213374U

Uh, you aren't commenting on my posts even though you are directly quoting me? Exactly what are you doing, then? Posting out of a compulsion?

You think that's funny? No, dude. In fact glossing over social advances, poverty reduction, huge investments in education, welfare, generous foreign aid and a steady net economic growth for the past twelve years, not to mention actual advances in democracy that we smug westerners could take notes from, to focus on the economic downturn of the last year to casually decree that "the socialist experiment has failed", that is funny. It becomes hilarious even, the apex of comedy, when you consider the fact that we here smug westerners have been in a crisis since 2008. I guess I have that much more reason to assert that "the capitalist experiment has failed"? You laughing yet bud? No? Okay then, you know what else is funny? The Press Freedom Index (one commonly cited figure when examining this issue) does not focus only on actual dissident journalist persecution, but rather on how easy it is for journalists to go about their work—including, but not limited to, public media independence, self-censorship and legislation. The questionnaire from which this index is derived also takes into consideration other factors influencing professional journalists, as in basically bribes and also how many really independent privately owned media companies exist, if any. This aggregate index puts Venezuela at roughly the same level as Israel and ahead of faithful western ally Turkey. For exactly what reasons? Impossible to know! Amusing, huh? Let's hope it lasts. From the link it seems like Yanukovych is gasping for air and trying to buy time however he can. No mention of whether he'll review his decision regarding the EU either.

Still a better love story than Twilight.

Because if Obsidz were to do it, you would play as a nameless Borg drone struggling to find your own identity against the oppresive presence of the hive mind, while pondering questions such as "am I really free or just a pawn in a sick game of chess being played for the queen's amusement?". In this context, "romance" would amount to an intimate voyage of exploration of the cold, vague, yet suggestive innuendo from drone 1234 of 5678, delivered through your hive mind connection, possibly while in excruciating pain. Obviously. OT: I actually liked Hawke as a character, and thought the dialogue was at least serviceable. In my defense, I systematically picked the "funny" response. I'm a sucker for wise cracking.

Hm. What game exactly allows you to rest right before facing a boss but after taking out the trash? (honest question, I don't know) I agree with you that this is frankly stupid and should result in either the villain fleeing or a not-so-surprise attack on the resting party. This also rests on the assumption that the player knows in advance that the next portion of the instance cointains the boss fight. This is either a result of metagaming or of signs placed there on purpose to inform the player. Very little that devs can do about the former, though. The more freedom the player has to choose, either in non-linear gameplay or simply character customization, makes it a lot more difficult to know what sort of resources a player has available. Some solutions have been attempted, such as scaling/modifying encounters based on character level, which has mixed results in my experience. Yep. I'm also wondering how approximately should devs consider the amount of resources a player has at a given point—for instance, Kangaxx in BG2 is accessible in chapter 2, but without resorting to cheap ass tactics that exploit design flaws, taking a shot at him straight out of Irenicus' dungeon is... not recommended. That's basically the devs throwing an encounter in there without any regard for the player's resources other than "it's doable with the stuff you can find throughout the game". And it works beautifully. Why do all encounters have to be tailored around the perceived power level of the player? I hate that.

"The socialist experiment has failed"? On whose account? Let's take a look at the figures: "During the past decade under Chavez, the income poverty rate in Venezuela dropped by more than half, from 54% of households below poverty level in the first half of 2003, down to 26% at the end of 2008. "Extreme poverty" fell even more - by 72%. Further, "these poverty rates measure only cash income, and doesn't take into account increased access to health care or education." "Datos reports real income grew by 137% between 2003 and Q1 2006." "Venezuela's infant mortality rate fell by 18.2% between 1998 and 2006" "Spending on education as a percentage of GDP (which grew dramatically since 1998) stood at 5.1% in 2006, as opposed to 3.4% in the last year of the Caldera government. Spending on health increased from 1.6% of GDP in 2000 to 7.71% in 2006" "In June 2010 Mark Weisbrot wrote that jobs were much less scarce then than when Chávez took office, with unemployment at 8% in 2009 compared with 15% in 1999. He also stated that the number of front-line doctors had increased tenfold in the public sector and that enrolment in higher education had doubled, noting that these statistics were backed up by the UN and the World Bank." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_government That hardly looks like a failure to me. Venezuela is a command economy and one that is absolutely reliant on oil exports. As a result, it's seriously unbalanced. But a failure? And as for the thing that the CIA has nothing to do with what's going on over there, I don't know. http://www.voltairenet.org/article30032.html Disregard the actual connections between Sharp and the CIA, I'm not necessarily buying that either—still, the media attacks and instigation of popular revolts on the streets as a tool to overthrow governments under the guise of morally acceptable "non-violence" is something to think about. Especially under the current public opinion climate where an overt use of force seems to be politically untenable. [1] [2] Not really, no. A majority is at least >50% of the survey sample. You really need to stop redefining words to suit your purposes at the drop of a hat. "49% of Ukrainians supported signing the Association Agreement, while 31% opposed it and the rest had not decided yet." "However, in a December poll by the same company, only 30% claimed that terms of the Association agreement would be beneficial for the Ukrainian economy, while 39% said they were unfavourable for Ukraine." "45% of respondents believed Ukraine should sign an Association Agreement with the EU, whereas only 14% favored joining the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia, and 15% preferred non-alignmen" "58% of Ukrainians supporting the country's entry into the European Union" "39% supporting the country's entry into the European Union and 37% supporting Ukraine's accession to the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia" Only one of the cited surveys shows that a majority supported the agreement, but overall the polls seem to indicate that support was, at best, lukewarm. Which makes this whole thing even more difficult to understand. People are on the streets raising hell... over a trade agreement that wasn't even such a big deal for people to begin with? What's going on here? Anyone else feels we don't have the whole picture? edit: ****ing forum software is utter ****ing ****

You absolutely don't need supplements. Your body produces everything it needs to build strength and muscle, provided it has the necessary building blocks (macronutrients) at hand. Problem is, as discussed in the other thread, that your average first-world Joe's diet is all over the place, and in order to build muscle your body needs a healthy energy surplus and more protein that is obtained from a "normal" diet. Your body is extremely good at using just about anything (except minerals and water) as an energy source and to produce other stuff it needs—at different efficiency rates—but "essential" amino acids must be acquired from external sources. This also ties in with the "biological value" of protein that is so popular with the BB crowd. The only real advantage of protein powder is convenience. You can prepare and consume a protein-rich meal quickly and easily, but you could get the same results with regular food, and it may be cheaper too. It's also easier to mentally prepare for—I have no problem with tough workouts, but eating as much as I should is a total chore for me. The only exception to that is creatine. Creatine has been shown in trials to provide a slight edge in strength work (~5% IIRC) and lead to some lean mass gains, but the mechanism behind that is not well understood. Coffee is deserving of a mention too but I'm not sure if peeps would consider it a supplement (coffee is teh shiznit). TL;DR: supplements are a) strictly unnecessary and b) for lazy people like me.

I didn't particularly care for either of them and think Fallout: Tactics is better than both. You may now form a lynch-mob. I felt some sort of primal feeling of rejection forming in the deepest reaches of my soul when I read your post. Then I realized I have probably replayed FOT more than FO1 and 2 combined. I think now I know how Luke Skywalker felt.

Sweet, sweet imbalance.

I have very little knowledge of running-specific coaching techniques, but you can probably benefit from training in sets, look up interval training—that's to begin with (periodization is also effective if you are serious, but that's more long-term). You will probably want to get the interval training out of the way first, and then do your regular cardio work. While cardio is good for fat burning, it does little for you at the metabolic, hormonal and structural planes, and is conducive to injury due to the combination of reduced ranges of motion and extreme repetition. It is also known to favor muscular imbalances—hamstring injuries are rather common in runners as a result of hamstring-quad imbalance, also problems caused by lumbopelvic instability. Consider taking up strength training man, you don't need to stop doing what you are doing and the benefits are well established. And transforming into a cut-out t-shirt Instagram douche is completely optional.

I guess you missed the part where after three months of peaceful protests, the government attacked the protesters in an attempt to break them, with the police killing protesters and violence escalated by the deployment of paramilitary and military forces. But yeah, it's the protester's fault. They prolly kill themselves just to put blame on poor Victor. Then what option does Ukraine have? You're claiming it can stand on its own. How? It has an ailing economy, high levels of corruption, and is currently torn apart by internal struggles. You're citing examples from totally different times and totally different geopolitical situations. They aren't joining the EU. The revolution is over an association agreement, which can be the first step, but doesn't have to be. That said, I did take that into account and I did find a full version of the study online. It has a lot of interesting conclusions, including an explanation that a large part of the rise in inequality was caused by countries that joined the Union. Their internal inequality contributed significantly to the coefficient. It's also interesting to note that you seem to be putting the blame for income inequality on the EU, rather than its individual member countries. Why? You were the one comparing 2014 Ukraine to Cold War Yugoslavia. My comparison is as valid as yours. (1) Corruption in Ukraine is not going to be fixed by the EU. This is only relevant in the debate about independence in the sense that corrupt officials are more likely to be bought off by external parties rather than less. I don't see how a depressed economy means a country must absolutely become a satellite of another—there may be short-term economic advantages to doing so, but the long-term forfeiting of sovereignty is invariably glossed over. Again, closer ties would be advantageous to whom? The average Ukrainian? Because that's who's being killed on the streets. (2) Take a closer look. The wealth differences have been increasing not only as an average but also within member states. This has been going on since the 80s (and possibly earlier). I'm not really interested in the aggregate index precisely because it can be misleading as you said. But wealth gap increases are a constant across the board even in the most well-off members of the EU (the link is for all OECD, disregard non-EU data). Same thing with poverty (analysis limited to 2011, no official data on expected increase; no expected decrease however). Even with the Europe 2020 reform package (2010), this keeps going. What does Ukraine stand to gain from all of this? Free transit? (3) No, I made no such comparison. I was using post-WWII Yugoslavia to disprove your categorical statement that "no strategic country between two superpowers can sit on the fence". More examples throughout history, but one counterexample is all that's needed to refute a general principle. Yet this got somehow derailed to a comparison between Iran, Sweden and Greece, based also on the assumption that "Swedes claim everything is going to the dogs"—suggesting by overextension that things aren't as ****ed up as I'm saying—only it's not me saying it, it's them statistics.

It's not going to cut it for reasons I've already listed. Yugoslavia survived because of its unique position and history during World War II. The two states are (well, were, since Yugoslavia's dead) fundamentally different. Yes, **** is bad, news at 11. Seriously though, shaking a stick at Europe because it has problems and pretending other parts of the world don't (because that's the only situation in which doing that would make sense) is silly. The economic crisis is global in scope and causes problems everywhere. That doesn't mean a collapse is inevitable, as we had prophecies of doom since time immemorial, often fueled by adversity. I might as well compare them to Iran. The point was that you focus on negatives and ignore the positives. (1) Uh, no. Those are not reasons. You said countries cannot stand on their own under pressure from other superpowers. There is abundant historical evidence to the contrary, actually. Whether Russia is a superpower at this point is debatable, too. Sorry, but your opinions do not constitute evidence. You cannot simply dismiss counterexamples to your general principle by going "they are different". Well, of course they are, genius! No two historical situations are ever the same! The times are different too and Russia is nowhere near her position of strength post-WWII. Did anyone say false dichotomy? (2) Do not misrepresent what I said—I was not heralding a collapse and the Oxfam story was more an afterthought than anything... yet the fact remains that it's simply a projection for the next decade if current trends continue; no reason to assume they won't except for the opinions of the usual suspects. Bottom line is the EU has not done anything to fix the ever-widening income gap in Europe, since the 1980's, as the OECD link I posted proves (which you have conspicuously ignored twice now, great going), while the austerity reforms dictated from Brussels are pushing a lot of people into poverty and the prospect of long-term or even permanent unemployment. What is your evidence that joining the EU would have substantial benefits for the Ukrainians? I don't see how this is "obvious" at all, and so far your counterpoints have focused on how the EU isn't dead yet. Whoop-de-****ing-doo. (3) What? When did Iran join the EU? Oh, that's right, it didn't, so it's yet another irrelevant rebuttal. The point is that you focus on the positives and ignore the negatives. No, wait. There are ostensibly no positives, you just focus on... nothing much.

Because no strategic country between two superpowers can sit on the fence? What other choice does an impoverished Ukraine plagued by rampant corruption have? Standing on its own against an aggressive Russian Federation is not going to cut it. Yes, Europe isn't ideal. So? The report itself is based on assumptions that poverty will continue to rise. Trying to say what Europe will look in 2025 is pure speculation. If you want statistics, Eurostat is a good place to start. The number of people endangered by poverty was actually reduced by 10 million between 2006 and 2010. For reference, 2009 was the pitch black hole of the crisis. To reiterate, just because Oxfam warns it could happen doesn't mean it will happen. Many people prophesied a breakup of the Eurozone and yet it didn't come to pass. Eurostat is actually a very good lecture and helps get your head around Europe. Did you talk to a Swede lately? From my experience, they bitch and whine that everything is going to the dogs just like everyone else, despite living in, well, near-paradise. Doesn't mean they are right. (1) What do you mean it's "not going to cut it"? Suddenly nation-states are obsolete and I didn't get the memo? Now only supranational polar organizations are valid as a means to prosperity? That looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me, more than anything else. Reminder that Yugoslavia fared pretty well between two superpowers until internal pressures tore her up (with NATO help). (2) Nah, I didn't link the Oxfam article with the intention that it's taken as statistics, it's just one of the many worst-case scenarios circulating around. The OECD link is srs bsns though, and that's not exactly news—going on since the 80's—nor disputed by Eurostat data. You don't have to fast forward to 2025 to see that **** is bad in some parts of the EU (periphery, as they like to call it). (3) What? Take a look and compare the figures for poverty and unemployment in Greece and compare them to Sweden's. I rest my case.

I think you'd have to clearly identify what you mean by running fitness first. Do you mean endurance, as in running for 2 hours instead of 1 as a goal? Or you want to run for greater distances in that hour? You want to get better at sprinting? Simply a better VO2max? Body fat changes? I'm not a fan of running, myself, but in general clear (and sensible) goals are the first step before designing or making changes to a training plan.

I still think that visiting a country is essential for considering whether or not it would be a suitable place to migrate to, but eh. To answer your question, I'd probably choose to live in Monaco. Nah, just kidding, it's not even a real country anyway. But seriously, I'd probably choose Sweden. Insane taxes but great living standards and public services. Now, what does this have to do with anything?

Huh? Why is "the alternative" anything but whatever course Ukraine decides to follow? Why must they go back to being Russia's breadbasket or become the latest addition to the EU bureaucratic bankocracy? Yeah, so a report from a neoliberal think-tank is now proof of... stuff. Did you actually read it or just linked it to appear to be "in the know"? I tried to but had to stop when stuff such (1) and (2) started to seriously threaten my ability to keep my lunch down. Quick as you are to demand that others "do research", I'm going to suggest that you take your own advice. How about you take a look at this, instead. And for an even more terrifying perspective, check this out. Is that Ukraine's "best shot"? Really? (1) "the German Constitutional Court needs to let the ECB to do its job" (2) "[...]slashed its unit labour costs, partly through the relentless shedding of its least productive workers" (~25% general unemployment, ~57% youth unemployment)

A much better investment? For whom? The Germans? Some elite in Ukraine? I'm a bit tired of hearing all these buzz words and given assumptions thrown around when this sort of topic turns up. It's meaningless and repeating it over and over serves no purpose other than, perhaps, achieving the relaxing and mind-numbing effect that mantras have. And why must it be either Russia or the EU? You'd think the Ukrainians would be a bit more reluctant to give up their sovereignty again so shortly after reclaiming it. If it's such an obvious choice, why don't you dial back on the snark and explain why? Should be easy right? edit: herp derp I want to ask you a simple question so I can understand your perspective. If language wasn't a problem and you could choose between living in Russia ( or Belarus or Kazakhstan) and a country in the EU where would you choose? So basically this boils down to factors like the social conditions and where you feel most comfortable. Please don't provide any information expect for what's relevant to the question, we can get to everything else later. Anybody else can also respond to this question if they are interested Can I choose "neither"? If not, can I choose which EU country in particular? This question also seems to imply that joining the EU is magically going to turn Ukraine into, say, the Netherlands. If only it worked that way... Also, not having been to Russia, I feel I lack necessary judgment elements. Maybe I'd like Russian women better, or maybe I'd hate -50º C winters. Why is this relevant, again?

A much better investment? For whom? The Germans? Some elite in Ukraine? I'm a bit tired of hearing all these buzz words and given assumptions thrown around when this sort of topic turns up. It's meaningless and repeating it over and over serves no purpose other than, perhaps, achieving the relaxing and mind-numbing effect that mantras have. And why must it be either Russia or the EU? You'd think the Ukrainians would be a bit more reluctant to give up their sovereignty again so shortly after reclaiming it. If it's such an obvious choice, why don't you dial back on the snark and explain why? Should be easy right? edit: herp derp

How do you figure that?

Yes, as far as finding a definition that is consistently applicable to trolling goes, sticking to intent alone is probably a good idea. The intent generally being to piss off as many people as possible with the least amount of effort, yes? But if we take that approach, you can only have people who troll on occasion as opposed to people who are trolls, because nobody has the same goals in all situations, under all circumstances. "Stupid is as stupid does"? Yeah... not really. Well, a community is only as good as its members, that's pretty much a given, but you are right—I may have underplayed the role other posters had in lof's threads. However, the choice of topics and rebuttals as well as just the right dose of sarcasm (and over the top humor) made his threads irresistible for many to participate in, so he was undeniably good at it. Whether "it" was trolling or genuinely attempting to engage in historic and socioeconomic discussions is up for debate, however. And while maybe the world is a better place after Hitler, it's difficult to establish what the world would be like if he had never been and commies had taken over in Germany in the 1930's—a distinct possibility. Also, and I believe this is the key difference, the mere act of engaging others in conversation frames them as equals (albeit tacitly), while the opposite was not merely prevalent in Hitler's policy but arguably the cornerstone of his thought in the form of untermenschen. I know you were more or less tongue-in-cheek with the reference, but it's this distinction what allows me to consider that contributions form one user, regardless of general opinion among the community on the poster himself, and despite the user's own intent, can be positive overall. And yes, I agree that there's definitely the risk of alienating your audience if your trolling becomes too repetitive or uninteresting (or obvious, for that matter).

Huh. I wouldn't be so quick to say that natural selection doesn't apply to humans anymore, even though I used to believe that myself not too long ago. There are certainly indications that this is not the case; read up on studies looking at correlations between physical factors (good looks, height) and success and intelligence, for instance. Turns out success is an important factor in mating and being able to provide for one's offspring. While the conditions we live in may not be as harsh and unforgiving as used to be in the wilderness, there may not be as much "genetic mobility" as we may have been led to believe by the feel-good equality propaganda and so certain genetic traits may well be favored over others. Consider also that natural selection is something that works in evolutionary time scales... the welfare state is less than a hundred years old. "Look, everybody always figures the time they live in is the most epic, most important age to end all ages. But tyrants and heroes rise and fall, and historians sort out the pieces" That's a quote from a Bio game but the idea is not original by any means (can't for the life of me remember where I read it first). Something to think about.

Why is that a juxtaposition? Maybe one of the results of a lack of general life skills is increased stress. A serious skill I see many people my age lack is the ability to cope with frustration. The actual decrease in purchasing power experienced by everyone except the super-rich sure doesn't help people feel less frustrated, though. Funny. More and more focus and pressure on being successful and productive, and people can afford less and less...

At the risk of turning Monte's beer-inspired, mid-life crisis thread into one of my pretentious faux-intellectual debates, I'm going to suggest that it is in fact the opposite. What is (or was) considered counter-culture has actually won the battle vs actual culture and subtly but surely replaced it. Democratization and the tearing down of barriers between cultured and uncultured, between superior and inferior, between masculine and femenine have resulted in a status quo where conformity with being an object dedicated to feeding the consumerist engine is the only "culture" we have. If, on the other hand, you were simply referring to the availability of non-mainstream and contrarian intellectual produce... well. Just dig deeper, because it's there. Considering the suicide rates among vets, you can count me out. Besides, Monte, old boy, advances in drone tech mean that in ten, twenty years wars will be fought 100% from a desk in 9-to-5 shifts. I have nothing but good things to say about universal compulsory military service, however, the more I consider it. Among other things because it would make people more conscious and less willing to support capricious wars.

Both of those options seem the same. You really need to post more. @BruceVC: Not sure how that relates to what I said. Homeboy is a homophobic douche and doesn't mind being vocal about it. That's the only difference between him and other politicians at home and abroad that are also homophobic/xenophobic/elitist capitalist douches but simply coat their words (and their legislative initiatives) with a layer of politically correct vaseline before ramming them up society's ass. Case in point, the Kansas bill I linked in the other post. Fun times, man.

Looks that way. I'd say calling Fry an idol is a bit of a stretch, though—but there are other examples. There's an interesting book by Vargas Llosa, "La civilización del espectáculo" ("The showbiz civilization") that goes at length about this. Not sure it's been translated, though. I wonder, however. Why is Fry going to Russia when there's plenty of fun to be had at home, with, for instance, the anti-gay segregation bill in Kansas?