I'm not sure why we're begging the question at this point, but I don't really understand what 'availability' means in this context.  It seems to me that Canadians satisfaction numbers should be even higher than that, given that health care is not 'unavailable' to any of them.

Why argue a moral principle when you can argue pragmatic points. You can start with The Atlantic article from Virginia Postrel.

No, I'm not doing your research for you.  I just think it's funny that somehow you think nationalized health insurance is the same as armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon.  What, is Social Security akin to rape?  Is the postal service now Grand Theft Auto?   

Do you want to "stop the bullshit hyperbole", or don't you?
Moliere is referring to the article he linked which points out some of New Zealand's perceived political inconsistencies in cost/benefit analysis for expensive cancer treatments.  That's a con, would you like to discuss it?

People who have insurance now dont go to the Dr for small ailments, or preventative care, how will a flawed nationalized system change that in any way?

I think this is an interesting point.  Would these preventative care visits be mandatory?

I had Skate2 out for a while on rental (I'd like to grab it again actually).  I'd wait until you have unlocked all the available parks before trying any of the DLC, personally (I didn't end up buying any, but then again I don't own it).  I was very happy with the variety of areas (and I'm almost thinking the Community Center was still there?).  I liked the Boneyard halfpipes for aerial challenges, but the marina might be more what you're looking for in an open area, Producto.

Dethklok!  Yeah, I know, but it's really good!

I haven't read through the whole thread for fear of spoilers, so I apologize if this has already been talked about.  My friend just sold the game back after putting 30 hours into it because he ran into what he called a "game-stopping bug" that apparently affects the 360 version of the game. He said he looked it up on the official forums and there's lots of reports on it there. I haven't looked very hard but the quick search that I did do didn't return anything signfiicant.

Has anyone here ran into this bug?

I usually warn any Friends I see playing about a bug I had where the 360 would immediately hard freeze on loading certain save points (sometimes even 2 consecutive saves).  Some of these occurred on those long multi-stage missions.    Definitely keep a multi-save cycle running (I'd say at least 4).  I don't know what caused it, but I did have a problem earlier on where I couldn't enter the bar to complete one of the side friend missions (for the Arab guy, IIRC).  I was playing Josep.
Overall, I loved the game, but I don't mind playing certain games 'slow', just enjoying the immersion or looking for the perfect spot for a one-shot snipe, or enjoying a boatride at dusk.
I agree with Kathode's complaints, particularly about the unrelenting hostility of the world.  Also, cultivating friendships (or faction loyalty) is ultimately pointless (and maybe even counter-productive, actually), except for the opportunity to complete more missions.  I will defend the game on the spawning issues I've seen complaints about.  Sometimes you will drive down the road, pull a U-turn, and there are new enemies at a guard post, but I think this just occurs when you cross the edge of some internally defined 'zone'.  Many times, I would clear a post, then sleep at a nearby shack, and the post is still destroyed in the morning.  Also, some of the complaints about 'new guys spawning right behind me' is just a result of some interesting AI IMO; there are roaming patrols who will respond to distant trouble (often on foot), and some enemies will retreat from an attacked location and either move around the flank, or hunker down in cover and wait for you to show yourself before they violently announce their presence.  Of course, sometimes they act dumb as hell (particularly when you're wearing the camo suit I think).
Finally, the 'big problem' I have with Far Cry 2 was the same as GTAIV; it's such a big, convincing world that the things you actually can 'do' end up making the world feel kind of big and beautiful, but empty.  I see some animals, why can't I get missions to hunt a particular lion or those little deer whose purpose for existence seems to be performing comically suicidal headbutts on my jeep?  Why don't I have to worry about crocodiles in the water?  Why do you stop giving me, for example, assassination missions when I've done a certain number of them?  Even if I don't get particular rewards anymore, can't you just spawn random people for me to whack, or keep giving me convoys to blast even when I don't get any more weapons?  Why not extend replayability in some of these cases where it seems almost trivially easy and obvious?  I think I know the answer (DLC opportunity), but I don't like it.

I have the lot

Project reality mod apparently is also getting a lot of love

I loved PR.  It's still got a decent community?  The developers were selling the server package independently, IIRC?

I just don't know how 'stimulating' it is for these companies to get involved in a poorly defined business arrangement with the government, then exist in fear of some newly-minted legal rationalization.

Initial placement is very important, and will also often force you to totally rethink any prior strategy.  The 8 and 6(?) spot are the usually popular because they are most likely, but realize that there's probably going to be a robber on them for much of the game.  Often I will try instead to stake out a spread of lesser parcels (3, 4, 5, 9, 10) so I get something with most dice results.  If you see where your opponents might get into a robber-swap contest between their heavily-relied-upon high-prob parcels, a little avoidance can really help out.  Also during placement, think about future city placement for you and your opponents (cities can't be right next door).  I try to plan ahead for what ports I can get to also; I rely heavily on their card swaps (especially if I'm bagging too many with a good parcel spread).
As far as big game strategy, there are only so many ways to get to 10 points:  have somewhere between 10 settlements and 5 cities, long road, big army, and victory cards. I generally play towards getting a solid 4-5 settlement clump near a favorable port, then start upgrading to cities and buying development cards (usually hoping for victory points).  If your early game starts racking up more wood and brick, you can asphalt it out a little more for the longest road boost, plus you can screw up your opponents' plans for expansion (I personally find the road contests too exhausting usually).  Another valid tactic is to concentrate most on development cards;  largest army not only provides a victory boost, but you will recieve hidden victory points, and have the robber where you want him most of the game.  You should still plan to expand a bit in the mid-late game, as development card perks alone won't cut it.
Encourage trade.  Look for opportunities (especially during initial placement) where you can casually get a strong position with later-game resources like wheat and stone.  Brick and wood are great initially, or for some strategies, but they usually turn into garbage by late game: have a port to dump them at if you go with them early.
Don't risk a lot of big resource hands to a 7 (when you lose half of you 8+ card hand); if you decide to wait to use them, don't forget there are more rolls before you get your chance again.
Have fun, it's a great game!
BTW, I like to play it on Xbox too.  Anyone?

A fine post, but I'm uncomfortable with your excessive villification of monkeys.  Did one chew your genitals off or something?   
Regarding Kliban, I'm not talking about the 'success' of his comic per se, I'm talking about his defending or even just exploring his own misunderstanding of the scope and antagonism of 'monkey' imagery, if not with the readership than with the editor himself.  Would that be closer to the 'cowardice' towards race issues? 
I interpret Holder's comments as referring to more personal dialogues, very reduced in scope from socio-economic disparities or anything that might be proposed by a politician or said into a microphone.  I think there is already discussion on these issues (and they are 'safer' in that no one person can do anything about them anyway).
Person to person, I do think "How many white people think that black people are unevolved animalistic brutes?" should result in more meaningful and constructive dialogue than anything concerning gerrymandering or disenfranchisement. 

Me too, please.
MooseFoe

And thus ends the mystery of continually seeing you online and wondering just who the hell MooseFoe is and how we all know him

I'm world famous in Poland.  You should've asked Mytocles.
 

Me too, please.
MooseFoe

When did I refuse to do that, and how the hell would you ever know if I was being disingenuous if I had?

Do you forget your previous posts immediately after authoring them?

"I think maybe you're too savvy if you consider your racial assassination metaphor as more obvious than 'cops shoot a monkey, interrupting his characteristically inept crafting of stimulus legislation'."

Oh, I forget lots of things these days... but I still don't see there a "disingenuous refusal to acknowledge that one of the common interpretations of that image was going to be "Obama portrayed as a dead monkey". "  I will acknowledge that one of the interpretations of that image is going to be "Obama portrayed as a dead monkey".

I can understand the imagery well enough now that the sentinels of equality have pointed it out, but I don't think it's exactly a burning cross when viewed objectively.  The 'blind spot' I was referring to (of which there could surely be more than one) is a blindness to people like myself (and others in this thread I think) who just don't feel deeply enough about this particular issue to immediately react to this cartoon.  Worse, we're called liars.

I don't think you're a liar - just that you're either obtuse and/or disingenuous.  No one here has claimed that some people might not see the racial imagery in the comic - clearly you exist and are not some elaborate and irritating Turing Test participant - but to suggest that the Post and Delonas didn't know the probable imputation of what they were publishing defies common sense.

Well, I guess I have to take 'obtuse'.  Might it be a blind spot to assume that I and other non-acutes are instead just being disingenuous?  I've made no claims regarding the producers' intent.

Well, sure, a 'well-intentioned editorial cartoonist' (which seems something of an oxymoron, BTW) might 'shy away'. I think you might have found the best example yet of AG Holder's 'cowardice'.  Would you disagree?

Yes, of course I disagree.   It isn't a credit to you that, when the Attorney General suggests that we be honest and frank in our discussions about race, you're mostly concerned about the (unabridged!) right of an editorial cartoonist to publish something that could be dropped without alteration into a Council of Conservative Citizens tract.

Finally!  This is a much more interesting and relevant discussion than a defense of my character, and with your permission maybe we could focus our efforts here.  AAngel, I'd ask the same of you.  I accept that you weren't intentionally making any insinuations, but you should admit the context might have made it seem so to me.  Thinking about it, I'd say you guys are obviously more political than I am; I think you make some distinctions that escape me.  This probably significantly informed my impression of the cartoon; I have a more nebulous concept of 'the government' as a self-serving gaggle of, well, monkeys who throw poop at each other and try to find bananas.  I think you give more of a personal identity to Obama, in a way.  He's not foremost in my mental model of 'the government'.  This may be why I didn't draw a natural reference to him from the cartoon.  Maybe.
Now:
Given that our cartoonist is well-intentioned,  why wouldn't you consider him one of Holder's 'cowards'?  Say some non-Delonas had obtusedly drawn that cartoon to comment on the ineptitude of the government, of which Obama is the figurehead, and the editor exclaims, "Cripes, Kliban!  It looks like you're calling Obama a porch monkey!  We can't print this!"  You wouldn't think Kliban is one of Holder's 'cowards' for capitulating?  I mean, that kind of thing is going to be the impetus for any meaningful racial discussions, isn't it?  Can you give me a better example?

I'm insulted by an insinuation of bigotry (or half-brainedness) by you or others who think they have extraordinary insight into what people are really thinking.

I've written a number of messages on this topic, yet I have not insinuated that you are either bigoted or "half-brained."  Who are the "others" that you're referring to?

-Autistic Angel

It fits now, doesn't it?  Your heart's in the right place, but you're going way overboard with it.

No.  Questioning the reasoning behind your stance on one specific issue is a far cry from impugning your intelligence, honesty, or racial tolerance.  I find your interpretation of the comic unpersuasive because it requires a spectacular amount of faith in Sean Delonas' motives and none whatsoever in his intellectual, social, or artistic acumen.  That makes you astonishingly optimistic; not morally corrupt.

It's like arguing that this guy was taking an innocent swipe at the White House groundskeeper, or that this GOP women's group was trying to underscore the value of a balanced diet.  This whole "racist by accident" defense wears pretty thin when the same wink-wink nudge-nudge ideas keep cropping up in the same context over and over again.

How do you follow 'questioning' with a paragraph like the above and claim no insinuation of bigotry? 
As far as Delonas' motives or offensive history, I have no interest in defending him whatsoever; he seems like a dick.  Frankly, looking at some of these other comics, I believe you're giving him too much credit for subtlety; I think he would've drawn a cigarette in the monkey's hand if he was specifically referring to Obama.  Conversely, it seems to me that the less obvious the racist metaphor appears, the more damning it becomes to you.  This works to a point, but who watches the watchmen?
Look, I'm just speaking up because I didn't want my 'stance' (which is basically "I didn't immediately see a racial connotation to the cartoon, and that doesn't make me a bad person") misapplied and used as some kind of 'bad example' or talking point for some of our master debaters.  That's all it is.  I'm not arguing this from some right-left political standpoint, and I've tried to avoid getting too deep into the sociological aspects.  I just don't want to be misunderstood or establish some identity as 'racist guy'.
Throw me a bone, huh?

Sometimes a monkey's just a monkey.  Some people see a 'negro metaphor' and some see an 'incompetent metaphor'.  I'm honestly one of the latter (and I grew up in south Georgia, FWIW), and your failure to accept that just seems like a big blind spot in understanding race issues beyond what's in the headlines.

What a laughable assertion - the "big blind spot" in this thread is your disingenuous refusal to acknowledge that one of the common interpretations of that image was going to be "Obama portrayed as a dead monkey". 

When did I refuse to do that, and how the hell would you ever know if I was being disingenuous if I had?  I can understand the imagery well enough now that the sentinels of equality have pointed it out, but I don't think it's exactly a burning cross when viewed objectively.  The 'blind spot' I was referring to (of which there could surely be more than one) is a blindness to people like myself (and others in this thread I think) who just don't feel deeply enough about this particular issue to immediately react to this cartoon.  Worse, we're called liars.

Even if we were to take your claim of naivete at face value, I suspect that you're capable of wracking your brain and concluding, that, just maybe, there's a pretty incendiary history of that particular meme, and perhaps a well-intentioned editorial cartoonist might shy away from drawing the image.  It's not like the racists are consigned to history.

Well, sure, a 'well-intentioned editorial cartoonist' (which seems something of an oxymoron, BTW) might 'shy away'. I think you might have found the best example yet of AG Holder's 'cowardice'.  Would you disagree?

Just picked up my Watchmen Movie Pack, free with purchase of a Live product (in my case the cheapest one, the 1600 point card which is still a bit cheaper than impulse buying in NXE).
Two free tickets, usable in the next two weeks! 
...the smell of...Nostalgia

I'm insulted by an insinuation of bigotry (or half-brainedness) by you or others who think they have extraordinary insight into what people are really thinking.

I've written a number of messages on this topic, yet I have not insinuated that you are either bigoted or "half-brained."  Who are the "others" that you're referring to?

-Autistic Angel

It fits now, doesn't it?  Your heart's in the right place, but you're going way overboard with it.
Sometimes a monkey's just a monkey.  Some people see a 'negro metaphor' and some see an 'incompetent metaphor'.  I'm honestly one of the latter (and I grew up in south Georgia, FWIW), and your failure to accept that just seems like a big blind spot in understanding race issues beyond what's in the headlines.

I'm down, Smoothie.  Friendify me.

The swastika might be a symbol of peace in Hinduism and Buddhism, but it's obvious why it's offensive to many people.  

You think this analogy has some utility to our discussion?  Do you expect a Hindu to abandon appropriate usage of the symbol out of respect to New Delhi jews?  That question was rhetorical; I see no point in torturing this analogy.

It's been detailed here how that cartoon exploits all sorts of racial issues and whether you believe it does or not isn't important.

"Detailed"?  Not really.  It "exploits...racial issues"?  These heavy racial issues are, what, "jerky racists say black people look like monkeys" and "black people don't like to be shot by cops"?  Is that right?  Why isn't it important whether I believe it or not?  What could be more important in this context?  I'm people, too, and according to you one of those who are in dire need of education, or is it "calling out"?  Do you prefer candid discussions with people who already agree with you?
I can only tell you that I'm not being dishonest, and I'm not sure how I'd convince you that I'm not extremely dense.  I also don't know how you think I am exhibiting 'cowardice'(fine time for you to get on topic BTW).  I make no claims of being without prejudice and thus have no fear of hypocrisy; what do you think I'm afraid of?
Care to talk about it, or should I don my smoking jacket?

Great op-ed from Walter Williams on this subject.

Just because some activity is not racially integrated does not mean that it is racially segregated.

I have experienced his reference to white professors that accept behavior from black people that they wouldn’t begin to accept from whites in my college classes. The professor makes a point of "randomly" calling on everyone except the black student because every time he does the student's response is always "uh, how should I know, you're the teacher" or some such nonsense. This type of pass in class discussion should be unacceptable.

No doubt.  It goes back to us being a nation of cowards.  We're so afraid to call it on both sides that we effectively hide from it.  Just like we have apologists for the cartoon, which anyone with half a brain can see could be easily interpreted to be in extremely poor taste, we have have apologists who will allow the celebration of "culture", with total disregard to the exclusionary practices that celebration entails. 

I suppose you consider me one of these 'apologists', as I saw the monkey and thought 'government' instead of 'black president'?  I fully understand that some people will interpret it differently, and may even feel strongly enough to try to address the grievance.  I'm insulted by an insinuation of bigotry (or half-brainedness) by you or others who think they have extraordinary insight into what people are really thinking.

You simply don't get it.  Read what I posted again.  It's not YOUR interpretation that counts here.

Who else's interpretation would count here?  Are you just speaking rhetorically?  If you actually want to have that 'candid discussion' or 'call' somebody on something, you need to get your head out of the clouds. 
By 'apologists', are you referring to people, like me, who claim not to have seen a racist agenda with the cartoon, or are you more sensibly referring to people who think no one should have a problem with that cartoon?  I just ask you to be more careful with perjorative labels in a thread, especially when they've already been applied so, dare I say it, 'liberally'.

I'm insulted by an insinuation of bigotry (or half-brainedness) by you or others who think they have extraordinary insight into what people are really thinking.

I've written a number of messages on this topic, yet I have not insinuated that you are either bigoted or "half-brained."  Who are the "others" that you're referring to?

-Autistic Angel

It seemed to me you argued that any "innocent" interpretation of the cartoon is a product of either ignorance or deceit (eg your first rebuttal to Lettuce).  Maybe I didn't understand your position entirely (like you apparently misunderstood my innocuous use of 'theoretical'), and I certainly don't think you meant it maliciously, but it came off that way to me.  I'm not emotionally wounded or anything, but I don't care to be categorized as an 'apologist' or anything else other than maybe 'mildly insensitive to monkey metaphors'.

Great op-ed from Walter Williams on this subject.

Just because some activity is not racially integrated does not mean that it is racially segregated.

I have experienced his reference to white professors that accept behavior from black people that they wouldn’t begin to accept from whites in my college classes. The professor makes a point of "randomly" calling on everyone except the black student because every time he does the student's response is always "uh, how should I know, you're the teacher" or some such nonsense. This type of pass in class discussion should be unacceptable.

No doubt.  It goes back to us being a nation of cowards.  We're so afraid to call it on both sides that we effectively hide from it.  Just like we have apologists for the cartoon, which anyone with half a brain can see could be easily interpreted to be in extremely poor taste, we have have apologists who will allow the celebration of "culture", with total disregard to the exclusionary practices that celebration entails. 

I suppose you consider me one of these 'apologists', as I saw the monkey and thought 'government' instead of 'black president'?  I fully understand that some people will interpret it differently, and may even feel strongly enough to try to address the grievance.  I'm insulted by an insinuation of bigotry (or half-brainedness) by you or others who think they have extraordinary insight into what people are really thinking.

so, what do the rest of you predict? 

I predict that he will make us wishing for Chevy Chase to re-enter the late night scene.

I remember one funny bit.  One.

Super, now I'm an apologist for an indisputable and egregious racial attack.
This is the part where I exhibit the OP's 'cowardice' which you don't seem eager to discuss much and a bit of a dramatic tendency, and leave you with a suggestion that using their skin color to generalize or theorize excessively about folks' stances on issues is a particularly insidious form of racism.

If the slain monkey had been escaping from a big room full of typewriters and cop had said, "Great, now they'll never get the housing bill done!", that would be a joke about monkeys authoring legislation.  Fill the halls of congress with apes, and then you have a visual gag about monkeys running the government.

No, it's not purely a visual gag.  There's a shot monkey, and the verbiage is the punchline of the creature being a legislator.  Requiring that every gag be spelled out or drawn in a way such that hundreds of people in New York aren't significantly offended?  That's probably a good example of Holder's 'cowardice'.

I do think a denunciation of the cartoon based on it's perceived level of insult to some theoretical demographic would fit Holder's application of the word 'cowardice'.

"Theoretical demographic?"  I don't think all those people spent hours marching around outside the Post's building because they were concerned about a potential insult to any ancient Mayans in the metropolitan area -- they peaceably assembled to speak up for themselves.  What part of that do you find cowardly?

Yes, theoretical.  Beyond those hundreds marching with Sharpton, you are theorizing about who is offended.  I'd say demanding that the Post shut down due to their hurt feelings over a questionable interpretation of a cartoon is a good example of Holder's 'cowardice'.
Do you have a better one?

A great many people believe the dead ape represents Barack Obama because he is unquestionably the number one person the public would associate with the stimulus bill, and it plays neatly into a festering racial stereotype of black people as unevolved humunculi.  You're pretty confident that interpretation is bunk, but the far more complicated one you're pitching seems a little shaky.  The idea of an oblique reference to Nancy Pelosi didn't hold water, but now you've discovered an even more elaborate explanation?

If this cartoon is so nuanced that the simplest explanation is not the correct one, I guess I'm just not savvy enough to untangle all its incredibly subtle threads by myself.  Who knew the New York Post could be so high-brow and erudite?

I think maybe you're too savvy if you consider your racial assassination metaphor as more obvious than 'cops shoot a monkey, interrupting his characteristically inept crafting of stimulus legislation'.  I mean, it's a pretty old joke, right?  Monkeys running government?

I don't know what 'textbook' you're using, but I think your interpretation says much more about you than it does about the artist.  Is this the 'cowardice' to which Holder is referring (hyperbolically and uselessly, IMO), do you think?

Only if you believe that the cartoon I'm denouncing represents the sort of candid discussion about race that Holder envisions.

Do I believe the cartoon itself represents the discussion?  No, I don't suppose I expected the discussion to particularly concern primates, or to concern any one topic atomically.  I do think a denunciation of the cartoon based on it's perceived level of insult to some theoretical demographic would fit Holder's application of the word 'cowardice'.

Regarding the idea of "the monkey as racist," I agree that the stereotype is so omnipresent that just about anybody could draw that conclusion. I believe it to be the wrong conclusion, but it is easy enough to see how one gets there. As such, I do think cartoonists need to go back to their own personal wells and really think about how to make fun of Congress, which is pretty easy to do actually, without a) coming off as blatantly racist, and b) mocking an event where a woman basically got her face torn off.

My first impression of this cartoon (even after a 'racial' context had been firmly established by the linkage I followed) was, as you say, "...what I horrible event to try to milk some humor from!"  Maybe I'm overly fond of my genitals... although I'd prefer to keep the face.

This cartoon fails because it's trying to evoke "monkey" sayings. Chimps are apes. Apes are not monkeys. It's as if somebody who wanted to "bug" me drew a spider. Spiders aren't bugs, so you wouldn't get it. Chimps aren't monkeys, so I didn't get it.

FAIL

So you think chimps would submit a pretty good rough draft? 

Now, you can choose to pretend that a cartoon in which two white cops gun down a commonly known racial stereotype is somehow supposed to evoke some anonymous member for the legislative branch, but everybody knows exactly whose corpse that primate is supposed to represent.  I can't imagine what sort of poignancy or political insight you see in that cartoon that would make you rally to its defense, but suggesting that this textbook example of race-baiting is cleverly undone by some cute procedural technicality is not going to help your cause.

I see two generic cartoon people, looking fairly aghast, shooting the least human-looking depiction of a fellow anthropoid I could imagine.  I don't know what 'textbook' you're using, but I think your interpretation says much more about you than it does about the artist.  Is this the 'cowardice' to which Holder is referring (hyperbolically and uselessly, IMO), do you think?

Tonka Bong

[Moosefoe]

I can't believe I missed this.

Anyone know who Moosefoe is, lol?

No one of consequence; I'm just a GG-OO-GT creeper who finds the 100 friend limit totally ludicrous (my best guess is they're trying to protect us from spam in some way).  I'm a generally late-night east coaster in my mid-30s.  I didn't use a Rupert derivative as my 15YO shares the account (much less in the last year, but if it's before noon or Wednesday Poker night it's probably him; he doesn't typically answer messages sent to me, but he's totally benign if you can corner him).  We crafted the name 'MooseFoe' together arbitrarily, but it meets my primary criterion for a good handle: shortenable to a one syllable utterance of low ubiquity (I didn't know about MoosNukle  ).
I dig teamwork more than victory.  I accept most any friend requests, until they abuse messaging or send me that 'Obama Whitehouse' picture with the watermelons and stuff on the lawn.

He's very good at games and a great guy to play with.

Right back at ya, babe.

Oh, sure Nazi-luvah, NOW you want to play.  I still have L4D on Blockbuster's Gamepass, but I'm going to Disneyworld tomorrow, and returning Sunday.  I'll save some bile 4 you.
Anybody play later in the evenings?  Befriend 'MooseFoe'.

It seems to me, Crux, that blaming the Housing Disaster on the homebuyers is like blaming the Titanic disaster on the iceberg.

I took a little break from Tales of Vesperia to fire this up and am really enjoying it. I really don't have many complaints yet. I loved the first one, and this seems like more of the same with a lot of tweaking and things added.

I was wandering about though and grabbed one of those HVTs. I had done one previously no problem, but this one I have tied up and with me, but it seems no matter where I am I can't call in a chopper to pick him up because it says the area is hostile or something like that. I even took him back to home base and still says hostile. Any ideas on this? I swear the first time I had the chopper come nab the guy while there were still all sorts of hostiles right around him.

It's aggravating me.

I'm such a scrooge in these games though. I HATE spending the cash to get the artillery strikes or all that good stuff, so I end up making things much more difficult than I should. It's the same problems I have in RPG's where I realize that I have the max amount of potions and such because I hate to think I'd run out at some point.

I'm the same way with hoarding resources; I always have plenty at the end.  I can barely bring myself to use them at whatever climactic final battle there might be.
Regarding the HVT:  I rented this just yesterday, and haven't quite figured out the faction nuances, but I did notice that you need to be friendly with the Faction that wants the HVT in order for them to come pick him up.

In my eyes, it's akin to checking out a hot chick who left her window open.  Should you be doing it?  Probably not.  Is it illegal?  Not likely.  Will do you do it every now and then?  Almost definitely.  In the grand scheme of things, is it a huge deal?  No.

I'm a bit surprised at the strong opinions on the subject.

gellar

This is one of those issues where ultimately I feel the most fun to be had is figuring out a good analogy; I like your usage of voyeurism here with its expectation of privacy, but the degree is wrong.  I think it's more like peeking at your neighbors hot wife as she changes into her bathing suit in the downstairs halfbath in your house, maybe for a swim.  Why did she leave the door wide open?  Do I cough to make sure she knows I'm here?

Sorry, folks, you can't let the monkeys think they can mess with the cage.  Have only 40% of us met a 12 year old?

[Spoiler]

Wow good so far. The little bit I played anywho. But...anyone want to throw me a bone on this first boss . I`m not finding a way to hurt him and there are no faqs as of yet. And I suck. :icon_lol:Impressive up to here at least .

Spoiler for Hiden:

Hit him with one of the bottom barrels.

Anyway, Jeff, I think you're about set on electronics if you got a good tuner.  In fact, for you I'd have to suggest a decent acoustic. Go to a big music store and handle a couple, see if they do anything for you.

Next time I drive down to Disney maybe we can have a swamp jam.
I'd probably bring this:


I'd definitely bring one if I had it.

Jeff, I linked you to the GNX-4 which is the current model, but I actually got the GNX-3 off Ebay for $150.  It uses an older format memory stick (SmartMedia?) that you basically can't find anymore, but there's plenty of memory onboard for my recording needs (I'd just pipe it to the PC if I ever got serious about it anyway).  I think the new one has a fancier drum machine  and some other bells and whistles, but for that kind of savings I figured I can upgrade later if I feel limited.  Naturally, I dumped the savings on other gear (newish ax should be in the mail ATVM).
You live anywhere near Jacksonville?

asshat++;

I went to the beach with the family this week, and had rented Viking a couple days before that (loved it).  I think I got on BF a night or two, but the network seemed kind of wonky; Lettuce got my tag fer cryin' out loud!
I'll be on this weekend.  Sorry to hear about Teggy, but I have a memento.