PK htiw klaw eriF

I got five right.

The Guardian has increasingly become dominated by opinion pieces from what I can tell. Perhaps I'm being uncharitable, but I find most opinion pieces to not be worth reading.

Because it's easier to write about popular controversial topics in a partisan and shallow way than to do in depth analysis of issues. For example, an op-ed crusading against cheesecake art in comic books or a review of Before All-New Mighty Superior Avengers Dark, Inc of the Galaxy #1 takes much less effort than a comparison of real prices of single issues and real page rates for artists filled with data and graphs. I blame the financial model behind online journalism for this as it encourages getting views rather than content and it's quite depressing to see the likes of Guardian and Breitbart columnists with masturbatory blogs being considered the journalists of today.

She probably does read this board, she uses the name "obyknven" when posting.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/larianstudios/divinity-original-sin-2 Already hit the goal.

I grow my own jalapenos and herbs so I can confirm this. I won't deny being jealous of Woldan's (ghost) peppers though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWZfqmWnEc8 Not really amateur, but the sadist in me is required to unleash Mark E. Smith on unsuspecting people occasionally.

You should probably be doing that anyways. Interesting read. I sometimes wonder if the rise of identity politics was a deliberate attempt at destroying opposition groups. It seems remarkably effective at shifting class consciousness to other areas and splintering groups with similar interests.

Pariahs... Barti...you make me laugh I can't think of any pariahs here, so they don't exist ?

When in doubt, just make alts.

So we have to defend Obsidian's borders from bronies and promancers?

Yeah, WTF is up with that? If the republicans are for it they need to come out and say so; that way I can be sure not to vote for them. At this rate I'll be voting for Sanders. That'd be strange. I'd say the reason it isn't widely talked about is that it's being kept on the down low.

How do Adepts fare?

With the radio silence from most candidates on the TPP and the Freedom Act, I doubt freedom is particularly important to the campaigns running in the Republican primary.

What's the hacking minigame?

Yeah, establishing your own service would be a pain, but it's not like this due to the existence of already existing private services. This would still be the case even if those private services (like steam) didn't exist. What you seem to be complaining about is the lack of a public service, not that private services exist. Which would mean that this isn't an example of private property being a limiting factor. Private & public services do not exist exclusively to one another. Establishment of a private service(currency processing or distribution of goods) that was open to all or is personal is limited by capital, which is private property. So it is limited by private property. As to a public service for exchange or distribution, we can't really have that with intrusion from government whether that government is a state or a corporation. A public service CAN be established without the government. There is no public service that actually needs the government. What the government does is bring the violence needed for forced participation or suppression; voluntary public participation is still possible. That's assuming some form of government pressure, whether from state or corporation, doesn't attempt to seize control over it. Given the actions of states and corporations, I doubt that would be the case.

Yeah, establishing your own service would be a pain, but it's not like this due to the existence of already existing private services. This would still be the case even if those private services (like steam) didn't exist. What you seem to be complaining about is the lack of a public service, not that private services exist. Which would mean that this isn't an example of private property being a limiting factor. Private & public services do not exist exclusively to one another. Establishment of a private service(currency processing or distribution of goods) that was open to all or is personal is limited by capital, which is private property. So it is limited by private property. As to a public service for exchange or distribution, we can't really have that with intrusion from government whether that government is a state or a corporation.

Haven't picked this up yet, but how has hacking changed?

Couldn't you just sell your product on your own website or something? I addressed that when I brought up direct sales. If you want to do that you have to either rely on an existing service or create your own service to process payment. The former relies on the property of others while the later is prohibitively expensive and effort intensive.

I got roped into a "movie party"(aka drinking screwdrivers and watching movies) and am currently bored to tears of Die Die My Darling.

I added the private in their. The simple answer is: I'm not sure what you mean. Care to give an example?Of private property or private property being a limiting entry into a market? Private property being a limiting factor to entry into a market. Well there's IP, but you don't consider that valid. Private property, such as land and buildings, is similar to intellectual property in that it's a legal construct supported only by the threat of force from the state. When private property exists, both the means of production and distribution are private channels. So while production is obviously exclusive to those with access to means of production, the ability to distribute products is also gatekept by private entities. Steam is an example of this, as distribution of videogames is relegated to a private entity and entry into the market will be nigh impossible if you are unable to sell through Steam(or GoG or whatever other digital distribution service there is) due to the owners of the distribution channel not allowing it. Direct sales require a go between for payment, so if currency processors don't want to do business with you, you're out of options to sell your product and are barred from the market.

I added the private in their. The simple answer is: I'm not sure what you mean. Care to give an example? Of private property or private property being a limiting entry into a market?

You mean "private property" right? Can't really even have a market without at least personal property. As for intellectual property: The whole idea's hogwash. It's a concept that should be disposed of and not practiced. Yes, I meant private property. I suppose a market could exist without personal property, such as communes trading goods between themselves, but it doesn't sound particularly good.

So how would you explain Scandinavia ranking better in competition, ease of making buisness, lower corruption, democratic participation and on and on...? We've had much much stricter government oversight and taxation than you guys for basically 150 years. Shouldn't we have devovled into totalitarian states by now? By your definitions...Scandinavian countries have for the most part free-markets. All of them rank high in freest market ratings I've ever seen. How is socialism incompatible with a market, assuming that by market you mean exchange of goods for money or other goods? I suppose there isn't any innate incompatibility between socialism and markets (although there are no shortage of socialists who oppose markets of any kind); the incompatibility is toward *free* markets which include things like private property and tolerance toward hierarchical institutions like private businesses. But isn't property a limiting factor into entering a market? Especially in cases of intellectual property.

So how would you explain Scandinavia ranking better in competition, ease of making buisness, lower corruption, democratic participation and on and on...? We've had much much stricter government oversight and taxation than you guys for basically 150 years. Shouldn't we have devovled into totalitarian states by now? By your definitions... Scandinavian countries have for the most part free-markets. All of them rank high in freest market ratings I've ever seen. How is socialism incompatible with a market, assuming that by market you mean exchange of goods for money or other goods?