213374U

The numbers can deceive you, do not trust them. That's on the 1.5 mil dummy. According to that, you have Sorc/Sage doing ~1k less dps than Mara/Sent. I don't raid, but from what I understand, parsing on the dummy doesn't translate so well to boss fights, especially with encounter design favoring ranged over melee. I do PVP quite a bit on mara/sent and while there is nothing more satisfying than hitting an unsuspecting healer for ~50k in 4 GCD, I am also aware that such a thing happening is like the perfect storm. It's much harder to pull than a sorc/PT rotation, infinitely easier to counter (if you are interrupted during Gore/Precision say good-bye to your output), and it also depends on RNG for the procs. Sorc survivability and mobility are on a whole different league compared to mara, too. Even after they fixed Undying Rage. I don't know what the solution is, but I'm thinking that trying to have abilities do the same and behave equally in environments as dissimilar as PVE and PVP is a mistake. And, of course, class balance being what it is assuming balanced group compositions but then having no matchmaking for the vast majority of games (regs) is... interesting.

Ouch. With the 4.0 crafting overhaul, old schematics are somewhat irrelevant, and which skill crafts what has been reworked (for instance, Cybertech no longer produces armorings). Your old schematics, however, should all have been moved to the "archive" tab. You can no longer learn old schematics from the trainer, but you can still craft old items from the archive tab if you have learned the schematic before 4.0. Skills being reset is par for the course every time a major patch is applied. Training skills has been free for a while now, so it's more the inconvenience of having to hunt the class trainer down if you don't have a holo. Gear is completely irrelevant for companions now, their effectiveness depends on your Presence stat. The only thing whose stats they can take advantage of currently is the main hand barrel/hilt, and that's unintended (but not acknowledged as a bug, either). Good luck.

"In the context of the film" being key here. In 1977 Lucas wasn't sure the movie wouldn't be a total flop precluding any sequels so he needed to make it a self-contained story. Abrams had the benefit of knowing he'd blow the box office to kingdom come no matter how badly he did so sequels are *guaranteed*, giving him more leeway to leave stuff unexplained (and arguably nonsensical in the context of the film). Character development arcs are going to be paced differently simply because of that. Better, worse? Hard to say until we have a complete picture. I already agreed with you regarding Rey, but I think it's possible they can resolve these issues in retrospect, as TN said. The possible execution is a whole 'nother matter...

I don't know about that, but here is what a contract tester had to say about resources and the direction the game is headed: Of course, this is just one guy's perspective, so grain of salt, etc. Heh, I wish Alanschu was still around. And then, there's this. I'm not going to jump ship just yet, but it's hard to be hopeful.

Other than, you know, this being the second event in a row that they botch? I don't particularly care about the event itself, mind. But the level of unprofessionalism and contempt towards customers they've been displaying lately is... mindboggling. Maybe it's because you don't work in the service industry, but usually when you deliver a broken product, you either fix it, offer a refund, or if neither alternative is an option, you compensate the customer otherwise. Really, the event is just the proverbial straw. Have you heard about the NiM loot "fix"? The myriad issues with class missions disappearing and preventing progress? Rollbacks causing CC losses which they can't refund because reasons? Missing companions? That's just off the top of my head. Apparently, at Bioware Austin, holidays begin on october. Man, I wish I worked there.

Yep. The facepalm is strong with Rey in this regard, and I had exactly the same feeling. However: Pompey was awarded his first triumph at 26, and Alexander had conquered most of the known world before he kicked the bucket at 33. While the bad guys in TFA do look and sound like a bunch of punks trying way too hard, being over 50 isn't necessarily a requirement to hold senior military rank and do it competently. Also, does Harrison Ford have arthritis or something? Bad posture and moves... awkwardly.

Nice find.

That hasn't worked out so well in the past. Unless what you mean is more along these lines.

Uh-huh. Not good enough, sorry. If you aren't helping out all day everyday, you have no right to raise a point. It's not that I believe this, of course, but that's pretty much the logic you are using with the tired "he likes immigrants, he can take them all in his house instead of speaking up" nonsense. Also, I have serious doubts that you actually know anything about the author(s) considering that you can barely spell the name right. Feel free to prove me wrong. They are dumb, but you aren't exactly raising the level of the debate, yourself.

Yeah, only a poorly thought-out post that you composed in less than five minutes cannot really compare to a mural and even in this day and age would not be considered art by anyone. Feel free to go draw up a rape scene involving refugees on the side of the town hall, though. And hey: if you care so much about the victims of such rapes, why aren't you devoting every single free second of your time to help rape victims? There are volunteer organizations for this as well as career choices you can make to help people, you know. (see what I did there?) But it isn't about people at all, but rather your own issues, yes? Maybe get help? It's clear that venting is just not doing the trick. Good luck.

Another great Guandolo post, right? "Evidence exists that the more religious a terrorist is, the more likely he is to be a religious terrorist". Because this absolutely flies in the face of the millions of peaceful Muslims who are deeply religious and NOT violent. But they don't count, because Guandolo here is redefining "religious" to mean "willing to commit violence in the name of religion". Circular logic, meet WoD. WoD, this is circular logic. What do you mean you were already acquainted?

That's fine, I suppose. But it has absolutely nothing to do with: Which seemed to be a denunciation of the message rather than the execution, which you are now criticizing. Which one is it?

Hmm. But wouldn't "doing it right" amount to large-scale reconditioning? Yep. If you have a message that rings true to our base emotions, then anything's is possible; The good and the bad. So what's left is only the moral component on what the message is to serve. So, in this case, it's a bad attempt to look good (treat people well, we are the same) when the message used with in euphemism which is inheritly unequal (a talbot is not the same as ferrari, nor the status of having one). So therefore it is a, lazy, untrustworthy and unconvincing piece of video. Which leads bad moral premise, which leads it to be another lofty ideal by people who secretly wishes to be the aristocrats that they are fighting against. This guy mastered these things to such a degree that we can thank him for all modern advertising, focus groups before and during election cycles, marketing, you name it, if you're more interested in what i am getting at. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays I have, like, no idea what you just said. And in light of your increasingly disjointed posting, I'm kinda scared to ask. Regardless, I don't see how Bernays is relevant. Hating (if that's what you're doing, it's hard to tell) on PR and propaganda is like hating on calculus or gunpowder. This stuff gets discovered/invented as time goes on and it's neither good nor bad, intrinsically. Not to mention that none of that is the point of the video, as others have repeatedly pointed out...

Hmm. But wouldn't "doing it right" amount to large-scale reconditioning?

Maybe think less in terms of "grand social engineering" and more in terms of "basic empathy". You might want to look that up, btw. Bah, why bother.

No offense, but that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at life, humanity, or just biology in general. Altruism is an inbuilt imperative for many species, including humans. Yeah, it's rather appalling how these reactionary, quasi-Randian outlooks are unfailingly based on... factually incorrect premises. On cooperation vs competition On DNA unfair bluh bluh On meritocracy Bonus series, because why the **** not (not directly related, fascinating nonetheless, free will mind over matter yadda yadda) These links have all appeared in these boards in one shape or another, btw. But really, it wouldn't be so bad if you guys just up and admitted that you live by "I got mine, **** you (because my grandaddy XYZ)". At least be honest, if nothing else, with yourselves.

Not just for Assassins. There was a 1v1 tournament this weekend on TRE; while there was room for some of that crazy PT/VG burst everyone is talking about (ouch), the winner was once again a stealther, and not an Assassin, either. Link if anyone is interested. Of course with the devs being average from what I hear and Musco not even playing the game anymore, the odds of a serious effort to balance the game for both PVE and PVP are low.

Fair enough, I was wrong about the security sweep. I read an old news item that pointed to this case and misrepresented facts. Thing is, sadly I don't really need to make up hypothetical scenarios, when actual real life occurrences illustrate the point better. In this case, they were serving a warrant, "probable cause" being trace amounts of weed found in the trash. No previous criminal record, no history of violence. Funny that you mentioned me coming out of my boudoir brandishing a butter knife (and in a pink robe no less, whatever floats your boat I guess...), because that's basically what happened in this case. No questions asked, just some guy getting shot in the face inside his house, in the middle of the night, by militarized police. Must have been one of those "fatally stoopid" folks you mentioned. That's for a minor drug-related offense. Are they going to go any easier on suspected terrorists? Interesting asides about the British in Boston, and regarding the exclusionary rule not applying even when knock-and-announce is violated. SCOTUS recently left the ruling in place, btw. edit: thanks for the exhaustive explanation, too.

Yep, I read it. From what I understand the guy who gave consent couldn't legitimately do so, and: "Buie is about a reasonable, articulable suspicion “that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.” Buie, 494 U.S. at 337. Here, there is no such fear, and the majority opinion allows the officers to do something they normally would need a warrant to do, search a residence which they do not have consent to search and where the resident is either not present or not interested in talking to them. Again, the majority’s neglect of this requirement leads to an overly broad new exception to the Fourth Amendment." Go flippant if you want, but I'd appreciate a serious take. You are far more likely to die in an altercation with a cop than in a terrorist attack. Does that mean cops are more dangerous than terrorists? But that's beside the point; I couldn't care less if you call the cops when your neighbor looks at you sideways. I'm just saying that doing so and expecting law enforcement to act on every instance of mundane stuff sounds a tad unreasonable. Knock yourself out, though.

Several points. How am I comparing traffic stops to what WOD suggested? Because traffic stops involve cops routinely interrogating citizens about everyday activities. In this case, driving around. I'm not a lawyer (not even American), but since you are, I'd like you to explain this to me: "We turn initially to the primary issue now before us, namely whether there is an across-the-board, hard and fast per se rule that a protective sweep can be valid only if conducted incident to an arrest. We hold there is not." [...] "Buie makes clear that that worthy principle does not preclude application in the in-home sweep context of the general reasonableness standard calculated by balancing the intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests, including those of officer safety. Indeed, Buie expressly noted and rejected the Maryland Court of Appeals’ refusal to apply the reasonable suspicion standard of Terry and Long on the ground that “the sanctity of the home” required a more demanding standard." [...] "Applying this balancing principle, and mindful of Buie’s heavy reliance on Terry and Long, neither of which involved an arrest, we hold that arrest is not always, or per se, an indispensable element of an in-home protective sweep, and that although arrest may be highly relevant, particularly as tending to show the requisite potential of danger to the officers, that danger may also be established by other circumstances." [...] Several decisions of other circuits have upheld an in-home Buie protective sweep even though not incident to an arrest. In United States v. Patrick, 959 F.2d 991 (D.C. Cir. 1992), the D.C. Circuit dealt, as we do here, with a consent entry case and upheld the protective sweep of a bedroom in the apartment which the party authorizing entry (the court assumed arguendo) had no right to authorize search of, even though the sweep was not incident to an arrest. [...] "We recognize that protective sweeps following a consent entry may in certain circumstances pose Fourth Amendment concerns not present in cases where the initial entry is pursuant to a warrant. For example, concerns might arise respecting a consent to entry requested for a stated common purpose but actually intended not for that purpose but rather for the purpose of gaining access in order to then make a protective sweep of the entire home for unrelated reasons and thus circumvent the warrant requirement" [...] "In this case, however, the officers conducted an intrusive search of a bedroom with neither consent, nor search warrant, nor arrest warrant, nor any exigent circumstances. The majority has created an exception that permits an officer to ask for permission to enter a home from a third party who may have authority to consent to only part of the home but not all of the home and then immediately contend that he, the officer, is so apprehensive about his own safety that he must conduct a protective sweep of areas where he has no consent to be, when the officer had no obligation or duty to enter the home in the first place. This new exception is really a “knock, enter, maybe talk, and search” police investigatory tactic, all conducted without a warrant, and resulting in an end-run around the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment." etc. So no warrant, no exigent circumstances or consent. I might be missing something, but that sounds a lot like the worst case scenario I described earlier. The first part seems to be the court leaving the door open for sweeps at the officer's discretion, which is a concern expressed in the dissenting opinion. But I've probably read that wrong, I'm imagining things, and cops can do nothing beyond knocking and politely asking some questions. How does that prevent terrorism? Cops' "probable cause" being declared bogus in court post hoc doesn't help me much if I'm beaten up or shot in the process. Of course, that shouldn't happen because I'm not supposed to resist, but then we are back to "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear", and puts citizens in a situation where they have to defend their rights in court against a doctrine that encourages government agents to encroach on them systematically. And... for what? Because receiving parcels is suspicious and anyone could be a communist terrorist.

No, looking at traffic stops, that's not a worst case scenario at all. Worst case scenario is cops show up, ask if they can come in first thing, I say no, but they come in regardless to make an "officer security sweep" of the entire house. They make a tenuous or outright bogus probable cause claim, I object, things escalate and I'm arrested or shot because they considered me a threat. And all because my neighbor figured it's suspicious to receive parcels, or work in my garage. What you described is a best case scenario if cops start investigating every call they receive for "suspicious" (read: everyday) home activity. Do you really want to have cops on your doorstep at the drop of a hat? Enjoy your police and surveillance state, I guess. All in the name of security!

Oh, so is my neighbor going to investigate it now? Or is he going to call the cops so they break into my house or set up a hidden camera? Which one is it? I guess it's the second. But we should worry not, because they "probably aren't even going to run it through their db". Then, what is the point of reporting it to begin with, other than fostering even more mistrust? In retrospect, all sorts of everyday mundane stuff is "suspicious" in the aftermath of such an event. This is hindsight, not prescience.

Sadly that is the price of a free society, though. No one wants to live in a place where you have to live in fear of your neighbours ratting you out to the State, I would hope. I feel that regardless of who ever the target might be. Hard to believe getting a lot of packages and working in their garage alone is suspicious, no ? No, it's a price of a stupid, PC society. You live in fear of your neighbor? You think this is Stalin's Soviet Union, where the next day you're reported you disappear forever? At most the FBI would run you through their database, and probably not even that. The neighbor thought it was suspicious, you don't need to have iron clad proof to be suspicious, it's not the same as a conviction. Ah, of course. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, right?

Nah, I'm not buying either story because... Breitbart. No evidence to speak of in Jumblatt's article, but Guandolo is not just a nutjob, he's a morally suspect nutjob that makes a living from fearmongering after his FBI career was finished. Who or what he sleeps with is none of my business and I couldn't care less. Steven Emerson's credibility is on the same level as Alex Jones'. Being on the internet doesn't make random tripe automatically "evidence". And that's even going into the whole conspiracy to institute Sharia in the US thing, I'm not touching that one with a laser pointer.