213374U

If you can't even boot up your system, that looks like a hardware fault, possibly the hard drive. Try checking the disk's connectors. Failing that, you could try booting from a different drive, if possible, and run a diagnostic on the faulty drive. Since this isn't really TOW related I'm also moving this to Skeeter's where it's more likely to be seen by our resident techies.

I'd love if Obs tried their hand at making Away Team 2, because the original wasn't great. Sadly it seems the license is consistently granted for the worst pitches (Trexels?) with good games being few and far between.

I can't say that I'm surprised that you'd think that pointing out that Norway is not Sweden, to let you hastily edit the post so that it's only slightly less embarrassing is "dumb". At this point, it's plain that it's simply another word you don't understand and throw around at random, like "clarify" and "evidence". The word you are looking for in this context is "pertinent", not dumb. I'm happy to keep explaining these things to you. You're welcome. Interesting theory. Let me bounce another one off of you. Perhaps seldom anyone is bothering to even read your posts, let alone reply, and that accounts for the lack of objections -- you are yelling into a void. The sparse replies that you do get, however, are almost universally in vehement disagreement. Consider that. It's a delicious example of the faulty reasoning of your original post as well. You are taking an absence of objections (absence of evidence) as evidence that "no one else had this problem" (evidence of absence). That's where you're fundamentally wrong. An absence of reported cases is not interchangeable with an absence of cases -- especially in the face of someone reporting a case. Later, you backpedaled to rewrite your opinion into being about "reported cases", which substantively changes the point you were making. Then yes, the deputy has strong evidence that there are no reported cases because no cases have been reported -- this is the tautology your revised opinion amounts to. But again as Zoraptor explained, it's weak evidence and not proof in any way shape or form that there are no cases. In short. You made a fundamental mistake. When called on it, you reformulated your opinion into an irrelevant truism. And for the last few posts you've been squirming and complaining that you're being "attacked" (perhaps another word for the list...) when all anyone is doing is point out glaring errors.

Funny. Is that "clarification" like the one about Scandinavian countries before? Because from where I'm standing, it looks more like clumsy goalpost shifting to cover a previous fail than actual clarifying, and only because you get called on it. So you tried to "clarify" with an irrelevant tautology, adding to the original blunder. Classic. Here's a tip. A "clarification" doesn't substantially change the meaning of one's point. It merely provides facts or context that may be uh, unclear in the original statement. Not necessary here, because you were, quite clearly, wrong on a fundamental level.

Rather, your inability to understand criticism of your points is evidence of you lacking understanding of what you are talking about. "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge."

Your original statement didn't specify reported cases, it simply said cases. Thus, you cannot have evidence that there are no cases broadly speaking, even though having no reported cases is evidence of there being no cases that have been reported, and also a tautology. The extent to which an absence of reported cases is evidence of an absence of cases is exceedingly limited, in part for what Zoraptor explained. Someone self-reporting a case based on a medical examination immediately invalidates "evidence" that there are no reported cases by virtue of itself being a report of a case. And I say this as someone that's concerned about the problems with entities playing fast and loose with numbers in this situation. There are serious questions regarding how deaths are being attributed to coronavirus, where what you have is comorbidity, or simply excess mortality YoY.

You cannot have evidence that there are no cases.

Hey, if it works domestically, you know it can work as a basis for foreign policy. America: at least we are not China!

Little to do with "socialism" per se. Marx didn't really bother with agriculture, so "marxists" were kind of flying by the seat of their pants. The Chinese saw agricultural cooperatives fail, so they scrapped them after Mao kicked the bucket. The Soviets didn't, compounding other problems such as relative scarcity of quality farming land, inadequate and outdated technology and, yes, stupid ass planning decisions such as the diversion of rivers that led to the Aral Sea depletion. I'm sure you'll agree that sadly, socialists do not have a monopoly on poor planning. In an ironic turn of events, traditional small family farms in the US are failing at an alarming rate. They are giving way to huge corporate farmers that benefit from economies of scale and tech -- not even cooperatives, just wageslaves and computers. I don't think anyone would argue that socialism is to blame for this either. Sure, Americans aren't at any risk of starving as a result, but neither were the Soviets. The ever-increasing Soviet grain imports were, among other things, to avoid slaughtering livestock during the lows in their cyclic agriculture yields -which increased dairies and meat consumption- and were paid for with the proceeds from exporting other commodities.

Kinda mixing up your Nordic countries there bud.

Doesn't seem to work so well for Kim's Land. The amount of ass-kissers, lickspittles and assorted brown-nosers seems rather tied to economic power. In spite of Trump's seemingly dogged efforts to alienate allies and partners, the US still has its fair share, and that isn't likely to change soon. Money talks, bull**** Constitutional checks and balances walks.

Harvard Study Says We Could Need Bouts of Social Distancing Until 2022

Yes, BBCode is something that forum users and admins have been asking the IPB developer for since they dropped it for 4.0. Apparently if you want it you are part of a dwindling and backward segment of web-dwellers. So, "OK forum-goer". Regardless, you can still generate multiple quotes of the same post by clicking on the quote post button as many times as you need and then trim around the quoted part, if that's what you want. It can work but it's been massively oversold, just as with about everything else pushed by any politician ever. There are serious concerns over scalability (generally low capacity factor, geographical constraints, etc). A grid centered on renewable sources would also depend on power storage technologies that do not exist commercially yet. The economic hurdles are immense as well and there are serious doubts that transitioning to 100% renewable (where, anyway?) within 30 years is achievable. In the oft-cited example of Germany, the term "energy" is often used in headlines and articles where "electricity" is meant, which is fallacious because it glosses over trucks and boilers not running on electric power, as you mentioned. The distinction between "clean" and "renewable" is important as well. There's no disputing that renewables are better from a climate perspective, but solar panels alone are estimated to generate anywhere between 35 and 70 million tons of waste panels with current adoption rates by 2050. It'd be difficult and expensive to recycle that. Something similar with wind power (estimated ~40 million tons by 2050) and blades being notoriously hard to recycle. Geothermal is possibly the closest to truly "green" there is, but it's not available everywhere, same with hydroelectric, and would not be able to cover the demand in full. Especially considering that demand keeps increasing, which points to the real, underlying problem, imo. It's a one-size-fits-all solution that would require massive economic resources being funneled into it and a laser focus on it from a political perspective. In this day and age, I don't think either is in ample supply. Fusion's much cooler anyway. And there are no waterfalls or geothermal wells in space.

Hmm, not that I know of. You may be thinking of WC Saga, which is based on the Freespace 2 engine. I haven't played that one. Yeah, XWA was pretty great. I rather enjoyed the change of pace flying a Corellian transport in the family missions. An imperial campaign that went back to the sort of gameplay of the first campaigns in TIE Fighter with some Assault/Escort Transport action here and there would have been cool. I also remember playing a mod that ported the first seven tours of duty from TIE Fighter to the XWA engine, but I can't seem to find it anymore.

I liked WC3 story-wise, but I hated the style changes to the Kilrathi. I'd recommend Standoff, if you're looking to scratch that Kilrathi war itch. A WC2-era fan game based on the WCP engine that featured a whole new campaign away from Bluehair, including branching paths depending on your performance like in WC1.

Disable Javascript. Boom! Now you know how to avoid most annoying features in about 95% of websites. It also breaks others and may stall your browser from time to time, but hey... (seriously, who the hell makes a paywall that can be sidestepped by disabling js...)

Agreed. This is in the context of an article being piled on for "not listening to evidence", though. Normally I wouldn't have a problem with the torygraph being laughed at, but I despise social media even more. A big problem currently is that the scientists' recommendations are based on incomplete data. Parameters such as IFR keep getting revised almost weekly and so do the predictions based on them. But also how the virus actually spreads and kills. To what extent are the models considering things like the age-structure of the population and antibiotic resistance rates, which are now believed to be strong factors in the high death toll in Italy? A lot of the papers floating around haven't been peer-reviewed yet simply because there hasn't been time. Acknowledging the limitations of the predictive tools is important when using them to inform policy. There's also the economic realities to deal with, whether we like it or not. Total lockdown in Wuhan could have been enforced indefinitely because the rest of the country kept running. As you say, it's an unprecedented situation, and the idea that lockdown can be maintained nation-wide for 12-18 months has a huge question mark over it. UK has lost 2 million jobs thus far -- it's unknown how many here because there's a temporary ban on layoffs but that's only going to delay it. There is legislation in the works to have the state pay a living subsidy to about 9 million people, possibly indefinitely. That is with a severely damaged productive fabric. If the money stops flowing in from the EU, the state will be bankrupt... which may in turn make suppression fail. I wouldn't expect an epidemiologist to be concerned with any of this, and yet the impact on any proposed measures is inescapable. I'm pretty confident that there is no "exit strategy" to speak of, at least here. Which is why I was saying that passing the buck isn't going to cut it and people need to realize that. Throwing scientists under the bus for what are really political failures if/when they happen is a threat to science as well. Well, that's what the article talked about.

What's objectionable about the title or the tone of the article? If you quote specific paragraphs you have an issue with, perhaps we can discuss that. Because it looks more like another twatter fail to me, than a problem with the piece itself. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty to criticize regarding op-eds in the media being passed off as "expert" testimony. Social media in general are also like that, except with likes whoring, and even worse snr with utter idiocy going viral. Disagree. An epidemiologist is going to provide figures and predictions taken from a mathematical model that works along the lines of (if [parameter] then [output]) because they are literally a bunch of differential equations and certain assumptions about infection dynamics. By itself, that isn't enough to become policy, and an epidemiologist prescribing anything beyond "wash your hands, use face masks" as policy is overstepping. Public health policies are multi-faceted matters that require a multidisciplinary approach. I'm not just making this up, it's what epidemiologists informing the UK's policy noted: "Last, while experience in China and now South Korea show that suppression is possible in the short term, it remains to be seen whether it is possible long-term, and whether the social and economic costs of the interventions adopted thus far can be reduced." "We do not consider the ethical or economic implications of either strategy here, except to note that there is no easy policy decision to be made. Suppression, while successful to date in China and South Korea, carries with it enormous social and economic costs which may themselves have significant impact on health and well-being in the short and longer-term. " To put it differently: we are absolving politicians of their responsibility to come up with workable solutions that go beyond "do exactly what it says in this technical report" and **** the consequences because the experts said so. We don't elect scientists, and we don't hold scientists accountable. Passing the buck is unacceptable. Now that **** has hit the fan, people are turning to "science" like they used to turn to religion. Anything to stave off uncertainty, I guess.

Yeah, weird. On Epic (the browser I use by default) and IE, it fails. On Opera it works.

This is what I'm seeing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I sincerely hope you're stumped rather than stomped. I think Steam made it so owned games information is not freely available so they can sell that data instead of giving it away to everyone. Meaning that posting your profile doesn't do much. In any case, Dragon Age Origins and the Mass Effects seem missing from your mentions. Those would be the obvious starting suggestions, and they should be dirt cheap by now as well. For platformers, 20xx is a roguelike platformer that's an obvious ripoff of Megaman, so that may or may not be up your alley. It's coop, so it has that going for it too.

Have you read the article? It says literally nothing about not trusting scientific evidence and there is not a single reference to conspiracy theories. Rather, it's about the elephant in the room: we supposedly pay politicians to make complex decisions that are affected by different factors and with ramifications that are both important and difficult to estimate -- the exact opposite of the experimental conditions in which scientists are used to working. By leaving policy‑making to epidemiologists, we are simply pretending that the consequences of the measures undertaken to fight the pandemic don't exist, or don't matter. That's a rather two‑dimensional view to take, and frankly, I'd hope -if not expect- that government officials know better. It is not the experts' job to detail an exit strategy -- it is the executive's, based on recommendations and data provided by experts from different fields. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/04/09/cannot-leave-lockdown-exit-strategy-experts/

Here you go. In other news, some ****bag put a used paper tissue in my mailbox the other day. Wish I knew who they are, so we could have an enriching and completely civilized exchange of opinions, up close. That's the real Spain you won't see in YT.

Is the coronavirus airborne? Experts can’t agree Also, there's talk (in Germany) of evaluating the use of quick serological tests as a basis to issue an immunity passport to people who have recovered and so can no longer spread it -- being therefore exempt from confinement. This would in turn lessen the economic impact of lockdown and allow for early recovery. The sky's the limit with a well-funded and relatively efficient bureaucracy that isn't in equal parts infiltrated by ****-eating political activists and impeded by gross government incompetence, I guess.

No, you are technically not obligated to answer cops' questions here, either. You do have to comply with a lawful order though -- and that's a constant anywhere there's cops. An order to identify yourself is in practice always lawful here. The crux is whether and how cops can lawfully demand to see some ID which is, indeed, a matter that's far from universal. Here, they can, and since they don't need a compelling reason to do so, it falls to the citizen to argue that they didn't need to. There has never been to my knowledge a case where cops were disciplined for unnecessarily demanding that a citizen identify themselves.