Slashdot Mirror

my focus was on the word "illegal". used extensively throughout this discussion and, I thought, well understood as to its meaning and relevance.

Who's being smarmy now? Fact is is these laws making it immigration illegal is nothing more than racistic. European settlers invaded, conquered, and massacred the natives in the Americas and now set the rules. The only place American Indians have a strong say now are in Bolivia and Ecuador, but only because they've were successful in getting their own representatives or supporters elected in national elections. Racism in the USA has been going on almost it was founded. Benjamin Franklin proposed a law barring Germans from immigrating. In the 1850s it was the Know Nothings who wanted to bar some from immigrating. They opposed Irish and Roman Catholics from migrating to the US. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 restricted Chinese immigration. At other tymes Eastern and Southern Europeans were barred from immigration, the Immigration Act of 1924 for instance. Now it's Latin Americans, many of whom their ancesters inhabited the Americas before it was "discovered", who are being discriminated against.

At one point, the Democrats were the party that was solidly behind states' rights and the Republicans were all about centralized power.

Actually at first there was the Democratic-Republican party which Thomas Jefferson was a member of. Back then the other major party was the Federalist Party, then some of it's members became members of theWhig Party and others joined the Democratic Party.

Once convinced Jefferson sat down with an actuary table and calculated a patent term of 14 year with one 14 year extension possible was the optimum length they should last.

I'm pretty sure you're confusing patents and copyright. They're different.

Yes copyrights and patents are different however they both had the same length of duration, 14 years: "a Patent Law (1791) gave inventors exclusive rights to their inventions for 14 years."

I'm pretty much there with you.

There is no way that President Bush would ask, say, the NSA to do anything illegal is there?

And, although there may be a few renegades, there isn't much of official Washington that would use secrets for political gain.

But then there is the press which has recently developed some badly misplaced priorities, actively supporting and publicizing leaks of sensitive ongoing intelligence and military operations against the enemy over and over again. You would think it would be easy to understand that this harms our national security, yet much of the mainstream media passes over the issue in silence. On the other hand, they have endless energy and interest in a kerfuffle involving no crime.

Maybe the media will start taking the war more seriously if Al Qaeda makes significant progress in their announced goal of killing four million Americans. Or maybe not. If there are more successful large scale terrorist attacks in the United States, aided by the media's disclosure of on-going military and intelligence operations, I expect that the majority of the media won't engage in self-examination, but will rather most likely start banging the drums from the fever swamp. The fever swamp runs deep, and support for the President among the media is thin.

Well, if the other party gains power, maybe things will change... or maybe not.

Thank goodness we are a country where you can still engage in dissent against the mainstream.

Hiroshima = 15 kilotons

So 10,000 hiroshima bombs = 150 megatons.

The Richter scale is logarithmic in energy; each point represents approximately 31-fold increase in energy. 1,900 megatons of TNT corresponds to your Richter 8.6 earthquake plus another 0.7, or Richter 9.3.

That would make it #2 on the largest earthquakes of the 20th century.

Of course, the energy release of an asteroid strike may have a very different effect than the energy release of an earthquake. And everybody on earth will have decades of warning (for this asteroid at least).

I lived through a Richter 7.0 earthquake. The building I was in stood up, but it was condemned afterwards.

The usual course of action in that situation is to just ditch the project and cut one's losses.

In my career I have encountered more than one colleague who has several years in the games industry behind them without a single published game to their name, so sadly this situation is as the article says, all too common. Developers and publishers get cold feet for the most spurious of reasons and seem to abandon projects on a whim. Which is a shame, because some of the dross that got published by former employers of mine would have been better canned in favour of the projects they did let fall by the wayside.

Power to this developer for letting the game live!

I sure hope it doesn't mean the death of the two party system.

If you would have told Ben Franklin, George Washington, Tomas Jefferson et. al. that they were creating a two party system, they would correct you. Washington even warned against creating "factions" in his farewell address from his presidency. Our political system wasn't designed for it. It just happened. Go check out some history.

Most folks misunderstand the term "majority rule" to mean greater than 50% of the vote. However, it's meant to be the cantidate with the greater percentage of voters, not an absolute percentage or greater.

I'm not trying to troll here. I'm just frustrated and I wish more Americans would learn how their own political system works.

> Did he also invade any foreign countries under false pretenses

No, but he did create "a national tariff to protect domestic industries," like Bush's worthless steel tariffs used to prop up an outdated and failing business model

He also created a "national administration of the public lands for their methodical and controlled disposal and settlement." Bush has tried to administer public lands in Alaska by claiming the oil underneath could be used at our disposal.

"His policy was to exert national power to make freedom more fruitful for the people." The current U.S. is all about exerting national power.

The biggest difference comes with "He was, before Woodrow WILSON, the most illustrious example of the scholar in politics," which obviously relates in NO way to the current president.

(I'm taking these out-of-context quotes from The Encyclopedia Americana's entry on John Quincy Adams. This isn't meant as an accurate statement on either men.)

There are certain projects with little real substance but well crafted gloss that cruise the games industry waiting for gullible publishers to snap them up believing them to be "the next (insert name of gaming fad of the time here, Lemmings, Tomb Raider, Quake etc)". Such was Banzai Bug, a 3d game where you had to fly an insect through a series of adventures to escape an exterminator. It could probably have been made quite good with the right publisher, but sadly with a publishing company run by marketeers with little game playing experience that wasnt going to happen.

They signed it in the first place on the basis of an intro video, they were very proud of the fact that they'd had some input on the gameplay despite their games testers telling them it was very poor, and to cap it all when it was finally released they tried to market it as a flight simulator because you were flying the insect character. Naturally this went down well with the flight sim crowd:)

So dont necessarily blame the developers if a game turns out to be a turkey. They will almost certainly know it's a turkey and won't be able to do much about it. Responsibility rests squarely on the publishing company who, blinded by marketeer's self-belief, almost certainly made it that way all by themselves.

Iran Hostage crisis ---> Started under Carter. Ended under Reagan.

Actually it started in 1953 when Eisenhower ordered the CIA to overthrow the popularly elected (as in a real democratic election) prime minister of Iran, Mossadegh, by pushing Reza Pahlava, the Shah, to expel him. Riots ensued, the Shah fled, the CIA put the riots down, brought the Shaw back, and trained SAVAK; who went on to earn Amnesty International's award for "worst human rights record on the planet" in 1976. That's the year Carter was elected, he didn't take office 'till 77. I'm not sure how you can imply he was responsible for the revolt in 79 to overthrow a brutal and repressive regime.

As for Reagan's illustrious involvement in the hostage crisis: He traded weapons to the Ayatollah Khomeini, the forces of darkness, to secure their release. Even Reagan admitted it. A very clever move, now known as the October Surprise, which was significant in defeating Carter.

Star Wars ---> Dreamed up in the 70's continues today. Even Clinton continued to fund it.

"When President Reagan first issued his challenge to America's scientific community to find a defense against ballistic missiles..." Clinton did continue funding, but then Clinton governed as a moderate republican, unfortunately.

Grenada ---> Warehouses full of Soviet weapons seized just before the 'rebellion' was to start. Talk to 82nd airborne vets about what they found and saw before you think it was a joke.

Greneda was no joke for the Grenadines. They had made the mistake of electing Maurice Bishop who, alas, was mildly socialist. CIA destabilization began shortly thereafter under Carter in '79, actually, but given the animosity and outright betrayal of Carter by the UberRight in the defense organization (Ollie et al, see above), it's not clear he knew anything about it. Given that Grenada was a managed news event, you should be careful of any "news" you read about it, and the dangerous weapons they had. Remember pfc Lynch's "Rescue."

War on drugs ---> Bush Sr., Nancy was "Just say No to drugs." Not to mention drug use DID decline through the end of the 80's and early 90's. The war is 'lost' because we (people and government) lost focus not because it could not be won.

US prohibition has quite a long history, all of it embarrassing. Reagan did declare the "War on Drugs," but what that really meant, and continues to mean is difficult to ascertain. One thing is for sure, it is not about helping people. Mentioning Gary Webb's careful and exceptionally well documented journalism runs contrary to the charade, but the evidence is strong that under Reagan the CIA was supporting the sale of cocaine in the US to fund the Contras after congress confronted the CIA's arms sales underwritten funding.

Central America ---> What part? And no fair bringing up Nicaragua. You already have Iran-Contra on the list. And if you thing the Sandinistas were better than the Contras you're frikin' nuts.

The difference is the Sandinistas were the popularly elected government and the Contras were the private army of Samoza, evacuated, rearmed, retrained, and reinserted

I still say he's a member of the Know Nothing party. It matches his 18th century viewpoint.

"I know nothing!"

Damn FDR eh! Only got the US up and running again and helped it over the great depression.

Nope, you have Hitler to thank for that. WWII pulled us out of the depression, not FDR's social plans. Those plans *did* give people jobs, which helped keep some people employed but didn't do anywhere near as much for the economy as a whole.

In fact, liberals of the time said didn't do enough to end the depression.

I guess being a socialist he must be responsible for all the erosions of individual rights that have been implemented by Republicans.

And how many Democrats voted for PATRIOT as well? Er... almost all of them.

And who interned thousands of Japaneese Americans? *cough*cough* FDR.

As for the folks who respond "we're not a democracy, we're a republic," thanks very much for that insightful commentary; glad to see you paid attention in 9th grade civics class. You're missing the point.

Americans have ignored the problem that is the Electoral College for a very long time. We used to say, "sure, it COULD elect the guy who got fewer votes, but that'll never happen again." Then it happened again. And there was a bunch of high-minded talk about fixing the problem, but we did nothing. It's not like we haven't fixed the Constitution previously in order to remove encumbrances on our democracy (despite "being a republic"). We should have done so again after the 2000 debacle. Given that it can take as long as 203 years to pass an amendment, I'll not hold my breath waiting.

I think the term that I learned was a "Democratic Republic".

In any case, presidential elections are not decided by popular vote. They are decided by the Electoral College. Some states have laws that say their entire Electoral College vote must be given to the winner of the popular vote (not divided as per the percentage of popular vote, etc.) and some have no qualifications like that. There was once an incident where a state's Electoral College voted against the winner of the popular vote (IIRC, this is what caused some number of states to enact those laws above).

The Electoral College is exactly why some elections are landslides when viewed by Electoral College but the popular vote is still fairly close (George H. Bush v. Clinton in 1992) USA Presidential Election Results Look at the 1960 and 1968 elections as well. And, yes, the Electoral College can result in situations like we had with Bush/Gore where the popular vote winner does not win the election.

This may be entirely coincidental, but the copy of When I Was Cruel that I purchased (sic) in its first week of release refused to play well in my recent-vintage Mac G4 tower. The first two songs sounded as though they'd been recorded using the same deck used to record the Watergate tapes, and the rest had mysteriously long bits drop out suddenly. Nowhere did the package or disk itself state that whether it was copy-protected in any way. So did I return it as defective? Nah, 'cause I was too lazy--and it's not such a great album that I absolutely, positively need to have MP3 copies of it for my own use. Sic transeunt iura digitalia.

The site has earmarks of a spontaneous demonstration at an old-time national political convention.

I'm curious if you would provide a source for the statement that the Founders expected most presidential elections to end up in the house -- this is certainly not the impression I had, or something I have seen claimed elsewhere.

The framers of the Constitution regarded the electoral college as part of a procedure for electing the president by the people, at least indirectly. It seemed probable to the framers that the system of electors voting by ballot in the states would ordinarily serve also as a nominating device, with the final election frequently left to the House.

There is a link here of history of the atomic bomb. Oh, and it includes directions on how one is built as well.

On August 2nd 1939, just before the beginning of World War II, Albert Einstein wrote to then President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Einstein and several other scientists told Roosevelt of efforts in Nazi Germany to purify U-235 with which might in turn be used to build an atomic bomb. It was shortly thereafter that the United States Government began the serious undertaking known only then as the Manhattan Project. Simply put, the Manhattan Project was committed to expedient research and production that would produce a viable atomic bomb.

This and this link describe the Japanese atomic bomb program. Germany sent a submarine to Japan carrying uranium oxide, a needed element in building an a-bomb, but it surrendered after Hitler's defeat and was confiscated by the U.S. This uranium could have been used in the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Another good link is here.

There was reason to fear that Germany might win the race to produce the bomb. Fission had been discovered in Germany, and German scientists were at least as able as anyone else to assess its significance. Moreover, it seemed ominous that Germany had stopped the sale of uranium ore from the rich mines in Czechoslovakia. Up until mid-1941, concern over a German bomb had been stronger in Britain than in the United States. About that time, however, the sense of urgency began to pervade U.S. nuclear scientists.

Consider basic telephone service. Almost 6% of households in the US do not have telephone service. (See also here and here.) If we as a society were really interested in bridging the "digital divide", shouldn't we be trying to help the 6% of our population who are still living in the 1800's, rather than trying to help the (relatively well-off) 50% or so who have most 20th-century technology but simply don't have internet access?

Minor point, but our "Bill of Rights" does exist and had done for some time before the US decided to have one. Perhaps rather than just throwing a term around you should explain exactly what rights British Citizens don't have.

Anyway, here are a couple of choice quotes from the link above:

"The English Bill of Rights, enacted by the Convention Parliament on Dec. 16, 1689, is one of the three great landmarks of the English constitutional tradition, the others being Magna Carta (1215) and the Petition of Right (1628). "

"The specific clauses of the Bill of Rights can be grouped into three broad categories: ..... 3) provisions guaranteeing certain individual freedoms and procedural safeguards against impairment by governmental power, for example, the right of petition, prohibitions of excessive bail, and reaffirmation of the right to jury trial."

"A century later the English Bill of Rights served as an important source for the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Thus, the clause in the English Bill of Rights prohibiting excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishments was taken over, virtually word for word, in the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 and ultimately became the 8th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

Some history about George Herbert Walker Bush, which may shape thoughts about his son, America's current President.

Bush the First was Envoy to China, doing what he could to avoid UN recognition of an official Peoples Republic of China, counter to Kissinger's willingness to deal with then-600,000 people as one unified-under-Communism sovereign country.

Bush Number One was the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. He asked Nixon to resign that fateful August, to spare the party a shred of dignity.

Bush Sr. then moved to Direct the CIA, mopping up the Watergate damage with trinkets, junkets, and some good old-fashioned spy-bustin'.

This should give you a clue as to where Bush #2 may be getting his opinions: the family looks out for Republicans First, and thinks China's leadership must be cracked.

That said, this is the only thing Bush Jr. and this Congress has done so far that I'd agree with. In order of importance: (1) stress the importance of the crewmembers, (2) the Chinese' failure to follow international standards in return of citizens and sovereign vehicles, (3) the fallout this will have on Favored Nations trading status for China. The Congress could still wimp out and give MFN again, but I'm hoping they'll stop kowtowing to the Great Bear here.

Well, there are two states that don't follow a winner-takes-all approach to the assignment of electoral votes, so your example also depends on what happens in those two states (Nebraska and Maine).

It's not like they wouldn't pick a winner in the above scenario:

"In the absence of a majority of electoral votes for president, the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES proceeds quickly to elect by ballot from the three candidates standing highest in electoral votes. Each state has only one vote, cast as a majority of its representatives determines, and a majority of all the states is necessary for election. For vice president, if a majority is lacking in the electoral college, the Senate elects from the two highest candidates. A majority vote is necessary for election."

Or, read the relevant federal commentary at NARA's electoral college site.

Nader could conceivably (its possible, though highly unprobable) become president if he managed to prevent either candidate from garnering a majority of electoral ballots.

Still, it would be a giggle-worthy situation all-around.

I agree humour is required and generally take-the-piss as much (if not more) than most, but personally find the US "we saved the world (again)" japes somewhat disagreeable, especially when it's a casually thrown in Hitler reference. I doubt that you would joke so lightly about Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

However, I see that this was not a childish trolling exercise and that you are somewhat more thoughtful than I initially thought. I therefore offer my humble apologies. Perhaps I'm a bit too sensitive to such things at the moment. What with the moronic English football fans rioting in Belgium/Netherlands preceded by xenophobic attitudes from the media et al in the build up to the Germany game.

In the meantime, here's a few sobering WWII stat's courtesy of Grolier's site: Some WWII Stat's

PS Allo allo is bloody awful!!