top of page


Public·11 members
Vsevolod Chernov
Vsevolod Chernov

Serious Sam 2 [Full No CD Crack]: The Pros and Cons of Playing the Classic Shooter Without a Disc

_ BLeH! _ _ _ /^^^ _ _ ( "o" ) _ _ _ _ (_---_) _ _ ' _ _ ` / & BUSH / / /(. .) LADEN _/ / / / . / / / Y / / \__/ \__/ () () ooO Ooo eNDANGER HUMANITY presents:-x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x- Serious Sam II Maxi Image-x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x- ****:// WTF IS THAT MAXI IMAGE CONCEPT ? It's an empty clone full of 0 that compresses itself to a dox size. Like a mini image it may be useful to save people from inserting the original cd / dvd, or to let people play the original game updates while expecting them to be cracked (the wait can be long nowadays). But unlike a mini image it is recognized by SecuROM7 protection, and its uncompressed size is the full size of the clone (supersize me!). So it's no big deal, just use it or ignore it, peace on Earth (Y) :> Oh and do buy the games you still play after the 1st levels, we do.-x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x- NOTE: this maxi image has been tested only on the DVD version of SS2.-x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x- 1) mount the maxi image with Daemon Tools or Alcohol 120% (be sure that SecuROM7 emulation is on) 2) use your favourite anti SecuROM7 CD-emulator blacklist tool/trick or our included 100% working simple registry trick (antiblah.rar) 3) launch the game :)-x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x- THANX to mexiko & uboy-x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x--x- HAVE YOU EVER VISUALIZED THE COST OF WAR ? -> ****://

Serious Sam 2 [Full No CD Crack]

Download File:

CD KILLER ( presents...Serious Sam 2 v1.07 (Euro) CD-protection: Savedisk 2.60.052 CD-rip crack : CD-Checks Cracking Time: 10 minHow to play: Copy SeriousSam.exe file to GameDirBin. Start the cracked EXE and play without the CD.

Music and film which enter our lives at particular junctures add meaning to it and owned and collected become bricks of our personal history. The fact that the allowance was limited and would cover a low number of items every month made the art search into a serious and studied endeavour, Guriel writes. The fact that we could only have an X number of new albums every month made replaying mandatory. And art with any degree of complexity often requires repeat engagement. A lot of his favourite albums and films, he writes, took more than one go to be absorbed by the mind. They required second or third chances. Had they been available on streaming services, the first indifferent listening or viewing would have been interrupted and the culture consumer would have hopped on to something else.

This has happened a few times now. I would try to introduce someone to a film that was hugely important to me when I was in my twenties and it turns out it\u2019s impossible to find it; it fell through the cinema-VHS-digital-streaming crack in time.

There may be much to be gained, in terms of mobilizing public support at home and abroad, from an early display of presidential commitment, for example, a speech delivered to the American people or the United Nations. Such a call to action by the president may be unavoidable and indispensable, but in order to have the maximum positive impact on establishing a joint enterprise among leaders and avoid the perception of a U.S. dictate, public action by the president should be carefully preceded by consultations with key states.

Simply stated, a process that is U.S.-Russian-centric at the outset might facilitate rapid progress on bilateral reductions. At the same time, not involving other key states at the outset or not pressing equally hard to make progress on those steps requiring a multilateral effort might hinder progress as well as undermine the potential for devising a truly global prohibition on nuclear arms. Alternatively, a process that envisions the early involvement of other key states, procedurally or substantively, risks bogging down, at least in some areas. This suggests the need to carefully balance a bilateral Moscow-Washington track with a multilateral one.

Working initially within a framework that focuses first on bilateral steps between the United States and Russia is a process the United States has used successfully for decades to promote and protect U.S. interests. Later, or in some cases in parallel, an ad hoc process that involves those states or organizations necessary for achieving specific steps should minimize the risk that the process is used to frustrate U.S. interests.

Nevertheless, this approach would provide maximum flexibility at the outset and later into the process. The key to its sustainability will be how successfully other key states can be brought in via ad hoc arrangements. If that proves not to be possible for whatever reason, an ad hoc approach may not be sustainable.

Like the second alternative, working initially within a framework that focuses first on bilateral steps between the United States and Russia is a process the United States has used successfully for decades to promote and protect U.S. interests. Later, a process that involves a General Assembly resolution, the Security Council, and ad hoc assemblies depending on the issue should prove manageable with an emphasis on close coordination with the five permanent Security Council members and other key states.

Finally, like the second alternative, this approach provides a great deal of flexibility at the outset and later in the process. The key to its sustainability will be how successfully other key states can be brought in to the process at a later date, either through the Security Council or via ad hoc arrangements.

The opportunity to move things forward is intimately bound up with the new U.S. administration and the sense of confidence and momentum that hopefully that will generate, and is already generating, around the world, combined with the really significant contribution intellectually that has been made by the Gang of Four simply by putting out a hard-hitting case for zero nuclear weapons worldwide. They were not very forthcoming about how the steps are going to be taken,[3] but getting the actual elimination issue back up in lights, getting the disarmament side of the house back on intellectual track, was hugely important.

Evans: There really needs to be a massive amount of emphasis on the disarmament side. We all know what the agenda is on the nonproliferation side. The United States, including previous administrations, have been very articulate about that. There is a very wide constituency of support for universalizing the 1997 Model Additional Protocol and getting some more serious compliance and enforcement constraints operating for those who shelter under the NPT umbrella while doing things they should not and then walking away from it.[5] All of that stuff we sknow about. Plus the efforts to move forward on fuel banks and other ways of internationalizing or multilateralizing the fuel cycle, as difficult as all those things are. I think that sort of agenda is clear and needs to continue to be assiduously pursued.

But it is not going to begin to be achieved unless there is very serious movement on the other side of the house. Accordingly, what we will be saying to the administration here, over the next couple days, and what the commission has agreed is that these five points are the key stories we want to tell the administration. For a start, there are a couple of crucial building blocks relevant both to the disarmament and nonproliferation side on which we have to see movement. First, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is preeminently up there in the lights; that has to be almost priority number one for the administration.[6] It would be hugely significant if its ratification can be achieved before the 2010 NPT Review Conference.

Combined with that, a fourth thing is the United States has to get started on some serious strategic dialogue both with Russia and with China on the associated issues I just mentioned. You have to get started now talking to them about transparency, confidence-building issues, and China's own willingness to come aboard on the CTBT if the Americans take the lead on that, plus the larger issues of how you multilateralize the disarmament process. If there are visible conversations of that kind going on, not only will that have significance in terms of beginning to untangle U.S.-China and Russia relationships, but again it will feed very well into the NPT dynamic.

It is particularly implausible on the question of terrorism. I am not understating the anxiety about terrorism or the risk of a terrorist incident involving nuclear weapons. It is an entirely serious and legitimate concern, and one of the reasons why we have to get our nonproliferation act together is to reduce that potential. But the notion of needing nuclear weapons for that purpose is really bizarre.

As far as a doctrinal shift, it would be pretty significant for the United States to say that the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter other people from using them. It would play very much into global perceptions that the United States is really getting serious about winding back the centrality and salience of nuclear weapons. That would be relevant in terms of getting buy-in by others on the disarmament side of the house, but also to the nonproliferation side. At the end of the day, the real significance of all this is in terms of the psychological shift it would represent in America and the psychological shift that that should in turn engender in others.


Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...
Group Page: Groups_SingleGroup
bottom of page