213374U

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?

Guilty as charged, Your Honor! Yeah, mocking people based on appearance is quite fun, if not always "safe". You should try it sometime, maybe when you stop taking yourself so seriously and lording over peeps. (; Thing is, most members of the Ugly Club don't go around shooting up random public servants and, you know, cheating at online games (!), so spare me. Prickface here deserves no respect from me.

Okay, so like, I think I might have a hypothesis here: Probably being an angry crank with terrible grammar doesn't help either. Yeah, life can be cruel like that. I mean, I'm no Adonis... but I do have eyebrows. Good thing that 99% of all angry basement-dwelling virgins don't have what it takes to turn their online fantasies into actual deeds, otherwise we'd be in some serious ****. Also: Tea Party theories about how this was a leftist loony trying to make them look bad are fun stuff.

I'll see your "real change" and raise you "the more things change, the more they stay the same".

That is fantastic. Thank you for posting it, my entire outlook on mankind has brightened Please tell me you're being sarcastic. Please. So this one obviously staged digital feel-good show somehow changes everything? From the rampant discrimination with regards to access to civil service Copts face in Egypt to Pakistan's efforts towards getting "blasphemy" to be criminalised worldwide? From cartoon-motivated murder to Turkey's ruling party's efforts to undermine secularism in the country? All of that and so much more, automagically swept under the rug because Mubarak's whelps led a mock unity demonstration. Quaint how "non-partisan" (even if laudably "fighting radical right-wing agenda") media are so taken in by empty words and PR fluff. Ah, my bad. This must be Change.

We don't care if you're going through a mid-30s crisis or just can't get it up anymore, chump. This ain't your therapy group. Try Facebook, maybe? (;

tl;dr Three short paragraphs is "too long" a read for you? Really? Or were you just trying to be cool again by posting something you saw on Facebook but actually have no idea what it means? edit: I'm thinking that the fact that you think that reading half a page is too much effort explains a lot, so thanks. I couldn't ever ridicule you nearly as well as you do that yourself. Good job!

If you think that right-wing = nazi, you either don't know what right-wing means, or don't know who the nazis were. Either way, you are only making it evident that your bigotry is only surpassed by your ignorance. Go read more on the Nazis and their policies. No, not on Facebook. If you can't conceive a "left-wing" extremist ethno-nationalist political movement, then I'm afraid you aren't simply lacking imagination and intelligence, no -- you are also terribly uninformed. Go read on the Basque independence movement, and delight yourself in their mind-boggling attempts to assert an ethnically-rooted self-determination right based on... a greater presence of RH- in "true" Basques, compared to the rest of the population. That's right up there with phrenology, if you ask me. But then, those are not the only ways in which you've demonstrated your dimwittedness, no. You are also quite easily taken in by tendentious interpretations of statistics. Six attacks may mean very little or quite a lot depending on how many people are killed. This is relevant in the sense that "traditional" separatist and right/left wing extremist attacks are usually in a much smaller scale than Islamic terrorist attacks. For reference, the worst attack perpetrated by Basque terrorists killed 21 in a mall in Barcelona, in 1987. The 2004 Madrid attacks killed 191. The most vicious (R)IRA action recorded killed 29 in Omagh, in 1998, in contraposition to the 270 dead from the Pan Am 747 jet blown out of the sky in 1988. If you don't want to count that as Islamic terrorism, then the 2005 London rush hour bus bombs still ranks higher than anything done by domestic terrorists, at 52 victims. So yes, Islamic terrorism is, in fact, worse than the other sorts. This is by far the best part of your post. When presented with data that doesn't support your preconceptions and monochrome vision of the world, then the automatic conclusion is that the data must be wrong. That's some really sophisticated reasoning, chum. You were right, a badly hidden agenda is not behind your inane comments -- you obviously aren't smart enough to have one. You are nothing more than a loud-mouthed tool.

Funny, because the EUROPOL report does not specify a political colour for attacks categorised as "Separatist" - you'd know this if you had actually read the reports, instead of regurgitating something you read on the net's premier news outlet: Facebook. Funny, too, that it would be you to make such a "mistake". I know, I know; you were betrayed by your subconscious, is all - no hard feelings. But I think it's necessary to clarify a few facts. For starters, the overwhelming majority of such attacks were carried out in France or Spain. And here's a little tidbit you may find interesting: the Basque and Corsican independence movements to which the armed clandestine groups responsible for those attacks are linked (or outright belong) are, guess what, left-wing. In the case of the Basque separatists, which are responsible for most, if not all attacks which resulted in deaths, they have gone so far as calling themselves "Communist Party of the Basque Lands", in a thankfully failed attempt to sidestep a previous ban to stand for election at the municipal level. Not that it matters though, as for these thugs, "ideology" is just an excuse to keep running their criminal syndicates. Left or right, they will crush you if they can and you are in their way. I was just thinking how remarkable it is that ignorant comments have a way of coming back to bite you in the ass, don't you agree?

I hadn't heard anything about this. When was that? Do you have a link?

And just because I love to break the board's quote limit: Not quite. Maybe, maybe not. The EC actions didn't destroy MS, IE or their ability to compete. And also, you are apparently forgetting that Steamworks implementation does not necessarily mean Steam distribution, exclusive or otherwise, so the chances of an anti-trust package being passed against Valve affecting the viability of Steamworks and its business model are reduced even more.

Uh, no. If "opportunities to acquire the software in other ways still exist" but those opportunities still force you to deal with Steam... they don't really exist at all. Also, don't throw words like "irrelevant" around without being completely certain of their meaning. Being compared to Vol is not something to be proud of, in any case. Is there a point to this rambling, or...? I posted some of the obvious advantages for devs that the Steam-Steamworks combo offers. Because I'm not an inside source, you suggest that whatever I say is baseless and therefore not worth rebutting ("assumptions"). Please, stop with these flagrant sophisms and address my points instead of attacking my credibility. Uh, no. If anything, that was Mamoulian confusing Steam and Steamworks... and assuming that Mafia 2 would be Steam exclusive, which is false (though I did notice that you didn't bother to clear it up, either). However, I felt it was sufficiently clear he was referring to Steam as a distribution and control service and not Steamworks as an API -- because otherwise the anti-monopoly comment makes no sense (even if in fact almost all games using Steamworks work through Steam). But hey, obfuscating the point does work sometimes, right? I know it forced me to read a few pages back just to understand what the **** you were talking about. Congrats, you made me waste five minutes. Yay you. No, it's a special case for the reasons listed. Instead of trying to pick every little statement apart could you, you know, address the actual reasoning? Which is factually true. There are no alternatives to Steam for some games. Which is what I said. No, you made an invalid comparison, and I simply pointed out the reasons why it is invalid. It's called a rebuttal -- get used to it, this is how discussions work. On the other hand, misrepresenting the opponent and/or their points and then attacking the misrepresentation you built yourself is not a rebuttal, it's a textbook example of a straw man. Yeah, that's pretty cool and I'm really glad for you... but why don't you go back a few posts and answer the question of the justification for the mandatory installation of a software that is not necessary for the game to work or to protect IP rights? It is, as you admitted yourself, an opt-in service. This is the central issue we are discussing (no, really), and not why your small but lovely games dealer around the corner doesn't stock Eye of the Beholder anymore. No. Note that I haven't advocated the anti-trust measures taken against MS. There was a thread about it here, in Skeeter's I think, look it up. I felt it was unfair and retarded and I still do. Which means I think a similar action against Valve wouldn't be warranted. However, that doesn't stop me from despising Steam, and the fact that some games demand its use. All I want is control over the **** that's installed on my computer, control over the **** I pay a license for, and companies not infringing my rights so their profits are increased. If that hurts the options of developers, well, too bad. You know, I was thinking why this statement is so difficult to disprove in an absolute sense. And I reached the conclusion that it's because it's neither a reasoning nor a statement of facts; it's just an opinion. Digital distribution is a subset or segment of the gaming market, yes? Valve does hold a dominant position over this subset, yes? So, the question of whether it's relevant to examine if Valve does hold a dominant position over this segment is one of perspective, yes? However, a similar argument could be made that OS are a subset of "software", and therefore, it's irrelevant to look simply at OS when trying to establish whether MS was trying to establish a monopoly. O-kay. This is especially precious. Does this means we are to talk at length about your political views or Mom and Pop's dealer, because you happened to mention them to support your arguments in the course of the discussion? The point is that it's particularly obvious that those games don't need Steam to work or be delivered to the customer -- it's being installed for other reasons. This was brought up to support my stance on Valve's competition tactics and how Steam implementation is a product of those.

Oh please. We are specifically discussing digital distribution, not the gaming market in general. And I think that handling 70% of the deals in any market or venue does, in fact, constitute a dominant market position. http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=26158 Oh, but I don't need to ask them, it's plain for anyone to see. Steamworks is, after all, free (doesn't this sound familiar? At all?). And then there's also the other chief advantage: infringing on consumer rights, as Steam prevents second-hand sales. You can also use Steamworks but not Steam itself... only nobody seems to do this. I wonder why? What are we discussing, again? The effectiveness of Valve's business tactics, or their legitimacy? True. But GOG specializes in games that are no longer available through normal means, as you admit yourself. It's a special case, and for the games in GOG's catalog the "exclusivity" arises from the fact that they are rescuing games that the original publishers are no longer interested in keeping available. And there's also the fact that the way they provide the service is 100% less obtrusive.