>>Acquiring knowledge can never be a waste of time."
huh? I disagree firmly and this is comming from someone who never stoped learning even after school.(evening school and such)<<

Ask around!

guess I'd have to root for Turkey, they're NATO

but I'd love to see Europe bounced out of the Euro 2008

I started a 1 year game, IC Annual.  It will end June 24 2009.

For a twist you only get $1000.00 to play with.  I think that's more lifelike.
Let's see who can make the most of it!  Interest I think is 6%.  So if you end up with $1070.00 at the end of a year, you did as well as if you stowed it in a bank.

Duh. edited to correct my bad math.

The PS3 was delayed 2 years because Sony just broke even on the development costs of the PS2 and wanted 2 years of sales to make it profitable.   That's thrown a monkeywrench in many games especially FF which has always been about the sparkles and whistles as much as the gameplay.

and it seems apropo to post this again

CHESS
By Greg Kasavin

The latest offering in the rapidly overflowing
strategy genre is hard evidence that strategy games
need a real overhaul, and fast. Chess, a
small-scale tactical turn-based strategy game,
attempts to adopt the age-old "easy to learn,
difficult to master" parameter made popular by
Tetris. But the game's cumbersome play mechanics
and superficial depth and detail all add up to a
game that won't keep you busy for long.

Chess casts you as king of a small country at war
with a rival country of equivalent military power.
There is little background story to speak of, and by
and large the units in the game are utterly lacking
any character whatsoever. The faceless,
nondescript units are dubbed arbitrarily such labels
as "Knight" and "Bishop" while their appearance
reveals nothing to suggest these roles. To make
matters worse, the units on both playable sides are
entirely identical aside from a simple color palette
swap. The setting of the conflict is equally
uninspiring and consists merely of a two-color grid so
as to represent the two warring factions. Adding insult
to injury, there is only one available map- and it's
pathetically small, an 8x8 matrix (Red Alert
maps are up to 128x128 in size). The lack of more
expansive battlefields makes Chess feel like little more
than an over-glorified Minesweeper.

In a definite nod to Tetris, Chess eschews any kind of
personality and styling in order to emphasize its supposedly
addictive gameplay.  Unfortunately, that gameplay is severely
lacking. For one thing, there are only six units in the game.
Of those six, two are practically worthless while one is an
overpowered "god" unit, the Queen. She's your typical Lara
Croft-esque 1990s "me, too" attempt to attract the fabled gaming
girl audience from out of the woodwork to help solidify a customer
base for a game that simply cannot sell itself on its own merits.
The Queen can attack in any direction and she is balanced solely
by the fact that both sides are equally equipped with only one.
Otherwise, the functions of the six Chess units feel entirely
arbitrary. For instance, Rooks can only move in horizontal lines,
unable to attack enemies at diagonal angles; yet Bishops can
move diagonally, but not horizontally. The result is a frustratingly
unrealistic effort at creating balance and strategy where there
is, in fact, very little of either element to be found.

Inexplicable pathing problems also plague Chess - the irritating
Pawns can only move straight ahead, but for some reason or other
they attack diagonally. Worst of all, your units are always deployed
in exactly the same fashion. While there might have been some
strategic element involved in cleverly deploying one's troops around
the undeniably constricted map, the designers saw fit to enforce a
"rule" about how the game should be set up. In the end, Chess matches
may often go on for a great length of time because your Pawns always
begin in front of your more useful forces, thereby blocking them off.

Only two players can compete simultaneously, thus severely limiting
any play life to be found. There is only one gameplay mode- no
capture the flag or team play - and that involves the two players
taking turns moving their units one by one. The moment a player's
King is threatened, that player is placed in a state of "check."
At this point, the player must defend his King with whatever means
are available. If he cannot defend his King, he is defeated. Yawn.
All units are killed by a single hit, so even a lowly Pawn can be
instrumental in defeating an opponent if you plan accordingly. 
While the artificial balance of forcing equivalent deployment for
both sides turns Chess into something of a battle of wits, the
turn-based play is poorly paced and never really picks up speed
until halfway through a game, if then. And half the time, because
of the limited troops available (and no resources with which to
purchase more), matches end in disappointing stalemates.

This game attempts to accredit itself by virtue of its tactical
play mechanics.  Yet those mechanics are tedious and difficult to grasp
and exacerbate Chess's other numerous failings. In fact, should you
actually memorize all the infuriating little rules governing how
the game is played, you'll find yourself growing weary of it all
in short order.  There's just no payoff to a properly executed game,
because the restrictions on the units mean there's a "right" way to
play. Thus no real variety can exist between competent players.
The sluggish turn-based nature of Chess bogs the package still
further and renders this strategy game an irreverent exercise in
wasted time for all but the most die-hard turn-based strategy
enthusiasts.

It's more than likely that Chess, due to its self-conscious though
not entirely elegant simplicity, will garner a small handful of fans.
But in light of this game's boundless oversights and limitations,
there is no chance it could ever enjoy the sort of success that makes
games like Westwood's C&C: Red Alert and Blizzard's Warcraft II the
classics they are to this day.

Obama is capable of his own mistakes.

In Americanese you truly Could Care Less.  You could Straight Up Not Give A F*** at which point the repercussions spin.  But you're not there yet.  You DO give a f***.  You could care less.

nope

mishe?

""It's hard being a member of the mean party," says Bob Borochoff, a lifelong Republican who was on Capitol Hill this week asking legislators to support bills that will benefit disabled people like his son, Bradley, and returning veterans suffering from mental illness. There's no shortage of horror stories when it comes to health insurance, but Borochoff's tale on behalf of his son took him on a political journey, as well, and his disillusionment is emblematic of the uphill climb the Republicans face in November.

Borochoff's tidy life as a restauranteur and happily married father of three, including newborn twins, was shattered in 1988 when his 3-year-old son Bradley was bitten by a mosquito, which triggered encephalitis, a swelling of the brain and then uncontrollable seizures, leaving him disabled. The family's insurance premiums jumped from $300 a month to $2,500 a month. Borochoff hired a lawyer to fight the increase but was told he had no choice, so he paid the premiums. A year later, a notice arrived in the mail that the insurance company was canceling his policy along with coverage for his 100 employees. 

Well known in the restaurant business in Houston, Borochoff had political connections, and he worked every one of them, even securing an audience, along with other small-business owners, in the White House with President George H.W. Bush, all to no avail. In desperation, he contacted Sen. Ted Kennedy, telling a Houston Post reporter at the time, "I can't stand Ted Kennedy," but he hoped he would help. Kennedy intervened and the next day Borochoff got a call saying the insurance for him and his employees would be reinstated. It would be nice if the story ended there, but Bradley's care became more expensive. Medicine not covered by insurance was $2,800 a month. Borochoff's wife divorced him and in 2003, a single father with three teenagers, he filed for personal bankruptcy and received food stamps for six months.

Kennedy's office contacted him several times over the years asking him to testify, which he did only rarely because he didn't always agree with Kennedy's approach. He was once a strong backer of Tom DeLay, and he counts himself a personal friend of DeLay's successor and the two other Republican congressmen representing the Houston area. But he's angry with them and his party over health care and immigration, and that's what brings him to Washington. He's rebuilt his life and now manages four Tex-Mex restaurants in Houston. He serves on the board of a local agency that provides mental-health services to the poor, and the tug he feels is reflected in his political donations; once almost exclusively to Republicans, now he estimates 40 percent goes to Democrats.

This is one man's story but in a sense he is everyman. "
http://www.newsweek.com/id/142479

This counts as a "horror story" of American health care:  A guy's kid gets really sick.  He gets the kid the care he needs.  He pays what bills he can and discharges the rest in bankruptcy.  He keeps working as his own boss and as an entrepreneur.

The "horror" here is that Mr. Borodoff is not as rich as he would have been if somebody, anybody else paid his family's bills for him.

Is refusing to do that denying him social justice?

We used to be proud of building a nation and economy where a father COULD meet his responsibilities. Now that's not good enough.  There's this story and there's the S-CHIP program kerfuffle last summer-- a family of 4, owns their own house and commercial real estate, stood up and demanded the Bush Administration keep funding a federal aid program that helped them pay their medical bills.

This is socialism, American style-- government needs to assess taxes high enough to pay out to American families who could pay on their own, but don't want to.

Throughout this thread are statements that USA could have universal care, if it just accepted "rational" limits.  In our American democracy there are no limits.  All of our social welfare programs are explosively too expensive.  Here's another example-- a guy who owns restaurants must have a govt handout to prevent him from having to sell off his property to save his own kids.

That too!

antiquarian

Nolio this is KAOS! Ve do not gif stars!

THat's cause a democrat can't take the White House unless we're in a recession already