text:
Founding President, Special Advisor & Co-Treasurer of IACMR – Anne S. Tsui
ANNE S. TSUI, Founding President of IACMR, currently Special Advisor and Co-treasurer of the Association, is Distinguished Adjunct Professor at the University of Notre Dame since fall 2014, Motorola Professor Emerita of International Management at Arizona State University, and concurrently Visiting Distinguished Professor at Peking University and Fudan University, China. Previously, she was faculty at Duke University, U California, Irvine, and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. She is the 67th President and Fellow of the Academy of Management (AOM), 14th Editor the Academy of Management Journal, Founding President of the International Association for Chinese Management Research (IACMR) and Founding Editor-in-Chief of Management and Organization Review. She is also an elected fellow of the Academy of International Business. She won best paper awards from AMJ, ASQ, and JOM, received the Center for Creative Leadership Applied Leadership Research Award, the University of Minnesota Outstanding (Alumnus) Achievement Award, the AOM Distinguished Service Contribution Award, and the IACMR Lifetime Contribution Award. In recent years, she has devoted her professional work to advancing both the quality and the relevance of international and Chinese management research. She is the co-founder of the Responsible Research in Business and Management network (www.RRBM.network). Dr. Tsui received her BA in Psychology from the University of Minnesota, Duluth; MA in Industrial Relations from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; PhD in Management from the University of California, Los Angeles, and an Honorary Doctorate in Economics from the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Past President – Jia Lin Xie
Jia Lin Xie is Magna Professor in Management at Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Canada. Her areas of expertise are job design, job stress, cross-cultural organizational behavior, and knowledge management. Her cross-cultural research focuses on the comparisons between Chinese and North Americans on job-related attitudes and behavior. Her research work has appeared in journals such as the Academy of Management Journal, Advances in International Comparative Management, Journal of Applied Psychology, Harvard Business Review (China Edition), Journal of Management, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, and Journal of Organizational Behavior. Born and raised in China, Jia Lin Xie held a faculty position at Renmin University in the 1980s, and at the Faculty of Business of City University of Hong Kong between 1999 and 2001. She has a passion for Chinese management research and internationalization of management knowledge, and has devoted tremendous effort in assisting the knowledge exchange between China and the West.
Past President – Jing Zhou
Jing Zhou, Ph.D., is Houston Endowment Professor of Management and Director for Asian Management Research and Education at the Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University. Prior to joining Rice, she was Associate Professor and Mays Fellow in the Management Department at the Mays Business School of Texas A&M University. She has received several research and teaching awards for excellence in research and teaching. She has been inducted as a Fellow of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Her research interests focus on personal and organizational factors that promote or stifle employee creativity and innovation, leadership, and cross-cultural management. Her work has been published in leading journals in management, including Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, and Personnel Psychology. She has served on the editorial boards of top journals in management, including Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Management and Organization Review, and Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. She has edited and published a book, Handbook of Organizational Creativity. She is an associate editor of Journal of Applied Psychology. She has taught leadership, managing for creativity and innovation, global leadership, negotiation, and organizational behavior at the undergraduate, MBA, Executive MBA, and Ph.D. levels. She has served as a visiting professor in top business schools in China. She has made executive presentations and consulted with many companies on issues related to her areas of expertise. She has served in leadership positions in professional associations including Chair of the Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management Track of Academy of International Business, Associate Program Chair for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Representative-at-Large of the Organizational Behavior Division of Academy of Management, and Senior Vice President for International Association of Chinese Management Research. In addition to her academic and professional activities, Dr. Zhou is active in serving the community. She has given numerous keynote speeches and workshops in community organizations. She is a trustee at the Post Oak School in Houston.
President – Chao Chen
Chao C. Chen (Ph.D., the State University of New York at Buffalo) is Professor of Management and Global Business at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. He had his undergraduate education in English language and literature in the People抯 Republic of China. He was a British Council Scholar studying economics, industrial history, and comparative goverment in the Universities of Manchester and Warwick in England for two years. He received his Master in linguistics and Ph.D. in organization behavior and HR management from the State University of New York at Buffalo. He served as the department chair of Management and Global Business at Rutgers. He was a visiting associate professor at Stern Business School at NYU for two years, and is affliated with the International Ph.D. Program at Guanghua School of Management, Peking University. His research interests include rewards and compensation, organizational justice, leadership, networking, and cross-cultural management. He has published in leading management journals such as Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Organization Science. He has recently coedited a book to be published by Cambridge University Press on Leadership and Management in China: Philosophies, Theories, and Practices. He currently serves on the editorial boards of Journal of International Business Studies, Asia Pacific Management Journal, and IACMR抯 journal of Management and Organization Review. He has taught at undergraduate, MBA, EMBA, and Ph.D. levels courses including organizational behavior, managing diversity, cross-cultural management, negotiation, and organization and culture.
Senior Vice President – Jiing-Lih (Larry) Farh
Jiing-Lih (Larry) Farh (Ph.D., Indiana U. at Bloomington, USA) is a Chair Professor of Management at the School of Business and Management at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Previously, he has also served as Head (2000-2003) and Associate Head (1993-1999) of the department. Before returning to Hong Kong, he was a tenured associate professor at Louisiana State University (1984-1993). He received a B.S. in Psychology from National Taiwan University and a MBA from National Chengchi University of Taiwan. He currently serves as a Senior Editor for Management and Organization Review, and has served on the review board of many journals including Academy of Management Journal, Human Relations, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Management, Personnel Psychology, and Leadership Quarterly. He has published over 40 articles in international journals of management such as Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, Organization Science, Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Management, Journal of Vocational Behavior, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. His current research interests are primarily focused on the study of organizational behavior in the Chinese context, such as individual cultural values of power distance and traditionality, work attitudes, guanxi, leadership, and organizational citizenship behavior.
Vice President and Program Chair – Neng Liang
Dr. Neng Liang is Professor of Management, Associate Dean (Faculty) at CEIBS, and a standing committee member of Shanghai Pudong Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. Before joining CEIBS, Dr. Liang was a tenured professor at Loyola University of Maryland, USA and professor of management at Peking University. Neng Liang received his Ph.D. from Indiana University (Bloomington), and an MBA from The Wharton School. In 2010, Prof. Liang is appointed a Senior Fellow of the Wharton School. Prof. Liang was one of the co-founders of Beijing International MBA at Peking University, and served as its first Chinese director from 1997 to 2001. Between 2002 and 2009, he served as Director of EMBA at CEIBS, the largest EMBA program in the world, with an annual intake of 720 senior executives in 2009. Prof. Liang's research has been published in the Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS), Academy of Management Learning and Education (AMLE), Management International Review (MIR), European Journal of Marketing, the Journal of Development Studies, etc. At the 2005 annual meeting of the Academy of Management (AOM), Prof. Liang and his co-authors won the Carolyn Dexter Best International Paper Award, the AMLE 2005 Best Paper Award, and Management Education and Development Division Best Paper award for their research on the implicit models in popular MBA cases in the United States and China, and on the erroneous learning from the West that has occurred in Chinese business schools. Prof. Liang is on the editorial board of Academy of Management Learning and Education, and CEIBS Business Review. Prof. Liang received Fulbright scholarship in 1984, "Member of the Year" award from Chinese Economists Society in 1998, and the Citizen's Citation from the Mayor of Baltimore, USA, in 1999. In 2001, his edited book on corporate governance won a national "Best Seller" award in the high quality book category in China. In 2007 and 2010, Prof. Liang received the CEIBS Teaching Excellence Award.
Executive Secretary/Treasurer – Xiaomeng Zhang
Xiaomeng Zhang is an Associate Professor at the Kogod School of Business at American University in Washington D.C. She earned a B.A. with emphasis in Economics and Business Administration from ZhongShan University, China and a Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior/Human Resource Management from the R.H. Smith School of Business at University of Maryland, College Park. Her research interests are in the areas of creativity, leadership and motivation, with a desire to understand the relationships between all those areas. She has published articles in multiple academic journals including the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Science, Personnel Psychology, Journal of Management Studies, Human Resource Management Review, and Creative Research Journal. Professor Zhang has taught principles of management, organizational behavior, business policies, H.R. management, and international business practice at both undergraduate and graduate level. She has won the Best International Paper Awards from Academy of Management and IACMR, and has earned several research and teaching awards at both American University and University of Maryland, including the Paine Award for outstanding academic achievement.
Representatives-at-Large, Europe – Peter Li
Peter Ping Li (Ph.D., 1991, George Washington University, USA) is Professor of Chinese Business Studies at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, and the Visiting Professor of Management at Southwest University of Political Science and Law, China. Before joining CBS, he was Professor of Management at California State University. His academic interest lies in developing theories around the interdisciplinary issues across the broad field of management theories. In particular, his primary focus is on reexamining the extant Western theories from the cultural and historical frames of China and East Asia, especially applying the unique Chinese frame of Yin-Yang Balancing as well as the unique Yin-Yang Method of case study to the development of holistic, dynamic and duality theories. His current projects include the meta-theory of the firm, transaction value theory, learning-based view of multinational enterprise (MNE), MNE as institutional entrepreneur, disruptive innovation at the bottom of the pyramid, intercultural trust, inter-firm trust, rigor-relevance duality, exploration-exploitation duality, competition-cooperation duality, character-competence duality, analysis-intuition duality, science-religion duality (neuroscience of sudden insight and Zen of sudden enlightenment), and several other projects in the indigenous research on Chinese management. He has been widely recognized as one of the leading scholars in the research on transaction value theory, learning-based view of MNE, and organizational trust in particular and indigenous research on Chinese management in general. Dr. Li has published over 30 articles in various academic journals, including Organization Studies, Journal of Operations Management, Management and Organization Review, Journal of International Management, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Journal of Business Ethics, among others. He is writing two books on disruptive innovation at the bottom of the pyramid to be published by Routledge and Edward Elgar. He has been a visiting professor at the China Center for Economic Research in Peking University as well as the School of Management in Xian Jiaotong University. He will be a visiting professor at Stanford University and INSEAD in 2012. He has been invited to present his research in the U.S., U.K., China, Japan, Singapore, and Hong Kong, and Taiwan. He has been instrumental in promoting the indigenous research on Chinese Management both in and out of China. Dr. Li is serving on the editorial boards of Journal of Management Studies, Management and Organizational Review, and Asia Pacific Journal of Management. The first is the leading management journal in Europe, and the last two are the leading journals devoted to the managerial issues in Asia. He also serves as a guest editor for two special issues of Management and Organization Review ("Building, Maintaining and Repairing Trust across Cultures" and "Indigenous Management Research in China"). He is one of the five "Outstanding Reviewers" for Management and Organizational Review. He is the founding Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Trust Research (published by Routledge).
Representatives-at-Large, China – Liangding Jia
Liangding Jia is currently a professor in management at the Department of Management, School of Business, Nanjing University. He received his Ph.D. in Management from the Nanjing University in June, 2001. Professor Jia has worked in the research areas including CEO and top management team, diversificaiton strategy, employment relationship, and township enterprise cluster. Professor Jia's academic work has been published in the Human Resource Management, Management and Organization Review, Frontiers of Business Research in China, Econimic Research (in Chinese), Management World (in Chinese), China Econimic Quarterly (in Chinese), and Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings (2009 and 2011). He has been in charge of three projects granted by the National Science Foundation of China and one Sino-Dutch joint project. Professor Jia has been scholarly visiting Hongkong University of Science and Technology (1999), Harvard University (2005), and Arizona State University (2008).
Representatives-at-Large, China – Kai Zhang
Kai Zhang (Ph.D., Beijing Normal University) is Professor of management and department chair of Organization and Human Resource Management at School of Business, Renmin University of China. He received his Ph.D. in educational psychology, and he had his undergraduate education in chemistry. He ever worked as a visiting scholar at University of Washington in USA and McMaster University in Canada. He is a deep thinking scholar. His areas of expertise include complexity and behavioral dynamics, leadership, goal theory, and interest and creative thinking. He won the best paper awards twice by the Academy of Management in 2006 and 2010 respectively. He also won the best paper award by the Administrative Science Association of Canada in 2009. Currently, he serves on the editorial board of the Frontiers of Business Research in China, and he serves as an associate editor of the Advances of Psychology (in Chinese), which is a new international journal published by Scientific Research Publishing in USA. As a growing organizational researcher with education in both natural and social sciences, he has devoted sustaining effort in integrating complexity science and Chinese ideology to do high-quality management research with theory construction. As a result, he was selected in the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University in 2006, which was set by Ministry of Education of the P. R. China. He likes to research management practice, too. He ever acted as a consultant at the Personnel Department of Beijing Organizing Committee for the 29th Olympic Games in 2003 and 2004.
Representatives-at-Large, Asia Pacific – Paul Hempel
Paul S. Hempel received his Ph.D. in Human Resource Management from Rutgers University. Since 1994 he has been at the Department of Management at the City University of Hong Kong, where he is an Associate Professor and the programme leader of the MSc in Organizational and Change Management. He has also been a visiting Associate Professor at Guanghua School of Management at Peking University, where he taught Strategic HRM courses in the International MBA program. He is currently serving on the editorial review boards of Management and Organization Review, the Journal of World Business, and the Journal of Organizational Behavior. His research has been broadly concerned with the interface between technology and human resource management, with publications in recent years focusing upon the management of knowledge and professional workers in China. Most recently, his research has been examining creativity at the individual and team levels.
Representatives-at-Large, Americas – Hui Liao
Dr. Hui Liao is an Associate Professor of Management and Organization at the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business. Before joining Maryland, she was on the faculties of the Rutgers University and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She received her Ph.D. with concentrations in Organizational Behavior and Human Resources from the University of Minnesota's Carlson School of Management, and her BA in International Economics from the Renmin University of China. Dr. Liao's current research interests include service behavior/quality, leadership, high performance work systems, workforce diversity, organizational justice and justice climate, proactivity, and creativity. She has conducted field research in various cultural settings such as the United States, Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Europe, and the UAE, involving both small business and multinational companies' worldwide operations. Her work received the Academy of Management's Scholarly Achievement Award and Dorothy Harlow Distinguished Paper Award, as well as the Southern Management Association's Best Doctoral Student Paper Award, and has appeared in the field's top journals such as the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Organization Science, and Personnel Psychology. Dr. Liao currently serves on the Executive Committee of the Academy of Management's Human Resources Division, and serves as an Associate Editor for Personnel Psychology. Dr. Liao was the winner for the 2009 Distinguished Early Career Contribution Award from the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, and the winner for the 2009 Early Career Achievement Award from the Human Resources Division of the Academy of Management.
Chair of the Local Arrangements Committee for 2014 Conference – Zhihong Yi
Zhihong Yi is Professor of Finance and Dean of the School of Business, Renmin University, P. R. China. Previously she has also served as Former Deputy Director of Academic Affairs Office and Associate Dean of the Graduate School in the same university. She was a visiting scholar at Harvard University and Michigan University in 1997 and 2004. Her main research areas are corporate finance, institutional investors and capital market, and consumption economics. She is now Vice Director of the Steering Committee of Business Administration Education affiliated to MOE and a member of the 4th National Steering Committee of MBA Education. She was granted with "Excellent Young University Teacher Award" by Fok Ying Tung Education Foundation, 2nd Prize for National Teaching Achievement, 2nd Prize for Research Excellence in Philosophy & Social Science by Beijing Municipal Government, and 2nd Prize for Education and Teaching Achievements (Higher Education) by Beijing Municipal Government.
PhD Student Representative outside China – Kaifeng Jiang
Kaifeng Jiang is a third-year doctoral candidate of School of Management and Labor Relations at Rutgers University. He received Bachelor degree and Master degree in Human Resource Management from Renmin University of China. His primary research interests are focusing on the effects of strategic human resource management on employee human capital, work attitudes, job performance, and retention, as well as team-level and organizational-level outcomes. Related interests include employee perceptions and interpretations of human resource practices and the cross-level influence of team and organizational contexts on employee outcomes. Kaifeng regularly presents his research at conferences for Academy of Management (AOM) and Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). His research has been funded by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Foundation and published in Human Resource Management Review and Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings.
PhD Student Representative outside China – Yonghong Liu
Yonghong Liu is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Management, School of Business Administration at University of Miami. She received Master's degree in 2010 and Bachelor's degree in 2008 from School of Business, Renmin University of China, where she was awarded Academic Rising Star and Outstanding Master's Thesis. As an exchange student, she studied at National Taiwan University in 2009. Her current research interests include leadership, cross-cultural management, and research methodology. Recently, she has received research grant from the Center for International Business Education and Research at University of Miami on a cross-cultural study of transformational leadership. Her research has been published in Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings and Journal of Renmin University of China. In addition, she has presented her work at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, IACMR Conference, Chinese Management Annual Meeting, and International Conference on Management, among others. Working as an intern in several consulting firms and financial institutions, she accumulated relevant work experience, which benefits her research.
PhD Student Representative in China – Rose Rui Hong
Rui Hong is a first year candidate in the Organizational Behavior/Human Resources program in Fudan University. She is generally interested in positive organizational scholarship, such as calling orientation of work, positive identities which help the employees to pursuit happiness and meaning from work. She presented her study on the 9th International Conference of the Academy of Human Resource Development (Asia Chapter). She is also enthusiastic about teaching /sharing activities that help younger students to arouse and protect their curiosity toward the outside world.
PhD Student Representative in China – Zhonghua Gao
Zhonghua Gao is a Ph.D. student in the Institute of Organization and Human Resources, School of Public Administration, Renmin University of China, and a visiting PhD student in the Department of Management and Organization, Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington, from 2010 to 2011. She received her MPhil in Management from the same institute in 2009, and bachelor's degrees in both Economics and English from Dalian University of Technology in 2007. Zhonghua's research focuses on knowledge sharing, HR roles and practices, and culture and value-based management. In her research, the interface between individuals and multiple contexts has been emphasized to develop and/or enrich theories through quantitative and qualitative methods. Her research has been awarded as "Excellent Paper" at 2009 Chinese Enterprise Management Case Study Forum, and her academic work has been published in Management World (in Chinese), and many other Chinese academic journals and book chapters. Her master degree paper has been awarded as the best Master Paper (2009) in Renmin University of China. In addition, understanding careers, an academic book translated into Chinese by her, has been published at May, 2011. Zhonghua has won the First National New Academics Prize awarded by Chinese National Education Ministry at 2010. She has also been honored as 2010 Excellent Doctorial Student, 2009 Excellent Graduated Student, 2008 "Three-good" Student by Renmin University of China, and 2006 Excellent Student Leader by Education Department in Liaoning Province.


text:
Q: integration of a function I found this explanation in a journal paper but I could not understand it. Can someone give me an explanation or possibly a proof that:
If
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}V(t)}{\mathrm{d}t}=\sqrt{2}\sum_{h=1}^{H}h\omega V_{h}\cos\left(h\omega t+\frac{\pi }{2}\right),$$
then why integration over whole period is:
$$\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}  \left( \frac{\mathrm{d} V(t)}{\mathrm{d} t}  \right)^{2}dt=\omega \sum_{h=1}^{H}h^{2}V_{h}^{2}.$$
I have problem with the power of $\omega$; my solution returns $\omega^2$, while the power of $\omega$ in answer is one. Here is my solution:
$$\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\ \left( \frac{dV}{dt} \right)^{2}dt=\frac{2\omega ^{2}}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\sum_{h=1}^{H}h^{2}V_{h}^{2}\sin^{2}(h\omega t)dt$$
and over whole period:
$$\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\sin^{2}(h\omega t)dt=\frac{1}{2}$$
then we will have
$$\omega ^{2}\sum h^{2}V_{h}^{2} $$
not
$$\omega \sum h^{2}V_{h}^{2}$$
Why?

A: Your solution is right. It should be a typo in the paper. Here is my evaluation confirming yours. Since
$$\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{dV(t)}{dt} &=&\sqrt{2}\sum_{h=1}^{H}h\omega V_{h}\cos \left( h\omega t+%
\frac{\pi }{2}\right)  \\
&=&-\sqrt{2}\sum_{h=1}^{H}h\omega V_{h}\sin h\omega t,
\end{eqnarray*}$$
and assuming $\omega$ is the angular frequency given by
$$\omega =\frac{2\pi }{T},$$
we have
$$\left( \frac{dV(t)}{dt}\right) ^{2}=2\omega ^{2}\left(
\sum_{h=1}^{H}hV_{h}\sin \left( h\omega t\right) \right) ^{2}$$
and
$$\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\left( \frac{dV(t)}{dt}\right) ^{2}dt &=&\frac{\omega
}{2\pi }\int_{0}^{2\pi /\omega }\left( \frac{dV(t)}{dt}\right) ^{2}dt \\
&=&\frac{\omega }{2\pi }\int_{0}^{2\pi /\omega }2\omega ^{2}\left(
\sum_{h=1}^{H}hV_{h}\sin \left( h\omega t\right) \right) ^{2}dt \\
&=&\frac{\omega ^{3}}{\pi }\int_{0}^{2\pi /\omega }\left(
\sum_{h=1}^{H}hV_{h}\sin \left( h\omega t\right) \right) ^{2}dt.
\end{eqnarray*}$$
The integrand $\left( \sum_{h=1}^{H}hV_{h}\sin \left( h\omega t\right)
\right) ^{2}$ is a sum of terms of two different types:
i) $h^{2}V_{h}^{2}\sin ^{2}\left( h\omega t\right) $ and
ii) $k\left( pV_{p}\sin \left( p\omega t\right) \cdot qV_{q}\sin \left(
q\omega t\right) \right) \,$, with $p\neq q$ and $p,q,k\in\mathbb{N}$.
The second type terms do not contribute to the last integral, because the $\sin nx$ ($n\in\mathbb{N}$) functions form an orthogonal system over $[0,2\pi ]$:
$$\int_{0}^{2\pi /\omega }k\left( pV_{p}\sin \left( p\omega t\right) \cdot
qV_{q}\sin \left( q\omega t\right) \right) dt=0\quad p\neq q$$
The sum of the first type ones is $\sum_{h=1}^{H}h^{2}V_{h}^{2}\sin ^{2}\left(
h\omega t\right) $. Thus
$$\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\left( \frac{dV(t)}{dt}\right) ^{2}dt &=&\frac{\omega
^{3}}{\pi }\int_{0}^{2\pi /\omega }\sum_{h=1}^{H}h^{2}V_{h}^{2}\sin
^{2}\left( h\omega t\right) dt \\
&=&\frac{\omega ^{3}}{\pi }\sum_{h=1}^{H}h^{2}V_{h}^{2}\int_{0}^{2\pi
/\omega }\sin ^{2}\left( h\omega t\right) dt \\
&=&\frac{\omega ^{3}}{\pi }\sum_{h=1}^{H}h^{2}V_{h}^{2}\cdot \frac{\pi }{%
\omega } \\
&=&\omega ^{2}\sum_{h=1}^{H}h^{2}V_{h}^{2},
\end{eqnarray*}$$
because
$$\begin{eqnarray*}
\int \sin ^{2}\left( h\omega t\right) dt &=&\frac{1}{h\omega }\left( -\frac{1%
}{2}\cos h\omega t\sin h\omega t+\frac{1}{2}h\omega t\right)  \\
\int_{0}^{2\pi /\omega }\sin ^{2}\left( h\omega t\right) dt &=&\frac{\pi }{%
\omega }.
\end{eqnarray*}$$

A: I agree, it should be $\omega^2$. The whole thing is in fact just the Pythagorean theorem: the functions $\sqrt{2} \cos(\dots)$ are orthonormal in the space $L^2([0,T])$, and the integral is the square of the $L^2$ norm of $dV/dt$, hence the sum of the squares of the coefficients: $\sum (h\omega V_h)^2$.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Netra is an Atlanta born blogger and a modern mom with a twist. When she not experimenting in the kitchen, doting on Biggie Smalls (her plump six-month-old) or meditating, you can find her curating posts for her blog, The Brown Perfection. The Brown Perfection aims to elevate its readers through mind, body, and spirit by implementing spirituality, healthier eating practices, and personal development.


text:
Home » 'Big Five' Foreign Nationals Tipped to be Major Investors at Cityscape Global 2013
'Big Five' Foreign Nationals Tipped to be Major Investors at Cityscape Global 2013
September 30, 2013 | Real Estate | Share:
DUBAI, UAE, September 30, 2013 / PRNewswire –British, Indians, Iranians, Pakistanis, and Russians top Dubai real estate investor list as final countdown begins for region's showpiece property event
Investors from Britain, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia have been tipped as the top five with the most financial potential at Cityscape Global next month, as the final countdown begins for the Middle East's leading real estate showpiece event.
British, Indian, Iranian, Pakistani and Russian investors are set to be the big spenders at Cityscape Global next month.
(Photo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20130930/642486 )
Wouter Molman, Exhibition Director of Cityscape Global, which takes place from 8-10 October 2013 at the Dubai World Trade Centre, said that investor confidence has swelled to new heights in the lead-up to the three-day event, with strong interest in particular from the 'big five' foreign investors.
"Based on the latest report by Dubai Land Department (DLD), Dubai attracted nearly US$15.9 billion in investments in 2012, making it a defining year for the real estate market," said Molman. "Investors from India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and the UK accounted for 39 per cent of that figure, investing a combined US$6.2 billion in Dubai property."
"The indications in 2013 and beyond are that this increasing confidence will continue, and at Cityscape Global this year we expect a very strong turnout of visitors from all over the world, and in particular from these countries as they look to maximise their investment potential in this lucrative market."
According to the DLD, Indian nationals invested US$2.4 billion in Dubai real estate in 2012, British – US$1.3 billion, Pakistanis – US$1.1 billion, Iranians – US$826 million, and Russians US$640 million. The total amount of all foreign investment into the Dubai property sector in 2012 stood at US$9.8 billion.
GCC national investors also returned to Dubai real estate in full force in 2012, injecting a combined US$4.8 billion into the market. Of that figure, 1,955 UAE nationals accounted for US$3.5 billion worth of investments (73 per cent of GCC national investment).
Added Molman: "With a GDP growth of 4.4 per cent in 2012, high consumer confidence, strong population growth and its safe haven reputation, Dubai has some very strong fundamentals supporting the re-emergence of the emirate's real estate sector.
"At Cityscape Global last year, we had more than 25,000 participants from 93 countries. More than 70 per cent of the visitors attending specifically for investment opportunities voiced that they were looking to spend more than US$500,000, and there will be plenty of opportunities this year as we anticipate major new announcements during the show by participating developers."
Organised by Informa Exhibitions, Cityscape Global is now in its 12th edition, featuring more than 200 international and regional exhibitors covering 25,000 sqm of exhibition space. The global real estate showcase has been on an upward growth curve since 2010, and will be the largest it has been in four years.
All the major UAE-based developers will have major rolls to play this year, including Foundation Sponsors Emaar, Nakheel, and Dubai Properties Group, and Silver Sponsors Anantara Residences and Pacific Ventures.
The three-day event also returns with Strategic Sponsor Barwa; Official Broker, TRISL Real Estate; Dubai Land Department as Supporter; Al Arabiya as Regional Broadcast Partner; and CNN as the International Broadcast Partner.
Continuing its strong international appeal, Cityscape Global will have eight country pavilions, led by the 1,500 sqm Turkish pavilion, featuring more than 30 companies including Ağaoğlu, Eroglu, Projebeyaz, Vadistanbul, and NEF.
The Middle East's largest and most influential property show is co-located with three dedicated and expert-led conferences, the Global Real Estate Summit, Future Cities, and the MENA Mortgage and Affordable Housing Congress, and will also feature the Cityscape Awards for Emerging Markets, taking place at the JW Marriot Marquis Hotel Dubai on 9 October.
Source: Informa Exhibitions Middle East
Tags: Informa Exhibitions Middle East, Pakistan
« ابھرتی ہوئی مارکیٹوں میں کنٹر میڈیا کی موجودگی میں اضافہ
سٹی اسکیپ گلوبل 2013ء میں غیر ملکی 'پانچ بڑے' سرمایہ کاروں کی شرکت متوقع »

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Bekir Ozan Has (* 18. Februar 1985 in Salihli) ist ein türkischer ehemaliger Fußballspieler.

Karriere

Verein
Has begann seine Profikarriere 2002 bei Bursaspor und spielte vorher für die Vereine Salihli Belediyespor und Yeni Salihlispor. Bei Bursaspor kam er in zwei Spielzeiten nicht zum Einsatz, weshalb er zum Drittligisten Bursa Merinosspor wechselte. Hier stieg Has sofort zum Stammspieler und etablierte sich allmählich zum Leistungsträger. Mit seinen Leistungen machte er bei Bursaspor wieder auf sich aufmerksam und wurde von diesem Verein nach zwei Jahren 2006 wieder zurückgeholt.

Nachdem Has vom Sommer 2011 bis zum Frühjahr 2015 für Gaziantepspor tätig gewesen war, wechselte er zum Zweitligisten Şanlıurfaspor.

Zur Saison 2015/16 zog Has zum Ligarivalen Kardemir Karabükspor und eine halbe Saison später zum Drittligisten Fethiyespor weiter. Seine letzte Statiin war im zweiten Halbjahr 2017 Yeşil Bursa SK.

Nationalmannschaft
Has absolvierte 2006 eine Begegnung für die türkische U-21-Nationalmannschaft.

Erfolge
 Mit Bursaspor
 Türkischer Meister: 2009/10

 Mit Gaziantepspor
 Spor-Toto-Pokalsieger: 2012

Weblinks

Einzelnachweise

Fußballspieler (Bursa Merinosspor)
Fußballspieler (Bursaspor)
Fußballspieler (Fethiyespor)
Fußballspieler (Gaziantepspor)
Fußballspieler (Kardemir Karabükspor)
Fußballspieler (Şanlıurfaspor)
Fußballspieler (Yeni Salihlispor)
Fußballspieler (Yeşil Bursa SK)
Türkischer Meister (Fußball)
Person (Salihli)
Geboren 1985
Türke
Mann

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
What Role Does Religion Play In Society?
The impact of religion on society
How religion shapes our social world
The role of religion in social cohesion
The contribution of religion to social change
The function of religion in social order
The place of religion in social stratification
The interaction of religion and social structure
The impact of religion on social institutions
The influence of religion on social values
The role of religion in socialization
Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, often involving rituals and codes of conduct.
Religion is a very important aspect of society. It helps shape our values and beliefs. It can comfort us in times of need and give us a sense of purpose.
Religion also has the ability to divided people. It can be used as a tool to control and manipulate people. It can be used to promote hatred and bigotry.
Despite the potential negatives, religion plays a vital role in society. It helps to build community, promote compassion and understanding, and give people hope.
While religion is hard to define, one standard model of religion, proposed by Smith, acknowledges that there are different ways in which people can believe. He argues that there are four elements which are essential in order for something to be classified as a religion. It must have a belief in Supernatural Beings, Rituals, an Ethic, and a Community.
This functional approach sees religion as serving four main functions in society: providing guidelines about right and wrong behaviour (the social control function), explaining the purpose of life and the universe (the explanatory function), bringing people together to form a community (the uniting function), and offering comfort in times of distress (the coping function). It is evident that religion does indeed play an important role in shaping our social world.
Religion can play an important role in social cohesion by providing a sense of community and shared values. It can also act as a marker of identity, helping to define who we are and where we belong.
However, religion can also be a source of division, with different groups holding conflicting beliefs. This can lead to tension and conflict, both within societies and between different religious groups.
While often maligned, religion has been a force for social change throughout history. From the abolition of slavery to the civil rights movement, religious leaders and congregations have been at the forefront of social reform.
In recent years, religious organizations have been working to combat poverty, homelessness, and hunger. They have also played a vital role in providing healthcare and education to underserved communities.
In many parts of the world, religion is still a powerful force for social change. In countries like India and Pakistan, religious leaders are working to promote peace and harmony between different faiths. In Africa, churches are working to combat HIV/AIDS and other diseases.
Despite the many challenges facing the world today, religious leaders continue to play a vital role in promoting social change.
Religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, usually involving the worship of a deity or deities. Religion is often accompanied by rituals, customs, and stories that are intended to teach moral values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life or to explain the origin of life or the universe.
Religion plays a significant role in society by providing moral guidance, supporting social cohesion, and promoting peace and stability. In addition, religion can serve as a source of personal comfort and support during times of distress.
From a sociological perspective, religion can be seen as playing a significant role in social stratification. In general, religious groups tend to be relatively homogeneous with respect to social status. That is, members of the same religious group tend to occupy similar positions in the social hierarchy. This can be explained, in part, by the fact that people tend to marry within their religious group. As a result, religion often serves as a marker of social status.
religions also tend to have high levels of income and education. This is likely due to the fact that religious organizations often have the financial resources to provide members with educational opportunities and support. In addition, religious organizations often promote values that emphasize the importance of education and hard work. As a result, members of religious groups are more likely than those who are notreligious to obtain higher levels of education and income.
While every religion is unique, there are some commonalities that all religions share. One of the most important functions of religion is its role in social structure. Religion helps to define and solidify the roles that people play in society. It provides a set of beliefs and values that helps to bring order and stability to a culture.
Religion also plays an important role in preserving traditions and passing them on to future generations. Religion is often seen as a source of comfort and hope in times of trouble or crisis. It can also be a source of inspiration for art, music, and literature.
While religion can have a positive impact on society, it can also be a source of conflict. Different religious groups often have different beliefs about what is right or wrong, which can lead to tension and even violence.
There is no doubt that religion plays a significant role in society. It shapes our values and beliefs, and influences the way we live our lives. Many of the world's major social institutions, such as family, education, government, and law, are based on religious principles.
Religion can also have a positive impact on society. It can promote morality and ethical values, inspire people to work for the common good, and provide support in times of difficulties. It can also help people to develop a sense of purpose and meaning in their lives.
However, religion can also have a negative impact on society. It can be used to justify violence and hate, promote discrimination and intolerance, and inhibit progress and social change. It can also lead people to withdraw from the world around them and become isolated from others.
It is impossible to overestimate the influence of religion on social values. All over the world, religious teachings shape the lives of billions of people and guide their behaviour. In some cases, religious values may conflict with the values that people live by in their wider community; for example, when religious groups teach that it is wrong to use contraception. In other cases, religious values may reinforce positive social behaviours; for example, by teaching that it is important to be kind and generous.
There are many different ways in which religion can influence social values. One of the most important is through the stories and teachings that are at the heart of every religion. These stories often emphasize the importance of certain values, such as compassion, honesty or respect for others. They also provide examples of how these values can be put into practice in everyday life. Another way in which religion can influence social values is through the way it organizes people into groups. When people belong to a religious group, they often share many of the same values and beliefs. This can make it easier for them to work together to promote these values in society.
The influence of religion on social values is complex and varied. It can have both positive and negative effects depending on the specific situation. However, there is no doubt that religion plays a significant role in shaping the societies we live in today.
Religion is one of the most potent forces in society, capable of shaping people's beliefs, values, and behaviors. It is no surprise, then, that religion plays a significant role in socialization—the process by which people learn to think, feel, and behave in ways that are appropriate for their culture.
From the moment we are born, we are enculturated into our society's religious traditions. Our parents and other family members teach us the basic tenets of their faith, and we learn to participate in religious rituals and practices. As we grow older, we may encounter other religious traditions and decide to adopt them as our own. Or we may choose to reject religion altogether. Regardless of our personal beliefs, religion is an integral part of our social lives.


The 3-story facility provides open office areas for over 300 modular work stations, each incorporating glass panels that allow the flow of natural light to the innermost portions of the Technology Center. 27 conference rooms, four unique living rooms and a café encourage employees to share ideas in a variety of casual setting. Recreational areas that include ping pong, pool tables and a putting green were designed to promote employee retention.


Hudson – William "Bill" Peter Marrama Jr., 55, of Hudson, passed away at his residence Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2015, with his loving family at his side. He was the beloved husband of 24 years to Jane (Staniunas) Marrama.
Bill was born and raised in Hudson, son of Mary E. (Garcia) and the late William P. Marrama Sr. He was a graduate of Hudson High School, class of 1978, and a graduate of Worcester State College. Bill was a financial analyst for General Dynamics for over 30 years.
Bill had many interests throughout his life, including biking, cookouts, cruises and vacationing with his wife, Jane, in Falmouth. He loved watching Johnny Carson, Frank Sinatra, Buddy Hackett and big band music. He also enjoyed politics, especially Ronald Reagan. Bill's real passion in life was the weather, and he had a weather station is his home.
Along with his mother and wife, Bill is survived by his mother-in-law, Pat Staniunas, and his sister-in-law, Christine Fellrath and her husband Richard.
Family and friends may attend calling hours Tuesday, Dec. 29, from 5-8 p.m., at the Tighe – Hamilton Funeral Home, 50 Central St., Hudson (www.tighehamilton.com). A service will be celebrated Wednesday, Dec. 30, at 10 a.m., in the chapel next to the funeral home. Burial service will be private and held at the convenience of the family.
In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to Beacon Hospice, 36 William St., Leominster, MA 01453.


text:
To the victor belongs the spoils
Or why America's liberals love the Kosovo war
By Mark Rothschild
The following comment was sent by Mark Rothschild of Los Angeles.
The World Socialist Web Site encourages serious contributions from readers, academics, historians and others on the historical and political questions raised by the Balkan war.
Many Americans have had a hard time coming to grips with the geopolitical reality of Kosovo. One of the most unusual things about this war is that most of the support for the Clinton Administration's bombing policy comes from the left side of the political spectrum. It is precisely among liberals that the policy of intervention receives its most ardent support.
This is a bit surprising. Liberals are often assumed to be non-interventionist and inclined towards peaceful, if not pacifistic foreign policies.
How can the existence of the "pro-war left" be explained?
First of all I would like to observe the parallels between the attitude of the America's cold war Liberals and today's liberals.
Almost a half century ago the United States began its slow but inexorable decent into the morass of Vietnam. Although everyone remembers that it was the liberal left that finally persuaded the American public to abandon the Vietnam adventure, it must be remembered that liberals were actually the ideological authors of America's involvement in Vietnam. (As uncomfortable as the idea may be, we must remember that Lyndon Johnson was the quintessential liberal.)
What was the first excuse used to justify US involvement in Vietnam?
According to former US Secretary of Defense in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, Robert S. McNamara, the beginning of US involvement must be dated from the decision to support the re-occupation of the formerly French colony of Indochina (i.e. Vietnam) by French troops in 1948. According to McNamara, the decision was an unambiguous quid pro quo. The French terms were clear: the US must support their re-occupation of Vietnam or else the French would refuse to join the new European Alliance called NATO. The US agreed to their terms. In retrospect (after 50 thousand American deaths) we can see the folly of that decision.
In the post-WWII world NATO that was our prize, a Pax Americana stretched out over Western Europe signifying our victory over the defeated Europeans (Germany and Italy).
Even those tense days in October 1962 which we call the Cuban Missile Crisis (a time when the world really did come within a hair's breadth of global thermonuclear war) had their origin in a NATO action: the positioning of US (Jupiter medium range) missiles in Turkey in April 1962.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was only brought to an end after Robert Kennedy promised Soviet Premier Khrushchev (through his Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin) that the US would remove the offending Jupiter missiles from Turkey if Khrushchev would do the same in Cuba. It was a done deal and in March 1963 (after a suitable face saving delay) the Turkish missiles were disassembled.
So NATO was there from the beginning—the midwife to every monstrous birth called forth by the Cold War. Now, even after the Cold War struggle has waned, NATO lives on.
NATO was once our means of executing cold war foreign policy. Now NATO has become a policy in and of itself. The means has become the end.
Then, as now, American Liberals have taken the lead in rationalizing US involvement and intervention. The "humanitarian bombing" of Bill Clinton and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is analogous to the rationalization of US involvement in Vietnam. In Vietnam the US could not "cut and run" because our "credibility with our European Allies" was at stake. Now we must continue bombing Serbia or "NATO will lose credibility"—because the "Alliance itself is at stake".
The common denominator of acquiescence to these policies is the propensity of American Liberals (and not just liberals) to accept almost any policy of the US Establishment which is viewed as necessary to the continued dominance of the United States in Europe.
Almost any hypocrisy and misdeed is acceptable if it can be justified by pleading that the US might otherwise lose its grip on Europe. Put another way: anything is justified if it prevents another power from dominating Europe. While these two statements seem different, they are, in terms of Realpolitik, the same thing.
If liberals to not want to be tarred with the brush of hypocrisy then they should not wave their fingers at authoritarian regimes while dropping bombs on civilians in Serbia.
But enough of Liberal bashing (too easy, and not very much fun anyway). Let's look for a minute at the war itself.
It is important to be frank about ultimate US objectives. The idea that this war started because Yugoslavia refused to sign a document at a conference (held in Rambouillet France) that would protect its Albanian Muslim minority is a lie that cannot be burnished by pointing out the defects of the Milosevic regime.
Milosevic may be Hitler re-incarnate, and his regime may be hell on earth, but no moral failings on the part of Yugoslavia or its leaders can change a basic truth: this war was started by the United States in order to occupy Kosovo militarily.
This conclusion is inescapable if one looks at the facts. Look at the basic demands of the United States against Yugoslavia. There is one demand that persists while others come and go. That demand is the military occupation of Kosovo.
If you read the approximately 70 pages of the Rambouillet document you will find that the word "refugee" or "refugees" occurs only four times in the entire document, with only one paragraph devoted to the subject. This paragraph (excerpted below) is the only shred of evidence in the Rambouillet document of NATO's vaunted concern for the refugees.
Chapter 4b
Humanitarian Assistance, Reconstruction and Economic Development
3. The international community will provide immediate and Unconditional humanitarian assistance, focusing primarily on refugees and internally displaced persons returning to their former homes. The Parties welcome and endorse the UNHCR's lead role in co-ordination of this effort, and endorse its intention, in close co-operation with the Implementation Mission, to plan an early, peaceful, orderly and phased return of refugees and displaced persons in conditions of safety and dignity.
Let's do a bit of lexical analysis on the Rambouillet document. How often does the word "military" occur? It occurs 49 times. The word "authority" occurs 78 times.
If you read the Rambouillet document you will see that it is about military authority and occupation— not about refugee repatriation. (On the World Wide Web you can read the entire document at: www.balkanaction.org/pubs/kia299.html.)
The fact that the refugees figure so un-prominently in the original document should surprise no one since 700,000 of the 800,000 people who are currently refugees from Kosovo left their homes only after NATO began to bomb Kosovo on March 25th.
According to a statement by the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR), (excerpted below), before the bombing began there were only approximately 90,000 Kosovo refugees in neighboring countries, not 800,000, the current number.
Briefing by Mrs Sadako Ogata, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, to the Security Council New York, 5 May 1999
Up to 23 March, when UNHCR had to reluctantly leave the province following a decision of the United Nations Security Coordinator, it was providing assistance to 400,000 people displaced or otherwise affected by fighting inside the province, and to 90,000 refugees and displaced people outside Kosovo.
Let's not shine up Milosevic in order to make NATO look bad. That's not necessary, nor would it be truthful. Milosevic is not a dictator (he is a democratically elected ruler of a parliamentary system). He is however an authoritarian leader with a questionable human rights record; there can be no doubt about this. Concerning discrimination in Kosovo, there can be little doubt that the social position of Kosovo Albanians was not and is not enviable. Discrimination was widespread and quite unpalatable to the Albanians.
However, the idea that the Kosovo Albanians are being discriminated against in a unique way that required intervention on humanitarian grounds is absurd, and cannot be supported by evidence.
To prove this let's compare the situation of Kurds in NATO member Turkey with that of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. We will do this not to draw any invidious comparisons that show Serbia to be a democratic paradise, but rather to illustrate the point that the humanitarian excuse for this war is just that - an excuse.
NATO member Turkey's discrimination against her Kurdish linguistic/ethnic group is systematic:
(1) Language: Turkey virtually prohibits the publishing of newspapers and books in the Kurdish language. Until a few years ago it was a crime to speak Kurdish in public in Turkey.
(2) Ethnicity: It was and still is the official policy of Turkey that Kurds as a people or unique ethnicity do not even exist! Although they were officially called "mountain Turks", the Kurdish language is not related (even remotely) to Turkish.
(3) Belligerent status: The leader of the Kurdish rebellion, Abdullah Ocalan has been recently captured but is being tried as a common criminal by the Turks and will almost certainly be executed for terrorism when convicted.
How does the treatment by Serbs of Albanians in Kosovo compare?
(1) Language: Albanians in Kosovo study at state supported Albanian Language universities and Secondary schools. The Albanian Language has equal legal status to the Serbian language in Kosovo. Newspapers and books in Albanian are published freely.
(2) Ethnicity: Albanians are officially recognized as one (of the many) ethnic and religious groups in Kosovo.
(3) Belligerent status: The Serbian authorities have consented to parley with the ethnic Albanian Kosovo resistance (KLA), and accept in principle that an amnesty and reconciliation are the solution to the conflict.
Let no one think that the idea of this comparison is to make the point that the Serbs are angels and that anyone would be happy to be a Kosovo Albanian. I don't believe this and I do not ask you to believe this either. The point is only that if the decision to bomb Serbia and Kosovo had been decided on humanitarian grounds then it would have been NATO member Turkey, not Yugoslavia, on whom the bombs would now be falling.
So if you hold the view that the United States should be bombing Serbia please justify your policy with something other that the same tired "humanitarian" slop that the State Department has been of late feeding to the American People.
But if you are willing to abandon the fig leaf of "humanitarian war" and go naked out into the cold cruel world of Realpolitik then join me for a few minutes as I seek to explain what this very "non-humanitarian" war is really about.
Since this war is ostensibly being brought to you by NATO, lets look first at NATO itself. Just what is NATO and how does it form its policies?
Well, everyone seems to agree that NATO is an alliance whose policies are arrived at by open and democratic deliberation by its member countries.
That's right isn't it? No, In fact it's wrong. NATO's policymaking body, the North Atlantic Council (NAC) meets only in secret. During these secret sessions Member countries do not vote on policy—in fact there is no mechanism for voting at all in the North Atlantic Council. In wording which one could imagine was lifted from the pages of Stalin's "Visitors Guide to Decision Making at the Kremlin", we read in the pages of the Official NATO Handbook,
When decisions have to be made, action is agreed upon on the basis of unanimity and common accord. There is no voting or decision by majority.
The forgoing is quite remarkable. Apparently NATO makes all its policy decisions unanimously.
The next sentence in the same paragraph is even more remarkable. Continuing...
Each nation represented at the Council table or on any of its subordinate committees retains complete sovereignty and responsibility for its own decisions.
So even after "unanimous" decisions have been reached the Member countries are not bound to observe them!
Reading this one would think that NATO would be unable to formulate and implement a coherent military policy such as Operation Allied Force (what NATO calls the war against Yugoslavia), but this is (obviously) not the case.
Clearly, there is more to how NATO operates than that which is presented in the official NATO handbook. The opaqueness of NATO is due to the fact that NATO is essentially an American invention (run by and for Americans), not an alliance of equals.
In fact when NATO was first founded in April of 1949 the European members had to sign on the dotted line that they promise not to leave the alliance for twenty-one years! This opting-out clause is embodied in Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 (the legal basis for NATO). Article 13 reads,
After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America...
It is revealing that an opting-out provision is provided for all member countries except the United States! The explanation for this is that the treaty was conceived to be so advantageous for the United States that it did not even occur to anyone at the time that the US would ever want out.
The Friendly Hegemon
Although NATO is dominated by the United States, this pleases the European NATO members because it means that European stability is assured and no European country will strive to establish a dominant (hegemonic) military position.
For the small European countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands US dominance is a godsend because it frees them from the potential specter of German military hegemony. For Germany and France, both potential European hegemons, NATO frees them from the necessity of an expensive and destabilizing military rivalry. For Great Britain, NATO keeps the US engaged in Europe as a powerful English speaking ally and traditional protector of Anglophile interests and as a counter-balance to Continental (French or German) influence.
So while US-led NATO defends Europe from external aggression (i.e. Russia), more importantly it defends Europe from itself. It is the internal stabilizing function of NATO, more than its external defensive function, which has become the essence of NATO. This is especially true now since the Warsaw Pact has ceased to exist and Russia's armed forces have deteriorated.
It is the stabilizing influence of the United States that allows the United States to demand and get the quiet acquiescence to its de facto hegemony in Europe. The US in the role of the indispensable and "friendly hegemon" was able to run NATO with practically a free hand during the Cold War. Consensus in NATO during the Cold War meant, in practice, deferring to US dominance.
But it is precisely NATO's ability to provide stability for Europe that has been brought into question by both its recklessness and trepidation in Kosovo.
But before going into that, let's look one last time at the important Rambouillet document itself.
The following excerpts which refer to NATO's Chief of Implementation Mission in Kosovo (CIM), are suggestive of the scope of intrusion into Yugoslavia's sovereignty proposed by the Rambouillet document and illustrate the point that Yugoslav refusal to sign was a certainty in the minds of the US authorities who orchestrated the conference. The following is excerpted from the text of the US document:
Article IX: Final Authority to Interpret
The CIM is the final authority regarding interpretation of this Chapter and his determinations are binding on all Parties and persons.
3. The CIM shall serve as the Chair of the Joint Commission.
... the Chair's decision shall be final.
The CIM may recommend to the appropriate authorities the removal and appointment of officials and the curtailment of operations of existing institutions in Kosovo if he deems it necessary for the effective implementation of this Agreement.
Article V: Authority to Interpret
The CIM shall be the final authority in theater regarding interpretation of the civilian aspects of this Agreement, and the Parties agree to abide by his determinations as binding on all Parties and persons.
NATO's Chief of Implementation Mission (CIM) then becomes a virtual dictator in Kosovo. But how is his power enforced on the ground? Let's read on in the Rambouillet document...
The Parties invite NATO to constitute and lead a military force to help ensure compliance with the provisions of this Chapter.
b. The Parties agree that NATO will establish and deploy a force (hereinafter KFOR) which may be composed of ground, air, and maritime units from NATO and non-NATO nations, operating under the authority and subject to the direction and the political control of the North Atlantic Council (NAC) through the NATO chain of command.
What is important in the forgoing paragraph is the explicit language that stipulates that the North Atlantic Council is to administer Kosovo. The Yugoslav government or any other body such as the United Nations is thereby excluded and Kosovo is made a protectorate of NATO.
6. a. NATO shall be immune from all legal process, whether civil, administrative, or criminal.
b. NATO personnel, under all circumstances and at all times, shall be immune from the Parties, jurisdiction in respect of any civil, administrative, criminal, or disciplinary offenses which may be committed by them in the FRY.
7. NATO personnel shall be immune from any form of arrest, investigation, or detention by the authorities in the FRY.
The previous three paragraphs establish so-called "extra-territoriality" in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). Typically such extra-territoriality is only exercised in semi-independent countries or semi-colonies by a colonial power.
The next paragraph permits NATO troops access to all points within the FRY.
8. NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters.
It should be clear that the United States knew that such intrusions into the sovereignty of Yugoslavia as envisaged by the Rambouillet document would never be accepted by the Yugoslav negotiators.
So far we've made the points that NATO's motivation was not based on humanitarian issues and the Rambouillet peace conference was never intended to succeed but was rather a provocation conceived to act as an excuse for NATO's decision to bomb Yugoslavia.
But now having made these serious accusations, it remains for me to explain why it would be in the US interest to start this war.
Why the US Wanted War
To explain the motivation among US policy makers for this war we have first to understand the current position of US power in Europe. Let's go back for a moment to the discussion of why the various European countries willingly permit the US to exercise hegemony in Europe through NATO: the concept of the "friendly hegemon".
As was explained above, the US maintained the balance of power in Europe during the Cold War by protecting Europe from the East (Russia) and by ensuring that no European power ever become dominant. This stabilizing function was universally appreciated by the European members of NATO during the Cold War, but when the Cold War ended, the preconditions that gave value to NATO began to come under scrutiny.
It is in the end of the Cold War that the seeds of the present conflict lie. With the Cold War over, the Warsaw Pact disbanded, and Russia's military shrinking, the raison d'être for NATO has come into question by European public opinion.
Europeans generally accept the concept of collective security as an antidote to hegemonism, but they have at the same time questioned whether the United States is still necessary for this function or whether the US could be replaced by an all-European military force. Such a force under the direct political control of the European Union (EU) already exists. It is (oddly) named the Western European Union (WEU). The WEU is also sometimes called the Euro-corps or in Euro-bureaucratic terms the "European Security and Defense Identity" (ESDI).
This debate in the EU over the ESDI is often framed as a debate over the relative merits of NATO vs. the WEU. However the subtext of this debate is really not about NATO's role in Europe—it is really about the role of the United States in Europe. But since this is such a delicate subject, the debate is framed by the use of the surrogate contest of NATO vs. WEU.
As NATO approached its 50th anniversary celebration in April, its US leadership knew that a crisis was approaching. If the 50th anniversary was not to turn into a retirement party, then something had to happen to inject new life, new in-expendability, into NATO. That something was the Yugoslav war.
The Yugoslav war was contrived to coincide with NATO's 50th anniversary held in Washington this past April.
The United States knows that unless NATO is viewed by European public opinion as essential for security in Europe, its role will be reduced and it eventually will be submerged by the military arm of the European Union, the WEU.
U.S. Ambassador Alexander Vershbow, Permanent Representative to NATO's North Atlantic Council, in an interview just before the April NATO anniversary celebration commenced, was quite frank about the need for NATO to head off the establishment of "separate European capabilities and structures".
In the following "Q" and "A " excerpted below Ambassador Vershbow refers to the European Security and Defense Identity" (ESDI) as the generic name for the role of the WEU armed force.
Q: How do you see the U.S. role in NATO evolving in terms of U.S. participation in and commitment to the Alliance?
Vershbow: Our chief concern is that in proceeding with institutional developments on ESDI, we not lose what has already been achieved in building ESDI within NATO. We expect that the Washington Summit will mark the completion of arrangements on ESDI agreed at the 1996 Berlin NAC (North Atlantic Council) Ministerial—including mechanisms for sharing NATO assets with the WEU (Western European Union). This arrangement preserves NATO as the framework for collective defense and avoids the waste and political divisiveness that could come from efforts to establish separate European capabilities and structures.
And what results are expected from NATO's Washington celebration?
Q: Are there tangible outcomes that you would like to see as a result of NATO's 50th anniversary commemoration in Washington in April?
Vershbow: There are dozens. For starters, we will celebrate the inclusion of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland in NATO—and this is an important point because it shows that Stalin's dividing line in Europe is being erased forever. NATO will also reaffirm its commitment to further enlargement and take practical steps to help candidate countries in the form of the Membership Action Plan I mentioned earlier. We will take steps to make PfP a more operational instrument—a standing coalition of democratic states acting together in response to crises.
NATO will also be providing its own answer to your first question—"What is the role of NATO in the 21st century? " It is important for our publics and for other countries to get a clear message on what NATO is all about. Helping answer this question will be an update of NATO's Strategic Concept. The last version was written in 1991, as the Cold War was still coming to a close. The new version will speak directly about NATO's future — including "non-Article 5" crisis response operations, and a greater emphasis on partnership and cooperation, alongside its continuing commitment to the defense of NATO members. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is clear from his response that what is to be accomplished by the anniversary is the formation of public opinion (" for our publics and for other countries...") and that what is new in NATO is NATO's new Strategic Concept. (Think of NATO's Strategic Concept as something like its mission statement.) And what is indeed new about NATO's new Strategic Concept is "non-Article 5" military operations. This is getting a little arcane but it is essential for understanding what the new improved NATO is all about. So for the sake of clarity we will excerpt Article 5 and its succeeding text from the North Atlantic Treaty below...
The North Atlantic Treaty
Washington D.C.—4 April 1949
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense.... including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
It is clear from reading these excerpts that Article 5 is simply the article that limits NATO's reach and mission to defense of Western Europe, the Mediterranean Sea, and North America. Without the Article 5 restrictions, NATO would have no limits at all to its exercise of military power. In fact it would not even be limited to defensive use of that power.
The WEU is currently still embryonic (but that is to soon change— see below). So for now NATO is the only "collective defense game" in town. With nothing to substitute for NATO the Europeans had to accede to US pressure and in April they ratified NATO's new Strategic Concept, thereby allowing NATO to become an unveiled instrument for the projection of U.S. power into Eastern Europe (and even beyond into the oil-rich Caucasus mountains region of the former Soviet Union).
A struggle is now ensuing. On the one hand is the United States regaled with NATO and NATO's new Strategic Concept. On the other hand is Europe mostly disarmed or poorly armed with only the notion of the WEU-armed force. It is not a battle between these two forces, but rather over which armed force will become the arbiter of European stability.
But most importantly, and this is key, it is not really a contest between NATO and the WEU; it is a contest between the United States and its allies: the United Kingdom and some of the smaller Continental States on the one hand, and the Franco-German EU bureaucracy on the other hand.
In simple terms it is the Anglo-Saxons vs. the "Continentals" (France, Germany, and their allies) struggling over political control of Western Europe.
This struggle is the inner meaning of NATO's seemingly irrational use of military power against Yugoslavia. NATO's aggression against Serbia is simply an exercise to prove the potency of NATO's new Strategic Concept (the so-called "out of area" or "non-Article 5" use of force). This in turn will prove that NATO under U.S. leadership (or domination depending on your point of view) is still capable of exercising its pax-NATO in Europe.
Why don't the Continentals just opt out of NATO right now? There is one big reason.
Individual countries in Europe, while they do have de facto independent military establishments, are nevertheless very dependent on NATO for many aspects of their military capabilities. Fifty years of NATO's dependence on the US for airlift, satellite surveillance, and other essential functions have left the European military establishments atrophied of essential parts. Furthermore, taken individually European military establishments are quite small and virtually incapable of acting independently if faced with a large (i.e. Russian) threat.
What this means is that Franco-German policy cannot simply discard NATO without seamlessly replacing it with another supra-national (preferably Europe-wide) military alliance such as the EU controlled WEU.
Therefore the process of the EU bureaucracy assuming control over its own military (and by extension, foreign policy) requires that the Continentals incrementally inch out of NATO into the EU-controlled WEU armed force.
That "inching out" is the meaning of the behind-the-scenes political bickering between the NATO "Allies" over the Kosovo war.
Europeans, while outwardly in solidarity with the United States in NATO, are hard at work behind the scenes both trying to find a way of boxing in the US to an armistice with Serbia and in trying to enhance the bureaucratic structures of the WEU so they can eventually dispense with NATO.
The European Union (EU) Summit in Cologne being held now (1-4 June) will be an important venue for observing this political infighting among the "Allies" in the EU.
This summit is the meeting of the EU Council of ministers (actually, the foreign ministers of each of the EU member states).
Each member state serves as Council President for six months in rotation. Germany is now president of the EU Council (Jan - June 99) and also currently (coincidentally) of the G-8 and WEU.
Pay particular attention to the communiqués issued by the EU Council after the summit— especially any language that seems inconsistent with NATO positions. The extent of inconsistency will be an indicator of how bold the "Continentals" have become in defying the Anglo-Saxons.
Since the EU parliamentary elections are June 12 and 13, movement toward peace if it is happening behind the scenes, should become visible by then.
If peace is indeed in the offing it probably would be announced after the G-8 foreign minister's summit (also to be held in Cologne) on the 19th and 20th of June. (The G-8 includes all the big rich countries in European and North America as well as Russia and Japan.)
Germany is strongly in favor of an enhanced role for the WEU and has only until the end of June to see that this occurs during its EU presidency rotation. Germany will not want to show weakness at this time, and this, more than a desire to stop the carnage in Serbia and Kosovo, will motivate Germany to go no-holds barred at the EU and G-8 summits for a bombing halt or armistice.
The stakes are getting higher as we approach the June 19th G-8 summit. Clinton cannot give in to public opinion and negotiate an end to the bombing. If he forgoes the military option in favor of diplomacy he loses the whole game, for remember that the game here is not really about Kosovo— it is about NATO. It is about proving to European public opinion that a US-led NATO is indispensable to the security of Europe. But in order to do this he must demonstrate that the standoff with Yugoslavia will be solved by military and not diplomatic means. As unpalatable as it may be to Americans to believe, it is US policy to avoid at all costs a diplomatic solution. A military solution (even a solution disadvantageous to the US!) is preferred to any diplomatic solution because a diplomatic solution would degrade the prestige of NATO.
But the vaunted facade of unanimity of NATO is cracking. After the last G-8 meeting (held in Bonn in May) Germany has openly challenged US leadership. With the assistance of Italy, Germany is now proposing a cease-fire in unambiguous contradistinction to the unconditional surrender that the US is demanding of Yugoslavia. The US war machine is running out of options as Continental European diplomacy turns against it.
Last Gasp—The Chinese Embassy
If you've read this far I hope that I do not need to convince you of the absurdity of the idea that US military planners misplaced the Chinese Embassy and bombed it by mistake. Whether the Embassy was providing satellite telemetry to the Yugoslav military (as rumored) is irrelevant in assessing the political meaning of the event.
The bombing (May 7th) of the Chinese Embassy is viewed by this writer as a desperate attempt by the US to move the ball from the diplomatic court (where the Bonn G-8 meeting in May placed it) back into the military court where the US could continue to play out its NATO-centered strategy of in expendability.
By relying on force alone, the United States is becoming increasingly diplomatically irrelevant to the Continental countries; and it is even beginning to appear not as a factor of stability but rather as a factor of instability. The Chinese Embassy gambit was a failure for it only accelerated the deterioration of European public support for the war.
The sole exception to this deterioration is of course the United Kingdom, which sees its chances of ultimately keeping the US in Europe fading as each day passes, hence its increasingly frantic tone and increasing diplomatic distance from the Continental powers.
NATO can only win this war by vindicating itself with military power. It must demonstrate its Pax-NATO by the defeat and occupation of Yugoslavia: the "Final Solution" to the problem of Yugoslav defiance of NATO.
If NATO does not attain the Final Solution then the near future will see NATO more and more relegated to a fig leaf for the eventual disengagement of the United States from Europe.
In NATO's place will emerge a WEU-armed force— at first de facto subject to NATO—but in time superseding NATO and replacing virtually all of NATO's functions. It is obvious that the Continentals will dominate the WEU as the Anglo-Saxons have dominated NATO.
With this occurrence the United States hegemony in Europe will have come to an end. The last chapter of WWII—its epilogue—will have been written and a new era will open up before us.
Good, bad, or inevitable? These are questions for another time and place. Perhaps these questions are unanswerable. History offers many ambiguous lessons, but at least one lesson is entirely unambiguous: To the victor belong the spoils.
Copyright 1999 Mark Rothschild
Letters to the WSWS
Frontline nurse at UK's Poole Hospital Trust speaks out about unsafe working conditions amid surge of COVID-19
EU-Turkey tensions mount over Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean
Frontline nurse at UK's Royal Bournemouth Hospital speaks out as COVID-19 cases surge
A Canadian firefighter speaks out on the opioid crisis
Letter from a student in China on the COVID-19 pandemic


text:
Home » Gaming » Halo Games In Order
Halo Games In Order
Halo has been an iconic game series since 2001. Here are all Halo games in order of release, including spinoffs and remakes.
By Justin Fernandez January 15, 2022 2 days ago
With a legacy that stretches as far back as 2001, Halo has played a pivotal role in defining modern first-person shooters and establishing the Xbox brand.
However, due to the extensive number of games in the series, it can be hard to keep track of where each entry falls in the Halo timeline.
In this list, we'll explore all of the Halo games in order of release, including the original trilogy, reclaimer saga, spin-offs, and remakes/compilations released throughout the years.
Last but not least, we'll be updating this list following any new Halo game announcements from Microsoft in the future, so make sure to check back!
Related:Best Upcoming FPS Games 2022 (And Beyond)Best Upcoming Xbox One Games 2022 (And Beyond)Best Upcoming Xbox Series X Games 2022 (And Beyond)
Halo: Combat Evolved
Platforms: Xbox, Xbox 360, Windows, Mac
The franchise kicks off with Halo: Combat Evolved, a first-person shooter developed by Bungie prior to being acquired by Microsoft.
Initially, the title was thought to be a real-time strategy game that later morphed into a third-person shooter and ultimately became the first-person shooter we know today.
Combat Evolved's story is set during the 26th century and sees players taking on the role of Master Chief, a cybernetically-enhanced supersoldier accompanied by an AI named Cortana.
In it, players set off on an adventure to uncover the secrets behind the titular Halo, a ring-shaped artificial world, while battling with an alien species known as the Covenant.
Following its release, Halo: Combat Evolved was met with glowing reviews and eventually received universal acclaim for the number of innovations it brought to the shooter genre.
Platforms: Xbox, Windows
Three years later, Bungie and Microsoft would release the sequel to Combat Evolved for PC and the original Xbox with forwards-compatibility on Xbox 360.
Halo 2 features an updated graphics engine as well as a host of new gameplay elements, including the ability to dual-wield weapons.
It also added new weapons, enemies, vehicles, and online multiplayer via Microsoft's Xbox Live service.
The story centers on Master Chief and an extra-terrestrial called the Arbiter as they become entangled in an ongoing conflict between the UNSC, Covenant, and Flood.
Much like its predecessor, Halo 2 was met with universal acclaim, particularly for its audiovisual presentation, and went on to win multiple awards including "Console Game of the Year."
Platforms: Xbox 360, Xbox One, Xbox Series X/S, Windows
Halo 3 concludes Bungie's original trilogy as well as the story arc that began with Halo: Combat Evolved.
Set after the events of Halo 2, the story sees Master Chief attempting to stop the Covenant from activating the Halo rings amidst an ongoing civil war between Covenant Elites and Brutes.
The franchise's core gameplay was refined and expanded to include new deployable equipment and vehicles, as well as the ability to use support weapons during combat.
Additionally, Halo 3 introduced in-game tools for saving gameplay films, file sharing, and custom map-making via the Forge map editor.
Similar to both its predecessors, Halo 3 received critical acclaim upon release and won several awards for "Game of the Year" and "Best Multiplayer Game."
Reclaimer Saga
Work on Halo 4 began in 2009 by 343 Industries, an at the time newly-created studio within Microsoft that was put in charge of developing all Halo releases following Bungie's departure from the company.
During the development process, 343 began exploring the Forerunner fiction within the Halo universe and decided to incorporate it into the game's new setting, enemies, and main antagonist.
The story focuses on Master Chief and Cortana's relationship as they explore an ancient civilization's planet and encounter a new Covenant faction, alien military alliance, and mechanical warriors known as the Prometheans.
Existing characters and art assets received complete visual overhauls that sought to recreate them from the ground up while motion capture was utilized to create the animations for Halo 4's cutscenes.
Despite the significant number of changes and unique selection of weapons, enemies, and game modes, Halo 4 received widely positive reviews, particularly for its more focused and relatable story.
Halo 5: Guardians
Platform: Xbox One
Shortly after Halo 4's release, 343 got to work on Halo 5: Guardians with the goal of creating a larger campaign and bigger multiplayer maps than previous installments.
Its plot follows Fireteams Blue (led by Master Chief) and Osiris (led by Jameson Locke) as the latter is tasked with retrieving the former after the Chief receives a cryptic message from Cortana directing him to the planet Meridian.
The game introduces a host of new character designs and Spartan Abilities that replace the existing Armor Abilities in previous Halo releases.
Additionally, Halo 5 is the first entry to not include any offline multiplayer capabilities, including split-screen co-op in the main campaign and local networking options.
Although these changes were met with heavy criticism by fans, Guardians ended up being a commercial success and was fairly well-received aside from some complaints regarding the direction of its campaign.
Platforms: Xbox One, Xbox Series X/S, Windows
Releasing six years after its predecessor, Halo Infinite has gone through the longest development cycle of any game in the series following a delay in August 2020 to its eventual release in December 2021.
This can be attributed to the ambitious nature of the game's campaign, which sought to incorporate open-world elements along with a new grappling hook traversal mechanic.
The story sees players reprising their role as Master Chief as he continues his fight against the Banished on the Forerunner ringworld Zeta Halo, aka Installation 07.
Unlike previous installments, Halo Infinite's multiplayer component was made available separately as a free-to-play game, with both the campaign and multiplayer modes added to the Xbox Game Pass library.
Despite concerns following the reveal of the game's initially rough-looking state, the final version of Halo Infinite was well-received and deemed a return to form for the series by numerous gaming outlets.
Halo Wars
Platforms: Xbox 360, Xbox One, Windows
With the release of Halo Wars in 2009, the franchise's original conception as a real-time strategy game was at long last fulfilled.
The game was developed by Microsoft-owned Ensemble Studios, with post-launch support, updates and DLC handled by Robot Entertainment following Ensemble's closing by Microsoft.
The story takes place 21 years before the events of Halo: Combat Evolved and centers on the Covenant's assault on the Outer Colonies during the Human-Covenant War.
Players are tasked with leading human soldiers aboard the warship Spirit of Fire as they try to prevent an ancient fleet of ships from falling into the hands of the Covenant.
Even though Halo Wars garnered positive reviews and is considered a commercial success, critics remain split on whether or not it was successful at translating the RTS formula to a gaming console format.
Halo 3: ODST
Also released in 2009, Halo 3: ODST was initially conceived as a small side project at Bungie that continued to grow in scope until becoming a full-sized game.
Instead of featuring recognizable characters like Master Chief, Bungie shifted their focus to a squad of Orbital Drop Shock Troopers, or ODSTs, with the story set during and after the events of Halo 2.
In it, players set out to explore the ruined city of New Mombasa and recover their missing teammates amidst an ongoing alien invasion.
The game also includes a Firefight multiplayer mode in which players battle increasingly difficult waves of enemies while scoring points and trying to survive for as long as possible.
Upon release, Halo 3: ODST was met with a warm reception and cited as having one of the most compelling stories compared to other series spin-offs.
Halo: Reach
Following the release of Halo 3, Bungie split up into different teams in order to work on two separate titles that would go on to become Halo 3: ODST and Halo: Reach.
For Halo: Reach, the developers decided to position it as a prequel to the original trilogy, thus freeing themselves of any continuity or narrative obligations.
The story takes place on the human planet Reach, which has found itself on the brink of collapsing as humanity wages war with the alien Covenant.
Players take control of Noble Six, a supersoldier assigned to an elite Spartan squad tasked with pushing back against the alien threat throughout several missions.
At launch, Halo: Reach received critical acclaim, with many critics praising Bungie's decision to combine the best elements of previous games into a final send-off for the studio's involvement with the franchise.
Halo: Spartan Assault
Platforms: Xbox 360, Xbox One, Windows, Windows Phone, iOS
After years of rumors regarding canceled handheld Halo projects, Microsoft and 343 Industries released Halo: Spartan Assault for PC, console, and for the first time in the series, mobile devices.
To better suit the new format, the developers spent a lot of time honing the game's design to allow for shorter gameplay sessions and appeal to a more casual audience.
Gameplay follows that of a twin-stick shooter with an overhead top-down perspective and either touchscreen or physical gamepad controls depending on the platform.
The plot is set between Halo 3 and 4 and sees players controlling Spartan soldiers Sarah Palmer and Edward Davis as they take on a new splinter faction of the alien Covenant.
Spartan Assault received mixed reviews upon release, with some critics praising its authentic Halo look and feel and others walking away disappointed.
Halo: Spartan Strike
Platforms: Windows, Windows Phone, iOS
Despite Spartan Assault's polarized reception, a successor came two years later in the form of Halo: Spartan Strike released exclusively for PC and mobile.
In it, players control a Spartan-IV supersoldier as they lead UNSC forces against the Covenant as part of a combat simulation based on historical events in the Halo universe.
Spartan Strike features new weapons, armor abilities, and vehicles to explore throughout a campaign spanning 30 missions in total.
This was a direct response from the developers based on feedback concerning Spartan Assault's limited mission variety and poor controls.
Unfortunately, their efforts only went so far, as Spartan Strike was also met with mixed reviews; while some considered it an improvement, the lack of any multiplayer features was heavily criticized.
Halo Wars 2
Platforms: Xbox One, Windows
Nearly a decade removed from the release of the original Halo Wars, Microsoft and 343 partnered with Creative Assembly to put out a sequel.
Halo Wars 2 maintains the RTS format of its predecessor, in which players must construct a base of operations, generate resources to spawn infantry and vehicle units, and lead their armies into battle.
Combat is kept balanced via a rock-paper-scissors counter-attack system where ground vehicles overpower infantry, infantry overpower aircraft, and aircraft overpower ground vehicles.
The story centers on the crew of the UNSC ship Spirit of Fire after it arrives at a Forerunner installation known as the Ark and a conflict ensues between UNSC forces and the Banished.
While Halo Wars 2 was met with generally positive reviews on Xbox One, veteran RTS players on PC were less impressed by the game's perceived lack of tactical depth.
Remakes and Compilations
Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary
In 2011, Microsoft and 343 collaborated with Saber Interactive and Certain Affinity to release a remake of the first game in the series, Halo: Combat Evolved to celebrate the franchise's 10th anniversary.
Saber's proprietary game engine was used to replicate the original's graphics and gameplay while assets from Halo 3 and Halo: Reach were incorporated as well.
Among the Anniversary edition's improvements were high-definition visuals, co-op and multiplayer support via Xbox Live, remastered audio, achievements, in-game collectibles, and Kinect support.
It also includes a feature that lets players toggle between the original and new visuals as well as six remade multiplayer maps from Combat Evolved, Halo 2, and Halo: Reach.
Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary was met with positive reception and would later be included with Halo: The Master Chief Collection along with the rest of the mainline games in the series.
When The Master Chief Collection first debuted in 2014, it was deemed a hot mess littered with game-breaking bugs and multiplayer glitches that did a disservice to the franchise's coveted legacy.
However, after partnering with various studios, 343 were able to get things back on track and ensure each title looked and played just like fans had envisioned way back when.
Today, the collection is considered a living anthology of Halo releases and currently includes Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo 3: ODST, Halo: Reach, and Halo 4.
Much like Combat Evolved Anniversary, each game has been updated to support high-resolution displays and features improved online matchmaking and local multiplayer.
Despite its rough state at launch, Halo: The Master Chief Collection has gone on to receive positive reviews praising the graphics, frame rate performance, and overall content included in the bundle.
Best Games with New Game Plus Modes 2022
Best Xbox Series X Games 2022
Best God Games 2022
Best Games Like ARK: Survival Evolved
Best Games with Ray Tracing
Justin Fernandez
As a fan of both indie and triple-A games, Justin finds joy in discovering and sharing hidden gems with other passionate gamers. In addition to reporting on the latest and greatest titles, he manages GamingScan's social media channels.
More About Justin Fernandez


How can I install and set up Liquid Notes for Live?
This article talks about installation and set up of Liquid Notes for Live, a MIDI effect for Ableton Live 9.
Quick answer: Installation and setup of Liquid Notes for Live takes only a few minutes. Follow the steps outlined below to ensure correct operation of the application.
This is a simple quick start guide for installation of Liquid Notes for Live. The software requires Ableton Live 9 and Max for Live to be installed to function correctly.
Follow the steps below for correct installation and setup of the application.
Open the .dmg (Mac) or .zip (Win) file you downloaded from our website and follow the on-screen instructions for installation of Liquid Notes for Live.
If Ableton Live is installed and your Live user library folder is set to the Default Path, the installation is complete.
If you use a custom library folder, it may happen that Liquid Notes cannot detect it. Copy "lnBridge.amxd" and "lnBridgeGlobal.amxd" into your Custom Live user library Folder (see the Library section of the Live settings to locate your user library).
After you have completed the installation of Liquid Notes for Live, you can then proceed onto selecting clips and opening of files in Liquid Notes for Live.
To select clips in Live, choose from the options below.
This selects all clips of that particular track automatically for you, and makes them ready for importing them into Liquid Notes for Live.
If you wish to be more selective for which clips to import into Liquid Notes for Live, you may select those clips manually. Click on a clip to select it, or press Cmd+Click in Mac OS X and Strg+Click in Windows.
In order to Open these clips in Liquid Notes for Live, launch the application and therein click on the button "Get Clips" or go to "File -> Get Clips".
That's it! Your Liquid Notes project is all set and you are ready to go. You can now manipulate your Ableton Live tracks via the Liquid Notes editing functions.
And, you can export your results from Liquid Notes by choosing File → Export MIDI File... and import it into Ableton Live by dragging the saved file onto Ableton Live.
Note: If you click on Play in Liquid Notes, it plays all the imported data. Notes are transmitted to Live and Live sounds them. However, Live will not start its own playback function. So you cannot hear any clips in Live which have not been imported to Liquid Notes. If you click on Play in Live, Liquid Notes and Live will start playback simultaneously. You will hear every clip in Live.


, we picks the top choices along with ideal image resolution only for you, and now this photographs is usually among images collections in your greatest photos gallery regarding Publishing Resume. I'm hoping you might want it.
submitted through gs-admins at 2017-10-16 17:36:32. To find out many photos in Publishing Resume photographs gallery remember to abide by this particular link.
Do not forget to look up the next image album, which also contains the Publishing Resume New Applicant Resume Sample Filipino Download Valid Fice Assistant image showed above. If you have any thoughts, questions or just want to say hello to other people, please do not hestitate to submit your opinion/ideas via the following comment form.