The game has a impressive graphics engine, and it appears with all the bells and whistles of a 2005 game. Going farther beyond most games however is the story. Revealed through both ingame events as well as live action movies the story and its accompanying game are sure to please fans of the real time strategy as well as traditional gamers.
Your comment action was successful. When a comment is deleted all replies to the comment will be removed as well. Because you are an admin, you can click the \"view deleted\" link above to view deleted comments in-case you wish to undelete them in the future. If this was a mistake, click the link again to reverse the change.
Act Of War Direct Action Mods
Factions of Act of War: High Treason have received additional units that greatly eliminates their differences. Given their loyalties, they are now either fully Americans, or mostly Americans with part-American equipment. Whatever difference is left between the factions can be closed by hiring mercenary units from a specialized building.
Call to Arms offers an innovative mix of real-time strategy and 3rd, as well as 1st person controls. Set in the time of modern warfare, the game offers realistically modeled vehicles and heavy weaponry. Command your troops to victory or fight by yourself in the 3rd or 1st person action mode.
Russian forces conducted an abnormally large series of missile strikes against Ukrainian rear areas on June 25. The Ukrainian Airforce Command reported that Russian forces fired over 50 ground-, air-, and sea-based missiles at Ukraine and targeted areas in Zhytomyr, Kyiv, Khmelmytskyi, Chernihiv, Lviv, Mykolaiv, Kharkiv, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts.[8] The Ukrainian Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) reported that six Russian Tu-22M3 bombers departed from the Shaykova airbase in Belarus and launched 12 Kh-22 cruise missiles at land targets in Kyiv, Sumy, and Chernihiv Oblasts, which is the first such launch from Belarus.[9] The Ukrainian Airforce Command noted that Russian forces used sea-based Kalibr missiles against targets in western Ukraine, X-22 and ground-based Iskander and Tochka-U missiles against targets in northern Ukraine, and ONYX missiles and Bastion complexes against targets in southern Ukraine. Ukrainian air defense reportedly shot down many of the missiles, which were likely intended to target critical support infrastructure in areas of Ukraine where there is no direct combat.
In this month's edition, anti-Trident action intensifies in Scotland as hundreds are arrested at Faslane 365's huge direct action at Faslane on October 1, attracting major coverage in all the main UK media outlets.
Following the demonstrations, the Scottish government held a summit on Trident involving politicians, unions, environmentalists (including Acronym Institute's director, Rebecca Johnson) and church leaders in Glasgow on October 22. The Scottish government has now set up a working group to look at "the various devolved powers that could be used to stop Trident's successor being brought to Scotland". According to the Scotsman, the group will "look at international law, transport, planning and the environment as possible obstacles to the UK government's plans. The Scottish Government, for example, could refuse planning permission for a dry dock to service the nuclear submarines or use international law to prevent 'war crimes' being committed in Scotland."
Nuclear Warhead Design Hits Snag Walter Pincus, Washington Post, September 30, 2007 An independent scientific advisory group, tasked by the federal government at the direction of Congress to review the administration's plan for a new generation of nuclear warheads, has questioned whether it can go ahead without further laboratory work. The study, performed by the "Jasons," a group of scientists who regularly advise the government on nuclear defense matters, concluded that the first design of a Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW1) "needs further development" before it can be certified as reliable enough to go into the U.S. weapons stockpile without underground nuclear testing.
Such a circumstance is something that I feel that moderating team has to strive to achieve consensus among themselves, as moderators can undo even the quite serious actions of other moderators. I do feel that no single user is greater than math.SE as a whole, and that quality answers will continue to be submitted even if any one individual member leaves; we need look no further than the unfortunate departure of Arturo Magidin as evidence of this. Truly problematic users may also inhibit other equally qualified people for joining our site as contributors, and this opportunity cost may be easy to overlook. It is only right that the moderators follow in broad outline the guidelines set out in this post by Jeff Atwood, meaning that there would be a series of responses of increasing severity. Whether the increments would be exactly the same would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, but the moderators do neither the math.SE community, nor themselves, a favour by giving highly problematic users significantly more leeway based on other contributions.
Much of this depends on the actual circumstances of the closure/deletion. I'll restrict my attention to the closure case, as the deletion case is similar, just with different numbers and no current meta-thread for its undoing. Should a moderator vote to close a question as the fifth of five, I would have absolutely no problems with this; the moderators are users, and are thus as entitled to express their opinions on valid/invalid content on the site as any other (sufficiently privigeled) user. Seeing a moderator vote as the fifth of five would be an indication to me that restraint was shown, and I should only reciprocate. Depending on how strong my feelings are about the particular instance, I would have no problem adding another answer to our Requests for Reopen Votes meta-thread, and hope to become the fifth of five in the opposite direction.
If, on the other hand, another moderator has used their sledgehammer in a manner I feel was inappropriate, the worst thing I could do is return in kind. My first step would be to contact that moderator and try to get their thoughts on the matter; it is perfectly possible that they saw or knew something about the particular case that I was unaware of. If an agreement still is not found after these discussions, I would again hope to guide the community in having this action undone.
I do understand that the impetus of this question is likely what have become known as PSQs, and the possibility of there being a community consensus to close/delete them, and so I will address this more directly. First of all, I have no idea what form "community consensus" will take with respect to this topic; even though recent meta-threads have indicated that there is support for such policies, I do not think anything close to a consensus has been achieved (and the fact that conversations continue makes me certain that I am not alone in this thinking). Even more, I have not seen any proposals to the effect that "PSQs should be flagged and duly closed/deleted by the moderators". I hope that we never see such a proposal; and in general I would be discouraged by any proposal that obliged the moderators to use their sledgehammers. The actions of the individual users will go much further than the discussions on meta in shaping community norms (if not policies). I will not unilaterally undo the actions of the community as it regards the closing/opening/etc of questions, but I do not (and cannot) promise to never start a discussion about having the community itself undo these actions on a case-to-case basis. (I don't expect this to be a common occurence, but it would be somewhat evasive of me to not admit the possibility.)
I also do not feel it is the job of the moderators to hunt down contest/exam questions, or to treat questions which only might be from contests/exams as if they were certain infractions. I would hope that math.SE becomes known as a responsible part of the larger mathematics community that professors and contest organisers feel they can monitor this site, flag posts when cheating is detected, and see a quick response. I recall that an organiser of the Canada/USA Mathcamp had personal contact with Qiaochu Yuan, and this lead to several questions being closed/deleted. Unfortunately, I also believe that this contact was only through Qiaochu, and I hope that a relationship of this kind can be established with the current (and future) moderating team.
The closing of questions has a dual purpose. Perhaps at is basic level it is an indication to the OP that there is something wrong with the question as it currently stands, but there is still a possibility to correct it, and have it re-opened. Secondly, it is often the first step towards other more serious actions (such as deleting).
One of my basic beliefs regarding these methods is that, when possible, in the vast majority of cases they are better done by the community at large. I have seen questions closed rather quickly without moderator intervention, and for the most part any "community consensus" has to start with the actions of the community shaping a community norm. If moderators are to be "human exception handlers" then it stands to reason that the events they handle should be exceptional.
Except for extreme cases one could consider in the abstract (mod gone rogue), I would not revert the action but discuss the issue with fellow moderators to avoid having inconsistent policies in the future and maybe convince the mod who carried out the action to revert it. I don't know whether high-rep users can revert such actions, in that case I would do even less.
First, closing and deleting is not directly opposed. Many who can vote to delete, can only do so on closed threads. But the point of closing is that it is easier to reverse and comments are still possible, which should help in improving the question so that it can be reopened at a later stage. I think closing is something that should mainly be done by users and not mods. An exception is moving threads to other stackexchange sites, which I would only do with OPs agreement. 2ff7e9595c
Comments