Ihoe

Just curious but when is the last time we have had demonstrations where we burned the Iranian flag and chanted 'Death to Iran" ...never....and the last time the Iranians have done the reverse..a week ... a month? US and Iranian foreign policy interests are antithetical to each other so if by 'time' if you are thinking in geological terms then maybe. Well, I've seen Americans burning the American flag recently. It has become a symbolic object I suppose. Either way both sides that burn flags are a very vocal radical minority who have bullied the spineless authorities through fake moral high ground pressuring methods. I mean, Why the hell are Americans holding Mexican flags to protest against Trump? Symbolic protest or just Rome falling again? If they are proud of their Mexican heritage so much, what the flying f*** are they doing in america in the first place? I'm not American, but this freak show of a presidential race is quite terrifyingly interesting. From far away. Like really far away.

Thank you for the kind words. :D

I would personally think of time as both a separate dimension, and also as and entity meaningless on it's own. I would think that it's of a different class of entities compared to the other dimensions with ranges and boundaries that could only be of the type "time". Now I'd like to think of time as an identifier somewhat, It's not purely a function as there could be more branching occurring in the same universe (or state) space for XYZ. If you look at it from my perspective, Time is not of the same fabric as X or Y or Z, it's of the same fabric of XYZ together as a unique entity (in 3D space), therefore time would be meaningless if there is no XYZ, or space, if you will. Now to be meaningless, doesn't correlate to impossible. In a "point universe" time is a single value (null) function. It "means" nothing. I consider time to be an identifier for space state, and further dimensions as functions of time in a parent-child sort of relationship.

Sweet is the taste of sound Wishful hearts in glossy cards A Bliss that is never found Shrouds cover the little stars The vengeful Gods play their cards The blue ball goes around The dusty wind turns into shards Little bodies hug the ground Shade showers their little eyes They fly where the sky flies Nightly lullabies by the fireflies This time, time never dies ... P.S. Don't make fun of me :)) I'm not a native English speaker, nor have I ever taken an English literature class. P.S.S. Appreciate to hear what you think if you read it.

I really like Bernie's Ideas, I hope he doesn't end up empowering the regressive left too much, As it appears to be the case with Justin Trudeau somewhat.

I'd like to add that there could be as many as 26 dimensions to the universe, so reaching a fairly valid deduction from the above assumptions is going to be really far fetched. I'll start by making assumptions of my own. Firstly, let's define a point. A point is an entity with a value of zero in all axis. Now we bound the X axis to certain begin and end values and what we end up is a line. If we bound the line's Y axis by a certain beginning and an end, we will have a surface. Or kind of a line of lines. Now we take each surface and bound the Z axis similarly, and we will end up with a cube, or Space. Now if you were to add another dimension and call it T, and bound it by the beginning of time and the end of time, and extend the cube's values to confine within the added dimension and make up for the added combinations, we would end up with a shape called a Tessaract. a cube of cubes, wherein all the information about all the possible states of space is held. a Timeline. The information contained within this shape is ostensibly linear as it only contains the information for one timeline. a Tessaract when assumed inherently unique, would illustrate the idea of "Destiny". Now if you were to believe a Tessaract is not a unique entity, and that each only held information viable in its' own universe, to access the information of the multiverse, you would need a new dimension. a Dimension to pinpoint which universe is addressed. You will need to draw a 5-Cube or a Decatreon for illustration. And I would think that each unique dimensional address in this model would account for the tiniest amount of measurement not confined to the laws of a singular universe, a Global Variable to paraphrase. Now if this were the case, if you went back in time (assuming that you ended up in the same universe you came from) and killed yourself, nothing magical would happen. What would happen is, you will probably expand the decatreon to make up for the additional universe you have created. The one in which you killed yourself. Like a river branching, in one branch you're alive and in another you are killed by you. And the original universe will remain untouched due to the branching. All the data would be unharmed. This is gross oversimplification on my part, as the universe might not be bounded by specific amounts, which could completely nullify theorizing by shapes. Personally, I don't believe in a unique timeline but I also think it is too early for science to decide whether such theories are not gobbledygook, even though they appear logical enough.

What exactly do you mean? non-invasive surgery will probably heal you as much as praying to the lord and doing nothing. Really, is that even a thing? Mental Non-invasive surgery? which charlatan came up with that.

I am so relieved that our Northern brethren like our fearless leader....*snicker* ..is it the transitory mobile Red Lines that he draws? Too bad his Foreign Policy has been an unmitigated disaster and his economic policies a shamble. Obama is on the fast track for the most ineffective / weakest President in US history, his ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is impressive. We have come from the defeat of the Soviet Union (Reagan) to being the laughing stock of the international diplomatic community ....well done Obama. If Obama was a Canadian PM you would need a passport to visit Quebec by now. Oh November 4th you cannot come fast enough. Laughing stock? we Have Rob Ford. 'Nuff Said. Harper is an idiot too, but won't come close. But really, It's because I am not a US citizen. If I were one, I could have had the same views as you do.

Goddammit, Everyone is taking sides again. What interest do we have in a conflict between two groups of stupid people gnawing at each others necks.(also take into account that Israel is comparable to a Polar bear, and Palestine is like, a Squirrel) Why the fu*k do you think there even is a Good guy in this dumb war? How stupid one must be to support politicians' claims? Why, just why are we embarking in an elementary grade pissing contest over who is the Good Guy? Killing Innocent (Definition: Hasn't done a thing to you. i.e is dreaming about a dollhouse, before you murder them.) People is wrong No Matter Who the F*ck you are. Period. (Three dots) and That is the Only thing we can Base our morals on. Not who started this clusterf**k. (FYI, the WW1 winning side and mostly the British Did, 100 years ago.) has your media Spoon fed you pictures of dead children yet? like when there was one Palestinian Guy clutching his dead baby sister, thinking that if at that moment there is a God, and the Tighter he holds her and clutches her lifeless corpse, Maybe that will bring her back? just Maybe, this time it would be different. But no, God promised the Jews a patch of dirt and fertilized sh*t, and that same God, he also promised the Muslims 72 virgins + endless rivers of Wine + a Sexy Heaven to Live in if they Jihad against the Oppressors (and Die, some Muslims take martyrdom the highest level of Fidelity to God, that's why we have Suicide bombers, even though technically suicide will send you straight to hell, this makes no sense). This God cannot take a moment to like, send more prophets or something to tell his subjects "People, stop Killing each other over dirt. what the Fu*k is wrong with you? I made curves and Boobs and pot and bourbon and beer, you kill each other over an arid, ugly un-sexy peace of land?" that image Might have caused some tears in the eyes of benevolent westerner, before they could like figuratively, scream, death to Muslims. (Remember, even though there are 1000 different sects, dialects and schools of thought in the Muslim world, all Muslims are terrorists. except in the Commonwealth of Nations and mostly Canada, we are awesome) Hamas are not terrorists (when you are Arab, Iran or Russia) and Israel is not a freaking demon. It's the motherf**king media (social media too, because everyone likes more likes) that is crawling everywhere bombarding people into being Politically correct. the New age of Tyranny where people are too stupid to think for themselves, but smart enough to choose a side and intellectually demonize the sh*t out of the other side, even though most people claim they are smart enough to not believe in superstition, demons, angels and whatever. (remember, you have to take a side, wuss) It's in the nature of the unthinking man (To be politically correct, insert Human being instead) to subconsciously think that thinking for oneself is wrong and you must be spoon fed which side you should take, and the good side obviously, even though your fundamental nature cannot comply with the rules. (like back in Year 0 when they killed Jesus H. and then later people got all "oh no what have we done" not because they believed or anything. Because some Cat wrote a book and some guy with a lot of power said "hey people, you are either with me or crucified." and People went "We have been believers before being born homie, what do you think we are? Infidels?") Still, the Strong (read Rich) do what they Want and the weak (read Unfortunate) suffer what they Must. it's as ancient as Leonidas' balls. but the Stupid people think there is a good side and a bad side (they started IT! like when Satan said to God "Ki** my ass." and God banished his smoted ass.) all the while the smart people benefit from the idiots. I feel like back in the 60-70s people were smarter or something. you Just look at the popular icons from then, They had John Lennon and Martin Luther King. we have Justin Weiner and Kim Kardashian. Evolution proved wrong people. (Take that, Evolutionists!) and Obama, is the first US president, who is not an Assh*le.

Even if the world accepts the invasion, and full reoccupation, what happens after Israel leaves? Poverty, desperation, ignorance and fanaticism are driving forces in Gaza. I doubt that Israel has the ability, or even will power, to fix up the profound problems of Gaza and its people. As for Obama, he is just one man even if he is the US President and making him a scapegoat will do nothing because it is going to take the positive efforts of many to solve this deep, very long term problem. Any kind of scapegoating leads away from a possible solution whether it be from any political perspective; I used to be a narrow focused left winger but I left that behind and am not about to take up any other kind of such thinking. Positivity is needed and so is hope! Who's causing the poverty? there is plenty of money going in there from the international community and Israel sends tons of aid in, the poverty is caused by Hamas who'd rather spend the money on rockets than on the population, the UN build schools and hospitals and Hamas use them as missile sites, free the Palestinians from Hamas and then we might get somewhere. @Ihoe Israel is a bastion of democracy in that region, Israeli Jews do not get preference over Israeli Arabs, people can worship whatever they want, they're free to protest and speak their minds, it's no different to any other western nation and in complete contrast to the way Hamas run things. If Hamas don't want what dead Palestinians then they should stop using them as human shields, they're quite willing to sacrifice their people for some anti Israeli propaganda and the liberal press in the west lap that propaganda up. Israel has the right to defend itself, no nation would just sit there and do nothing while rockets rain down on it's people, if Hamas want peace then they shouldn't start wars. Well, I'm not going to repeat all the valid points presented by other posters in contrast to yours. But did Israel Really Have to bomb UN shelters? Sure I know the UN is one Big Joke but one cannot criticize vilification when actions committed by one side are rightly wrong. Please just don't reiterate the retarded "Human Shield" argument. when You bomb non-combatant people in a state of war you don't bring up terrible excuses. That is just a lame response by Israel Paraphrasing "We Don't give a **ck what you think. This is what we're gonna do." I don't see how people are taking sides in this situation. Killing innocents is Wrong no matter where you are, what your ideals are, or what you hope to achieve. Ideals like Democracy, Socialism... blah blah blah, which are presented by the media (read Modern Propaganda) are just modern forms of indoctrination. the Brainwashing that causes people to take sides in a conflict that they naturally should not have any interest in. Sure Israel is a democracy, But the Jews should have the power. Iran is a Democracy, but the Mullahs have the Power. People are free to practice whichever Religion or whatever they want as long as it doesn't interfere with the interests of those in power. Democracy is one big Fallacy, a word invented by a fantasy nation who actually Called Women cowardly Dogs (as Stated by Aristotle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle's_views_on_women . a trait which he also attributed to their Big Neighbors the Persians "Like Women") and kept them inside hot houses and made them wear veils and Kept Slaves to wash their greasy nether regions. I live in Canada. where I pay 13% additional fee for Toilet paper, I pay 50% of my income every year in taxes because "F**k you, Citizen. This is the Law. Because it's the Law it does not Contradict the Doctrine of western Democracy. Work harder.". I pay 13% additional Hard-Earned money to wipe my a** so that a clean shaven Monkey Called Stephen Harper can send it to Israel (instead of, like, improving the sh*tty overpriced public transport, building shelters for people who need it or blah blah blah), take away my citizenship any time he wants because he's in power and Canada is a motherf**king western democracy, right? (King Democracy, Like the democratic nation of UK, wait a sec, Commonwealth of nations? British people talking about the validity of western democracy? what the **ck, am I seeing this or am I going bat-sh*t insane?! talk about that the next time you see the queen. because, That is kinda paradoxical) People voted for him and that allows him to bash racist pamphlets in my face every time I take a dump in the university. At least I can use those pamphlets as toilet paper. Harper is destroying the Awesome nation of Canada. The only place in the world that All Colors of Benetton can Live without trouble. Well, Until this Shaven Monkey came. I think I went a little rant-y-not-so-useful-to-other-people in there. But God this has been itching me for a while.

Just so you know, Hamas doesn't Exclusively operate in Gaza, Since most opinions on religious/political cockfights are biased, I decided to turn to Wikipedia for a more honest answer: So yeah, It's retarded to Occupy a place you already kinda more-than Occupy. So far All I have read from posters seems to be spiced by Propaganda and the Media, Otherwise we wouldn't have seen so many opinions shifting to two Opposite Partialities. A Sum of the ongoing situation in Gaza could be: "Let's Bomb the ass off non-combatant people who we won't allow to leave because our enemies are using them as human shields and hiding their guns in their shorts." (For the western sympathetic: there are Women and Children dying too, non-terrorist ones, because remember, you should always kill allegedly terrorist women and children). Now most people are either going to buy that, or say that you have to be a F**king idiot to believe that BS makes it right. I'd say it's not a well thought statement. Israel could have avoided all the demonization by implying that they are in a state of war, because sh*t happens during war. When you pretend to act like a Good-guy (all democratic and western and Equal-rightsy), People expect you to be a Good-guy, and Good-guys doesn't shoot hostages in the head and let a bus filled with hostages Blow the F up (AKA Speed, Because that movie was freaking awesome) because it's going to make him look like a moron. Israel is not a Bad-guy, certainly not a Good-guy Either. But if I were an Israeli representative, I Would choose my alleged reasons more wisely. History of Divide and Conquer for Dummies: A Moron would think that there's a war between good and evil here. I'd say the whole Situation is the result of Arabs not getting what they hoped for (AKA Being F***ed over) and the Europeans wanting to get rid of Jews and prevent a substantial Arab/Turk/Middle-eastern Power from originating in the mid-east, for like, Forever, by keeping these two (the Arabs and the Jews) constantly fighting each other over promised land. The fact that most parts of what goes where remains ambiguous and the other fact that the Brits "preventing Holocaust survivors from reaching Palestine, sending them instead to Cyprus internment camps, or even back to Germany, as in the case of Exodus 1947", proves there "was" no favoring of any side. Just Europe's super powers being Britain. People behaving as if Israel is the last bastion of democracy on the mid-east astound me. You would think at this day and age where people have a whole world of info in their pockets and 30% of the people you meet claim to be atheists or logical thinkers there would be less blind favoritism of Ideals that don't exist in action, Less bigots whining about. people shouting about rights and Gay-Marriage but nobody shouting for the right to live or leave. I am personally disgusted by the HUGELY Hypocritical modern society of today. Remember All Jews are good, Fellow elite humans of democratic nations, if you say otherwise, you are an anti Semite a**hole, you endorse The Holocaust (Not to be confused with the other 26 recorded Mass Genocides in History). Go kill yourself. Politics are crawling into every aspect of our life, but F**k it. Muslims must die because they're all terrorists, Muslim children should die because they are future terrorists, Muslim women should die because they have Hijab, Christians should die because they are stupid, Jews should die because they have money, Gays should die because they are Gay, Atheists should die because they have no God. What? you are saying there are people who are not Muslim, Christian, Jew, Gay or Atheist? what do you expect me to know? I watch FOX, CNN and read Dailymail. I Have no thought for myself. I just want to be popular and get viewers up my posts.

As a human being (that is defining myself as someone in a faceless form) I have always wondered what is the point of being "right" in liberal, secular ideology. other than being simply a means of furthering a political agenda using ideals that would make large groups of people support it, because they will lead to feeling better, feeling empowered and other stimulants. and will also lead the leaders into leading a life of ease and political power, or simply summed up, make history in your name using the hope and bodies of others. Buddy, The whole point of living for the average human being is one word: "Power". it is the the never-mentioned God of all men. Rights, Lefts, Middles, Lowers, Supremacists, The Religious Pretender, Everyone with the ambition to want it, tries to get to it. If you look at it from my POV, activism never got anything done "completely" but always left people with the hope of a better world, and while everyone loves hope, some love it and (ab)use it for power. IMO, What most advocates fail to realize is that "Your Right Ideals" may be called "antiquated" (what a silly word, no offense OP, I strongly agree with you) in the future, since they are pretty much relative. Ideals are like Tires, they are used and believed until they are useless and exchanged by another one, which ultimately, does the same thing that is running the foundation of Human civilization. Seriously, what the hell is the point of advocating militant activism and visceral hatred towards those with different Vistas, in order to make the world a better place (isn't that the whole point of activism)? that right there is a paradox. It's hypocritical. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” George Orwell. This quote is simply awesome. I concur and have to add here a little, the Minority did win, but not without the support of some majority. People (majority) think about right and wrong - again I have to rant, what the hell is the meaning of right and wrong when there is no religion or law involved? PS common sense is basically a sum of the two. so don't give me that c... - and some like to express their hatred and psychological complexes in ways that will make them feel good because they did the right thing and not a wrong thing, and the definition of right or wrong has been subliminally shoved down peoples throats by the media. and the media is a political tool. PS, with this post I have risked being called a bigot, chauvinist, homophobe (That's not even an effing word, same-fearer what the hell), rightist, leftist, atheist, man-hater, hopeless, f@&#!t and a plethora of other colors of Benetton. but guess what, every word you type is bound to get somebody offended, right?

Great Series. Shame that a series like that has to wait an undefined amount of time to get another season, while a dumb show like "The Following" is renewed and at ep. 20 ... Mob City - Developed by Frank Darabont, 'nuff said. True Detective - Truly awesome.

I quoted Prof. Steve Horwitz earlier which I based my argument on, the reason this issue is so Alien to me is that I have never known anyone of my female friends who has experienced it other than third person accounts by self proclaimed Feminist Activists (more like Active Environmental Hazard) that embrace us in sound pollution around our Uni. of Toronto (sorry). I should add that annual salary could be based on many factors though. But I will assume that in your situation Every single competitive factor was on par or favoured your side except the salary. I should say If that's the case I feel sorry for anyone who had a say in this form of ripping off. They are probably mentally retarded. The whole point I or anyone theorizing (based on Statistics) like Steve Horwitz are making is: The World is not a fair place for neither sex. There isn't necessarily a Phallus bearing demon-beast conspirator behind the problems "The Women" are facing. I can point to some industries where the Lady makes more annually on the get-go. The individual Cases always can have exceptions. But exceptions are pretty much irrelevant to any statistics or any intellectual debate on Ideological Enforcement, as they are Arbitrarily based on Humans being Human. There will always be that as*hole that calls you brown even though you are whiter than he is. The Idea behind women being oppressed in this particular topic is IMO just a dying political agenda.

This is no more different than single parent father out there and hardly amounts to justify why men should be paid more than women in the work force for doing the exact same job... If you don't think women should be paid equally to men in the work force then lets just leave it as you just disagree with me since it seems this is going no where. You're completely missing the One Single fact that women are not paid less. They work less / work in lower paying jobs / positions (based on their own CHOICE) ergo earning less (not earning less per capita -- before dividing the sum earned/ number of workers -- but in Total) due to circumstances explained or theorized n times in previous posts. There is no political/sexual agenda behind it.

I would go back and destroy the very first butterfly, as they seem to cause all mankind's ill omens.

Here's a Better Definition of the situation, as what the OP wrote is a tad too conclusive and somehow partly unaccounted (as stated by professor Steve Horwitz "Contemporary Economic Myth"): another study:http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-wage-gap so based on the above,the government compares all weekly earnings, even though women and men do different things. Hence the bulk of differing inconclusive statistics over the (non)existence of a gender pay gap. The irony is that as women advance in their own careers, they might be more likely to fall behind, but they are also more likely to negotiate. The researchers concluded, Nearly a third of women -- and 29 percent of men -- have asked for raises, and even more female executives have done the same. In female-dominated sectors like health care and education, half of women have negotiated for salary, benefits, or a promotion. Also take into account being mislead over a choice of words. Sure There is a wage difference, But probably not be the wage difference that you thought. The real gap isn't between men and women doing the same job. The real gap is between men and women doing different jobs ergo following different careers. Once we start exploring why women and men choose different careers, we often find radical explanations concerning women having a greater 'burden' to perform child-care functions, and yet, there's trust able research out there that shows --on equal grounds-- women will, in much greater numbers, choose to perform those child-care functions. To Paraphrase, they are not 'forced' to do it by social pressures, they choose to do it for whatever personal reasons they have for wanting to perform those functions. One aspect of this argument is the differences in life choices men and women have. Women can choose to be a stay-at-home parent and have a reasonable expectation of finding a partner who will provide the resources she needs to devote all or most of her time to parenting. Men simply do not. Economists and game theorists talk about preferences, and constraints on those preferences. Men and women very well might have similar preference structures --preferring to work less-- spend more time with the children, etc. But women have fewer constraints on those preferences, in the sense that women can work less, spend more time with the children, and still enjoy a standard of living that they find acceptable because they can find a partner willing to provide those resources she needs to allow her to work less and raise the kids. Men have more constraints on those preferences. It is much more difficult for a man to find a woman who is willing to allow him to work less and raise the children in exchange for her working more and providing the resources the family needs to be 'successful'. Also, I believe that women have a stronger preference for child-rearing (a synonym for parenting), again in part, due to the large sunk costs they contribute to procreation. A woman 'pays' the price of pregnancy, and therefore, would more likely feel a 'pull' to provide the care necessary to successfully see her 'product' through those years of maturation when constant care is imperative--at least across a population of women. This is to say that because women actually spend all that time and energy having babies, they might 'naturally' feel a greater pull toward 'protecting' their investment. Having giving birth to the child, a woman passing the care functions off to others at a time when the child requires constant care seems counter-intuitive. I'm sure some women would prefer to put their careers ahead of raising their children, but I also believe we need to factor in the fact that not all work offers the kind of self-actualizing rewards that really good jobs do. Most people I know are not particularly 'happy' at their jobs, either because of the nature of the work, the friction of being 'managed,' or some combination of both. We don't all get to be lawyers, doctors, or movie stars. No. Most of us work mundane, difficult, or stressful jobs that we would most certainly give up if we had the option of having someone else do it and provide us with the resources we needed to survive and thrive. Now on the topic of the companies or government providing (which might be just remotely related to the OP's post, and I'm typing it for the sake of typing it), Nations with both universal healthcare, a liveable minimum wage and paid paternity leave still show these minimal disparities. The fact is women's choices are what matters here. If they choose to prioritize the rearing of children then it will have a substantial impact on their earnings just like of they chose to spend their available time working on anything else that didn't make money. Neither the society nor men need to focus entirely on making this grand bargain where women get to have their cake and eat it too. The fact is we must make sacrifices in life to get what we want. Often it means giving up one good thing to get something better. It might be a choice between freedom and security or a family life versus greater professional opportunity. and Again I am not typing anything about abortion, that's a whole other debate. A lot of men give up a LOT to provide for their families. This includes time with their kids, for their hobbies, sometimes even their professional dreams which might not make enough money for their family. Yet when a woman wants to leave her position to raise kids, she feels she should be immune to the consequences of that choice? I'm sorry, but that is not an option. Part of getting equality is getting responsibility, that includes being responsible for decisions about parenthood. Women have had equality for a long time, but the truth is that women are now struggling to define what this equality means in their professional and personal lives. How can you not see that they are likely getting less money and less advancement because bosses assume they are going to leave the job when they have kids? it's not society's responsibility to pretend women who leave jobs for motherhood are just as dedicated and motivated in their careers as women who give up motherhood in order to pursue advancement at work. and Finally: I would argue over pointing to a definitive meaning for a relative word referring to an arbitrary possibility (which is a 20% gap), in tandem to a sexist educational system dominated by females and anti-male sexism at more elementary levels.

Ban because it's June.

Wait a sec... You people still see the kudos? I Thought they were goners.

These gimmicks remind me of the same gimmicks used in 1990s when Microsoft actually had an idea about what they are doing (that is bringing everything to the living room), and even what they are doing has little meaning in the age of multitaskers and mobile users, it's an idea from an earlier era, just like how they are not allowing self publication for indie devs. These morons are stuck in 1990s and probably still think creating a platform that your rivals have no access to and further isolating it in a closed ecosystem is a revolutionary profit maker. 8 exclusive titles my foot.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/05/23/unlearning-to-share-the-industry-hatred-of-human-nature/#more-154371 I could say something myself, but the article above pretty much summed up my thoughts. How these guys are limiting freedom and laughing at our pockets (figuratively) is really saddening since they get their way with the masses eventually, while this whole kinect 2 idea reminds me of Big Brother from george orwell's 1984. I am really losing faith in the AAA industry and am thinking of solely buying mobile or indie games. Oh and I am not from Microsoft PR.

I could argue that redguards are somewhere between what comes as a Black Arab-Persian Samurai. Cool combination IMO. Since the dark complexion fits Saudi Arabia, their clothing, names and Politics fit Persia, their honorable warrior spirit fits the samurai. What makes me sad about skyrim, is that the dwemer featured in that game don't have the same mesepotamian feel, as if the (bland uncreative) artists went for the generic dwarf stone basements look present in every other game. (Like the witcher or dragon age)

I'd say memory dead, the other parts are working just fine ;) I'd rather encourage my children to play sports and engage in healthier activities than let them spend countless hours behind a Bright Light. Even if that bright light could mean getting a silver Olympiad medal or becoming a multi-linguist. Losing the beauties of Living isn't worth all this hassle for change and evolution. Games are actively evolving to bound us to our LCDs more and more giving the illusion of being limited. People are smart enough to figure what's right to them. maybe games can be called art but, The problem with art is that it has a mind of it's own. You could regulate it but trust me, as a person living in a neck-tight-dogmatic society for 18 years, too much regulation could end with a bad backlash. I think we should stop worrying and let things go right and take as much time it takes. The society isn't too bad from where I see it. I mean c'mon thousands of people are getting killed daily in Syria, Palestine, Niger, Afghanistan etc. by domestic/foreign terrorism, every second 10 die out of famine in Africa, sub-Poor Working Conditions take the lives of many Chinese workers that make our iPhones and all we can do here is write about virtual characters with modable pixels.

@Lisnpuppy Well, damn memory is failing me at the moment, I feel embarrassed for the first part. Going to debate during calculus finals makes one make silly mistakes as this lol. Though I really missed here and couldn't resist replying. :) Here's my attitude, I'm not going down the gender equality debate road. Changing the views of a whole mass of a population cannot be done directly with a form of art that is looked down upon (the US is not the center of the universe as you may know, people treat games differently everywhere) But I doubt that a few articles that show how a rampant average English speaking gamer has to throw up on something they have no idea about would be a good way to generalize a Whole demographic of population (as in Gamers). Not all gamers are sexist and insecure. Though you are damn right that sometimes games can get outrageous. My problem is when games change from being fun to a way for the author to get their message around, when the Focus is changed. Just like modern art is a pain instead of pleasure to look at, and even that's relative. (BTW I professionally paint AND Make silly embarrassing mistakes that make me laugh at myself, honest) You got me wrong, I was arguing why there aren't more female protagonists, not that there shouldn't be or that they're unimportant. It's just relative to the point of view, and a problem, which I think will never be fixed to the full extent due to it's relative nature. @Marxist It has been like that since Adam and Eve dropped from the 7th plane of autherius. It's human nature to try and dominate each other. As I said I only argued about games' protagonists and nothing else and naturally would not even consider the forest of trees as they're slightly off topic.

I think this is a rushed conclusion, Those who make the game have every right to choose who they think fits the story for them, it's like complaining why don Quixote was not female and how much of a racist chauvinist bastard the author was for not writing a female version, or a black version, or a khajiit version. Forcing the authors with the will of the community will just take away creativity. Picasso didn't think of gender equality when he drew the Mona Lisa (is his masterpiece scantily clad or blonde?). Gender stereotypes are just relative, I do agree they are offensive sometimes, but I think it bears little value when you add options out of disinclination. The first two gears of war games scared me half to death sometimes, the third one felt less serious, I really did not think exotic looking ladies who looked like they just came out of hair saloons made sense in a game about war and devastation. women who appeal to advertising for any audience don't fit the theme of every game and when they don't they won't even make sense, and are more offensive IMO. Just how obese men are not saving the galaxy. I think the rights of obese men are being abused. :) I think the ladies in the industry are more than capable of turning the tides in any direction in time and don't need all the hype and sympathy to make them look weak and dependant.