Valsuelm

Here's my favorite Russian music video, which also seems to be a home video of one of Uncle Fester's vacations: Translation of the lyrics as given by a random youtuber (so it might be wrong, but I've not reason to think it is): And here's something from a little further east. The name of the band is Qetiq:

Well, most goyim don't even realize what they are. That said, what recently happened is news. Bibi's speech is nothing new, but the circumstances the speech was given under, and the divide, whether real or manufactured for political theater, is unusual.

Na... they aren't going to regroup anything. EA is where good studios die. EA has been cannibalizing game studios for about 20 years. Bullfrog, Origin, Maxis, Westwood, and many others. Bought by EA, used, abused, eaten up, discarded. We'll see the same happen to Bioware in a few years.

LOL

We're talking about a guy who uses info-graphics such as the below to make his points. He's pandering to people who are pro-Israel no matter what, or have a political mentality and attention span about on par with that of an elementary school kid. Unfortunately for the world there's a helluva lot of the latter out there, many of whom go to the polls and vote every election.

Rand Paul is running for president. He's pandering. Expect more pandering until he wins the republican nomination or fails to obtain it. Yea... it remains to be seen if alienating much of his base with his endorsement of Romney and Israel will hurt or help him more. I went to see Ron Paul speak last year. The crowd of course was made up almost entirely of people who like what he says. He got lots of applause over the course of his speech and some standing ovations. On two issues only, he got a lukewarm at best response from the crowd. One was his discussion of the issue of abortion and 'a woman's right to choose', and the other was his son. The crowd was more receptive to the former. Each of the few times he tried to promote his son the crowd's applause level shank very noticeably. Prior to Rand coming out for Romney or Israel that would not have happened. And in fact it is a great point of consternation for many Ron Paul fans that Rand doesn't have his father's integrity and/or views. So Rand has likely lost a lot of votes with his pandering. Will he get more than he lost from the pandering? We'll find out next year.

About the only thing Obama has done even remotely correctly since he came to office in my opinion is to not be Bibi's lapdog. What the Obama administration's motives are I'm uncertain (a broken clock is right twice a day), but kowtowing to Israel at all, and especially to Bibi (who has little to no competition for the 'Most Warmongering Leader of a Nation Award' out there) is exactly opposite of what's in the best interests of the nation in which I live. That of course doesn't jive with the average layman's understanding of Israel or what most of the mainstream media has been saying about Israel for years, but the more astute and objective folks out there realize that Israel is very arguably a much greater liability (and that's probably putting it lightly) than an asset to the U.S., or most any other nation really. I think there's a lot more to Bibi's visit than meets the eye. Sure, he's just spouting the usual crap, riling up the pro-Israel sentiment amongst the folks with short attention spans and the US media, both I'm sure for his political benefit at home as well as for what he sees as for his nation's benefit. But something tells me that he's here for much more than that. What exactly, we'll likely never know, but the entire thing smells off to me. In a way however, Bibi might have shot himself in the foot by coming here, at least if his goal was to win more support in the US. Never in my lifetime has there been more anti-Israel sentiment (not to be confused with anti-Semitism for the race baiters or Abe Foxman disciples out there) than there is now. And that's a very good thing methinks. Of course this whole issue has turned into some kind of retarded Republican v. Democrat issue, but that's a side show for the most part. What matters is telling Bibi to go F himself, and more people than ever are willing to do that which just a few years ago would have been political/career suicide for many. So, while I might change my mind if I knew what Obama's motives were, on the surface this is one issue that I actually can say: 'Go O!'. But again, I think there's more to all of this than is currently meeting the eye. Insofar as how things might be different with a Republican president. I think that of course matters who we're talking about. Obama being at odds (at least publicly) with Bibi is honestly a surprise to me. Israel has generally received strong support from both parties for the past few decades. The lobbying Israel has done behind doors and out in the open successfully created an atmosphere where speaking objectively about Israel (let alone speaking out against it) was taboo (for many it still is), so it's not something anyone from a major party seeking the Presidency would have done, no matter what they personally thought about it. That has slowly changed over the last decade or so, and I attribute the information people have found on the internet which was (and in a large way still is) basically blacked out in the mainstream US media for years as the primary reason behind that. It's definitely not a Republican vs. Democrat issue however as some of the media is trying to portray, at least not as far as the voters are concerned. There are actually a lot more Jewish people registered Democrat here than Republican. Of course, that doesn't actually mean too much, and of course being Jewish doesn't necessarily mean you're pro-Israel (despite all of the propaganda that it does), but it serves to illustrate how the whole R vs. D thing in regards to this issue is really largely a myth.

...Because I'm apparently a dirty foreigner who encountered the word in a review of a book whose prose he found to be **** and assumed without checking that it simply means "it's poorly written". My great shame is now revealed. (No, really, I never realized this word doesn't mean what I thought it means. I apologize for the confusion.) It happens to the best of us at times. Especially with a language that isn't our primary. It's not uncommon for me to make similar mistakes if I read/write in my secondary languages (German and Latin). Truth be told, your mastery of English is better than my mastery of German or Latin (I don't use either much anymore). You aren't a dirty foreigner (well... I assume you bathe regularly anyways), anyone who makes the effort to learn another language should be applauded in my opinion.

Is there an English translation to the work? I can't read Russian. Those books are likely going to be on my 'to read' list after the last one is published. Even as prolific and diligent as Erikson is, after my experiences with Robert Jordan and G.R.R. Martin, I've reached a point where I don't want to start any series until the last book is about to be published. Especially when the author writes as dense as Erikson does. I've found the reading experience to be much better when one can read books in a series right after one another, rather than have to wait months/years in between books. Have you read any of Esslemont's Malazan books? I'm curious as to the opinions of anyone who's read Erikson's work as well as Esslemont's.

I've read Eco, numerous 19th century (and older) authors, even Gravity's Rainbow, a book generally considered to be "one of the longest, most difficult, most ambitious" novels of the last century, without running into the same problem. I'd hazard the guess it's not a vocabulary issue. Side note: people generally don't appreciate being condescended to. If you've read all that, and comprehended what you were reading, then why you would refer to Erikson's work (or anything else at all really) as stilted is beyond me. That's a word best used by someone whose reading hasn't gone much beyond Stephen King's level, not by someone who is well read.

I read the first three books and that was pretty much exactly my reaction, so it probably isn't the translation's fault. I'd add rampant continuity errors as well. The author doesn't care about them, but to me they're the mark of a highly sloppy writer. OTOH they are worth checking out as a lot of people do like the Malazon books a very great deal. Aside from the notable and acknowledged minor errors between Gardens of the Moon and Deadhouse Gates, name me some continuity errors. I've found none. But again, the plot is so thick and intricate there's a lot that's easily missed, and why I reread and referenced earlier books time and again as I read the later books. My guess is that what you think is an error is just you missing something that wasn't obvious. There's a lot packed in some of those chapters, and Erikson generally doesn't spoon feed the reader. ie: The full significance of what happens in the prologue of Gardens of the Moon isn't apparent until many books in. On book translations in general though, it's easily imaginable that some are very inadequate, especially when the author has a very expansive vocabulary such as Erikson. And as for stilted..... I'd say that's just a judgement based on one's own limited vocabulary. I'd suggest hanging out with people whose vocabulary matches Eriksons in order to expand your own. Or reading more works such as his. Another good modern fiction author for that is Umberto Eco (though he doesn't write the genre in which this thread is concerned, I do highly recommend his books). Authors from the 19th century and earlier are generally also good for this.

The Malazan book of the Fallen. To each their own. I'd rank it amongst the best books I've read. It's certainly the best fantasy series I've read within the past decade. It isn't for everyone certainly; nothing is. It's a bit deeper, more complex, and at times subtle than most everything else of any genre out there. It took me longer to read that first book (Gardens of the Moon) than any other fictional work I've read since I was a kid, as I had to constantly reference what was going on, on previous pages (this wasn't a bad thing). ie: The plot is very complex, and figuring out what is going on doesn't happen until a long way through the book on a level I've not seen elsewhere; I read the first half of that book at least three times before finishing it, and more than any other series I've read I found myself referencing the earlier books as I read the later ones. No other author has been able to paint on such an epic scale as well as Erikson has in my experience, and I've read hundreds of books of various fictional genres by this point of my life. Like all of the best fictional authors he has an exceptionally good understanding of how humans work. Other than Malazan. There is of course The Song of Ice and Fire. Excellent books I'd rank only slightly behind Malazan (both series are treats). The worst thing about this series is that it is not done (where Malazan is), and doesn't look as if it's going to be done for many years yet. The author has at least two books to go and is averaging 5+ years between the publication of the last few, and he's not getting any younger or thinner so there's a lot of reasonable speculation that the books will never be finished. A conservative estimate for when we'll see the final book published if the rate of publication stays the same is 2020. Other fantasy authors off the top of my head that I think write good stuff (at least what I've read). Note the styles of some of these authors varies quite a bit.: Fred Saberhagen (some of the Book of Swords stories are enjoyable, and relatively quick and easy reads) Terry Brooks (the first few Shannara books. Not to say the latter ones aren't good, I just haven't gotten around to reading them) Terry Goodkind (Wizard's First Rule) Robert Jordan (the first few books of a Wheel of Time at least are gems) Stephen R. Donaldson (The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant) J. R. R. Tolkien (of course, and I feel bad for you if you've seen the movies before reading the books) T. H. White (The Once and Future King) David Eddings (The Belgariad and The Mallorean) No doubt I'm forgetting at least a few good fantasy authors I've read.

The chances of the police implicating themselves of brutality or murder in the final report is lower than the chance of rain tomorrow in the Sahara.

40 years ago today, The Eagles scored their first #1 on the Billboard charts with this song: from the same album: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoGweOFqapU

This song came to mind:

Best sci-fi franchise movie hands down. There's a few sci fi movies out there that are on par. Blade Runner, Alien, Empire Strikes Back to name a few (all of which are made within a short time of each other, and imo the golden age of sci fi movies is late 70s/ early 80s, with 1982 being the singular year). But if I had to pick the best sci-fi movie of all time with a gun to my head, I'd choose The Wrath of Khan. (sorry Rachel) Thank you Deforest Kelly. Thank you Ricardo Montalbon. Thank you Leonary Nimoy. Thank you Bibi Bech. Thank you Paul Winfield. Thank you Merritt Butrick. Thank you James Doohan. Thank you for awesome performances. An awesome movie. And great memories. I hope you all are doing well in the realm of where no living man has gone before. Thank you as well, to those who made Star Trek what it was who are still alive. I hope you live long and prosperous lives.

Stumbled on a cover of this song earlier during a youtube adventure that began from a linked video on this forum. Then looked up the original. Awesome stuff imo. Looks like they're doing a US tour this summer. Think I'm going to make an effort to see them. The cover I found: and the video that lead to me finding the cover: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/70007-the-weird-random-and-interesting-things-that-fit-nowhere-else-thread/page-7?do=findComment&comment=1574441

It's not near as simple as that. Corporations came down on multiple sides of the issue and millions of people saying they want net neutrality (myself being one of them), does not equate to millions of people wanting new regulations or a reclassification of what the internet is by the FCC. If it's not broken don't fix it very much applies here. Right now we really don't know exactly what we have. There's no tangible reason for anyone to cheer right now, or much of one to jeer, other than the process by which this all happened (which is deplorable, yet par for the course in DC). As usual, much of media is slanting the story in a direction without any concrete evidence. In this case pretty much just regurgitating the talking points the White House and the commissioners on the FCC that voted for it stated (also pretty much as usual). We're getting little to no actual objective reporting on this issue from any major media source. The regulations have not been made public yet. Which means that no one outside of the FCC knows much in regards to what exactly the regulations entail. Among other things, this tells me that what's in the apparent 300+ pages of new regulations is likely to be about as much about net neutrality as the Patriot Act is about being a patriot. I certainly hope I am wrong, and we'll find out in the not too distant future. Whatever the new regulations contain though, it's near guaranteed that there's going to be at least one big court battle about it all. Not only has the fat lady not yet sung, we probably just witnessed the end to ACT I with this vote, and now sit in suspense during intermission. ACT II will start with the revelation of what the regulations say.

Best video I've seen so far this year. Thanks.

While I agree that the 'net neutrality' rules as adopted by the FCC is likely a giant pile of BS (I haven't yet had a chance to read the 300+ pages of new regulations, though I'll be amazingly and pleasantly surprised if they are anything but BS), Morse code wasn't the preferred method of communication between most people in the 1930s in the US. The telephone was, and had been for decades at that point. By the 1930s the telephone was in very wide use, and in fact had been in millions of homes prior to 1910. In the 1930s Morse code was primarily used by aviators, the military, and telegram services at the time. The latter in many ways being the precursor to the fax machine, and also something that the Average Joe need not know (if one wanted to send a telegram one generally wrote the note out in plain language and it would be translated into Morse by a professional telegrapher), Morse code was invented in the 1830s, not the 1930s. Verizon is playing the propaganda game, and I guarantee you they are not on the side of good when it comes to the 'net neutrality' debate. The Communications of 1934 that Verizon is referring to isn't near as archaic as they are attempting to portray. Much of what that act encompasses and states is very relevant today, much of it was actually repealed and updated in the 1990s, and there have been other communication laws and regulations implemented and repealed through the years since 1934. Note that I'm not defending the Communications Act of 1934, as like so much else that FDR's administration was responsible for it is very arguably a massive overreach of Federal powers in many ways. I'm just pointing out that Verizon in no way is representing the situation factually, fairly, or objectively. They have a lot of skin in the game. Billions of dollars worth of skin.

Well we know from events like Iraq that occupational strategies just don't work, especially in the Middle East where you have this plethora of sectarian groups and historical tension between Sunni and Shia. So the West would have to back one political movement in Libya and support them politically, militarily and financially until they can govern the country effectively. Then the West can slowly disengage. But the objective needs to be the defeat of Islamic extremism in Libya, like neutralizing ISIS The real consideration around this approach is who is prepared to commit the resources to such a maelstrom of real issues that exist in Libya at the moment. So then the questions become " how relevant is ISIS in Libya to the sustainability of ISIS in Iraq\Syria " and "how important is the defeat of ISIS to the West" ? I would think its easier to just commit ground troops in Iraq and defeat ISIS utterly there and in Syria, then someone else can address ISIS in Libya. I imagine once ISIS is defeated in Iraq this will make their efforts in Libya less impressive or militarily challenging? This should be the last but it will mean a period of time where Western countries are more actively involved in the helping to govern Libya. And this would be temporary But I just don't think most Western countries have an appetite for another intervention in Libya...and frankly I can't blame them The only reason the nations in which ISIS operates are failed states is because of western intervention. The people of most western countries either don't have an appetite for more war, don't have a clue, or choose to be ignorant. The people who run most western countries are all about 'interventions'. Divide, conquer, kill, subjugate, pillage, and consolidate more and more power is what they are about. No Western governments gave countries like Iraq and Libya the chance to govern their own countries and decide their own future. In many ways they messed up, don't blame the West for this And no the West isn't about " Divide, conquer, kill, subjugate, pillage, and consolidate more and more power is what they are about " its about a world where all countries are true Democracies that respect human rights and where all citizens have a good quality of life You're like a granite wall in the face of logic, reason, historical and current realities. No, western governments did no such thing. They attacked Libya and Iraq unprovoked using lies to justify their actions and create flimsy casus belli. They toppled the very stable governments that were there and left both nations in ruin. Had they not done that ISIS wouldn't be anything we'd have heard about. Had they not done that a lot of people would still be alive. Had they not done that a lot of people who are alive wouldn't be suffering severe life altering injuries, the loss of loved ones, or the loss of the homes and other possessions. Hundreds of thousands are dead (and that's going by the lower estimates) between both nations, with many more horribly wounded. Thousands of US and other western nations' soldiers are dead, with a great many more severely injured with life altering injuries. You're truly a fool if you actually believe that those wars were about "a world where all countries are true Democracies that respect human rights and where all citizens have a good quality of life". Not only is the evidence that they were not overwhelming, even if for the sake of argument that's what it was about. Do you really truly think that killing all those people, destroying all that infrastructure, etc is a good way of bringing 'democracy' to anyone? Of bringing anything to anyone? You're a truly despicable heartless deluded human if you actually think such a thing. My guess however if you truly are not thinking about what's happened in any remotely realistic context. Very few people are so evil. Most are just willfully ignorant allowing evil people to lead them with falsehoods. You've demonstrated time and again a willingness to ignore just what has happened in those nations, and others, if those things don't jive with your world view or imagined agendas.

It works fine. Trying to circumvent save scumming into game design is fail. Worrying about what players are going to look up on the internet is fail. Some players are going to do that, some are not.

Just need some mountainous regions is all.

There were at least 7 inns outside of the city of Baldur's Gate and at least 6 inside. Pretty sure there was more than that but I just did a quick check. So I'm going to go with at least 12, given there are supposed to be two cities. I'll be disappointed if it's much less than that.

This should be the last but it will mean a period of time where Western countries are more actively involved in the helping to govern Libya. And this would be temporary But I just don't think most Western countries have an appetite for another intervention in Libya...and frankly I can't blame them The only reason the nations in which ISIS operates are failed states is because of western intervention. The people of most western countries either don't have an appetite for more war, don't have a clue, or choose to be ignorant. The people who run most western countries are all about 'interventions'. Divide, conquer, kill, subjugate, pillage, and consolidate more and more power is what they are about.