This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Super Irish
Pages: 1 ... 757677 7879 ... 201
2281
« on: January 06, 2016, 04:48:48 AM »
I have sometimes wondered if most leaders having only 4 years in power actually limits what a government can do, as if there's a problem that would take several terms to solve, then whatever steps you do to try and solve it could be just undone or discontinued by the next guy so there's no point starting with some problems. Is this a valid thing to consider?I know jack all about this kind of stuff so I'd be interested in hearing what someone who actually knows something about this thinks.
It does make it less effective. A one term president could have all of his stuff undone by the next president. That's why you see a lot of democracies go an extra year or so with their leaders. Some at least.
Huh. So another advantage of (a specific part of) OPs point, if there wasn't a leader change every few years, a government could actually be more effective? That's interesting.
Yup. Only downside to that is if you or even a majority don't agree with a lifetime leader's decisions, tough shit.
Think how fast policies were created in post-Weimar Republic Germany. Shame it was by Hitler...
This is probably going to sound weird coming from me, but from a government standpoint, Hitler really wasn't all that bad.
Yeah. He pretty much turned germany around from depression to superpower in a fairly short amount of time. It's pretty incredible.
It was short term recovery and relied on resources from other countries, first by trade and then by invading and taking the resources themselves or by slave labour. In 19 years of Hitler's reign he was running a total war economy despite being in control of all of Western Europe, North Africa and a large chunk of Western Russia.
2282
« on: January 06, 2016, 04:44:27 AM »
TIL I bother verbatim a lot. I think I'll live.
OT, people who are easily bored and/or "are anxious" and start forcing conversation out of you. Especially when I'm trying to sleep.
Also shitty puns. Most are unoriginal and beaten like a dead horse, or poorly thought out and don't make sense. Only the rare gem of a pun which I rarely hear is actually funny.
2283
« on: January 06, 2016, 04:31:04 AM »
Ehhh... nah.
Already had Operation Anchorage which was easily the most boring of the DLC's from Fallout 3.
Leaving the past of a Post Apocalyptic US as fragments of books and scattered 50's propaganda posters is better for leaving the rest to the imagination. Having the few mysteries of the past filled in by a prequel game would be far below expectations.
Will be fair though; the tidbit of the prewar age was brilliant, but I'm happy if they left it at that.
2284
« on: January 06, 2016, 04:24:48 AM »
I have sometimes wondered if most leaders having only 4 years in power actually limits what a government can do, as if there's a problem that would take several terms to solve, then whatever steps you do to try and solve it could be just undone or discontinued by the next guy so there's no point starting with some problems. Is this a valid thing to consider?I know jack all about this kind of stuff so I'd be interested in hearing what someone who actually knows something about this thinks.
It does make it less effective. A one term president could have all of his stuff undone by the next president. That's why you see a lot of democracies go an extra year or so with their leaders. Some at least.
Huh. So another advantage of (a specific part of) OPs point, if there wasn't a leader change every few years, a government could actually be more effective? That's interesting.
Yup. Only downside to that is if you or even a majority don't agree with a lifetime leader's decisions, tough shit. Think how fast policies were created in post-Weimar Republic Germany. Shame it was by Hitler...
2285
« on: January 05, 2016, 12:53:23 PM »
Sounds like a logical step, though I know next to nothing of what the current system is in America.
I'm guessing this makes Obama quite unpopular across the board (whether or not this was a smart idea). Either way, sounds good for those in mental healthcare if that 500 milion isn't wasted.
2286
« on: January 05, 2016, 12:47:11 PM »
2287
« on: January 03, 2016, 05:57:44 PM »
"My brain is weird"
-Gan the Electrical Engi, 2016.
2288
« on: January 03, 2016, 05:52:23 PM »
Saving Private Ryan
Platoon
Das Boot (simply because "It's a long way to Tipperary", plus the theme song)
Apocalypse Now
Full Metal Jacket
2289
« on: January 03, 2016, 02:05:07 PM »
When I first moved here and got a bit more interested in the news, hearing about the shadow cabinet made the government sound a bit ominous.
Then I found out they do relatively little, and was dissapointed.
2290
« on: December 31, 2015, 12:33:31 PM »
Hell I'm in France and it still isn't not the CURRENT YEAR yet.
2291
« on: December 31, 2015, 12:13:47 PM »
RC nails it.
You watch it, it's stored automatically somewhere on your computer and BAM!
Posession charge.
2292
« on: December 31, 2015, 12:01:11 PM »
This is Englaaaaaand,
this knife of Sheffield steeeeel
2293
« on: December 30, 2015, 03:31:20 AM »
That's the whole point if the DLC, to be mind numbingly difficult with a lot of quicksaves to ultimately reach a reward you can't take (under normal circumstances...).
The theme of "letting go" wouldn't work if the effort into reaching the vault wasn't monumental, to make you think you deserve the gold.
2294
« on: December 29, 2015, 01:42:10 PM »
Yes, and fortunately for the UK they've started developing new ones. Unfortunately the timing is a bit off, as most of the UK's current reactors will be at the very end of their extended lifespans by the time the newer ones replace them, if not already decommissioned, around the next 5 years.
The UK's specific problem with Nuclear is A) Regulations brought on by the Chernobyl disaster make it very difficult of further reactors to be established, let alone whole new sites to be constructed (the only reason the new ones were passed through was due to the decommissioning of the previous sites, taking 20% of the UK's energy supply along with it) and B) The UK has no nuclear waste disposal site at the moment. IIRC, it's encased in glass, then concrete, and dumped in the Irish Sea or at Sellafield ("because hey, that place is already contaminated from the accident, let's just bury it there!")
While renewables can be good for picking up the slack in places like Scotland and Wales, Nuclear fission is currently the only path to go that can provide a lot of energy now, rather than Fusion which is still in the R&D stage.
2295
« on: December 29, 2015, 01:31:29 PM »
Honestly it's easier to just be disappointed by anything from DICE these days.
DICE Sweden, at least. Haven't kept up with DICE LA to be fair (they released Hardline though, which makes no sense as a Battlefield game).
Visceral did HL. LA has been patching and working on Battlefield 4.
Ah, my bad.
2296
« on: December 29, 2015, 10:18:13 AM »
Honestly it's easier to just be disappointed by anything from DICE these days.
DICE Sweden, at least. Haven't kept up with DICE LA to be fair (they released Hardline though, which makes no sense as a Battlefield game).
2297
« on: December 26, 2015, 09:23:42 PM »
Destiny tbh. When I played the beta I was actually interested to see how all the factions and storylines would play out with Bungie's promise of "a massive solar-system sized game world"
I agree. I've been playing through it slowly and literally all I've seen lore wise is teasers. E.g. Bill Nighy basically saying "I could tell you about the battle and what's going on, but can't due to writer and time constraints". Also, the Guardians. Not sure if they ever go into it more later on, but other than ghosts resurrecting them there's little explanation why, and from what time zones or events they came from originally. Kinda dissapointed on the lore side. As for other game universes, Borderlands and Destroy All Humans come to mind, maybe Rachet and Clank. Fallout is pretty covered tbh. OPEC got invaded by Europe until the oil ran out and Tel Aviv got nuked, Europe devolved and then killed themselves from within (Most EU/Brit characters describe it as a harsher place to survive than the Wastelands of the West Coast), and China was virtually vapourised as the US had more firepower. Russia has clearly survived because of the odd russian blokes in DC and Boston, although being surrounded on all sides by hell is probably not helping it. The rest of Asia and Australia isn't mentioned (assuming China's aggression led it to take them over beforehand, if present conflicts over territorial waters are to be exaggerated in the Fallout Universe).
2298
« on: December 26, 2015, 07:58:12 PM »
A homeless man stole my bike in some generic city street.
That's the last one I remember, and it shook me up more than it should've.
2299
« on: December 26, 2015, 12:41:16 PM »
Well it was made EU law a while back that you have the right to get your money back on digital goods you're not satisfied with. Wouldn't be surprised if this passes as well.
True, but on Steam (and several other sellers of digital-only items) you have the option to waive your rights in return to play the game/ use the item immediately. I know which most people would pick.
2300
« on: December 26, 2015, 11:52:54 AM »
Damn, I'm guessing you're around Cumbria then.
Does this shit happen to you every year?
2301
« on: December 26, 2015, 11:50:06 AM »
2302
« on: December 25, 2015, 10:59:13 AM »
Some fallout t-shirts, posters and a mug.
2303
« on: December 24, 2015, 10:44:11 PM »
superman is a bad example OP.
Superman is a perfect example.
Because the example is already made for Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark. Their power is money and intelligence. There are lots of wealthy people who have both, and they don't do shit to protect anyone but themselves.
Protect, no. But Bill Gates has certainly donated a ton to charity. But really it depends on the hero and villian in question. Can't relate to Superman 'cos I don't have laser eyes, x-ray vision, super strength and endurance, etc,etc... but nor can I relate to the devourer of worlds (forgot his name, somehow I'm thinking of garglamesh or something. The silver surfer was his servant?) because I'm not some oversized version of Mr Creosote that devours planets either.
2304
« on: December 24, 2015, 07:39:50 PM »
Fuck me the early game got me killed a lot. Putting that down to the new controls and getting to grips with my new console, and not knowing about the traps, but eh.
So far spent 17 hours on it, haven't even reached Diamond City what with my house restoration project underway.
2305
« on: December 24, 2015, 04:59:31 PM »
Free gas.
By the time I hit retirement and get free bus travel I can just sell the fuel, undercutting the normal suppliers because of the relative scarcity of it.
2306
« on: December 24, 2015, 04:53:23 PM »
I think it's a shame that Battlefield does this now. Pointless side distractions on par with CoD Zombies, evolving tidbit references that deserved an "Oh, that's pretty cool" and moving on, to having whole gameplay revolving around it.
At least they were smart enough to keep most of it to unranked battles so there won't be people messing around an actual match, but still.
So you want gameplay that's similar to cod and revolves around pressing buttons.
We have a game for that, Halo 4.
Uhhhhh no. That's not what I want at all. How'd you figure that from what I said?
Battlefield didn't used to have this easter egg bs, and was at one point a team oriented game that had more combined-arms operations than it is now.
I don't need eastereggs and reduced features... I want an actual battlefield game that was different from the CoD shovelware.
I don't see how adding in a small Easter egg suddenly turns it into a completely different game.
It became an overall rant there, but it's only the beginning. BF3 had little things here and there, then it had the megladon in Paracel Storm, and now it's got complex puzzles. Going the same way of CoD zombies, started only with a radio and well, now it's a disaster.
BF4 is vastly better than it's prequel, but it's a damn sight worse than the older games and now just a varied flavour of every other FPS.
You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Oh no, this is just another straw for the camel's back.
2307
« on: December 24, 2015, 04:36:27 PM »
I think it's a shame that Battlefield does this now. Pointless side distractions on par with CoD Zombies, evolving tidbit references that deserved an "Oh, that's pretty cool" and moving on, to having whole gameplay revolving around it.
At least they were smart enough to keep most of it to unranked battles so there won't be people messing around an actual match, but still.
So you want gameplay that's similar to cod and revolves around pressing buttons.
We have a game for that, Halo 4.
Uhhhhh no. That's not what I want at all. How'd you figure that from what I said?
Battlefield didn't used to have this easter egg bs, and was at one point a team oriented game that had more combined-arms operations than it is now.
I don't need eastereggs and reduced features... I want an actual battlefield game that was different from the CoD shovelware.
I don't see how adding in a small Easter egg suddenly turns it into a completely different game.
It became an overall rant there, but it's only the beginning. BF3 had little things here and there, then it had the megladon in Paracel Storm, and now it's got complex puzzles. Going the same way of CoD zombies, started only with a radio and well, now it's a disaster. BF4 is vastly better than it's prequel, but it's a damn sight worse than the older games and now just a varied flavour of every other FPS.
2308
« on: December 24, 2015, 04:27:54 PM »
This is waaay out of character.
2309
« on: December 24, 2015, 04:22:25 PM »
I think it's a shame that Battlefield does this now. Pointless side distractions on par with CoD Zombies, evolving tidbit references that deserved an "Oh, that's pretty cool" and moving on, to having whole gameplay revolving around it.
At least they were smart enough to keep most of it to unranked battles so there won't be people messing around an actual match, but still.
So you want gameplay that's similar to cod and revolves around pressing buttons.
We have a game for that, Halo 4.
Uhhhhh no. That's not what I want at all. How'd you figure that from what I said? Battlefield didn't used to have this easter egg bs, and was at one point a team oriented game that had more combined-arms operations than it is now. I don't need eastereggs and reduced features... I want an actual battlefield game that was different from the CoD shovelware.
2310
« on: December 24, 2015, 09:31:50 AM »
I fucked up copying the images, but I got Left Social Moderate.
Pretty much what the average brought up, but only one line into Libertarian and 3 lines into Left.
Pages: 1 ... 757677 7879 ... 201
|
Show Posts