teknoman2

it's called enikos and it's greek. i dont remember who was the finance minister at the time.

there is no source on the internet for it (that i know of, maybe it's on youtube though). he talked about his research while part of the audience of a tv talk show where the audience could speak directly with the politicians that were interviewed. he asked the finance minister that was there at the time if he was aware of how the markets worked or if anyone in the government had any idea besides what the bankers told them... of course the minister made a completely clumsy attempt to conceal his ignorance on the matter

if only it was legal, i would take a shotgun myself

Please....lets not play the old " The Jews control the worlds financial markets "card ....that's a very outdated view of the world economy and its very 1990's a mathematician in 2011 made a study to see who are those infamous markets that the entire world owes money to. by using all his math knowledge he followed the money trail from coutries to banks to companies and arrived at 128 trust funds that are owned by 23 people... yes the entire world is in debt to 23 people (he did not mention nationality) and since the sum of the private and public monetary debt of the world is 3 or 4 times bigger than the actual material wealth (gold, cars, houses, food etc), these 23 people literally own the world... countries exist because they allow it and will end because they will it (be it USA, Germany, Greece or Uganda).

the most avid enviromentalists i know are hunters. they care about the wildlife, because they dont want to run out of prey and they even breed and release animals in the wild to keep the poppulation from declining. hipster enviromentalists on the other hand are the bane of nature since they release non indigenous species at any place and any time, ruining the ecosystem. lately they released a species of fox in my area that is not from around here and while the red fox does not aproach even small guard dogs, this one killed several small dogs to get to the chicken they guarded and only chicken guarded by larger dogs survived. they also released a number of non indigenous snakes, but luckilly we have lots of cats and they made short work of them

in the early 2000s there were only 7 countires in the world who's central bank was not owned by Rothchild (thus they had control over their own economy). Iran, Iraq, Lybia, China, N.Korea, Syria, Afghanistan now only China, N.Korea and Iran are left

i got back to playing witcher 3... i just love how main and side quests blend in seamlessly with each other most of the time and how each affects the other through your interaction with the various characters

That's why modern MMOs have the "solo to max level" approach with the real multiplayer stuff happening afterwards, with various ways to help them to get into progression smoothly, unless the game is completely focused on player versus player gameplay. Games like Everquest have just shown that it's not easy to catch up with the general population character level once the game has been running for a sufficiently long period of time - it turns from fun into a job after a while. It also creates an environment that is incredibly punishing for new players and games that ran long enough to notice the population disparity tried their best to fix them - EQ introduced mercenaries, EQ2 came with a mentoring system and eventually remade leveling into solo-able content. WoW's unparalleled success came from being casual from the get-go instead of a second job. I loved Everquest, but back then I was a student and I had all the time in the world to play. It didn't bother me that there weren't any auction houses and you had to stand around at the market waiting for other players to come buy from you (no, really, if you wanted to sell your crafted things you had to actually "play" booth). But Everquest is still running to go ahead and check it out. The base game is free I think. Maybe you can even find someone to play with you, because there is literally nothing you can do without a group (or mercenaries I guess, I quit before they appeared). in EVE you can solo to any point you want, null sec adventures are much like end game content. im not against being able to go solo, i just wish mmos would be made in way that encourages player interaction (and even make it necessary at times) instead of it being completelly optional... and if possible with a completelly open world instead of smaller instanced maps

none that i tried... they all had the flaw that the only difference between classes was the type of attacks they used in combat. some kept me on longer than others, but most became boring very soon. in those that i played more than a week i joined a guild but it really made no difference... i was still going around solo most of the time as did almost all my guildmates and once a week or so we did some group activity EVE was good but when we started the hardcore stuff like going to null sec, it started feeling like i had a second job on paper, Mortal online had what i was looking for, but when i tried the open beta it was so poorly made from a mechanics perspective that made it unplayable. Age of conan had potential, but it was so heavilly instanced that if you could find another player, chaces were you had anough luck to win the lottery anyway a game does not need exclusive content for classes, it just needs the classes to be designed in a way that they are actually different and not just have different combat skills used to kill the same enemies.

some people are ok with this design choice, but personally i find it boring. if all i do is go around solo and i can optionally group up for a quest here and there, i may as well play a single player game that has had no resources wasted on online features development. when i play something that has the word MULTIPLAYER in it's description, i expect that at least 50% of it's features require interaction with other players (not optional -mandatory)... but that's just me.

and in the end it makes the mmo generic... the same as the other 9999 mmos out there

if you wanna know what saving ammo really is, play on ranger mode

the bane of most mmos is the single player aproach on the game design. the goal of most developers when they make an mmo is, mistakenly, to balance the game in a way that every single player can do everything by himself no matter his class or leveling-power up choices. Because the alternative approach assumes some sort of minimum population, at all times of day, at each level, in every zone in the game. im not saying that there should be no solo content. im saying that if the game has 10 classes, no class should be able to do the same things as another in the same way. to give you an example i ll use Anarchy online an engineer was able to do max difficulty solo missions in closed spaces by simply staying out of view and sending in his almost invulnerable robot to do the killing, but he sucked at open areas since he could not hide and enemies would target him and ignore the robot. also it was the only class that could max out the electrical and mechanical engineering skills needed for crafting a doctor could only kill enemies of lower level because he lacked attack power, but he was indispensable in a group that would go for a hard dungeon or very high level enemies, so he was always in a team no matter the time of the day (also, doctor and adventurer were the only classes with healing skills. the rest had to use items) a nanomage thrived in open ground by using aoe nukes and kiting enemies, but in the closed space of a mission he was an easy kill for most enemies of the same level. also he was the only class with an energy regeneration buff a bureaucrat was not much help in combat, but had some very useful buffs that increased xp and money earned by the team, while being the only one who could max out the psychology skill that was used for crafting some of the best weapons in the game a soldier could do a huge amount of damage, had decent defense and could increase the damage output of the rest of the team, however to get his hands on the really good weapons he needed to get the 4 materials for it and then find a bureaucrat to combine the 2, a metaphysisist to combine the other 2 and an engineer to combine the 2 new items into the final weapon (or he could just buy one on the market but they were way too expensive) each class had something they could and could not do and each had some unique advantages that other classes needed (i.e if nobody played a bureaucrat, nobody in the game could get his hands on the weapons i mentioned above). no class was useless, but no class was capable of soloing the game either (well they could with enough patience) compare that to gw2 i make a warrior. i learn blacksmithing and armorsmithing. i go around killing the same monsters and doing the same quests with the same ease as everyone else, just using a different skillset. i make my own weapons and armor. i make an alt that learns to make jewels to make rings and such. i get to lv80 and have the best possible equipment without the slightest need to interact with other players durring the whole time i played the game which do you think has a higher "multiplayer factor" (and for me that is what determines the value of an mmorpg)?

the bane of most mmos is the single player aproach on the game design. the goal of most developers when they make an mmo is, mistakenly, to balance the game in a way that every single player can do everything by himself no matter his class or leveling-power up choices.

save your money. it's identical to any ftp mmo ever made, but it uses the TES name to get subscription money to be honest save yourself the trouble of getting into any mmo... most of them actually lack the Massivelly Multiplayer part! there may be 1000 or 2000+ people in the server, but each can go about his business alone without ever needing to interact with the others because the game is not designed around player interaction but "balanced solo combat"

you should

Volo if there was one thing I had hoped you had learnt from me is lets not make excuses for others ineptitude ....lets" see the wood for trees " Greece borrowed the money and Greece needs to pay it back....any other point just seems like some irrelevant venting at other countries ? the whole point of how Germany handles the thing with Greece, is saving several german companies (like siemens) that will have serious problems if the greek government had their way with them and finally allowed the investigation about corruption, bribery and even fraud against the state to proceed. the 2 parties that governed the last 40 years were obviously the recipients of the bribery so they protected them (btw while they were still in power they sold out a state owned bank for next to nothing with the term that their 100+ million debts would be erased). think how bad for the german economy it would be for the stock prices of some of its biggest industries to drop after a scandal (btw Soible -or however his name is spelled, the german finance minister- is a major stock holder in many of them and is even the CEO of the belgian company that was supposed to handle the greek public property that they asked as collateral -luckilly that was prevented). so they do everything to keep the greek government tied behind loans and deals to keep these companies safe and wealthy, while Soible is trying to steal the greek public property for himself on the side. but we are going OT here

Wait, is the anime based on the manga? I thought it was the other way around. No defense. edit: I'm going to give Samurai Champloo a rewatch, I'm kind of in the mood for it after this. the anime needs 24 episodes to get to where the manga is and the manga is still ongoing. btw the goth loli is about 950 years old and in the manga she acts her age despite her looks... i wonder if they will keep the same personality in the anime

4chan of course... where else would you find trolling of that level?

the anime has a "noir" style to it so it's not unusual to have that kind of ending. Gate is toned down heavily compared to the manga. in the goth-loli intoduction scene, the anime had a mildly violent fight scene, the manga had much harder stuff, like a bandit begging for his life saying that he didnt kill or rape anyone, he was new to this and he was still a virgin... so she dragged and tossed in front of him the corpse of a woman the bandit group had killed a bit earlier and told him he had one last chance to lose his virginity before dying

there was a debate about the CG quality of the new terminator movie, especially on the CG young Arnold at the start. one guy was giving a 50 line lecture on how the screenshot of young Arnold in CG (posted by OP) had poor textures, low resolution, bad implementation of the character in the scene etc... and then the bomb was dropped: the screenshot was from the original terminator and not the new

I have to be honest I would have thought you would be one of the people who understood my post and reasoning? I do understand it. I just think it's bull. I know white privilege is a thing. I just don't care because acknowledging it, or not acknowledging it, makes absolutely no difference. The questions you originally posed still weren't answered - what does it mean for him that you acknowledged it? He feels a little better because someone who was dealt a good hand in life acknowledged him while he was dealt a **** hand. He was already dealt that **** hand, however, so acknowledging doesn't change that. Playing your cards in a way to help people with **** hands dealt to them or to give new hands being dealt a better chance of being good, that's meaningful. The fact that the hand you were dealt was good due to no control of your own is pointless to dwell upon. You claim you're already doing a lot to try to make it a better place for less fortunate people, to educate people about racism, etc. so what does this change for you, going forward? Are you going to help more than you already did? What does this change for the man who got you to acknowedge it, going forward? Are you going to help him, specifically? Why and how does it matter? Why is your white advantage constantly under scrutiny while it's their black disadvantage we need to be taking a closer look at? The world would be a much better place if people pointing fingers and going "this person has an advantage I don't have, let's attack them" and started pointing fingers and going "this person has a disadvantage I don't have, let's help them" - more people would be helped, and less people would be polarized against those trying to help. Have you never stopped to wonder why so many people are now against those who talk about "social justice"? It's because they constantly focus on and attack people for **** that doesn't matter. So you've accepted your white privilege - so what? Here's a way to look at it - I've lived with mental disorders for my entire life. Products of my formative environment, who I was born to, how my bodychemistry works. People who don't have to deal with depression, chemical imbalance, social anxiety etc. have a massive advantage over me. I could spend my time bitching at people to acknowledge they have it better than me and their problems don't matter as much as mine, but how does that help anyone? Instead, I try to talk to people who deal with the same thing and help them and raise awareness by pointing out my disadvantage instead of their advantage. Because the fact that someone I talk to is healthy doesn't change anything. like i said "I dont want a donkey of my own, i want the neighbour's donkey to die". with that kind of thinking instead of pushing/pulling people up, you just keep everyone down... and when stupid ideas like this are becoming popular, the average person with a working brain feels compelled to join the opposite side

It's a classic left/ right agnostic debating tactic. Privilege arguments suggest you should be embarrassed by accidents of birth, the rightest equivalent is to suggest that any poor person is such because they just don't try and just don't work hard enough- or there's the classic Randian 'parasite' label if you prefer. Same rhetorical coin, different face. White privilege is simply the politically correct term for "racism vs white people" Nah, it is at least in part real and not just racism vs white people. That there are certain inherent biases in society is obvious, in the end that is all that privilege theory itself is about, and so far as that goes it's valid to examine. The zealots tend to take things to extremes and make the word a caricature and apologists tend to use it to make excuses, but they do that for all sorts of things not just white/ male/ whatever privilege labels. Really though, Ineth was right posts back in that money is the biggest 'privilege' there is and trumps anything else. The thing is though, that most people do not look for the causes of these biases. to have a privilege it takes constant work to maintain prominent the reasons why you have it. Had those who do not have the privilege followed your example they could get it as well, but they choose to blame you for having it instead of working to obtain it It's like working at a company. I go on time, do my job properly, have a good relationship with my coworkers and my superiors, have the respect of those who work under me and i get some benefits from it, like more chances at a raise/promotion, less chance to be fired in case of cuts, the odd bonus and so on. Now someone who is lazy, uncooperative and unproductive, he would get none of the benefits i get and would be fired as soon as a replacement was available. I did not get where i am because i have a privilege... i have the privilege because i worked to get to where i am. I worked to get that privilege and had he worked as i did he would have it as well but he chose not to. Blaming me for having it does not automatically make him eligible for it Bruce, i see what your point is and i know that in SA things went really wrong with the Apartheid... i can also understand the reason for the frustration of that man. still, besides the problems a certain generation faced because of a situation, the page has turned and the new generation has the possibility for something better. The "white privilege" was an actual thing durring the Apartheid and for some time after it, since there was a kind of master-slave relationship between whites and blacks. The problem of the term "white privilege" now, is when this new generation tries to lazily capitalize on the problems of their fathers/grandfathers, in order to obtain an unfair advantage through "feelz" manipulation... "woe is me, my black dad never got an education so now that im in school i must get top grades without studying and get free access to any university because white privilege"

White privilege is simply the politically correct term for "racism vs white people" Its an excuse used by the lazy and incompetent to justify their shortcomings by dumping the blame on those who try to be more successful. To use an example that my mother encountered. There was a imigrant girl in the school she works as a teacher. In her old school she was treated with contempt and was bullied just because she was a foreigner. When she came in my mother's school, she met a friendlier enviroment, the rest of the kids played with her, nobody bullied her, she made friends and could finally focus on her studies again. She happens to be very smart so she was getting top grades and that, unfortunatelly, made her arrogant. She started seeing herself as the queen of the class, scorned others for having lower grades, acted all high and mighty etc. That thing made the other kids dislike her and slowly she lost all her friends and was left all alone. However she did not realise it was this sort of behaviour that was the problem, even when she was warned about it by my mother, and still keeps it up, thinking that the other kids became racist overnight and blaming them for everything. She may not be lazy or incompetent, but she used racism as a scrapegoat to justify her lack of manners and the result of it Also to use a USA example, the "gangsta culture" has been associated with black people because the vast majority of it's promoters are black singers. That fact makes it both appealing to the young blacks and a reason for everyone else to see any black person (especially the young) as a potential gang member out for blood. They cause the problem themselves but they call others racists to dump away responsibility for the monster they made. I'm not saying racism does not exist but not everything happens because of it... if you are looking for trouble and you find it, it's not the trouble's fault whatever form it may have.

People have just understood bible's message wrong and god actually looks like sahelanthropus tchadensis, not homo sapiens there is no god... only the force seriously now, the whole "white privilege" thing reminds me of a joke. a man was praying to god "please god help me, my neighbour has a donkey and i dont" god responds to him and says "then i sall give you a donkey too" and the man says "no, i want you to kill the neighbour's donkey" all small minded people (who usually call themselves open minded) think that the solution is not to give everyone a chance to go up the stairs, but to block the stairs so nobody can go up because some are unable or unwilling to put in the effort needed to climb.