Tekky

Chuck Tingle has a Humble Bundle

Are you saying Trump... is gay?

Just started playing that.
 

I mean since this got skipped I'll toss it in, just for clarification:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution I think wikiped is reasonable for this though I'd be happy to find another.
 
We can attack without declaring war for 60 days. Not that this is followed for dicks though, since it's hard to determine where an individual conflict starts and ends. This act, along with a lot of what we've done in Syria is a potential violation AFAIK (I'm not sure if there as actually been a Authorization for Use of Military Force). With that said, yes, the president can do this if the previous attacks were not considered part of the same military action (?). Nobody appears to be stepping up to the plate calling this out either, since it seems to be acceptable to Washington as a whole. Also the law in and of itself is controversial, as described on the page.
 
But yeah, I think this situation is pretty bloody lame as we still have absolutely no confirmation of chemical weapon attacks that is reliable. Furthermore, perpetrators of previous chemical weapon attacks are still disputed, to the point where I'm not only unsure, but personally do not believe that Syria has gassed its people at all during this conflict. Not only are UN reports unable to confirm whether or not the government was actually involved in chemical weapon use, it doesn't make any sense for them to do it in the first place. Why the hell would you jeopardize your success in the region with something so pathetic, and with the US stating it wants to pull out. Even if it had happened earlier on in the conflict, this instance looks to me like a false flag (though I'm definitely not an expert in this situation).

I mean since this got skipped I'll toss it in, just for clarification:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution I think wikiped is reasonable for this though I'd be happy to find another.
 
We can attack without declaring war for 60 days. Not that this is followed for dicks though, since it's hard to determine where an individual conflict starts and ends. This act, along with a lot of what we've done in Syria is a potential violation AFAIK (I'm not sure if there as actually been a Authorization for Use of Military Force). With that said, yes, the president can do this if the previous attacks were not considered part of the same military action (?). Nobody appears to be stepping up to the plate calling this out either, since it seems to be acceptable to Washington as a whole. Also the law in and of itself is controversial, as described on the page.
 
But yeah, I think this situation is pretty bloody lame as we still have absolutely no confirmation of chemical weapon attacks that is reliable. Furthermore, perpetrators of previous chemical weapon attacks are still disputed, to the point where I'm not only unsure, but personally do not believe that Syria has gassed its people at all during this conflict. Not only are UN reports unable to confirm whether or not the government was actually involved in chemical weapon use, it doesn't make any sense for them to do it in the first place. Why the hell would you jeopardize your success in the region with something so pathetic, and with the US stating it wants to pull out. Even if it had happened earlier on in the conflict, this instance looks to me like a false flag (though I'm definitely not an expert in this situation).

Just started playing that.
 

Just started playing that.
 

Trump needs permission and Obama didn't? Not that I support this, though as long as it's missile strikes and no troops or aircraft used, it's not the end of the world, I think the NBC attack was BS done by the rebels, but that's just me. Trump being goaded by the media into attacking Syria is not a good thing in my book. Let that shithole country be the Russians problem. I say crank up US oil production even more so we can tell the Saudis to fuck off too. 

Students in Australia Reproduce HIV Drug for $20

Everything is on fire. It's pretty amazing.

I would like to point out that that pistol is a 1911A1, which is from 1924 and therefore anachronistic.

Colli and Ulric are extremely aware that my experience with the beta of BF1 was dreadful. Hit registration was awful, I frequently had 8 hit kills and tanks were freakishly hard to deal with. I also feel that the map choice in the beta was terrible, as DICE clearly had better maps that they could have shown off. Overall I was very unimpressed and had decided not to buy it. Then i realized that COD would have a very low population as a result of the decision to bundle the Modern Warfare remake with the new game. That's definitely not worth my time.
 
Still, I needed a big-team multiplayer shooter to play for the next year on-and-off, as I always do. I figured that the beta of BF1 would probably not be representative of the servers on release, since EA always has problems allocating servers for betas. I don't know why, but it's a significant issue. Regardless, I'm glad I picked it up.
 
 
BF1 functions as a more distilled version of BF4. Individual player ability is greatly overshadowed by cooperation, as it should be in a Battlefield game. I've unsurprisingly spent most of my time playing as Support, which has "LMGs", the ability to drop ammo, and mortars, limpet mines or repair kits. LMGs are more LMG-alikes, or rough IAR equivalents like the BAR. I've made most use of the MG 15, as it has a large enough magazine size to effectively take control of the improved-accuracy-while-firing mechanic, which has finally been brought back to Battlefield. It's things like this that help illustrate the difference between weapon classes, which is far more pronounced than any previous title. Support also has access to the Madsen (yay!), the Lewis gun (which is sadly pretty awful), the Benet-Mercie (Hotchkiss Mark 1, and a little weak IMO), and the Huot Automatic Rifle (I have no idea what this thing is, but it looks hilarious). You can probably see that they've had to look around a bit for weapons to populate this game. Since they wanted to continue to make automatics numerous, only the Scout class (Recon from older games) has access to bolt-action rifles. Assault gets access to a plethora of SMGs and shotguns, and Medic uses primarily semi-auto rifles, though they may get access to automatic weapons later (I haven't played them enough to know). Frankly, I would have liked to see bolt actions be the main focus of the game, but I'm not sure how they could have reasonably achieved that without limiting class selection or something equivalent.
 
I've mainly played conquest, as my adventures in TDM were pretty lackluster. TDM feels very random and even though I won most of the games I've played (compared to 28% in conquest, which is statistically amazing), it's been a lot less interesting than large-team gamemodes. Conquest allows you to make full use of every piece of gear, and 32v32 results in some pretty amazing pushes. I remember a particularly good game in which I ran across a large steep hill while mustard gassing and mortaring people as we swept from spawnpoint to spawnpoint all the way across the map. I've learned that I really like gassing people. I'm concerned.
 
Map options are extremely varied and all pretty good. Some of the smaller ones end up just feeling like killboxes, but large conquest maps are incredible. I've seen a map with several hills split by muddy rivers and populated with small fortifications, all in front of a massive double control point fortress. Zeppelins can be called in, as well as dreadnoughts and huge armored trains, depending on the map. This type of extreme firepower is at great odds with the close-range focus of the game, and the fact that melee weapons are intended to be a viable option. Bayonets allow you to charge people down from relatively long range, and other melee weapons have distinct stats and the ability/inability to destroy or damage certain objects. There has been a large effort to reduce weapon overlap, which has resulted in nearly every weapon having a niche, but at this point I feel that most classes have clear upgrades from low-level equipment. This was part of my gripe with the beta.
 
Vehicles feel a little strong. I realize that this is WW1, so tanks should be properly horrifying, but they are absurdly safe at the moment. They can now be repaired while inside the tank at any time by the driver, as well as supplemented by supports with repair kits. They have regenerating ammo, which means they can stay at medium-long range and provide support fire at nearly no risk to themselves. This aspect of them needs to be limited slightly, as it results in many games with the top player having scores like 30/0 or 40/5. Planes feel pretty good at the moment; They are relatively difficult to down compared to other Battlefield games (probably the lack of guided missiles), and provide a very hard counter to tanks. However, the large amount of AA turrets means that they can't perform their function properly on some maps. Pretty much everything feels as though it has a purpose and appropriate counters though, so minor tweaking should iron this out.
 
 
All in all it's pretty good. They've also put a lot of effort into making sure everything is as historically accurate as possible.

 
Yup. Historical.

Colli and Ulric are extremely aware that my experience with the beta of BF1 was dreadful. Hit registration was awful, I frequently had 8 hit kills and tanks were freakishly hard to deal with. I also feel that the map choice in the beta was terrible, as DICE clearly had better maps that they could have shown off. Overall I was very unimpressed and had decided not to buy it. Then i realized that COD would have a very low population as a result of the decision to bundle the Modern Warfare remake with the new game. That's definitely not worth my time.
 
Still, I needed a big-team multiplayer shooter to play for the next year on-and-off, as I always do. I figured that the beta of BF1 would probably not be representative of the servers on release, since EA always has problems allocating servers for betas. I don't know why, but it's a significant issue. Regardless, I'm glad I picked it up.
 
 
BF1 functions as a more distilled version of BF4. Individual player ability is greatly overshadowed by cooperation, as it should be in a Battlefield game. I've unsurprisingly spent most of my time playing as Support, which has "LMGs", the ability to drop ammo, and mortars, limpet mines or repair kits. LMGs are more LMG-alikes, or rough IAR equivalents like the BAR. I've made most use of the MG 15, as it has a large enough magazine size to effectively take control of the improved-accuracy-while-firing mechanic, which has finally been brought back to Battlefield. It's things like this that help illustrate the difference between weapon classes, which is far more pronounced than any previous title. Support also has access to the Madsen (yay!), the Lewis gun (which is sadly pretty awful), the Benet-Mercie (Hotchkiss Mark 1, and a little weak IMO), and the Huot Automatic Rifle (I have no idea what this thing is, but it looks hilarious). You can probably see that they've had to look around a bit for weapons to populate this game. Since they wanted to continue to make automatics numerous, only the Scout class (Recon from older games) has access to bolt-action rifles. Assault gets access to a plethora of SMGs and shotguns, and Medic uses primarily semi-auto rifles, though they may get access to automatic weapons later (I haven't played them enough to know). Frankly, I would have liked to see bolt actions be the main focus of the game, but I'm not sure how they could have reasonably achieved that without limiting class selection or something equivalent.
 
I've mainly played conquest, as my adventures in TDM were pretty lackluster. TDM feels very random and even though I won most of the games I've played (compared to 28% in conquest, which is statistically amazing), it's been a lot less interesting than large-team gamemodes. Conquest allows you to make full use of every piece of gear, and 32v32 results in some pretty amazing pushes. I remember a particularly good game in which I ran across a large steep hill while mustard gassing and mortaring people as we swept from spawnpoint to spawnpoint all the way across the map. I've learned that I really like gassing people. I'm concerned.
 
Map options are extremely varied and all pretty good. Some of the smaller ones end up just feeling like killboxes, but large conquest maps are incredible. I've seen a map with several hills split by muddy rivers and populated with small fortifications, all in front of a massive double control point fortress. Zeppelins can be called in, as well as dreadnoughts and huge armored trains, depending on the map. This type of extreme firepower is at great odds with the close-range focus of the game, and the fact that melee weapons are intended to be a viable option. Bayonets allow you to charge people down from relatively long range, and other melee weapons have distinct stats and the ability/inability to destroy or damage certain objects. There has been a large effort to reduce weapon overlap, which has resulted in nearly every weapon having a niche, but at this point I feel that most classes have clear upgrades from low-level equipment. This was part of my gripe with the beta.
 
Vehicles feel a little strong. I realize that this is WW1, so tanks should be properly horrifying, but they are absurdly safe at the moment. They can now be repaired while inside the tank at any time by the driver, as well as supplemented by supports with repair kits. They have regenerating ammo, which means they can stay at medium-long range and provide support fire at nearly no risk to themselves. This aspect of them needs to be limited slightly, as it results in many games with the top player having scores like 30/0 or 40/5. Planes feel pretty good at the moment; They are relatively difficult to down compared to other Battlefield games (probably the lack of guided missiles), and provide a very hard counter to tanks. However, the large amount of AA turrets means that they can't perform their function properly on some maps. Pretty much everything feels as though it has a purpose and appropriate counters though, so minor tweaking should iron this out.
 
 
All in all it's pretty good. They've also put a lot of effort into making sure everything is as historically accurate as possible.

 
Yup. Historical.

Don't you just love it when I post things.
 

I've found that if you don't try to lunge for an officer's weapon while on drugs and have multiple warrants for your arrest, the odds of being shot by police go down dramatically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTMs381HGao
 
This is it. The Alpha. The Omega.
 
What has been seen can not be unseen. The consequences were not the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTMs381HGao
 
This is it. The Alpha. The Omega.
 
What has been seen can not be unseen. The consequences were not the same.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh CthulhuR'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Find a single flaw.

There's hope for you, T___A!

No, seriously, I initially thought this would be basically the same thing as facilitated communication (which is quackery), but this video gives it as a teaching method that looks like it might actually work (even though it sounds like a gigantic pain in the ass):



 So: Quackery, or actual progress?

Wow, you think it's dehumanizing to refer to someone as T___A?
 
That's going a bit far I think.

Colli-man forgot that it is the only weapon that can stop a charging Goa'uld Jaffa.