213374U

No, bro. In fact, it's you who has to prove how fulfilling your ****ing obligations with regards to basic international law (cf. Geneva Convention on Refugees), not to mention showing a modicum of humanity is going to "radically change the entire demographics in Europe", let alone the rest of the tripe about the end of Yurop, Allahu Akbars taking over the world and so on, that you have been spouting lately. Take your time, I'll be here. My screen is fine, by the way. You sure it's not your own bile?

The hell are you talking about. Who said anything about dedicating ALL RESOURCES and spending ALL ENERGY to "help the poor"? I'm talking in the context of a refugee crisis, in the context of what you can do NOW, to prevent people from being slaughtered, starving to death in camps, etc. Please keep your slippery slopes to yourself. And lol @ "sustainable welfare". You mean sustainable for you, right? "I got mine so **** you", is what you mean. At least be honest. And yeah, I have made my donations, as a matter of fact. Not just now, I donate to several NGOs, yearly, on top of volunteering part of my free time (not with refugees, though), of which I thankfully have quite a bit. But of course, that's not going to be enough for you because, since you are arguing from a fallacy (seriously, slippery slope, look it up), you won't be satisfied until I live in the same squalor as the refugees we're discussing. But please, enlighten me. How exactly are your living standards being affected. How is your country being "attacked". How much has your purchasing power decreased since the refugees started pouring? To what extent have waiting lists for public healthcare increased? What is the increase in violent crime (%)? Is there rationing going on? Power outages? I'd like concrete figures, please. With citations.

Selfish and wrong? Yeah, its so selfish to protect ones country, living standards, health care system and security. Lets give it all up for the sake of humanity. If thats what you believe then its your duty to give up all the luxury and the stuff you don't really need to donate it to the poor refugees. Help them. You can start right now! And, yes. Sorry to break it to you, but it is wrong to leave people to die to protect your living standards. Deal with it.

Anyone who believes that police can ever guarantee security deserves what they get. The report is just cops being pussies about being in over their heads, and hoping that the circumstances and their opportunistic fear mongering will get them emergency budget approvals. Understand that cops are conditioned to believe that they can call down overwhelming force on any problem, even if they don't need to do that most of the time. Whenever that feeling is threatened, they are scared ****less. Yep, that seems to be more or less the prevalent opinion here as well. But it's selfish and wrong. The foremost duty of the state is (should be) to uphold human rights within its jurisdiction to the best of its ablity, and human rights are universal and not contingent on citizenship. Sad that some of the hardest lessons learned in the wake of the bloodiest conflicts in history are already forgotten. Personally, handling refugees is probably the only excuse I'd accept for a tax raise, considering that my country has been directly involved in causing the current state of affairs in the Middle East. I'd like to believe that the state is resourceful enough to handle ~15k refugees without levying new taxes, but as usual in public management matters, I'll just assume that I'll be disappointed again.

Sure... I mean it! I haven't played anything since SR:HK, just can't find it in me. I bought a 2-month game time card and only have logged in to grab the Havoc Squad set from GTN, because reasons. I've tried shaking the rust off and re-learning a few classes but... ugghhhh, can't do it. On the plus side, I got off my ass and vacuummed the house while it downloaded. So I'm not totally unproductive, just gaming-wise. (perhaps this should go in "What are you playing now?" Maybe if it also was "Or not playing now?") rambleramble

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp Excuse me, I must go stand in the corner now.

If the PMs agreed to it, then their electors can kick them out of office if it really means the countryside is going to be ravaged by bands of marauding Muslims and <doom/gloom>. Won't happen though, in part because the people dgaf (cf. Greece legislative election Sept. 2015) but mostly because it's not such a big deal. As for the video, I don't see how you can be impressed. She's a demagogue, as we both know that what she actually means is "French women for the magical 10-15% of hot French men", right? Joking aside, I can't be certain that he's not actually laughing at both the original retard Mayor who commissioned that (you can always find a Spaniard at the vanguard of imbecility) and the vandal "square patriot". Doesn't look like the guy is interested in deep social commentary beyond teh lulz. I only watched his "Planet Fitness and Transgender Women" vid, though. You may have been had... Marine Le Pen's case is bull****, I'll give you that.

Apparently after today's patch I need to redownload the whole game. Probably something to do with disabling the streaming launcher. I hope the performance upgrades are worth it at least. Oh well it's not like I'm in a hurry to play or anything.

What version of DF are you playing? The DLC for SRR or the standalone Director's Cut? There are some differences between the two versions, with the latter being the superior one. I'd go with DF before HK. Quality-wise, they are about the same except for the final act which, echoing the prevalent opinion here, is stronger in DF. HK received a few UI, mechanics and inventory upgrades, and going to DF after HK could feel a bit like playing BG1 after BG2 (plot notwithstanding).

You misspelled "stupid SJW nazis".

It's not very sensible to believe that Islam -or any other religion- is Christianity and will "naturally" follow the same path. Not because Christianity is something special, a religion of peace at its core (lol) or whatever, but because the secular societies we live in today are the product of a myriad historical factors that allowed and resulted in the people wresting power from the Church. That outcome wasn't guaranteed and could have been different. A religion that is used as a basis for political power becomes inextricable from the power structures it legitimizes, and therefore can only be "reformed" after those power structures are torn down — by force. The Thirty Years War and the French Revolutionary Wars (and the Napoleonic wars that followed) make the current unrest in the Islamic world look like a hiccup. Personally, I'd like to imagine that there is another path to secularization than centuries of bloodbaths. I'd like to think that other peoples can benefit from the lessons learned from these horrific experiences. Also: reminder that, until the first decades of the 19th century, the Spanish Inquisition was alive and well. The matter of its dissolution and the rest of the liberal reforms that accompanied it were only ultimately settled, naturally, after reactionaries launched a war to roll back all changes. edit: oops Zoraptor basically made the same point already. Ninja'd et al...

Apparently he is responsible mostly for the JK story, maybe other grand plot stuff, not too sure. Someone a few pages back in this thread had more details about it, if you want to search. And yes, he's the author of the novels that took a massive dump on Obs' vision of the KotOR canon (aka "my Gary Stu is cooler than your Gary Stu" syndrome), and which laid the foundations upon which the JK and Revan/Maelstrom Prison/Foundry plot arcs are based. edit: herp-a-derp grammar

Karpyshyn is back to work on SWTOR: https://twitter.com/DrewKarpyshyn/status/645467697493336064 OMG OMG OMG I'm absolutely indifferent about it.

Clearly that's just good old propaganda, mate. Putin's trying to confuse you. Meanwhile in the land of media ethics...

This just in: sexually attractive males are getting more poontang than unwashed neckbeards. News at eleven. There may be such a thing as confirmation bias at work regarding your analysis. If neither you nor your friends are getting any and it's kind of a big deal for you, perhaps you should find more successful friends. Of course I'm just assuming, so I apologize in advance if I'm wrong. But I get the feeling you wouldn't even have considered this if you were part of the magical 10%. You'd be too tired after constantly porking hot women to ponder such things. That said, I'm going to agree: the sexual revolution (whatever that means) probably won't reduce demand for something that is chiefly a convenience thing, much like it hasn't reduced the demand for prostitution. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don't know about maybe classical evolutionary biology or taxonomy, but biochemistry and biophysics are as "hard" as science gets. Now, back to discussing sexbots. It was mentioned above that true AI, true cognition is still deep in the realm of science-fiction, and it's true. We don't know what consciousness is precisely, and the Newton of AI probably hasn't been born yet. According to Roger Penrose, "true" artificial intelligence is impossible — it may not possible to build a computer that can replicate human thought under current computing architecture paradigms. However, you don't need true self-awareness in a human sense to build machines that can pass for humans. Some AI scientists have suggested that by 2030 we could have machines that could pass a Turing Test. Throw in a few million pre-programmed facts and rules ("intelligence is ten million rules" says Douglas Lenat), and you have a machine that can fool humans and perform simple tasks successfully most of the time, while still being essentially dumber than a bag of hammers, not truly sentient, and incapable of operating outside of an admittedly broad set of parameters. Those could still make perfectly good sexbots, or hunter-killers. Or both.

Internet:

For science!

Thanks for the translation. So in the absence of other evidence, we can safely conclude that it's an out-of-context snippet. Not that I would object to German Panzers rolling towards Gibraltar, mind. Could use the exercise...

Can it make me a sandwich afterwards? Someone had to ask.

I tried to use the automatic subtitle translator and it resulted in unintelligible gibberish*. I cannot into German. *so working as inteded, amirite?

I was replying to the bolded part in the OP. AFAIK, using apostrophes to signify plurals in initialisms or acronyms is incorrect, whether you use dots to separate the initials or not. OP however said it's an accepted form, unless I massively brain farted and misread, right?

(emphasis mine) Actually, the Grammar Monster link you posted, specifically says: Which is the rule I'm accustomed to.

Do you have a link for this?