Elerond

I am not sure what he actually means, but he says that there were projects like hypothetical project that has "Old" and "Republic" in its name that Obsidian didn't know that they couldn't do and that he learned about that after his departure. So it for me it gives impression that some people in Obsidian has at least tried to pitch making said hypothetical game without knowing that they didn't have any change to do it.

"The town would not benefit, from a tax base standpoint, from the solar farms because they are not located within the town limits, but only in the extraterritorial sections. The only funding the town would get is approximately $7,000 per year for specialized training for the Woodland Fire Department in the event of an electrical malfunction at the solar plant." But this reasonable reasons aren't so reasonable reasons to forbid private citizen to sell their lands outside of town limits. It is just extortion by town council. Also Higher Learning's fact check is bit incomplete as it bases their fact check in same article that I posted, and decided that it has done fact checking by pointing out that there was other factors than outlandish claims by town residents behind council decision that should not surprise anybody, especially those that read the article. Of course their fact checking is mainly aimed towards those other media outlets that wrote articles based on that Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald's article, but if they really would have wanted to do fact checking they would have checked Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald's facts. So at end their refutation is just opinion based to the original article that created outlandish headlines. Higher Learning refutation also forget to mention that council not only refused to give permission to this solar farm, but all future solar farms that would be build in areas that town council has say so. Quote from original article "The council later voted for a moratorium on future solar farms." and that can't be put on claim that those future farms don't benefit the town by giving it tax dollars or cheaper electricity as they are projects that don't even exist today. So there is something other in play than pure financial details of this denied project. So I would say that our fact checker should check their facts before claiming anything for sure, as original article don't give any reasons for either of council's decisions, so it is just anybody's guess what they factored and didn't factor in their decision. But also Woodland as community rejected at least partially that solar farm on those reasons that I quoted as they were given by citizens of Woodland in public comments about the farm, meaning that they are reasons why some people at Woodland thing that those farms are bad for the Woodland, even though they aren't necessary reasons why their town council didn't approve said solar farm.

My interpretation is that he sees making games as hobby and which should be fun to do, but it wasn't as fun as it should be or possible it was too much focused around making money, so he felt that life is too short to do something that don't satisfy you so he decided to look that sparkle that made him to love making games elsewhere, even if that means teaching others how to achieve their game making dreams instead of making more games himself. But as he don't directly say what actually were his reason only general feelings of things and observations of how things were, it is impossible to do anything else than guess.

http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/2015/12/08/woodland-rejects-solar-farm/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link Woodland in North Carolina rejects solar farm for quite interesting reasons. Jane Mann said she is a local native and is concerned about the natural vegetation that makes the community beautiful. She is a retired Northampton science teacher and is concerned that photosynthesis, which depends upon sunlight, would not happen and would keep the vegetation from growing. She said she has observed areas near solar panels where vegetation is brown and dead because it did not receive enough sunlight. She also questioned the high number of cancer deaths in the area, saying no one could tell her that solar panels didn’t cause cancer. Bobby Mann said he watched communities dry up when I-95 came along and warned that would happen to Woodland because of the solar farms. “You’re killing your town,” he said. “All the young people are going to move out.” He said the solar farms would suck up all the energy from the sun and businesses would not come to Woodland.

It is meant to be contrived as it is slur to dismiss people opinions that disagree with you.

This is a bit crazy. New York apparently had the same threat and stayed open. It does seem like an overreaction to me. I would need to know more about the threat, but closing down the second largest school district is a pretty big action. I know it is better safe than sorry, but I also worry that we let terror win when we react this way. It is normal overreaction sentimentality when there has been tragedy near you, you keen to be more careful for short time. After school shootings, some people find it funny soon after incidents to call hoax threats to schools, which of course usually reacted by closing down. But when some time (about year or so) had passed from latest incident, schools barely even reported such threats to police let alone closing down. Of course closing whole district is much bigger action than closing one school, but I would guess that fear of terrorist attack is currently quite high in CA.

It is again difficult time for our immigrant/refugee skeptic government. Last week two Iraqi refugees where detained on heavy suspicion of take part in mass murder (killing as much as 1700 police cadets in base near Tikrit in June 2014, they personally are accused of 11 murders, basin on videos that ISIS has released about said mass murder that are said to show the suspects) in Iraq and being members of ISIS. And today our news tell that they were already wanted in Iraq and Iraq is preparing to as that they will be handed over to them. Which all fine and dandy especially how our government parties have constantly said that refugees that are convinced for crime should be automatically returned to their home countries. But problems is that Iraq has death penalty and mass murders will certainly face it, but our constitution and European Convention on Human Rights both forbid returning people in countries where they face death penalty. And of course not returning wanted murderers to Iraq probably will put some dent in our government hope to make return agreement for convicted criminals of lesser crimes. So our official probably hope that they can make deal with Iraq's government that gives guarantee that those said refugees will only face life in prison. And of course this will cause some problems if Iraq's official in future decide to execute them as it would mean that returning anybody to Iraq becomes much more difficult process as our official can't (from legal standpoint) trust Iraq's governments assurances.

It is owned by Tampa Bay Times which was previously St. Petersburg Times (name was changed in 2012) PolitiFact.com was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2009 for "its fact-checking initiative during the 2008 presidential campaign that used probing reporters and the power of the World Wide Web to examine more than 750 political claims, separating rhetoric from truth to enlighten voters." In 2003, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described the St. Petersburg Times as a "usually liberal" newspaper. Tampa Bay Times/St. Petersburg Times has won multiple Pulitzer Prizes in categories (local reporting, editorial writing, featured writing, national reporting, investigative reporting, meritorious public service) There is no media source without bias, but they seem to have good standing within American media companies from quite long time now. But everybody is free to interpret their reporting as they see best, which is why I mentioned who was behind the graph and which media outlet is her employer.

To be fair it only counts Bill's statements since 2007

Men’s Interest in Babies Linked With Hormonal Responses to Sexual Stimuli There was no evidence of a relationship between baseline testosterone levels and interest in babies, indicating that the results were not related to testosterone function more generally but were specific to reactivity to sexual stimuli. “Young men who don’t like babies as much get more physiologically aroused by visual sexual stimuli; this makes sense from a life history perspective,” says Maestripieri. “These men ‘live on the fast lane.’ They are attracted to and aroused by novel sexual partners and are ready to take advantage of new sexual opportunities when they present themselves.” “By contrast, young men who like babies more are less sexually aroused by novel sexual stimuli (for example, erotic content), but they presumably enjoy sex more in the context of stable monogamous relationships with partners they know well. “We think that showing these mind-body connections is very novel and very exciting,” Maestripieri concludes. So basically men that like porn don't like babies?

Graph by Angie Drobnic Holan from http://www.politifact.com/ Presented in her NYT editorial http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html?_r=0

Pushing your own agendas is a great way to weaken any agreement.For now EU greentech solutions cannot move past intermittency limitation and they can hardly cry foul if China or India chooses to develop their own. China is certainly pushing a expansion of it's nuclear industry but by now almost all technology is based on French/American/Japanese designs.Russia may still be a major player in nuclear R&D but finding clients for reactors is becoming politically problematic. If countries didn't have vested interest in different energy solution then this agreement would had been much easier process and it would have some actual solution in it. Also about caring that EU has for other countries climate worries is quite low as EU has been quite alone for over decade in moving their energy sector towards cleaner solutions. So if this agreement don't work or it start to hurt EU economically you can be quite sure that EU is out or EU will fall apart (this is assessment that is made by quite lot of experts and politician in EU, as inner politics of EU aren't currently in good place and anti-EU parties use every weapon they get to ensure their success, this agreement will not be any different). Also China and India are welcome to try do their own cleantech solutions, but they are currently far behind and their economy and ability research new solution same time as trying to cut their emission will not be easy thing to do. Which is why European cleantech industries are excited about the agreement, as their products are cheapest and easiest solutions that are currently in market, of course that will change, but it will take at least little of time. If European companies can't compete when others start to bring their solutions then they can only blame themselves even though they are more likely blaming something else like governmental support for Chinese companies or Euro or something else. It may be politically problematic for Rosatom to find new clients from west, but they are building new AES-2006 VVER type reactor in here Finland starting 2018, and they also have plans of building new nuclear plants in Egypt and Vietnam. And Russia don't have similar political problems with China as they have with western nations. Japanese companies on other hand have much more difficult time in China (politically speaking).

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html

If China don't start to something to their pollution, then it matters quite little what other countries will do as China's current emission numbers are higher than USA and EU combined, so if China is not in the the game then there is no game. In EU current agreement is seen as economical opportunity as EU has put hundreds of billions of dollars in greener energy solutions in past decade and now we have world leading cleantech companies, and our current interest is anyway to get rid using fossil oil, natural gas and coal. So our business and industrial sectors are currently very pleased for this agreement. So agreement don't actually really change plans that EU countries have it just gives hope that other countries in world will start to regulate more their emissions and which would give nice business opportunities for European companies. Also it most likely that billions of dollars support that was promised will be mostly in form of technology or discount for technology instead of direct funds and that will be justified by corruption and that it is cheaper just give the technology instead of rotate money back and forth. And with that EU countries can drop their direct support and tax reductions for cleantech companies. Also Russian seem to be bit excited about it as their oil and natural gas don't bring them money, as prices are so low thanks to OPEG's actions to prevent US's shale oil coming in the markets, but they are currently leading country in nuclear technology and nuclear power is easy way to produce lots of energy with smallish emissions, so if China really decided to lower their emissions it is quite likely that Russian nuclear technology is part of that solution and there will not even be similar problems as in Iran as China already has nuclear weapon. So China has power to undermine the agreement, but as China is currently already under energy reform so this agreement that starts in 2020 isn't for them incentive to start one but more continue their current one. It is of course hard to say anything sure about China's political climate, but all sign that are shown give inclination that they want to make massive energy reform, but of course low time in their economy can change their plans in quite short amount of time. The one country that I am most worried about that also has power to undermine the agreement is US, because in US there is quite lot opposition against dumping fossil fuels and there has been quite lot of investments in shake oil and similar projects. Although there is California and many high tech companies that have vested interest to ensure success of cleantech solutions in US and outside of US. So from European perspective agreement looks promising as it don't really change anything to us, but it may give us more opportunities if other countries keep their promises. So in this west will again be divided in US and Europe and other countries (not including South Africa if we count it as western country) are in somewhere in middle. Of course those countries in EU (+Norway) that have significant oil and gas production may have more negative perspective than those that don't. But biggest oil producers in EU have asked that EU would try to get UN to accept carbon pricing and other sorts of systems that support fuels that have less emissions of course they have vested interest to do so as they can't compete in production numbers but they are world leaders in cleaner fuel technologies.

China was one of the countries that signed the agreement. Environment has become quite big topic in China's domestic politic because of constant smog in their big cities. But agreement mainly based on voluntary actions, so if one nation start to slide away it to gain advances in global market then most of the other countries will follow.

Julian calendar was introduced as Roman empire's to reform Roman calendar, it was gradually replaced by Gregorian calendar that was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. Replacement of Julian calendar was done because it gains against the mean tropical year at the rate of one day in 128 years. Tropical Year is time it takes for Sun to get in same position, or more time it takes for Earth to go around sun, but any way time it takes from one winter/summer solstice to next for example. Gregorian calendar gains one day in 3,226 years, which makes calendar adjustment much easier. And because of this gained days there is now 13 days difference between Gregorian and Julian calendars, which is why December 25 in Julian calendar is January 7 in Gregorian calendar. In future it will go forward slowly, meaning that it will first become January 8 then January 9 and so on as time goes on. But regardless it will be always be December 25 for those who follow Julian calendar like lots of Orthodox churches. And those Orthodox churches and Orthodox Christians that have adopted Gregorian calendar Christmas is celebrated December 25 according to Gregorian calendar instead of when it is in Julian calendar.

I find it strange that there are people that celebrate Christmas, because in Finland we celebrate Joulu (comes from Germanic Yule), which is just about during Winter solstice (day when daylight time is shortest or like here Sun never rises), which just happen to happen bit after middle of Joulukuu (Month of Yule, or Yule moon), in here northern side of the sphere. We even have Joulupukki (Yule Goat - which those bizarre English speaking people call Santa Claus or Father Christmas and they even often get wrong his place of origin). It just also happens to be the day when Christian world celebrate birth of Jesus their Savior and Christ, even though he was born during early summer months according to bible, but maybe that was too close to Easter (which is also about same time as another Finnish pagan celebration, but that is another story) also Winter solstice was already the most major yearly celebration in Rome Empire, so it probably also was easy festive to nominate for celebrating birth of Saviour by church in three hundred something AD. I know Christmas of Catholic is full of Pagan symbolism, it is because of the Roman want to buy the barbarians with the new religion, so mix Christianity with the original Pagan religion of the European, afterward European being under Roman Pope and Rome relive again in new form..... The Orthodox don't celebrate Christmas as far as i know...and they even have different Jesus birth date. Orthodox have Christmas in January 7, which is December 25 in Julian calendar that Orthodox churches uses instead of Gregorian calendar which is currently most commonly used calendar. Those Orthodox that have Gregorian calendar Christmas is on December 25.

Overhaul Games/Beamdog has yet to show that they can write quality RPGs. So I am quite skeptic.

I find it strange that there are people that celebrate Christmas, because in Finland we celebrate Joulu (comes from Germanic Yule), which is just about during Winter solstice (day when daylight time is shortest or like here Sun never rises), which just happen to happen bit after middle of Joulukuu (Month of Yule, or Yule moon), in here northern side of the sphere. We even have Joulupukki (Yule Goat - which those bizarre English speaking people call Santa Claus or Father Christmas and they even often get wrong his place of origin). It just also happens to be the day when Christian world celebrate birth of Jesus their Savior and Christ, even though he was born during early summer months according to bible, but maybe that was too close to Easter (which is also about same time as another Finnish pagan celebration, but that is another story) also Winter solstice was already the most major yearly celebration in Rome Empire, so it probably also was easy festive to nominate for celebrating birth of Saviour by church in three hundred something AD.

BoS sealed their faith when they asked me to kill my own people so that they could get crops. So they were exterminated for heresy and conspiring against people of Commonwealth and its supreme ruler.

Bald eagle named Uncle Sam don't like Trump. How should one interpret this, is it as accurate prediction as Paul the Octopus predictions for World Cup? EDIT: After thinking it bit more, maybe this post should be in funny things thread. So if some moderator would be so nice and move this post to there, I would greatly appreciate it.

I think we all know why that is. The paddys control the media. Sláinte chuig na fir, agus go mairfidh na mná go deo!

No, it is most important thing that individual can learn is to not trust media. Because people making content in media have agenda deliberate or subconscious don't matter, and that agenda makes everything that they portray biased, so it is individuals job to find facts and truth behind the story and that is usually easiest to do by looking several media sources and have enough general knowledge to understand what things are media bias and what things are actually worthwhile information. Western ideology about media is that you need lots of competitive media to ensure that you get information from multiple points of view. There is reason why some of media are called liberal, some conservative, some right wing, some left wing, and so on. But truth is there is no trusting to media.

So what would be your ideal political structure for something like the EU....lets say you could implement any political system you wanted? This is fairly difficult to present briefly, and i certainly do not have time to write an essay here. I mean just a summary, for example should Poland leave the EU? Align with a different block of countries ? In short. No it should not but the shape of the EU needs to change. EU should remain what it was meant to be. Econmoy driving project that includes free movement of goods and people. We do not need an euro-kohloz that tells us how to live and what to think though. Just to be clear, what do you mean by "euro-kohloz" ? I would guess that they mean EU's institutes like Parliament, Commission and European Council, Council of the European Union and European Central Bank

Brits seem to have something against Trump today. Like for example this article from The Guardian that implies that Trump is terrorist supporter http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/09/donald-trump-ireland-sinn-fein-terrorism