Please tell me I won't need to map 50 different keys for 50 different in-game functions that each only do a single thing you use only one time in the entire game. I'm looking at you, Assassin's Creed!

Using violence, torture, and the backing of the Russian military, and after numerous failed coup and assassination attempts he took and held tenuous control. Torture hardly played a huge roll or he would have been successful the first time, or the second. He retained and increased that power in the 70-80's by spending his huge amounts of oil money on the people, mostly not by torturing them (except for Kurds).

The "others in the room" we're his forces, not random people who murdered for him out of relief. He didn't hand weapons to an adversarial group he was convincing to follow his lead by having them kill those who wouldn't. I mean...WHAT?

You use fear mongering as proof torture works? Um... ok.

Since what I've been discussing is torture working to get sensitive, useful information, not the long term terrorism and brutal oppression of a population, I'll just move on.
Yes, despots can ride nations into the ground by making the populations powerless and fearful until those populations revolt. Yes, an iron hand and willingness to make your population stone aged can allow you to hold on a long time. Yes, torture can be part of that, but only one small unnecessary part, a strong military willing to murder unarmed civilians is what it takes, torture or not.

Wow, now you think the U.S. military taking out Saddam proves torture works because ...force and violence?

Strength vs weakness is what worked, not torture or terrorism, that's why he failed, brought down by a coalition of locals and Americans with his military deserting him in droves when he needed them most.

Torture is not a functional interrogation technique nor a means to foster loyalty, only fear. Fear only works until someone adds hope to the equation.

This looks like it will be better than the second one. The second one had too much plot getting in the way of the blood opera.

"John Wick is in New York. Every elite assassin in the world is trying to kill him. He must escape."

Keeps it simple, does what it's good at. Hopefully.

Your video, Conservation of The Assassination of Archimedes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Fight - Julie Estelle v 2 Assassins - The Night Comes For Us, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm an atheist and will always be one of the first in line to suggest that religions should be subject to criticism and the rule of law just like any other organization.

That being said, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that congregations are complicit in the misdeeds of the institution itself, whether or not they are aware of verified instances of misdeeds. ...Pretty slippery slope.

Expand that to, say, nations. In the history of the US, the government has committed some pretty indefensible atrocities. Genocide, mass relocation, and other offenses against Native Americans in the name of "manifest destiny". Enslavement of a race of people based on skin color, with disenfranchisement and continued abuse well after slavery was abolished, with elements that certainly persist to this day. Funding and supplying extremist organizations because they happen to have a short-term enemy that coincides with ours, which frequently comes back to bite us in the ass later. Using underhanded tricks including false-flag operations to justify wars and other offensive actions. Attempting to assassinate democratically elected leaders of foreign governments. And on and on.

Are all US citizens complicit in those misdeeds, merely by an accident of birth? But those things were in the past, you might argue. Given the depth of dirt you can find on our past with a little digging, I'd say it is reasonable to expect that there's things that the government is doing now that we may or may not be aware of that would be similarly difficult to defend.

Many/most Catholics can either remain intentionally blissfully ignorant about these problems, or will be able to go to great lengths to rationalize their way around them. Just like most US citizens don't lose much sleep over our government's past and present misdeeds. In either case, indoctrination puts the blinders on -- and can be incredibly difficult to escape.

For the religious, "love the sinner, hate the sin" is an oft-repeated phrase. As an atheist outraged by these scandals and the decades/centuries of intentional cover-ups by the Church itself, I might be tempted to turn that on its head. "Accept the religious, hate the religion." By all means, be outraged towards the institution itself. By all means, fight to end the protections that have allowed this kind of abuse to go unchecked. But perhaps try to keep some (Christian?) empathy for the average Catholic congregation members who have been brainwashedindoctrinated their whole lives and are likely in too deep to escape. Reserve that hatred for the clergy that abused their positions of power and control to commit these crimes, and the organizational system that systematically allowed it to happen while covering it up. They deserve every bit of hate you throw their way.

I love how he gives an example of how a completely legal and non-violent solution will be the first step to total violence and assassinations.

EMP...

There was an episode of the Black Mirror that delved into AI assassin mini-drones.

Your video, Assassin's Kittens, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Fun -- any idea where it was?

The cropping and general video quality makes it look sort of like old footage. Kinda reminded me of JFK assassination video, lol

**edit**
Googling "Clear Cut Plastics Inc." shows that storefront in Seattle. So that makes a lot of sense.

So what i gather is Daves old contract stipulated that his new contract would pay him 50% of what he had made Viacom. They then said it was to much money and that in itself invalidated the promise/clause made in the old contract. They then offered him 50 million for the new contract instead of the 250 he was promised from the old one. After he turned down their money they started a character assassination of him in the media for fear he was going public with how they were screwing him. Also i assume they were pissed he wasn't going to be making them a shit ton more money and they were going to punish him for it.

In one of his new stand up specials on Netflix (The Bird Revelation) he makes a comparison of what happened to him by recounting a story from Iceberg Slim’s book, Pimp: The Story of My Life. http://www.vulture.com/2018/01/dave-chappelle-pimp-story-bird-revelation-close-read.html

But how different is telling a drone "kill the person with this face" to telling a missile "fly here and blow up". The video seems to show ez-assassination technology (tm) being used by "the wrong" humans, not AI going rogue and deciding who lives and who dies on its own.

To me, the video is scary not because of AI, but because of how easy and inconsequential it portrays murder. It makes you wonder if that isn't sort of the end goal of advanced warfare technology - the more surgical it becomes the further it deviates from our idea of what war is - this is drone warfare and it's nebulous legality taken to the very extreme.

What I perhaps find unsettling in myself is that I find this somehow worse than open warfare - as if its not the loss of life that bothers me, but the sinister efficiency of it. Is that really a valid criticism? Why is it "more ok" to fly a plane to drop a bomb on some foreigner than for a drone to do it - is it because it simply costs/risks us more, that technology like this cheapens human life?

The AI takin over is scary too. I just hope they work out in time that the only winning move is not to play.

Every Democratic presidential candidate is already painted by the NRA as determined to take your guns, regardless of what they've said or how they've voted.

Might as well embrace it and at least generate some interest among voters who are in favor of gun control. I'd support a candidate who chants "Grab those guns" at rallies . . . I mean, at least up until they're assassinated.

I wonder how long before we're seeing, on the internet, videos of assassinations and murders. Only posted on April 1st though.