213374U

Thanks for the replies! I'm probably going to opt for the 970 then: we've been having downright insane raises in the electricity bill, so it's kind of a big deal for me. The 970 also means I can get away with a 500w power source, further bringing down the price of the rig to ~1100€, and if the world hasn't ended by then, an upgrade a year or two down the line would be much more justified. Much obliged, folks.

If by "being let in" you mean not being shot on sight, then yeah, I suppose they are. What do you want, to torch 'em at the border a la World War Z? Sink their inflatable boats? Like shooting fish in a barrel, right? Whatever, everything that's worth saying has already been said to death. I just hope I'm never in a situation where I need to request refugee status on another country.

So I'm looking into building a new rig and kick my current laptop to the curb. I'm aiming to stay under 1500€. I'm looking at either a GTX970 or 980. Either option would be valid, but going for a 980Ti would be a gross cost overrun. Do you guys think the price difference between the two (just about 170€) is justified by the performance difference? How long could I reasonably expect a 980 to run games at 1080p in high or ultra settings?

"Cowards" get to see history for themselves, though. Usually from a safe distance. As for subsidiary responsibility of the average citizen for the actions of their governments in Western democracies, it's a fascinating theory. Doesn't work so well in practice, though. (cf. Alexis Tsipras)

Hungary has basically fortified its border with Serbia, to no avail. There's just too many of them coming. A lot of them come in really crappy boats too, and the navies and coast patrols are over capacity just rescuing people from wreckages. And even then a lot of them just drown. It really is a ****ed up situation.

One can only hope.

Sure. The case is pretty clear-cut from a legal standpoint. That's not all there is to it however, as you are disregarding the context of how the law came to be what it is, and also disregarding the fact that the judge who found her in contempt could have fined her as the plaintiffs, the ACLU and the KY Senate president asked, but chose to incarcerate her offhand, instead. That's mostly what the debate has been centered on, rather than whether she actually has a right to interpret the law, under current law. If you can't distinguish between the law and one's personal convictions, I don't know what to say to you...

Normally I'd agree with you, but this is one of those cases. This law didn't exist when she ran for office, and it wasn't passed as a result of the will of the people (previous to Obergefell there was a statutory and constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in KY; indeed, statutes specifically mentioned penalties for clerks issuing marriage licences outside of the definition in KY law), but rather it was handed top-down as a result of a closed-door decision by nine unelected lawyers elsewhere in the country. You may not agree with her on this particular issue -I know I don't- but I can't fully condemn her decision to obstruct the process. Would you be more sympathetic to her if instead of doing it out of religious bigotry she was doing it for civic reasons? Regardless, I find it really baffling that some people are worried about "due process" wrt dismissal of elected officials, which in this case requires the official in question to be convicted of willful neglect of duty or another misdemeanor (and failing that, impeachment proceedings could be instituted by the House or at the request of any person), but such worries disappear or no longer apply when we're talking about imprisonment, because the always expeditious "contempt of court" is legal. Must be a cultural thing.

Bah. I was totally expecting you to have challenged a werewolf to an all-night log lifting and chili chugging contest. soniamdisappoint.jpg

Mate, the sole reason for fines to exist is to deter certain behaviors. If, after being caught and fined, criminal behavior is being rewarded with earnings numbered in the billions, there is no deterrence going on, rather the opposite. So no, it's not good news, because these joke fines are actually encouraging banksterism. Once again, your double standards shine through: you are all for making an example out of a nobody clerk for her defiance of the SCOTUS, but imposing an exemplary punishment on a big bank that may break it to make the rest think twice is a no-no. In the immortal words of Volourn: LOLOLOLLIPOP

This guy really is a walking comedy show. Do you even read the links you post? Oh, what am I saying, of course you don't. You don't have time for "evidence" and "reading", and expecting either from you is "annoying"! From the first link: "Since 2009, the American banking industry alone has racked up nearly $503 billion in profits, according to FDIC quarterly data through the first quarter of 2014." $128bn worth of fines spread across the whole financial sector doesn't even amount to a slap in the wrist. $550M fine for Goldman Sachs? Wow, that's really going to hurt them, they only made ~13bn in 2009. Get real.

The point is that, as usual, the full weight of the law is falling on this idiot because she's small fish and being open about her reasons. If you are a big shot and smart enough to spread responsibility around with legal gymnastics, you can get away with murder, quite literally. We're all equal under the law, but some are more equal than others, right?

Heh. I find it sorta troubling that a) folks are getting their pants in a bunch over a public official having *the gall* to disagree with and not act according to the law of the land (*cough*) and b) that apparently the first and only recourse when this happens is to throw the offender in jail IMMEDIATELY. I wonder, what were all these honourable judges doing when, oh, I don't know, Dubya launched a war without Congressional declaration? The message here is, mess with the LGTBQASDFOMGWTFBBQ clique = indefinite prison sentence. Kill a few thousand sand **** (and US troops) = cozy Secret Service-protected, taxpayer-funded retirement, right? edit: removed quotation, made no sense. Still, comparing (even loosely) Thomas More with this hypocritical kook made me chuckle.

The guy with the mesmerizing eastern european accent in the review seemed to like DF better, and I have to say, he does make a compelling case as for why. It's an RPGCodex review though, so it's unsurprising that he focused more on why this game is underwhelming compared to whatever came before. Still, if the takeaway is, if you haven't picked up DF yet, go do it now, I'd be in agreement. Also: new patch. I'd prefer that they had released a game with less bugs to begin with, but all's well that ends well.

Having a good nature, a good will and a good sense of humor is better than a six pack. Not as impressive but more valuable to good people. But seriously, try to cut down on beer. Sure man, keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile I'll be making good use of cutting edge techniques and devices and getting all the chicks.

"Illegal alien" is a phrase found in the US Code, too. Is that especially offensive/what is the "proper" term? I guess the guy who thought that a word filter IRL was a good idea never tried to reference the previous US Vice President on the Obs forum.

There is a reason why she is "naked". You'll find out why, once she has been recruited. Oh, there's a reason alright. The in-game rationalization came later.

Yo Donald, imma let you finish, but Kanye would be the best US President of all time. Of all time!

Just a heads up, patch 3.0.5 is finally live on GOG (used to be 3.0.4). No 3.0.4 → 3.0.5 patcher, though, so I'm not sure how safe it is to install on top of a 3.0.4 (GOG-2) version. But since the game took ~45 min to install the first time around, I'm not about to un/re-install.

From the Kickstarter pitch: Doubt it'll be out before end of year, though.

Haha, as if psychology needed any more scrutiny as a "science". Funny, though. "Almost two thirds" is roughly the same acceptance rate as for the bogus papers in the "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" sting. I'm thinking the concern shouldn't be as much about the science itself as about the standards of the journals in question...

How is it? I just saw it on GOG. Looks right up my alley...

From what I've read, police choppers don't need a warrant unless they are conducting surveillance below 400 ft. Other than that I guess it's a practical matter: drones are much harder to detect than helicopters, especially during nighttime, and much, much cheaper to operate. Regardless, I'm curious. Unlike Hellfires, tasers and pepper spray require the launching platform to be close to the target. Usually defending against a police officer employing non-lethal weapons is a bad idea because you'd be charged with assaulting a cop, obstructing an officer, etc. (not to mention the risk of the cop retaliating with deadly force). But what happens with drones? What's the worst that can happen if you shoot down a drone that's trying to taser you? You get fined for damaging public property? Heh.

This one's just for Gfted1: First State Legalizes Taser Drones for Cops, Thanks to a Lobbyist

You mean rewind the save? You can still do that. As far as I can tell, the save system is exactly the same as in Dragonfall. Is that what you're referring to?