Calax

Splinter Cell, Conviction. Honestly, I'm not playing a spy, I'm playing batman with a gun *runs up into the celing, leaps down kills a guy and instantly shoots two others.*

There were a couple of good ones in there. I'm always gonna be an Alma fanboy simply because she was so justified in the first one and friggin freaky. Also Kane is in there. I do gotta say, Arthas is a beast. When you fight him in WoW you're goal is basically to get him to 10% hp, then he snaps his fingers and kills your entire party (thinking he'll rez them as his generals and turn them back on their former friends). Problem is that spirits from Frostmourn appear and hold him while King Terenas resurrects the entire group to go basically execute Arthas. Also this is being done on a the very top of Icecrown Citadel, with some of Arthas abilities blasting things apart (Scripted unfortunately, still seeing him slam frostmourn into the ground so hard that the edges of his pillar fall away while you're desperately trying to stay up there is awesome)

A comparable military response would end in war and the North holds the population of Seoul hostage. The North boasts an estimated 13000 artillery pieces, the largest concentration anywhere in the world, already dug in and pointing at the South's cities. There is no effective counter against such a threat against the civilian population. The South would win with their American allies but the cost would be incalculable. This is where the North's supreme confidence comes from. They know that starting a war is unthinkable for the South since its leaders are obliged to actually care what happens to its citizens. I suppose this means that if they wanted to trigger the war they'd have to coordinate a strike that removes the arty from day one...

lol Can anyone think of a man who handles sex with maturity? What does it mean to handle sex with maturity? What does it mean to handle sex? Sounds a bit like you put it in a box and are shipping it by FedEx somewhere. *ba-dum-tish* Seriously though, I think the problem with sex is that people put too much importance on it. Its this thing that people don't talk about in polite conversation (even with their sex partner!) but at some level most people want it and think about it and (as teenagers) obsess over it. And so it becomes this event that societally is seen as important and serious and yet is really neither. Well, I think americans put to much importance on it. And more particularly on the nudity aspect of it. I can't speak totally accurately but doesn't Europe not get nearly as uptight about it?

Except that the only thing they made with a stupidly short cycle was Kotor2. And that was artifical.

Just released Halflife on Mac, and are having a deal on HoI3 and EU3 as a package.

Just post fr the wargamers, Hoi3 and EU3 as a bundle are half off on steam (at 30 bucks) for both apple and PC platforms.

Power Vacuums rarely ever are good for global peace.

found this before watching http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/rea...good-franchises

Oh god I hope so!

Fahrenheit. I'm not sure... when the plot took a nose dive we did have an instance of "woman taking man who's body is room temperature (about -37 degrees) and he's also dead" going on.

You and me both.... NOW GET BACK TO CODING ME!

Closest I can come to is Heavy Rain. But that was more adrenalin letdown than actual loving sex when you think about it. That said, I'm guessing things aren't that bad as most of the Northwestern U football team are massive gamers (Two of em are in my WoW guild, go figure).

Insomniac becomes a multiplatform Developer.

PS3 lost Insomniac as an exclusive developer.

And da taser, from GSG vs SWAT. and HA-CHA! As to the shield, I guess I got it backwards in that they rarely give something like that a reduces kill thing. meh

<3 RotK, problem is that they couldn't have many factions... at least during the later period of the Battle of Red Cliffs and He Fei.

They didn't give any points to the spartans shields, at ALL.

managed to get the bird from a preteen yesterday because him and his granny wouldn't take "We're closed" for an answer.

Take up with the deadliest warrior Although the show that blanaces things around the ability for something to kill people. Can a man hit 5/5 targets on a shooting range? Yes? and the other guy didn't? First one is bettar!

I hope it's Rome 2. no no no... shogun 2

Uh huh. If you really believe there is no controversy within the scientific community, I think it's pretty pointless to continue discussing this issue. Controversy is essential to science, as it's the engine driving its continuous self-renewal, be it to reinforce existing theories, expand, or discard them. I was taught about things like spontaneous generation and the luminiferous aether in my science classes, when I was like 14, btw. Where would you suggest these things be taught, "Stuff That Is Not Science 101"? I'm not going to suggest that pseudoscientific crap should be taught as a valid alternative, but being able to examine alternatives that may lie outside the scope of science where science itself still can't provide a reasonably complete answer isn't going to turn kids into mindless zealots. I wasn't attacking science curriculum in general, I was mainly raging on the ID schtick. Which is why I kept using it as an example. There is a necessity to constantly question the basics, otherwise we wouldn't have things like the recent hypothosis that disconnects Space and Time from eachother (unlike what is currently thought to be true, that space and time are inextricably linked). I do think that there are some controversies within the scientific community that it might be ok to bring up, but you can't go into detail because the students in general would just kinda get that dull stare that we all have when we're bored out of our minds and off in la la land. I mean what kid wants to see the mathmatical formula that postulates the connection in space/time.

What I got out of the lesson was less about weather it was happening or not, and more how/why the HUAC would call somebody. Often those who were called before them were completely innocent, with no evidence that could have brought them to the commission, but their lives were destroyed and they were outcast because they'd been effectively fingered by the government. There were no outright accusations made, but the members would use the comittee for political gain. It was a witch hunt in the same vein as the Salem trials, calling on your 5th amendment protections would get you blacklisted and ejected from your jobs If you want a hollywood version watch "The Majestic", the main character gets called before the commission.

Frankly, I find your insinuation that it takes a Ph.D for a person to start having a semblance of a critical attitude, stupid beyond words. You CANNOT begin changing the way a person's mind processes information and makes decisions based on that when they are 18. Fostering a critical approach to information is something that needs to be integrated as a central tenet of the curriculum, not as a "bonus skill" to be taught for 10 credits in college. Science is fundamentally and in essence, a critical spirit applied to preliminary hypothesis and observational data. If you go and teach "abiogenesis Good, ID Bad, ok?", you aren't doing a very good job at teaching science. And the thing is, at grade 10, you can't go much deeper than that. Of course, the root of your arguments lies with some rather blatant strawmanning, materialised in absurd examples involving post-doctorate level debate of the merits and flaws of current abiogenesis theories in a grade 10 classroom. It's funny that you are so bent on showing how these nutjobs don't tolerate free speech, when you don't tolerate anything else but what you accept to be The TRUTH being taught. Science in particular is an utterly different field where "fair" is not used. And I'm specifically using that example because that example is exactly what people who say "Teach the controversy!" are trying to say. Evolution is a theory, in science a theory is a term denoting the underpinnings of a particular field (germ theory, gravitational theory, evolutionary theory, nuclear theory). Also, science is about what you can see and experiment on to get results. "Teaching the controversy" is trying to put what isn't science into science, and in order to refute the idiocy that is ID you have to go REALLY deep into the biology and anthropological fields. Are we going to teach the controversy over the fact that there is a black kettle in orbit around Mars? I swear it's there! I love it how Calax makes an argument, then immediately contradicts himself. Yes, Slaughterhouse Five is usually read in the English class, so what? Also constant strawmanning, Intelligent Design is not part of the Texas curriculum, so what does it have to do with anything? I brought it up because it was mentioned in engilsh class, not history, history classes only focused on the stuff that made people looking like flowers, which was exactly my point. Is there a slant? Yes, but I'd hardly call it a liberal slant. As to the Texas curriculum, It's not part of it now, but there have been other school boards who have changed the entire textbook because of their personal religious belief (Most famously, Dover) because they felt that (in the case of dover) the text was "Laced with darwinism" Understand, I'm talking mainly in the sciences, not the more cultural based stuff. Science does not operate on "teaching the controversy", it operates on knowing facts and expanding based on those facts, if you were to try to make discoveries using ID's "evidence" you wouldn't get very far.