Amentep

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCmAaNk_iIQ I don't really get an action movie vibe off of it.

Why does this become a value judgement? Do you criticize people if they don't cry enough at funerals? Wow, talk about a strawman. I am not talking about how people should behave or show emotion at funerals. No, you aren't. But you are telling people how they should behavie and show emotion (because you complained they didn't show enough emotion to a story you felt they should be emotional about. I'd argue you can't expect people to show empathy the same way you (or I) do. I'll take a quote from the Doctor Who, "The Tenth Planet" here: Polly: But don't you care? Krail: Care? No, why should I care? Polly: Because they're people and they're going to die! Krail: I do not understand you, there are people dying all over your world, yet you do not care about them. This dialogue is actually acutely aware of human nature, and that is that we can't really undersand the scope of very large numbers. Polly represents human compassion - the desire to help the hurt that you know of while the Cyberman correctly points out that as you help that one person there are dozens more in the same situation. The truth of this ladies situation is that it isn't unique but while I read that article there were other people being bullied. And not by just by random people, but by peers, by collegues, by parents or children. I empathise, but there's only so many fights one person can fight at a time. (a) because it is always selective (b) because this thread is about Gamergate and anti-Gamergate and not the larger problem of non-Gamergate related bullying. Which is enormous, particularly with anonymous, disposable identities on the internet. © because the anti-Gamergate group seems to condemn harrasment by Gamergaters but support harrasment of Gamergaters It may be to the larger issue of cyberbullying. It seems relatively unrelated to Gamergate, however, and you made no effort to make a connection. Are you saying the #NotYourShield guy who lost his job because people harrassed his work after he was doxxed and an organized harrassment campaign was created should forgive those who got him fired? Are you saying that, say, Anita Sarkeesian and Briana Wu should forgive the people who harrassed them rather than continuing to use this harrassment as a way to tar anyone who disagrees with them by lumping them into the same group? Are you saying that anti-Gamergaters and Gamergaters should forgive each other for the harrassment that people who may not even be affiliated with their movements have done? Should Gamers everywhere forgive those who lept to say they were worse than ISIS and needed to all die (or worse be killed actively)? I tried to add some details about a place I went to school (particularly, some of the famous people who went there before, during and after I was there) but because I don't have a way to refrence it, its not credible. But if I did an internet article "The Famous People Who Went to [school]" then I could quote that as a source in the wikipedia article. 'Tis silly.

Questioning authority is fine; its reasonable to use critical thinking skills to try to understand what is legitimate and illegitimate authority (or uses thereof). But again, my experience has been (not talking about Val here, but with people outside the internet) if they bring up "Question Authority" repeatedly in discussions about the government, the military, police, large corporations, education or several other institutions they're not talking about critical analysis but about conspiracy theories about institutions controlling the individual and stealing their rights/guns/precious fluids.* *Which maybe they are and I'm too brainwashed to see - never side with certainty 100%.

Yeah I'll third that. Interest was high until they actually announced the type of game it was and then my interest plummeted.

And we're back to sticking it to the man. No or not necessarily in regards to anything you're saying above. As I've said a few times now, what to do, why to do it, and any given scenario is entirely situational. Sometimes they're simple scenarios, but often they are not. I'm not taking this conversation further with you as you keep imagining things that were never stated and are not true, such as equating questioning authority to 'sticking it to the man'. They are certainly not one and the same, and this has now been repeatedly mentioned. If you truly think that, then my sentiments toward you are as they are towards anyone who thinks 2+2=5. That's fine, as I mentioned before I didn't think that there was to be a productive dialgue, but I do appreciate your attempts to explain your position even if, ultimately, I cannot fathom it. However, regarding "Question Authority", I will admit that the phrase sticks in my craw; perhaps I'm projecting an incorrect analysis on your words, but my experience with people who use that phrase is that they are the kind of people who are anti-government conspiracy theorists, the kind who believe that the police are an fascist army ready to take their personal liberties away who must be defied at all turns lest any freedom (real or perceived) be lost. EDIT: This perhaps makes it hard for me to be neutral and understanding in the discussion.

Then you're pretty much screwed whatever you do, yes? But living is better than dying? So you see no difference between a police officer and a random person on the street? I specifically excluded those because if you're in that situation you're effectively screwed (see above). And why would there be a great cost (excluding, again, unlawful and immoral)? Are you or the person you're shielding breaking the law? Wouldn't this come under the heading of consequences of breaking the law? This seems highly unlikely unless you're not paying attention, but assuming this is the situation, its a far different scenario to misunderstand an officer than to willfully defy one. And we're back to sticking it to the man.

Because she sees them as vermin, I'd guess. I didn't notice it but then I disliked Vivienne so didn't use her much. But it makes sense that a pseudo-aristocrat would approve the elimination of dirty vermin.

In theory, yes I'll agree with that. I think there are other, more likely weights to their word (tickets, jail time) but ultimately force/death is there at the back of the whole thing. This is the part that I'm getting lost on. Why do you fail to comply or "defend" yourself? Is the cop asking you to do something illegal or immoral? Because if not, I tend to agree with Gromnir here, the better course of action is to let the cop arrest you, cite you, ticket you or whatever and then fight it in court if the officer is wrong.

Anyone heard from Sargy lately? He seemed to dissapear last year.

Why does this become a value judgement? Do you criticize people if they don't cry enough at funerals?

I never tried to dispute it. All I said is that just because the monopoly of violence is held by the state doesn't mean that any action of a police officer automatically means the officer will commit violence. And you apparently are asserting that anything a police officer asks you, whether its "Let me see your ID", "Pull over, you're speeding" or "Stop stabbing people and put down the knife" is somehow the time to not comply and resist? I admit I don't get your point unless its "Lets stick it to the man! Down with pigs!" Or I have the common sense to (a) get out of the rain and (b) let people do their jobs in a larger society. But at this point, I'm sure there's no real dialogue to be had here.

Depends on the state. Illinois and New York salts, Washington State and Oregon uses sand or those road mixtures, IIRC.

I usually decide when I'm doing character creation. What character idea appeals to me the most at that time. And I also restart a lot, so picking a dude or dudette for first go around may not mean anything in respect to who I finish with. If I like a game enough I'll evenentually get to all the possible combinations around.

As I recall most states don't legislate it (other than saying when they can be used). A couple like Colorado require commercial vehicles to carry chains in their car during certain periods or are like New York who require chains/snow tires if a snow emergency is declared.

Yeah I liked original Fallout 3 on the PC with mods. Well I liked all of Bethesda's games I've played with mods, particularly those that fix bugs and general hideousness (I'm looking at you, Morrowind).

Why would I disobey the officer, unless the request was unlawful? And if the request *was* unlawful I'm pretty much screwed whether the person was a police officer or any other person with a gun. And again, why would I defend myself from a legitimate, reasonable request from a police officer? And if it wasn't a reasonable request, why would I resist (risking being maced, shot, tazed) instead of going to jail and pleading my case before a judge? The general rule of thumb - as I understand it - is play along with people have guns unless they ask you to go to your knees (as at that point you're guaranteed they're going to kill you).

Even going with Webber's theories, the fact that the state owns the monoply of the legitimate use of force does not follow that any command given by law enforcement is backed up solely by the state's monopoly. Its a bit like saying that because a bank holds all of your money that you've deposited, if the teller asks you to show your ID during a transaction that the natural consequence of failure to comply is backed up by the bank permanently taking all of your money. While it might be that ultimately the bank could do that and do it legally, all that is going to happen in the immediate term is the cessation of the transaction. Therefore I stand by my assertion that logically, any given command by a police officer that is not in itself an indicator of escalation to violence is not necessarily backed up by the concept of violence.

I'd pay to own remasters of the games on my PS4, but I'm not sure everyone else would and I think the decision is really in Bethesda's ball court.

I'm guessing that, as a teacher, any threat implicit in your verbal coercion attempts amount to "comply or you will get detention", at worst. When dealing with law enforcement, the implicit threat is "comply or you may be KILLED". Not quite the same thing... I hope. I'd think that - for the majority of cases - the implied threat of an order from law enforcement is "comply or you will be taken to jail" not "comply or I'll shoot your ass".

Sony Computer Entertainment is, AFAIK, the group that handles playstation hardware, R&D and software. Sony Online Entertainment was the MMO division, which AFAIK again was the MMO games and the infrastructure to support them.

Apologies if its been posted before - http://www.platinumgames.co.jp/404/

I guessed it for a different reason - I couldn't believe he'd create a sign using all the space from edge to edge on 5 lines then suddenly center the last two leaving a huge blank area. From there it was easy to spot the letter re-use and find the debunking on Snopes, which led to the original pic.

$.25 in 1974 is like a $1.20 now. However, Fantastic Four (for example) had a PAID SUBSCRIBER BASE of 218,330* in 1974 (average print run 428,583) whereas the estimate for December's issue is 24,716 at $3.99 So for the sake of the math, lets say that Marvel got a third, the printer a third and the post office a third. So with Marvel's 1/3 of the subscriber base's $.25 in 1974, Marvel had $18,194.17 (or $87,367.44 in today's dollars) from the guaranteed sales of Fantastic Four each month. If we assume a similar third situation (Marvel, distributor, comic shop) for Fantastic Four's sales estimate, than Marvel got $32,872.28 on December's issue. So even with the 1596% increase in cost, Marvel is actually making about 38% of what they did in 1974 adjusting for inflation on that specific title. The real answer to decreasing the cost of comics? Get 180,000 more people buying Fantastic Four each month. It'd be great to get comics back on the newsstands except...newstands don't exist any longer by and large. And the chain stores that sale magazines and newspapers make more money per space for those than they do comics. Which is why they stopped selling them in the first place as chain stores put mom and pop stores out of business in the 1970s, which is what necessitated the move to the direct market in the early 1980s in the first place. *Almost twice the current estimated sales of the top Batman title

Pic is manipulated. Real picture here - http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2014/10/jailhouse_tales_an_protester_who_was_arrested_sunday_night_tells_about_her_experience.php Snopes article - http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/fergusonsign.asp