Yantelope V2

It was the immersion of the world and environment that really drew me into Far Cry 2. Scripted sequences would have ruined it. I hope you are right and FC3 will be open world as well.

Americans are extremely proud of what we've been able to accomplish in a relatively short time as a nation and we attribute a lot of that to the wisdom of the founding fathers in how they crafted the nation. I think a lot of the reason why we are willing to respect the founding fathers opinions is because of the evidence of just how successful their ideals were.

Amazon's download sale is actually pretty good. http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=amb_link_360130002_2?ie=UTF8&docId=1000771881&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=0YPG2DEMQJD806GJAVVV&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1347717942&pf_rd_i=979455011

I agree. I bought Witcher 2 now rather than waiting because I'm not concerned about having to wait to get the Enhanced Edition.

Duke has made several comments like the one about Chris Christie that read like hate to me.

you was wrong! OH yeah, and just to but in on the conversation: @Duke, hating haters is still hate.

The industry has adapted. Consumers changed their habits from buying a game and keeping it, to buying a game and trading it or pirating a game. The industry adapted its model to supplying post launch content, subscription services, free to play games, ad served titles and microtransactions. It's up to consumers now to adapt to these changes by adopting their preferred one, this will then guide the industry's next move. I used to think that this was true because I used to think that DLC like horse armor and other stupid crap would go away because nobody in their right minds would buy them. Then I saw statistics that only 15-20% of people actually do buy the DLC and I thought that was a good sign that it wasn't popular. Then I saw that it only took 15-20% of people to make it largely profitable and I realized the flood of DLC would soon be incoming. It's not about providing gamers what they want becuase most gamers don't buy DLC. It's about exploiting the few willing masses while not caring about the majority of gamers. I personally hate the locked doors and closed off areas all over games now that are reserved for DLC. That being said the industry probably doesn't care too much for CAGs like me who rarely buy games at release anyway. I will say the one thing that I really do enjoy the industry doing is packaging the complete game later as a GOTY edition so I can get the whole experience at a low cost. For Borderlands it was fantastic. I still have not bought Mass Effect 2 because of all the DLC that's way overpriced and the lack of a GOTY edition.

This was actually posted by a friend of a friend of mine. http://www.gamasutra..._currencies.php He seems to phrase it differently but he takes into account the 4 main costs of gaming and piracy in a way that I think is effective.

It was sunny and 70. Beautiful day yesterday and today is going to be the same. I need to go back and get some of that german beer they brew down there.

Just seems I want to click a button of "that's not even a logical statement". Okay, who's the radical now!? Muh ah ah haah ha hah ahahaha... I feel so alone here.

Even the first question on this quiz seems trivializing and loaded. I have no idea how to answer "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." Don't the trans-national corporations serve the interest of humanity? Also, I was in Fredericksberg TX yesterday. Yes, I think that's a bullet hole in the picture of Obama.

The old system had a bad rep.

Well, not so much brain washing as cheap rhetorical tricks you'd see in any infomercial.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204909104577235471075318762.html

So those statements are still not the same as "If Rick Santorum had his way, I wouldn’t have been able to get that test". Where has Santorum said he's against all prenatal testing? He clearly never said that all testing is done for abortions. That's would be stupid and you guys know he didn't say that. Let me try and draw it out a little better. He thinks that offering free testing increases the number of abortions. Is that true? Any data on this? He thinks that the Obama administration put the bit about free testing in there because it would result in more abortions. Well that's contingent upon the first part and I suppose you can't prove why it's in the bill. Does the bill provide for more medical care after the testing is done? If the bill does not provide for more care I would think that this conclusion would be logical. Provide for me where Santorum has said he'd like to get rid of all prenatal testing. You can't because he hasn't said it nor will he say it. That whole Salon article is ridiculous and they should be ashamed for posting a "Santorum wants to kill your baby" article.

Hmmm.... http://lifehacker.com/5886571/brainwashing-techniques-you-encounter-every-day-and-how-to-avoid-them Repetition of ideas? Check Emotional manipulation? Check

http://firstread.msn...-more-abortions Santorum says that the only reason to get prenatal testing is to get an abortion, and he thinks abortion is morally wrong, therefore he things prenatal testing is morally wrong. The article you linked to says that the Health Care Bill put in a clause for free testing in order to encourage abortions. That's totally different from "the only reason to get prenatal testing is to get an abortion".

Well, lets get one thing clear. I think when it said to stone people who worked on the sabbath it meant it. Now you're going to wonder why I'm using past tense and that becomes a larger discussion. Mosaic law was given to the israelites after their exodus from Egypt. The laws given to moses which were written down in those books go on in explicit detail on exactly how the Israelites were to set up their nation state. There was to be no King as it was a true theocracy and God was to be their king. They could commune directly with God, literally face to face, in the temple and he would give them direction. There was a large veil in the temple between what was considered the holy place and the holy of holys in which God himself dwelt. This is where the ark of the covenant was kept and God dwelt physically here. If anyone who was not clean were to enter this place they would instantly be killed by the glory of God. The only time anyone could enter was once per year to offer sacrifice and he had to go thorough a long list of cleansing rituals and sacrifices to enter. This is how the atonement for the people's sins was offered. The only rulers were the judges which were to be set up to hear cases of the law. There is a ton of rigorous laws in there like the ones already mentioned and they were to be followed by the people so yes people were killed if they wore the wrong garments and stuff. Now lets also be clear that it's not something as trivial as picking the wrong shirt in the morning. They'd have to be actively going out and making their own clothes of mixed fibers and it would be an act of rebellion in a way but it wasn't something that would have been easy to make a mistake about because people would have known the law and they wouldn't have owned any mixed fiber clothing anyway. So yes, the laws through which the Israelites were to set up their government, commune with God directly and live by were very strict and rigorous. When Jesus came he began giving new rules. These were in preparation for the day which he would die on the cross and the relationship between God and man would change. When Jesus died on the Cross the veil in the temple was ripped top to bottom as Christ's sacrifice had been offered to God for the sins of humanity and no longer did sin separate people from God. As a result the blood of christ now covers people's sins and we can approach God without fear of death. This is actually why the spirit of God is now able to dwell within Christians. Because of Christ's sacrifice the old laws of atonement were removed and new laws of grace apply to us. Additionally Jesus began instructing his apostles to go and spread the faith to non-jewish people for the first time ever (which was quite revolutionary). There were arguments even documented in the book of Acts between Peter and Paul about whether people still needed to be circumcised in order to be saved in which Paul rebukes Peter for returning to the old ways. So as a result of Christ's sacrifice we no longer live by the old rules but we are free from them. Now, that leads into the next point which is why if we are covered by grace do we worry about sin or homosexuality or other controversial issues? Well Paul says "everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial". Repeated in the new testament people are told to turn from sin and serve God as a way of giving thanks to God and also as a way to seek joy in their life. Several times in the new testament there is references to turning away from sins such as homosexuality and no longer being a slave to sin so while we are covered by grace we don't chose to remain in sin as it will only bring us misery. Okay, I'll leave it at that for now and let you guys ask questions. Hope that's not too confusing. The key point is that the laws changed not arbitrarily based on the whims of society or culture but based on the saving work of Christ on the cross.

Honestly I kind of saw that coming. I think I've seen the plot before somewhere.

The whole article hinges on this statement "If Rick Santorum had his way, I wouldn’t have been able to get that test, and she most likely would have died. Because according to him, tests that give parents vital information about the health of their unborn children are morally wrong." What is the source of that?

It's in the same line of rules about purity. Don't plant two seeds in the same hole. Don't breed two different types of animals together. The symbolic meaning of which I believe to be keep your self purely to God and no other Gods.

It's helpful having a lawyer on staff here at PXOD.

Well, I am trying to be clear and it's hard to understand and even harder to explain so I'm sorry for the confusion I cause. I'd be happy to further explain more things I said to help alleviate the confusion. The only thing that is pissing me off is the generalizations that Duke seems intent to make rather than to actually engage in the discussion. I shouldn't let it bother me so much though so for that I am sorry. Theology is complicated because God is complicated. Most people will say that it takes a lifetime to understand so I hope you'll forgive me if my short responses are not satisfactory. I've tried linking to more verbose answers in hopes to not misstate them but I can try to respond personally if that makes it a little easier to follow. In response to being a literalist I may not be using the word correctly. There is a lot of debate, especially in Revelations, on what is literal and what is figurative. There are other sections of the Bible that it is very clear (to me at least) where it is literal. For instance. Jesus would tell a parable about a man sewing seeds. Then he would explain exactly what that parable meant. Some people in the Bible have visions and dreams and those are interpreted. You can't pick something out of those parables or visions and dreams and say that they are literal because the Bible clearly states that they are not. Revelations is slightly less clear. Some of it obviously is symbolic in nature as is most prophecy but pointing to very real entities or places. I don't believe a literal Dragon will come and try to eat a literal woman's baby. I do think it's a picture of the Devil attempting to destroy Christ on the cross. Am I 100% literal? No. I believe what the Bible states literally, including mosaic law, is literal and what the Bible states symbolically is symbolic and where it isn't clear there is room for some discussion. Now some rules as somebody already brought up are symbolic in purpose but literal in nature. I believe the Israelites were not supposed to wear clothes weaved of two fibers. The reason or purpose behind that rule was symbolic in nature. I don't think that's a contradiction. I know it seems like I'm trying to take up multiple positions but I'm really not.