alanschu

He's probably saying that you can make a PC that has no real differences between either.

XBOX 180? Except that we've been saying that for years. I still say it, only to be continually wowed year after year. I'm kind of hoping we hit a ceiling soon, with increasing diminishing returns on graphics. This would mean more focus on other "gimmicks" like "Artifical Intelligence" or "gameplay" to separate your game from the rest.

Haha me too. I only played the demo of No Regret, but I thought it had more promise than the first game.

There's really no point in stating this though. The odds of any Star Wars game being made without Lucasarts involvement is 0%.

I liked Crusader no remorse. It was cool being a "bad guy" that turned good, and had a sweet choice of weapons I remember. It was cool because I remember the manuals for that game being propaganda booklets from the "bad guys."

You work at Safeway?

Be an engineer and hop into a tank. That's where I get my best KDR. Or be a medic. Your KDR won't change much, but you'll get a ton of points just reviving people.

It's easy to say that when you aren't the person being kicked out of your home (or water just got cut off, or just had your power removed, etc). I've also yet to see a bank tell me to change my way of life when applying for a loan, or to tell me how to run my house (or even business). And in many cases they were put in "forced" situations, because often times a natural disaster had just occurred into a poorer country. "Free aid" from countries, such as the tsunami incident, didn't occur all that often back in the day. When natural disasters occurred, they had to go to the IMF and World Bank to request funds. And even then, the IMF has a history of waiting until the a country has experienced years of poor economic conditions...which conveniently is when the countries are at their weakest and most exploitable. It's also naive to think that there may or may not be pressures. Ask Salvatore Allende what he felt about the US foreign policy back in the 1970s. It's also believed that the main cause behind the collapse of Argentina, which was considered a model country by the IMF, was the IMF's demands that undercut the government's ability to sustain the infrastructure. Ironically, it's left a left-wing movement in South America which went against the goals the IMF had for the area. Kenya is another interesting incident, where the IMF demanded that the Kenyan Central Bank to remove limits on the flow of currency. This allowed Kamlesh Manusuklal Damji Pattni to remove billions of shillings out of the Kenyan economy. I wasn't whining about the situation. I was just explaining it. To an extent. Pureform capitalism is also largely responsible for the Great Depression. But I suppose the large amount of people that are poor (particularly in the poorest countries) is because they haven't been willing to work at it? For the record I am definitely right of center, and do not particularly have any problems with the United States, and tend to hate much of the anti-US rhetoric that I read, which is not particularly uncommon here in Canada. I'm probably more playing Devil's advocate than anything else. At the same time though, I respect Canada's decision to drop its debt to the 10 poorest countries in the world, as interest payments alone continue to undermine the growth of those countries (U2 thanked us by releasing one of their songs here as a single first ). I'm also not too sure about how truly "poor" the United States started out. Purely speculating, but I could imagine that being a former colony of the United Kingdom probably didn't hurt a whole lot. A large amount of the colonists were Puritans, that had become quite wealthy with the trans-Atlantic trade. These Puritans also value education for all (an enlightenment of the masses, especially so that they could read the Bible). Furthermore, how much infrastructure and construction was developed at the expense of the British Empire? And wasn't one of the main reasons why the UK wanted to tax them was because it was clear that the American colonies were becoming paricularly wealthy?

That game was best game I've seen this season. It usurped that title from the Vancouver-Edmonton game on Saturday.

Actually, they imposed conditions on loans such as privatization of public facilities and stuff like that. As a result, overnight people are suddenly without power and water. People also have their land taken from them, as countries are actively encouraged to create "cash crops" to repay the loans. Getting nothing at all is actually better, when you can self-sustain and self-regulate amongst yourselves and your neighbours by growing your own food and whatnot (kind of like the early days of frontierism in the United States). These people are displaced by the government as a condition to loans from the IMF, and to a lesser extent the WB. The end result is you get mass-migration to cities, severe overpopulation, and people that used to be self-sufficient (in "traditional" village settings) are now forced to place themselves in as the lowest bidder. I took some option courses about globalization, and while it didn't really change my perspective of things too much (I tend to be right of center, and think the whole "globalization" issue is blown way out of proportion), it was interesting that it didn't seem to be all left-wing propaganda. EDIT: To all those using "First-World" and whatnot, those terms are effectively outdated. First-World referred to the developed, industrialized democratic/capitalist nations. Second-World were the communists. The third-world was literally everyone else.

The funny thing is this would probably be exceptionally devastating to the US economy.

That's just it. It seems like you are criticizing the US for not getting involved in WW2. But now you are criticizing them for getting involved.

Brilliant way to keep up those good trade relations though. I'm sure the U.S. really didn't mind Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Forcing countries to pay back their loans in full would ultimately hurt the U.S. too. Furthermore, how exactly do they plan on seizing assets? And you do realize that trade sanctions will also hurt the United States, especially when dealing with the foreign loans. A huge amount of the foreign loans have strings attached to them, which generally call for an opening of the economy to allow those foreign nationals come in and start setting up shop. It allows many U.S. companies to get excessively cheap labour. The U.S. (or any country) doesn't hand out those loans because they're nice people. They do benefit from them. Decided to impose trade sanctions onto a country that you are benefitting from by trading with them will also hurt the U.S. EDIT: To Battlewookie The US, despite the Great Depression, was still becoming an economic powerhouse prior to the second world war. The ironic thing here is that you criticize them for not getting involved, or only getting involved when there was money to be made, in WW2. However, FDR sympathized with the plight of Europe, and there were concerns as to whether or not the population would support the war. There's even the idea that the US knew about the assault on Pearl Harbour, and used it as an excuse to get involved in the war. It does seem convenient that all the "useful" ships like Carriers were notably absent during the attack. They were very isolationist, much like how you would like them to be today, though you criticize them for it in the past. On a final note, I highly doubt that your country would just "give" stuff away as well. Furthermore, I doubt that the Lend-Lease was really the primary catalyst for the US economic dominance. On July 8, 2002, Lord McIntosh of Haringey still considered it to be an advantageous loan to the UK. The Lend-Lease was created in an attempt to redefine "neutrality" so that the US could remain neutral, yet still help countries whose defense was vital to the defense of the United States. They also provided excruciatingly valuable supplies and equipment to the Eastern Front as well.

I am a hermit and I like it. I don't get in the business of government and the government doesn't need to get into mine. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah but you aren't. You're interacting with the outside still. You have a job? I bet you have a SSN. Other things such as addresses, various forms of identification, etc. To maintain absolute privacy, you'd have to literally disconnect yourself from the world.

Numbers man, the points Guardian Legend brought up were directed against Lyric Suite, not you. That's why it seemed like he was putting words in your mouth. And the precursor to the UN was the League of Nations.

The thing I don't mind about WW2 games is that it's a large scale "modern" conflict where both sides had their ups and downs. I mean, we could play that Grenada game, but no one wants to play on the side that lost after a few minutes

I bet that that is probably the situation in Canada as well. I find it kind of funny, because IMO privacy is a myth. Unless you're a hermit.

Why would a Gunnery Sergeant in particular be nuts?

A huge chunk of my google searches are as follows: <subject> +Wiki

Is privacy actually a right in the US? I live in Canada, a place where most people believe they have a guaranteed right to privacy, but I remember in one of my Sociology classes it was brought up that privacy is not a right granted by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I'll admit that my interest in the minute details of the CPU market has dwindled. I remember the Athlon's being crazy hot before...just figured they'd still be today. I think according to the BIOS of both of our computers though, my CPU does run hotter than his CPU. His just has a lower warning point, at which point his mobo starts beeping and underclocks his CPU. Funny stuff.

My soldier's name is alanschu, so don't worry. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I used to have an soldier named Iceman. I really couldn't think of anything else, so I justified it by saying it was because he got iced so often. I had a 1-3 kill:death ratio. :"> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm pretty good in a tank. I also like the Special Ops guy. Very satisfying taking out tanks with the C4. I'm a good Helicopter Gunner, but god don't ask me to fly. I love using the TV guided missiles as air-to-air weapons though. I once got a plane (that was flying right at me though). Great for shooting down helicopters however.

They may run hotter, but they're designed to work that way. Ironically, the only person in my rather hot (in the summer time) apartment that ever has heating issues is my roommate and his P4.

Yup yup. Masters of the Universe. Had a young Courtney Cox in it as well.

Was still reading the thread. When you make a boondoggle like that though, it sort of brings into question your understanding of exactly what's going on in Iraq though. Hard to take you seriously. Also interesting that you criticize others for looking only through "US-coloured" glasses, then continue to post "references" from a single source. When you can start corroborating evidence, it tends to strengthen your argument. When you use a single reference, that has an agenda which supports your claims, your arguments tend to lose weight. Back to the topic, don't know if anyone else heard and can confirm this, but my roommate mentioned that there are political parties running in the Iraq elections that have it in their mandate to remove U.S. forces. I also remember seeing something about an Islamic fundamentalist political party running. It was also a day that saw the least amount resistance fighting, with insurgent groups stating that they will not attack polling stations. There was also such a turnout that they ended up keeping the polls open for an extra hour just to get the people in. I don't know, but it doesn't exactly sound like things are as bad over there as many seem to be making it out to be. Unless the liberal media in Canada is unabashedly pro-US wearing their "US-colored" glasses. To be honest Battlewookie, it sounds like you've been brainwashed just as badly as the soldiers you criticize.