Lurker

I donated to Oxfam Canada. The relief agencies working on the earthquake are quickly running out of money and there are still some 200,000 people who have yet to receive any sort of aid.

I did not call his whole post a hyperbole....

To say it's a tradition to blame oneself for the actions of others is a gross hyperbole.

"'We do not torture,' Mr Bush told reporters during a visit to Panama." laff.

I was talking about Holland, do you actually read what i write? Anyway, back to france, im not denying theyve been treated badly. They want revenge, some insight from me Look at the context of my messages, anything that deals with you is in the proper context. I wasn't talking about the treatment of immigrants in Holland or France individually, I was talking about the treatment of immigrants in general. Again, the difference between France and Holland in this situation is that the immigrants in France are fighting back now, that doesn't make the situation in Holland any worse or any better. The treatment of immigrants to a country is extremely universal, what applies to one country likely applies to another country, especially one that neighbours it.

The real irony is that nothing will change because of this, both sides will still maintain that the other side is completely in the wrong without looking at their own faults. The blame falls squarely and evenly on both sides, it's a shame no one will admit it.

Want to argue? Get some insight. Thanks.

Have you considered the possibility that it might be their fault? Why is it so completely impossible that it could be their problem? Because practice and reality are two completely separate things. I realize that one side is never right 100% of the time and that one side is never wrong 100% of the time, as you are incinuating "immigrants" as being. I never said it was impossible that it was their problem, what I said was that there is a possibility that it might not be their problem. Context is extremely important, especially in online debates. The bottom line to this situation is that in reality, it is much too complex an issue to blame solely on immigration into a society and the immigrants' failure to assimilate.

Do they not have the right to do these things? If they work the jobs and pay the taxes, what gives you the right to limit their religious practices and places of education? Why are Catholic schools allowed in some places, when Islamic schools are not? Why are church developments supported, while Mosques shunned? Integrating into a society and assimilating one into another are completely different things. What you are demanding is that they leave behind their religion, traditions and beliefs to adopt yours. Good luck with that. A society that fails to change is destined to fail. P.S: I am in no way endorsing the violent actions of these youth, but the underlying issues remain.

You make some of the most gross and false generalizations I have ever encountered. Before you go on another racially charged tirade, you might want to stop and think of the distinct possibility that their failure to assimilate might not be their fault.

Blaming this on the immigrants won't solve the problem. You can sit there and complain about how they won't assimilate into your society or adopt your values, but the point of a free and welcoming society is that everyone's point of view is a welcome one, and when someone is being impoverished unfairly perhaps it would be better to address the problems in the policy, as the only problem with the people is that they are poor. The US loves to blame their economic on cheap labour from Mexico, look at how much that has helped them along. Keep passing the buck, soon enough you'll find yourself in the exact situation with the exact same problem, and if you haven't learned anything this cycle will continue until either someone wakes up, or your society fails totally.

The citizens of the United States really need to step back and answer a very simple question: are we a police officer or bully? The people of the world used to look on the United States and see a country that stood for what was right, just and fair in this world. Back in the Civil Rights movement, etc. The problem with being at the top is you desire that which cannot be attained, and in doing so you achive your downfall. It's the life (and death) of a superpower, a cycle that has held true for century upon century and seems to be holding true again. You can tell yourself it can't happen, you can tell yourself it won't happen, couldn't, shouldn't, wouldn't happen. That makes absolutely no difference unless you change your policy, you change your point of view, and you change who is running your country. So sit back, grab a lawn chair and a cheap (and crappy) American beer. Grab some chips, maybe some popcorn. Cuddle up with your wife/girlfriend/partner and gather round the kids. Tuck your gun into your belt and wave your party's flag... tell yourself your vote can't, won't, couldn't, shouldn't, wouldn't make a difference. And it can't, won't, couldn't, shouldn't, wouldn't.

magnitude of human rights violations, well by that reasoning, the US really are liberators because there was a despot named Saddam Hussien who killed his own people, or has everyone forgotten about him aswell? Has everyone forgotten that the US military is dropping bombs with depleted uranium tips, sickening not only their own soldiers but a huge segment of the innocent Iraqi population? Has everyone forgotten that the US dropped atomic bombs in the Nevada desert whose effects spread over densily populated areas? It's so easy to point fingers and say the other is worse. The United States really needs to clean its own closet before it forcibly cleans other's. Oh, and using Hussein's human rights violations as a reason for going to war doesn't work either. Genocides have occured in Sudan and Rwanda recently, much more recent and much more devastating than the Iraqi massacres. I wonder where their Knight in Shining Armor is... you already invaded Iraq once after the gasing of the Kurds, why didn't you deal with it then? Right, because the United States only cares about human rights violations when it serves their policy (kinda like their intelligence... funny).

The argument of whether they are or aren't the biggest evil is disingenuous. The fact that: a) The United States tortures people in black facilities; b) The United States won't allow any accountability take place; c) The United States won't allow any visits to varify the wellbeing of its "suspects"; d) The United States routinely ships its terrorist suspects to foreign countries in secret where they know they will be tortured, and use the information gained for its purposes (read: Maher Arar). The fact that United States government won't own up to the fact that these things take place only compounds the problem. They aren't operating the way they are supposed to based on the American constitution. Any apologism for the government's action is truly thrown away by any true patriot who wants the best for his country. They may not be the worst, but the fact that they work hand in hand with the worst human rights abusers puts them well into their league. You can dance around the issue all day but at the end of it all, there are companies under the veil of the CIA whose sole purpose is flying suspects to other countries where they are tortured. American tax dollars at work, doing the work of democracy and freedom.

The US policy on torture in their "War Against Terrorism" is infact very muddy, publically anyway. There is no denying that they have tortured many prisoners, they however completely and utterly fail to admit this in public. If their public actually realized they weren't only spreading democracy and peace, but also corruption and hatred, they wouldn't have the support they do in their War on Terror.

Just shows you how long it takes for US media to pick up important stories, the Toronto Star had a huge article about the secret terrorist holding areas where torture is not only common but rampant (NOTE: this action violates the Geneva Convention, which the United States has sworn to follow). Stephen Hadley: "The test of your principles is what you do when no one is looking." You've got to be fucking kidding me. More true words were never spoken. This guy wants the people to believe that they hold suspected terrorists in secret prisons indefinitely and don't torture them? Laughable. They won't even let them into Gitmo Bay, let alone secret prisons.

Torture is an extremely shortsighted solution, and in this case, to an extremely shortsighted war. If you think the you can chase terrorism as a mentality off the planet using guns and bombs, you are so horribly mistaken. Take away their capability to strike? Possibly, there is absolutely no guarantee you will take out the whole network and even if you do it would take years upon years and spill way too much of your own (and innocent) blood. If you want to get rid of an issue, you attack it at its root, not the resultant problem. That being said, go ahead and torture him. Just don't think that when and if he gets released, it won't radicalize those around him. These people don't go home and shut up and don't tell anyone what happened to them. They go home, tell the people they meet what the country that is supposedly liberating their region and spreading peace did to them, and they too will pick up arms and fight. It's got nothing to do with pacifism, and everything to do with common sense. 50 years on, we'll still be fighting this war if we don't adopt a different style of fighting. And there will still be politicians milking it for support, and there will still be Volvo-driving soccer moms who fear going shopping at their local Walmart in Nowheresville, USA because they think a Middle-Eastern from Egypt who is completely radicalized by Islam and wants to kill all Americans is going to strap themselves with explosives and blow themselves up. And it won't happen, but it could, and that's all that matters.

You build the world's best dikes and have many dikes. Canada.

Seems to repeat a lot, you can either make the texture larger so there is a greater variation in the tiles themselves, or add decals to differenciate it a bit. Otherwise, it looks fine to me. It really depends on the lighting as well, it would be nice to see it slotted into a map that has models, etc.

None of the above, I'm buying Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood for PC.

Since when was EA about innovative gameplay? As far as I'm concerned, their games are sold by marketing.

If you look at photos from WWII or screenshots/ingame footage from ultra-accurate games like BIA, its bang on IMO. Great work

Wasn't an estimate, its a figure straight off http://www.macromedia.com As far as Flash portfolios go, I'm in complete agreement that the majority of them are useless and should be in HTML. That being said, what I've tried to point out is that WHEN Flash is used correctly, it WILL enhance, not detract, from the user's experience. When you're posting a portfolio, you're selling a product (yourself). Your site is the packaging.

Flash has the ability to enhance any page, portfolio or not. A welldone Flash page can easily top any other page usability and presentation wise. The problem is a lot of designers have the idea that more is better, and add every bell and whistle even when it doesn't make sense. There is a reason every large company launches uses Flash at least a tiny bit. Flash can be used to create an unforgettable website, but more often than not its used to create useless things. Content can be MORE easily accessible in Flash sites that are done well. PS- DivX and Flash are completely different monsters. Its likely that a person who doesn't have at least one version of the Flash player installed isn't involved any rich- or interactive-media wise.

The Flash Players penetration into the PC market is 97.6%. What he says about a lot of people not having Flash player simply isn't true.