Slashdot Mirror

ROFL, you definately havent gotten yourself atleast 1 character to lvl 80 on WoW, have you?
You would not be speaking about WoW (the most highly addictive game) like that.
If you feel confident enough with your statement, and feel you are strong enough to prove me wrong,
join our server, Terrokar, and start a character, we will help you along with development so that your character reaches
lvl80 in a week, then use it as you feel, but guaranteed you will want in every night on the heroic dungeon runs we plan,
and after about a year, when you have developed carpotunnel syndrome, and have put on 20 pounds on your gut...then we will see how NOT addictive WoW, is compared to other games.

BTW- this is not a caricature of myself, as I am one of the few that is uniquely strong in being able to put the controller down....and pick up the weights, or run a few miles afterwards.

That is called a strawman. You have constructed a caricature of socialism/communism/whateverthatis in order to knock it down and then you went on some bullshit about capitalism, invoking a little bullshit pop game theory on the way, and came to your triumphalist but intellectually void conclusion. You are a moron and you don't even realise it.

The golden path lies in the middle.

I would nitpick about using that as a general principle, and take the opportunity to mention the Overton window, which I think everyone should be aware of. You can adopt an extreme caricature of your vie so the middle moves towards the more moderate position you actually want.

Which is simply another way of saying: "You live in a lawless society".

You see, the whole idea of "law" was supposed to be for a code to bind a society together by making every member capable of some action affecting others to follow a simple set of clear rules, which, again by definition, were to be simple enough to be memorized in entirety by everyone. That is why Hammurabi had the thing carved in stone and placed at public squares, so that "ignorance of the law" was not an excuse for breaking it.

The moment however when the "law" becomes so complicated and ambiguous that it requires someone to "interpret it" (i.e. twist it to whatever whim of the moment is fanciful) the whole concept breaks. In short a society which needs lawyers, is by definition lawless, as "law" has morphed from the universal code of conduct to a byzantine, convoluted, religious scripture which requires a career priesthood to worship, massage, "interpret" and twist to the needs of whatever power caste is running the place at the time. The average denizen then simply becomes hapless prey for this caste of parasites with no recourse but to prostate himself/herself before the high-priests of "law" who hold the strings of the citizen's life or death in their hands.

Ultimately, in a country of lawyers, by lawyers and for lawyers, the laws become such a sick caricature of the original idea that no one knows the "law" to its full extent, including all of its priests. One can test this simple supposition by simply asking any one of them to recite the "law" of the land from memory. In the USA, not only no lawyer, judge or politician could do it (even though the "law" is supposedly binding everyone and its ignorance is "no excuse") but they would not be able to tell you what the current definitive law is at all, even when given the ability to use books and databases to do it, as the code has become so byzantine that its successive layers upon layers of modifications and arcane religious language are so completely unmanageable that pretty much any "legal" decision needs an arbitrary "interpretation" by a cabal of priests.

And this is why the majority of people instinctively hates lawyers, as even if most people cannot vocalize it, an average person's intrinsic moral compass is able to detect that something is profoundly wrong with the very idea of a lawyer.

There are a few special effects that all of those and the new Star Trek failed to master:

Plot, dialog, pacing, character development.

The movie has caricature development, but no solid character development. Brooding teenager coming to terms with adulthood while assuming command of a spaceship?

No one will convince me that the character exposition in Star Trek is anything more than the cardboard file found on the back of an action figure.

Oh, I totally have bias (as you well know, I'm sure since you have me friended). I'm a DJ for Dementia Radio and crap like this (ASCAP / BMI extortion) threatens our ability to function as a community. No one in this sector of art is making ANY money. Every single person I know in Dementia has a day job, without exception. Even The Great Luke Ski supports himself as a caricature artist. Not everyone is as popular as Tom Smith, Jonathon Coulton, or Wield Al Yankovic. Most don't make any kind of profit at all, and do it for the Art. For ASCAP to shake down artists for other artists who aren't really owed anything (see the various legal opinions) and who DON'T ever see the money anyway are EXACTLY like the RIAA in this regard. They are leaches who exist on the life blood of the people they should exist to represent. I have been involved in the business of music all of my life, and so have my parents and grandparents. BMI/ASCAP are nothing but boils on the ass of humanity. Am I biased. You bet your ass I am. I am biased against all manor of pimps and thugs - and these guys are at the top of the list.

Mod me whatever but I swear every time I read it as Monty Wide-anus and a weird caricature comes into my head.

The killing off of major characters and showing the more noble side of previously loathed villains is an interesting subversion of the usual predictable fantasy tropes. I think that's part of its appeal to me - it reads more like a history, and less like another iteration of the "Monomyth of the Hero". Or at least it would, if our history books and documentaries didn't usually reduce the real world's personalities to fantasy-esque narrative caricatures.

On the other hand, The Song of Ice & Fire's non-compliance with what Pratchett calls Narrative Causality can certainly put readers off. Personally I just wish the story would continue, and at some point, actually *wrap up*; a story that never ends is just unsatisfying. Also, when you have such a huge, sprawling work with such long gaps between volumes, by the time the next part comes out you have no hope of remembering who most of the characters are or what took place in the earlier books!

;-)

(don't read this part. it's only here because slashdot doesn't understand smiley-only posts)

Don't you know that the filter is there to prevent the dreaded three caricature virus?

How could you have missed the psychological depth of Manic Miner, a man driven to go ever further surmounting ever harder and ever more dangerous obstacles, the tragic drama of Pac Man, a caricature of a man, forever trapped in a maze pursued by unrelenting foes.

Did you not saw the deep sociological implications of the hive-like mind of the aliens in Space Invaders having unbounded persistence and yet never faltering and never deviating from their group dance.

Did your hearty not skip a beat at the drama of the ball in Pong, unable to follow a path other than that which was set by others it's destiny in the hands of two conflicting personalities.

Actually, I am aware of what you are stating, the tea parties began with libertarian, Ron Paul supporters, a main issue being the despicable Federal Reserve and its' mafia-like ways, but the point I was trying to make, News Corp being the subject of this thread, was this: Faux latched onto the movement and astroturfed it, with big support from Big Business, in the guise of lobbyist groups such as Americans For Prosperity and FreedomWorks.

Libertarian Ron Paul supporters, many of them espousing quite legitimate viewpoints, got shafted on this one, their movement marred by Faux mobilizing their mindless masses and turning it into an anti-Obama rally with thinly veiled contempt and racism, STILL bringing up the birth certificate bullshit, the "secret Muslim agenda", etc. As a side question, you think maybe Faux (or any Big Media organization, for that matter) does NOT want to talk about the Federal Reserve?

It's grotesque how Faux is all for waving banners in the streets and defending Limbaugh for his "wanting the president to fail" travesty.
Now turn back the clock to Clinton with the Balkans and Somalia, and try to remember how much support "the troops" got from republicans and Faux (remember Wag The Dog?).
Sandwiched in between were eight years were it was treason and blasphemy to criticize any of the Bush's policies.

It's incredible to me now how Clinton was on the same page with republicans on many key issues, such as deregulating the airwaves, energy and Wall Street (of all things), yet they still savagely crucified him over a stained blue dress, because "he was too lib'rul"?!!
Bullshit arguments passing for discussion on bullshit media helped push a country to the far right beyond the breaking point, where we are now. And don't get me started on evangelical fundamentalism.

This is all like a tragically predictable caricature of humanity, harking back to the days when European peasants were whipped into a frenzy to kill all "witches" and cats as agents of the devil, opening the floodgates for rats with lice with the bubonic plague, killing two thirds of the population, through their own ignorance and cruel hysteria.

"the coverup absolutely shows that the Catholic Church leadership supports child abuse".

Prove it.

Prove "Absolutely shows" -- especially wen that is clearly a mtter of opinion.

Prove "SUPPORTS" - i.e. intentionally encouraging these priests to abuse children.

Evidence shows that the Church is, and for the past decade or so, has been actively engaged in multiple efforts involving layers of regulation, certification, oversight, observation and cross checking and training of people who work with children., ALL of that speficially to PREVENT abuse.

In other words you do not know what you are talking about with "supports". Make that PAST TENSE and you might have an argument but to smear the entire clergy and hierarchy is a HUGE error on your part.

So: apologize for misstating the case - you're wrong, Admit it.

Put it in past tense and call it "allowed" (not *supported* ) then you have the argument framed correctly.

SO lets look at that large smear you laucnhed in proper context:

Its clear that the Catholic Church as a whole has gone after these problem priests. And if you note the FACTS, the vast majority of the abuses occurred prior to the early 1990's, when the Church heirachy finally started getting sued and depositioned in court. The shame is that it took them that long - but they have changed.

So "supports" is wrong in intent and in tense. In other words you are wrong. Apologize.

They only thing "supportED" was a coverup of the allowance, certainly not the abuse.

Some of the problem is based in Catholic theology and other parts are humna nature.

Its catholic doctrine that a priest is specially marked by God, thus must be "redeemed" - i.e. extensive attempts at rehab. That's one reason for moving instead of turning in the priest to the law. Weak excuse? Yes, but its what they believe. Forgive the sinner, and all that.

Other parts of it are related to the doctrine of confession. The individuals committing the acts leveraged that to their advantage. To avoid both legal and Church punishment by abusing the seal of the confessional - they confess and the priest cannot say or do anything based on what he heard in the confessional. Nothing can be done based on that. This leaves the only alternative for the local Church of kicking them to a different diocese without much comment. Also, the worst cases were decades prior to the actual reports, making it nearly impossible for the Church to act. In fact, some of the worst cases were brought against the Catholic Church after the priests in question were dead.

These first two items are a weakness in the structure and dogma of the church itself. Catholic Doctrine was turned in on itself to the advantage of the abusers. This was leveraged well by the pedophiles, but it does not mean the doctrine is wrong. The pedophiles abuse the Catholic Church much the way the KKK and Neo-Nazis leverage the First amendment to set up the abuse of minorities.

And the third part was where the real fault ocurred: typical of any large organization, the instinct was denial and political covering.

As a non-religious example, check what happened during the same period with the far more numerous abuse of children by public school employees. Its the same thing prior to about 6-7 years ago. The main difference is the schools cannot be sued for millions, 20+ years after the fact, unlike private organizations, and so, they do not make splashy national headlines.

So, as Doctor Cox from scrubs would say:

You are wrong wrong wrongitty wrong newbie.

And before you ad hominem me by trying to say I'm a priest: I am not. However, my uncle is, and he is a good honest caring and compassionate man, who became a priest after his wife died from cancer. He is far more a typical priest in terms of behavior than the caricature you drag out of your own fevered imagination or Dan Brown books. And he's pretty nice to me even though I'm an agnostic.

There is a difference. You missed it. you lose.

I believe Gemstone is the one I bought a $100 subscription from. Some of the Barks stories had been reworked and uglified. Most of the non-Barks stories were just trash that sullied a good duck's name. I bought the subscription in part to teach some values to my kids, but the European stories were about a different duck - a 2d caricature with no morals, and no sense of duty - a crass figure to be hated rather than respected.

No, it explains the problem you have with the strawman caricatures you imagine libertarians to be. You cling to those caricatures because you're an intellectually lazy moron who terrified of the knowledge that the world is complicated.

You say that businesses like big pharma "play all these dirty games, because if they don't, their competitor will eat their lunch." Sure. This is unsurprising and irrelevant to public policy. All that matters is whether these "dirty games" are in the public interest - specifically, do the benefits of the patent system exceed the harm inflicted by the dirty games. Your insistence on taking a moralistic stance ("ethical" vs "unethical", "theft" of inventions) obscures this basic question. Patents are a tool. The question we need to answer is not whether the businesses that use them are good or bad (though I admit I slammed big pharma) - it is whether the tool is effective. For pharmaceuticals, I have argued that the answer is "No."

You keep avoiding this question. Instead you mix in moralistic claims. You tell a nice myth about how before patents even existed, "long ago, inventors were strongly opposed to leeches copy-catting their inventions and making a buck stealing their ideas." By that logic, the historical absence of patent laws was a moral wrong. Never mind the history of patents as favored monopolies, or that the idea of "intellectual property" is historically recent. The fact is, inventors were not taken robbed: they knew the risks and benefits, and made their choices accordingly.

When I explain why inventors have no right to the patent system, you respond that "several patents earn their owners millions, if not billions . . . eliminating patent law will be far worse than seizing personal real-estate property for them." Just a moment. Did we create patent law for their benefit, or for the benefit of society? If we started with no patent system, then instituted one, there would also be people who stood to loose millions. Was it therefore wrong to create the system?

Drop the moralizing, or own up to an extraordinary claim that patents are a moral right. I'm sure patents have led to useful inventions. That's meaningless when the costs are not considered. You need to address the real issue of whether patents provide a net benefit. I have outlined the pervasive damage they have inflicted when it comes to pharmaceuticals. I have pointed to evidence (Levine) that the problem is much wider. You have declined to take the matter seriously, caricaturing abuse as "0.0001%" of the total. That is a ridiculous number - one that would not be true even of the most effective policy instruments. Perhaps I am wrong (really). Perhaps you have better evidence. Perhaps there are specific fields where the net benefit is clear. Or maybe abstract theory and a story of "long ago" are good enough for you.

Hah, such naivete. Giving welfare mom more money does not necessarily mean a better life for her bastard offspring. It means she can get a new TV, dvd player or drugs...

Just look at how the welfare system is abused in NY State. The more offspring you have, the more money you make. Then the state pays for your children to have healthcare and you get WIC and you get a free house...

It sure pays to be a unemployed mooch around here.

Do you have evidence, or just a caricature of a welfare queen that was painted for you by Rush Limbaugh?

Hey, Murdoch, if you're so fucking smart, why can't you and your people come up with a product that people want to buy?

I'm not a fan of Murdoch or his properties but I am a longtime newspaper reader and wish we could stop modding up this kind of trash talk. It's a "Tragedy of the Commons" type situation. Nobody wants to pay for what they can get for free, but if nobody pays, or not enough people pay to support a viable industry then there won't be much of anything worthwhile to be had. Instead of real journalism, we'll have compilations of press statements from government and corporate officials, lobbyists and self promoters, plus the usual truckloads of uninformed commentary from netizens.

This is a largely repeat of the situation in recorded music, where most people here decided that the problem was the record companies are being run by silly, evil men. Maybe Murdoch will be the poster boy for the /. caricature of the news industry.

After 9/11/2001, Bush enjoyed astronomical approval ratings.

Then you must have forgotten the vitriolic hate:
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/01/20/protests/index.html

Police would not estimate the size of the crowd, but many thousands of protesters were in evidence

They came out in scores, co-existing on the parade route with supporters of the new president and lining Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the White House. Interspersed between Bush-Cheney signs and Texas flags were thousands of protest placards, bearing inscriptions such as "Bush Cheated," "Hail to the Thief," "Selected not elected," "Bushwhacked by the Supremes" and "Golly Jeb, we pulled it off!" There were also plenty of R-rated signs, like "Dick and Bush" and "George Wanker Bush." One poster included a caricature of a metaphorically toothless Bush in the image of Alfred E. Neuman.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0121-01.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/images/0121-01.jpg

Others were not so diplomatic. At Freedom Plaza, a protest space along the parade route at 14th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, thousands of protesters held up signs calling Bush such epithets as "thief" and "pig." When Bush's motorcade passed, they booed and jeered and yelled obscenities. Some held up middle fingers.

It was partly as a counter-point to Starship Troopers. I think it went too far in the other direction and got a little stupid. Being an actual combat vet myself, I can say that the training and doctrine portrayed in ST was a hell of a lot more realistic that TFW. TFW was more like a snide caricature of what anti-war people think military training and tactics are like. And topping it off, TFW bizarrely had only "genius IQ" types being conscripted, which is completely asinine. Geniuses don't make good soldiers... at all. Still, TFW was an interesting read once you got past the silly axe-grinding to the story.

Yes, the asinine military "training" was the most cringeworthy part of the novel. You draft the best and the brightest from Earth, spend untold billions to equip them, then hold live fire exercises deliberately intended to kill off many of them and demoralize the survivors, just to toughen the troops up? That's not to say that some military commanders don't do stupid things that get their soldiers killed, but it generally happens on the battlefield, not during boot camp!

However, IMHO an even bigger issue in the novel is how the government decides to handle population control - by encouraging people to be homosexual, i.e. as if it was a conscious choice that could be made. I can just imagine how that plot point could play into anti-gay sentiment if the movie becomes popular, i.e. "See? Children can be recruited into the gay lifestyle - The Forever War shows it happening!" I doubt that the "humanity turns gay" subplot will make it to the final script.

The most interesting aspect of the novel is definitely the "man out of time" theme, as Mandella realizes he has nothing in common with the future Earth he keeps returning to, and re-enlists because the military is the only thing left that he can make sense of. Unfortunately, I'm guessing that Hollywood will screw TFW up just about as badly as it screwed up Starship Troopers. You'll have lots of exploding spaceships and dead aliens, but not much else.

I just keep thinking about how this was supposed to be a response to Heinlein's Starship Troopers (or vice versa?)

It was partly as a counter-point to Starship Troopers. I think it went too far in the other direction and got a little stupid. Being an actual combat vet myself, I can say that the training and doctrine portrayed in ST was a hell of a lot more realistic that TFW. TFW was more like a snide caricature of what anti-war people think military training and tactics are like. And topping it off, TFW bizarrely had only "genius IQ" types being conscripted, which is completely asinine. Geniuses don't make good soldiers... at all. Still, TFW was an interesting read once you got past the silly axe-grinding to the story.