213374U

Yeah, sorry. I totally forgot that NASDAQ editors are completely free from bias and their pieces have absolutely no political slant. Everyone knows that's exclusive to Obsidianites. On top of that, their predictions are always spot on. Because otherwise, you wouldn't be linking them! Funny. The worst seems to be caused by the drop in oil prices... which is not something that's being (openly) manipulated. Other than their reliance on commodity exports and failure to diversify, how is that Russian stupidity? A serious drop in oil prices would hit any major oil exporter hard, sanctions or not, and that seems to be what's thrown Putin's calculations off. Again, what am I supposed to learn from the articles? (for once try something that isn't cherrypicking. A decade or so of the same drill, it starts to get boring)

I should have known better than to open that can of worms... (btw, I totally launch Barbarossa in June 1940 after "liberating" huge amounts of French cheese. For the Fatherland!) I read those. Not sure what I'm supposed to learn aside from some funky idea that Russians are "culturally" inclined to avoid paying up, lol (I must have Russian blood, that would explain the shill accusations). Are those worst case scenarios? Likely outcomes if things continue on the current path? Wishful thinking on the editors' part? What?

I wonder what the reaction would be if hax0rs reportedly working for Iran conducted an attack against the company responsible for Celeb Big Bro or some other tripe. The actual quality of the piece is irrelevant, but I don't think anyone invoked "artistic value" as a defense when **** went down with the Muhammad cartoons. Are they running out of Salman Rushdies to go after or what...?

If anything, the prelude to WWII is an example of foreign powers applying economic pressure on a country which did not not prevent war or serve to significantly hinder a command economy's ability to assemble a massive war machine. Conditions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles were so much harsher than anything that can be applied against Russia today, that they ensured that Germany would be doomed to poverty in Keynes' opinion, and unlike Russia's present state, they were imposed on an economy already exhausted after WWI. Taking the lesson that chauvinistic nationalism must be crushed from the interbellum period doesn't really work because chauvinistic nationalism in the Third Reich was the heir of chauvinistic nationalism in the German Empire, and that had been crushed already 20 years before. So much so, that the Second Reich ceased to exist politically, though the economic infrastructure and resources of the country were left intact. WWII can only be understood as a continuation of WWI and that was the inevitable outcome of the incompatible ambitions of newly industrial empires and countries walking in lockstep towards war due to pre-existing alliances. Chauvinistic nationalism was a factor, but not the factor, I think. What did work to destroy the German ability to sustain the war effort was carpet bombing Germany into the stone age. That does indeed qualify as "crushing", but I doubt it's what you're proposing for Russia. A case could be made that Britain and especially France which had, at the time, the most powerful army in the world, should have declared war on Germany as soon as they started violating the Treaty in 1935 and perhaps the war would have been over sooner and with less bloodshed, and from there draw a parallel with current events, but who knows. On the other hand you have Iraq, whose military had effectively been emasculated by 2003 as a result of economic strangulation, and Cuba, which after the fall of the Soviet Union has basically been forced to autarky. Russia isn't Iraq or Cuba, though. Heh, maybe in 100 years historians will regard WWIII as the inevitable result of concessions made to the Soviets at Yalta. History is funny like that.

Cognitive dissonance shouldn't feel new to you if you read WoT regularly. It's about par for the course here.

My bad. I hadn't actually researched the extent of the attack. Seems they even leaked unreleased films along all sorts of personal confidential data. The description is so over the top that it could well be the script for one of those 90's cyber crime b-films. This **** puts Anonymous' antics to shame. Still, I was mostly surprised that Paramount would also follow suit and pull Team America. Paramount and Sony are different companies, right? They have their unreleased flicks and all the dirty laundry on the cloud too or what? I'm a weird sort of guy. Sorry, I guess? Disclaimer: I haven't even visited 4chan.

So, after (allegedly) North Korean leet haxxors broke into Sony's computers and leaked juicy bits such as some producer accusing Angelina Jolie of being a big poo-poo head, the studio decided to pull an upcoming movie, The Interview. Some cinemas protested and offered screenings of what probably is one of the worst movies ever made, Team America. But now, in a proverbial exercise of doing the right thing for the wrong reason, Paramount have decided to pull Team America too! *puts on tinfoil hat* Anyone else think this is just an elaborate publicity stunt?

You are missing the point and conflating two different things. I was talking about the fact that there is now documental evidence that the US have been using torture routinely and Wals' factually and morally suspect comparison. The fact that this has been made public is a different matter altogether, but we can discuss it as well, if that's what you want. Who, and why has made this public? Who stands to benefit from it? Whose political career will be damaged*? I find it also rather amusing that if it's the gov't doing it, it's something laudable and the result of them believing in "true democracy", but if it's Snowden or Assange... they are traitors that must be hunted down, tried and convicted. Welcome to Denial. Population: You. *reminder that people usually are hanged, shot or imprisoned for life for pulling this kind of thing. In this case, I doubt we'll even see criminal charges being filed. I didn't say they weren't torture but that they are certainly the milder version of it. Right, I'll bite. What are you basing this opinion on? Have you experienced both versions of torture so you have an informed opinion on the severity of different tortures? Are you a mental health specialist whose field of research is torture? I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong here, but I'm going to need something substantial; I'm not trying to antagonize you. I'm simply going from an internationally accepted standard that accepts no qualifications. Do you have something to challenge that? Please, call a spade a spade. Do you have any evidence that *torture* helped prevent any attacks? Or you just support a policy of doing random, stupid **** and hope for results, without review?

No, it reasonably cannot. Unless you are thinking the kind of imprisonment or punishment that "accidentally" ends with prisoners almost drowning in a toilet, hitting themselves against the bars of their cells or being tasered "for their own protection", repeatedly. Did you even read the definition? Here, let me help you: They aren't even my definitions, they are the accepted international legal standards for torture (which the US is a signatory of, might I add). You think they are hyperbolic? Take it up with them and explain to them how being smacked around a bit and a little waterboarding here and there never killed nobody, and that only being stretched on the rack or having your eyes gouged out with a burning piece of metal are actual torture, because they tend to leave marks. In the next episode, we will discuss "mild" murder, "mild" rape, and "mild" crimes against humanity. Stay tuned!

Having your head cut off on camera is not torture, it's murder. So apples and oranges, chum. Beatings have been a common occurrence at gitmo as reported by former prisoners. And I see your live decapitations and raise you a few hundred lucky winners blown to bits by drone strikes. Yeah, let's not forget who we're talking about here. Further, I cannot help but point out a sort of contradiction in what you said. If torture is immoral, what exactly are you trying to achieve by establishing degrees of comparison between "mild*" and "harsh" torture? Is mild torture less immoral than harsh torture? Does applying only mild torture make these torturers and their enablers better in some way than whoever "we're fighting here"? (Of course it does, they are our guys, and it's a simple fact of life that we are inherently better... even when committing heinous crimes. ) *Out of curiosity, where are you drawing the line for "mild" torture? Does it have to do with intent? The effects on victims? Is it about the instruments used? I'm asking because this distinction you are making is really a medieval concept that has been discarded in modern times, and currently, there is no such distinction as far as the ICC or the UN Convention against Torture are concerned: So, I'll ask again. What exactly are you trying to prove here?

I take it you spam them for guild runs or something. I find "tacticals" really boring so I don't do them any more than I need to. And the new 60 HMs are bugged as far as loot goes so I'm not bothering either, concentrating on leveling alts and crafting skills instead. You can do the end boss solo mode now and finish the story — the bug has been fixed and it can be completed. The ops is different. Also there is a weekly that simply repeats that instance in solo mode, so better get used to it, heh. I didn't like the whole pirate-y thing in Rishi very much, to be honest, but I suppose that running through the story with a scoundrel or bounty hunter probably makes more sense. I still don't understand why they assumed that "pirate" means "Pirates of the Caribbean" when drawing inspiration for the outfits you get from quests. It's funny because not a single NPC in the whole expansion wears that, and the gear from packs is totally different too. Oh well, free credits at least.

Because the people directing it now have PhDs and conduct tortures "scientifically"? It's like all those medical experiments carried out at Auschwitz — there was a rationale for them and they were directed by someone with researcher credentials. Turned out it was just a sick bastard abusing power to realize his own deranged fantasies. It's not too difficult to indoctrinate a grunt, a security guard or an army officer, to believe in that. As for those wishing that the CIA was done away with, well, good luck with that. The US intelligence apparatus is just a part of the deep state, also comprised of lobbysts, NGOs, media outlets, private contractors and more that have gradually wrested power away from elected officials. It essentially operates on autopilot and dismantling it is impossible due to its sheer size as long as the money keeps flowing and the country doesn't tear itself apart. The most egregious proof of this is how Obama not only continued his predecessor's policies but expanded on them, despite his harsh criticisms and promises before he came to power. The President is powerless. I already posted this some time ago, but it's good reading for anyone, especially American taxpayers: Top Secret America, a hidden world growing beyond control Quick guys, put on your tinfoil hats!

VB? Wasn't the concept for that basically recycled for NV and the DLCs?

So basically you made a thread out of what should have been a YT comment? Nothing wrong with that, but I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish, though I might be missing some context. Is that account some sort of gaming big shot whose opinion really matters or something? [Looks Around] This is called a forum, is it not? Seriously, did I miss something between the 90's and today? Forums, thoughts, discussions, etc. As for my opinions: They're mine, and they're opinions. They of course matter to me but... No one else is required to: acknowledge, ratify, agree with, exalt, deny, show disdain for, get flippant about, explain their position, etc. with regards to them, unless they actually want to have a discussion on a forum. Chill. I was asking why you believe that the YouTube account that posted those videos is more representative of the average RPG player than any other Skyrim LP where the author doesn't seem to be suffering from ADD (or are they all like that?). I suppose you misunderstood and assumed I was referring to your forum account, sorry about that, I could have worded it better. You are of course free to start discussions and express opinions about whatever you feel like, but as I said, some context may be required, as evidenced by some people not getting what exactly is the point of the thread initially.

So basically you made a thread out of what should have been a YT comment? Nothing wrong with that, but I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish, though I might be missing some context. Is that account some sort of gaming big shot whose opinion really matters or something? Nostalgia is always used as the default rebuttal by people who don't understand what made a genre/game popular or loved by the people discussing it in the first place. The fact is that many RPG fans have been disillusioned by how modern (AAA) RPG's have placed an ever-increasing emphasis on action to increase marketability, reduced dialogue/gameplay choices because of the constraints of voice-acting,/graphics, ect... stripped away depth, challenge and complexity because it doesn't "appeal to a mainstream audience". Problem is that, being fair, those claims usually don't hold up to scrutiny. Old* RPGs had rather clunky mechanics and, more often than not, the perceived depth of combat was not really such. Many character builds not being viable, encounters being unreasonably difficult unless you knew and prepared for the one weakness designed into them, a single strategy or combo being so effective that everything else is irrelevant, that sort of thing. And this also extends to dialogue choices, where multiple choices rendered exactly the same result, as a necessity of excessively linear plot lines. Having a lot of fake choices does not add to complexity, it adds clutter. New games sometimes suffer from some of these problems too, especially in the gameplay department. Game designers have the hardest job in the industry, IMO. Old games in general, being tech pieces, don't compare well vs new ones. There's going to be better and worse games in every generation and those all have their highlights and shadows, so any comparison can be made to support the agenda of the day. The funny thing about the incline/decline thing is that seemingly the most avid consumers of modern RPGs are also the loudest. I guess everyone needs a cause. *Where is the "old" threshold, anyway? The 90's? The 80's? Maybe I never really knew the golden age.

That may actually be a bug. I haven't done any group content since 3.0 because I only pug and want to get a better hang of how specs flow before taking up the pug life again where it's carry or wipe, so YMMV. The damage nerf was intended and I have experienced no problems through the new content, but perhaps they *forgot* to adjust older content to new damage and healing outputs. I've heard that HM 55s are basically impossible to complete in "recommended" gear now because of that. Another example that the expansion was rushed. In the same vein, they are taking the servers down today to deploy another patch. Yes, after doing that yesterday. Also, you made it to 60 on Rishi? I finished Yavin and was half a bar short of 60, and I popped XP boosts before accepting stacks of 3 rewards. How?! edit: wrong links, bleh

You really love to hate this game, don't you?

So, despite this, I managed to complete the encounter by following the instructions of some of the brave beta testers in the SWTOR boards. The ending was more or less the same quality as the rest of the expansion, and, as expected, the plot completely destroys any real RP options for a Sith Warrior. So far I'm actually liking the "feel" of the gameplay in 3.0, TTK seems to have gone down with everything dying faster but mobs, especially strongs, dealing more damage. This is from 55 on, as I have no lowbies at the moment. I played through the whole expansion with a set of augmented rating 156 gear, and I really don't see this damage nerf people are complaining about. Also, other than buying entry level 55 gear, is there any use for basic comms at 55? What is the point of allowing a comm cap overflow if you can't buy anything useful with them until you hit 60 and any earned over the cap are lost? genius.jpg

Um. This is exactly the way they did it with ME1 back in 2007. In fact, they didn't even bother with the PC port themselves, they outsourced it (Demiurge). They did release it on PC eventually. I guess people have really short memories.

So, the end boss fight, the highlight encounter of the xpac is bugged and "can be rendered impossible to complete in many cases". Bravo. /golfclap This, on top of the completely ridiculous lag and other pleasant occurrences should be a good reminder to never again deviate from my policy of waiting for stuff to go through a few patches before getting and avoid release days like the plague. And now they are announcing that ability training costs are going away, triggering a -somewhat justified- riot from players that feel screwed over by an early access that should have more appropriately been labeled "open beta". Personally, I'm not very impressed with the expansion myself. The new animations are uninspired with very few exceptions, the Disciplines system is nothing to write home about and appears designed solely so they don't have to account for hybrid builds, which seem to be wrecking ranked PVP (heh). The story doesn't feel especially compelling, although maybe I'm just tired of Revan and wish they'd put the character to rest for good. No new PVP content and meta favoring certain classes in PVP even harder than before 3.0 complete a rather disappointing experience for me. I'm thinking it's entirely possible that the problems aren't so much with the game as with me, and this is simply a case of MMO burnout. But after going through all class stories I feel the game has little else to offer and no amount of cosmetic gear or new ops can change that...

Heh, with reduced XP and SCS, it should be a pretty rough ride. I found arcane spellcasters fairly unmanageable until I disabled the annoying auto-stoneskin part of the buff that the mod brings, and even then, letting them get off more than 2-3 spells usually meant a reload. Basically, if I couldn't get the drop on them with a backstab, it was already an uphill battle. Watch out for liches, though. There was a bug with the mod not too long ago that made their Stoneskin impossible to remove short of hitting them with a Spellstrike (which you obviously don't have access to yet). That on top of Dispel Magic being bugged made fighting liches a pointless exercise until I could get Daystar and/or the improved Mace of Disruption. Cleric/Mage is awesome later on though, when you can get creative with Spell Triggers and Chain Contingencies... but that won't happen until ToB and they suck until then. :D Edit: Oh, you haven't mentioned Rogue Rebalance. Don't like that one?

I didn't even think devs even did that anymore. I thought we'd all realised consoles are trash and moved to focusing on the PC. How naïve of me. I realize you're being sarcastic, but... http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-06-13-game-consoles-will-be-extinct-after-next-gen-says-jaffe (yes, I know it's more than 2 years old)

"Their opinions are completely invalid"? Interesting viewpoint. Have you ever been a victim of unfair and abusive law enforcement practices? Have you ever had to endure racial discrimination? Are you and your loved ones under the poverty threshold with practically zero chance of moving up in life? Because otherwise, your opinion is completely invalid, by your own logic. Don't get me wrong, I agree that people talk too much about things they know too little -I've been guilty of this myself- but you really know diddly squat about the lives of people you are directing your blanket statements at. Also the suggestion that an opinion is "completely invalid" because its holder has never been under fire is patently, manifestly ****ing bat**** insane, to put it mildly. You DO realize that those charged with overseeing and ensuring the proper behavior of law enforcement (ie. members of the judiciary) have more in common with a member of academia than with a soldier, yes? This isn't by coincidence, it's by design. It's part of the so-called "checks and balances". Please, tell us more about this primal desire to torch cars and smash storefront windows that you feel, seeing as it is a primal desire. I mean, if it's actually as you describe, it should be something that all human beings experience at one point or another, being part of basic human nature, right? If you aren't affected by these desires, please explain then what exactly makes you a fundamentally different being from those rioting.

Ah, yes. The old "show me proof!" defense. I've been around long enough to know that, even if I did show you proof, you'd worm your way out of admitting that you were wrong in your assumptions. There's always a "but" — there's always something about the origins of data, there's always something about the way data is interpreted, and if everything else fails, you can always raise your standard for evidence to arbitrarily high new levels. The funny thing is that anyone who actually works with statistics knows that no certainties can be gleaned from them. Whatever, it's the main reason why I rarely post anywhere anymore — people are more interested in winning their little internet victories than actually listening and considering the merits of other viewpoints. FYI, it's you who needs to offer evidence that supports your assumptions that policing and the judicial system are fair and working as advertised. Have fun being "right".

No one in this thread is arguing whether police acting perfectly lawfully in a scenario where violent criminals threaten their lives are entitled to use deadly force. That is not really what's happening here and elsewhere. The problem is the perception shared by many that police will resort to (deadly) force without due justification and there will be no consequences for this behavior. This means that the rule of law is subverted by those tasked with upholding it, and trust in the rule of law is one thing keeping the social fabric from unraveling. Of course, "the full weight of Justice" (Obama dixit) will fall on those who dare rise up against a manifestly unjust establishment. Way of the world. In fact, it is you who is turning things upside down because you are treating as fact some things that are merely assumptions, to wit, that convictions are fair, that law enforcement is applied equally across the different strata of society, that being caught "in the act" means somebody is guilty, etc. Personally, it's especially appalling that you are suggesting that "being caught in the act" or even "being a criminal" is a liability waiver for law enforcement agents using deadly force. And about this "statistics aren't rocket science", there is a reason why sensible sociologists, historians and political scientists are often wary about drawing immediate conclusions from statistics. Think about it — is the fact that more blacks are convicted a consequence of blacks actually committing more crimes, or is the statistic of crimes committed by blacks higher due to more blacks being convicted? edit: beaten to the punch