Valsuelm

I haven't played Witcher 2, but I enjoyed Witcher 1. I thought the worst thing about it was the boobie cards.

Norton is horrible. Norton used to be awesome, way back in the late 80s and 90s, but it's been bloatware and crap for more than a decade now. For AV I recommend NOD32. I've used almost all AVs at this point, and NOD32 is worth the $$. There are other AVs that are as good at detecting, but NOD32 is the least intrusive (uses least resources and updates seamlessly) and has the least false alarms in my experience (so many other AVs regularly have false alarms). If you shop for deals you can catch it for only $5/year for a single computer (that's what I've paid the last couple years on newegg), but even at the regular price I'd say it's worth it. Couple that with Malwarebytes, put yourself behind a router, use UAC (if you have vista, 7, or 8 ) and you'll be protected from most things with very few false alarms. That said, even the best internet condoms only go so far. Nothing beats being savvy enough to not open that file full of poo, or venture down that dark interwebs alley full of bad things. As far as mods, it really would depend on the game. Get them from a reputable site, and you'll likely have no problem. If you're concerned, scan it with you AV and search the net for the files to see if they are listed as known malware. If you're still uneasy, delete it and don't use it. In my expeirence with most mods though, regardless of viruses or not, just read the comments on the mod from other users to get their feedback on it. Chances are if there's actually malware in the mod, someone will have posted about it.

Amen.

Ayup. I've been in a beta test group for a well known game from a well known company for about a year now. The game has been released but they kept the beta folks on for future patching. It's not my first beta (been in a few in the last 10+ years) but this one astounded me at how much work that the beta folks are doing beyond even testing bugs. Little do many of the folks who play this game know how much of the game design (both good and bad) is actually suggested and fleshed out by beta testers, all unpaid.

Joey (I guess that's the gang leader's name?) said he saw archerdude plant the rabbit in Daryl's bag and was just waiting for it all to play out.

China doesn't care Bruce. Neither does Russia. And this vote does not indicate much of anything of the Chinese - Russian relationship, which has been lukewarm standoffish for the better part of a hundred years now. Just like Israel not voting at all to support it's #1 ally's wishes doesn't mean all that much. Really, about the only people who do care are the people buying into all the propaganda, or who live in Ukraine and are somehow butthurt Crimea left, or who live in Crimea and would prefer to live in Ukraine vs. Russia. Of course, the former far out numbers the latter, and the latter actually has a legitimate reason to care, unlike the former. Russia has Crimea no matter what anyone votes, end of story. If you were at all even partially well versed in history you'd realize they probably never should have lost Crimea to Ukraine to begin with.

No it doesn't. A 'no' vote means the nations don't support the resolution on the table. A fluff resolution at that. This issue, like so many other things, is not near as black and white as you think. Nations vote the way they do for a variety of reasons, especially on fluff like this.. Believe it or not, some nations really don't care if Crimea is annexed by Russia or not, in fact, if most nations were smart, they wouldn't. And no doubt a lot of the votes, both yes, no, and neither, were done to stay in the good graces of the main players in all of this. The U.S., U.K., NATO, IMF, Russia, et al. ie: If I'm nation X, and I've got good relations with both Russia and the U.S., or I want to make sure the IMF keeps sending me $$$, I'm likely to abstain or not vote, even if I'm truly for or against what Russia did. Alternatively, if I've got good relations with the U.S. or want them to keep sending me money, and I don't have much relations with Russia at all, I'm likely to vote 'yes' just to keep my lender happy. Money talks quite a lot in votes like these, in fact it probably has the loudest voice. Few if any nations are going to stick their necks out for Ukraine/Crimea and upset their buddies, wannabe buddies, or purse string holders.

LOL Only in your dreams numbnuts. The UN General Assembly has approved a resolution describing the Moscow-backed referendum that led to Russia's annexation of Crimea as illegal. One hundred countries voted in favour of approving a UN General Assembly resolution declaring the Crimean referendum on 16 March illegal and affirming Ukraine's territorial integrity. Eleven nations voted against, with 58 abstentions. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26776416 Here is the list of countries that voted "no", this list is relevant because it shows the type of governments that think that the Crimea annexation was acceptable. You'll notice most of them are dictatorships and some of the most corrupt and inefficient governments in the world. Shame poor Russia and the company it keeps . Russia must be frustrated that China didn't vote "no" but instead chose to abstain "The 11 that opposed the resolution were Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Russia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe" Resolutions like this mean little to nothing and I'm sure Russia doesn't care that China or the other 57 that abstained, did so, as they were effectively 'no' votes. There were also 24 nations that didn't bother to vote at all. https://twitter.com/UN_PGA/status/449216773460463617/photo/1/large

I think it's safe to say that Russia isn't going to be invading Finland in the remotely foreseeable future.

Saying yet to be released sequel A is better than yet to be released sequel B is not saying anything is blasphemous. Not only is it not yet known if these sequels will be good, bad, or meh, it's not yet known what the general consensus will be about them.

We've got the shock factor of two episodes ago behind us, and a finale this week. Generally writers save the bigger shocks for finales, so I expect some major cowpie to go down, with probable main character(s) death(s) or cliff hanger(s) where it looks like they will die. Right now watching them all go to Terminus is like watching jock and jane go investigate the dark creepy place they know folks have been killed at in Friday 13th or Nightmare on Elm street. We know bad stuff is going to happen to them and are asking ourselves 'WTH are you doing!?!?! How stupid can you be!?!?', but will nevertheless cringe when their fate befalls them. Preachers car though? I missed that. How do we know it's a preachers car? I just noticed an older sedan. As TrueNeutral mentioned above, I half expect Beth to be a burger at this point. Terminus is like a spider's lair at the center of a web of railroad tracks.

[denial]There were never any Never Ending Story sequels.[/denial] Yea.... I'm with you there. Same for the Secret of NIMH sequels. I probably shouldn't have listed Never Ending Story as beginning a successful franchise. Amazing movie though in it's own right.

Don't do it Finland! NATO is a Tarp!

Your thesis is that everyone is bias. While I agree this is true in regards to at least some things in everyone's life (ie: we all have our preferences for our favorite dish), it is not necessarily true in all things in a person's life. Some folks do have the ability to objectively look at something, and there isn't always a predisposition on X for everyone. Occasionally it's even possible to be 100% neutral on a subject. Are there a lot of people that are mentally handicapped by dogmas, willful ignorances, belief in stereotypes, bigotry, etc. who are ever unable to not be bias? Sure. But there are people who aren't, and to not realize that is to be in a box. Moreover, all of those people who are in a box and can't escape their bias do have it within them to break free from those chains if they're willing to look for the truth and think for themselves. A simple concept but very difficult for many, as to embark on this is to accept greater responsibility, as well as many truths can be ugly on a level many don't want to face. Truly thinking for oneself takes effort, and many are mentally lazy. The mentally lazy gravitate towards predetermined bias, often one manufacturer for them. Bias is often (not always) a function of mental laziness. As a somewhat related aside it's been my observation that for most people, they can be as intelligent as they want, and have a much greater mental capacity than they ever come close to realizing. Realizing the potential of your brain takes effort, both in thinking, and in pursuit of reality/truth.

So you ignore the points I make above and I and others make in other threads, say you're too busy, but you're not too busy to say 'righto!' to a very polarized and misinformed post trying to disagree with what I said? Seriously. Go apply for a PR job somewhere, or run for office. You've got the skills. If you're not ugly, you may go far. Tip on the polarization for you, Calex, and everyone else who think it's a Republican vs. Democrat thing. It almost never is. Both parties are by and large bought by the same people both to hedge their investments and divide and conquer. It would behoove you to stop thinking you're on Team Obama or Team *insert your favorite Republican here*, and realize that with either team the game is rigged.

Gonna stop ya right there kiddo. If anything the republicans in congress wanted us to get into Syria, NOT the President. You didn't see Obama standing there next to two known terrorists and saying "we should support these guys" (That was McCain btw) and the "tricky diplomacy" you cite is one for the Chemical weapons that Obama was slow to act on in the first place (their use anyway). And Libya he didn't start. That was the consulate being attacked and then a popular uprising against Quaddaffi's regime. It WAS NOT some sort of inside job/false flag op to get us to go scrambling into Libya, and at best all we've done is impose a no-fly zone over the area (which G. H.W. Bush didn't have happen over Iraq after 1991's war which led to Saddams control of the region continuing.... I **** you not), and Skippy? that no-fly zone was UN santioned. Also right now Libya has 0 control as a nation because of the uprising in 2011 and is a bit of a lawless spot. Now HOW THE **** did you think that Obama was a warmongering yahoo that wanted to go to Syria and had us "fighting a war" in Libya? Mr. Obama is the commander in chief of the U.S. Military, not Mr. McCain. McCain can warmonger all he wants, and does, but Obama calls the shots. interesting /= tricky. Please do not misquote me. I refer to a number of different things involving a number of different countries when I say 'interesting diplomacy'. It's interesting because those pushing for overt military intervention in Syria (the Obama administration indeed was doing this and there are numerous articles as well as videos proving this that you've apparently not watched/read or just ignore (though it was pretty hard to ignore Kerry)) were thwarted, and that doesn't happen too often these last couple decades. Ukraine/Crimea marks the second major diplomatic setback to Anglo-American hegemony in the last couple years, Syria the first. Russia and Putin had a hand in both, moreso in the second of course. There was no popular uprising in Libya. It was a coup sponsored by some members of NATO (the US being one), and only succeeded due to military intervention by some of those members. The U.N. sanctioning something does not make it legal or right. Really, you have to ignore a lot of things to not think Obama got us involved in Libya or realize that his administration was pushing to go into Syria as well. And whether or not France was involved (and they were) has nothing to do with Obama committing U.S. forces to the invasion of a nation. Nor does what some republicans such as McCain bliabbling about have anything to do with the actual action of committing to military force. Nevermind that Obama committing military in the invasion of another nation without congress's explicit authorization is unconstitutional, though he is not the first president to overstep those bounds he did overstep them, and yea that is impeachable if congress was going to actually do it's job (something it doesn't do too often for better and worse). Half of what you wrote is incoherent by the way. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's due to those ****** you stuck in there. Try not to swear so much.

St. Elmo's Fire yw not a direct sequel, but a 'spiritual' one I dunno. I've never thought of St. Elmo's Fire as a sequel. It was filmed directly after the Breakfast Club but by a completely different production crew and had a different writer. Regardless, I disagree that it's an awful movie. I enjoyed it and think it did a pretty good job conveying it's theme. This movie probably more than any other gave us the term 'Brat Pack' too.

I told you I'd follow up, and you should re-read what I wrote again, I didn't sink to the low you think I did. So here In very brief are some retorts, again in very brief because as I mentioned each of the topics could easily be their own threads, and some have been already. Well, it wasn't just Obama that 'bailed out the banks'. It took Congress and Bush and many other had a hand too. And no, it didn't prevent a global depression. Obviously, you don't understand much about what goes on with the Federal Reserve, banks, derivatives, the widespread mortgage fraud, where that money actually went, etc. It's a huge subject. But in very short, no, the 'banks' and the evil effers who own them should not have been 'bailed' out. It was possibly the largest heist in recorded history, and the fallout of it has yet to be fully felt. When someone pulls their pants down, sits down on a toilet and lets their bowls loose, we don't need to see the result to know what came out. I suppose you could get really specific with it and do some studies on what comes out, measuring density, pliability, odor, etc, but in the end it's essentially all the same. Read the bill yourself and you can see a number of things fundamentally wrong with it, some of which has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. But you won't do that. You'd rather tell us Americans how we're wrong to have issues with 'Obamacare' when you fundamentally don't understand what some of those issues are nor bother to read the actual bill to see if it's even good. You'd rather dismiss what the girl says rather than research some of what she shows in her video yourself, because that's easy right? And it flies in the face of the beliefs you've allowed yourself to be given. Just let the talking heads at the BBC and CNN tell you what to think right? Just not the ones at RT. Anyways, 'Obamacare' is now four years old, and many of the results are already in, and it's a failure in almost every way. There are many results though that we won't see for years yet. Anyone thinking Obamacare is a success has stock in an insurance company, is totally deluded, or is evil. Not to mention much of 'Obamacare *is* unconstitutional on a couple different levels, no matter what our incredibly corrupt supreme court says. How it even came to be was unconstitutional (though it's not alone in that, it's the norm and has been for awhile on capital hill these days to ignore Constitutional guidelines on how bills are supposed to be generated). And I realize you probably give two flying effers about the U.S. Constitution, our rights over here, and the rule of law, but the legal precedent set in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius is potentially the most damaging to individual freedom and enabling of federal power precendent to be set since Wickard v. Filburn. Not that you're familiar with U.S. Constitutional law. But really, she never said she was convinced it was a failure. She just mentioned who will benefit, and that Obama's administration colluded with insurance companies on 'Obamacare', which they did. We are not out of Iraq. We definitely still have a military presence there (look up our 'embassy' for example), albeit it somewhat officially diminished. The withdrawal of those troops was the result of something Bush signed, not Obama. Obama actually tried to officially extend the length that overt occupation would last beyond what the Bush administration agreed to, but the Iraqis wouldn't have it. We still have thousands stationed at our embassy there alone, as well as personal in various other places in Iraq. Also, he has not avoided starting other wars. There's Libya for one, and his administration tried their damnedest to start something in Syria. Public outcry and some interesting diplomacy by some nations such as Russia thwarted that, for now. In the case of some, it is. In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan (the one she cites) it definitely is. First, there's *zero* evidence in the public domain that he was associated with Al-Qaeda at all. The evidence that is in the public domain paints a pretty clear picture that Anwar was probably anything but an 'Al-Qaeda' operative, what's left of it that is. In the days after he was killed a lot of his videos and documents written by him on the internet were taken down, and if you saw some of them before they were like I did you'd know it's because they totally fly in the face of what was told to everyone on the news. But that aside. For the sake of argument let's assume that there was some evidence that Anwar and Samir were Al-Qaeda operatives. As U.S. citizens they were entitled to a number of basic rights, not the least of which is a trial by jury, and the ability to face their accusers. Instead, they were murdered at the behest of the Obama administration and with Obama's blessing. There might not be a better example of how evil Obama is, and how desperately lost so many in the U.S. are to actually think what was done is ok. If you want something to impeach Obama on, this is it. He broke numerous laws, and sanctioned the complete violation of an individuals rights. But it's ok right? Because the guys killed were Muslim, and spoke out against some of what the U.S. was doing, and because the U.S. government said he Anwar was bad (nevermind they provided absolutely zero evidence, and Samir was just collateral damage). Maybe you're cool with your government just saying someone is bad and then going off and killing them without offering proof, but I'm not. Especially when the evidence out there tends to paint a different picture, and said government has a history of lying. While I personally wouldn't call Snowden a hero for reasons that go beyond what most people think he did, he did not compromise the security of the USA in any way. And if all he did was what many people think he did, expose the mass corruption and mass violation of various rights of U.S. and foreign citizens, then yes, he is a hero. Anyone thinking otherwise is a statist, doesn't understand or appreciate the natural rights they have codified in the U.S. Consititution, and/or is evil. The girl in the video doesn't call Snowden a hero either, she calls him a 'whistleblower', which he is whether you agree with what he did or not, and she points out that Obama pledged to protect whistleblowers such as Snowden and Bradley Manning, which he did prior to being elected. If Obama really wanted to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay, it would be closed. He promised during his campaign it would be, he lied. All over. Off the top of my head pretty much any WTO event, many of the 'Occupy Wall Street' events (look them up on youtube), wherever the president happens to be, and at other places, In the last decade or so there's been these things called 'free speech zones' popping up at campuses all over the U.S. and in some governmental jurisdictions. That alone really tells you all you need to know about how precarious a place the 1st amendment is in the U.S. and she is no doubt in part referring to HR, 347. I'm really not sure how to interpret it for you Bruce. It's pretty straight forward. As someone who comes of as ever the optimist (albeit on heck of a gullible one) I would think you could relate to what she said. Positivity over Negativity! Anyways Bruce, I probably spent too much time on this, as I doubt you'll do any homework based on what I wrote here, as you didn't based on what the girl in the video said, and don't ever seem to based on what anyone in these forums say. In contrast when I watch a video I just about always do my homework on it if it tells me something I haven't yet heard or haven't yet researched. You should get a job at CNN or the BBC, or join someone's PR department. You've got those skills.

What drug dealer money are you referring to? I missed that one. Unless you're referring to the administration's decision to not enforce various laws that prohibit banks from dealing with any marijuana seller on legal marijuana stores in the states that have made marijuana legal. The federal government really doesn't constitutionally have the power to do that anyways (though they've certainly been doing it for awhile now).

For it's day BG2's pathfinding was above most if not all of the rest. What limited it more than anything was the capabilities of the processors of the day. I really don't think it's that bad even by today's standards. A lot of titles nowadays cheat and rather than have characters possibly get stuck on each other they have them walk right though. I personally would prefer my characters in PoE to get stuck on each other than have them walk right through each other. I've never noticed the 1 second pause thing you mentioned, and I've played it as recently as 2011. As already mentioned, there are titles many consider to be AAA in quality that have worse pathfinding (though I personally think total war is poop; so much potential, programmed so bad).

'Come with me if you want to live.' Such a great movie. A lot of great movies from '84-'85. Many that spawned very successful franchises. Terminator, Beverly Hills Cop, Ghostbusters, Never Ending Story, Gremlins, Karate Kid, Romancing the Stone, Police Academy, Back to the Future, Revenge of the Nerds! .... all from 84-85, and those are just the franchise starters. Nerds!! Holy (#@%! 30 years ago... time flies. And they don't make them like they used to much anymore. I'm pretty sure there was never a sequel to The Breakfast Club.

When did you go to school? The Breakfast Club is actually a pretty good representation of what detention could be like at a lot of schools in the US in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. I used to actually sometimes look forward to detention. It's definitely not like that now in most places though. Started '94. We had some wild time in the high school later, but it was never like in the movies. When I try to remember now, I actually can't really describe it. Or let's say I don't know how to. It was rather peaceful most of the time, we had the generic groups of people who sticked together all the time and then that's it, kind of. Rather shallow stuff. Nobody has been really interested in doing something crazy. Just think about it: The most crazy thing we did, that nobody(!) else on the school ever(!!) did, was taking blankets in summer and sitting on the grass in the big school yard. This is how crazy we had been and that should tell what kind of school life we had. The impression I get from american school movies is that the students private life was more connected with the school than in germany. For us (me?) everything interesting happened outside of school, never in school. While the american movies make it seem that when being young, the school is all around you. Like I wrote- it's strange and I can't really describe it. That makes sense. Aye. In the US school is a larger part of life than in Germany for many kids (just noticed you're there and not here ). For example, in most places here, sports are an integral part of the school, as is music, and other extracurricular activities. ie: having high school A play high school B in sport X is the norm here. From what I understand from talking to my relatives in Deutschland, that is not the case over there. I could go on and on about crazy things I took part in and saw when I was in high school. One crazy example I can think of was a kid riding his motorcycle through the school, for which he got a few detentions, another was a kid and teacher having an argument that lead to the kid taking his desk through the window and sitting outside on the ledge in protest (second floor... but it was a big ledge). Funny stuff, hilarious at the time. Nowadays the former would probably be tasered (no kidding, this happens in schools here now) and the latter would cause the school to call in police and firetrucks freaking out about the kids safety instead of seeing the situation for the humorous one it was. Detention for me was almost always fun. As in the movie the teacher who was in charge of detention usually went off to do other things, leaving the students to do whatever, hilarity often ensued, and like in the movie the people in detention often came from different social groups.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63506-in-game-achievements-trophies-popups-etc/?hl=achievements http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60297-achievements/?hl=achievements

When did you go to school? The Breakfast Club is actually a pretty good representation of what detention could be like at a lot of schools in the US in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. I used to actually sometimes look forward to detention. It's definitely not like that now in most places though.

There have been two other threads on this already. They had polls, and a clear majority of folks don't want them in PoE. While I do think they work in some games, I don't think they have a place in an infinity engine inspired game focused on story.