If you look history of ICANN you see that it has done lots of shady things. Also I would point out things under ICANN's control are commercial in nature as it controls what domains there are and how much they cost. Like how they created .sucks that works nearly only to shake money from brand owners as they buy .sucks domains to protect their brands but otherwise domain has not seen any real use. Also ICANN has allowed domain name hording which has forced companies pay big sums to get domains for themselves and forces them to buy and hold domains for possible use decades before they are even planing to launch products just to prevent people registering domains that they may use in future. Meaning that things haven't been that good in under US Department of Commerce oversight. Of course in under UN's oversight there is possible that most of the world will vote against western view of things, leading to different commercial options for domains, but some could argue that is democracy in action.

I would say that it is better idea than let one country decide who has right to have root name servers and what kind domains there can be. But I have my doubts that things will changes to any direction, as there is already Governmental advisory committee where there are representatives from most of world countries and observers from lots of international organizations.

Game will be good if they can keep same number of options through the game. Because there is always risk for doing same that Lionheart did, which making compelling and complex first area and then become just series of snoozefest fights.

BBC wrote good article about problems in comparing crime statistics between countries http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372

About that media bias Here is study about media coverage during primaries. http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidential-primaries/

Most countries need economical growth to keep paying their debts, which prevents natural shrinking of economy, as they face threat crashing economy.

I didn't have clue who he was before Suicide Squad, even though I have seen three movies where he has been (Fight Club, "Girl, Interrupted", and American Psycho), and I would guess that I am not only one whom that is the case. So sudden hate towards could be because people actually noticed his acting.

Golly Gee Willikers! He done gone native! I guess all Americans should vote for Mr. Trump now! I see, Trump has decided to embrace political correctness now.

In personal freedoms it seems that both California (#16) and New York (#29) are ranked higher than Texas (#49) and Tennessee (#42). New Hampshire seem to also be good state for those that like personal freedoms as it is ranked #9 in those addition to be #1 in fiscal freedoms. Idaho seems to be the freest date for those who hate regulations, which seem to for fiscal sector (#8 ), but not for individuals (#45).

It's hardly that clear-cut, it rather depends on how you define science. Philosophy certainly isn't an empirical enterprise and does not study, or generate knowledge of, the world around us. At the very least that puts it in a very different category than the (other) branches of science. Excepting perhaps the so-called 'formal sciences' like mathematics, but for the same reason I would not consider those branches of science either. They're just very different things, and there is no clear unifying reason to lump them in together. It's also a bit of a stretch to say the (empirical) sciences branched out from philosophy. There didn't used to be a very clear distinction between the two activities, they rather bled together and were generally engaged in by the same people. It seems more accurate to say that they branched off from each other, developing and evolving into the forms they have now. Philosophy has undergone quite an evolution of its own, as an activity it is vastly removed from the likes of Descartes and Kant, let alone the ancient Greeks. The Anglo-Saxon philosophical tradition at any rate, who knows what the Continentals are ever on about (and let us not deign to speak of Eastern "philosophy"). Philosophy is mostly theoretical science, where people study things by theoretical research methods, although there is also empiric research methods (Aristotle, Greek philosopher was big advocate of empiric research and it is seen as his legacy that empiric research focused branches of science were born). But of course we also have theoretical physics and similar branches in empiric research focuses on sciences that focus mostly in theoretical research. And I would argue that to the extent that his work was empirical, it wasn't philosophy. Just because he is chiefly known as a philosopher, doesn't mean that everything he did constitutes philosophy. And again, there is generally a vast difference between what scientists do and what philosophers (and in the same vein, mathematicians) do. These operate on rather distinct principles, those of science being fundamentally empirical and those of philosophy and mathematics decidedly not. The boundaries between them aren't necessarily always clear-cut, but that in itself is no reason to conflate the different disciplines (the distinctions between different branches of science, or different branches of philosophy, are far murkier, but meaningful nonetheless). Even the more theoretical parts of physics are still aimed at modeling, understanding, predicting the physical world; it may be more distant from the empirical data than other branches of physics, but it is still grounded in it nonetheless. Philosophy and mathematics on the other hand, are not. He was philosopher, who was behind classical model of scientific method and one of the founders of natural philosophy (way of study which modern natural sciences are based). But with increase of knowledge about nature, university, etc. there was need for more and more specialized fields of study, which lead to modern divination of sciences, where natural sciences study the material universe, social science study people and societies, formal sciences study non-empirical things and philosophy that ponders meanings behind things. Definitions of science sometimes include formal sciences and philosophy and sometimes they exclude them because they don't use empiric methods, which means that they don't use scientific method. But natural sciences and social sciences rely and use knowledge produced by formal sciences and philosophy, which make them integral part of science even if people exclude them from definition of science (whole debate what is science and what is not is part of philosophy of science for example).

French people didn't like that tourists took pictures of them, and then other French people come in defense of tourist and said that tourists have right to took those pictures of those other French people and then these two groups of French people started to fight and then more French people showed up armed with harpoons and hatchets and then people got injured. Typical French behavior. Totally. Here i was the other day with a colleage of mine from France at a local cafeteria, sipping a latté and accidently took a selfie with him in frame. Before i knew it, his friends Pierre, Louis, Jules and the rest of the gang armed with harpoons and machetes jumped out and started to threathen me because i was conducting myself in a very anti-french manner when a took my photo. But that's the french for you, i can tell ya. I take that you haven't watched that French Netflix show "A Very Secret Service"

Thaos is willing to commit genocide and even worse things just to keep his religion only religion in world, by preventing people questioning Which isn't pro....He wants to use use his Artificial Intelligences to control.... He believes that those machines are gods, or at least close to god than anything can come and they are only things that keep world running as it is. For him they are center of religion, center of everything that he believes in. So I would argue that he is clearly pro religion. Close to gods isn't believing in gods. Believing they have immense power, isn't believing they're gods. He knows they're simply products of his science. You don't necessary need gods in religion. "Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence"". Religion usually involves belief in supernatural forces, especially gods that control or people and who people are accountable.

It's hardly that clear-cut, it rather depends on how you define science. Philosophy certainly isn't an empirical enterprise and does not study, or generate knowledge of, the world around us. At the very least that puts it in a very different category than the (other) branches of science. Excepting perhaps the so-called 'formal sciences' like mathematics, but for the same reason I would not consider those branches of science either. They're just very different things, and there is no clear unifying reason to lump them in together. It's also a bit of a stretch to say the (empirical) sciences branched out from philosophy. There didn't used to be a very clear distinction between the two activities, they rather bled together and were generally engaged in by the same people. It seems more accurate to say that they branched off from each other, developing and evolving into the forms they have now. Philosophy has undergone quite an evolution of its own, as an activity it is vastly removed from the likes of Descartes and Kant, let alone the ancient Greeks. The Anglo-Saxon philosophical tradition at any rate, who knows what the Continentals are ever on about (and let us not deign to speak of Eastern "philosophy"). Philosophy is mostly theoretical science, where people study things by theoretical research methods, although there is also empiric research methods (Aristotle, Greek philosopher was big advocate of empiric research and it is seen as his legacy that empiric research focused branches of science were born). But of course we also have theoretical physics and similar branches in empiric research focuses on sciences that focus mostly in theoretical research.

French people didn't like that tourists took pictures of them, and then other French people come in defense of tourist and said that tourists have right to took those pictures of those other French people and then these two groups of French people started to fight and then more French people showed up armed with harpoons and hatchets and then people got injured. Typical French behavior.

You should check your psychology, social psychology, behavioral science and philosophy books for example, before you make such claims. While the whole "it's all subjective" line is taking it rather too far in the other direction, he is correct in saying that science does not do morality. Philosophy does, but that's not really a branch of science as such. Even if it was, as (almost) any philosopher would be happy to point out, there is a big divide between the descriptive (which science principally concerns itself with) and the normative (the domain of ethics, aesthetics, etc.) that cannot really be bridged; you can't prove an 'ought' from an 'is'. Which isn't to say that the normative is all just subjective and mere opinion (in the pejorative sense), nor even that it cannot be objective in a more fundamental sense; the latter is not a view I would subscribe to, but it's been argued by plenty of influential philosophers (though not so many now, I'd say). But conversely the objectivity of the descriptive, of 'the truth' is rather problematic as well, so in practice it seems more sensible to put the whole subjective vs objective dichotomy aside anyway, and focus on reasoned argument instead. Philosophy is branch of science, first branch actually, other branches like physics, biology, psychology etc. have branched out from philosophy.

Thaos is willing to commit genocide and even worse things just to keep his religion only religion in world, by preventing people questioning Which isn't pro....He wants to use use his Artificial Intelligences to control.... He believes that those machines are gods, or at least close to god than anything can come and they are only things that keep world running as it is. For him they are center of religion, center of everything that he believes in. So I would argue that he is clearly pro religion.

Thaos is willing to commit genocide and even worse things just to keep his religion only religion in world, by preventing people questioning it.

You should check your psychology, social psychology, behavioral science and philosophy books for example, before you make such claims.

In my understanding they are allowed to use profanities as much they want, but they have opted out from using them because they want as big audience as possible. Also Dark Matter and Killjoys are Canadian shows, so they may get special privileges.

It seems that Incest is way to go in CW's version of DC universe

Full view picture of that Omaha thing. But it seems that 50 people thing (meaning that there was only 50 people there overall) has become fact that can't be overrode by anything for some people in internet (not here but for example in comment sections of articles about the thing)

Without seeing their bank statements I of course can't say for sure that they don't use money from backers to make those ports, but they made publishing contracts for those ports and I don't see any financial reasons to give control over those ports to publishing companies if said companies don't pay for them to make said ports. In scenario where those ports are paid by publishers, which is the most likely scenario because reasons that I mentioned above, they don't waste any money to make those ports, because they would not have that money if they didn't make said ports. Effects on PC version is of course difficult to estimate (although in case of Wasteland 2 there probably was none, because they had to port game to new engine and change how its systems work to make it possible that it works on consoles and backers received this new version of W2 addition to original version). In case of TToN it is harder to say if they planned console version from beginning or after their signing contract with Techland. But any case TToN is simpler to port to consoles than what Wasteland 2 was because it is already made for Unity 5, which is cross platform engine that is able to compile projects so that they run on PS4 and XB1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMQ4JnmyZRg http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/crowd-at-hillary-clinton-s-omaha-rally-exceeded-with-overflow/article_0c8bc1b0-5946-11e6-abf7-6f6f26e598bf.html Crowd at Hillary Clinton's Omaha rally exceeded 3,300 with overflow Can't say how many people there was really in Clinton's Omaha rally, but I think 50 people maybe bit underestimating actual number.