Eh, I don't like this:
(1) Reddit is not a news site. Reddit is not a newspaper. Reddit is a discussion board. I see no problem with people discussing these things. I see nothing wrong with a conversation that says "this guys is suspicious".
(2) Some of the people circled in this segment are genuinely suspicious. The guys in the combat gear are military equipped mercenaries. They're not the bombers, but their presence is interesting.
(3) The younger brother did not shoot himself in the neck, apparently. So Charlie Brooker is now as guilty as everyone else he's mocking.

what this video does not mention is the huge contingent of blackwater mercenaries that were sent to new orleans during katrina.
*quality

>> ^jmzero:

As for jmzero... I dont think hes even played it.

Well, uh, you're wrong. I've played about an hour, which was a half hour more than I needed to see this wasn't the game for me. I played the first game really quite a lot.
There are many things you can say about GW2, both good and bad, but "slightly different flavor of WoW" isnt one of them.

I don't think YOU'VE played it. Ha! See how annoying that is?
Anyways, it's a hell of a lot more like WoW than Guild Wars 1, though I suppose MMO connoisseurs probably see all sorts of distinguishing characteristics. I played through the storyline of Guild Wars 1 and only played with other people once or twice (using the AI mercenary things as required). In Guild Wars, I didn't even get to fight the "boss" thing at the end of the tutorial - someone killed it before I got close. That's not the same kind of game.
And they've futzed with the multi-player (which to me was the actual game). I can't just pick the skills I want. I can't just jump into a reasonably balanced (and levelled) PvP character (or, if I can, they didn't present that option very well). In the first game, I made a PvP monk with a bunch of heals, and was doing multiplayer (and having fun) immediately - like, within 10 minutes of installing the game. I have no idea how far off the horizon that is in Guild Wars II, but even when it comes I'm quite sure I don't want to play it. It plays completely different - far more action-RPG focus instead of the old focus on skill-selection and tactics. If I want an action-y game, I'll play a game style that supports that - like DotA.
Guild Wars 1 was a really appealing game for me. Guild Wars II is nothing of the sort - and to me it goes in the same trash-heap as every other "kill 10 rats", "grind equipment and levels" MMO that came before it.
Oh, but yeah, I didn't realize that it's set in the same painfully, painfully generic fantasy universe (I really didn't). Thanks for straightening me out on that.


1. Basing any game on an hours play is stupid.
2. You talk about how you loved GW1s story, yet you ignored the story in GW2 which said wait for the NPC.... this was there so you didnt miss out on killing the boss.... perhaps you should pay attention next time.
3. In GW1 most people picked the same 3 or so skills for weapons every time, AN simply locked the skills in place to make sure people who didnt understand wouldnt be caught out with a build which was useless. All the other skills can be picked by the player, tho again with more limitations. The GW1 system was powerful, but impossible to balance. The new system is able to be managed by AN, but it sactually more indepth than it seems, tho it is simpler.
4. You can jump into pvp right away actually. Just make a charater (such as a guardian) and goto the pvp lobby. Done, lvl 80 with access to all items, skills and access to the jump in, and tournament play. Again, if you'd bothered to play the game you would have known this. All this information was in the manuel linked right from the launcher.
5. You dont grind equipment and levels. You'll get both by doing whatever you want, be it spvp, wvw, story content or jump roaming around.

Its not perfect, but dear lord play it first to find out for yourself.

As for jmzero... I dont think hes even played it.



Well, uh, you're wrong. I've played about an hour, which was a half hour more than I needed to see this wasn't the game for me. I played the first game really quite a lot.

There are many things you can say about GW2, both good and bad, but "slightly different flavor of WoW" isnt one of them.



I don't think YOU'VE played it. Ha! See how annoying that is?

Anyways, it's a hell of a lot more like WoW than Guild Wars 1, though I suppose MMO connoisseurs probably see all sorts of distinguishing characteristics. I played through the storyline of Guild Wars 1 and only played with other people once or twice (using the AI mercenary things as required). In Guild Wars, I didn't even get to fight the "boss" thing at the end of the tutorial - someone killed it before I got close. That's not the same kind of game.

And they've futzed with the multi-player (which to me was the actual game). I can't just pick the skills I want. I can't just jump into a reasonably balanced (and levelled) PvP character (or, if I can, they didn't present that option very well). In the first game, I made a PvP monk with a bunch of heals, and was doing multiplayer (and having fun) immediately - like, within 10 minutes of installing the game. I have no idea how far off the horizon that is in Guild Wars II, but even when it comes I'm quite sure I don't want to play it. It plays completely different - far more action-RPG focus instead of the old focus on skill-selection and tactics. If I want an action-y game, I'll play a game style that supports that - like DotA.

Guild Wars 1 was a really appealing game for me. Guild Wars II is nothing of the sort - and to me it goes in the same trash-heap as every other "kill 10 rats", "grind equipment and levels" MMO that came before it.

Oh, but yeah, I didn't realize that it's set in the same painfully, painfully generic fantasy universe (I really didn't). Thanks for straightening me out on that.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Golf clap.>> ^Sagemind:

There are many reasons Fett is a great character (and why he Bad-Ass). I'll try to avoid all of the stuff from the books but they reinforce Fett and the characteristics that define him.
1). Disintegrations: In the Dark Horse Comic "Enemy of the Empire" - Baba Fett had been given the order to disintegrate his target giving him a reputation for being relentless.
2). Boba Fett wears braids made of Wookie hair as trophies of Wookies that he has bested.
3). Boba Fett outsmarts Has Solo. When Han comes up with the idea of floating away with the trash, Boba Fett sees through Han's plan and is able to track him and arrive in Bespin before they can even land the Falcon
4). Boba Fett has the balls to negotiate with a Sith Lord and still come out with a good deal - something few people can do. Then later he has the balls again to challenge Vader when he warns "he's no good to me dead"
4). Once Boba Fett has Han captured (frozen), he had to outsmart and fend off two different IG-88 droids in two separate attacks, as well as defend his bounty against the team-up of Bossk, Zuckus and 4-Lom multiple times before he could get Han to Jabba and claim his reward - some of the toughest and most ruthless mercinaries in the bounty hunter's guild. (Also, an aside from the books... Boba Fett was able to outsmart and dissolve the entire Bounty Hunter's Guild.)
5). Boba managed to get two bounty payouts for the same bounty from two of the hardest villains around. He was paid by Vader to provide Han as bait to get Skywalker and he was able to turn him over to Jabba once Vader was finished with him. Successfully!!
6). Shooting at Luke while on the Sail Barge. - It's believed that Boba missed Luke on purpose because he knew Vader wanted him alive. The reason he tried to catch him using the wrist lasso and why he jet-packed to the skiff instead of staying on the barge..
7). Why was Boba Fett hanging around Jabba's Pallace after he delivered Han?
Jabba offered Fett more credits, knowing Skywalker and the other would probably try to rescue him. Jabba was known for keeping multiple bounty Hunters and mercenaries on retainer both through blackmail and by paycheck. Having many different factions close by ensured that even if there was mutiny, there was always another faction standing by to protect him for a cash payment.
. Boba Fett has the best ship in Star Wars galaxy with best weaponry and gadgets. He also has the cash to keep it up to date functioning perfectly - because he is the best at what he does. Slave One is a modified prototype police vehicle (Firespray-31-class patrol and attack craft) made by Kuat Systems Engineering, the largest ship builder in the galaxy. (I also like the B-wing fighter, it's pretty cool too.)
9). Boba Fetts custom Mandalorian Armor is just plain cool.
10). Fett had to end up in the Pit of Carkoon/Sarlac Pit". It was the only option story wise. Fett would have pursued Skywalker and the gang if he could have and then where would that leave our heroes - DEAD, that's where.
I shouldn't have to defend him but there you go - Truth be told I also like Bossk and Dengar for their own reasons as well.

There are many reasons Fett is a great character (and why he Bad-Ass). I'll try to avoid all of the stuff from the books but they reinforce Fett and the characteristics that define him.

1). Disintegrations: In the Dark Horse Comic "Enemy of the Empire" - Baba Fett had been given the order to disintegrate his target giving him a reputation for being relentless.

2). Boba Fett wears braids made of Wookie hair as trophies of Wookies that he has bested.

3). Boba Fett outsmarts Has Solo. When Han comes up with the idea of floating away with the trash, Boba Fett sees through Han's plan and is able to track him and arrive in Bespin before they can even land the Falcon

4). Boba Fett has the balls to negotiate with a Sith Lord and still come out with a good deal - something few people can do. Then later he has the balls again to challenge Vader when he warns "he's no good to me dead"

4). Once Boba Fett has Han captured (frozen), he had to outsmart and fend off two different IG-88 droids in two separate attacks, as well as defend his bounty against the team-up of Bossk, Zuckus and 4-Lom multiple times before he could get Han to Jabba and claim his reward - some of the toughest and most ruthless mercinaries in the bounty hunter's guild. (Also, an aside from the books... Boba Fett was able to outsmart and dissolve the entire Bounty Hunter's Guild.)

5). Boba managed to get two bounty payouts for the same bounty from two of the hardest villains around. He was paid by Vader to provide Han as bait to get Skywalker and he was able to turn him over to Jabba once Vader was finished with him. Successfully!!

6). Shooting at Luke while on the Sail Barge. - It's believed that Boba missed Luke on purpose because he knew Vader wanted him alive. The reason he tried to catch him using the wrist lasso and why he jet-packed to the skiff instead of staying on the barge..

7). Why was Boba Fett hanging around Jabba's Pallace after he delivered Han?
Jabba offered Fett more credits, knowing Skywalker and the other would probably try to rescue him. Jabba was known for keeping multiple bounty Hunters and mercenaries on retainer both through blackmail and by paycheck. Having many different factions close by ensured that even if there was mutiny, there was always another faction standing by to protect him for a cash payment.

. Boba Fett has the best ship in Star Wars galaxy with best weaponry and gadgets. He also has the cash to keep it up to date functioning perfectly - because he is the best at what he does. Slave One is a modified prototype police vehicle (Firespray-31-class patrol and attack craft) made by Kuat Systems Engineering, the largest ship builder in the galaxy. (I also like the B-wing fighter, it's pretty cool too.)

9). Boba Fetts custom Mandalorian Armor is just plain cool.

10). Fett had to end up in the Pit of Carkoon/Sarlac Pit". It was the only option story wise. Fett would have pursued Skywalker and the gang if he could have and then where would that leave our heroes - DEAD, that's where.

I shouldn't have to defend him but there you go - Truth be told I also like Bossk and Dengar for their own reasons as well.

That was great! If everyone in the US thought like that it would be no.1 in everything. God knows it has the rescources to be and then some.

Tolstoy said 'Anyone who says things are worse now than they were before is a fool.'

But it has to be said that right wing mercenaries knocking over democracies and looting their countries used to be done in the dark, not in broad daylight. And when the much vaunted new LIBERAL president is sending killer robots to blow up funerals without feeling he has to explain himself it's difficult to say nothing has changed..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/25/jimmy-carter-drone-strikes

>> ^criticalthud:

uggg. everything was not GREAT in the past. utter bullshit. we are just repeating the same mistake today.
this generation is a direct product of the past generations.

This is a question of philosophy. The inheritees on the right are TERRIFIED of having their kids up against a huge load of educated peers. The entire notion of elite private schools is so you KNOW who will be running your country in 50 years (and it's someone you know/are related to/owes you something).

In Britain 90% of judges come from 2 schools. The current government (PM, Chancellor, Mayor of London, heads of banks) were in a club together at the age of 20 for obscenely rich 5th+ generation inheritees, where they would have a luxury dinner then smash the restaurant up and drop a few thousand for the peasants to clean up after them.

While a state is in the grip of true evil like that, all you can hope for is screaming obfuscation from right wing mouthpieces like the Fox mercenaries, half the Senate and our very own QM, and nothing *NOTHING* will change.


>> ^Trancecoach:

The educational system in this country is in dire need of revision. Corruption and antebellum notions from an industrial era has turned public school into nothing short of a clusterfuck.

@notarobot

They are all terrible - each with his or her own individual horrors to inflict upon the nation. It's as weak a field as I've ever seen. I think the best choice would be the one that is likely to get the least done - the most boring, uncharismatic and ineffectual. Sooo.... Hunstman, I guess.

It's much easier to pick a worst, and that would be Newt Gingrich. That guy is one of the shiftiest politicians I've ever seen. He seems like a complete mercenary who is only looking out for Newt. Bachman, Perry and Santorum are idiots. I liked Cain's wtf campaign and weird sense of humor, but he obviously lacked even a basic understanding of the information needed to do the job. I don't really feel like I know who Romney is. He is very slick and guarded. It looks like he is going to be the guy unless some tragedy befalls him.

@Auger8

That's nice of you to say. I'm used to being called a statist idiot. I like you too and think that if you dig Ron Paul, you should shout it from the roof tops. He is indeed not the status quo, fairly consistent and more honest than most politicians (though I do believe he intentionally misleads through omission and vagueness) I also like that he brings war, weed and the debt into the dialog.

You shouldn't need to counter any of what I've said if you truly support Ron Paul. He is a states rights guy, an anti-federalist and adherent of 'negative' liberty, which is liberty FROM democratic government, rather than liberty BY WAY of democratic government. If the things I've posted bug you, you should read up on Austrian economics, the Mises Institute, Ayn Rand, anarcho-capitalism, negative vs positive liberty and Ron Paul's homepage (though Ron is smart enough to keep things brief and vague on his own site). If these things appeal to you, then ending federal civil rights protections and letting the states decide should be something you support.

What bugs me is that many liberals are attracted to him based on hearing a few persuasive anti-war and pro-weed soundbites, without realizing that his economics are an extreme right wing form of capitalism. I want to make sure that people see this side of Ron Paul. If you support completely unfettered, unregulated markets, then Ron Paul is the guy for you. I know I probably come off as a little over-obsessive to allies and opponents alike, and I'm sorry to be that way, but that's who I am and how I feel. If I feel strongly about something, I just blurt it out. The internet is my safety release valve, because I'm much more guarded about discussing politics in my real life. Though I can be impulsively drawn to conflict in real life too. Anyway, cheers. I'm curious to know if you support Ron Paul's total package, or just the anti-war, pro-constitution stuff he talks about in the media.

Also, you can edit down my quote or remove it all together from your comment with the edit function. It's pretty darned long in and of itself without being quoted in its entirety.

(note: several edits and additions as to not take up any more comment space)

I read the wiki article you posted, it says the opposite of what you suggest. That pre-1980, they had no ability to generate policy...they just gathered information. Do you have a link to something that talks about the freemarkety nature in the 80s?, because that link doesn't have it. Unless you are just talking about Regan doing free market stuff on the whole affecting education somehow indirectly, but the link clearly says he made it a federal government responsibility to create educational policy in the 80s. In that, I don't know that your argument fully answers @Grimm's claim that educational stardards have gone down since federal policy making has been done. We aren't talking about free markets here, even at the state level. We are talking about who makes better policies affecting children's education; federal or state. It has also been of my opinion that for important things, eggs in one basket methodologies are dangerous. Best to have a billion little educational experiments boiling around the country, cooking up information that the rest of them can turn around and use. Waiting for a federal mandate to adopt a policy can be rather tedious.

I have some friends that are educators, I will have to ask them how they feel about this. It is easy for us to have an opinion based on raw idealism of our core beliefs, but I would be interested to see what certain teachers have to say. I met a real interesting person at my friends bachelor party. He came from a union state, and moved down here to Texas, we have teachers unions and things, but they aren't as powerful as the north. He experienced a complete change in himself. He found that his own involvement in his union happened in such a way where he basically held the kids education hostage over wages. He said that is was basically the accepted role of teachers to risk children's education over pay. I am not talking about just normal pay, but he was making 50k as a grade school teacher in the early 90s. Not suggesting this is normal, but it is something we don't copy here in Texas. As for his own mind, he knows he would never teach in that area of the country again, and would never suggest anyone move their that values their children's education.

What would be interesting to me is if the absence of the DOE would break down some of the red tape and allow schools to "get creative" with programs a federal political body might not want to take a risk on. Education is to important to fail on, and applying "to big to fail" kind of logic to a failing system of education is to much politics to play for me. Empower teachers and schools, and try to avoid paying as many non-educators as possible would be one way to improve things I would wager. What aspect of the DOE do you think is successful that we need to keep exactly? I mean, I can tell you I don't like that the DOD is so huge and powerful, but I know nuclear subs and aircraft carriers can't operate themselves. What necessarily component of the DOE do you see as necessarily, beyond just talking point of either party line stance of it? I mean, the Department of Energy's main goal was to get us off foreign oil, like a long time ago, that is pretty failed as much as the DOE. Different approach needed, or a massive rethinking of the current one. You don't usually get massive rethinking nationally of any coherent nature, which is why I think a local strategy might be a good way to go here. Perhaps then, you could have that initial part of the DOE before it became the DOE of providing information to schools about what works from other schools kick in again.

This kind of talk of "Ron Paul addresses none of this" about something that isn't related exactly isn't really fair. It is like trying to talk about income tax issues and saying changing them doesn't address the issue of the military war machine...well of course not, it is a different issue. Did you see that recent Greewald video where he talks about the founders did think that massive inequality was not only permissible, but the idea...just as long as the rules were the same for everyone? What I mean to say is that there does need to be a measure of fairness, but that fairness needs to be the same for everyone, rich and poor. I still say the real problem lay in the government creating the monster first and the monster is now eating us. If legislators simply refused to accept the legitimacy of corporate entities and instead say that only individuals can deal on the behalf of themselves with the govenrment(the elimination of the corporate charter as it refers to its relationship to the government) things could get better in a day. But since the good ol USA thinks that non-people entities are people, well, I don't see much hope for restoration. Money is the new government, rule of law is dead. I liked the recent Greenwald input on this. Rant over Sorry, this is just kind of stream of consciousness here, didn't plan out an actual goal or endpoint of my ideas....just a huge, burdensome wall of text

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education
1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.
We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealthy to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)
Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education
1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.
We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealthy to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)
Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).


Well said sir, in my view no department is inherently bad or good, the value of the department depends on who is running it, how it is used and how policies governing the department are made. If the Department of Education is causing harm to the education of students then this could be fixed by resolving the underlying issue which is one of corrupt policy making. Look at Bill Gates for example, he's playing his part to destroy and privatize the education system so he can have Windows on every school computer and influence the public education budget. He's allowed to do this because of policy changes and enormous amounts of lobbying money (which go hand in hand).

Here's an interesting read about some of the sweeping changes he's been able to introduce via lobbying:
http://techrights.org/2011/09/09/new-york-times-and-washpo-on-edu/

Plus of course all the other issues dystopianfuturetoday mentions - these won't go away just by removing a couple of departments - the core issues of corruption and lobbying have to be fixed first.

Is Ron Paul going to fix these? Hell no. Even if he was strongly in favor of these sorts of real changes, he wouldn't get support for them under the current system, the GOP would block everything, the Dems would keep talking about how bad the GOP is for blocking everything, and everything would continue to get fucked just as badly, or worse, than it currently is.

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education

1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.

We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealth to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)

Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).

Capt. Ray Lewis is being correct. In fact NYPD cops ARE mercenaries http://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/Home/article/ny-13.htm

>> ^Edgeman2112:

I swear that cockpit is pivoting incorrectly..


Remember that this is simulating the pilot's head inside the cockpit. As such, the cockpit pivot is inertially correct for roll and yaw. Pitch seems a little odd, but remember that the pilot is sitting above the central axis of the craft, so he'll be moved not only by the pitch of the craft, but also by his inertia with relation to the craft. If you look at flight sims like IL-2, you can see the same cockpit pivots.

>> ^shinyblurry:

What the administration is not telling you is that total withdrawlal of the troops was not the preferred plan. The plan was to leave a remnant of a few thousand behind to oversee training. But because our negotiaters bungled talks with the Iraqi government and failed to get immunity for the troops, they pulled them all out. Iraq also recently announced that it wouldn't be having any of our bases there either. So basically Iran has taken over, and this fledging democracy, which we completely failed to establish, is going to be overtaken by extermists and brought under sharia law. We are basically symbolically handing over the control of the country to Iran and leaving in shame and disgrace. God help the Iraqi people.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalys
is/Article/589004/201110211900/Politicizing-Our-Exit-From-Iraq.htm


It's funny how imperialism works. The countries we occupy seem to side with the opposition, why is that?

You're correct though, the Iraqi government is kicking us out. Of course we will leave behind thousands of mercenaries and the CIA will have a shadowy presence. And the State department will be hiring 5,500 more security contractors to protect 17,000 civilians working for the American government in Iraq.

Sounds like to me this is the perfect opportunity for the US or Israel to stage an attack by Iran on Iraq or US troops. Remember the "Iran has become bolder" talking-point that was repetitively aired after the recent fake DEA-Saudi bomb plot.