alanschu

Also true.

I'd agree.

I agree, and found the same thing in Mass Effect.

That is true. That is also true. Though I guess the idea is that the potential gains outweigh the potential setbacks. If someone doesn't believe this there's not much more that can be said as to whether or not they would support it. Seems pretty elementary that they wouldn't. What happens in the event that they can't afford the treatment, or the patient is in a state where they are unable to pay (like death, coma, etc.)? Furthermore, what happens in the event that the situation involves an unconscious individual, and as a result, the patient is unable to refuse treatment, and is thereby charged for services they would have otherwise refused based on cost? The tricky thing with health care is that the the services can often come after the fact.

Yup. I'd recommend /spoiler tag that

I can agree with this sentiment and it's definitely a hit against UHC. Smoking seems to be the big focus at the moment with respect to this. Isn't this a problem with any insurance in general though? Sure they can charge higher premiums to people that are of a particular risk, but the idea behind insurance is that claims are paid to those that need it with the money from those that don't. Insurance companies bank on people not needing their services. Who pays the cost for emergency treatment for those that don't have insurance in free market systems?

If you have a pair of decent indoor shoes, try using them. When I do pushups with my shoes on, I don't bend my toes at all, and am literally on the front tip of my shoes. With most of the weight on my arms, the stiffness of the shoe is more than enough to prevent my toes from bending. To be honest, I actually find it more comfortable to do pushups that way.

Despite it's obvious shortcomings, I am still enjoying Empire. More than Medieval II for sure. A lot of the extra things they added really improve the game IMO. The first Medieval is still the best IMO, with the only drawback for that game being that it's quite slow (takes forever to complete a campaign).

Nobody every said that... Especially not me. You ever hear the term apples and oranges. I'm confused. Did anyone say that you said that? I downloaded the demo this weekend (for ArmA 2) but was too distracted by Empire Total War so I didn't play it hahahaa.

Why? It just seems rather convenient to say so, especially given that it supports your position. I'm not an expert on how to run a corporation by any means, so if you could explain it that'd be awesome. Especially given he was buying stuff he had a stake in, and given that average joe gamer can go "Hmmm, that looks fishy," it's seems rather suspect to then assume that the fat cats at EA wouldn't also think the same thing, especially given that it's THEIR money. You're going to have to do better than say that it's rare for a CEO that was raided to have his first deal turned down. Besides, I'm not privy to what deals Riccietello has suggested, so I couldn't even definitively state that this was his first one. I'm not by any means an expert on how to run corporations. However, if you hire an expert in any field you usually do so to take his advice, not to ignore it. It's pretty much the same situation, if you bring in a CEO to fix your company and he says 'do this' then you will, by and large do exactly that, especially if he's new in the job. Else what's the point of hiring them in the first place? Plus you'd end up with a (potentially) very annoyed new employee if you ignore them. I'll just say that I understand your perspective, I am just skeptical of that actually being the case. It could be, but you or I will never know I enjoyed the discussion and I don't think there's much more to say without us just starting to repeat ourselves. Cheers.

Um... only it would be simpler to allow Shep to tell them to "take a hike" when they first meet. I don't understand. Why do they keep shoving NPCs down our throat regardless of player choice? Are Bio writers so enamoured with their own work that they truly believe that everyone absolutely, positively needs to experience the bliss that is their NPC design and writing? I've hated this since KotOR, and apparently, it's here to stay. DA? For DA I think most party members are optional. The only ones I think that may be "forced on you" are Alistair, Oghren, and Dog. Though I do know that it is possible to remove Alistair at one point of the game, I don't believe you can tell him to just pike off. His being forced on you makes sense from a story standpoint though. Oghren gets added to your party for one part, and I don't know if you can refuse him. I think this because a bit later, he becomes a mandatory party member for a short duration. I don't know if you can boot him from your party or not though afterward. I think getting rid of Dog is impossible though. You're stuck with him for sure if you're human noble, and I think the only way to not get him in other origin stories is to not do the quest to get dog. To be honest I haven't really actively tried to boot party members once they are in my group. Most of them seem to have a dialogue option of "I think you should leave" and so forth. I did see someone remove Morrigan from his group too.

Do you by any chance know where I can get some info on this?

Wikipedia is edited by folks like you and me, and can't be trusted in this case.

Lets not be crazy now. I'd prefer my view of humanity and the internet to remain as jaded and cynical as it has been!

So are you talking about just taking the finished product they have right now, and just holding it back 8 months? That can't happen because in 8 months, graphics standards go up, as do gameplay standards. What may be a unique bullet point to Alpha Protocol now may not be in that time, hence the selling power of the game falls too. I don't know if I could say that the graphics standards will go up significantly enough to take away from Alpha Protocol. Don't consoles tend to cap out at some point? It might, but I'm not sure. From a gameplay perspective, I think it's safe to say we can count on the gameplay standards not changing much in 8 months. I wonder if someone felt the game was a bit light on content. Particularly the "go anywhere and explore anything" type of content that is common in RPGs. Many people on this board mentioned disappointment with the idea that there were pretty much two distinct gameplay areas: The Hubs which did not contain combat and where you'd meet people, as well as the combat zones. It could also be a realization that they can't quite make the Christmas release, so combine the two and it could be a "We aren't going to make Christmas, and I'd rather not release in January-March, so patch up the bugs, add some content, maybe some Day One DLC, and we'll ship in June."

I agree. I think that's why the trash talking element of her video was detracting from her character.

Why is that? To be honest I'm not 100% sure, but there was sort of a weird flow explained when I inquired about it with respect to Dragon Age's delay. I heard it has something to do with it being a part of a publicly traded company. It was kind of hard to understand, and I didn't bother pressing about it any further since I didn't really care haha.

Yours was just yet another shining example, but I did still say that all fans are stupid. You're just saying the same thing as all the other ones. You'll also notice that, in my previous post, I did say "I called you stupid." I was actually agreeing with you. Perhaps appropriately, you came through in spades again Cheers!

I call BS on a whole lot of the organic food bull****. In fact, Penn & Teller's Bull**** had a funny episode on it. While doctors and medicine like to talk about how our health has improved so much since they've become more prevalent, the strongest correlation with our recent improvements in health has come with the improvements in farming in the past century. The Green Revolution started a looooooooong time ago, and people have seen an increase in their nutrition and health since then. I'm unfamiliar with this. The only real link I have seen between food and depression was with respect to Omega 3s, and at best the research has been inconclusive, but at worst...well, there's not much link.

My post originally made mention of some other things, when I realized I misread Weekes' comment. I then edited my post to say just the first line, since I was already planning to append the line. The post was actually edited 3 times if you're that curious. You did call me stupid, but whatever, it's always a mistake to get in the mud by responding to you in any way. I called all fans stupid, so in a sense yeah, I called you stupid. Of course, I tend to think all people are stupid, including myself. So yay! I stand by my assessment. It is true that it is usually a mistake to say stupid **** around me. It's a wonder why you keep doing it. But I'm hardly alone in that respect; there's plenty of other posters here that have also put you in your place, so I can't take all the credit. Enjoy Carth and Oblivion

Optimally, assuming both systems run at equivalent efficiency, there'd be no specific advantage on a per client basis. The issue comes with the wealth redistribution. People that don't make as much money (those that would be less able to afford insurance) wouldn't pay as much into the system as a more affluent person. Poorer people would have less expenses and benefit more, while richer people would pay more into the health care system. There could be efficiencies with certain aspects to having universal coverage (whether or not it makes up for the other aspects is another issue), but I am hungry right now and off to the grocery store to pick up some food.

Not directly, perhaps, assuming you don't get crap like sex change surgery and assisted reproduction therapy, which you do where I live. You don't get help for your cavities, though, or glasses if you need them. Not having to worry about insurance means you have more money for other things. So, you are getting the whole of society to pay for something you would have to shoulder on your own, getting perhaps a second house, a third car, or whatever, with what you're saving in premiums. And it doesn't matter if you make use of it or not - it needs to be there should you ever need it. The State is indirectly subsidizing your luxuries. That may be good from a consumption standpoint, but it's hardly fair. Well, depending on who you ask, the money I'd be saving on premiums simply goes to taxes I have no issues with something not being "fair" if I think, on the whole, it helps more than it hurts. Few things are life in fair. This doesn't go away in a capitalist society either. Those with money afford themselves extra opportunities to see and do things, but is it fair that that person gets to enjoy all the luxuries in life, because his parents were hard workers that built an big empire? Does it? I think that this is more just people being people. Despite having non-state funded system in the United States, that country still seems to have the highest rates of obesity, in addition to enough of a population base that smokes that tobacco companies are a very powerful lobby group. Because of the costs of health care, I know it's slowly becoming a topic of discussion about how the health care system should deal with smoking related illnesses. I certainly won't state that all the UHC systems are the cats meow and any country using a free market style of health care is lollerskates because of how stupid it is hehe. I do think that there is always progress to be made, whether it be a free market system or a universal system. I agree that it's a luxury tax on cigarettes, but mostly because I don't have any access to the books. I don't know if the tax money from smoking taxes gets applies to the health care system (would be good if it did). Though I disagree that no smoking in bars is "neither here nor there." I don't think it's just a fad, but rather a reflection of the change in the culture of smoking and its social acceptability.

Definitely not, as Bavaria and it's one province kingdom, of which I had positive relations with as well as a mutually beneficial trade agreement, decided to out and out declare war on me. Also nope. I have just wiped out most of Austria's main forces, and they are left with no military might whatsoever, and two provinces, one of which I am about to siege. I offered peace to them, to which they got upset and said my offer was foolish. So I offered peace with them, in addition to 4 technologies, as well as 1000 gold, no dice. Earlier in the game I had just taken Vienna. I offered Austria peace, and was willing to give them Vienna back (too much revolt risk), and they said no. So I abandoned Vienna, destroying all of its improvements. Austria took Vienna the next turn. I sued for peace straight up, and they accepted. The AI does an exceptionally poor job of determining it's relative compared to yours when it comes to peace and war declarations. I didn't go to war with Bavaria. They declared war on me. So I sieged their capital and offered peace, and they said no. So I destroyed them. My favourite AI boondoggle was when I decided to make an Alliance with the Ottoman's. The next turn was the second time Austria declared war on me (since they didn't like the Ottoman's and were at War with them). The Ottoman's then canceled their alliance because they didn't want to honor the alliance and...go..to war...with...Austria....buh? They're already at war with Austria!! The next turn though, I asked for an alliance with them, and they agreed. Le sigh.

Are they forcing you to at least keep her on the ship? I'd assume so given his statement. The forced party member mechanics is a bit odd I agree. If you'd prefer, they could make the game so that all the NPCs are ones that Patrick likes. This is why fans are stupid. Companies get bashed for towing the party line, yet they use their words against them when they're being honest. Of course, why someone is interested in the sequel to a game he hates is even more entertaining. So you edit your post before someone can catch you and then you call people stupid? Edit: Heh http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/09/27...powerful-bitch/ Fans are stupid. These are the same people that bitch about everything being stale and unoriginal, while at the same time then getting upset because things are different and don't follow an established archetype. BioWare's boards are filled with them. I did edit my post, because I realized that I was misinterpreting what Peter was saying. I have nothing to hide. When I read Weekes' comment about leaving her on the ship, I took it from a standpoint of "He still recruited her." After looking at it again, and remembering the ME2 is different than DA, I realized (upon looking at Purkake's post) that leaving the person on the ship meant that he was NOT taking the character with him, not that he was still recruiting the person in spite of her character. Beside, the comment that I edited out was about how a character doesn't need to be annoying for you to not like the character, in response to Purkake's post. Did you even see that, or are you simply looking "OMG the post was edited!" Most of the time my edits are because I add something else to the post (like this line). You seemed to have taken the stupid comment personally. Maybe there's some merit to you thinking I accused you of being stupid. I do think your comment is stupid, because, well, it is Clearly because Weekes' doesn't care for the character, he thinks his fellow writer is a ****ty writer. I know you don't like Mass Effect, and you're one of "those fans" that follows the game simply so you can take everything and make it look as evil as possible, but realllly. At least Monte Carlo's perspective is simply from a lot of pessimism and caution about BioWare's claims.

Rome was way awesomer, with all the weird units and stuff. Rome introduced the retarded diplomacy. I was actually able to have significantly long durations of peace in the first Medieval, and wars that went on for a significant amount of time with no fighting reverted back to peace. Rome did introduce the significantly better map, which is good and what I love about it's strategic component. But frankly, the messed up diplomacy, as well as the (at least in Medieval) hardcoded cap for how many turns the player could be at peace before the AI would declare war on you, just aggravates me to no end. I'm sure it exists again in Empire, as I have had stupid wars declared on me by Bavaria, despite the fact that I have 13x more provinces than it, and a huge standing army. I know the game is "Total War" but I'd prefer if they actually enabled the ability to have some actual empire building in the game again. Especially with Empire abstracting out a lot of the buildings and scattering them around the province (which I like).