Vagrant0

Security is hardly as tight or foolproof these days. If an organized group wanted to cause panic or destruction there are dozens of ways that it could be done. Why it hasn't happened in the last few years is because of one or more of the following reasons: 1). An organized group has not had an ability to remain organized because powers granted by the patriot act have led to portions of that group being tracked down and stopped. 2). An organized group cannot take root because terrorist factions have enough trouble trying to operate in their own countries. 3). Because the list of targets probably include parts of Europe, so the focused effort required to get past any of the above issues becomes much harder to maintain. 4). Because the methodology being employed has changed and has required several years of planning and sacrificing cells in order to feel out viable courses of action. There is no such thing perfect security when you have a human element as part of the equation. There are always people who either don't do their job right, who miss things because of fatigue, who overlook things because they aren't significant enough, or who get so wrapped up in abusing one aspect of authority that they don't notice obvious problems. But, terrorist movements also have a limited lifespan and have a much harder time keeping devoted members when those members can't remain isolated from the society they are trying to attack. Funny thing, when your methods involve people committing suicide for a cause... You quickly run out of members who are batshit crazy enough to follow through.

I would disagree, but primarily on the basis that you don't seem to understand what sorts of things are involved with critical thinking education on the K-12 level. We are not talking about the Socratic method here. Nor are we talking about teachers trying to teach people how to think. Critical thinking instruction is by and large mostly asking questions which requires a student to recall information about a situation, combine that with information they already have, and make inferences based on both sets of information regarding the question being asked. It is considered critical thinking because the discrete answers are not directly available just from the information immediately presented and requires some processing by the student to derive at a conclusion. The entire premise of the exercise is not to tell a student how to think as each student can think on their own already. It is however based on honing those skills related to making informed decisions, making value judgments, or solving problems where there is not a clear answer. Common sense cannot be taught either, but it is a batch of mental skills which needs to be exercised regularly, just like critical thinking, and is something that people generally learn better when they are children due to the way that children are constantly trying to assimilate more and more information about the world around them and categorize them for comprehension. If these skills are not used regularly, they can deteriorate. A person who does not develop these skills is just as useless as one who does not have any common sense. This is entirely the problem. People who have no understanding of what actually happens in standardized education beyond what little they remember (and which was almost certainly never explained to them) should really have no business passing judgment on the value of that instruction or its implications.

I think it goes beyond that in a different way. The act of giving something to others just feels good. Nothing more than that. Celebrities who only do it because of a court order, or so that they can look good for their fans are only an exception because usually they are doing it at the request of someone else, rather than making a personal connection with the act, so naturally don't feel much beyond their own self-centered entitlement.

Except that children won't always vote the same way their parents vote. There is a significant difference between a child blindly saying something without understanding the implications, and a teenager or young adult who still may not understand all the implications, but is usually by then they have their own concerns and values even if not advertised publicly. The amount of socialization which is predominantly based just inside the immediate family usually only extends up to the point where a child enters highschool. And due to just the nature of puberty and all the chemicals swarming around their head and their own internal drive to identify themselves, this sort of thing will always be present purely as a biological drive. Generally speaking, the more controlling a family or group is on their teenager, the more likely that teenager will do the exact opposite when they have a chance. Most of the values that come from family are those which are unintentional, and often part of the culture that the family comes from, or which are aspects related to just the personality of the parents and siblings and how an individual copes with those personalities. Even in Maoist China there were groups who maintained sentiments of opposition. In places where there was exposure to outside influences it proved nearly impossible for the People's Republic to maintain any sort of control. As this seems to be an interest of yours, you may really want to read up on what was happening in China before and during Mao's reign as well as what contributing factors led to a decrease in oppressive policies.

Except that an autocracy doesn't work when you have much diversity within the targeted group. The more diverse the group, the more likely that a significant portion of that group will raise objections to any policy decisions. Even if you try to indoctrinate children, those children also have their own values from whatever culture is present in their family, those values presented to them by the media (games, television, movies, internet), those values presented to them by their friends, and those values that they develop on their own. You may educate them to accept certain bits of knowledge as fact, but you cannot force them to have accept what values others place upon that knowledge. The only way for it to take root within Western culture would be through either large scale censorship of information and severing cultural/social ties, or through some exceedingly complex process of social engineering to use those values that people already have to varying degrees to influence other values and establish pressures on all sides towards a singular and hidden goal. In both cases we would be talking about something planned ahead, and intentionally worked towards outside the election cycle... At which point, it doesn't really matter what side of the aisle you're sitting on or how you identify yourself as it is all part of the same machine.

Probably not eugenics since that involves sterilizations and confinement of those who do not meet "desired" criteria. That'll probably start making a comeback when we get around the 8 billion people on Earth mark, when governments start seeing a much larger strain on already inadequate public programs and start deciding who exactly should be allowed to have children or pass on their genetics as a means of thinning "bad" genes out of the population along with the typical ones related to disease, deformity, and violence which are already identified (much more accurately not) and which was much of the focus of eugenics back in the early 20th century. It'll happen eventually, but not for awhile at this rate. Too many special interests in the pot for it to get any momentum. I could see these measures as being part of some way to lead up to a social acceptance for those programs, but it's unlikely since it would hint that there are some plans in the works for 10-15 years down the road, and politicians, political parties, even extremists are not the sort of people who plan that far ahead... ever. Meaning that if there is some plan to this effect in the works, it's tinfoil hat time, and God help us all because it'll probably happen exactly the way they want it to, and most of us will be convinced that it happening is a good thing, or be completely blindsided. I would prefer to just think that this was a group of politicians who just weren't thinking when they drew up policy because the alternative really doesn't bode well for anyone and is quite possibly worse than fiction.

Pretty much this. Even without the connection issues it has ridiculously bad matchmaking issues, rampant exploit usage, and just plain fails at being anything other than "pay to win". Even among other games that rely on a weapon rental system it is particularly bad as there are no freebie "basic" weapons for each type to keep things in relative balance. Added with the exploits, ineffective punkbuster, and other problems it just isn't worth the trouble. As for your issue, it honestly wouldn't surprise me if they didn't restrict chat to only those who passed a certain rank shortly after it went FTP just because of the huge influx of people from Steam. Try playing Tribes:Ascend instead, it's a better FPS by far.

The problem here is not about right or left, not about Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. It's that bureaucracy has taken jurisdiction over what should and should not be taught, not from a standpoint of important skills and information, but one based on political or religious motivations. Getting so caught up on who is now indoctrinating who only distracts from the issue that children are being indoctrinated at all, and it doesn't make it right no matter who is doing it.

It might be your drive that has started to go bad, or just a loose connection in your computer. DVD drives don't cost that much and are usually easy to replace (just unplug cables, unscrew a few screws, pull out drive, put in new drive, screw in a few screws, plug in cables). The only tricky part might be if it is an older computer using an IDE connection for your drive instead of a SATA, but I'm sure you can figure out which you have by looking up those terms and comparing it with the plugs on your drive.

Which will always exist when politicians and interest groups have an equal, or greater say over educational curriculum as people who teach said curriculum or those who doctorates in education and childhood development. The tinfoil lining here is that most of those methods of right-think, and doublethink don't always work so well in practice. Politicians may not be too keen on critical thinking skills, but most functioning adults need some level of critical thinking skills in order to do any job successfully. Meaning that if this stands in law long enough, Texas may need to be importing 99% of their work force, or atleast just 99% of mechanics, janitors, doctors, nurses, architects, builders, machinists, programmers, engineers (oh wait, they already outsource those), shop owners, accountants, lawyers, police, and pretty much anyone who plays any part with the running of society.

I created a new part of the mesh and I am having the same issue with it too so I'm pretty sure that there is no clipping involved.I also made a shotgun earlier in 3ds max and it turned out fine with no signs of this issue. My videocard is an AMD 6870 so I am pretty sure it can handle the rendering as this is a pretty powerful card. I am going to try creating another project to see if it is just an issue with this current project or an issue with 3ds MAX. Thanks for the help, much appreciated! Then it is likely some configuration issue either in the program or with your videocard. The last few catalyst versions have been quite buggy, so you may even want to update/roll back your drivers.

Either it is an issue with how your videocard handles rendering (bad settings), or it is because you have two of the same object occupying the same space and the polygons are clipping with eachother (easy to do if you accidentally cloned the mesh as an instance as both meshes will be edited at the same time).

I voiced my feelings on Origin when it first appeared. I will however close this thread since I see this potentially turning ugly and isn't exactly the right place for it. locked

No, what I am saying is that there will always be people who want to believe in a cause, resonate with it, and who need someone more prominent to be in control. These news reporters don't have the following they do just because of their own charisma, they have that following because there are people who want to believe that someone else has the answers, that someone can give them hope, that someone can make a difference. This is what has always been a driving factor in revolution, change, or solidifying those values that people hold dear. The problem is that those values are being sold out and manipulated purely for ratings, viewership, and it is intentional. On one hand, this false sense of hope ends up making people content enough with the world such that they aren't personally spending the time and effort to work towards these ends. It is a very effective means of control since you both get a good idea of how frequent those sentiments are, and keep them partially satiated by means of some public figure taking up the cause. So even if the cause is something contrary to the dominant force, the dominant force still wins because rather than having individuals actively opposing it, those individuals are taking the easy route and just supporting that public figure. On the other hand, people eventually start feeling disenfranchised by the promises and lies. They get sick of how nothing is getting better. They realize how these people manipulate facts and emotions towards an empty conclusion. And eventually these people will get tired of it and lash out in ways that were more destructive than that initial cause ever was. The problem is not that these causes might be personal, or that people are being used for them. It is that these causes don't go anywhere, that people are given promise after promise and just left there floating as if their feelings on a matter really don't matter because nothing will ever be done. What was once hard-fought causes and people working towards improving a way of life is now just illusion, performances, and empty hope.

The difference is that in those days, the agenda was clearer, and usually had some eventual end. The facts were distorted not because of someone's own ego or for money and ratings, but because they were trying to build support for a cause and actually following though with that cause. The causes may not have always been right, they may not have been just, but atleast those that talked them up managed to stay with them until some point of resolution. If the media environment of today were present in colonial times, there would have never been a revolution because there wouldn't be anyone willing to put their life or their career on the line in seeing that it leads somewhere, and talks of protesting would be overshadowed by political scandal, commentary on what popular authors and poets were doing behind closed doors or in pubs, and spreading fear of potential attacks from Native American "savages". The difference is that none of the higher-ups in this environment seem to have any resolve beyond their own contracts and bank accounts.

Kenmallit banned. Spam bot

And yet nothing has been done. Many of the people interviewed there are part of groups that could do something to fix the system, they know the system is broken, but they don't do anything. It's like a sick form of irony. They are people who are in a position to do more than comment and inform about these problems, but they expect us to be the ones to solve them, or for things to just work themselves out on their own. Either you're an activist, or you're a journalist, you cannot play both roles. Mainly because the folks that are in a position to implement the necessary changes, profit the most from things staying exactly as they are. So, we get lip service to the 'issues', but, never any action toward fixing it. Why would anyone purposely wreck their own gravy train? Because we face assured destruction otherwise. When 75% of a country's infrastructure is already crumbling, you don't need terrorists, you don't need natural disasters, society can be brought to a grinding halt just because one place had too much strain. That is what happened with the massive blackouts along the East coast a few years back. We will likely face similar issues this year as about the only improvements made to the system were bandages over the most damaged sections. Most of the bridges in the country are deteriorating. Most of the water mains have cracks and aged sections that threaten to deprive whole cities of clean drinking water, and nothing is done until things have already broken. Because we have a population who is frightened, doubtful of the future, and greatly distrustful of the government which exists to serve them. If left on the current path, there will be riots, there will be death and destruction, there will be people too fed up with the lies and who have nothing left to lose. Parts of Europe have already seen these erupt, but there has been almost no coverage of these being broadcast in the West. The tendency for politicians to simply stand idle while lining their pockets will only serve to add passion and validation to the rioters. Something has to give, for all our sakes.

And yet nothing has been done. Many of the people interviewed there are part of groups that could do something to fix the system, they know the system is broken, but they don't do anything. It's like a sick form of irony. They are people who are in a position to do more than comment and inform about these problems, but they expect us to be the ones to solve them, or for things to just work themselves out on their own. Either you're an activist, or you're a journalist, you cannot play both roles.

Actually, I was referring more to something similar to the Bystander Effect, or diffusion of responsibility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility Essentially that certain personalities are giving the impression that a cause is already being communicated to those in the power to do something about it, so individual action isn't needed. Sort of a conveying false sense of responsibility while echoing sentiments which might resonate with a certain group. People are less inclined to personally act towards a risky cause when that cause is something that appears to already be undertaken by someone you acknowledge as having a stronger voice. Rather than support the cause, you would instead support the person because that person is 'clearly' more capable at doing things properly. The problem happens where these personalities only use the cause to feed their own ratings and viewership in a constant cycle of "new concerns", while never doing a damn thing towards solving old ones or getting any results... And people can't be bothered to call them on it because their own lives are so massively f***ed up and busy, and that "new concern" is just something else around the corner to stir their s*** up again. It's the cycle of fear, doubt, and nothing ever improving that the media has been feeding us constantly for well over 10 years now. People want answers, they want to feel like something is being done, but the media only cares about ratings, and law makers only care about getting re-elected. It's not that answers aren't there, it's that nobody in a position of power wants to take responsibility for them except for the purposes of fueling their own ego and leading people along.

Kinda this. The thing that I've noticed happening more frequently is that news commentators have been taking a more activist role and trying to argue for or against some idea. Regardless of the merit of the argument, how it is presented, or how factually viable it is, it just isn't something they should be doing in their role. Period. But they do it usually not because of the ideals or results conveyed in the argument, but rather to resonate with the people who share similar sentiments, and in turn generate ratings. Not only does this lead to bias... But it also leads to an assumption that the message and intention of that argument is already being handled by someone who we should then support, pretty much assuring that nothing ever gets done about it since there will be a new, grand, cause the next week. The system is not setup to allow answers to come forward, but rather just allow the discussion of answers which nobody ever acts upon (for good or ill). There are no citizens groups trying to encourage congress to fix our crumbling infrastructure, nor any fanatical Glenn Beck supporters devoted to removing the pawn of the Illuminati. And this lack of results is probably intentional.

I would have given 'em a few months of play time, I usually try any new MMOs that come out even though I know these days they're all gonna be boring theme park deals, but they didn't offer a digital download in Mexico. Seriously? It's an MMO and Mexico is a neighboring country of the U.S. with a free trade agreement yada yada. Obviously, they don't want money. I really can't think of any other recent MMOs that I couldn't purchase online. Seems like a rather fail strategy for an MMO to do that. That's because they want you to pay the $60 or whatever upfront so that they've already gotten 90 days of paid time out of you before you get a chance to see what the game is like.

It just wouldn't work well... Open world RPGs are the size they are primarily because of the amount of production time needed to fill out each world. So either you have rich, but fairly small environments, like Skyrim, or you have dozens of environments but relatively little development or freedom... like many other previous Starwars games. There is essentially a point where the production schedule can either include more locations, or more detail to the ones you have, but not both... If that makes sense. Essentially it becomes a matter of depth. Too much and the game's cost becomes staggering to produce, too little and it leaves players wanting. MMOs are able to get away with more on this end of things because they can start earning money from memberships and bought extras even when there is relatively little content for the game, and can continually add more content over the life of the game filling out areas, expanding, re-balancing, and can make use of other players to provide extra content (guilds, pvp, crafting, roleplayers, ect). There is also an issue with cannon. Most of what people know about Starwars comes from the movies which explain relatively little and often just add in names and races just to fill some archetype needed for some screen element. The books supposedly touch upon many of these better, but their inclusion in cannon, and what exactly is and is not cannon is debatable (worse than the geek debate on the number of episodes for Star Trek TOS). Essentially whoever made the game would end up having to write a heavy amount of their own cannon in order to fit whatever storyline was desired for the game, which has not always had a good reception (Force Unleashed). As you're including Bethsoft in this, you may as well be asking for an open world space game, and just leaving it at that. The other part of lore is that really the only period of time which has any official development is the time of the time between the 2nd and 4th movie. After that and the concept of Jedi becomes entirely lost to the galaxy save a few minor groups hiding in secret (in a span of about 16 years mind you). Before that and there really isn't any strong antagonistic presence. To my knowledge there isn't much development to the cannon after Return of the Jedi, or much elaboration about what happened before Ep1. Other games managed to get around this usually by making the player play some minor role, but you really can't do that in an open world RPG since a player familiar with the franchise will go out of their way to find the biggest challenge they can and would get disappointed if they couldn't kill certain NPCs and such just to leave a meaningful mark on the world. You may as well be asking George Lucas to make the Starwars franchise part of the creative commons.

GE doesn't necessarily mean a bunch of mad scientists in a lab poking around at the bits of DNA randomly and seeing what they get. GE has officially existed since the middle ages when one monk (kudos for knowing his name) figured out that he could breed plants together in a certain way and get a reasonably predictable result. People were doing this centuries before, but never so methodically. Dogs, sheep, Cows, and almost every domesticated animal has been selectively bred to suit our needs or interests. In this case, it is just a factor that wasn't anticipated. The fact of the matter is that plants are at constant war with animals, insects, and even eachother, and in this case, natural selection probably played a more significant role... Grass which had higher concentrations of certain chemicals wasn't eaten as often, so it was allowed to spread its seed and become more prominent in areas.

Grass actually does release a host of chemicals when it is broken or cut as part of its own natural defense mechanism. This is what the "smell of a freshly mowed lawn" smell really is. It just doesn't normally produce anything which is particularly harmful to humans unless it is in great quantity.

Wasn't it really another UN 'peace keeping' mission though, from the US stand point anyway... I don't think there was an official defence treaty between the 2 nations, S.Korea and the US, prior to 1953, So it wasn't the mutual defence treaty coming into effect, US involvement came from some other angle. AFAIK that was UN actions no ta US war. Back in the 50's, yep, that was indeed the case. It was a peace keeping mission intended to prevent the spread of communism from the U.S.S.R. Similar to Vietnam almost a decade later. Arguably we only entered Vietnam because we managed to have some level of success with Korea. The cold war was all about doing one thing and calling it differently so that the other side doesn't have official reason to start dropping nukes. The difference between these cases and the Middle East is that you have an insurgent force which is fighting for their own ideals, often in contrast with the moderate majority, while in Korea and Vietnam there was about an equal population on both sides. Maintaining a belief of "kill them all and let God (or Allah) sort them out" really only manages to make that moderate majority hate the West enough to want to help the extremists. To put it in perspective, what was being suggested is the rough equivalent of finding the idea funny of nuking the central US just because you had prejudices against fundamental Christian groups, or Americans in general. As a matter of fact, those with hostilities towards the West were even using imagery from Fallout 3 to try and promote their cause for destroying America. But we never think about how the other side might view our "jokes" now do we?