Ah yes, the "they should do better" fallacy. Also known as "victim blaming".

Fact is, those people don't get a choice. They are barely surviving, and they are facing men who hoarded resources to procure weapons and other tools that help them to stay in power.

Regardless, I don't think this is going to lead anywhere. You are utterly convinced that poverty is a choice, even though you yourself state points that tell you that it is not. With that amount of doublethink, argument is quite impossible without proper third party moderator.

I guess when you get hit by "capitalism is great because regulations prevent it from doing too much damage" when we are discussing problems with distribution in the world where top 1% control about half of world's total wealth while billions live in abject misery, followed by ad hominem attack, there's really not much else to be said.

Election of who?

Right. You are here, suggesting that corruption exists in a vacuum rather than as a result of our resource distribution system creating overwhelming motivator for those in leadership position to become corrupt in order to grab more resources?

I'm not even sure what "marxist" means here. Pretty much every single economist in the world subscribes to the same notion. The only thing they disagree with one another is what is the better alternative that would serve both needs and desires of imperfect human beings while keeping their vices in check. Are they all marxist in your opinion?

Someone will one day post you the obvious "can condoms protect you from" post where they will list things like hand wounds in boxing.

But that will not be today :D

No, we disagree on the amount of pressure parliament can put on commission simply by declaring that it will not pass certain piece of legislation. Example: Patent directive.

On your second point, you clearly admitted earlier that you support democratization. Now you are saying you're against it, because treaty wasn't perfect.

That leads me to conclude that you either don't quite understand what you're talking about, or you're a young/inexperienced/idealist who genuinely believed that progress should instantly reach its goal and that any half way progress is a bad thing.

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.