213374U

May be nice, but it looks like a construction appliance. And an ugly one at that. edit: and it can't even kill a rubber dummy!

What? Yeah, and I hear some people actually like pineapple on their pizza! MADNESS!

"Bonus" weapons can only be used by Shep (if acquired on the Collector ship), or whoever gave you the research upgrade. Why? "Fabrication Rights Management". In fact it's just an excuse to gimp your squaddies even more. The game can be modded to allow squaddies to use these guns, but I recommend you finish your first playthrough "legit", so you get a good idea of what you might want to change in the future.

Good times, good times.

Uh, no. Actually, AOL released a bunch of raw data on user searches, sorted by user #. It was actually a NYT journalist that put everything together and found out who user #1235235343143524 actually was. And then his work is being used to spread fear on how evil computer giants use our private data to snoop around. The virtual equivalent of someone going through your trash. Stop the presses! Investigative journalists actually investigate! It's funny, because I'm wondering how they could do that to me, based on what's shown in that documentary. I have a dynamic IP and know what free proxies are, I clear my cookies regularly and don't give away private data. How does AOL assign a user #? See, it's the same old, same old with these things. People trying to avoid assuming responsibility for their actions or their lack of knowledge. Everyone wants to browse the internets, but learning the basics of privacy protection is boring! Let the gov't do it for me! I pay my taxes!

No, no, no! You've got it all wrong. It is in fact if your game stinks that pirates ARE your #1 PR resource: you blame them for dismal sales, and vow to keep future titles exclusively to the completely piracy-free medium of consoles. That way your reputation might be saved, and you have an excuse to scrap any plans for future ports. The PC gaming market is dying anyway, so who cares?

You didn't read the part where it said that the investigation was carried out with permission from the patients? Gfted at least posted a specific news item to make his case. You are just fearmongering. Any installation you don't consent to is illegal. Search engines can only detect patterns in search trends, but they cannot track the activites of individual users. As for privacy scandals on social networks... maybe you should be more careful about whom you give access to your personal data? Just a thought.

*notes sig*

I think this statement can be extended to a vast majority of revolutions worldwide -- or at least those in which the public plays a role. Nothing quite so dangerous for the state as a hungry crowd. But blaming the economic crisis of the 30's alone for the rise of Hitler is simplifying a tad too much. Marshal Foch didn't know there would be a crisis, but he was pretty certain that Versailles was simply setting up the stage for round 2.

I suppose that depends on the legal code, but generally speaking public officials are held to a higher legal standard by virtue of being holders of public powers. And if you are talking about moral culpability, no. The public official is supposed to be a trusted public servant -- he is betraying that trust. The evil corporate man is a trusted servant of... himself?

Hmm, no. That's not my "logic", at all. It's just you twisting my argument to assemble an either-or fallacy.

New DLC heavy weapon. http://masseffect.bioware.com/universe/arsenal/weapons/ Could we have some more, uh, regular weapons instead? There's a serious lack of variety in the SMG and heavy pistols departments.

Not villainizing anyone. But corporations are capable of more harm on their own than greedy individuals simply because they are well organized groups of people working in concert towards their goals. L'union fait la force and all... and often that union is used to shift responsibility from the individual. It goes without saying that they are also capable of more good, too.

I got my glasses in a plastic envelope, and I didn't have to turn them in after the movie. Depends on where you go see it maybe?

While I appreciate your careful choice of an example, you know that's not the best case study to use for or against what people are thinking. I have a friend that works in the pharmaceutical industry, and trust me, the business is full of dishonest practices that do hurt people. Of course that problem is in part caused by lack of effective oversight in public health centers, but still. Corporations don't want to destroy the world, but they do want to make the most money possible -- and they often don't much care what happens to the world in the process.

I'll take a bullet to the head, thank you. Which is what I'd probably get in either scenario, anyway...

Sure. Depending on who you ask, a hack is just what an unsuccessful artist calls his more successful peers...

This comment proves that you are not an artist.

You don't know what you are talking about. You need to read more and fantasize less. Much less. The F

Heh, that's the cool thing about these discussions: you get to consider viewpoints that are completely opposed to yours, based on details you may have missed or interpreted differently. Actually, for me it was the other way around -- Tali I saw as the confident type: she has her own responsibilities that she doesn't forfeit, and doesn't jump at the first chance to join up. She's willing to get the shaft to preserve something that's important to her people, and asks for Shepard's aid without displaying insecurities or issues. I haven't explored her romance, but from what I've seen, it's the most free of Shep-worship garbage, and she even makes a somewhat sarcastic remark precisely on this. On the other hand, Miranda constantly keeps her bitch-shield up to prevent people from spotting and exploiting her massive self-esteem issues, something that has nothing to do with how capable she really is, but rather how vulnerable and in dire need of (Shepard's) reassurance that she's not devoid of personal merit and merely a product of her pop's dough. But... at least she doesn't I had completely forgotten about Ashley. Yeah, that's the kind of woman I was thinking about. And no, the poetry stuff only bothered me because of the unnatural sudden change of mood in the conversations... but not nearly as much as her telling me what a devout Christian she was. I've had a few awkward moments like that IRL, so that's probably a good thing about Ash, even if it made my skin crawl at the time. And she does have a real mean streak, too. "Not today, friend." *pew pew pew*

No. The Alliance's goal in that operation was to find out whether the rumors going around about Shepard and Cerberus are true, and what their connection to the missing colonists really is -- the Alliance "aid" is merely an excuse. Anderson and TIM both confirm this.

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you read a bit more on the subject of WWII before making your ignorance public so casually. The theoretical foundations of the science behind nuclear weapons were laid out in the early 1930s, more than a decade after the end of WWI. Further, there was no point in using such weapons against the Nazis -- it was clear that they weren't surrendering no matter what, and their industrial base was destroyed by the point nukes were ready to be used, after years of conventional carpet bombing. Not to mention that Germans wouldn't be very happy about it, and that might have been used by the post-war pro-Soviet crowd. Not only that, but "tactical" concerns have no place in a discussion on WWII-era nuclear arms; those were strategic weapons whose development was ordered due to fears that Germany, that could have never orchestrated a conventional bombing campaign against the US, could get them first. Proper "tactical" nukes were first developed and deployed during the '50s. Quite simply, there was nothing that WWII-era nukes could do, that regular air raids couldn't do better, more cheaply and with less risk. Except for, perhaps, the wholesale, instant killing of tens of thousands of civilians which, after reading your posts, is obvious is the only thing you are concerned with. I fail to see how WMDs come into the equation, there. The IDF has a history of success against overwhelming odds. When did nuclear weapons become the sole option for preemptive/defensive strikes? And, more pertinently, why on Earth should Israel attack Iran?!

YEEEAAAHH

Bio seems to have issues writing convincing strong, independent female characters. Jack's case is obviously an "all-powerful bitch" fa