That is one of the risks of "keeping the money".

Other risks include but are not limited to:

1. People taking your family hostage and demanding random.
2. Attacks on your personally, either from family members or fraudsters who will act like such after your death to get your money.
3. Attacks by competition to reduce value of your holdings or take them over (i.e. large corporation owning farms around you).

And many others.

Many forget that legislation works as a set of consequences for one's actions, and when one's actions are so lucrative that potential gain easily outweighs legislative risks, you are going to be in danger. That is why things like criminal law doesn't really help the ultra rich and very rich and they must have their own personal security detail.

Then we disagree on the interpretation of amount of power that MEPs have, while we agree that in general, Lisbon treaty change direction wasn't just a good thing - it was a necessity.

I do agree that I would prefer parliament to have even more power than it currently holds. In my opinion. right now European Council and European Commission are still too powerful and European Parliament is too weak. But powers devolved to the Parliament were quite significant, and among other things allow for more significant pressure on the other two branches of power by Parliament.

Large ship doesn't turn fast, but the direction is a correct one, which is my argument. You started yours by claiming that Lisbon treaty was not what people wanted. Right now, you appear to at least understand that it in large part was a massive improvement over what we had and was indeed going in the direction that people wanted. It is far from perfect, but it is objectively BETTER than what we had before.

And there we have it - an open admission that you do not understand how languages work.

I rest my case.

They are funny to you because you do not have any kind of comprehension how different life for very rich is. Your life is struggle for resources to survive.

Their life is the exact opposite - struggle to keep what they have from people like you who are hungry and want a part of their resource pile. A good example of difference is just how little real protection legal system offers them in practical terms - it's always going to be more beneficial to break the law to get the resources. That is why ultra-rich have to have their own protection from such people and cannot count on law and police in a way that people without enough resources to make them a worthwhile target for such an effort can.

And while from average person's perspective that may look like a paranoia, to these people the worries are very much warranted.

The sad part is that while fighting over wealth has been a necessity for survival when we had to breed a lot and resources were limited, we don't have to any more. We have means to control breeding speed and can easily sustain people we have on the planet today in very decent living conditions if we had a proper distribution system.

But we do not. Our wealth distribution system is derived directly from our resource-limited past where struggle for resources was a key to survival. Attempts to rebuild it resulted in massive suppression from systems using the old distribution system who understood that all it takes is one such new system becoming functional to destroy them.

They TRY to run the world. World itself is a mean beast, and while it can be kept under control, it must be given enough to stay so.

When you starve it to overly gorge yourself, it starts to get unruly. Wild. And eventually it devours the wannabe rider.

The issue here is that you're playing on lower resolutions that generally require a lot less VRAM.

But for that very reason, you don't buy a ~350EUR card for a 1080p. You buy a 200EUR one, which is 960.

970 is meant for 1440p or higher, and there, and games like SoM start to ask for more VRAM on ultra. A lot more. And at 2160p you're looking at being capped, though for that you'd probably want a 980.

Awesomely insane it is.

Good upscaler will not result in "blurry mess". In fact, to untrained eye, a good upscaler will typically look almost as good or just as good as source material.

Notably a lot of "native HD" content out there is in fact upscaled in production.

Now if you have a trained eye, you will see the very specific artefacts that result from upscaling. But when you are watching a good movie, you're not going to be actively looking for those - you will be too busy enjoying the movie.

So my advice stands. Get a modern DVD player with a good upscaler. From what you describe about your problem, yours clearly is not "fantastic" by a long shot.

I do. The main point of constitution that was actually popular was democratization of Europe. Specifically devolution of powers from European Council and European Commission to European Parliament. Effectively taking power from those elected by elites and giving it to those elected directly by the people. This change was desperately needed and even anti-EU forces generally agreed that one of the main problems of EU was lack of internal democratic access to decision making process. This was the main issue that Lisbon and Constitution projects looked to address.

The changes are the ones you outlined yourself. In other words, you do actually know that while Lisbon treaty was indeed equivalent of European constitution in the scope, it contained multiple changes negotiated to meet the problems pointed out by the people, all while the main idea behind the constitution, the democratization of decision making in EU was kept.

The main force that continued to criticize the Lisbon after changes were nationalist forces who wanted to have more power in EU than others and in fact didn't want to lose those powers to democratization which was a strong equalizer.

But it is a common usage. Ask 9/10 people what it means and they will provide the meaning you claim to be incorrect, as we have seen here. You're fighting the windmills.

All I can say is that I'm not sure if you're insane or awesome, or just awesomely insane.

Being "on the rise" does not mean "breakthrough" or "being widely successful". It means that marginal unsuccessful technology is getting slowly increasing adoption from "nonexistent" to "slightly less nonexistent" levels of adoption.

All while all the major marketing and R&D has already been taken out of said 3D because technology flopped. And the aforementioned "adoption" is overwhelmingly just a cheap feature that is being added and never used. Unlike for example 1080p resolution.

I think you need to look up what word "equivalent" means.

And when you're sick you often can get better just by going to a clinic, looking at the person in white coat and leaving.

Placebo effect does amazing things to people.