Messages

That's normal, and yes, you should tell CJ about it.

Isn't there a "report a bug" thing somewhere? I thought I remembered seeing something like that.

Anywho, as a side note: If you are having problems that nobody else see's or seems to understand in real life, you should ALSO tell CJ about it and then seek professional help. You would be what we call: "A Lunatic."  =P

Good luck to ya!

And it makes me cry...

If you want generic characters in your AGS project that randomly star in budget fps and rpg clones, then your links would be brilliant!

Every AGS game should have a man riding a T-rex!!

Is it just me or does that man/rex look like some form of centaur?

I wish I was Loominous, or Misj', or Pinkback, or JBurger, or.....

Pretty much all the negative uses of "gay" are homophobic in origin, so unless you really want to use as a synonym of "cheerful, merry" (which wouldn't be offensive anyway), it's not gays who are to blame that it's offensive.

In my opinion the origin is irrelevant, the modern context is what matters. "Cock" originates from a term describing a male from a bird species, however, if I say that my Cock itches I don't think anyone would believe that I have a Dove in my pocket. Also, culturally words would mean different things: Pulling something out of my Fanny would probably get me arrested in Leeds but would seem completely normal in Orlando.

The word gay has evolved to have MANY different meaning, I think it can accommodate one more. Rick pointed out that it implies someone sexually wonton, by that definition I can see how it could have taken its negative connotations from that. However, I think using "gay" has more in common with "Queer." Queer meaning irregular or unusual. So perhaps the gay barons behavior was queer.

It just doesn't make sense to me that people will try to stop the evolution of slang/language. If I say that "8 Heads in a Duffel Bag" is Black Comedy, should that offend the Black Community? Please. It's just selfish and gay people need to get over themselves. If you want to be equals don't act like you're anything special! =P

As a side note, I am a proud support of Gay Rights and Equality for All Humans - even if that means having an oozy grey porridge for a global culture...

But seriously, you can't get more liberal than me, it seems as if nobody is able to understand context, implication and intention.

Is that a sidewalk or an escalator? =P

Double congratulations to Viking for winning this round and becoming another Grand Slam Winner!

Ohhhh, sexy! Maybe later you and me can hit up a Denny's... 

CONGRATS!!!!!!!

I thought it was:  Quite Right -> Quiet Riot

It sounds like a Saw shaped synth swelling and then dying off. I could be listening to the wrong sounds. (at 2:21 are you talking about the lightening or the sound in the background?)

I took two synths and put them together. This took literally 30 second so its probably not spot on but if you like it, use it:

http://www.box.net/shared/dkygfbakse

If not, tell us more about what type of sound you're looking for.

[Free models]

Free models or no?

I use turbosquid.

Good idea! How about you let us know which ones have entities PAID, SOME FREE or ALL FREE

Prior to the bill employed Amerikaans who were offered healthcare through their employer had the option to reject it. Whether they couldn't afford it, they didn't need it, they had a different healthcare plan, or otherwise, the point is it was optional.

With this new bill we will no longer have the choice as to whether or not we want to purchase it. This will likely not improve the average citizen's health. Myself, for example, have rarely ever had a cause to seek medical attention of any kind. This bill is not going to change that. When it has been offered, I have previously taken offered insurance, but it was an option. If I wanted, I could terminate the "benefits". Now, I no longer will have the option (once it goes into law).

As I mentioned earlier this is one of the few legitimate arguments against, however, there is something that needs to be clarified. You are not required to buy into your employers healthcare policy, you are simply required to have healthcare.  Many employers offer healthcare for their employees at a discounted basis or at a fully compensated basis. For instance, where my girlfriend works her company pays for 85% of her healthcare cost and the rest is voluntarily taken from her paycheck. At my previous employer, T-Mobile, I didn't pay a cent for healthcare. Both of us would be considered "legally covered," she would be paying a rate significantly lower than if she had healthcare on her own and I have a $1,100/mo Policy for free! However, the guy that works at the family owned gas (petrol) station probably isn't getting his healthcare covered and Ma & Pa Miller probably don't offer an employer partnership. He would still be required to HAVE healthcare, however. Where he gets it from and how much it costs are still up in the air at this point; IF his employer did offer coverage he could choose to take it or he could seek it on his own. So you're not required to buy from your employer, but if your employer offers healthcare for free or cheaper than normal it would make sense to enlist through them.

There is talk of limiting how much insurance companies can charge based on income and there are talks about having insurance companies setup various tiers of minimum legal coverage up-to premium coverage in order to distribute cost and coverage more effectively. These are tentative, currently, and the logistics of how everything will work has not yet been finalized.

Additionally, currently your employment status (currently) has no effect on whether or not you are required to have some form of healthcare coverage. You are required to have automobile insurance on any cars you own (in most states,) regardless of if you are employed, unemployed, homeless, a teenager, etc. 

I agree that this is a valid argument, however it's an argument that is simple to resolve. If you are going to force everyone to have healthcare you HAVE to offer something that is either low-cost or zero-cost in some way. It's apparent to everyone in the White House that without offering some type of option that low-income individuals can afford, mandating healthcare is only going to have an effect on the middle and upper classes and therefore, be worthless in essence. It would appear as if the next logical step then would be to enact either a government overseen or government run option for these people.  This is the only way to overcome this argument, that or eliminate the coverage mandate, which after all of this work probably is not going to happen.  It seems likely then, that this is a tactic that is being used to force opposition to concede that the only constitutional and effective way to offer the reforms as they exist are to offer a public option or a government regulated option.

State law and federal law are two different beasts and a war has been waged since the inception of the country over which has great control over the rights of the American people. Historically it has been upheld that federal law takes precedent, however there are many cases in which powerful states disregard federal law or supersede it. Auto-makers build cars to meet California environmental and safety standards which exceeds the federals requirement, because California is one of the largest markets. Additional, many states have legalized Marijuana to licensed users, however the federal government still recognizes marijuana as an illegal substance and routine closes down shops/clinics and arrests licensed users. In Hawaii, there is "Universal Healthcare" in a system that is setup similar to NHS. In Wisconsin, the state does not require Healthcare but imposes a small tax on all individuals and offers an extremely low-cost healthcare option provided by the State and funded by tax money and the low cost of being enrolled. Some states are saying that if they pass a law stating that their citizens cannot be mandated to purchase healthcare it over-rules any federal mandates. This is unlikely, however it is unclear how states that DO offer Universal Healthcare or State-run Healthcare (like Hawaii and Wisconsin) will be effected. Similarly unclear is how this will effect people in US Commonwealths who typically have dual citizenship (Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Isles, etc.)

AT the end of the day all that we know is that SOMETHING is going to be changed. What and how much is not yet certain.

I'm kind of offended that gay people have commandeered a word and that anytime I use it to mean anything OTHER "homosexual(s)," they get offended...   

Appreciate the help, everybody, but no, as a Doors-fan I can say that it definitely wasn't "Riders on the Storm" it sampled, even though the lyrics are sort of similar. This sounded more like a cheesy lounge-singer-thingamabob rather than the Lizard King, if you get my drift. I'm pretty sure the lyrics were "[...]I see you riding on a storm[...]", and not "[...]Riders on the storm[...]", and the phrasing was different, too.

The overall mood of it was more that of a cheesy lounge act with a very subtle modern, electronic touch than a techno remix, if you get what I mean... It's really hard to describe it, especially since it was such a long time ago I heard it. Hah.

Haddas: Yeah, goddamnit, you're right! I think we're thinking of the same track, 'cos now that you mention it, I do think there were some cowboys in the video, too... Dancing cowboys, even? Damn, now I'm even more anxious to find this again...

For some reason i'm think of Goldfrapp - ride a white horse...  Though I SERIOUSLY doubt it, I thought i would throw my hat into the pot. Tell us a little bit more about where you heard it/who was singing it/etc-

Well it looks like I will at least make it to 3rd place. ( Cause there is only 3 entries haha)

That's the secret to my success!

From what I understand the core bill has passed but they are still litigating details of the bill; Issuing amendments and corrections, etc.

I've really only heard two legitimate arguments AGAINST some form of universal health care. The first being that requiring American citizens to participate in a marketplace is unconstitutional. It would be like forcing everyone to buy Ice Cream. It's federally mandated YOU HAVE TO DO IT! You don't have to eat it, it doesn't matter if you're lactose intolerant, you HAVE to buy Ice Cream.

The second argument that I've heard is that regulating and restricting how insurance companies operate we will not only slowly destroy modern Health-care and the insurance companies but we undermine the capitalistic foundation of America and permanently damage the confidence and trust of the private sector.

The other arguments I've heard aren't worth noting, as they are mostly the enraged tears of ill-informed loud mouths, however, those arguments are valid.

Personally, I am for some form of Universal Health-care, however, I'm not really a fan of the current bill. It seems odd to me that the democratic party was able to bypass debate and certify the bill "automatically" yet the bill that they passed was the weakest, most diluted, pussy-footed attempt we've seen yet. Ultimately it will reign in some of the exorbitant waste and inefficiencies in the health-care sector and it will insure millions of more individuals. Ideally it will raise the standard level of care off offered. It doesn't go FAR ENOUGH, however, in regulating inhumane practices, wasteful spending, inefficiencies, nor does it guarantee coverage for all US Citizens, let alone any person present in the country for any reasons.

I wish I could say that it's a solid step in the correct direction but I don't think the foot has landed yet. With mid-term election coming soon it's also a very real possibility that the bill could be repealed. At the end of the day I can't give an honest answer about my opinion yet, due to the fact that the dust is still settling. It will take a few weeks and maybe even months before the bill is finalized and we have a clear picture of how it will change the health-care/insurance landscape.

In my perfect America, we would have an "opt-in" tax for individuals below a certain monthly/annual income. People that opt-in would be eligible for a government overseen or directly operated health-care provider at either no or an extremely low cost. People above the income bracket would be required to pay the tax regardless of if they choose to participate or not in the actual health-care program. Private insurance would always be an option and would ultimately evolve to offer A.) The Highest level of care and B.) The Lowest level of care. Health-care would be mandatory for all Citizens, either public or private. Health-care would also be extended to all non-citizens persons legally present in the U.S.   A possible simplification would be to require ALL citizens to pay a health-care tax and those wanting Health-care beyond what the public system offered could either be re-reimbursed or the government would distribute their health-care funds to the insurance provider of their choice and the citizen could pay the difference. Additionally there would be a government agency similar to the USDA/Health Inspectors/FDA/EPA in order to certify that health-care providers adhered to certain standards. Doctors would be compensated on a salary basis with incentives offered for exceeding quality standards and performing extracurricular care such as home-visitations, over-hours emergency care, etc. Cosmetic surgeries would be outside the scope of public health care, but would be taxed as an additional source of revenue for the public system.

Most likely, none of this will happen withing the next ten years, or so, but that's a pretty vague vision of US Healthcare as I see it.

SO far I vote for Viking because that IS AWEOMSEEOEMEMEM!!!!!!! Lego?! Check. Castles?! CHECK!!! ORCHESTRAL SYNTH SCORE?!?!??!?!?

Mind = Blown

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Cadillac-Deville-1976-A-REAL-NICE-CAR_W0QQitemZ250599399220QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item3a58e35f34

http://www.box.net/shared/d4zjt1zxa3


I need to leave the house!!!! This is what I get for saying that I'll enter competitions...

Is it paramount to every game to be Politically Correct?

Absolutely not.

Political correctness is a non-solution to a non-problem.

That's all that really needs to be said.

Agreed

Thanks for the tips Misj'! (Those punctuation marks seem silly together.) I built up a story in my head about the world, it's a bit steampunkish and so I imagine it's a world where industrial technology and magic co-exist. The setting I attempted to depict was supposed to look like a mud/cement walled home in a less urban area where the protagonist would be seeking for some wizened experienced individual who is apparently missing.

I agree though that the style isn't as coherent as I would have liked. I had the idea days ago but completely forgot about it until Snarky reminded me last night! 0_o

EDIT: P.S. I was elaborating, not disputing. I agree with everything you.
EDIT 2: P.P.S. Love you art work, BTW.

EDIT 3: Snarky, did you want me to vote?

My idea for a game was to have a a guy looking for clues that his wife was cheating on him. At first it would be mostly white with touches of black and grey. Then he find out that she's in some seriously dep trouble with some not friendly people and the game goes mostly black with touches of white and grey. The music would also reflect the mood change as the man goes from snooping, alienated lover to protective, macho man. He sticks his nose where it doesn't belong and tries to get some dirt on the people his wife is hiding from because the only way to stay safe is to have leverage.