Gromnir

http://www.food.com/recipe/ikea-swedish-meatballs-294387 dunno. is hard for us to envision a swedish meatballs recipe w/o nutmeg, but supposedly that is an authentic ikea swedish meatballs recipe. you now know all you need to 'bout scandinavian culture. HA! Good Fun!

larger strategic failures o' Germany in ww2? is a whole different issue from what woldan and Gromnir were discussing. *shrug* invasion o' the ussr were a horrible notion in retrospect, but is one o' those decisions that need be put in context. the soviet had invaded finland and, for the most part, got the snot knocked outta them. nazi germany were supplying and aiding finland at the time, so they got a great first-hand view o' soviet military capabilities. conflict with soviet were deemed to be inevitable, so why not take 'em off the board sooner rather than later? yeah, invade soviet russia were a dumb move, but given what German military commanders had seen o' the soviets during the winter war, the decision to invade were not nearly as suicidal as it gets portrayed. is many german military decisions that get portrayed as the result o' hitler's lunacy that weren't... weren't simple hitler's decisions and weren't near as stoopid as they is described. as an aside, am surprised to see the continued myth o' the me 262 as a game-changer is still being embraced. the jet were a monstrously fast, and surprisingly agile (at high speeds) fighter, but it were a resource and maintenance hog that failed to meet Germany's actual need for a dependable Long-range fighter. Germany had a number o' weapons that woulda' been game changers if the world were made o' cardboard, but wars is not won on paper. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/putins-year-of-defiance-and-miscalculation-20141217-01129 http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/10/03/how-russias-debt-and-currency-markets-could-spiral-into-crisis/ dunno, staying on-topic in off-topic is seeming unnecessary, but we will give it a shot. HA! Good Fun!

What destroyed Germany was the weak Airforce that allowed bombing the infra structure to pieces, not realizing the importance of radar and Allies gaining control over the oil fields, this rendered 1/3 of the mechanized troops useless crippling the supply chain. your conclusions is highly debatable. it is is an interesting if off-topic debate, however. german airpower were were actual very strong, relative speaking. unfortunately, the luftwaffe were built wrong as it had far too few long-range fighters and bombers of its own. it had short-range fighters in abundance, but in spite o' the horrendous toll the luftwaffe were exacting on allied long-range bombing efforts, the allies were able to able to absorb such losses. is the navy that is likely were the biggest weak point for Germany in ww2. there were little naval airpower, and naval losses, particularly the norwegian campaign, forced the battle o' britain to be fought almost completely in the air ... where again, the lack o' long range fighters and bombers proved problematic. in fact, while the battle o' britain is portrayed as a handful o' british (and polish and other expat pilots) fighting off the luftwaffe despite seeming insurmountable odds, the battle for britain were likely won earlier, at sea. the Germans simple didn't have the surface ships to make an invasion o' britain possible. in any event, everybody gots theories. HA! Good Fun!

the only good thing about this thread is that you can actual go back and re-read some o' the nonsense folks posted. the only folks who would be hurt by sanctions were the west? brazil and china would simple be new and more lucrative trade partners for russia? oil export revenue dependence o' russia were being overblown. list goes on and on and on and onandonandonandonandonandon. add in the conspiracy stuff posted by some folks (you know who you are) and this thread is non-stop chuckles... but mostly in retrospect. HA! Good Fun!

conspiracy theory stuff is often having a geographical origin, but am thinking that is hardly shocking. is not so much an internet thing as a cultural phenomenon. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/0222/Was-Chelyabinsk-meteor-actually-a-meteor-Many-Russians-don-t-think-so.-video however, beyond the conspiracy stuff, we do understand some o' the reluctance to believe that this, the hack of sony, is what it appears to be. most international incidents is the result o' a confluence o' accidents and errors in judgment. on the other hand, when some event is the result of intended action, we expect it to be major. george bush sr. vomits on the japanese prime minister? is an accident and only the wackiest conspiracy nut thinks otherwise. nevertheless, there were dozens o' instant theories and it were even reported on cnn that bush had died... and that were 1992, when the internet for private use were still a fledgling. the sony hack were not the result o' an accident or a case o' flu and and too much sushi. somebody planned the hack. have the hack be perpetrated by malcontents with too much free time strikes us initially more plausible than that it were actual planned by the north korean government. based on the damage done to sony and to the movie industry as a whole, we can't see this as being some kinda publicity stunt. nevertheless, while all evidence suggests that north korea were the ultimate cause o' the hack, the whole thing is just so darn silly that we understand why folks might look for other more rational explanations. HA! Good Fun!

The leaks, if not the underlying hack, have reportedly been traced to the network of a fancy hotel in Bangkok. It's a weird sort of mentality all over the web these days that first suspects some kind of false-flag attack for, well, everything. I suspect it originates from the 'chan universe (where such suspicions are usually quite justified), but it is very rarely justified elsewhere. perhaps movies and tv shows has taught folks that such wide publicized computer hacks is a smokescreen or a diversion and typically there is some larger plot at work. also, as far as international incidents are concerned, it is so hard for most folks to take this serious. is not at all like timothy olyphant stealing the totality o' US financial information from a social security computer facility, and there is no threat o' a nuke or dirty bomb being smuggled into ________. aren't we s'posed to be afraid that the chinese can disable the US power grid? don't you realize that we are already living in the Matrix, and there ain't no neo to save your clueless arse from digital Armageddon? where were we? oh, yeah, north korea sponsors a hack o' sony that humiliates some executives and compels 'em to delay the release of a comedy film. ... this isn't what we were promised by movies and tv and conspiracy theory nutters. the sony hack is so ridiculously banal. north korea didn't bring about a financial catastrophe in the west and they didn't have planes crash into iconic US buildings. the endgame were that the haX0rs left a flaming bag of poop on the doorstep of sony? is not a particularly satisfying plot for a tv show or movie, is it? is more like a south park episode scenario, yes? HA! Good Fun!

is funny. you don't even see what you are saying, eh? the folks who is demanding a relaxing o' gender roles in malaysia is a group having a western bias. you recognize the problem given your earlier posts about western bias? oh, and we sure as hell don't take one person's opinion as the whole truth about the role of women in malaysia... we will leave you to ponder that point. HA! Good Fun!

You know history is long and not just modern history? we made that exact point in our post that you initially quoted. good for you that you picked up on that, if only subconsciously. so? HA! Good Fun!

... we linked an article by norani othman, a "Professor and Senior Fellow at the Institute of Malaysian and International Studies." no doubt she don't know anything 'bout islam, malaysia or the treatment o' women beyond Gromnir's quaint little corner o' the world. HA! Good Fun!

hmmm. am not thinking it is just a publicity stunt. christmas week is one of the most significant weeks for movie attendance during the entire year. the threat o' a north korean terror attack on randomn theatres in retaliation for the movie in question strikes us as laughable. however, if even one percent o' people avoid any movie theatre where the interview were set to play 'tween christmas and the first week in january, that would be a substantial amount o' lost revenue. so, how does one attempt to make a positive outta a negative? in the entertainment business, apparently you turn a minor little side-show into a three-ring circus. all the publicity is generating enormous attention for what looked to be a kinda silly movie. how many movies get free advertising from every major network in the US? some folks will eventual see the movie 'cause o' curiosity... is a natural reaction when you see everybody around you looking up to do the same, no? some folks will see the movie just as a kinda FU to the north koreans. *snort* some folks will see the movie just so they can then complain about how terribad the movie actually were; no doubt you has seen this effect with bioware games. *shrug* am not seeing a conspiracy, but we do see a movie studio and distributor making the most outta a less than ideal situation. HA! Good Fun!

far game? FAIR game. blame jet lag? HA! Good Fun!

am knowing you is joking, but am curious if other nations has sexual harassment laws different than the US... we can do a check we s'pose. sex harassment is a title vii thing and is related to hostile Workplace situations. more rare is sexual harassment as a nuisance... am meaning legal tort nuisance. is there actual laws in canada and elsewhere that criminalize for some random schmuck on the street or in a gym propositioning a woman, or man? hell, starting in the 90s, gyms in CA kinda replaced bars as the most likely place to hook-up ... though am guessing the internet has now replaced bars and gyms. am recalling a cynical bit o' pith regarding unwanted sexual advances... am sure we is getting wrong: the law protects a woman until she is eighteen and nature protects her once she turns fifty (sixty?) but for everything in-between, she is far game. HA! Good Fun!

*insert eye-roll here* is such a bass ackwards pov... not to mention hyperbolic in the extreme. the notion that "realism has to fly out the window" because in a fantasy game we is choosing not to punish women gamers for playing traditionally male roles is funny. and even then, we suspect that any popular crpg you thinks is realistic... ain't. real combat is much like hobbes state o' nature. given the avalanche o' unrealistic elements in any crpg, to rage or obsess over women being treated equal is laughably myopic. am not gonna even touch your lazy history. HA! Good Fun! And you're the one calling me lazy, with that fallacy and hand waving. Punish women? Rage or obsess? Now that's hyperbole. Is it a silly rationale to appeal to realism in the case of frame and muscle correlating with strength? No. Is your argument valid? No. Most games would appeal to realism in some form or another, competing with other concerns they still simulate reality to certain degrees. It's a valid preference and has nothing to do with the fantasy elements such as magic or monsters, that statement was illogical. That there are so many other conceits to gameplay and dev time in CRPGs is a better argument to any appeal to realism but you didn't make it. I'd love to know what you dispute in regards to what I wrote about history, because it looks like you're just blowing smoke. you stated conclusions about historical figures. there were no history in your history. and you not give us anything to respond to with the rest o' your post as it is little more than a "nuh uh" response. some games have some element o' reality in them? gosh, really? gosh, well no crpg is complete realistic neither. duh. that was a marvelous bit o' insight. thanks for sharing. is games. is entertainment. women, a sizable percentage of the players o' these crpgs, should be punished for playing a role? yeah, a strength penalty for a strength-based character would be a functional punishment. the explanation for such a penalty is as follows: you chose to play a female. is easy to see how a penalty would discourages a player from making an in-game choice... we not need to explain that, yes? conversely, explain how existence of a gender-based strength penalty makes the game better. is such a penalty no more than aesthetic choice based on hypocritical notions o' realism? no doubt some handful o' folks will embrace the myopic notion that teh rheulnuss o' a strength-based penalty for gender makes a game better... 'cause it is more... uh, real? fine. on the one hand we got women and folks who would want to play female strength-based characters. on the other hand, we got... who? the folks who ignore literal hundreds and thousands o' unrealistic game elements but stand their ground on gender based penalties? that Should sound ridiculous. HA! Good Fun!

*insert eye-roll here* is such a bass ackwards pov... not to mention hyperbolic in the extreme. the notion that "realism has to fly out the window" because in a fantasy game we is choosing not to punish women gamers for playing traditionally male roles is funny. and even then, we suspect that any popular crpg you thinks is realistic... ain't. real combat is much like hobbes state o' nature. given the avalanche o' unrealistic elements in any crpg, to rage or obsess over women being treated equal is laughably myopic. am not gonna even touch your lazy history. HA! Good Fun!

and that is why we said you ain't thinking long-term. if you offered a gym owner with even a fraction o' monetary acumen $700 for a lifetime membership when he is charging $120 per year, he would snatch your money in a heartbeat and laugh all the way to the bank. $700 cold hard cash today is worth considerable more 5, 10 and 20 years down the road. oh, and since you is adding other expenses, try and have your home gym with the single bar and 12 plates you says the $700 will provide. this is why we can't all have nice things-- people genuine don't understand the value o' money. HA! Good Fun!

*sigh* if you cannot get a 10% return on investment per annum, you is a complete and utter idiot. you need us to calculate roi for $700 after ten years? here is a clue, is not $70. is not even $700. you are NOT thinking long-term... you just don't realize that you ain't thinking long-term. HA! Good Fun!

If you doubt my calculation you probably have no idea about gyms, the fee of my nearest gym of acceptable quality is 120 bucks a year. Buying weights is definitely cheaper in the long run. The main advantage in my case is not having to drive 1 hour to the gym, I think I would not be lifting if I had to drive for 2 hours after work every single day, even in winter. That would become so annoying. ... if you cannot turn $700 that you have today into a perpetual $120 yearly payoff, you do not know how to handle money. HA! Good Fun!

actual, is not cheaper to buy the weights "in the long run." if you can't turn a +$700 investment into a perpetual gym membership, then you do not know how to handle money. that being said, there is considerable advantages to not having to go to the gym for workouts. as we get older, am less inclined to wanna deal with the gym scene. HA! Good Fun!

hopefully the last images we ever post in a wasteland 2 thread... is our final examples o' why charisma sux. five extra points in charisma resulted in a grand total o' a single level gained after +45 levels o' gameplay. as can be seen, the more efficient use o' skills is not to be dumping them on a single high intelligence and high charisma character, but rather to spread out the xp generating skills so as to be benefiting multiple characters, 'cause the charisma boost alone is of negligible value. and yes, we did have a suicide squad team... though am given to understand that the planned suicide squad movie will be having deadshot, rick flag, harley quinn and the joker, yes? no joker in our group as plastique were an ideal demolitions expert for our team. we were conflicted about harley quinn being a brawler instead o' a blunt weapons expert ( harley quinn with a cartoony giant hammer/mallet just seems right) but we is kinda a big fan o' brawling from 'bout level 20. that being said, we did experiment with blunt weapons, and they are devastating by the end of the game. maybe play 1 more time... got no other games on our to-do list until we finally decide to purchase dragon age: inquisition, and that won't occur for a few months. maybe a mass effect team with femshep, ashley williams, urdnot wrex and garrus vakarian? maybe make vulture's cry an assault rifle specialist in spite o' her starting sniper build? however, we might wait until the balance patch is finally released. assault rifle burst headshots is kinda over-the-top... along with the gamma ray blaster. HA! Good Fun! ps our harley quin coulda' eclipsed rick flag for xp if we had used computer science to reprogram as many bots as possible, but doing so does rob the team o' valuable combat xp, so we did sparingly.

got back from hawaii just after midnight. one disadvantage to being native american is that hardly anybody comments on how dark our tan becomes after our yearly trip to hawaii. HA! Good Fun!

so, a muslim woman walks into a bar and criticizes western notions o' freedom of gender roles... is start of a bad joke, yes? *shrug* is more than a few western cultures that got iconic woman-warrior examples, and they is far less obscure than qis example. joan of arc, boudica, etc. however, we make two observatioons that should be obvious, but ain't. 1) biology, not bigotry, prevented women from pursuing martial careers for almost the entirety of human history. for all of pre-history and most of history, martial pursuits required considerable strength, particular upper-body strength. swing a sword, shoot arrows, carry a shield, and other such activities all require manly upper body strength. sure, there were women who had exceptional strength, and there were also arms and armour that women could excel with even if they didn't have manly strength, but such stuff were atypical, which is part o' why women contributing to combat were also rare. 'course, the unspoken but likely more significant reason for women being excluded from combat (and many other pursuits) is that women is the gender that provides gestation o' live births in the human species. we could detail how significant pregnancy were in limiting women's roles up until very recent times, but that would be tedious... though it will likely become inevitable when some clown starts spouting off anecdotal examples and the tripe their women-in-history professors taught them. in any event, is not the fault o' women that biology made it difficult for their gender to contribute to martial history for much o' human existence, but it is a fact that women had a very limited role in actual combat until relative recent times. firearms and reliable and safe birth control has effectively removed virtual all such biological hurdles to women, so now they can kill as effective as can men. hooray for progress? and 2) games ain't history am not certain why this is a difficult concept for some to grasp. gotta game with medieval and renaissance era real world weapons does not mean that unfortunate real world gender roles need be adhered to. games is entertainment and telling a woman gamer that her female warrior needs wear b00b armor and will suffer a strength penalty is asinine. 'course, it is possible that many women players wanna have b00b armour... it does seems that most male players want b00b armour. heck, we recall one female poster on the old nwn boards who honest-to-god complained that the single biggest flaw o' nwn were the lack o' shoes. shoes? were like karzak with dual-wield. it hurts us to admit it, but there is more than a few players, male and female, that is as concerned with their avatar appearance as they is with actual mechanics. make their female characters look pretty or sexy or whatever is a genuine concern. even so, while we is likely stuck with b00b armour for the foreseeable future, there is no good reason for adding real world mechanical rules penalties to women characters. bring up reality is a silly rationale in a game... particular a game that includes magic and monsters. regardless, women in combat has been relative rare for much o' human existence, but so what? in any event, person from malaysia complaining about western notions o' gender roles in modern society is funny... is a joke, yes? http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/archive/dialogue/1_09/articles/567.html HA! Good Fun!

last day before trip to kauai. we will need a vacation after today. HA! Good Fun!

In Finland there has been 110 police officers that have died in line of duty in last 97 years, which includes our civil war and World War II, in years after the wars there has been 21 officers that have died in line of duty. So it is quite hard to perceive situation and culture where cops in USA live from my point of view, because over hundred officer dying in line of duty every year is lot even for 60 times larger country. Now, there are a myriad of reasons as to why the death rate is what it is in any given year, but without a doubt, the more intrusive police are into people's affairs in what many would perceive and unjust manner the more likely they are to get killed. he makes us laugh. is cops fault for being intrusive? and we doubt that the motivation for most cop killings is a sense o' justice. the typical killing, regardless o' whether or not a cop is involved, is stupid. you don't need to read to many cases to realize just how unnecessary most homicides is. people tend to kill others because they is afraid or angry or in the heat of the moment they see no better way to resolve a situation. far too many killers is mentally ill and their killings is so utter unnecessary it is painful to consider. sure, some folks, even some cops, is cold-blooded killers, or killers for social justice (HA!) or gang members following some kinda perceived sense o' duty. drug-related homicides is far too frequent. nevertheless, the number o' killings that occur each year because some individual is convinced that law enforcement is too intrusive has gotta be ridiculous low. am not sure what inspired val to share that bit o' gut-feeling silliness. according to the cdc, in 2011 there were 16, 238 homicides. of those, 11, 608 were gun-related. 492 o' the gun-related homicides were the result of "legal intervention." http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf there is some nice color-coded graphs from the cdc for 2012 and 2013, but they appear less complete. people kill each other in the US disturbingly frequent and far too many o' those deaths is made possible 'cause o' how easy it is to kill folks with firearms. however, death of and by cops is a an extreme small percentage o' total homicides... and death o' cops due to social justice has gotta be a joke category. that being said, regardless o' how infrequent cop-related killings actual occur, we agree that confidence in cops is disproportionate low at the moment. in spite o' the scary homicide numbers above, all violent crime stats has, for over a decade, been showing a steady decrease. is perhaps ironic given recent events in the news, but the crime situation is better now than it has been for years. crime is down, but cop confidence is low? go figure. we tend to attribute most cop-related anger to the economic situation many people is suffering, but that is as much a gut-level impression as val's social justice motivation for cop killings. if confidence in cops is low, something should be done to correct the problem. also, we do agree with hurl, to some degree, that there also should be a change in the way the police is policed. even if there were no shenanigans going on, it is tough to take such self-regulation efforts seriously as there is understandably an obvious conflict of interest involved. however, is not easy to identify an immediate solution to lack o' police oversight given our current system o' criminal justice. aside: there were near 40k suicides in 2011, and of those, 19k were gun-related. actually, suicides markedly decreased as natural gas ovens replaced coal gas as the standard in the 1930s and 1940s. suicides decrease when the means o' achieving is requiring more effort... more time for self-reflection? also, another bit o' suicide trivia is that contrary to popular belief, suicides decrease during the holidays. go figure. HA! Good Fun!

*nod* based on our kids in the hall viewing, we expect low canadian cop deaths. very scientific. HA! Good Fun! ps in response to hurl observations, we started posting this way on crpg boards in 1999, so closer to 15 years.

pointless correction: we actual checked on the farm equipment death thing and according to the cdc (why?) there were 374 deaths of folks dying from farm related injuries in 2012. 'course there is only 42% as many cops as folks working on farms. in other words, the likelihood o' dying while working on a farm is similar to cop chances of dying. also, based on our scientific analysis o' canadian culture (we has watched every kids in the hall episode at least twice) we suspect that the rate o' farm related deaths in canada is higher than the US. HA! Good Fun!