2002 - Peti Element.rar

The first game Ratchet & Clank, released in 2002, was successful. In planning the second, they revamped Ratchet's character, as they felt the first game portrayed him as a jerk, according to writer TJ Fixman, and softened the character to make him more relatable, at that point hiring James Arnold Taylor to voice the character (Ratchet's behavior toward Clank in Tools of Destruction when speaking about the existence of the Zoni and the risks posed by the Dimesionator could be a hint or reference to the character in the first game).[4] They spent more time on developing interesting weapons to make the combat as enjoyable as the platforming sections of the game.[4] Both the sequel Going Commando and the following game Up Your Arsenal were well-received and considered commercial successes.[2] Allgeier considered that these games had success because they were continually evolving the series to match the current climate in video games, where mascot-driven games had fallen out of favor, and the company had adopted an "adapt or die" mentality for each title.[4][2] The "adapt or die" approach was used for the fourth title, Ratchet: Deadlocked (2005), as they made the title darker and more combat-oriented given the popularity of the Halo and Grand Theft Auto series. While the game was well received, this approach was not met well by players, as it veered too much from the buddy cop concept, lacked the exploration of previous games and comedy in the writing.[4] The balance between keeping to the "DNA" of a Ratchet & Clank game against the "adapt or die" mantra would continue to be a struggle throughout Insomniac's development of the series.[4][2]

2002 - Peti Element.rar

Ratchet & Clank was released on November 4, 2002, in North America for the PlayStation 2. In the game, Supreme Executive Chairman Drek plans to take pieces from other planets across the Solana Galaxy and create one new planet for his people, the Blarg, whose planet has become polluted and overpopulated, thus making it uninhabitable. Aside from the two protagonists, the game introduces Captain Qwark, who appears in the following games, as both an enemy and ally.

Angela Cross (voiced by Kath Soucie) is a female Lombax who appears in Going Commando. She shares Ratchet's affinity for gadgets and devices, though is frequently clumsy and scatterbrained. Despite her shortcomings, Angela was employed by Megacorp and worked in its genetics division on a secret project to create an artificial "Protopet", until she quit when her boss, Mr. Fizzwidget pushed the release date of the creation before she could correct its flaws (namely, its large appetite and savage nature). Angela then disguised herself and stole the prototype creature to get rid of it for good. When Megacorp recruits Ratchet to get it back from her, she hires the mercenary/crime organization Thugs-4-Less to protect her, and tries to get Ratchet out of the way by using his partner Clank as bait. Unfortunately, both tactics fail, and when Thugs-4-Less is bought out of their contract by a third party, Angela (after her identity was revealed) allies herself with Ratchet and Clank to stop Megacorp from releasing the still-highly dangerous Protopet all over the galaxy.

Equilibrium (2002) (movie): In an oppressive future where all forms of feeling are illegal, a man in charge of enforcing the law rises to overthrow the system and state. Discover the latest Discussions, Reviews, Quotes, Theories, Explanations and Analysis of Equilibrium (2002) below

Fields' flutes abound and the keyboards are neither tacky nor monotonous for the most part. A few moments even evoke the spirit of the the Island years, especially in "Gift of Wings". Elsewhere, as in "Memory of the Deep", a certain homage is paid to KITARO in the repetition of short colourful motifs that form an underlying rhythm of sorts, which is propitious because, while 2 members apparently contribute percussion, they may well have just brought them into the studio and neglected to set them up, or forgotten them entirely. Sturt contributes a robust fretless bass to a few cuts, which of course is worth half a star just on the face of it, but unfortunately it can't save the title cut from being an utterly banal expose on infinity. Both Field and Henson contribute guitars but they mostly act as a sign that reads "This isn't Patrick O'Hearn", got it? The only piece where I sense some authentic emotional transfer is "Asa no Kiri", which is ironic given its preponderance of high pitched synths, but then Kitaro himself excels in that realm as well.Some reviews here and there on the web state that this is far and away superior to the new age music of its day but I suspect many who gained that impression spent a lot of time listening to Jade Warrior and very little listening to new age music, and who can blame them? Nonetheless, I'm here to tell you that "Breathing the Storm" is a slightly above average new age recording with an average new age title that, like many of its ilk, under-delivers on its promise. 2.5 stars. social review comments Review PermalinkPosted Wednesday, March 18, 2020 Review this album Report (Review #2343555)

The Solicitor General, on behalf of John D. Ashcroft, former Attorney General of the United States, and Rob ert Mueller, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investi gation, respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Ap peals for the Second Circuit in this case.

The opinion of the court of appeals (App., infra, 1a- 70a) is reported at 490 F.3d 143. The order of the dis trict court dismissing some, but not all, of the claims against petitioners (App., infra, 71a-150a) is unreported.

The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on June 14, 2007. Petitions for rehearing were denied on September 18, 2007 (App., infra, 151a-152a). On Decem ber 7, 2007, Justice Ginsburg extended the time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to January 16, 2008. On January 4, 2008, Justice Ginsburg further extended that time to February 6, 2008. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).

In relevant part, respondent asserts that his deten tion in highly restrictive conditions of confinement from January to July 2002 resulted from unlawful racial and religious discrimination for which petitioners are per sonally liable under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and liable as co-conspirators under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3).1 See App., infra, 201a-203a, 206a-209a (First Am. Compl. 231-236, 246-251 (Compl.)). He seeks compensatory and punitive damages from petitioners, as well as attorney's fees and costs. Id. at 202a, 203a, 207a, 209a, 214a (Compl. 233, 236, 248, 251; Prayer for Re lief). Respondent also asserts claims against various other Department of Justice officials allegedly responsi ble for the conditions of his confinement and other al leged mistreatment, including employees of the MDC, the Bureau of Prisons, and the Federal Bureau of Inves tigation (FBI). Id. at 7a n.3, 87a-91a (summarizing claims against each defendant).2

In support of his claims against petitioners, respon dent alleges that, as Attorney General and FBI Direc tor, they "approved" a policy of detaining suspects de termined to be "of high interest" to the FBI's investiga tion into the September 11th terrorist attacks "in highly restrictive conditions of confinement until they were 'cleared' by the FBI." App., infra, 168a (Compl. 69). Respondent claims that two lower-level FBI officials responsible for implementing that policy selected him as a "high interest" suspect on the basis of discriminatory criteria. See id. at 164a-165a (Compl. 51) (alleging that respondent was selected by defendants Rolince and/or Maxwell as a "high interest" suspect because of his race or religion), 169a (Compl. 76) (alleging that defendants Rolince and Maxwell refused to clear detain ees for release to the general population "based simply on the detainees' race, religion, and national origin").

Apparently seeking to connect petitioners to his "high interest" classification, respondent asserts that, as Attorney General, petitioner Ashcroft had "ultimate responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of the immigration and federal criminal laws" and was "a principal architect of the policies and practices chal lenged here." App., infra, 157a (Compl. 10). Respon dent also alleges that, as the Director of the FBI, peti tioner Mueller "was instrumental in the adoption, pro mulgation, and implementation of the policies and prac tices challenged here." Ibid. (Compl. 11). Respondent further alleges that, "under the direction of [petitioner] Mueller," the FBI "arrested and detained thousands of Arab Muslim men" in the course of investigating the September 11th attacks. Id. at 164a (Compl. 47).

Finally, respondent makes a generalized allegation that petitioners "knew of, condoned, and willfully and maliciously agreed to subject [him] to these conditions of confinement as a matter of policy, solely on account of [his] religion, race, and/or national origin and for no le gitimate penological interest." App., infra, 172a-173a (Compl. 96).

2. Various defendants, including petitioners, moved to dismiss the claims against them. In relevant part, the district court refused to dismiss the Bivens and conspir acy claims against petitioners. App., infra, 133a-137a, 142a-146a, 150a. The court ruled that allegations that respondent was confined in significantly harsher condi tions solely because of his race and religion were suffi cient to state a violation of clearly established law, and that he had adequately alleged personal involvement by petitioners in the adoption of the detention policy for "high interest" detainees. Id. at 133a-137a, 142a-146a. The court acknowledged that personal involvement was "a closer question" for the defendants (including peti tioners) who were higher in the chain of command than the Wardens. Id. at 116a. Nevertheless, in light of re spondent's general allegations and the "unique context" of the Justice Department's investigation into the Sep tember 11th attacks, the court found, with respect to each of the relevant counts, that it could not conclude there is "no set of facts" on which respondent would be entitled to relief from petitioners. Id. at 136a-137a, 146a. 041b061a72