FredEffinChopin

Well no, I didn't quite say that, though looking back at it now I can see that the sentence you're referring to in my 1st post on this topic is less than airtight for what I meant to convey about my personal idea of a military action, and can be used to get to where you took it transitively. What I did actually say was that an act that is strategically calculated to deprive an "enemy" of a resource is military. Rather than try to stick my finger in every conceivable hole that someone might poke into my inept attempt at writing a personal definition, I'll respond to your question and explain where I'm coming from, and hopefully those things will do a better job of expressing what I was getting at than I did, even if not in the most concise and specific terms. For something like tariffs or sanctions, there is a legal framework and precedent within which these actions are broadly acceptable. Nations are entitled to set the terms on which they do or do not trade, and nobody is under an obligation not to be greedy or cutthroat in the way they deal with each other as long as they're operating in accordance with established rules. That being said, I don't believe that it's crazy to ever refer to such actions as being "warlike"; I think they can potentially be, or can at least be a tool in the waging of war. A cold war can certainly have many casualties. I think a measure of subjectivity is being exercised on anyone's part in drawing the lines between these uses of the word "war". As far as my personal line I was trying to draw a two posts ago, I probably should have used the word "aggressive" instead of "strategic", and/or "attack" instead of "move", and made my case for the hacking qualifying as an attack on the basis of it being done a)with the specific purpose of doing damage, without even a fake pretense of any kind of other motive, and b) being forceful, covert, and illegal. In other words, I guess the line is somewhere between scumbagging other nations for profit using established rules advantageously, and using means outside of the playing field of business, politics, or anything else even remotely legal solely to damage another nation. While I believe the former can be characterized as an attack very effectively, the latter is an actual one in that it is forceful and cannot be addressed by any kind of reform (since the act itself is one that indicates that engagement on a political level has been foregone in favor of sabotage), only retaliation. It throws the rulebook out the window and issues a challenge on a different, combative level where anything goes. To be fair it's not just arbitrarily designated as such by Ethan, it's a term that describes the mode of the action in we're discussing. If you're saying that the difference is purely academic and that we should judge an action solely by an intended result, then I would say I agree with you more than a little. Just because the rules exist in such a way that they can be used to abuse people doesn't mean that those abuses are anything but that. Generally though, if not being done to further the economic standing of the nation trying to enact damaging economic policies, there is at least a pretense for a political or economic goal that goes beyond "We're going to fuck those guys up". At least a pretense. If not, then I'm ready to start using the "w" word for that action. As far as the illegal trade policies interpreted as an act of war, I think that any policy that can be referred to as illegal is inherently (theoretically at least, not necessarily in practice) already withing a framework wherein it would presumably like to pass as acceptable, and so can be addressed within that framework. There is finessing of legal language involved, and deceitful language. The idea is to look legal while being illegal. Again, I wouldn't say that makes it right or any less damaging. Nobody can say "Hey, no fair, you're not supposed to hack our companies and then use the information and fear as leverage to keep them from selling their products!" though. Everyone already knows that that's not legal or acceptable. If I wanted to be the Frank Luntz for US warhawks in congress, I might label such an acts as the DPRK are being accused of as "economic terrorism". I hope that makes sense. I came back to this response a couple of times throughout the day, and it looks pretty different than what I began writing. I've got company coming soon though, and can't work on it anymore, nor do I want to put it off because then I'll likely take forever, that is if the response is even still relevant at the point that I'm ready. I've lost many posts to that...

Pardon the delay, been a busy few days. Aside from the little bit of gaming I squeezed in... Time must be made for such things. The resource under attack would would be economic, referring to what (at the time) seemed like it might have been a successful attempt at preventing the release of a major motion picture production that had already been completed. I'm stretching a bit, but I think it's a legitimate concern. Something like that happening on even a semi-regular basis could damage that particular industry and even have a broader effect on the economy. Of course in that scenario the inability of the film industry to operate as usual would be the tip of the iceberg, or a fraction of it at very best, as far as the overall problem on our hands. Our marketplace and economy are a resource though, and I was just making the case for this being a deliberate attempt to not just disrupt and intimidate us, but to actually damage us. I meant to say this in the first comment, so I should at least say it now - All this assumes that it was them who made the threats to the theaters, and who planned or executed the hacking. I'm not completely convinced yet, though I'm mostly prepared to accept it. Claiming responsibility isn't necessarily the smoking gun in my eyes, as it seems within the realm of nutty shit that this guy will do if he thinks it comes off as effective posturing. There isn't a lot I put past that regime. But yeah, I just wanted to make that clear. It's totally possible I missed a story, but I'm not sure if we've actually traced anything but IPs, which I understand can be subverted fairly easily. I'll cut myself off there to avoid sounding any more amateurish in that area than I already might have just done... Or is there anyone who does know about that stuff, ad who might be able to say whether or not he/she thinks that we have sufficient evidence for at least the hack? *edit* Has anyone watched the movie? I heard it's pretty bad. At the same time I feel like I should buy it, even if I don't watch it.

They've also threatened further retaliation over the film and over the accusations of hacking, and presumably used threats of violence (aka terrorism) to scare Sony into holding off on the film release, which certainly infringes on artistic expression in a way someone within the country couldn't come close to doing. Is it an "act of war"? I have no idea. I'm sure there is a definite answer to that in some legal sense. If we're sharing our own personal ideas, then yes, I would say they are. A strategic move that aims to deprive an "enemy" of a resource is a military one, even without the threats of violence. Should an "act of war" always be met by a declaration of war? No, not necessarily. I do not think this means anyone should be "going to war" with DPRK. That being said, they've been threatening us for a long time whenever a fit of bluster happens to be convenient, and we always just laugh them off as a bunch of kooks before we go drop more bombs somewhere in the Middle-East. I don't know how this should be responded to, but I think it's more than just a matter of a private corporation being vandalized, and is certainly a matter of national concern.

I don't mean to crap on anyone else's secret Santa, but when gifting restrictions blocked the digital chimney of Christmas, Eleven picked the locks and left gift wallet codes under the tree for me!!! Talk about badass! Abyss Odyssey! Banner Saga!! Strider!!! AND Dark (effin) Souls 2!!!! I am so dead. Also so grateful. Thanks a bunch, Eleven!! I can't wait to tear into this list with some of my free time coming up in January =)

You're most welcome, Ethan, I hope you enjoy it!! @W&S One of my favorites of all-time. Still holds up really well too.

That old gag

In!

*sigh* memories.

I decided to word it that way because both of those things are done with a single game, even if a single customer won't do both with that game. While it did seem at first that it might appear a bit hyperbolic, factually speaking, any game with a season pass is also selling that DLC separately to people as well. As far as leaving the word "game" out of that sentence, I have no excuse, I just mistyped.

http://www.pcgamer.com/win-a-free-steam-key-for-crusader-kings-2/ A bunch of free copies of Crusader Kings II are being given out. I hate when stuff like that happens with stuff I already own. I guess I should hurry and play already.

"YES, now with Paypal!!!" said nobody ever. This game isn't even out yet. DLC presented/presents some great possibilities for gaming, but it seems mostly just abused nowadays, and the trend isn't going to stop. Selling $60 to people with $30 season passes and $10 expansions every three months is too sweet to let go of.

The battleground seems to be screen size and OS. Atm I'm using a Nexus 5, which has a pretty good size display for what I want; both the Moto X and the Note 4 are bigger. Now I don't mind going larger, but seeing as they're both going to be bigger than ideal, I'm struggling to justify the Moto X; if I'm going to hobble myself with a larger display, I might as well go all the way and get the phone designed with that in mind. So the Note wins that one.. Then we have Motorola's cleaner version of Android versus the mess that is Touchwizz. I hear TW is much improved, but it's still a fairly awful skin-job. Motorola takes that one. Design wise? I honestly don't know. I'd take the Moto X in a heartbeat but I absolutely hate that new logo they've got going on, far too obvious; especially when compared to the previous model which had a much more subtle logo design. Is the new Moto X physically bigger? That matters far more than raw screen-size. Personally I want something smaller and more one-handable than my N5. I hadn't realized there was a new Moto X. I thought there was just that +1 or whatever. Yeah, this thing is definitely larger.

Yeah, the Moto X being too small wasn't a consideration for me. If anything I was worried it might be too large to comfortably stow away in jeans with smaller pockets and such. It's been a lot more comfortable than I've hoped for though. Since screen size is an issue for you, you should also know that the buttons are shared with it... I'm sure there is a technical terms for the layout that I can't think of right now. I should also mention that the Moto X screen is not bigger, but smaller than a Nexus 5 even without taking that into account, at 4.7" I did notice this if you do decide to go with a Moto and aren't planning on keeping your own phone. I imagine you don't want a smaller screen at this point though haha.

I'm loving my Moto X experience for what it's worth. Motorola Connect and the active display are the features that finally convinced me to buy this one over something more inexpensive (as well as the water submerging tests I saw on the Moto G, which has a similar coating on the inside), and they're the ones I appreciate most regularly. *edit Oh, and touchless control, which I use all the time.

The thing is society glamorizes all kinds of unhealthy behavior and lifestyles. Even when we try to be tongue-in-cheek about it (take for example the Jersey Shore phenomenon), the fact remains that many objects of admiration in popular culture are vapid, narcissistic, lazy, ruthless, booze-chugging, drug-using (even athletic "role models", and those people will never diminish in some peoples' eyes), violent torpedoes of self-destruction. Even the very cooking shows that encourage America to figure out new ways to make bacon frosting on their latest reality series about cake (aka the people who actively work to produce the fatasses we're discussing, making them pretty damned relevant to obesity) have turned a bunch of people who would have just been anonymous chefs into celebrities. I don't really see this sort of sentiment towards those individual attributes or parties though, at least not under the idea of concern for the people who might be harming themselves. If anything we encourage it. It leads me to the possibility that much of this idea of being worried about messages that society sends to fat people is at least in part due to the fact that many people simply don't like looking at fat people. Perhaps some smaller group of people within those are even annoyed at seeing people who disgust them looking happy and proud when they themselves certainly wouldn't be if they looked like that, and maybe aren't happy or proud even though they don't look like that. I'm not saying that all people who don't encourage fat people to maintain a positive sense of self-esteem are doing so because they don't have any concern for public health at all (and I certainly don't intend to say that about Jack or Ethan), and I definitely do agree that it's important to educate the public about the dangers of obesity. I just feel like I've been seeing this idea pop up a lot lately that we shouldn't let fat people think it's ok to be fat... It just doesn't sit right with me. They know they're fat. If they choose to come to terms with it by being proud, what can you do. I'm not especially into seeing really big people in clothing not meant for their body type either, but I certainly would rather them flaunt it then walk around in shame. I don't think it encourages unhealthy habits, though I'll concede that people who might have been shamed into being in better shape otherwise might let themselves go. Even then though, I'm not the type to treat 5 years of life as better than 10 of comfort. That's everyone's personal judgment to make. Disclosure: I've put on some weight in the past few years, and might have subconsciously based my entire stance on a preemptive future self defense.

It's over

In defense of a shitty game: "I pay more than that for lunch, so who cares?!" I'd be annoyed if my lunch sucked too.

I didn't so much mean the term arbitrarily, I should have been more specific.

Just to play devil's advocate here, I can name something that was better in the 90s: Human interaction Also the TV shows had commercials in-between, and not on top of them. But yeah, programmed TV is the oil lamp aside from that. Bubye!