213374U

article date: May 24, 2006 current date: June 13, 2016 post rating: perfect 5/7 I wouldn't expect Bruce to understand elementary statistics or arguments based on them, but failure to count along his fingers is a new low. It's little gems like this that leave little room for doubt that it's a troll account.

Nope

What? How does a mass shooting inspire you to buy a long gun? Unless you are also getting serious training to go along those new toys, they are likely to do you little good in a situation like this, and more than likely to make matters worse. I'm not against people taking self-defense seriously, but responsible, effective EDC is a much more serious commitment than what your knee-jerk reaction suggests, though I may be reading you wrong. Beyond that, yeah. I don't see how these kinds of occurrences could be better prevented, beyond perhaps a more robust early warning/counseling system for people with issues, and more research into the root causes of those issues. I fear that strict(er) gun control laws will just push people to use other means, and laws only affect law-abiding citizens anyway. Not like a bomb vest/pipe bomb is rocket surgery, and you can build one with off-the-shelf stuff.

"Malebonding"? Yeah, leave it to you to elevate lad culture to a sort of essential element of manhood. Nothing especially manly about kicking back with a beer in hand and trading lame **** jokes. I quit "malebonding" in my mid-20s because, frankly, it's boring as ****.

Finally got around to trying Dead State. Looks like crap and runs like crap. Wow. Good thing I'm not a graphics whore, I hope the gameplay is interesting at least; the setting is fairly generic.

So it's like ~1k XP for each $1 spent, right? I've accrued like 50k XP already, and it's only been 3 days. And there's still a bunch of newer games I'm mildly interested in, like Stasis and Age of Decadence. But there's also the older stuff I'm looking at like the SW bundle and VTMB because a lot of disks are missing or damaged, and I'm a lazy bum. I guess I should set a red line and make sure I don't spend more than %f obamas on this sale, or come next month I'm going to really hate myself.

Indeed. Good thing I've been working overtime...

Yes and no. With dual wielding one can reach 5 attacks per round with the Gauntlets of Extraordinary Specialization with the appropriate class and proficiency level but that limit can be overriden with Improved Haste or (Greater) Whirlwind Attack. As a fun excercise imagine what sort of enemies can stand against a Fighter/Mage with Mirror Image and Stoneskin while dual wielding Foebane under Improved Haste. Kind of bad for the employment rates of clerics. Outside of (Greater) Whirlwind attack, the most I've seen is 6 APR, which seems to be *another* cap. Neither the Gauntlets of Extraordinary Specialization, nor Belm or (Improved) Haste seem to override the 5 APR cap, but Oil of Speed does, oddly enough. This means that a level 13 Greatsword Grand Master fighter under both Improved Haste and Oil of Speed, with the Gauntlets is capped at 6 APR... just the same as if he were dual-wielding, Belm or otherwise. I play with Spell Revisions, so it's possible that this version of the spell does no longer overcome the 5 APR cap. The sort of enemies that can stand up to the F/M in your example are obviously those of mod encounters... such as aVENGER's Chosen of Cyric (ouch). A pity that BD went the stat inflation route with their LoB mode rather than including Stratagems AI or RR encounters. 83hp rats in Candlekeep? Count me out.

Monks suck in BG, because the class was designed with BG2-ToB in mind. They have worse AC and deal less damage than any other melee character, and even less than thieves because they can't backstab. It's an unarmed-focused class that is better off using a weapon until level 10 or so because their fists don't benefit from proficiency/style bonuses. And due to animation limitations, they can't even use quarterstaves. They had a discussion (before 1.3 IIRC) regarding these problems where they talked about creating an unarmed proficiency to fix some of the issues, as well as other changes (WIS bonus to AC, etc), but ultimately nothing came of it AFAIK. I hope they get around to fixing it at some point, because the current state of the class really warrants some baseline improvements. Archer dominates in BG1 and some parts of BG2, but later on some enemies were given innate resistance to missile damage because **** you, that's why. And even the best bows in BG2 are nothing to write home about, really.

Banks are corporations too, and they routinely take the money you give them and loan it away. They don't even need your permission to do that, because as soon as you make a deposit it's no longer your money, it's the bank's. Sure, the bank is now liable to you for the same amount, but it's not the same, and historical examples have illustrated this difference better than I could. Sure, you could put all your money under your mattress, but good luck paying for your internet, electricity, etc. I don't think that's feasible in this day and age unless you want to live like an Inuit. But if you do, what do you need money for, anyway. You can argue that fractional-reserve banking is only possible because the government allows it, but that's a kind of catch-all reasoning that can be used to blame pretty much anything on the state.

I guess it's important to know what version are you playing, and if you are using any mods. At level 7, warrior classes get 1/2 extra APR, and another 1/2 at level 13. Specialization, Mastery and High Mastery (2 to 4 pips) give you an extra half APR, so that puts you at 5/2. An off-hand weapon gives you a flat 1 extra APR with the off-hand. Problem is that in vanilla BG2 (but not BG1 or IWD), Grand Mastery only added +1 to damage. In BG2EE, the bonus was restored to what it should be, i.e. an extra attack and +1 damage. This puts a level 13 grand master fighter at 7/2 APR, 9/2 with an off-hand weapon. Not too shabby. Speed factor doesn't affect how many attacks you perform in a round, just how early in the round you get to swing. If you aren't playing the EE and even if you are not a fan of mods, I would recommend you at least install the Grand Mastery restoration. Now, you are right. Dual wielding is always superior for two reasons. First and most importantly, it allows you to wield two magical items rather than just one, and outside of Carsomyr, there are no two-handers that are good enough to make up for that. And second, the advantage that a bigger damage die brings to the table, large damage spikes (remember that some greatswords roll D12), is irrelevant in BG because without mods, 1dmg has the same chances of disrupting a spellcaster or causing morale failure than any other amount. It also doesn't help that vanilla two-handed style bonuses are rather laughable, and unless you are Sarevok, there is no Massive Damage. Whether katanas are good enough to specialize your kensai in also depends on whether you are playing the EEs. I found warhammers and axes to be pretty good choices as well, with a good selection throughout the saga.

Someone over at the BD forum made a mod that disallows dual class kensai, but also makes it work more in line with its own description: forcing it to specialize in one weapon that you choose at level 1, and preventing you from putting pips in any other proficiency. I thought it was a good way to rebalance it, but it didn't really sound... fun. Me, I'm more of a Berserker guy. But then that one is broken in its own way... Ask and ye shall receive! (EE-only, haven't tried it myself)

Low level kensai doesn't really have much of an edge over regular fighters, and they are decidedly at a disadvantage because no armor and you don't get good AC bracers until later on. Kagain is an excellent tank, but since there is no "threat" in the BG games to speak of, kensai requires a hell of a lot of micromanagement, more or less the way you described, because your "tanks" will not be able to reliably keep enemies from attacking other characters in melee range. Go in, put down the hurt, get out before they can strike back. Prioritise archers and especially mages, but keep in mind that even clerics can give you a run for your money one-on-one, if they can get some buffs off. It doesn't get better in BG2 either, which is why kensages are so popular. edit: best item for a kensai, bar none: Boots of Speed

Referring to the EU as an "authoritarian regime" is a bit of a stretch. Excessively bureaucratic, opaque, and a cesspool of special interests? Sure. But "authoritarian" is putting it right up there with Iran, which is, I guess, exactly the kind of histrionics you've been saying the debate is dominated by in the UK. And I'm not exactly the most pro-EU guy around. Regardless, the referendum isn't binding. I've been reading that "political realities" would "force" Cameron to go ahead and invoke art. 50 TEU to begin the process to take the UK out of the EU. But again, the referendum isn't binding, and it wouldn't be the first time a PM outright disregards a non-binding referendum (cf. Tsipras). So even in the -extremely- unlikely scenario that the Leave option wins out on the 23rd, I wouldn't count on the UK actually going anywhere...

Who cares about the democratic process when staying in the EU guarantees economic bliss if its 'recommendations' are followed to a T? something something freedom security something something neither

This mostly impacts Spanish workers in Gibraltar, but the problem is compounded by the fact that Gibraltar -like other British Overseas Territories- is a tax haven where they don't even pay VAT and unsurprisingly notoriously opaque in their fiscal and labor administrations. The last time border crossing restrictions were enacted, there was a fast track pass one could obtain to avoid these, but it was required that a passport/residence permit and work contract were presented. Out of ~7k Spaniards working in Gibraltar, less than 200 applied for the pass, because this forced them to declare earnings and pay taxes in Spain. Undoubtedly, this is yet another political tug-of-war. However, it's not a land grab they fear in Gibraltar. It's the very real possibility of no longer having their cake and eating it too. You'll forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the plight of tax evaders. Of course, there's also Andorra, which is another infamous tax haven. There is apparently no problem here despite it being in the spotlight as a result of some of the aforementioned corruption cases, mostly because it cannot be so easily made into a political weapon. Ugh.

Really. If anything, these pathetic antics actually reinforce Gibraltar's position. Just take a look at what happened with FIFA admitting Gibraltar as a full-fledged member and the EU vindicating Gibraltar's territorial water claims -- in violation of the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht. If Spain hadn't become (even more of) an international joke, both would have been decided otherwise, as had been the case up until now. You have to understand, the current (acting) government is under heavy attack, politically, but also judicially with several important corruption cases being investigated and some high-profile figures indicted and currently in prison. They desperately need to divert attention away from these issues, and pretty much anything goes. This is more an internal propaganda thing aimed at their die-hard voters than an actual declaration of intentions. Regarding Gibraltar itself, I wouldn't worry about it up until the time when Spain is ready to take Gibraltar back by force of arms, as that's all that matters in international affairs in the end (cf. Crimea). And even then, I doubt anyone in their right mind would actually want a conflict with the UK over that rock. Slapping that assclown Picardo across the face, though, might just make it all worthwhile... So yeah, not bloody likely.

If a cursory reading of the links someone posts is "researching", I guess I'm at least a JD now, since I actually read the submitted court document, right? Regarding unpaid work, I used the skills I acquired while earning my JD to determine that you cannot be "technically" not an employee, if you are doing work for someone else, and that someone is making money off of your work. http://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/whd/flsa/docs/volunteers.asp Apparently, minors under 14 also cannot be employed beyond babysitting, newspaper delivery, taking out the trash, etc. Whether "very young minors" means under 14 isn't made clear in the suit, though. And no, they don't meet the FLSA criteria for unpaid internships, either: https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs71.pdf Now, it is perfectly possible that the allegations are baseless, that the plaintiff will not be able to present sufficient evidence, or whatever, and the lawsuit will be thrown out, or ruled in favor of Valve. But her complaints go beyond "Help help, transphobia! Discrimination!". Hell, it's even possible that she is making the whole transphobia thing up to use against Valve. But if that's the case, how stupid can they be to fire her without objective, well documented reasons? More or less convenient than dismissing someone's complaints out of hand because you decided that the problem is actually something else entirely?

Okay, this is going to sound a little crazy, but bear with me for a second: read the news pieces. I know, right? An informed opinion? That's like, so 20th century. Actually the lawsuit isn't about "isms" -- the discrimination allegation is just one of eight different complaints, some of which have to do with Valve being clever about employee classification and tax fraud resulting from that. The plaintiff also argues that Valve was profiting from work done by unpaid minors. I know, not nearly as interesting as whatever you have come up with in your mind, but that doesn't mean it's without merit.

Location: Germany Seriously though, it's not uncommon for people to pay for the privilege of working, in hopes of being hired later. We have to outcompete the Chinese and Indians, you see.

This is fallacious, sorry. Again, "with this, therefore because of this". What you have in reality is the observation that most, if not all, societies that have survived long enough to leave records seem to present religious or spiritual practices of some sort. That's it, end of story. You cannot claim that it's a part of "human nature" simply because of that. I'm going to counter with an alternative explanation, which I'm sure you've heard before. If we accept that natural selection is not a mechanism restricted to living beings, it stands to reason that there exists a natural selection of societies, effected by cultural genes (memes, as per Dawkins). Hence, it's possible that religious practices confer some sort of competitive advantage to societies that adopt them, over those that do not. As a result, over time you would have more cultures with different religions but essentially similar practices, than cultures without. No appeals to romantic and vague notions of "human nature" needed when the much better understood natural selection will suffice. edit2: oh, you didn't say "human nature", you said "human condition". My bad, feel free to explain the difference. No, Byzantium wouldn't be Byzantium without the Orthodox Church, but it also wouldn't be Byzantium without the Paganism prevalent even after Constantine converted to Christianity, and it wouldn't be Byzantium without the incorporation of territories that had been previously part of the Macedonian empire, some of which were in turn part of the Persian empire before and therefore under its influence, and so on and so forth. Interestingly, there is the theory that the reason for initial persecution of Christianity in the Roman empire was due to concerns of infiltration by Zealots. That is, it's possible that what came to be the official religion of the state was in its inception influenced by the political aim of rebelling against that very state (lol). And, of course, let's not forget what Christianity draws from Judaism. The point I'm making is that claiming that there is a founding religion (or any other thing) you can clearly point at in a culture* is a simplification. About the Soviet Union comment... I have no idea what you're talking about. *also the point about the divides between one "culture" and its predecessors and successors existing clearly only in textbooks edit: they really need to fix the forum. I'm using Notepad++ to write posts up...

No, Emperor Stalin didn't choose Atheism "for the lulz", either. He did it because it gave him two extra hammers per tile, which he was going to need later on to build tons of Nuclears. Or rather, it happened as the result of a myriad factors, not the least among them the fact that ecclesiastical authorities in Russia had property to confiscate, and wielded influence that might threaten the Bolsheviks' already tenuous grip on power. So again, using your own reasoning, the Soviet "civilization" is an example of a civilization with no founding religion. Never mind that considering Soviet Russia as an entity separate from the rest of the history of Russia is meaningless outside of textbook compartmentalization... much like your artificial separation of Byzantium from preceding Roman (etc) culture and customs. Besides, you do realize that the Byzantine empire predates Justinian's laws regarding Christianity right? How can something come before that which it's supposedly based on? edit: dammit, production in Civ was shields, not hammers. My argument is invalid.

Well... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justinian_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis So... whatever is made by law to be the official state religion at a random point in its history, is now "the founding religion a civilization is based on"? That's exactly the kind of goalpost shifting I was alluding to -- if anyone thought I was being a tad too cynical, your post has invalidated any such objections. Even better, your own reasoning provides a counterexample to your theory in the shape of: This is hard to dispute. Acknowledging religious influence in the development of societies isn't quite the same as claiming that all civilizations are based on a founding religion, though. Maybe it's because I'm not a native speaker but putting it that way gives it... undue weight, in my opinion.

How can you disagree that there hasn't ever been any great civilization without a founding religion, if you don't even have a definition yourself of what "civilization" and "religion" is? He probably has definitions for both, but asking what others understand by each is a pre-emptive measure to stop the inevitable goalpost shifting that is bound to happen down the road. In fact, it has already happened: the original claim is "no civilization exists that isn't based on a founding religion". But in just a few posts it has already changed to "no civilization exists or develops in a religious or spiritual vacuum", i.e. with this therefore because of this. What was the religion the Byzantine culture was based on? The polytheism-ancestor worship of the Roman kingdom? Christianity? Whatever the ancient Romans may have inherited from the Etruscans? Heh. As long as people fear death and cannot explain <phenomenon>, religious/mystical explanations are going to appear. This doesn't mean cultures are based on religions any more than they are based on languages, agricultural techniques, or military doctrines.

Spot on. The guy's other actual reviews for big titles (TFA, Batman v. Superman) have ~350k views, with ~7-8k likes. His Ghostbusters "non-review"? >800k views, 48k likes. Lol, what? There may be other ways to get huge traffic spikes on your pop culture channel than appealing to the current 'SJW' controversy, but I don't know what those would be.