Anderson

It's rather good, for as much as supernaturals can look in-game. Maybe it only lacks a little more hand movement during momentum but otherwise it's good enough.

By the way, is the time constraint the reason for postponing EAX until 2.06? My conclusion is drawn from and according to the bugtracker.

I live near the complex of a Pschiatric Hospital named Costiujeni in Chisinau. It has a an impressive array of buildings reminaing from the end of the XIX-'th century and twin water towers built circa 1904. A despaired gasp of failed and much too late attempts at reform inside the falling Russian Empire. Update: 24.12.2016 For some reason the spoilered pictures don't work on my end. If you have trouble seeing them, look here: http://locals.md/2015/legendarnaya-istoriya-kostyuzhenskoy-psihbolnitsyi/

Doesn't the perspective of making everything a Skinner Box gimmick unsettle anybody? I appreciate it when it's appropriate, but I detest it when I know it's used in bad faith to artificially keep people engaged to a game, knowing there is no more value and worth to invest in that product after a reasonable time. Not implying that game addiction is real. It's more about self-control and et cetera. But a warning would be good. Gamification doesn't really bring anything good in my eyes. Interaction is what makes the media what it is. Not progress bars. It's much deeper than that at it's maximum potential. Best arguments against that other extreme I touched are represented in the video series made again by the Extra Credits team:

Yeah and now he quit and wants to create his own movement in Ukraine. 1. To go to the Supreme Rada (Parliament) and 2. President post. He creates his own party now. Best thing to have happened since Ukraine's independence.

I want to remind that Trump is also friends with Saakashvili - probably the most anti-soviet, anti-russian mafia and anti-Kremlin politician in the post-soviet space. So it definately seems the next 3 months until he officially acceds into office will take some meditation and forethought to figure out the next step.

The system is at it is. We cannot question it or put the results to doubt about their accuracy. Otherwise democracy means nothing. I hope the Trump we saw after elections stays this way and the russians are way off in trying to appease the new president, considering he's not just republican but his whole entourage, his whole team has a record of anti-russian, anti-putinist sentiments. Maybe Trump will be the most anti-russian president in the last 20 years after Reagan? We thought things improved with Yeltsin and Clinton - but that was plainly an illusion in anticipation of the millenium and various science fiction, doomsday, predictions.

It's really good. Though apparently urbanisation is irreversible in the closest decades.

Irrelevant for the system. C'est la vie.

Why stay in this mediocre speculative obscurity? The replics of Trump and Clinton left an impression of civilized people that can leave their pride behind and look straight towards building a better country. Everything will be ok I hope.

Read. They might be on to something but I don't believe they are altruists and that they do it out of idealism. Too many suspicious patterns with Russians. Especially their links to Snowden and the latter being nurtured in Russia. How can we believe a journalist if he didn't even stand before court to present counter arguments? Especially Assange who is wanted in Sweden. He never discussed it in interviews so he definitely has something to hide on that case. Even if the rest of the wikileaks.org crew is clean. Just don't let Trump build that wall. He may be a decent leader if he listens to his advisers. Their anti-putin-dictatorship stance is key. Congratulations to the winner and best wishes to those who support him.

But does anyone do the math? And what are the odds it's not fake? And if it's all matching - the communication of these people, does it really relate to anything that matters, or it's an overreation? Even when it's all true. Most of the time people vote with priorities and personal preference. One may be charged with having machiavellian philosophies and clever corruption, the other with narcissism and decay into materialism. Maybe the issue of all elections is that personal taste is irreconcilable with others people taste. In both cases they'll be in check with Congress. And in each case it's an opportunity for the other party to reform and hopefully change for the better. To adapt. It's a good system.

The email is between 2 guys on Stratfor. But we don't see any direct email that Clinton, or anyone from her side contacted anyone that the job is done so and so. The evidence imho is far too unconclusive. It's just kind of vague. If anything the comparison to Putin is a way to whitewash him and demonize americans. The wikileaks commentary on the top seems despaired to push through the point of view of something esoteric and secret as an absolute truth. No offence to anyone but Assange just feels kind of snobbish and pretentious. Even before this massive deconspiration of emails. Especially when they took the laurels for the Afghanistan and Iraq military coms. If they were real anyway.

If we go by the presumption that 100% of what Wikileaks posts is truth - does that automatically mean Assange does this without interest or a hidden agenda? Same as his connection to Snowden and such. If they DO have an agenda as such, what makes them better than Clinton? The ability to employee sold-out agents and let other states to use that information against the interests of the US isn't even justifiable damage. It's KGB methods. Wikileaks is a trojan horse like this dude once was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkady_Shevchenko Except that the enemies of the US don't have an interest to promote anything good in the US except divide and sabotage to buy time such as diverting attention from obvious cases of hitmen targeting all opposition left in Russia for example, a detail conveniently ignored by Snowden and Assange. That leads to low credibility in my book. There are priorities in this world. Kind of.

Good find. In 1993 it's a totally different image of the world imagined about our future. Who knew the Cold War never ended ? Another cycle of the same spiral. The two balance out each in the eternal sunni - shia war to reach something close to a Status Quo and not screw up the region entirely. But eventually peace must happen. And it's up to muslims to figure out a compromise solution which doesn't involve living by Sharia law.

The connections may be quite true. But the conclusions are totally in conspiracy theory territory. The US supported insurgency groups in various places, at least starting with the Mojaheed in Afghanistan to counter the illegal occupation by the Soviet forces of Afghanistan during the 1979-1989 Afghanistan incursion. That's when Bin Laden came up. The Soviet Union had it's Vietnam. The goal was to kick away the pro-soviet puppet in the region. However, how can you say that at any point creating terrorist groups is the purpose? It's more like a bad calculation if anything. Nobody knew where it would lead. And that later on the Taliban would take over the whole country. Nobody could forsee that arming an insurgency would lead to a global terrorist network aiming at the entire world. Same with Saudia Arabia and Qatar - they are a counter balance against agressive Shia interest pushing from Iran. An equally, if not worse dictatorship. Currently we see that diferend in Yemen, partialy in Syria. Regularly in Palestine. There is no conspiracy. There are only US interests. Testament to that is the 2011 Arab Spring. The US prefers to work with democracies. Not dictators. But at the same time it's too dangerous to leave any dictator too powerful - or else it's going to lead to ugly results. Or another extreme of a power vacuum - Iraq until not long ago, Lybia. The only people to profit from conspiracy theories that the US gov on purpose builds terrorist organizations is for Russia - which is always itching a reason to genocide Chechnya, Daghestan and start a real purge on all migrants coming from Central Asia (whether from inside Russia or the ex-soviet Tadjikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan). USSR and Russia were the ones constantly pushing these theories from underground to mainstream political agenda as truth (despite it being complete nonsense).

No intention to ask you for more of an answer than you felt answering. No disputes that I'm looking up to. After all it's a rethorical matter. Fictional characters have fictional births, fictional childhood and fictional families. Up to everyone on their own to come up with allegories considered to be properly dignified.

Magical. You have good intuition.

Try to imagine your name is Rodion Raskolnikov. Why do you say that? They are fictional. But that doesn't mean that a real person can't be like that. Too many people behave stereotypically and employee cliché habits, thoughts, behaviours. One way or another it happens. Or otherwise a combination of such characters into a prototype character. Later one that after careful revision becomes a full-scale quintessence of the best traits.It depends widely on the approach of the creation obviously, the mood, the depth of the story. But essentially when a character that can no longer be distinuished by criteria of real/fictional - means a success of the author. Granted if the audience is of the same opinion. And if that's the goal.

One way of seeing it On the other hand... now Iraq with finishing off ISIS is closer than ever to be that which was wishfully seen as post-Hussein prosperity. No one can say what the future has for us. Today we need more than ever a time to act. Trump is kind of a wrong move through getting a mandate by itself. Clinton being president doesn't mean war. It's always enough to supply someone if there's a need to. Times have changed.

Very true. But I can't see realistically how is this scenario going to be better compared to Clinton getting along with Congress. Gun background checks might get revoked because of Congress Republican majority for one. Likewise as many "hot topics". What can Trump propose that amazing beside putting on hold some lobby initiatives like TTIP? What's the catch? Everybody knows a Trans-pacific deal is the way to the future to oppose the Chinese market. Trump's war on China and their domination of the blue collar potential work places for the US can't be defeated by other initiatives. And even if such an initiative appears, it will be negotiated for years, just like the TTIP. Without a certainty that Trump makes it to the end with his mandate. Long story short, Trump isn't the last Republican nominee in the history - wouldn't the Republicans be better off having Trump loose, simply so they can reorganize for next elections? I mean Bush and Trump are an embarassment in comparison to Reagan. It isn't just narcissism or corruption, it's just nihilism. Trump doesn't propose anything realistic. What are the odds "the Mexican wall" passes Congress? Nobody's going to argue that Clinton is a mediocre candidate too. But it's exactly like voting Brexit. Fruitless 4 years of mandate for Trump.

Freedom of speech. No problem.

Another incident by the way: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/06/trump-protester-i-was-beaten-for-holding-a-republicans-against-trump-sign?CMP=share_btn_tw Interesting argument often seen is that it's possible to estimate the sins of Clinton. She revealed her taxes. The uranium deal controversy (at any rate after Ukraine she is consistently and openly anti-Russian). If Trump didn't - there might be some bad connections in those numbers. Don't know if anyone's aware but Russia's going with the conspiracy prophecy thing for +15 years that the US is not a proper democracy and that it will soon fall apart. Like the Soviet Загнивающий Запад (Decaying West) propaganda flick. It's obvious from Russia Today daily coverage. Trump gets daily coverage there. It's good to have someone against the establishment as Trump - agreed. But what is the establishment and conections Trump has himself? He never discloses that. There's always an establishment around powerful figures. Whether in power or not.

Thank the gods we've got checks and balances than. For now. Christians around Europe behaved better than eastern european christians. We had pogroms against jews well into the 20'th century. Of all the places Chisinau, Moldova in 1903 and 1905 saw some strong ones. All of it is a combination of hatred, polarisation, extreme poverty, despair and an illiterate population in its majority. Religion is just a pretext. Today politicians are torn over human rights for refugees and actually having a proper, working programme to integrate them (if they want that at all), or temporarily displacing them, to later deport them (especially economic ones) back. Like with that deal with Afghanistan.