213374U

That's not a fault with representative democracy, or any other configuration you can think of - it's a "fault" with human nature. But defining such a basic and prevalent trait as a fault -and therefore suggesting that public servants be free from it- is a specious exercise of applying Judeo-Christian moral tenets instead of reason. Of course politicians are self-interested. If only because working for the community results in a better world for themselves. That does not mean they are incapable of being good managers. The fairness question is one of balance. When whoever's at the helm becomes more trouble than he's worth, it's time for him to go. That's the chief advantage of democracy over autocratic regimes, on paper. A good king is the best thing, a bad king is the worst. But you can't vote kings out of office. In a sense democracy is the result of the realization that humans beings are unfit to rule over human beings, and therefore assurances are needed that nobody will hold too much power for too long. Unfortunately the latter doesn't follow from the former. During WWII, thousands of Japanese Americans were interned in camps for no other reason than their Japanese ancestry. Whether this was necessary or not is irrelevant, the fact that it was an overt violation of the constitutional rights of those people is not. However, those who at the time held the power to overturn that decision chose not to do so. The general public doesn't need to know everything, and knowing everything doesn't in fact protect the general public.

I'm fairly sure I didn't have that bug. Saving the spaceport meant that a bunch of people got killed, but long-term viability of the colony was preserved etc. so the consequences are pretty much in your face as well. I have a game in which I haven't completed this assignment yet, so I'll check anyway and get back to you. I very much liked the concept of the quest and the dilemma presented, but not HOW it was presented. "Yeah, so we launch a bunch of missiles, but we may or may not be able to transmit self-destruct codes to them." Also, either the missiles don't travel at FTL speeds (which means the Normandy should be able to intercept them anyway), or they would reach their targets in seconds, again invalidating the premise of the mission. A pity when a good narrative idea gets butchered by lazy writing/design. RE Bio DLC. Yes, they have shown that they are capable of doing very good things (I haven't played LotSB myself but critical acclaim is pretty uniform) with DLC, so it's all the more jarring that they invest any effort on this sort of thing. Still, I'm hopeful it won't be just disco retextures for armor and 80's shades this time around.

Maybe. But there's a difference between not backing and actively standing against. Egypt isn't a secular state, so there may not be such a great drive to prevent the MB from attaining power, within the army. In any case, ****.

That's the grand deception in universal suffrage - it's implicit that every citizen with a right to vote is also capable of independent, critical thinking. In any case, the state cannot use a real or perceived mass manipulation of opinion orchestrated by media outlets as an excuse to control the flow of information; while being a complete tool isn't illegal, lying in a Congress hearing most definitely is. Interesting how both are deeply subversive of the principles of democracy, yet only the one that applies to public servants is generally perceived as harmful. However, the sort of paternalist mindset that concedes that it's fine to subreptitiously override the law of the land whenever whoever's in charge feels "it's for the best" is not only deeply at odds with the idea of universal human rights, but also unfortunately closer to the establishment of authoritarianisms both abroad and at home, than it is to a true democratic spirit. So it seems that ivory tower dissertations, at least as far as moral and political philosophy goes, have once again fallen short in the face of crude facts.

Yeah, there's no way in hell you'd buy their game... because it's a free game.

Don't take my word for it, there's a bunch of tech "support" forums in the Bio boards, go take a look. The game does run smoothly for the most part and for most people, but stuff like crashes caused by rearranging the hotbar is pretty bad. And you're probably right about artists doing most of the work here, but there's graphics-related issues too, like missing textures and "ghosting" (most obvious during the scene with Garrus and Sidonis), clipping, etc. The thing is, cosmetic changes like alternate appearance packs are precisely the kind of thing the community usually does. For some reason, someone chose to make things difficult for modders with ME2, to the extent that repackaging models or textures for use with the game is still not possible one year after release. So it's looking more and more like the idea is to sell separately a feature that was present in ME1 but removed - the inventory system, while at the same time keeping the proliferation of content that doesn't directly generate revenues to a minimum. Funny, because Horse Armor has become synonymous with DLC rip-off, but Beth at least released a toolset for Oblivion.

Yep. From Charge fizzling way too often, to the camera being locked in place, and issues with videos and single core CPUs. You mean to imply that planning, designing, executing and releasing DLC is a task in which exclusively character artists are involved? Interesting theory.

Aaand the next ME2 DLC is... Alternate Appearance Pack 2! Proper armor and vacuum gear for NPCs that currently dive into firefights in spandex suits? An actual armor customization system for NPCs? Who knows! My money is on more stupid ****, like turning Jack into Geordi Laforge. I know, I know. "If you don't like it, don't buy it", and that's a valid point. But that's dev man-hours that go into creating useless fluff instead of actual content, or you know, bugfixing. Sigh.

Sounds pretty interesting. Is it equivalent (or at least conducive) to any sort of standard education? How good is one's professional outlook after completing that and getting a few years of experience under your belt?

People are hypocritical, cowardly and mean-spirited! News at 11. Pretty much. The permanent and fundamentally impersonal nature of online communication means that Internet discussions can continue for far longer and get much uglier in the process than traditional exchanges. Where the latter would end in a fisticuffs -or an "agreement to disagree" to avoid that- the former can continue to the point where actual arguments are irrelevant and only personal insults are thrown back and forth for days on end - which may or may not be entertaining in and of itself, depending on tastes. In my opinion, an etiquette born of and evolved from contact with physical people doesn't quite cut it in the online -and international- channel, but I guess the 4chan alternative, amusing though it may be, isn't much better. That said, one of the things that I've grown to like from these boards is the moderation -despite the fact that I've been on the business end of the mods' bat more than once- because of the personal, friendly and generally hands-off approach they take. So, thanks for your patience; I guess you guys got the right idea, at least for the scope of these forums.

So because maximum effectiveness can't be realistically achieved, you shouldn't aim for that? Is that an excuse to implement a measure that could potentially have further negative effects on the warfighting ability of certain units? And no, it's not speculation. It's a well documented fact that females get pregnant while males do not. The protective instinct that males have towards females is not speculation either. But let's assume for a moment that the psychological effects are at present unexplored (which they aren't - you might argue that evidence available in cases where it's been allowed is insufficient or anecdotal, but there aren't any statistical studies on the effects caused by women serving in infantry regiments). If in the future they were shown to be grounded in fact... who's going to see to it that the reform is repealed? That would pretty much be a career-ending move for any politician, given the climate of gender fundamentalism we live in. Yes, because that's how, among other things, Occupational Specialties are assigned. Someone with an artillery specialty isn't going to see the same kind of action as an infantry soldier in the 75th Rangers, so they get different, specific training. Not everyone in the military is an infantryman, just like not every infantryman has a SF tab. They may get shot, but then again, journalists, NGO workers and pretty much anyone else in a warzone is liable to, and often is, blown to pieces. That does not mean they had a combat role. Funny, because physical ability is usually quite low on the concerns list for this issue, assuming it's mentioned at all. Because basic infantry duty isn't something that demands of soldiers much more than a basic level of physical fitness, and most women should be able to make the cut, I think, provided they have the right mindset (something which applies to men as well).

Monte's spot on. There can be no compromise, as there is no effectiveness that is acceptable for a military unit below the degree of "maximum effectiveness". If allowing women into units likely to be deployed on frontline combat duty or similar decreases -or allows for the possibility that it may decrease- combat readiness and performance, but women are still allowed in, that's no compromise, that's a doctrinal blunder on the basis of a fallacy - that gender equality means that there are no differences between men and women.

^Well, you must have some interesting drinking partners, then. Because nobody I know could give me a run-down on the Iranian Assembly of Experts, the Dreyse Needle Gun and tensor analysis, and only a few could do it on *one* of these topics. Further, article evolution is something that traditional media can't support by definition. I'm sure there's plenty of examples, but take a look at the talk pages for the entropy article for instance to get an idea of the kind of collaborative efforts that are involved in the construction of some pages; there's some great stuff in there, from people that obviously know what they are talking about. I just pulled up some of my old physics books and some of the stuff discussed there -that later made it to the article- is by no means "the common man's understanding". Vandalism and POV pushing will always be a problem because of the way WP was conceived, but I think the benefits outweigh by far the disadvantages of the system. As always, "viewer discretion is advised", but there is just no substitute for that at. As for Jimbo's antics, I don't know. I don't think he has the power to impose any changes on the Wiki anymore, only to veto stuff... but I could be wrong. WP drama is a genre in its own right.

That's funny, because that's at least twice that you have commented on me instead of what I actually said. Please, point to me where I said or implied that you have no right to an opinion or that you should abandon it and embrace whatever I tell you to? That's right, you can't - so snarky remarks on how "I'm arrogant" or insinuations that my opinion has no value because I'm not an Egyptian Copt will have to do, right? But you know, what baffled me the most is how quick you are to assume that anyone who expresses an opinion contrary to your own must be doing so out of a desire to "be contrary". Of course! It's the great Thorton_AP's opinion, so if anyone disagrees there must be an ulterior motive for it, so diaphanous and razor-sharp his reasonings and conclusions are! And they say I'm a narcissist...

Butcher Bay is all about stealth and counters. The game looks like a FPS, but this is misleading because for most of the game you will not have a firearm or using one is more trouble than it's worth. Learn to counter reliably and fights become much more manageable. One of the things I like the most about that game is how deadly combat is - two shotgun blasts or a few stabs and it's game over, and making a pig blow his head off with his own gun is immensely satisfying. However, the devs took the lame route with Dark Athena, by making bosses immune to melee counters (including the ones in the Butcher Bay portion) and giving them an insta-counter ability in turn. Level design was also simplified so that in most cases, stealth is not a viable strategy unless you are willing to reload an unreasonable amount of times, which means that shooting from cover is the only way to progress. Easily the worst of the two games. However, Vin's voice makes it all right.

I'm not sure what you mean about it "no longer being at all credible", but to me that's just a convenient tactic used in e-fights when one is proven wrong by a Wikipedia link. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html Wikipedia obviously does not replace a formal education and is not meant to be a valid reference for grad-level works and above. But then again, what encyclopedia is? However, to discount it out of hand just because "anyone can edit it" is unfair too. There are policies enforced by sysops and bureaucrats to prevent WP from becoming a repository of lies and agendas. And even if you are feeling especially paranoid and refuse to acknowledge that, it's still a very good place to go hunting for references to third party sites, whose credibility may be easier to evaluate.

Even if there was something inherently wrong with that, it's not really as clear cut as you make it. http://s3.amazonaws.com/haiti_production/a..._5_original.pdf ^In the context of a global economic crisis, I'd say that is quite a lot of money to give away.

They must have been some hardasses alright. But as I said, I never met any really tough female infantry soldier. Admittedly, there were *no* women in any combat-ready positions that I saw, so maybe it's an army doctrine thing, rather than one of ability. I see what you did there, btw.

Yep. And I don't have a medical waiver so I'd rather not be blown to bits in some Maghrebi ****hole either, but my personal preferences don't matter much. Not as easy as directing your argument at me instead of my points!

I don't think I've heard anyone actually defend the idea that it's possible to spot crazies at a glance - even if the idea is subliminally advanced as you suggest. But even if it were, it wouldn't be much use as most crazies aren't necessarily violent, and a good portion of convicted violent criminals aren't actually messed in the head. Throw in "momentary madness" mitigating circumstances and, heh... And while it's true that lighting and positioning in mugshots certainly don't help you look pretty, the only lighting that could help with that face is... none at all. *rimshot* lol... it's like something straight out of a textbook. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_...R_.3D_301.81.29 facepalm.jpg Good thing they don't hand out psychiatry licenses based solely on Wikipedia usage skill... in which case, you'd still fail. By making such a blatantly narcissistic -so blatant it's caricaturesque- remark, I'm implicitly showcasing and exaggerating a negative trait of my personality (that I am, in fact, a conceited twit) - which is, ironically, self-deprecating humor. I apologize for assuming you'd be able to appreciate such sophistication and intricacy in comedy; I'll stick to "your mum" jokes from now on, to spare you further embarassment, "professor".

Oh, I don't know. This doesn't directly affect me, but I think I'd be pretty pissed if the same people who actively promote discrimination against the ethnic group I belong to staged a farce like this. And I'm cynical alright, but it's not cynicism when things aren't exactly looking up. That's not the point, and you know it. Progress tends to kill people, and Islam is one revolution behind the times.

Two, out of how many? Because I've been in some "nice" outfits (~60-70% had already dropped when I called it quits myself - and I wasn't the last) and met none. Maybe it's just my luck... or English women are much tougher.

^Yeah, both extremes are nonsensical, I think. You can't tell everything about a person just by looking at them, but it's pretty silly to think that you can't get any useful information about someone from their physique, the way they dress and groom themselves, etc. Interesting theory, but I've never met anyone who admitted to being obsessed. And your inclination to discuss me over my points or the topic (something of which this isn't the first occurrence) speaks by itself. Can't say I blame you, though. It's perfectly natural to be obsessed with me. But enough about me, let's talk about me.

Well, because he did go on a killing spree and he's an ugly, creepy assdouche pondering why women want nothing with him. His unnatural (read: fugly) looks are almost as obvious as your obsession with me, so I thought I'd just put into words what comes to mind when you look at his pic. So sue me. That's your problem, then. I don't particularly condemn "lookism", and it's arguably one of the most harmless -isms (hello, communism - we need an icon for that). I know I try to do what I can with my ugly mug because I know that regardless of social trends, looks count. Always have, always will. Well, eager as you are to point out the fallacies in people's arguments, you sure are quick to attack someone's credibility in order to bypass addressing the points he makes. Care to try again?