Search Results

...

I generally skip posts where the colour strains my terrible eyes, so basically dark text.
Or worse is when people use smaller fonts than the typical size.
Do both and I just can't be bothered straining my sight.

The PS3 was better than the 360? Whatever floats your boats, or sinks your dinks.

Sir Fontelbom the Magnificent Bastard

It was light hearted mostly at its weirdness. But Fringe is a little weird in general, so it works more than most series would.

Don't be surprised if this isn't the final Arkham game completely, but the final made by Rocksteady. Especially if Knight does really well, which is likely. I think it's WBs second biggest franchise next to the Lego games. Wouldn't be surprised if it was continued from Origins by WB Montreal or someone else, maybe a handheld or mobile game. Or even a reinvention after a few years, etc.

I realised I probably didn't address this case at all. I apologise. Alright, here we go.

Criminal charges in the military should be handled by military police and investigators.
The cases of crimes within the military are hard enough to investigate for the military rather than get civilians involved. A lot of these cases involve international travel between war affected areas or bases around the globe, wherever witnesses serve or the crimes have taken place. Civilian investigators would have to go through training and receive allowance to visit and investigate in military compounds for example, stuff that military investigators already have in place. Not to mention the military group mind set and classifications in place. Not many personnel willing talk about matters that a civilian investigator wouldn't be seen as being sympathetic to them. Many military investigators have served in the military or come from such families, which military personnel would be more inclined to respect and talk to. It's that sense of trust and sympathy that military investigators have over civvies.

What should change is the mentality of rape by the investigative force, their procedure and also the amount of female military investigators employed needs to increase. Civilian investigators use female employees more so to deal with rape cases of women because they are perceived as more motherly and caring, easier to talk to. It's a smart way to use your resources which the military police force don't have as much access to.

Mentioning equality quick, i'm trying to make the point that men and women are both criminals and victims. It's not one or the other, not all women are victims, not all men are criminals. Individuals are. The whole topic of rape needs to be addressed since everyone is a victim to them, not just men or women.

I may probably ramble here, but I've researched this subject a while ago and always thought about women in military, so ignore me if I sound preachy or swear. Trigger warnings and so on. I'm not going to be caeful on a serious subject.

Women are no different in human culture when it comes to military capability than men in the modern day. Even in ancient battle, trained military women were as effective as men, in perhaps different areas of expertise. We are equal, because we are all bloody human. Men might be on average stronger, but soldiers don't necessarily need to be bodybuilders, hell not all men have the physical capability or physique to become soldiers. If a woman can meet the requirements of an entrants exam, handle the training and pass, what's the problem? Sexism still in place, unfortunately, that has little practical use in a battle or war. Some women see applying as acitvely trying to defy their gender roles:

Source: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20430897?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103681545263

Sexual abuse in military history against women is common. But sexual abuse is as common against men, maybe more because men have been more frequent in violent events. Sexual abuse against civilian women is far more common, and worse for the because they have no training to defend themselves compared to the soldiers. Throughout many tribes, and even more recently in WW2 countries, women were trained in a similar fashion to men in order to defend their home country in case of an invasion. The concealment of knives or daggers along with submission holds and other techniques in order to disable or kill opponents, primarily men.

The potential of sexual abuse is seen as a sore subject in the military, when it only truly matters after the fact. During the act of being raped behind enemy lines, the last worry many women have is feelings of violation. The instinct of survival is crucial at that point, and if you want to survive, you'll deal with it later and focus on the situation at hand, which all soldiers are/should be taught. An account of such an experience:

Source: http://www.ambrosiasw.com/forums/index.php?s=ec38e9ce59c7388c185485da75495be7&showtopic=40740

Also, men get raped by allied and enemy officers too. Women are more prime targets when there of course, but the more inclusive women are in military service, the likelihood this will decrease. Plenty of women join the military fully aware of this possibility, but they do it anyway. Why? Well it's all individual, but clearly the want to serve is greater than their fear of sexual harassment, even if they wished it would stop and still fight back against it.

In history, women have had an increasingly significant roles in the military and decision of country wide issues:
Boudicca, her husband murdered, her daughters raped, and herself flogged by Romans who had conquered Britain. When she rebelled, she struck respect and fear into the whole of the Roman Empire, where Italian culture still respects her today as one of their toughest and most fearsome foes.
Sorghaghtani Beki controlled the Mongol Empire for years, having power over all the armies and generals that invaded everywhere from China to Russia, becoming arguably one of the most powerful woman in history.
Joan of Arc helped bring independence from the English Monarchy to France, leading to end the Hundred Year War by purposefully leading men into battle, inspiring a nation that after almost a century had lost morale and the want to fight.
Annie Oakley trained thousands of women in the ways of the rifle, creating a detachment of female marksman and she was arguably the greatest marksman of her time and possibly history.

Women can be as diverse as men in society. Meaning military service is nothing new for them if they applied themselves. There are as many great historical female warriors, soldiers and fighters in history as men. If you want to fight, you can fight. Train, succeed, fight, whatever, let them all do it if they pass the regs. This isn't a worthwhile issue these days. We're in a world that fighting requires good eyesight, a steady hand and a trigger finger. We're not battling with swords, physical strength matters little more than to carry equipment. If streets burn and the bodies pile up, your sex won't matter in a war zone.

I don't blame them for playing it safe and generally improving on City's system. WB Montreal had only previously ported City to the WiiU and worked on a web game. Honestly, they did a lot more than I expected of them for the lack of real experience in a triple AAA title.
In the end they di their job as a filler in the Arkham series, and I personally enjoyed my time with it even if it lacked the spark of the past games.

But it was still part of the series, same world, same mechanics, same characters, having a different studio doesn't take away from that. I think they distance Origins just because it's not the same flying success the other two achieved. Still, I doubt how much they could change things much like the combat and stealth sections, since they were basically perfect, without ruining it all.
I'd welcome to be proven wrong.

It's a quadrilogy since Arkham origins was a prequel in the series.
I'm worried it's a bit soon for another Arkham game. I mean it'll be a year since Origins, which I felt was too samey because it was City in many ways. They'll really have to push the line to make it as good.

From what I've heard, Arkham Knight is a new enemy who will be similar to Batman in a few ways, like the equipment, skills and so on. Imagine Dark Link or that alter ego villain that mirrors the hero. It's suppose to be a play on Batman, of course, since he's also technically the 'Dark Knight' and stuff.

Governments should be pushing its inclusion more. The internet is such a standard thing in almost all households now, or will be, and even in some countries is considered a basic need, along with water, heating and so on.
If the government, the people and the corporations tell internet providers to start improving the bloody slow business practice, they'll bloody well listen.
I have one fibre optic broadband provider, and their prices are terrible for me as a result. It took me two weeks to download one game I bought on Steam once (not at once, mind you, but whenever I got on my PC) just for about 25gb. I could never download any new gen game, otherwise It'd take me a month to get it. This is why i still prefer disks for now.
Praying for competitive pricing eventually.

Or does he.....?
No seriously, I don't know. Making sense of these games as a whole is hard enough without getting into the minutiae of it.

Which is fun in an internet environment that can't even begin to keep up with the amount of data that new gen games consist of. We'll only ever become truly always online and digital gaming when we get a proper internet infrastructure around the world. So either they'll have to make smaller games or we'll wait another 40 years for the internet to catch up.

I've heard or thought. or whatever, that Pluto and the rest of the gang really, travel between the worlds because they're reforming after Ansem SoD was destroyed. The barriers of worlds were down as the worlds were being restored so they just walked along to Castle O.
In terms of why he led them, probably Mickey's doing or DiZ, trying to get Sora and the gang to the King and Riku who were in the Castle. Then Org turned up and stuff happened.
In terms of the letter, pfffffffft

...

The advice or information is useful, that's not in question. Trusting said information is up to you. Not everyone is as paranoid to believe that just because we don't know someone, doesn't mean we can't listen to their thoughts and consider them. Empires have fallen over mistrust between rulers and generals, used by their enemies to topple them from the inside.
This is an online forum, how many people here have really proven you can trust them? Not many situations arise where you have to rely on someone, it's why so many people ***** and moan and generally crap on each other because the distance between everyone is enough that you don't have to take responsibility for your actions, since you can leave at any moment. Trust is merely faith in someone. Gotta have a little bit of faith just to approach someone, really, let alone anything more.

This has become a common annoyance indeed. I feel like I'm listening to a lot of angry shouting kids on the playground again.

But an outsider's perspective could be valuable. There is worth in all perspectives, even if you have to squeeze it out at times.

I read the title and thought:

'Hmm, what needs to stop in this world? War, racism, sexism, drugs, smoking, slavery, being depressed, self deprecating ideas and the need to accept you are beautiful?'

Oh wait no, apparently thread fads are the most hazardous things that need to stop now.

Thanks a lot Daily Mail......