metadigital

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hahaha, that is quite the catch-22. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think it's quite as cut-and-dried as that. Firstly, the core WILL BE hacked. Apple's OSX for Intel was hacked THE FIRST DAY of the developer's release. Secondly, it is not unreasonable for Microsoft to hold third-party security companies like McAfee and Symantec to a formal trade secrets contract with punitive clauses; in other words, only divulge the really sensitive stuff to named people in the companies, who would be personally responsible should anything be leaked. In the end, security by obscurity doesn't work (for software). Depends on the when. Vista will probably ship first quarter 2007, meaning it will be available (in about seven different versions from "Home" to "Total"), and this will include laptops. Whether you should use it as soon as it comes out, though, especially for a lower-end laptop, remains to be seen ...

Because all those innocent citizens are to blame. Gee, I'm glad you don't have any power.

All Kim Il Jung is doing is playing brinkmanship. And attempt to challenge his authority to do whatever he wants (he threatens) will make him more unreasonable. The good news is that he is isolating himself from every country in the world, even normally po-faced (towards the interfering predelictions of the UN) China. The bad news is that a lot more North Coreans are going to die before anything good happens.

:D

Dual-wielding rapiers!

It's the same engine, just enhanced. The developers are working on the next engine simultaneously and secretly.

I'd be surprised (and disapointed) if it didn't, given all the Lead Developer hype about making a better, deeper and broader FPS.

Windows XP SP1 Support Ends Tuesday

Please, tell me! What was the "rich backstory" of the original series? If you can't see the depth of the new series, then you aren't looking.

It is not unusual for relevant topics to be brought to the attention of Obsidian staff, who may or may not frequent the fora. clickie

The sad truth is that there is nothing that anyone can do, save for another brave hero(ine) to take up the cudgel of ethical rectitude and try to keep the various governments honest. It may be a difficult and parlous existence, and it might be a low-probability success, but it is the right thing for anyone to do.

So you are in favour of interventionist policies in Afghanistan? No-one said there wasn't a vested interest. Many of us have noted that other countries do not have the attention of the US, currently, that perhaps should, like the junta that seized Burma (and renamed it Myanmar) and big corporations are happily and greedily using their enslaved populations to extract their oil, or Zimbabwe, or Nigeria, or Sudan (Darfur) and even Ethiopia and Somalia, still. And don't forget the successful NATO intervention in the Balkans a decade ago, led capably by the US. It was "in the interests" of the US to bring peace to the area. Just because the US happens to want to safeguard her energy supply, doesn't mean that an ethical imperative is necessarily absent. Supposition. "We" I assume you are referring to the USA. There are troops in the coalition from more than one country. I disagree with the connotation of your remarks: firstly, as a libertarian I am only concerned by people who would restrict the freedom of me (in the first instance) and others (second-order). Second, your comment is disingenuous: how many countries are actively interested in the rights of the citizens of other countries? When was the last time you cared if the Eretreans were over-run by the Ethiopian army? The FIRST ORDER of a government is defence of the tax-paying interests (otherwise they won't be getting any more votes). Yep, that was dumb. And not in accordance with standard military procedure, either. That conclusion doesn't agree with your earlier supposition. But I agree; the absolute worst course of action in every imaginable way would be for the Coalition to pull out before the Iraqi state could keep order itself.

"Misintepreting"? I don't see much of that going around. I think this has more to do with the fact that Meta has repeatedly shot down your arguments and you have yet to answer to him effectively. Perhaps your arguments would be more credible if you actually backed up your statements with pertinent facts, and sources. But your problem is you've repeatedly shown here and in past threads that you don't so much as shape your opinions on facts but on a left-wing political dogma. You come up with the vaguest things to support your POV no matter the credibility, and when someone proves you wrong on any topic, you either don't admit it or you ignore it completely. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I presented a poll and it was mischaracterized and rejected. (By the way the error in a poll result with perfect sampling is approximately the square root of the counted result - so if you oversample to get 150 Sunnis and half say the US should leave and if you accept that they are a good sample of Sunnis and were not bent by the sampling conditions (such as the guy with the gun writing down their name) then the full result will be 50% +- 6% not +- 100% as metadigital claimed.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I didn't claim any such thing. I suggested that a poll of 150 people is not representative: Religions: Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3% ... Population 26,783,383 (July 2006 est.); 35% of 26M people = >9M Sunni. To be clear, I can find evidence for anything, if I look hard enough. In contrast, I stated the FACT that the democractically elected government of Iraq has wanted and still wants the Coalition troops to help them maintain security. And you still think your poll of 150 Sunnis is more representative than their own government! I know, let's save time, money and effort in 2008 and just ask 1500 people in the US who they want for President. That is intellectual arrogance, or blind acceptance of left-wing dogma over observable and demonstrable fact. Again, no. You just posted the entire sesquipedalian entry of WW2, without any comment. It was the height of rudeness, actually, simply implying that I know nothing about the facts of the war. Yes, that's right. You are collecting evidence and presenting a cogent argument. Like dumping the entire WW2 wikipedia article without a comment. That must have taken you all of four seconds. Intellectual rigour is not bullying, unless you adhere to an inferior fallacy. And I know the truth is out there, that's why I'm correcting your erroneous view.

Now this is a birthday thread! May he read this and see that we all wish him many more happy and productive years doing what he loves doing and we love him doing. :D

What about cookies? Oh, that's right: students can't cook. "

link

I thought that's what Finnish students lived on? (Grass.) /bad joke

You are tap-dancing around semantics. The Coalition has an exit strategy; they will leave when Iraq can police herself (despite her neighbours trying to destabilise her). You can't actually believe that the US wants to keep spending US$trillions to have their soldiers shot at and despised by some people on the left. I think (it is pretty obvious) that they are trying to get out as fast as they can. Again, the US isn't trying to maintain a hegemony, they are assisting the democratically-elected Iraqi government whilst it rebuilds the infrastructure (including police, volunteers for which service are the ones targeted by the local insurgents, SUR-prise!). Why do you suppose (and, it seems, even hope for) the demise of this DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Iraqi government? You couldn't possibly think that the US "coerced" the entire Iraqi population into voting for them? Why wouldn't they just "coerce" the population into peace, then? Your conspiracy theory is showing! You keep saying the Iraqi people want the Coalition troops to leave. I put it to you that you are guilty of the WORST intellectual arrogance, thinking that you can speak for the Iraqi people BETTER THAN their own DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government. Is this making sense yet?

Do you have a thing for dwarves, or Thor? "

It was a nice touch, having the character slapping the wrench in his hands in anticipation of smacking the little-girl-shaped monster upside the head: made me uneasy.

Not to split hairs, but your statement (about "banters", sic) is not inclusive of (physical) fighting, which is why I added mine. No amount of post-fact revisions on your part will make that true.

You can fashion your own weapons in the the Toolset.

Those that have it, would feel weird playing without it. Those without it, want it. :D Okay, I agree that they could quite easily have different models for different classes (Magic-Users and Wizards being string-bean ectomorphs and Dwarves and Barbarians being over-sized endomorphs), and even some size variation within the classes, too, such as FAT female characters and even spotty teenage ones. Much like NwN 2 allows! (w00t)

... in French. :D

Actually there are some excellent philosophical quodlibets: the love-hate relationship of the created (Cylons) and their makers; the religious verisimiltudes of that; the fact that the Cylons seem incapable of managing their newly aquired emotions; the fact that is far more evil than practically ANY of the Cylons. In short, by avoiding the SF clich