fake news!

but it's persistence does speak to general attitude of the rest of the world to America

Not the *only* thing.

We also don't invade if you don't have anything we want, or if you can't be exploited as a pawn in a proxy war.

N. Korea doesn't have anything we want, so they would generally be safe on that account. On the other hand, the Korean War (particularly support from China, Russia, and the US) was very much tied into early and continuing Capitalism vs Communism proxy wars wherein those major players downplayed direct confrontation (why the Cold War was cold) but were quite happy to ramp things up indirectly.

Things frequently don't go real well for countries tied up in that history. We arm Afghanistan to indirectly prod the USSR, decades later that comes back to bite us and we hit them back with a rather disproportionate degree of destruction. The USSR sets Cuba up as a potential proxy Communist threat to the US, which pushes us pretty close to nuclear war. Fortunately we avoided that, but the fallout for Cuba in trade sanctions etc. persists to this day. And on and on.

So I concur, N. Korea has plenty of reasons to see the US as the bad guys. Personally, I think Obama's strategy of patience was probably the best. Either they are full of hot air and won't ever actually do anything, or they'll eventually do something so provocative that China will have no choice but to withdraw that lifeline. In the meantime, N. Korean people are the ones suffering the most. Not much to be done about that, because the US has an even worse track record when it comes to interfering "to save the people of {wherever} from their terrible leaders"...

I don't think he actually figured out about the handle being a lid lock, I think he just used it as a perch and put enough pressure on it while yanking on the lid to move the handle away. Yeah, he got the job done, but with persistence and not brains, at least in this case.

I tried to quickly take care of this problem with the few minutes I could squeeze into my day job this morning.

The problem was just that the comments were so long the server request was timing out while fetching.

I have now just deleted all his comments. Problem solved.

Thanks for the persistence, @eric3579 and everyone else!

@ChaosEngine
that article was utter shit.

"friend zone" is a term used to shame women?
how can that possibly be considered an even remotely true statement?

she makes a valid point in that women are not binary creatures,and are mutli-faceted,nuanced and complex.well of COURSE they are,but the "friend zone" is from the guys perspective,not a woman's!

do you know why the majority of some men end up in the "friend zone"? or should we just change that term to be more accurate "i am not interested in you because you put all your cards on the table in the first five seconds,so while i think that is sweet,i no longer am curious about you,because i already got you".

you know..the "friend zone",or as chris rock put it "emergency dick,just break glass".

the problem here is that while relationships are a long slog of compromise,negotiation and mutual respect to work towards a common goal.romantic courtships are akin to a game,a playful dance fueled by curiosity,intrigue and of course:lust.

the men who who get relegated to the "friend zone" do not understand this very basic tenant of courtship.they reveal all their cards up front,and while that may be the most honest approach,and one that women have been openly asking for,it ignores that underneath it all,a woman wants romance,mystery and a sense of discovery that will continually peak their interests.

they want to be woo'd,they want courtship and romance.
when a man shows all his cards he takes that way from the woman,and now that she knows she can "have" him.he no longer interests her.

and what the author of this article so callously ignores is that the "friend zone" is not really a friend at all,but a surrogate for a boyfriend.having a bad day?she calls her "friend".feeling bloated and unattractive? has her "friend" come over to make her feel better about herself.needs a date for her company christmas party and doesn't want to go alone? get her "friend" to come along.

so it should not be a surprise that some men find this hurtful and degrading.

but she has a point,the woman owes them nothing.the woman was honest and forthright and it is the man who has put himself in this position.

and let me be clear before i am accused of being a misogynist pig.

some men do the exact same thing,and i am guilty of it myself.

i grew up with three sisters,so i tend to be more aware and sensitive to women's choices,and i respect their space.i have never been one to push myself on any woman.i was never the one to pursue or as this article describes "persistent",because i saw that as a bit "stalky".

so if i was interested in a woman,and that interest was not reciprocated,i shifted to "friend" mode with no issue.to me it was a win-win.ok,so she was not interested in me in that way,but she is super cool,and interesting and now i have a really interesting and intriguing friend.

now here is an interesting thing that happened maybe half of the time.my new friend and i would hang out,go to pubs,clubs,movies and sometimes just make dinner and watch movies.friends right? she was upfront and honest with me that she was not interested in me in that way,and i can respect that.

and then one day she would have her college friend over for dinner (this is a true story btw,one of many).her friend was cute,smart,witty and had a sick sense of humor.yep,i was digging on my friends college friend,and we were flirting up a storm.we were vibing hard,clicking like we knew each other for years.

now what do you think happened?
i bet you can guess.
and you would be right.
my friend,who was honest with me about not being interested,started to get real shitty with me.like offensive shitty and i really did not understand why.it came out of nowhere,and now she was acting like some jealous girlfriend.

so i pull her aside and i am like..what the fuck is wrong with you? you are being an asshole!

you know what she said to me? and i can remember this clear as day "watching my friend flirt with you,and seeing how much she is into you.i began to see you in a different light.i can see how she sees you,and that you are amazing but you are MY steve! not hers!".

and then she tried to kiss me,which was just awkward,because to me? she was in the "friend zone",and had been for over 6 months.i didn't want her that way.the irony here is that she could not handle that,and our friendship dissolved.which just fucking sucks.

this scenario has played out in my life quite a few times.so while anecdotal,i suspect women have had similar experiences.

so the "friend zone' may be considered a woman's thing directed at men,but in reality it is non-gender specific.most likely because woman are pursued more than men,but both men and women can be put in the "friend zone".

so what can we learn from this?
don't be a sap.
have some self respect and do not allow another person to use you for their own well being and sense of self.
if they are not interested? move on.
if they just want to be a friend? then be a friend,but do not expect anything more.if you cannot handle that,then move on.

pining away from a distance in the slim hopes that the focus of your affections will one day change their mind,is just pathetic.

and for fuck sakes,stop blaming that person for your heartache.
you put yourself in that position,and you can pull yourself out.

and the term "friend zone" is not used to shame women,that is just fucking stupid.the "friend zone" is a place that you put yourself in,because of flawed sense of romance,and you allowed yourself to be used for the betterment of another human being.so while you may be hurt and angry,you only have yourself to blame.

respect yourself yo.
/end rant

radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.

Just to point out, both of those are PURE opinion pieces with no evidence, and the Bloomberg report sites information it claims it got from a report that did not yet exist when it was written, that report was made public on Friday, the 6th, but the article was published on the 2nd....and even then it was full of conjecture, supposition, and misdirection (like saying "Xagent, a backdoor firmly associated with attacks by a hacker group linked to Russian intelligence -- the one known as Advanced Persistent Threat 28 or Fancy Bear -- could be used by pretty much anyone with the technical knowledge to do so. "
This ignores the fact that only one security firm claims to have been able to retrieve that code (without proof or ability to use it?) and they had a full internet security companies resources. No one besides Russia has ever actually been caught USING it.
So don't trust the cia...but also don't trust biased opinion pieces on the internet.

The improvements overall in 2.6 is pretty good (much better frame rate among them), and Star Marine is fun enough. It actually is playable, though until 3.0, there isn't much to do in the Persistent Universe.

People give Star Citizen lots of flack for long development time and the like, but most developers/publishers wouldn't even announce they were working on the game until it was where Star Citizen is now. Most games are in development for a few years before they start showing off stuff, then give a year or two more on a game of this scope. The only other thing I can think of is CD Project Red's Cyberpunk 2077, which was announced before development really started in earnest (though they had a good team working on it when it was announced in 2013)... and that title won't be out until late 2017 or more likely 2018 (I'm not expecting more than a release window announcement in 2017 saying some quarter in 2018). Now to be fair, people aren't spending thousands on Cyberpunk ahead of release as they are with Star Citizen, though I think most people stopped at $60 tops, and there are valid issues/concerns with funding the way Star Citizen is funded, but I'll give it a chance. I'll dip back in after each major update... 3.0 or so is where it starts getting interesting, and it's nice seeing a developer be more open about what's going on while it's being worked on.

Come the end of 2017 or mid 2018, if we don't have Squadron 42 and most of the Protestant Universe, then I'll start having doubts. I'd expect it to be wrapped up and in maintenance mode with adding things like Elite Dangerous does by that point... and walking around in ED will likely take another expensive DLC.

Also, I've read that DMT helps with persistent migraines & cluster-headaches...

The cynic in me sees "persistent universe with players all over the place" as a drawback, because if even 1% of the "interaction" takes the form of "muahaha, let's gank the noob!" it can ruin things for everybody.

I thought we kind of already established this as fact with Ultima Online, like 20 years ago. You could be a miner, a merchant, an explorer, or a farmer ... and get ganked by some asshole the moment that you leave city limits.

That experiment in complete freedom with natural checks and balances didn't work until the servers were split into Felucca/Trammel PvP/no PvP zones. Maybe Star Citizen will have some check like that from the outset, but no matter how it is handled will make somebody mad.

People are paying them to develop the game. As far as i know, very very people have spent up to 100K.

Even if someone has the best stuff. If they're terrible pilots, a good pilot with a cheap ship can easily beat someone in a expensive ship.

Yes people are pumping money into it, development is taking time, but the game is huge and a lot ifs being developed as far as ultra HD graphics, going from huge area flight and ground based combat.

"Oh but battlefield has flight and ground based combat!" yes all within a confines of a couple 10 KM. The bengal carrier is supposed to be in complexity of a couple BF maps crammed into one area.

But going back, once the game goes live fully, no one will have the ability to purchase in game ships with real money, though who knows, that might change.

But going back to "pwning newsbs" any one with a decent ship with excellent piloting skills can pwn someone with ha ultra expensive ship. This certainly isn't a , paying top dollar and being on top. If you're gonna pay top dollar, you're gonna be in the arena commanders playing vs bots and now vs other players in dog fight melees. Those people are going to be good because they're gonna be excellent pilots.

But, the game isn't all about dog fighting. You can be a miner, a merchant, a racer, an explorer, heck farming is going to be implemented as well.

But I mostly have a sense you don't actually understand the game in general. The game is leagues ahead of no mans sky just for the fact it'll be a persistent universe with players all over the place that you can interact with.

Ads can, and may try to use touchy feely emotional ploys to sell their products, but they run the risk of being called out on it.
When the cheesy emotional ploy has absolutely zero to do with the product, they SHOULD be called out...keep in mind that this kind of BS misdirection resulted in our current president elect.
Appealing to people's emotions with schlock rather than using information to appeal to their rationality usually means a rational argument can't be made. The more this MO persists, the worse it gets. I never liked that type of ad, but these days I detest them for their lack of information and attempts at emotional triggering to get your money.

As a layman observer, I would argue the root of problems with segregated neighbourhoods, schools and racism in general is inequality. I suspect racism is primarily driven not by some kind of eugenic notion of superiority as in the past, but simply the perception that black people are on more likely to be involved in criminal behaviour because they are on average poorer.

Until you take redistributive actions to give disadvantaged people (and those policies can simply target people in poverty, not by race) more opportunities, the imbalance in wealth / income will persist, and so will the bias towards living in separate suburbs, sending children to separate schools not to mention employment biases. As it is, there is a regressive, vicious cycle of poorer education, weaker job prospects leading people into the informal / illegal economy.

I have many, many persistent floaters and they drive me CRAZY