Amentep

Yes, probably just an oversight. That kind of wording is something to get right on the crowdfunding page though. Don't disagree with you that it'd be better to be accurate as it "Steam Key" is misleading. I'd read the text and didn't even notice that it wasn't 'right' in the graphics.

In the text they just say "digital download". Maybe they ran out of room on the graphic?

I'm going to hate myself in the morning, but... I don't think you're doing this right.

Teaser for the Square-Enix (Eidos Montreal (Crystal Dynamics)) - Marvel game:

The disclaimer as currently written reads "YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT NEITHER LOOSE TOOTH INDUSTRIES, INC. NOR FIG IS A REGISTERED BROKER-DEALER, FINANCIAL ADVISOR OR FUNDING PORTAL AND NEITHER LOOSE TOOTH INDUSTRIES, INC. NOR FIG ENGAGES IN ANY CONDUCT THAT WOULD REQUIRE SUCH REGISTRATION. NEITHER LOOSE TOOTH INDUSTRIES, INC. NOR FIG PROVIDES INVESTMENT ADVICE OR MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS." All this does is state that what Fig.com is doing isn't advising, selling or crowdfunding the purchase of securities as defined by the SEC and therefore does not have to register with the SEC (who regulate the exchange of securities - ie a certificate or other financial instrument that can be sold or traded - like stocks and bonds). SEC on Funding Portals, for example:

Well that and Feargus is one of the people behind Fig. Was there ever any real chance if PoE2 went crowdfunding that it wouldn't be on Fig?

Very interesting; that said I never thought the Death Star trench was the equator line as it is in the briefing that it runs perpendicular from the equator line and is 'north" of the dish.

Francis Ford Coppella/American Zoetrope is working with others to bring APOCALYPSE NOW to video games, allowing the player to make choices independent of the movie in RPG style with an emphasis more like survival horror than action-shooter. They've taken to Kickstarter for funding. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/fringerider/apocalypse-now-the-game?ref=nav_search Team includes Francis Ford Coppola (dir Apocalypse Now) Rob Auten (lead writer Gears of War) Lawrence Liberty (executive producer, Fallout: New Vegas) Montgomery Markland (producer, Wasteland 2, Torment: Tides of Numenera, designer/producer Aliens: Crucible) with Josh Sawyer as special advisor. No clue if it'll be good, but it certainly seems to have ambition, at least.

I used to stay up and watch the Oscars for many years, but stopped a few years ago as my interest waned (also I had to get up at a reasonable time in the morning after I changed jobs). I've heard a lot of positive things about Silence but I confess, that the way those reviews were constructed, it didn't seem to generate a feeling in me that people were going to recognize it for Oscar time.

AMPAS's Oscars nominees list is out. http://oscar.go.com/nominees Biggest surprise to me? Finding Dory didn't get a nod for Best Animated Picture. Its success, it being from Pixar and it not being a bad film (even if I didn't think it the strongest of the animated films I've seen last year) all meant I thought it'd get a nod (even figured it'd get one over Zootopia which I thought was a better film).

I suspect it is a pretty big relief to not have to be president. But then again if you take enough pictures of people, they'd bound to get one where someone looked happy and someone looked unhappy, so I'm not sure its worth reading much into it beyond an initial bemusement...

Mercenaries as I understand it. There has been a bunch of outcry about it, as the chinese director of the chinese funded movie casting Matt Damon is Hollywood whitewashing or something. I don't care about any racial implications, or anything like that, I just can't get over how goofy it looks. It's like here's a bunch of warriors fighting monsters along The Great Wall of China, cool! And now here's Matt Damon... wait, what? A paycheck is a paycheck, I guess. Now part of me want Matt Damon to star in a string of seemingly random crappy films ala Nic Cage (no hate, I love Nic Cage). Edit: An an aside, I don't think you can call it whitewashing if he's playing a European mercenary. A European mercenary would be white. Now, if Matt Damon had been cast as Cao Cao in The Fall of the Han Dynasty, THAT would be whitewashing. Oerwinde is correct, though, that people complained of whitewashing ('why'd they make the character European rather than Chinese?') as well as being accused of doing the "white person saves the Chinese' trope. Apparently they were actualy trying to address issues of pandering by creating an film for the international market but with a largely Chinese based creative types. Damon was seen as a start that could help the movie play internationally and they didn't won't his role to be a glorified cameo in an otherwise Chinese film.

Learned a new word today, invigilate.

I think that's pretty much all of metropolitan Atlanta's hopes as well.

SPLIT. Thought it worked as a thriller in the vein of Cloverfield. If you go to see it I recommend not reading spoilers; it us a Shyamalan film and has its share of twists.

I've noticed the same issue. HOWEVER, if you change the dice then leave the picked dice seem to persist until the next time you open character select up at which point it reverts to default blue. I've checked the other characters I have and it appears to only be Seoni effected.

Rivers on earth. Project Limpopo, Project Apalachicola, Project South Esk, Project Dnieper...

As I recall, the Community college system in California used a multiple measures method for placement (not admissions); this was considered to be a great break through for remediation (at one point this was my area of work). Where I work, there was no community college system, but I did work at one time for an institution that would have been equivilent to a community college (open enrollment). As our governing body began looking at retention rates, they started adding criteria (to be fair, it was always open admissions with caveats) and moved to requiring a minimum score based on a multiple measures format. The four research institutions that are also run by this governing body are also held to this criteria, but have layered on many, many other requirements because they are selective admissions and need ways to differentiate students who end up with the same formula scores. That said, the governing body where I work went to multiple measures with a heavy weight on HS GPA because of the studies promoted by several organizations (including, IIRC, Complete College America) that said HS GPA was a better predictor of early college / freshman year success that SAT/ACT. This mirrored there Freshman Index requirement which also weighed heavily on HS GPA that was combined with the SAT or ACT score. Which was what I was trying to make my point on; there are studies that have indicated that even with grade inflation, HS GPA is a better predictor of early college success than SAT/ACT. But I was not advocating that schools abandon SAT/ACT. I was a proponent in our system of looking at multiple points to address success factors.

I didn't say it, I just paraphrased what a pundit said.

Perhaps MIT can help?

If I implied HS GPA wasn't (or worse, was never) a factor, than I misrepresented what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say was that HS GPA is being used in a slightly different context by applying it to admissions and placement where it is part of a formula rather than a stand-alone and contextless criteria (even that is arguably an oversimplification see below). Note that most of my experience in this is based on open-admissions programs (like the California Community College System) as opposed to selective admissions programs, like the University of California institutions. Selective admission schools will end up adding a lot more criteria beyond HS GPA & SAT/ACT like essays, rigor of courses taken, recommendation letters, extracurricular activities, number of AP/IB classes taken, etc. IIRC University of Tennessee looks at how hard your senior year classes were; Georgia Tech gets the HS counselor to fill out information about the HS so that it can weight to value of the HS information, etc. Until recently, most open admissions programs didn't do that sort of thing with respect to admissions or placement decisions (locally a low HS GPA only 'might' keep a student out of an open admissions school) and relied heavily on SAT/ACT or a local placement test for most of their decisions.

I think most schools did have minimum GPA, however beyond existing as a barrier ("you need X GPA to be admitted") or being used to crop the end off of eligible applicants the GPA was irrelevant. The new models use GPA & HS GPA in a formula to calculate an score that is then used to drive admissions decisions and further to actually determine placement for collegiate work. So a GPA 3.4 and SAT 1250 will not be the same as GPA 2.0 and SAT 1250 and may not be eligible to start in the same classes either.

My point was simply that they were disparate; its hard to draw comparisons to previous cases since no two are alike. As I recall Petraeus was never charged with Espionage. Libby was convicted, IIRC, of lying not espionage.

True the other 'recent' military personnel I can think of charged under the Espionage act (George Trofimoff, life in prison; James Hall III, 40 years; John Anthony Walker, 25 years) all had more comparable sentences to Manning than the non-military ones (Jeffrey Sterling, 3.5 years; Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, 13 months, John Kiriakou, 30 months) Sure, but aren't all of those examples people who sold secrets to other states? Yes, I believe that Trofimoff, Hall, and Walker were all explicitly selling secrets to Russia; Sterling, Kim and Kiriakou were all convicted of giving secrets to journalists; Sterling in particular received his sentence right after the Patraeus sentencing which kind of shows how disparate handling of these types of accusations have been.

I'm not saying that there was a legitimate claim in this case; loads of organizations will send cease-and-desist notices over marks that wouldn't really be actionable if it went to court. I'm just saying that if the site was asked to remove it with reference to Geneva Convention, it was probably someone sabre-rattling over Provision III of the Geneva Convention (or something from the 1977 update, but the wording on Prov III seemed the most likely culprit).