213374U

The difference is that the "proper" revolutionaries you are comparing to shed any pretense of abiding by the then-current laws early on—they were willing and able to back their political statements with force. This is completely different in Ukraine, where a change in the status quo is not going to be accepted by the Russian minority in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, because it is being introduced without any regard for the current constitutional framework that in their view protected them. This is exactly how you set up a tyranny in a country where a Constitution based upon the rule of law and popular sovereignty is in force. In fact, a key issue in the American revolution was precisely the perception that legislation was being introduced that violated colonists' basic rights as English subjects (taxation without parliamentary representation). The funny thing is that, in that case, and as opposed to what happened in Ukraine, these rights weren't codified and no formal violation had occurred (not sure how common law jurisdictions handle that tbh, Enoch or Grom could correct me). But all that is, once more, academic. The bottom line here is that if you are willing to disregard the law of the land, you had better be prepared to crush those who won't be happy about it with force, because law is the instrument humans have provided themselves with to resolve disputes without resorting to force. And sadly for the new government in Ukraine, they simply cannot use force in this situation because the unhappy party, in this case, is Russia. Still, two wrongs don't make a right. I think your amputation analogy is apt here, too, but I'm actually turning it around—Ukraine may end up "amputating" Crimea to pay for the terrible political mismanagement of the "revolution", because it's looking like Russians, both in Crimea and outside, will settle for nothing less. It will be interesting to see the UN bend over and condemn a self-determination referendum that is in accordance with the principle stated in art.1 of the UN Charter...

I care about setting the record straight. Amounts he embezzled are relevant only in the sense that they should make his due prosecution that much easier. Kicking him out of office NAO by whatever means and possibly summarily executing him as you suggest isn't going to make the money he stole reappear in Ukraine's coffers. Sticking to the feb 21 agreement would have gone a long way towards preserving constitutional stability and preventing secessionist sentiments from being inflamed. As the President is supposed to be the guarantor of constitutional order, removing him without regards for due process is tantamount to abrogating the Constitution—anything goes from that point on. As it stands, the new government lacks both the force and legal legitimacy to effectively deal with separatists, and this is ostensibly a result of the way they have handled things as much as it is of Russia's meddling. In other news, Ukrainian backbencher suggests nuclear re-armament in light of Russia's violation of Ukrainian territorial sovereignty. Yep. I'm sure that's not going to be a tough sell to the same people who are getting their pensions slashed in half. Not at all.

"Can" and "are inclined to" are different things, and while you already addressed this in your post, I think the problem is that the data used to "identify" gender equality problems glosses over this fact. Underlying the issue of gender equality is also the question of whether men and women are actually equal, value judgments notwithstanding. Your pointing out of differences in verbal skill development rates is a good hint that this is a problem that is, at best, oversimplified. I'm sure someone more intelligent and insightful than me could find more faults with this sort of social engineering initiatives, but that's enough to give me pause. Also, I'm going to object to the assumption that the goal of education is in any way identifying talent. Your wording makes it ambiguous whether it's what you believe is the building principle of education or rather what you believe it should be, but modern education is there to provide a standarized process through which people can obtain a qualification that will be required for a job, and little else. Talent is irrelevant.

Whoa, for a second there I thought I had been redirected to Way Off-Topic. For all the grand strategy fans out there (yeah, all two of you, including me), Paradox has decided to cancel East vs West - A Hearts of Iron Game. Damn shame, one of the few upcoming games I genuinely had any interest in playing this year. *starts building a bridge*

Yeah, that's where I'm at too. Problem I've found is that MMOs are time-based as opposed to skill-based, for the most part. So in my experience you will find yourself devoting most of the time to soul-crushingly repetitive tasks that are supposed to enhance your enjoyment of other parts of the game (gearing for endgame/raids, crafting) but then the actual gameplay isn't as "tight" and polished as in skill-based games. Of the MMOs I've played, the one that had the most fun and co-op oriented gameplay was DDO (I've heard also good things about LotRO, also by Turbine), but the extremely grindy crafting mechanics eventually drove me off. It's easy to get sucked in by the perpetual carrot-and-stick design of MMOs where the end reward is items or other in-game goodies, instead of the gameplay itself, but to me their biggest selling point is the general lack of drive towards development of games with a serious focus on co-op. Be sure to wake me up if this changes.

Could be a fitness seminar. Hack those gluets! You bet your ass it could be.

Or you can have a century-spanning story about body-changing, immortal posthumans, and have the main character's LI be a completely different person each time we see him/her(/whatever gender you assign to a disembodied consciousness who can freely change the gender of the bodies they inhabit) Out there, somewhere, there's an indie Kickstarter waiting to be made based on that premise. I don't play Bioware games for several reasons. One of the biggest reasons is their romances. We are pretty good at creating game worlds now. We can do relatively realistic trees and humans and monsters. We can even do realistic physics and decent voice overs. But as soon as we try to simulate human relationships it falls apart like a house of cards. I can not identify with what they are saying, with how they are acting or even the goal of the relationship. It breaks my fourth wall (violently) and annoys me to the point that I start disliking the entire game. So no, I really do not think romances enhance anything. In fact, I think your opinion would be better suited for the Blasphemous thread. Hang on. Aren't you the mail-order bride guy? No wonder you can't identify with the way romance is presented in games. It's going to be next to impossible to write a romance that people can seriously get into, with the current format video games deliver their content in. Unlike the rest of the game, for which suspending one's disbelief is more or less easy (I have no first-hand experience fighting darkspawn so I don't feel how contrived the presented experience feels), with romance it's much harder because most people have actually experienced romance IRL at some point, forever alone crowd notwithstanding. It's a subtle, prosaic and boring thing -from the outside- but also an extremely personal experience and any deviation from the player's internal expectations is going to burst immersion like the dot com bubble. But apparently, and judging from the huge success of romances in Bio games and the outcry when Obsidz decided to exclude them form PoE, some people can suspend their disbelief so effectively that I wonder if perhaps they were born without it to begin with.

Point & Click-type control schemes are going to be even worse to manage once you realize that you need to have eleventy billion keyboard shortcuts to abilities if you want to pull your weight. Well, not really. You eventually become used to it and the worst part is rearranging the UI and keyboard bindings when you roll an alt. But generally speaking, MMOs don't have simple controls, at least when compared to SP-only RPGs and RTS. The learning curve is just another timesink carefully considered by devs, and MMOs, unlike the rest of genres, are built around timesinks. What exactly are you looking for in online games that has drawn you to MMOs? That may help you narrow down the choices.

I said I was done engaging you. Bye bye. > "bye bye I'm quitting teh internets forevar" > posts a reply ten minutes after last one Why the allergy to debate? This sort of "I'm entrenched in my views, you are entrenched in yours, let's be happy together in our pigheadedness" is fundamentally irrational and useless. It's a sad state of affairs when people have lost the ability to revise their views in light of evidence. Is your ego so inflated that you cannot even entertain the idea of "losing face" to a bunch of internets strangers? I don't know which is worse: that or the very notion that admitting that one's original pov may have been wrong is equated with "losing face". Heh. Oh 2133 your post made me laugh, I loved the pseudo psychoanalysis of my rationale..well said But you'll have to try much, much harder than that to get a negative response from me But you also misunderstand my motives. You and Zora are completely intransigent on certain topics to the point where I think you feel admitting you wrong somehow diminishes you, you've both proved that regularly. Its a waste of my time trying to convince you. There are other topics where people are more receptive to a different view. So I'll focus on those when I can Don't take it personally. At the end of the day, to me you are just another inconsequential nobody on the internet, you don't warrant especial attention. I mostly just stick to the arguments people make. I quoted you because you were the last to put it into words, but the "agree to disagree" mentality on just about anything is something I see as particularly impoverishing and ultimately anathema to the whole idea of a discussion board. And the fact that I continue to engage your and others' points despite extreme repetition and constant goal post shifting should be proof enough that I'm anything but unwilling to consider other viewpoints. You have only relatively recently begun posting here, but I've pulled a few U-turns in the close to ten years I've been here. I've been smacked around good by others too, but so what. Just because you can't convince me on a particular issue it doesn't mean I cannot be convinced. "Pseudo psychoanalysis", heh. I've got the full pseudo intellectual package (complete with the latin sig and Van Gogh pic to round out the experience), so you shouldn't be surprised. Can't really produce solid rebuttals to my points I've observed, though. Think about that.

1) Show me proof that this has actually happened. The Rada accepting a nonexistent resignation from an absent President is... less than reassuring. 2) The Rada claiming that their acts are lawful because they acted on the basis of them saying they are lawful is circular logic. We've been there already. I don't have to take the issue up with the Rada because it's not them legitimizing their actions on these boards, it's you. Yes you were and I'm done with this. Have a nice evening. Never gets old when people need to shift from one foot to another so fast that they end up tripping on their own comments. You said (after edit): This is an admission that it is not by an impeachment process that Y. was dismissed. Again, it's an either/or situation. I hate repeating myself but: - If it was not impeachment, then a procedure outside of those prescribed by the Constitution for ending the mandate of the President prematurely has been followed → unlawful dismissal. Therefore, your admission that he was not impeached necessarily implies that an unconstitutional process was followed through to depose Y., resulting in an unlawful dismissal. This is a basic syllogism and the conclusion follows directly from these two premises: - Yanukovych was not deposed by means of impeachment - Any reasons given for ending his mandate early outside of those prescribed in art. 108 are by definition unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful If you can't deal with the logical consequences of your own arguments, I can't help you there. Now, however, you have changed tactics and are clinging to the possibility that Y. did in fact resign. But if he did resign, the Rada did not need to pass a vote on his resignation. So, I ask again, which one is it? There is precedent (as usual) of political actors acting unlawfully to advance their agendas and being retroactively legitimized. This involves judicial review and would possibly paralyze the government until it's sorted out, undoubtedly favorably for the new government. The trouble is that going that way can put a dent on the official rhetoric that the referendum in Crimea is unlawful (which it is). Law can cut both ways like that. Why the allergy to debate? This sort of "I'm entrenched in my views, you are entrenched in yours, let's be happy together in our pigheadedness" is fundamentally irrational and useless. It's a sad state of affairs when people have lost the ability to revise their views in light of evidence. Is your ego so inflated that you cannot even entertain the idea of "losing face" to a bunch of internets strangers? I don't know which is worse: that or the very notion that admitting that one's original pov may have been wrong is equated with "losing face". Heh.

Same. It's the only part of the game that I actually enjoy. Unfortunately, I can't do *just* the class quests and have fun... I have to do the planet story as well, and every side quest and bonus in order to stay at the right level. I could ignore every other planetary chain by doing PvP (which is surprisingly fun*), flashpoints and taking advantage of rest XP. You still have to put time into the game, but you aren't forced to go through the planet story quests. There's also the legacy class/flashpoint/PvP XP bonus unlocks, so there. *edit: except 4v4 arenas. Those suck.

I don't know about you, but I enjoy the XP and loot from romance sidequests. Cut that out and I won't be able to mash spacebar fast enough. Seriously though, I mostly agree with you. The bluntness and lack of narrative coherence, to put it that way, is a necessary side effect of the format the romances are presented in. "Fast forward to the important moments" and skip the rest, but the result is going to feel half-assed, rushed and disconnected. But it's either that, a full-fledged relationship sim, or nothing. What I'm not so convinced is that the protagonist's ability to trigger a catharsis on teammates is silly or unrealistic. After all, in Bio games you are routinely beating impossible odds, so it's not so out there. Taking out a race of sentient machines possibly older than life on Earth and fixing the secret insecurities of the genetically perfect Princess Bitchface with a few clichéd phrases? About on the same level.

Are you aware of Survarium? After GSC folded, some of the devs went on to found Vostok Games... and that's what they are working on. I hated Metro 2033. Too easy, too linear, too scripted. Is Last Light any better?

Yes, eliminating words can change how people think. I just don't think it's the right way to go about it. 5 examples of how the languages we speak can affect the way we think. Yes dear, that's exactly the idea behind newspeak. But apparently you missed the reference.

I am not putting words into your mouth, I am simply following your logic to its end. So, to make it perfectly clear—which one is it? Was it impeachment or not? - If it was impeachment, then the procedure was not duly followed (no sufficient 3/4 majority and no Constitutional Court review) → unlawful dismissal. - If it was not impeachment, then a procedure outside of those prescribed by the Constitution for ending the mandate of the President prematurely has been followed → unlawful dismissal. Take your pick. What "any reasonable person" would consider is irrelevant when you are dealing with clear constitutional provisions. Precisely because those provisions are in place to prevent abuses and hopefully put a stop to illegitimate uses of power by alleged "reasonable persons". But this whole point is academic because the resignation resolution was passed less than 24 hours after Yanukovych left Kiev, with a Parliament under duress. Couldn't risk the President coming back, now could we? Reminder: you cannot "resign" someone. And no, a recorded phone call (to whom? Yatseniuk? Putin? His mom?) that has somehow mysteriously disappeared is not admissible as the formal resignation required by law to be presented before the Rada. You'll have to forgive me if I don't take scuttlebutt and hearsay as evidence.

No, you didn't say it wasn't lawful—but since it's an either/or situation, if you concede that the process by which he was dismissed was not impeachment, then you concede that it was unlawful, because there is no other instrument in the Ukrainian Constitution to dismiss him. QED As for whether you choose to accept any evidence that Yanukovych actually resigned as valid, well. Think what you will but again, the Constitution demands that the President tends his resignation before the Rada in session (art. 109). That has obviously not occurred because he hasn't been in Kiev since feb 21st.

No. If failure to perform his duties (in this context signing the laws passed by the Rada) was grounds for removal, it would be under the only article dealing with the dismissal of the President. The fact that the Parliament requires the President to sign laws before they go into effect is actually a safety to ensure that Parliament does not overstep its bounds and encroaches upon executive power or breach the Constitution. This is another example of the good ol' separation of powers standing in the way of would-be revolutionaries. Where exactly are you getting the idea that he can be dismissed for failing to exercise his duties? The Rada saying it's legal because they made it legal is circular logic. No bandwagon either. It's just that impeachment is the only way the Rada has to kick the President out if he's not dead or medically incapable of performing his duties. It's good that you are no longer pretending it was a lawful dismissal.

So the Rada's interpretation was that Yanukovich failed to discharge the duties of his office. His removal did not require an impeachment process. You can dispute the validity of the Rada's claims all you want. It amazes me just how badly the media misrepresented this. Damn 2133 ...you REALLY got owned there !!!!! For the nth time. Read the source material and try to produce an original thought for once. But at least we've finally shed the fake friendliness façade, that's something right?

No. The Rada does not get to dismiss the President for failing to "discharge the duties of his office" (something he is expressly forbidden from doing as per art. 106). You linked the Ukrainian Constitution yourself. Art. 108: The resolution passed by the Rada does not fall within any of the above. There are no other scenarios in which the President's mandate is liable to be interrupted before his term is up. The Rada cannot simply make up new scenarios and majorities where it can lawfully dismiss the President, regardless of the excuses they have come up with post-hoc. Well, of course they are going to justify their actions somehow. That does not change the fact that any actions taken based on reasons outside of those prescribed in the Constitution are unlawful. The Rada is not above the supreme law of the land and they cannot override it, regardless of majorities.

No. The reversion of the constitution was legal - both times actually. It required a 2/3 majority and received 90% in 2004 and 85% (380 votes) in 2014. Yanukovich approved the reversion to the 2004 constitution (although his approval was not required) when he brokered the deal with the opposition in early February and the second parliamentary vote occurred on Feb 21. Regardless of which version you believe is legal (1996, 2004 or 2010), the articles pertinent to the removal of the president are the same in all versions. See chapter 5, articles 108 thru 112. Ukrainian Impeachment follows the UK nomenclature and procedure. Impeachment refers to the entire process culminating in removal from office. But the full process requires a bill of indictment, a trial and then a vote on removal. 328 votes would have been sufficient for the indictment phase. A two-thirds constitutional majority in the Verkhovna Rada (300 ayes) must support a procedure of impeachment for it to begin. To remove the President from office, a minimum three-quarters of parliament must support the resolution. Yanukovich fled before a trial could be convened so there is a question of whether his departure is a de facto admission of guilt or an act of resignation. In either case, his departure makes him incapable of fulfilling his office and he can then be replaced. No. Yanukovych was first dismissed as President (with neither a preceptive Constitutional Court review nor a sufficient majority to do so), and then charged and a warrant was issued for his arrest. The legal procedure for removing the President from office for reasons other than explicit resignation, declaration of medical incompetence or death, was not observed. This, by definition, makes it unlawful. Exactly as unlawful as a local referendum on the independence of a territory. There is no provision in the Ukrainian Constitution allowing for the dismissal of the President if he leaves the capital for whatever reasons. The physical presence of Yanukovych is not required for the mandatory judicial review required for the impeachment process. Revolutions, aimed as they are at changing the status quo, are unlawful. The trouble starts when you demand that non-revolutionaries abide by the very laws you have ignored to take power. This is not mere hypocrisy, it's madness.

So "banning words" is going to help equality somehow? That sounds rather like crimethink. Maybe the "initiative" is about something else entirely, but after a quick glance I couldn't tell.

Yeah, I don't know what's the deal with lag. It's also inconsistent for me. And load times are pretty bad for what is basically a 2D game. I'm guessing they were really pushing the envelope with regards to what mobile platforms can handle.

Interesting. More or less illegal than the procedure by which Yanukovych was removed from office?

If you are only vaguely aware of USAPATRIOT, then you may be more qualified to speak about it that the people who voted it into law. http://books.google.com/books?id=Y_Ej_RA5Bf0C&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66#v=onepage&q&f=false That's some healthy lawmaking, right there.

No. Go check your sources and read some actual survey statistics instead of swallowing whole the prefabricated opinions the media prepare for you. In fact, Rostere brought this up in the other thread. I already explained how far this is from the reality in the Basque country.