gammadust

The hypocrisy of the "Greek Military Budget" is flabbergasting: [The Guardian] 23 June 2014 - US presses Nato members to increase defence spending [WSJ] 22 June 2015 - Just Five of 28 NATO Members Meet Defense Spending Goal, Report Says [The Guardian] 12 April 2012 - German 'hypocrisy' over Greek military spending has critics up in arms

@MistyRonin 1. it ceases to be the main legal responsible from the moment that, negleting his economic function, the liabilities the bank is incurring and the leverage they apply on it (way above those with real deposits ~12x vs 15x-300x)* put the whole financial system at risk. 2. the main legal responsible is the entity accessing a priviledged access and most benefiter of the scheme. It is up to discussion who benefited most with those derivative products, if the ones falling for the trap, the ones unloading the financial junk or the ones facilitating the deal. *this, btw, is the result of the fine idea of mixing back together the commercial and financial banking institutions. Something which since the Great Depression is the BIG NO NO of financial regulation. - - - 1. Everyone is wondering what benefits were those that those countries gained access to. Because it shows nowhere. Do you mean the general population benefits, or the bank accounts of the members of the different governements participating in the scheme? 2. Expending on what way above whose possibilities. The population did not even see it, we are talking about a recycle between banks, only a small fraction of such money entered the Greek economy. 3. It is IMF's document that aknowledges that the measures "would still leave Greece in debt". What is my opinion is that insisting on austerity is stupid, because there is no excuse anymore of ignoring the failure of the results. 4. Most of those countries pointlessly increased their Debt to GDP, and by many other economic indices are in worse shape than before. Proving with more than one example that the measures are a failure. 5. The "there is no alternative" argument has de facto been disproven observing Iceland, which did not blindly bailed out the banks, opting to safeguard the real economy they supported, separating the latter from their risk assement failures. But even not considering Iceland's example, only lunacy leads a deciding party to expect different results out of the same measures which created the problem in the first place (ie. increasing unsustainable debt). I would also add, but this is the Greek People's prerogative, that i would prefer to at least earn back my nation's sovereignty in any process that does not assure me the opposite. Maybe follow the examples that showed success in that regard, or even find creative solutions. The current Greek government is not even being that ambitious for the Troika being that adamant. - - - I don't think the defense expenditure is a very favouring argument for the troika, if it is the population that is the recipient of the austerity. @oxmox Exacly my point, i linked up that Guardian article in somewhere in the middle of my last post. Fraud is a serious argument for odious debt and i don't know if we are even ready to discuss that aspect... [bBC] 18 June 2015 - Greek debt 'illegal, illegitimate and odious' [Zerohedge] 17 June 2015 - Greek Debt Committee Just Declared All Debt To The Troika "Illegal, Illegitimate, And Odious" (Contains translated version of the Committee report) Note that the purpose of the committee is still to "investigate how much of the debt is “illegal†with a view to writing it off." and these are still preliminary conclusions. The headline states "All Debt" when the question to "how much" is still in the process of being auditored.

There are three ends in the corruption crime: the corrupted, the corruptionist and the victim. And it goes like the corruptionist pays the corrupted to gain access to some previledge at the expense of a third party. The simplicity with which you lay the problem hides the corruptionist from view. You focus only on the Greek Government and the Greek People. Apparently the banks have little to do with it. While one is unable to answer what was the priviledge that was made accessible at the exchange of what value and what was the expense of whom. Any opinion is incomplete and negligeable. A - It was at the expense of the Banks, that the People payed the Government to gain access to something? B - It was at the expense of the People, that the Banks payed the Government to gain access to something? C - It was at the expense of the Government, that the People payed the Banks to gain access to something? Yes? No? None of the above? Tell me. Can you make the break down of the remaining possibilities and pick your guess? This question is actually extended to anyone. Or is the corruption issue even more complex? Raising the question and having no idea how it works seems too flawed an argument. Let's attempt to see the complexity then... Meaning the bank did not evaluate properly the risk it was incurring, neglected its economic function as a risk manager, and now must face the consequences. Except that in the current situation since 2008 crisis the "risk" and the "problem" is being transfered to a third party. Supposedly, under Capitalism, failing at your business brings yourself bankrupcy, unless you are "too big to fail", in which case the failing business relies on the ad hoc State's "Finance Welfare" to bail them out (ie. at the expense of everyone). It was Goldman Sachs that provided the experience, created the financial products to the Greek Government that enabled the latter to hide the massive deficits allowing the European Union to pretend not knowing how financially unsound that would be. but you claim to already know this: ...but of course it is another subject. Just venture two seconds in identifying where the shady business was and you divert to more palatable headlines and content: In fact it is the same subject after all, it's just that you chose to ignore key dimensions of the events. The economic function of the lending institution, if serving its own interests and the overall economy, is to make sure the borrower will be able to pay fully and within schedule. Under the assumption that the conditions, if any, it imposes are those that further those interests, which are also in common with the borrower. But if this is true why lend then, if: [The Guardian] 30 June 2015 - IMF: austerity measures would still leave Greece with unsustainable debt The cited guardian document - Preliminary Debt Sustainability Analysis for Greece which Varoufakis mentions and constitutes open admissions of the impossibility of compliance on the negotiating table: It is open for anyone to see how incongruently schizophrenic these "institutions" have become. Knowing full well that the measures aggravate the situation and make void the stated objectives, yet are still willing to risk the whole financial system on imposing those measures on the government that noticed it and is refusing to follow the stupidity.

[European Commission] 28 June 2015 - Information from the European Commission on the latest draft proposals in the context of negotiations with Greece Draft Proposal - 26 June 2015 vs Via Google Translation [The DAWN Online] 24 June 2015 - The full text of the Greek proposal, signed Al. Tsipras Greek proposal - 22 June 2015 An official source of the Greek proposal would be preferable, since it is hard for me to validate the above, it appears to be a leak of Tsipras - Junkers correspondence, i share also Yannis Varoufakis take on the subject: [Yannis Varoufakis] 18 June 2015 - Greece’s Proposals to End the Crisis: My intervention at today’s Eurogroup [Yannis Varoufakis] 28 June 2015 - As it happened – Yanis Varoufakis’ intervention during the 27th June 2015 Eurogroup Meeting

[spiegel Online] 08 February 2010 - Greek Debt Crisis: How Goldman Sachs Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt

What have you done oxmox? :o (actually the idea of a thread for global issues had crossed my mind before) Rydygier for the Ontopic. I find it hard to go point by point on those questions but feel like pointing out one or two things. There is something i truly find wonderful when a "democracy" adventures its first steps, that is, its very meaning defines itself, though not from a blank sheet of paper, it inherits historical experiences. In my country after four decades of fascism ending in a non-violent revolution a Constitution was drafted and voted in a instituted representative parliament for the effect, formed by a number of political parties voted by the population. Political sentiments ware made relatively more mature given the decades under the system that was lived by those generations previously. These sentiments were still more defined as an opposition to the fascist regime characteristics than political science as learned in academy, the general population did not have that access, even this was to change from then on. The point is: "democracy", in my view, is a concept that necessarily obtains qualities along with the (l)earned political maturity of the populations adopting its general notions. One consequence of this, which history fully demonstrates, is that any artificial attempt (ie. not native to these populations) to allow/impose one society to adopt "democratic values" is assured of failure. Pretty much as you have put it: Only a fundamentalist brand of ethnocentrism can dream with the export of so called "democratic values" to other countries/cultures deemed lacking them and expect success. When one criticises the political system a society adopts one must always take into consideration the ®evolutions it is under. The only legitimately qualified to do so are the natives of such society. But there is another point: The political and the economic systems are the de jure and de facto facets of the nature of power. The historical observation shows an evolution in transfer of origin of power in societies, ranging from: slave ownership, land ownership, trade control, industrial capacity and ultimately, credit creation. Arguably it is where the economical power emerges that defines the economical order transformations, but so that a relative stability is mantained, progressively the political system also changes its nature, reflecting the change of the center of power. Sometimes violently. "Democracy" ethimologicaly defined as "power of the people" is a myth serving the political class which serves the economical power at a given point in history. It does not matter at all if political systems allow the populations voting rights, if what they are voting upon, or what the political parties they elect don't have any possibility to define the fundamental economic order. They are destitute of actual power to define their society. So, if i am to stay true to what "Democracy" means ethimologicaly, when evaluating a society, i become fully concerned with the population's ability to bring transformation to their economical order (let's even disregard now in which direction). I don't generally find this ability in western societies, and for that matter other developed countries. Or, further down in history, instead of a "merger of State and Banking / Finance power", as in these last stages of Capitalism stability. Democracy, insuficiently defined as a "merger of State and People's power". The naivety of such definition comes from the umbrella term "People", which includes all elements within a society, disregarding their distinct economic functions and influencial power, and specially their contradictory interests. Whatever may be called that, which "merges the State and the Economic Agents which create wealth power"?

I am of the opinion that people really need to be faced with the above realities, yet this forum rules disallow explicit footage, i recomend you remove it. On your question: kju gave you a view. The issue is terribly complex given current geopolitics. There was a time not too long ago when we could expect from the Security Council (where this kind of stuff is decided) a relative consensus regarding terrorism and the agents perpetrating it. But we are living times where the remaing superpower of the cold war is not able to enforce its position and decide alone. Russia is awaking from a sleeping sovereignty and China is becoming a true economic challenge to all west economies. What this means is that they are earning power/influence which allows them to serve their interests as a nation in a more effective way. These interests do not justapose with western nations in all subjects, naturaly so. Where once, with a guise of Diplomacy, Military threat settled the issues, now predictably, real Diplomacy is showing itself insuficient to serve the same effect. There is a line of thought that calls for a creative chaos where one is unable to control the events on ground, mostly with the purpose to negate control to the opposing entity. This terrorism is not just a method to bring fear to populations and neutralise their hopes, and with it manipulate them more easily, it is becoming a weapon in itself against enemies. Except that this weapon, history proves it, escapes the control of those which promoted and supported it: Afgani "Freedom Fighters" > Al-Qaeda > ISIL / ISIS / Daesh > IS Backlash. Only an illusion was alowing the alliances to be formed against such an enemy, now the narrative supporting the illusion is failing at the high echelons of power. Terrorism has become pervasive and too cosy with intelligence agencies, one ceases to see a clear distinction between infiltrating terrorist cells to neutralise them and tolerance or objectively supporting them to fulfill shady and duplicitous objectives of those agencies. The "Arab Spring" turned into the nightmare for the populations. From Lybia to Syria, to Iraq and Afganistan, an arc of chaos is formed where terrorism conquered its current strongholds. Forget about Gaddafi's and Assad's warnings that they were facing terrorists not only grieving populations. The genie is out of the box since long time, what is failing is the pretense that the powers that be were truly united against it, and that the powers which supported it could control it. This opinion is an extreme opinion which certainly finds much resistance everywhere, yet it is a documented opinion. Current global state of affairs calls for less pretending and steping out of "confort" zones or politically correct stances. Humanity is trully facing perilous times indeed. If interest shows and given time i can provide sources for it's premises.

We're drifting a bit offtopic but... The Steam Subscriber Agreement explicitly mentions “App-Specific Terms†This covers in a different direction than the one related with IP issues, and relates with "revenue sharing", but it does allow for app specific terms. We've seen an example* of it with the Skyrim mods. *(EDIT for historical purposes) a valid webarchive link of those "App-Specific Terms" affecting Skyrim. [Note: the terms have been made void after the backlash of the Skyrim modding community and Steam's backtracking on them - see [RPS] Valve Drop Steam Paid Mods For Now for more details] So it is not impossible to allow it. I may be wrong but i suspect the above clauses that limit the ability to derive from mod authors content was introduced relatively recently (since Steam started to widen the Workshop use to games not under their IP). So it is not impossible to expect them to accomodate better mod authors concerns, yet they apparently require huge amounts of pressure to do so. Edit: The above terms affecting derivative works were introduced between June-July 2013 according to webarchive.

^^ in a nutshell using a digital sign system the way it is meant to work. The system depends on an authority, which the community can rely upon, certifying the signatures origin. If the only acceptable entities to assume that authority refuse to do so, the only purpose signatures serve is assuring that a downloaded file on client is a copy of the one in the server. Something which is not at issue. Now your suggestion is imo a reasonable compromise between having one's real identity liable for violating an IP and having instead its Steam identity liable for it. This limited liability would be proportional to the violation and embedded within the system. Not exploring the obvious avenues to solve this, leads me to think there is lack of will in addressing the issue.

Yes.. B only addresses a subset of A, which would already be considered helpful. Given how broad "A" can and is proving to be, it is really up to Steam to provide entry points to allow the community to mitigate the problem. That is specially considering Steam curating themselves is apparently out of question. They don't want the maintenance costs, but could perhaps allow themselves some readily available resources towards one time solutions. There is obviously no point looking at it as a one solution solving the whole issue.

I am not sure the response you're giving actually addresses the possibility of a modder which explicitely wishes to disallow Steam distribution to provide their signed key to a Steam mantained database against which future uploads would be checked. Does it? Because, if i understand correctly, this alone could diminish what i think consists in the most part of violations, those that happen in good faith or ignorance of a mod authors' whishes (nobody reads licenses right?) Imagine: It is true that a sufficiently motivated imposter could circumvent by self-resigning the mod. But this could actually help flag these steam users, once they are identified violating the content original licenses, and significantly reduce the number targets for future uploads inspection. These user handles kept undisclosed internaly to Steam yet a list of the uploads themselves made public for wider community inspection, reducing the effort of the most interested. Maybe this is an idiot idea, but i do think there should be a way to help sanitize Steam Workshop listings, and reduce the burden on the author's legitimate concerns. On another note, i am quite satisfied with Steam's iniciative of providing an "official IP violation procedure" via their hosted DMCA take down notice, which only recently i become aware of via this thread. Kudos to those involved.

Very nice. Glad this has worked out.

@MistyRonin Note that those confirm the ban, after Avakov's claims yet still. The amount of credibility you whish to attribute to Avakov's declaration is up to his readers of course. But i'll add that the National Guard are the assumed recipients of such training, and as other scenarios show, the support always lands in the hands of the most extreme members. Azov batallion is a formation under National Guard command. @Tonci87 @MistyRonin Metaphors. Everyone as one, including myself. - Tonci87 you forget that there was a violent far right coup that benefited from begining of US support (PM Yatseniuk instated) at odds with the agreement between EU and Yanukovich for early elections the day previous (21-22 February 2014). - You may also be ignoring that Portuguese, aside of a short temporary loss of sovereignty, due to a succession crisis, to the Spanish King, enjoy eight centuries of institutional and cultural indepedence. So i would reformulate your metaphor: TL:DR follows (it is really long but helps you see my perspective on this conflict, i am sure you will find many inconsistencies, it's a metaphor afterall, though should really help measure my bias towards Ukraine's conflict) Ongelofelijk !

I don't how that can be relevant, but i am Portuguese. The most beautiful bay:

Give me a break, that is even more an obtuse argument than before. If i show doubt on one assertion you do it is because i don't have been shown evidence for it. You are assuming that i have come across the same sources as you. Don't do that, if you can show me evidence of a Ukrainian protest against the presence of volunteer "outside" forces in Donbass, you can consider myself satisfied. We'll gladly discuss their reasons then. But this is you again expecting only answers from me. Why is it that my questions are merely rethorical and yours apparently not? At least answer me one before i indulge you once again. Not at all, i am totaly aware of that ban, that is the reason i emphasized Associated Press' news item author of the declarations, the dates, the training suppliers and recipients. You guys know the "Who, What, When, Where and How". Here it is once a gain: my emphasis It means the thesis if any is Avakov's not mine. The mentioned Conyers/Yoho' was "unanimously adopted amendments to the US 2016 defense budget", to take effect next year? But even if you take it that it is to be effective immediately, that means at best the 11th this very month (June 2015). Well, US training to Azov mentioned by Avakov precede this date (September 2014 and April 2015). Devil's in the details... This is not my thinking, this is the Ukraine's Interior Minister ffs, it is your word against Avakov's which supervises in Ukraine such programs. I have another explanation for the ban: It was absolutely impossible to mantain it under Avakov's confession. The US required to put distance inbetween, and for that, at least, i applaud the House of Representatives not only for the iniciative, but unanimity! Please name some of those reasons. Preferably, Ukrainians could speak for themselves, but please advance yours too, before i follow you to the conclusion. No doubt there is propaganda, misrepresentations even, straight out lies on both sides, but one can still extract facts from available information, pay attention to facts that are not disputed, or arrive from unsuspecting sources, evaluate their weight on the globals, employ sound logic, give sufficient room for always present degree of doubt... Yet still arrive at one's conclusions base on such.

Since you did not answer any of my questions, why should you expect me to answer yours? But here you go: Perhaps, who knows if there was such Ukrainians, and i would find their arguments factual and strong enough. I remain open to consider it.

Well at least you are recognizing US presence as a fact. So far so good. But you do observe that they are "twisting" this fact. Let's see. That is how you put it, which i think could perfectly be a valid interpretation of their intention by exposing said fact. Maybe in a way to sensationalise it. But... While you put it as a matter of quantity and level from which one can consider Ukraine being full or not of US soldiers, stressing the subjectivity of such opinion, i rather look at qualifying such presence, if it is benefiting for Ukraine and Ukrainians, and if conclusions the latter may reach, beyond plausible, are legitimate or not. In effect, no matter if i approach it quantitatively or qualitatively, the training of the National Guard under which Azov among other neo-nazi formations are affiliated is reason enough for my opinion to side with whichever Ukrainian wants the US presence out, if nothing else for that reason alone. [Huffington Post] US forces to hold exercises in Ukraine my emphasis What do you think, is it ok for the US to train the same neo-nazis which are also responsible for the hideous crimes already commited in the bombing of Donbass residential areas and cities? Except that these ones are not. Perhaps it would be interesting to find similar protests regarding the volunteers fighting in Donbass. Can you provide a source for the above? Certainly to be considered. But this observation does begs the question, what exactly are the official US Army on one side and the Russian volunteers on DPR/LPR side doing? The former, you already know my opinion, based on the established facts, the latter are not training neo-nazis, they are fighting themselves, why is that? My conclusion is they have a dog in the fight, it is their home they are defending, their own relatives and mates, nevermind if they are russophonic and carry a russian passport. That region is prone to this phenomenon given it's history and mixing of traditions. That is an obtuse observation. Even if that is possible, it is baseless, do you have any facts to support the claim that it was staged? But even if it was staged, do you think there is a perversion of the sentiment of the ukrainians depicted? Don't you find this to be reversing the facts on its head? The onus is on you to claim otherwise. I remain open to consider it.

It is not if there is a connection or not, it is about their plea being legitimate or not and if they base it on a valid perception of reality or not. Them having a connection should surprise no one given the longstanding family bonds between population in Ukraine and Russia. At best a connection should have one more alert to their claims being unbalanced and false as a consequence, yet the defining factor for validation is not the messenger it is the facts in the message if any. In this case they are being factual.

If you mean in Donbass, falling for the mislabeling of the video, no they are not (at least afaik that there is public evidence). Yet the protesters claim they are in the territory of Ukraine and want them out, and that is not misrepresenting: What part of this is a "joke"?! The following are the protesters other claims and demands: Did you even bother to watch the video or merely dismissed it as unfactual propaganda? At least this propaganda is factual and is Kiev based too.

I would not think of it as "the optimal level of abstraction" but just a good baseline to improve upon. But i think you are answering your own question: higher object density around always provides a higher sense of safety, a reasonable term to define behaviour. I figure identifying the terrain type alone is not the best indicator of object density, yet should be very efficient still (ie. going prone in high grass should be taken as acceptable while on concrete one should look and run for cover in terms of behaviour).

Identifying terrain type to adjust AI behaviour is definitely possible, finding an suiting adjustment is another story.

It is hard to argue against that pessimist view, i stumble into my naivety far too many times for my liking: That OSCE element depicted is likely void of its humanity in the manner that it deals with the despair of that people, the manner how it qualifies as "traumatizing" that which is the exact opposite being encouraged by that child's relatives: to denounce her ordeal to those which are supposed to collect it by their own stated mission, precisely not-repressing as trauma the charged experience. That OSCE element should be removed from that mission for blatant failure on its job. If indeed, being at war was the basic and only nature of mankind, there would be no humanity left. It would have consumed itself. The fact that humanity still roams this earth can only prove that it is still actually wining against all those wars and machines of destruction. It is its heartbreaking sacrifices that makes us pessimists, as in a self-defence mechanism to prevent it from getting into harm's way in its future. Being aware and not ignoring those sacrifices constitutes its function as an immune system. It is nevertheless hard to bare all that conscience individually. Yes, humanity was pretending to be healty for a while now, the symptoms of the sickeness are difficult to hide now. If history is any indicator it might get worse before it gets better, but better it shall become.

I can perceive three possible degrees of involvement between these neo-nazi groupings and the remaining parties on the Euromaidan side (namely: Ukrainian population, oligarchs, EU, USA) - Politically joined by accidental circumstances - Politically separated but willingly employed while sharing short-term objectives - Politically united and sharing longer-term objectives - None of the above Are there any other explanations that alleviate each party from the responsibility in helping the hell set loose by these neo-nazis? In addition, since these neo-nazis have been exposed and ignorance/ingenuity won't be an excuse anymore, why there remains a de facto tolerance with these neo-nazis? Fear for their power and methods? Are eventual current shared objectives enough to justify keeping them in charge? Is it that unlikely that sections of the Ukrainian population will turn against neo-nazis, forcefully if the situation so requires? Is it possible to dispense with them non-forcefully? Will passivity before them, naturally have them away from the positions of power they reached?

Tnx for the link, i had read about that encounter before, and was induced in error by the interview.