Amentep

Who is arguing that? I hear there are police officers and that they're actually really useful in getting the laws of the land enforced. And I hear that sometimes, journalists actually work with law enforcement to cover stories where they've uncovered criminal acts. So you think Milo would have investigated 7-12 year old chatlogs of just anyone? 'Cause if so I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people who were 22 in 2005 quaking in their boots now. Neither do I. However there's not a lot of credible evidence on display. Even with that, I can understand how the story might be considered news but I've found the reporting incomplete and highly reliant on assuming that criminal activity has taken place (because, why bring in the police and risk having them determine nothing actionable happened) If you're writing an article, there actually is a really good reason to report its been done because not doing so is leaving facts out of the story and also presents unproven ideas as facts. People read these articles and assume that crimes did happen and have acted accordingly. The harassment since these articles has been vile. And since we're talking about ethical journalism, by not going that extra step to work with police to determine that something did/didn't happen I think the articles have been irresponsible IMO and encouraged the threats and harrassment. YMMV.

Well arguably aGG is against "harassment of women and minorities online" and believes GG is a hate group designed to silence women and minorities. Arguably GG is against "unethical behavior in journalism" and believes aGG is a hate group designed to protect unethical journalists by using women and minorities as shields against criticism of their unethical behavior. The problem is that aGG and GG both have harassed and attempted to silence everyone who is critical or it and/or sides with the other side - women and men, majorities and minorities, sexual orientations of all kind. I guess that makes both side's true primary focus "winning" in any way possible, no matter how hypocritically?

I confess, I actually have no clue what you mean.

This probably won't be a popular opinion, but... Having glanced over the logs when this came to light earlier, my first thought was it looks like the kind of ****posting a lot of people do trying to get a rise out of people. Could be wrong of course, but ultimately isn't that something for for the police to discover, not the internet? I've seen someone say "well it must be true, because it was said repeatedly for years". But we have examples in our own community that have kept up alts for years. I kept up a mod personality account for a couple of years myself on Black Isle. We have posters like Gromnir or Sargalath Abraxium who have maintained a posting style for almost 20 years. Back on USENET there was a group of Discordian posters that maintained a chaotic posting style for years because it allowed them to maintain connected to their internet group. Sure there's some wonkyness with her defense post (like indicating 4Chan community acceptance as being a motivational factor potentially prior to its creation). It being wonky from a timeline perspective doesn't make the basic argument wrong. Yes it throws doubt on the situation but people with troubled pasts will often compress time and events. In such a scenario spiritual precursors to 4Chan would be easy to confuse with 4Chan itself. Maybe this is the case, maybe not. But lets say the doubt is enough that you think the explanation doesn't work. So you think someone has abused a relative? Or have proof? Or even an admission of guilt from that person? The appropriate thing is to contact the police. If you're a news outlet and you uncover a crime you work with the police and cover that story. But that doesn't seem to be happening. And, not coincidentally, it didn't seem to happen at the time the posts were made. So either the chatposters were some awful people or...they thought she was ****posting too. The problem with arguing SJW = "Its okay when we do it" is that it seems that Gamersgate has become (or always been) the same thing. There hasn't been made - in at least the articles I've read - any attempt to make a connection between this information on Nyberg and ethics in journalism; its presented solely as an attempt to discredit an aGG opinion article writer and thus the other side by association. Which is the exact same thing the aGG side is accused of doing every time they claim GG is a vehicle for harassment by associating harassers who claim affiliation with GG as legitimately representing GG which GGers have been claiming is bad form for over a year. GG and aGG appear more and more like different sides of the same coin in this. Same tactics, same demonization, same moral outrage whenever anyone points out that each side is using tactics they accuse the other of using. And to be completely honest a lot of responses to Nyberg I've seen haven't been "I think you've committed criminal acts, I'm contacting the police" but instead has been "look at the freak" style stuff that is frankly uncomfortable and doesn't seem easily connected to any kind of ethics in journalism argument.

Zoo finale. This show is just all over the place - in a good way. I think any other show would have made about 4 seasons out of the story arcs in this season.

I'm ambivalent. I've liked some of Disney's live-action reinterpretations and... I've not liked others as much. Redoing the Jungle Book is kind of weird since there have already been a number of live action versions of it and it doesn't seem to be carrying the music over with it. That said, this isn't even the first time Disney has done a live action version of it, having adapted it in 1994 (with Jason Scott-Lee as Mowgli and without talking animals) and then with a direct-to-video version in 1998's "The Jungle Book: Mowgli's Story" (with Brandon Baker as Mowgli and Brian Doyle-Murray as Baloo1) 1I confess this one factoid peaks my interest just for the oddity of Brian and brother Bill doing the same part 20 years apart.

If the Lady of Pain has stats, you're doing it wrong.

Technically the first game (where you could create your characters) had a version of the job system. This allowed you to create your team and choose their class from Warrior, Thief, Monk, Red Mage, White Mage, Black Mage. These then could be advanced to an advanced class. Final Fantasy III introduced the idea of freely transferring Jobs; all characters started as an Onion Knight then when they got advanced enough could change to various classes. Final Fantasy V added Ability Points (AP) and the ability to use multiple skills per class. IIRC.

Are you in a game you've finished? Isn't it only playable from a post-game save?

Interesting finale of ANW. Kinda figured it'd go that way when we got to stage 3.

^Yeah kind of my feeling too. I've toyed with it, but don't want to invest heavily until it is done.

Honestly forget the Arabs if they cant protect there own historical sites. I am happy with how Western countries manage these types of sites Well Khaled al-Asaad did try.

Maybe the designers really liked Parodius?

If you're seriously asking, as far as I know they kept buying companies they'd successfully partnered with through their licensing arm, starting sometime in the mid 2000s (possibly due to the mixed results of their licensed properties prior to that). TT Games; Monolith Productions, Snowblind Studios and Surreal Software (merged into Monolith); Midway Games (became NetherRealm); Turbine, and Rocksteady were all originally development partners. Even their interest in SCi was bought because they had a relationship at the time with Eidos. Since 2010 they've founded two WB Games studios (one in San Francisco, one in Qubec) that aren't based on a previous acquisition.

You're waiting to see how many people ask so you can figure how much money you might get if you set up a Patreon account from your supporters...?

I know of click-bait with news services. Is click-Tweet a thing? Because McIntosh's tweets always sound like things calculated to make people redistribute his tweets.

He mentions that, but Jim carries over in the general "reviewers end up with a different perspective because they see every game". To put it another way, I've never played the Batman: Arkham games. So for me, the gameplay may seem new and/or novel. But a reviewer who has played that and all of the clones will feel differently. I call it DYNASTY WARRIORS syndrome. I usually only play every other iteration and the gameplay carry overs aren't as obvious to me. On the other hand I also like the basic gameplay of Dynasty Warriors so the lack of change has never bothered me.

I have yet to watch Sky High...I probably should at some point.

But Amentep what would happen if she was found to be stealing? As I understand it, as an elected position, a county clerk found to be stealing would still have to be impeached by the Kentucky House of Representatives to be removed from office. There may be an interim clerk put in while the legal proceedings...er...proceed, but it'd require the House to remove.

As I understand it (I tried to find the actual provisions, but legislation isn't terribly intuitive if you don't know where what you're looking for lives), she can be removed through impeachment but that's by the Kentucky House of Representatives, which doesn't meet again until January, I believe.

Synopsis: Both sides have fair points. Gamers and reviewers sometimes look at games differently because of the situations they're in. Reviewers get the games for free, also they have hundreds of games to review constantly, so things like busywork are an obstacle to them getting to the heart of the game so they can post a review. Gamers have to pay for their own games and don't generally have the same time pressures reviewers do, so things that seem like busywork for reviewers may be enjoyable activities to gamers that extend their playing time and give them value for the money they had to spend. Also, Ars Technica are ****wads for going with a clickbait-y presumptuous title for their review. Also also, don't get hung up on scores, they fail to tell the whole story. Also also also, scores bad, mmkay? Edit: Ninja'd You forgot the "...and that's why my reviews using large chunks of gameplay footage instead of scores with commentary to explain why I hold my opinions are so much more awesomer" bit.

My understanding was they were a turning point in terms of first developer who targeted Linux. It didn't work, but it led the way to other companies. I'm not as cognizant on Linux development (other than knowing I've been hearing about it for around 20 years, with a lot of it similar to being "why isn't this out on Mac/Linux/etc")

If by "brand new" you mean "since 1998"1 then yes, they are "brand new". That said the turning point is really going to be installed user base. That goes up you're going to see more parallel development for Linux and other OSes, and I think Steam's efforts are going to make an impact there. 1I understand the first game ported was actually in 1994, but I believe 1998 is when Loki Software started, and I think that's considered to be the turning point in Linux game development

WSB TV printed (and broadcast) a retraction of the story after online gamers encouraged them to investigate the evidence provided by their source. http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/local-gamer-says-he-communicated-shooter-killed-jo/nnS4Z/

I'm entertained by TAS, but it has a lot of limitations.