Using a farther bathroom is easy. The near one is only a toilet and the arses in the office have nasty shits. Plus the one I go to is a urinal and I despise the sound of piss hitting toilet water. The urinal is in a locker room so you get the sharp smell of BO but it beats the foul odor of shit.
Myth: The Fallen Lords was Bungie's first big hit, mostly because it was their first Windows game. Marathon was well received but it was a Mac game and didn't have the market to be a big hit. Myth's profits allowed them to change offices and open a second studio.
I now have the mental image of a colossus dating back to the Roman Empire that shambles about. On it's stone surface are engraved numerous roman numerals. Some researchers believe the roman numerals are representative of the Roman Legions, however the presence of MCXIV makes other researchers believe the first group to be morons.
Consecutive President & Election Years (As Best I can Remember)
Asterisk means the President died in office or had to leave before his term was up.
Theodore Roosevelt (1900, 1908), Woodrow Wilson (1912, 1916), Calvin Coolidge (1920, 1924), Herbert Hoover (1928), Franklin Roosevelt* (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944), Harry Truman (1948), Dwight Eisenhower (1952), John Kennedy* (1960), Lyndon Johnson (1964), Richard Nixon* (1968 & 1972), Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter (1976), Ronald Reagan (1980, 1984), George Bush Sr (1988), Bill Clinton (1992), George Bush Jr (2000), Barack Obama (2008).
Ford didn't lost to Carter because he pardoned Nixon. That happened in 1974 and the election was in 1976. 1975 would have been the primary election against Ronald Reagan. If you want further proof of how little the pardon mattered Ford closed from about a 30 pt Carter win to a 2 pt Carter victory. In a strange twist of fate it probably was pardons that permitted Carter to win but not Nixon's. Carter had promised an unconditional pardon to all the draft dodgers of the Vietnam War while Ford was conditional. His polling numbers after that froze in four states where just 11,000 votes could have given him the election.
Very far to the west? Greece has never been at war with Russia. Granted, they've only been around in their present form for just under two centuries. Though I'm sure you were intending to identify either Great Britain or Spain as the nation in question.
Well, what I consider unfortunate about World War I is that there's no debating our doubting (in my mind) that Germany was the central power in the Axis. I believe that France, Italy, and GB may not have been dragged into it if Germany was still the German Confederation or the Kaiser had not ousted Bismark as chancellor with the latter being a bit more questionable as Bismark only lived until 1898 when he was ousted in 1890. Whether he might have lived longer or if he could have completed his plans in eight years is a valid question. What is not in doubt is that the state of Germany when the Iron Chancellor was ousted was not in a state that anyone other than he could manage and that lead to Germany making some stupid decisions. If Germany was still just the German Confederation it would have never been in a position to be an aggressor and consequently WW1 may have been limited to a fight between Austra, Russia, and possibly the Ottomons based on the event that triggered the conflict.
While I appreciate that you share the same analysis that I hold, I'm not inclined to believe that agreeing with you and differing from English-language historians is showing intelligence and insight. If you haven't I would highly recommend Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy.
The only people that has a guiding hand for development of video games that I know by name is Naoki Yoshida and Hideo Kojima and I think they're both exceptions with Naoki Yoshida being the steering force behind the effort to relaunch FF14 (a stunning success) and Hideo Kojima solely due to Metal Gear Solid.
In this case publicity is referencing "having sex with a reviewer in order to get her game reviewed". If the only way you can solicit a reviewer to review your product is to pay them to do it, then I think that is wrong regardless of what you're paying with to obtain the publicity.
It doesn't matter if it's better as a first or second strike weapon because at the time that MIRV bans were being discussed it was under the guise of them unbalancing the first strike capabilities of the nuclear powers. That is what I was alluding to and as far as nuclear weapon technology goes, hypersonic is far worse than MIRV, hence why I called it benign in comparison. In the late 1960s and early 1970s we stupidly gave up the opportunity to ban MIRVs over maintaining useless ABM sites. These are sites, which I may add, that America hadn't yet built and never did build. START II hasn't even succeeded in banning MIRVs because Russia never ratified it.
That's pointless. Bunkers are stocked with supplies to enable the occupants to survive for a period of time. Additionally, while you may collapse the entrance you may not and probably won't kill communications to/from the bunker. If this bunker is a command post then all you've done is force them to get some equipment and manpower to excavate the entrance. That's why the bunker buster exists. It penetrates inside it, which will like kill occupants (though not necessarily all of them), destroy equipment, and interrupt or severe communications to and from the bunker.
There's also no guarantee that the entrance you bomb is the only entrance.
That treaty only covered nations that had interestes in the Pacific. It would have had no impact on the ETO. Japan pulled out of the treaty in 1936 after giving notice in 1934 and began building up their navy at that time. That also corresponded well in line with when the ultranationalists in the IJA were coming into power and beginning to control the course of Japan.
The naval buildup caused some tensions prior to World War I but that was mostly between Great Britain and Germany as GB was concerned about Germany challenging it's naval superiority. The whole naval bit was a sideline though. Germany was never interested in directly challenging GB's navy or even going to war with them. The only reasons GB entered the war were that they considered the low countries independence vital to their security (which Germany violated when invading France) and they considered themselves safe until such time that a single nation controlled continental Europe which is the major reason they entered the war on France's side. Naval buildup played practically no part in the breakout of World War I because the breakout itself was due to tensions and factors on the eastern side of Europe involving nations that had no to little naval power. The whole western front was more or less a fiasco brought about by two unfortunate alliances. The first was Germany-Austria where Germany had it's fate tied to the misfortune of an Austria trying to protect what was remaining of its former empire. The second was between Russia-France where the French desire for revenge against Germany after the Franco-Prussian war was the predominant factor that lead to the western front being created. The complex weave of alliances essentially led to all the continental powers developing mobilization schedules and timetables for their manpower, supplies, and armaments. This included plans like the German Schleiffen plan which was built and created on the assumption that if hostilities between Austria and Russia broke out, Germany would be brought into war with Russia to which France would declare was on Germany and Austria. Germany had developed its plan to account for the fact that France could mobilize far quicker than Russia and thus the Schleiffen plan was born to quickly defeat France in order to turn Germany's might on Russia. These mobilization schedules, though they could be called off, were very difficult to stop and held the risk that once they were started it would be seen as an act of war by other nations.
Additionally, the German surface fleet was mostly pointless through all of WW1. It was their submarine fleet that managed to do useful things. The Washington Naval treaty never covered submarines, not that Germany was party to it anyway.
Florida - Purchased from Spain in 1819. This also included the territories that covered modern day Oregon and Washington. Georgia - Part of the original 13 colonies Alabama - Was a contested claim between the US and Spain. Spain ceded its claim with the Treaty of Madrid Lousiana - Lousiana purchase. Texas - Petitioned for admission to Union after gaining independence from Mexico New Mexico & Arizona & California - Ceded to the US, by Mexico, after the Mexican-American war. The US did pay Mexico $15 million for the territory. The Gadsden purchase was necessary to expand Arizona & New Mexico to their current size. Utah - Settled mostly by Morman pioneers. There were no permanent indian settlements in the region and no other nations held claims to the territory. Utah later petitioned to join the United States.
The only states that were obtained via acts of aggression versus the mother country would have been California, Arizona, and New Mexico from Mexico.Texas and Florida would be edge and border cases, in the case of Florida the US army under Andrew Jackson was fighting Seminole indians that had been previously raiding Georgia thus he was in Spanish territory but not conducting aggression against Spain. This may have given the US some leverage in negotiations for territory.
Russians have really never been trusted by the west. It's a mentality that was pervasive prior to the bolsheviks based on the Russian culture. The balance of power world order after Napoleon that Metternich helped established brought in the Russians only because they were needed to balance against the other nations (England, France, German Confederation, Austria) and not because of any trust in the Russians themselves. With the Bolsheviks came a distrust of Russians from a political viewpoint. The Russians have had the past 22 years to try to build a good reputation and whatever they may have built up is being demolished by Putin's actions.
if you support second amendment rights to own artillery and hand grenades
Just tossing this out there but there were US citizens employed by the US government to act as privateers via letters of marque and reprisal. As privateers, they owned their own ship and its armaments which included naval artillery (cannons). Without the 2nd amendment protecting ownership of such weapons the US government would have been required to raise and fund its own standing navy. If you look at the war of independence and the war of 1812 the privateers were a huge boon. Nearly three times as many privateers as continental ships During the revolution the continental forces had 64 naval vessels commissioned but had issued over 800 marques and the privateers captures three times as many vessels as the continental navy. During the war of 1812 the US had 23 commissioned naval vessels but several hundred marques had been issued. The privateers captured eight times as many vessels as the navy.
The taxpayers benefited $30bn in that the $30bn was meant to cover the costs of long term permanent storage and transportation. Since none of these tasks have been performed, at best you're talking some site construction and surveys that covered nowhere close to the $30bn collected, that means the taxpayers benefited with the excess being used to fund other unrelated projects.
Part of me wants to believe that those reporting the story are using Jennifer Lawrence and her, what I assume she has, credentials with younger people in order to warn them that those nude pictures they take of themselves aren't safe.
Indeed. Quality is not the metric that was proposed. If you want to bring quality into the discussion then you need to look at how the individual approaches games. Do they just play it and use it as a diversion? I personally wouldn't say that qualifies as a gamer, at least as far as it concerns whether it's a hobby. Hell, my mother plays farmville but she doesn't self identify as a gamer. She looks at it as a diversion.
Slashdot Mirror
Using a farther bathroom is easy. The near one is only a toilet and the arses in the office have nasty shits. Plus the one I go to is a urinal and I despise the sound of piss hitting toilet water. The urinal is in a locker room so you get the sharp smell of BO but it beats the foul odor of shit.
Myth: The Fallen Lords was Bungie's first big hit, mostly because it was their first Windows game. Marathon was well received but it was a Mac game and didn't have the market to be a big hit. Myth's profits allowed them to change offices and open a second studio.
They were on an exploration mission with a pair of ships named Darkness and Terror.
I now have the mental image of a colossus dating back to the Roman Empire that shambles about. On it's stone surface are engraved numerous roman numerals. Some researchers believe the roman numerals are representative of the Roman Legions, however the presence of MCXIV makes other researchers believe the first group to be morons.
Consecutive President & Election Years (As Best I can Remember)
Asterisk means the President died in office or had to leave before his term was up.
Theodore Roosevelt (1900, 1908), Woodrow Wilson (1912, 1916), Calvin Coolidge (1920, 1924), Herbert Hoover (1928), Franklin Roosevelt* (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944), Harry Truman (1948), Dwight Eisenhower (1952), John Kennedy* (1960), Lyndon Johnson (1964), Richard Nixon* (1968 & 1972), Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter (1976), Ronald Reagan (1980, 1984), George Bush Sr (1988), Bill Clinton (1992), George Bush Jr (2000), Barack Obama (2008).
Ford didn't lost to Carter because he pardoned Nixon. That happened in 1974 and the election was in 1976. 1975 would have been the primary election against Ronald Reagan. If you want further proof of how little the pardon mattered Ford closed from about a 30 pt Carter win to a 2 pt Carter victory. In a strange twist of fate it probably was pardons that permitted Carter to win but not Nixon's. Carter had promised an unconditional pardon to all the draft dodgers of the Vietnam War while Ford was conditional. His polling numbers after that froze in four states where just 11,000 votes could have given him the election.
Very far to the west? Greece has never been at war with Russia. Granted, they've only been around in their present form for just under two centuries. Though I'm sure you were intending to identify either Great Britain or Spain as the nation in question.
It's 'due to' and not 'do to'.
These days? In a space about 1m cubed.
Well, what I consider unfortunate about World War I is that there's no debating our doubting (in my mind) that Germany was the central power in the Axis. I believe that France, Italy, and GB may not have been dragged into it if Germany was still the German Confederation or the Kaiser had not ousted Bismark as chancellor with the latter being a bit more questionable as Bismark only lived until 1898 when he was ousted in 1890. Whether he might have lived longer or if he could have completed his plans in eight years is a valid question. What is not in doubt is that the state of Germany when the Iron Chancellor was ousted was not in a state that anyone other than he could manage and that lead to Germany making some stupid decisions. If Germany was still just the German Confederation it would have never been in a position to be an aggressor and consequently WW1 may have been limited to a fight between Austra, Russia, and possibly the Ottomons based on the event that triggered the conflict.
While I appreciate that you share the same analysis that I hold, I'm not inclined to believe that agreeing with you and differing from English-language historians is showing intelligence and insight. If you haven't I would highly recommend Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy.
The only people that has a guiding hand for development of video games that I know by name is Naoki Yoshida and Hideo Kojima and I think they're both exceptions with Naoki Yoshida being the steering force behind the effort to relaunch FF14 (a stunning success) and Hideo Kojima solely due to Metal Gear Solid.
In this case publicity is referencing "having sex with a reviewer in order to get her game reviewed". If the only way you can solicit a reviewer to review your product is to pay them to do it, then I think that is wrong regardless of what you're paying with to obtain the publicity.
It doesn't matter if it's better as a first or second strike weapon because at the time that MIRV bans were being discussed it was under the guise of them unbalancing the first strike capabilities of the nuclear powers. That is what I was alluding to and as far as nuclear weapon technology goes, hypersonic is far worse than MIRV, hence why I called it benign in comparison. In the late 1960s and early 1970s we stupidly gave up the opportunity to ban MIRVs over maintaining useless ABM sites. These are sites, which I may add, that America hadn't yet built and never did build. START II hasn't even succeeded in banning MIRVs because Russia never ratified it.
I think Russia declaring war on Ukraine would probably be sufficient for him but I'm not sure.
That's pointless. Bunkers are stocked with supplies to enable the occupants to survive for a period of time. Additionally, while you may collapse the entrance you may not and probably won't kill communications to/from the bunker. If this bunker is a command post then all you've done is force them to get some equipment and manpower to excavate the entrance. That's why the bunker buster exists. It penetrates inside it, which will like kill occupants (though not necessarily all of them), destroy equipment, and interrupt or severe communications to and from the bunker.
There's also no guarantee that the entrance you bomb is the only entrance.
That treaty only covered nations that had interestes in the Pacific. It would have had no impact on the ETO. Japan pulled out of the treaty in 1936 after giving notice in 1934 and began building up their navy at that time. That also corresponded well in line with when the ultranationalists in the IJA were coming into power and beginning to control the course of Japan.
The naval buildup caused some tensions prior to World War I but that was mostly between Great Britain and Germany as GB was concerned about Germany challenging it's naval superiority. The whole naval bit was a sideline though. Germany was never interested in directly challenging GB's navy or even going to war with them. The only reasons GB entered the war were that they considered the low countries independence vital to their security (which Germany violated when invading France) and they considered themselves safe until such time that a single nation controlled continental Europe which is the major reason they entered the war on France's side. Naval buildup played practically no part in the breakout of World War I because the breakout itself was due to tensions and factors on the eastern side of Europe involving nations that had no to little naval power. The whole western front was more or less a fiasco brought about by two unfortunate alliances. The first was Germany-Austria where Germany had it's fate tied to the misfortune of an Austria trying to protect what was remaining of its former empire. The second was between Russia-France where the French desire for revenge against Germany after the Franco-Prussian war was the predominant factor that lead to the western front being created. The complex weave of alliances essentially led to all the continental powers developing mobilization schedules and timetables for their manpower, supplies, and armaments. This included plans like the German Schleiffen plan which was built and created on the assumption that if hostilities between Austria and Russia broke out, Germany would be brought into war with Russia to which France would declare was on Germany and Austria. Germany had developed its plan to account for the fact that France could mobilize far quicker than Russia and thus the Schleiffen plan was born to quickly defeat France in order to turn Germany's might on Russia. These mobilization schedules, though they could be called off, were very difficult to stop and held the risk that once they were started it would be seen as an act of war by other nations.
Additionally, the German surface fleet was mostly pointless through all of WW1. It was their submarine fleet that managed to do useful things. The Washington Naval treaty never covered submarines, not that Germany was party to it anyway.
The debate on banning hypersonic weapons is essentially mirroring the debate on MIRVs... except that MIRVs are benign in comparison.
Florida - Purchased from Spain in 1819. This also included the territories that covered modern day Oregon and Washington.
Georgia - Part of the original 13 colonies
Alabama - Was a contested claim between the US and Spain. Spain ceded its claim with the Treaty of Madrid
Lousiana - Lousiana purchase.
Texas - Petitioned for admission to Union after gaining independence from Mexico
New Mexico & Arizona & California - Ceded to the US, by Mexico, after the Mexican-American war. The US did pay Mexico $15 million for the territory. The Gadsden purchase was necessary to expand Arizona & New Mexico to their current size.
Utah - Settled mostly by Morman pioneers. There were no permanent indian settlements in the region and no other nations held claims to the territory. Utah later petitioned to join the United States.
The only states that were obtained via acts of aggression versus the mother country would have been California, Arizona, and New Mexico from Mexico.Texas and Florida would be edge and border cases, in the case of Florida the US army under Andrew Jackson was fighting Seminole indians that had been previously raiding Georgia thus he was in Spanish territory but not conducting aggression against Spain. This may have given the US some leverage in negotiations for territory.
Russians have really never been trusted by the west. It's a mentality that was pervasive prior to the bolsheviks based on the Russian culture. The balance of power world order after Napoleon that Metternich helped established brought in the Russians only because they were needed to balance against the other nations (England, France, German Confederation, Austria) and not because of any trust in the Russians themselves. With the Bolsheviks came a distrust of Russians from a political viewpoint. The Russians have had the past 22 years to try to build a good reputation and whatever they may have built up is being demolished by Putin's actions.
Musk is pursuing technologies that will, arguably, make our world better.
Bezos is a profit hound seeking to maximize revenue by driving further consumerism.
if you support second amendment rights to own artillery and hand grenades
Just tossing this out there but there were US citizens employed by the US government to act as privateers via letters of marque and reprisal. As privateers, they owned their own ship and its armaments which included naval artillery (cannons). Without the 2nd amendment protecting ownership of such weapons the US government would have been required to raise and fund its own standing navy. If you look at the war of independence and the war of 1812 the privateers were a huge boon. Nearly three times as many privateers as continental ships During the revolution the continental forces had 64 naval vessels commissioned but had issued over 800 marques and the privateers captures three times as many vessels as the continental navy. During the war of 1812 the US had 23 commissioned naval vessels but several hundred marques had been issued. The privateers captured eight times as many vessels as the navy.
The taxpayers benefited $30bn in that the $30bn was meant to cover the costs of long term permanent storage and transportation. Since none of these tasks have been performed, at best you're talking some site construction and surveys that covered nowhere close to the $30bn collected, that means the taxpayers benefited with the excess being used to fund other unrelated projects.
Part of me wants to believe that those reporting the story are using Jennifer Lawrence and her, what I assume she has, credentials with younger people in order to warn them that those nude pictures they take of themselves aren't safe.
I'm pretty sure Fukushima, Japan was the first area hit by Chernobyl's explosion.
Even more importantly, will it go faster if we paint it red?
Indeed. Quality is not the metric that was proposed. If you want to bring quality into the discussion then you need to look at how the individual approaches games. Do they just play it and use it as a diversion? I personally wouldn't say that qualifies as a gamer, at least as far as it concerns whether it's a hobby. Hell, my mother plays farmville but she doesn't self identify as a gamer. She looks at it as a diversion.