ravenshrike

Of course FDR is ranked high by most academics. Most modern academics are communist/socialist/statists, FDR was like a godsend to them. He also presided over WW2, and many historians are enamored with war leaders of all types throughout the ages, no matter how evil they really were. So you dismiss the majority of highly educated scholars. Brilliant. Yea.. actually I do. I've spent enough time in Universities to realize that the academics there don't magically have a higher intelligence than those not there, that to an extent many of them live in a bubble that has little to do with reality (especially those who never left academic life, which is a sizable amount of academia), there are agendas that don't meet the average eye by those financing academia, and there are egos amongst academia that drive agendas and squash real scholarship. My apologies that I don't look at academia as a group of clergy as so many do. Professors are just as fallible as the rest of humanity, especially when considered as a group. In regards to FDR specifically. The guy was an evil MFer, who had zero respect for the Constitution and served the financial interests in New York and London first and foremost. I have a great deal of respect and desire for the liberty of man, FDR did not, and neither do a great many modern academics in the US (who I already mentioned are socialist/communist/statists). I think history has been unusually kind to FDR. As big government statist presidents go I can't think of many who were worse, preset occupant included. That is not to say that the times he lived in did not justify unusual actions, or that he was all bad, but trampling on the rights and freedoms of Americans is never a good thing and no end could ever justify that as a means. The only reason that the current resident is not worse is because he has to deal with the ramifications of fast information dissemination over the intertubes. FDR had his fireside chats and a bunch of cooperating newspapers.

Che Guevara is also ranked high on every academic list and so too before the fall of the Soviet Union and the exact numbers slaughtered started coming out was Joseph Stalin. Without the war FDRs economic policies would have failed even worse than they did and his threatening to pack the courts if they did not pass his social policies was at best criminal. Yet your academics gloss over this just as they ignore the corruption in the current presidency.

Huh. Well, looks like my evil rat****ing bastard playthrough is definitely going to be a wizard. Bwahahhahahahhhahaaa!

Where did I call FDR a National Socialist? Jackbooted thug, sure *cough*Japanese internment camps*cough*(Amusing fact, in Larry Corriea's Warbound, FDR[Who isn't a cripple because Active healers cured his polio] starts putting Actives in 'internment' camps. Multiple reviews of the book on Amazon complained that he was ripping off of X-Men.), but certainly not National Socialist. Among other things, the National Socialists were a ****load more coherent in how they enacted their social policies.

No, healer first, then wizard.

*blinks* Wow that article is retarded. First of all, we are not a democracy, we are a republic with a democratic format of choosing various government representatives. Secondly, most of the actual policy making at this point because of the massive expansion in government power with the threats to SCOTUS over the commerce clause during that jackbooted thug FDR's presidency is in the hands of pretty unconstrained 'executive branch' government departments.

He does have a good point, although he then manages to completely miss it when he swings(Protip: Rogues are thieves in the same way that Rangers are forest marshals, which is to say it's only a small part of their job description). True balance is boring, especially in a game in which randomized factors play a large part and not skill. Which is exactly why I don't play 4th ed D&D.

That's why one of the first things I do will be to make versions of all classes with the varying backgrounds/races before taking them through the prologue/tutorial and saving them there. Then I can just use a SG editor to flip various things out at that point in subsequent playthroughs. Of course, that will end up with me playing thorough the tutorial eleven times(unless there are more backgrounds than classes).

Out of curiosity, what exactly was wrong with DS3 beyond it being a game with a playstyle you disliked? I ask this because they were almost certainly told to make a DS game that was playable on both the PCs and consoles from the start, and given those parameters it's pretty decent. Better in certain ways than BG:DAI&II.

Seriously? I hope you're using Linux or OSX then, because Windows is full of holes. Not really. Or rather, most of the holes in 7 are only exploitable because of PEBKAC. And those that aren't are easily picked up by Spybot and MalwareBytes

I just use MalwareBytes and Spybot S&D while occasionally downloading the free version of Avast and running it. Honestly AVs use up too many resources to leave them installed permanently given their limited utility beyond what MalwareBytes and Spybot already do.

No... just no. There is very, VERY little difference in most gaming between AMD/Intel. Games, especially modern ones, are much, much more graphics bound than proc bound. The only time that Intel really beats AMD noticably while actually playing a game is when you are running multiple monitors and at least 3 high end graphics cards. Where Intel is genuinely more useful currently is if you do a lot of video/audio processing. Which has jack all to do with gaming and you almost certainly wouldn't be using a gaming-oriented graphics card if that was your focus anyway. This is a function of what processor you have under the hood. Both Intel's and AMD's mid-high end processors will be fine for any current game. A couple years down the road and assuming games keep using more and more processor power? Well.. Intel has the better high end chips right now and the foreseeable future. Whether a game is CPU or GPU heavy really depends on the game. For example, one of the most popular games out there, WoW, is much more CPU heavy than it is GPU heavy. Another example would be the Paradox strategy games. Not enough CPU oomph will likely manifest itself first in the graphics which can give someone a misleading impression that their GPU isn't good enough, when the CPU is really the problem. Of course how much GPU power you need not only depends on the game but what resolution you play at. WoW is far enough behind the curve that at the same price point there's no difference in performance. Unless you're again trying to run the game itself on multiple monitors which TBH except for immersive driving/piloting sims is worthless. Otherwise, even using a second monitor for all of your stat tools, there's no major reason to go for any of Intel's offerings that truly outperform their AMD price equivalents. I imagine that the paradox games are similar.

No... just no. There is very, VERY little difference in most gaming between AMD/Intel. Games, especially modern ones, are much, much more graphics bound than proc bound. The only time that Intel really beats AMD noticably while actually playing a game is when you are running multiple monitors and at least 3 high end graphics cards. Where Intel is genuinely more useful currently is if you do a lot of video/audio processing. Which has jack all to do with gaming and you almost certainly wouldn't be using a gaming-oriented graphics card if that was your focus anyway.

Soooo, they're advocating the US come in Post-WWII style and completely restructure their country? Because that's what it would actually take to do anything meaningfully long-term on the issue that wouldn't get a metric ****ton of female children killed.

Just because a word is idiotically redundant does not negate its existence. Especially one that's been in use for over 218 years

That might be an option for Expert mode. I think it would only add to the difficulty if the loot you don't add to the stash were to disappear over time. Otherwise it boils down to whether you want to make a bunch of extra trips back and forth to collect the remaining loot. Interesting!! Timed loot in the stash. One could reason that bandits comes and steals your loot, or some greedy soul demons. This might be more difficult to modify in though, as I believe the code would first and foremost need to support it. What would happen? - You stash up 10 items, let's say that's the max amount on Expert as well. You can only carry 5 of those items (apart from the gear and items you are already carrying). In an attempt to do the whole back-and-forth selling remaining loot, the 5 items left in the stash disappears. So basically you wouldn't be able to do a back-and-forth thing. Or the loot could be timed in another fashion, you can drop items into the Stash, as many as you want in fact, but the next time you go to the Stash, everything but the things you pick up disappears. Example: 1. I get some loot that I won't need right now, or stuff I want to pawn. 5 items that I stash. 2a. I adventure some more, return, stash some items. If I don't choose to pick any of the 5 items up, they disappear. 2b. I adventure some more, return, stash some items. I pick up 2 items and the 3 others disappear. The newly stashed items get the same treatment (next time I return). I don't know how it would actually work in practice though, but it sounds as if it would add a new layer of strategy (albeit, stash strategy). The apparent issue then is that I could exploit it by disregarding the stash entirely and do millions of back-and-forth deals everytime my inventory is full~ but people who would do that probably suffers from hardcore OCD. Which brings up another question... does dropped items on the ground stay there even if I leave it there and return 5 hours later? Finally a good use for the track ability, hunting those **** down who stole your secret stash and subsequently torturing them to death.

That being said, the whole 'madness from incomprehensible things' angle is one of the things people usually cling to because they are afraid of leaving traditional Lovecraft jank behind. I read an unproduced screenplay that had the main character go insane not because Cthulhu was so... weird... but because it opened the floodgates to anything being real. I really abhor all of the crud authors write just because they are afraid of fanboys. I like Ringo and Taylor's Looking Glass book series take on the topic of Cthuloid entities. Namely that they are conceptually something that would drive you insane. E.g., a species that finds quantum mechanics logical would drive a human insane if connected to their thought process. Or a species that did not have a concept of linear time.

Latest stuff I've been listening to is Within Temptation's Hydra album, mainly because I missed it's debut earlier. Well, that and my standard fare of various hard rock/metal bands.

The Grimnoir series by Larry Correia's really good. Magic has been popping up in more and more people over the past century. At the current time Japan has ROFLSTOMPed Russia and now has giant zeppelin battleships and controls much of northern asia. Edison and Tesla were both Cogs who made insane inventions. In the case of Tesla, "Peace Rays" which are basically giant particle accelerator Death Rays

*sigh* Except the ONLY direct connection GDP has with economic policy is government spending. Everything else is indirect. The majority of those in favor of gun control claim a DIRECT LINK between guns in civilian hands and murder rate. This is obviously disproven given the relatively similar culture between the US and Australia(arguably in many ways closer in socital makeup than any US-Euro comparison), almost identical(well within the error bars of any study) decline in murder rates, and RADICALLY different attitudes towards weapons ownership.

The fact of the matter is, even disregarding the other crime statistics, the murder rate decreases were virtually the same. Moreover, the number of guns in the US greatly increased over those 12 years(and has increased at a greater rate in the years since). Not to mention the overall liberalization of gun laws and the number of shall issue states increasing. The only possible conclusion to draw from that is that gun control DOES NOT AFFECT MURDER RATE, which is its supposed raison d'etre.

Pathfinder can be broken pretty spectacularly at level 8 with a min-maxed fey-spec kitsune sorc unless the DM throws a ****load of compulsion immune characters at the party with the specific intent on killing the sorcerer. Built out to level 20 the character can control most epic creatures outright 3/4 of the time. What's funny is that I didn't even mean to create such an uber character.

It is not particularly difficult to look up violent crime rates for the years 1995 and 2007 for both the US and Australia. You then divide the later number by the earlier number to see how much the rate has increased/decreased.

I think that prisons show us that even most controlled environment any tool can be used to cause harm in a premeditated attack. That doesn't mean that we should control toothbrush sale, or make weapons easily available accessible or uncontrolled. Generally speaking the bottom line is that guns are far more effective/lethal then knifes. Anyone can squeeze the trigger, not everyone can stab a person to death, let alone to build up the courage to get close enough, especially if he is big. Also most crimes are attacks of opportunity. Australia banned most weapons after the Port Arthur Massacre. Over the next 12 years, there was less than 3 tenths of a percent difference in the drop in murder rates between Australia and America. Unlike America however, where all other forms of violent crime have also been decreasing, in Australia they have been rising.

There is a rather large difference between being a boss and being bossy. That the #BanBossy campaign attempts to equate the two is rather amusing if completely wrong. Not to mention this is primarily geared towards Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign because one of the primary complaints about her is that she is bossy and if they can get the social feel-good movement surrounding the word high enough they can use it to deflect criticism away from her during the Dem primaries.