Anyone's. But since you mentioned Russia and China, why not throw them in. You also said:
Each other?
Why not throw that in too. If you look at the past 1000 years before NATO, they seemed to have had a big problem with attacking each other. A lack of that seems to have certainly helped them.
However the fact that NATO never accomplished anything other than feeding said complex and involving foreign countries in various failures of US foreign policy, very much does mean it.
Isn't protecting eachother from an attack the goal of NATO? So, having not been attacked and the thouht of being attack being ridiculous, doesn't that mean that NATO has achieved its goal? What else were they suppose to accomplish? And is the only way for them to accomplish the goal of protection to be to actually fight a war?
the idea of European countries being attacked is at best laughable now, and yet NATO expands.
Tell that to the People of Georgia.
NATO expands to countries that want to ensure that have nothing to fear from other NATO countries, and support if they get involved into a conflict with non-NATO countries.
There is a reason that much of the expanding NATO is doing, invovled adding former members of the Warsaw Pact.
However, I do not argue that the US military-industrial complex has used NATO to expand. But That does not mean that NATO was not important, or does not still play an important role.
Is there any evidence that the cold war would not have come if the bomb was not dropped? I don't think so. However, it could be argued that because the bomb was dropped, it was only a arms race. If each side had not seen the devistation in actual use, they might have been tempted to use them.
Regarding Battlestar Galactica, there's one big reason I've never been able to really enjoy the show. We have barely 50,000 humans left, facing a constant threat of extinction by the cylons, and the show depicts humans engaged in what I consider insignificant squabbles. They're constantly hung up about issues which I think given their precarious position should be a non-issue. I would think humanity, facing such a situation, would either run like hell or pull out all the stops to survive and win.
Ther series takes palce over serveral years. When the attacks first happened, you didnt have as much of the insignificant squabbles. IF they argued, it was probably about something related to survival. When they wer ebeign attacked every 28 min. the population was focused on survival.
later on, when they had not been attacked for 2 months, peopel got comfortable and adapted to their new lifes a bit. HAvign foudn some level of adapting, they started their insignificant squabbles.
I think it is very realistic to show people having thier insignificant squabbles, even though there are more important things to worry about. It jsut seems like that is what people do.
Now you've verged into one of my pet beliefs: that movie and TV SF (let's call it "science video") can never be "real" SF in the sense that (for example) Heinlein is SF. The problem with SV, as with all movies and TV, is that it aims at a mass audience in a compressed format. That means thoughtful exposition and intellectual complication, which is how the genre engages most of its readers, are off limits. Indeed, many people who work in the media don't even have the background to do it properly.
Couldn't that be said of ang genre? Romance, action, mystery? When you translate all of them from Book to Movies or Tv, they get condenced and reduced to fit not only in the time alloted, but so that the average watcher can understand what is happening.
That's why people always say the book was better, because it was.:-)
But it's courageous only by TV standards. Compared to what some of the more courageous civil rights pioneers were doing at that time, it's positively trivial.
Trivial maybe, but it probably did more to change the minds of the average american more then most of the civil rights pioneers.
Cliche aside, you amke great points. TOS gave you the anwsers that make you feel good, the moral high ground. BSG makes you look at the situation in a more realistic way, where you know what the moral high ground is, but you have an understanding of why it is not always choosen.
There is no black and white answer. However, showing the world the power that the USA had and was willing to use certainly played a role in the choice to drop the bomb(s).
Windows 7 will go onon the Adkins diet and will come out slim. However, like all diets, it will go off the diet and gain more weight then its ever had.
Who whole reason I've been responding to you is because you said:
I don't see how something can be "sexual in nature" if there's no act of sex. That's like those idiots who say, "Clinton was the first black president" when he's clearly not black. Porn should be strictly defined as those photos or videos that display sexual acts (intercourse, masturbation, oral). The naked body, by itself, should be protected by free expression/speech laws. Which means you can take a photo of yourself at the topless beach, and not get arrested by some Christian zealot prosecutor who has delusions of Godhood.
AS For:
Jesus H. Christ you people are a bunch of paranoid prudes!!!!
I never said sex between two people (adults)was bad. I called a poster out for saying:
So now...simple nudity == porn?
When it was quite obvious that is was not simple nudity (Child in a Bath tube), but more pornographic (aka sexual) in nature.
Also, for:
Jesus H. Christ you people* are a bunch of paranoid prudes!!!!
You appear to have missed judged me fully. One of my favorite quote comes from (Paraphrased from) the Bernie Mack Show: Boobie never hurt anyone, boobie feeds the world.
AS I said previously, are discussion is over if the pictures the girls took were pornographic or not. They were. Wether or not Pornography is bad/good and should be legal/illegal is another topic we've have not touched on.
* BTW nothing with that statement ever comes out saying good. I always picture tghe guy in Tropic Thunder saying "You People?"
IF something is horribly messed up in this post, I am a little drugged at the moment (Been to the hospital). So please excuse me:-)
1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3. Lurid or sensational material: "Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the... pornography of the era" (Morris Dickstein).
1. Of, relating to, involving, or characteristic of sex, sexuality, the sexes, or the sex organs and their functions.
2. Implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activity.
3. Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction characterized by the union of male and female gametes: sexual reproduction.
Look at the definition of Pornography. I think ti is fairly obvious that the girl sent the photos to cause sexual arousal in her boyfriend, or whoever she sent them to.
Also, look at sexual. It does not have to involve a "Sex act", symbolizing erotic desire is sexual. You can do that without faking/performing a sex act.
Really? Why do you think she sent the photo? I'm pretty sure that a photo taken by a teenager on a cellphone was not taken for artistic purposes, and I highly doubt that it was taken durring her vacation to the nudist camp.
So, you would be in the camp that says that Playboy photos where there is no simulated sex acts occuring are not pornographic?
Really? I know my mother and sister don't. I certainly know my Grandparents arn't either, they arn't even aware of windows (which they use). They don't know a thing about Operating Systems, or software for that matter. They just use it, once someone teaches them the steps to perform the action they want that is.
This was not mom and pop taking photos of their 3 year old in the bath tub. This was Teenage girls taking nude pictures for thier boyfrieds.male friends. The pictures they took would obviously fall under pornographic. They were sexual in nature.
You forgot the "Mark up the price" step before offering the "deals". Went to mervens and their 60% off was not the great deal you'd expect. 60% off was equal to a regular sale.
It is a great idea, if they go for their target audience. However, Wow has ruined MMO's, as companies are not satisfied if they don't have a million plus players.
Slashdot Mirror
Great post.
Anyone's. But since you mentioned Russia and China, why not throw them in. You also said:
Why not throw that in too. If you look at the past 1000 years before NATO, they seemed to have had a big problem with attacking each other. A lack of that seems to have certainly helped them.
No need to worry there, they will just increase the sin taxes.
No, they don't make law. However, they do invalidate unconsitutional laws.
Isn't protecting eachother from an attack the goal of NATO? So, having not been attacked and the thouht of being attack being ridiculous, doesn't that mean that NATO has achieved its goal? What else were they suppose to accomplish? And is the only way for them to accomplish the goal of protection to be to actually fight a war?
Tell that to the People of Georgia.
NATO expands to countries that want to ensure that have nothing to fear from other NATO countries, and support if they get involved into a conflict with non-NATO countries.
There is a reason that much of the expanding NATO is doing, invovled adding former members of the Warsaw Pact.
However, I do not argue that the US military-industrial complex has used NATO to expand. But That does not mean that NATO was not important, or does not still play an important role.
That was suppose to be "would see or could see"
would see of could see
What were the ratings of various news programs compared to that of TOS? Which one offered information in a way that did not upset or alarm them?
Is there any evidence that the cold war would not have come if the bomb was not dropped? I don't think so. However, it could be argued that because the bomb was dropped, it was only a arms race. If each side had not seen the devistation in actual use, they might have been tempted to use them.
Ther series takes palce over serveral years. When the attacks first happened, you didnt have as much of the insignificant squabbles. IF they argued, it was probably about something related to survival. When they wer ebeign attacked every 28 min. the population was focused on survival.
later on, when they had not been attacked for 2 months, peopel got comfortable and adapted to their new lifes a bit. HAvign foudn some level of adapting, they started their insignificant squabbles.
I think it is very realistic to show people having thier insignificant squabbles, even though there are more important things to worry about. It jsut seems like that is what people do.
Couldn't that be said of ang genre? Romance, action, mystery? When you translate all of them from Book to Movies or Tv, they get condenced and reduced to fit not only in the time alloted, but so that the average watcher can understand what is happening.
:-)
That's why people always say the book was better, because it was.
Trivial maybe, but it probably did more to change the minds of the average american more then most of the civil rights pioneers.
I just wanted to say THIS
Cliche aside, you amke great points. TOS gave you the anwsers that make you feel good, the moral high ground. BSG makes you look at the situation in a more realistic way, where you know what the moral high ground is, but you have an understanding of why it is not always choosen.
Unconditional Surrender
There is no black and white answer. However, showing the world the power that the USA had and was willing to use certainly played a role in the choice to drop the bomb(s).
No,
Windows 7 will go onon the Adkins diet and will come out slim. However, like all diets, it will go off the diet and gain more weight then its ever had.
Who whole reason I've been responding to you is because you said:
AS For:
I never said sex between two people (adults)was bad. I called a poster out for saying :
When it was quite obvious that is was not simple nudity (Child in a Bath tube), but more pornographic (aka sexual) in nature.
Also, for:
You appear to have missed judged me fully. One of my favorite quote comes from (Paraphrased from) the Bernie Mack Show: Boobie never hurt anyone, boobie feeds the world.
:-)
AS I said previously, are discussion is over if the pictures the girls took were pornographic or not. They were. Wether or not Pornography is bad/good and should be legal/illegal is another topic we've have not touched on.
* BTW nothing with that statement ever comes out saying good. I always picture tghe guy in Tropic Thunder saying "You People?"
IF something is horribly messed up in this post, I am a little drugged at the moment (Been to the hospital). So please excuse me
pornography
... pornography of the era" (Morris Dickstein).
1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3. Lurid or sensational material: "Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=pornographic
sexual
1. Of, relating to, involving, or characteristic of sex, sexuality, the sexes, or the sex organs and their functions.
2. Implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activity.
3. Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction characterized by the union of male and female gametes: sexual reproduction.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexual
Look at the definition of Pornography. I think ti is fairly obvious that the girl sent the photos to cause sexual arousal in her boyfriend, or whoever she sent them to.
Also, look at sexual. It does not have to involve a "Sex act", symbolizing erotic desire is sexual. You can do that without faking/performing a sex act.
Take a quick gander: http://www.playboy.com/
Really? Why do you think she sent the photo? I'm pretty sure that a photo taken by a teenager on a cellphone was not taken for artistic purposes, and I highly doubt that it was taken durring her vacation to the nudist camp.
So, you would be in the camp that says that Playboy photos where there is no simulated sex acts occuring are not pornographic?
Really? I know my mother and sister don't. I certainly know my Grandparents arn't either, they arn't even aware of windows (which they use). They don't know a thing about Operating Systems, or software for that matter. They just use it, once someone teaches them the steps to perform the action they want that is.
Jump the gun a bit?
This was not mom and pop taking photos of their 3 year old in the bath tub. This was Teenage girls taking nude pictures for thier boyfrieds.male friends. The pictures they took would obviously fall under pornographic. They were sexual in nature.
You forgot the "Mark up the price" step before offering the "deals". Went to mervens and their 60% off was not the great deal you'd expect. 60% off was equal to a regular sale.
Are you a drug dealer without a bank account?
It is a great idea, if they go for their target audience. However, Wow has ruined MMO's, as companies are not satisfied if they don't have a million plus players.