Jonanananas

That's more of a general problem with military interventions though. They very often have negative results and the question is whether to do nothing, which means the original atrocities will continue, or if you intervene and likely leave a country with new and possibly worse issues behind. In this case, I definitely don't want the US to intervene. There's next to nothing to be gained and a lot to be lost. It might very well lead to World War III if the US deployed their army there. I think right now the best course of action would be for the Ukraine to accept the temporary loss of territory, and to impose grave sanctions on Russia. Putin will never back down, but maybe the international isolation will make Russians realize where their president has got them and result in a strenghtening of the opposition. And I just don't think that control over the region for Ukraine is worth all those deaths that would be necessary, if it's even possible considering the fairly open support of Russia with troops and weapons. But Saq is right, really serious sanctions won't happen, because it would cost money which East Ukraine isn't worth in the minds of politicians and major corporations.

Lucy. I was skeptical, but tried to keep an open mind, despite the premise of the film (Humans use only 10% of their brain. Lucy gets an overdose of a new drug that increases that percentage steadily, resulting in her being able to use telekinesis, control other life forms etc.). Up to maybe 40% it was a somewhat decent action movie. It wasn't concerned about any real science whatsoever, but it was okay. But beyond that, it completely ditched having anything remotely related to rules. There were some pretty pictures, but the plot went completely out the window [hide=Spoiler for the end]In the end, she turns herself into a supercomputer to be able to pass on all the knowledge she has. And this supercomputer...produces an USB flash drive, then collapses. A simple memory stick. I just can't wrap my head around who would think that would be a proper ending[/hide]

Well, they are still a reality today, but they go against international law. And one day maybe they will be truly gone.

So because Hamas ignores it, Israel can just do that as well? Two wrongs do not make a right. This cycle of violence has been going on for decades, because violence is always met with more violence. You have to breakout of that cycle, even if that takes a lot of courage and puts you into a vulnerable position.No - I just think it's telling that Israel is held to the standards of international law and hamas is not. Speaks volumes about the relative legitimacy of the respective societies.Would you volunteer to put yourself in a "vulnerable position", if it was your country being targeted by frequent terrorist attacks? I can't speak for what I'd do in that position. It would be arrogant to assume I can put myself in their position from my safe desk at home. But, considering the current strategy isn't working and has only led to more violence, that's what I'd hope they do. Of course people don't expect Hamas to adhere to international laws. They're terrorists, and they can hardly even be called a government. You're right about their legitimacy, but what does that change? After all, America;s never done anything wrong before.Many countries and wars do the same. The fact Israel gave away land for peace is already extraordinary but you see how that ended. Yeah, but we are living in a time where wars to conquer territory are supposed to be a thing of the past. Anyway, I don't think that going back to 1967 borders is that significant, and if anything it should only happen in a long peace process over several years. I certainly don't expect Israel to clear the entire West Bank and give back the Golan Heights (not to mention that would be pretty impossible with the Syrian war going on anyway) anytime soon. More important would be an immediate stop of the building of any new settlements in the west bank and improved living standards for the Palestinians there, with decent water supply, some degree of autonomy etc. I don't think it's fair to say that leaving Gaza was that huge mistake. The problem is that living conditions in Gaza are pretty horrible and people are turning to Hamas as their only chance (or maybe just as revenge on the Israelis) no matter how wrong that is...

So because Hamas ignores it, Israel can just do that as well? Two wrongs do not make a right. This cycle of violence has been going on for decades, because violence is always met with more violence. You have to breakout of that cycle, even if that takes a lot of courage and puts you into a vulnerable position. So Israel is allowed to occupy land in defiance of international law because it suits their strategic needs? Unfortunately, this conflict, like many others shows how weak the international community still is in enforcing any laws. This goes not only against Israel or Hamas, but also Russia, the USA and probably several others. So often you can read that this or that action is a defiance of international law, yet NOTHING happens. One would have hoped we were beyond that by now...

A plain evil person? No. A racist? Yes. Because, you know, the definition of racism is having a negative view of other people based on their ethnicity. You said yourself that's the case with you, so yes, that would make you a racist.

And why is that a hell no? The 1967 borders are the ones who are at least somewhat internationally agreed upon. If a peace plan that ultimately results in that works, I'd think that would be a good idea, no?

I don't really blame Israel for what they're currently doing. The Hamas is forcing their hand, and they can't really do anything else, although with some attacks, not everything is being done to avoid civilian casualties (Such as the UN school bombing). Israel is far from innocent however. I don't so much blame them for what they're doing during war times, even if the conflict reaches its sad peaks there. They're trying to protect themselves. But the reason why they're attacked is at least in part rooted in the way they handle the occupation, such as extending settlements in the West Bank. It is controlled by Abbas and his Fatah, who are more moderate than Hamas and are trying to actually achieve something with talks and negotiation. This could be a chance to show the people in Gaza that a good situation for both sides can be achieved with non-violence. Yet what they see is that year by year, more land is being taken by the Israelis. They still control the west bank and the lives of the palestinians there, and e.g. with the water supply that often means that Israeli settlers are being favored to the detriment of the palestinians. I found this interesting to look at: http://thrivalroom.com/understand-israeli-palestinian-apartheid-11-graphics/ Now, this is very biased, no doubt about it. It shows numbers designed to make Israel look bad and Palestine as the victim, with no context behind why Israel is doing that. But looking at that, is it that hard to understand how Hamas gets its support? And you have to keep in mind that we have many news sources with different opinions so that we can decide for ourselves. The people living in Gaza only see that they're being bombed by Israel and hear the propaganda of Hamas. So while Israel's actions are understandable in their situation, they're still wrong and only serve to further propel that vicious cycle of violence.

Israel may not have done everything they can to end this conflict, but I'd be interested to hear how they're supposed to be able to end it on their own, because I don't see it. And forcing all palestineans from the Gaza Strip is a horrible idea. As for the arms manufacturers, sure they have influence. But they can't singlehandedly keep this war going. They don't control the government.

First of all, while Israel has done some atrocious things in its supposed self-defense, that statement is way too simplistic. As for religion, of course it does matter a lot here. It's not the original cause, but it further enflames the conflict. If the citizens of Israel had been muslims from the start, there still would've been riots, death, war I believe...but not on the scale we see here... And by now, the conflict might already be solved. Gabe, I wish a safe trip. Let's hope there will be a ceasefire soon.

Wow, they pull it off the TV mid-season? Wouldn't have expected that. I hope they realize this is only due to the completely failed marketing and they will properly promote season 4. On the other hand, maybe moving to internet release might mean I can actually legally get these episodes instead of having to pirate them? Doubt it though, lol, it's probably going to for US only... Edit: Hmm Amazon, looks like there might be a chance :)

Nintendo is still around?Nintendo has the handheld market on lockdown and even though the Wii U got a slow start it's rising in popularity.Ahh, that makes sense. Don't personally know a soul with a Wii U and I just looked up sales and they're pretty dismal, but I'd completely forgotten about handhelds.. Don't really know what handhelds they still make but I remember the ole gamebody advance pretty well How big is the market for handhelds though? With high-quality games on smartphones, how many people will still spend their money on an extra hand-held?

So the premiere only got 1.5m viewers. Not a big surprise with a practically non-existent marketing campaign. Nick doesn't seem to like Korra. I guess it's unlikely we'll ever get more than the four ordered books, whether it's about Korra or someone else from the Avatar Cycle. Also, maybe because of this, they are indeed going to push out two episodes per week. That's bittersweet to me, on one hand I get more than only twenty minutes per week, but then it will be over on August 8th already...

That was a thrilling match to watch :) Schweinsteiger looked battered even before the face wound. Incredible that he kept going even with the last substitute still available. The Argentineans did play a great game as well. They were slightly superior for large portions of the game, but thankfully not enough to score a goal. In the end the win is still deserved I think. The referee did a rather poor job, but there were controversial decisions on both sides.

Into the Wild. Absolutely stunning movie based on the true story of Christopher McCandless, who decides after College to go "into the wild": He destroys his passport, social security card etc., spends all his savings and starts tramping and travelling on his own - down to Mexico and later to Alaska to live alone in the wilderness. Great landscape shots and a story that really gets under your skin. Definitely recommend watching this!

I'm really liking this book so far, much better than book two. I like the question whether monarchy is still the right form of government in that age. I'm also liking the straightforward romances - They do not offer that much in terms of the story, but the other attempts, such as the love triangle with Korra/Mako/Asami or the weird relationship of Bolin and Eska really didn't work out so I'm happy they don't try their hands again on something they aren't good at. [hide=Last episode]I wonder what the deal with Lin is. There's clearly something more to this than just some old rivarly between siblings. And obviously, the big question is what the goal of the criminals is. What would they want from Korra?[/hide] Also, apparently we get another two episodes next week? Not that I'm complaining, but why does Nick want to push out those episodes so fast? Three episodes for the start, now another two back-to-back next week and presumably another two episodes for the final.

True, but how much of a difference would it have made? They didn't get many chances either way, and having RVP essentially not playing for the last 20? minutes would probably not result in a goal against them either. LVG obviously didn't want to rely on penalties, and I'm not saying that was wrong - But purely from hindsight, I think the other option might have worked better. We'll never know of course. Also, just watching Brazil - Netherlands. The very first attack from the Dutch and Silva already needs to foul to stop Robben from freely shooting at the goal. And the referee only shows a yellow card, but gives a penalty although it was outside the penalty box. What? The early goal won't make things easier for the Brazilians.... Edit: And just as I posted this, the second goal by Blind for the Dutch, standing completely free to shoot 10 meters away from the goal. (Preceded by an unseen offside though). Let's hope this doesn't get too devastating...

Of course, I'm not blaming van Gaal nor implying I could do a better job (not even remotely). But I think this particular decision may have backfired. I was only wondering what might have happened if he had not used his last substitute to replace RVP with Huntelaar and instead brought Krul again.

I think van Gaal either should have left Cillessen as the keeper in penalties against Costa Rica, or should have saved the last substitute to bring Krul again. A keeper that was substituted for penalties just one match ago will a) be under even more pressure to show he can do it too and b) not be as intimidating for the opponent and c) not be as much of a morale support for his teammates.

Wow...that match against Brasil was unbelievable. I did expect Germany to win clearly because of Neymar and Silva missing but I did not expect that. Well, I guess nobody did really. The finals are still another matter though. Germany played great, but Brasil allowed them to. We're definitely not invulnerable (although Neuer gets us close :P). I expect the Netherlands to go through today. Playing against them will be much tougher than Brasil

It is, but I'm not sure how much that would've fixed actually. I think he might have had the same issues as Özil and Götze, which seems to be the aggressiveness with which many games in this world cup have been fought. They seem not to be able to properly adjust to that. Though admittedly that can't be all of it...

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Yesterday's match didn't look spectacular, but if Costa Rica knows one thing, it's how to defend. The Dutch were essentially going up against 9 defensive players. And they still had some chances, even if it wasn't that many. With a bit more luck, they could very well have won it before penalties. Also, Argentina's style of play should suit them much better, when they can yield possession of the ball and wait for chances to strike quickly. I'm still betting on the Netherlands to go through. Brasil just started becoming a bit more independent from Neymar, but it's still a very harsh blow for them. With him and Thiago Silva missing, Germany has a good chance. The German team is hard to judge. Against Algeria, the defense was reeling, but against France it looked quite well. The offense rarely manages to create great chances, but one way or another, they still managed to score goals so far. It's not as beautiful as it used to be though, with creative players like Özil and Götze playing way below their possibilities and Khedira and Schweinsteiger still not being quite fit.

Dear Lord, the first 45 minutes against Algeria were the worst of our Team so far. Several serious mistakes, we're lucky we haven't received a goal yet. I hope that the next half will look better...

Not going to bother with trying to predict the goals, that would be pretty much wild guessing for my part. Not that my predictions aren't. Anyways: Eighth Finals: Netherlands - Mexico* Costa Rica - Greece* France - Nigeria Germany - Algeria Argentina - Switzerland~* Belgium - USA~* Quarter Finals: Brasil - Columbia~ France - Germany* Netherlands - Costa Rica Argentina - Belgium~ Semi-Finals Columbia - Germany~ Netherlands - Belgium Finals: Netherlands - Germany~ (Here's to hoping) All those marked with a ~ are those I'm very unsure about. All marked with a * are those I think will require extra time and possibly a penalty shoot-out. Edit: Wow, the Dutch are not doing well so far. Is this going to be the next sensation?