He isn't referring to that. He's referring to the way CN will (for example) get three episodes into Tenchi Universe, then not show it for six months or so.
I thought it was funny when they brought back *gasp* Robotech for Giant Robot Week, made a big deal about it--and all they showed were the final 3 episodes of the final series. Yes, I know Robotech was the hybrid from 3 different anime, but I don't care, I was looking forward to it. I mean, let's be honest, they're never going to release Genesis Climber Mospeada here, how else would I see it?
Dubbing has gotten substantially better in recent years; in some instances it compares favorably with the native voices.
I think the production values have gone up and they've started hiring professional (if not especially well-known) actors, who've received voice training. At least, newer series such as Cowboy Bebop or Tenchi Muyo have far better voice acting than say, Bubblegum Crisis.
Alright, this is pointless. I don't like being angry, especially over a posting on slashdot, so I'm getting out. You know, I'm not even against the war in general; I DO think humanitarianism is a valid reason to go to war, even if it's the only one. But I sure as hell don't believe this group when they tell me that's a main reason.
My anger came not out of disagreement, but because you actually stated that someone was "better" than me. I'm an American, nobody is inherently "better" or deserves more rights than me. You want to take away my rights? Then you'd better be willing to kill me.
As for our president, I just watched for 8 freaking years the reptiles of the right wing try to topple a democratically elected president. I saw our current one lose the popular vote, and he would have lost the electoral one if everyone who was legally allowed to vote had. After he gets elected he tries to ram in an extremist agenda, accuses me and anyone else who disagrees with him of patriotism, and now lies about his motives in Iraq. I should respect THAT?
I do not fear getting jumped because I have taken necessary precautions to largely guarantee my safety in the event.
Nothing can guarantee your safety.
I know how to shoot a gun very well
Your assailant might be a better shot. And you might not be carrying a gun.
I am also trained in hand to hand combat.
They might be better trained. Or they might simply be bigger; as much as we all like to think skill is everything, in a physical melee the bigger/more massive guy usually wins. It's just a simple fact.
I have faith in my abilities to escape a situation unharmed with anybody trained less than special forces in military.
Alright, now that's just macho posturing. A professional, or even an amateur boxer would rip apart most soldiers pretty easily. Ditto for a professional martial artist, such as an instructor. If you're actually claiming you'd be able to take on almost anyone, then I think you're more at risk because of your overconfidence.
They've waged a campaign of violent oppression against their own people.
Fine. Then why hasn't the Bush administration advocated going after North Korea or China or any number of African countries? This is where the credibility gap is. When Bush advocates going after Iraq because of human rights violation everyone knows he's lying. The biggest war hawks are the people who criticized Clinton for intervening in Kosovo and Rwanda. How can we trust these people's motives?
That's not true. They have camps both in Kurdistan and in northwestern Iraq
In other words, in areas outside of Baghdad's control.
Iraqi military intelligence has a full-time liaison officer assigned to Ansar al Islam. There's nothing tenuous about the connection.
Alleged. Do you believe everything the Iraqi government says?
I can't believe you just said that.
I'm sure you'll get over it, as hard as it is to believe that someone doesn't agree slavishly with everything you say.
A suicide bomber's purpose is to kill as many people as possible.
And, in the process, kill himself. "Suicide bombing" has always meant an attempt to kill people along with yourself. Why change it?
your anti-Israel wisecrack is not helpful.
Which would that be? My comment about Sharon is not anti-Israel, it's anti-Sharon. Sharon's a reptile, a profoundly immoral man whose fanaticism is a threat to the region.
Okay. So? Are you going to suggest that it won't have an effect?
The whole thing may have a net negative effect, because we're making more enemies than we can defeat through the incompetent "diplomacy" that our cretin-in-chief has tried carrying out.
One: the Baath government has been in almost a constant state of aggressive war since Saddam came into power. Saddam assumed power in 1978, and in 1980 Iraq started the war with Iran. They fought that war, brutally, until 1988, then in 1990 Saddam invaded Kuwait and attempted to invade Saudi Arabia. The Baath government is a brutal, warmongering regime.
What have they done in the past 12 years though? If you want to punish them for invading Kuwait, then be honest about it; don't try to pretend that Iraq was about to invade anybody. It's like if someone said "Since 1938 Germany has invaded Czecholovakia, Poland, France, Norway, Denmark, and Belgium"; accurate, but misleading.
Removing them from power will implicitly improve the stability of the region.
No, it's NOT implicit, which is the whole point. You damage your credibility when you try taking as a given what your opponents don't accept. It's a way of trying to win the argument before it begins.
Two: Iraq under the Baath party is a totalitarian autocracy. Those types of states are inherently less stable, both internally and externally, than representative states like federal republics. So replacing the Baath government with a federal republic will inherently improve the stability of the region.
I think your mistake is confusing "Iraq" and "the region"; the stability of Iraq may be improved by removing Saddam, but the Bush administration's claims extend beyond it. They have publicly stated that invading Iraq will somehow help solve the Israel-Palestinian problem. That's what I find idiotic.
And as a counter-example to your theory that democratic republics somehow exert a stabilizing effect on surrounding countries, why hasn't Turkey? Or Israel?
Three: the Baath government provides aid and assistance to domestic terrorist groups such as Ansar al Islam. You may have heard of this group; last month they carried out an assassination against the leadership of the PUK. Removing this support for terrorist groups inside Iraq will improve the stability of the region.
Your point makes no sense. Ansar al Islam is based in a territory outside of Baghdad's control; how would toppling Saddam affect it? The group's connections to Baghdad and Saddam are tenuous at best, and a war dedicated to toppling Saddam will not necessarily result in destroying them.
Four: the Baath government also supports terrorism outside of Iraq. The Iraqi government pays cash rewards, formerly in the range of $20-25,000 but recently lowered to $10,000, to the families of Palestinian suicide (i.e., homicide) bombers.
First of all, they're suicide bombers. It's a more precise term, it's better defined, it's more accurate. Don't let Ariel Sharon convince you otherwise.
Removing this source of aid and encouragement to terrorists will inherently improve the stability of the region.
This is a miniscule effect at best. Suicide bombers attacked before Iraq started offering rewards, and they certainly will continue after Iraq stops. The best way to stop the violence in Israel is to strongarm both sides into giving concessions. You can do this with Israel by refusing any more military or financial aid until they stop the bully tactics and reign in the religious fanatics who build settlements in occupied land. The Palestinians can be coerced by appealing to the surrounding Arab states, but they'll only put pressure on the Palestinians if the U.S. will stop turning a blind eye to Israel's tactics.
Obviously in certain situations of immediate danger I'll experience fear. But I'm not going to act preemptively like that.
For example, you asked me about whether someone broke into my house, what would I do? I would first try to leave my house through the back, then alert the police. If that was not possible, I'd alert the police, then tell the criminals I had done so.
I would not let my fear of a possible break-in dictate my actions beyond the simplest precautions (i.e. locking my door). I would not, for example, buy a gun. And if I had a gun for whatever reason, and someone broke in, I wouldn't open fire immediately.
Summation: Don't suppose becasuse you're a WASP with an educated opinion (albeit a public school one)
Huh? I thought WASPs tended to go to private schools. Or are you a Brit, in which case I'd understand the confusion, as the meanings are reversed on this side of the pond...
The idiotic tax cuts that this president gave the rich are going to hurt us for decades. You think the interest payments on the deficit he's racking up aren't a)his fault, and b)won't be hurting us down the road?
Hahahahahahaha...yes, there's nothing Bush is more concerned about like the environment.
Or that we're trying to preserve _infrastructure_.
Then why are we blowing up everything else?
This makes a lot of sense once you get by your hatred of GWB.
He's earned my hatred and contempt, again and again.
I don't think the oil fields are the main reason he's going in, you just made that assumption. I do, however, think they factor into his decision. If he wants to convince us and the rest of the world that it has nothing to do with oil, he should make sure the Iraqis grant drilling rights to non-American companies to avoid the appearance of impropriety. What are the odds that he's going to do that?
Completely incorrect analogy. He's not coming to our house, we're going to his. Considering how ringed in he's been by us for the past 11 years, he poses little threat.
A better analogy would be if someone tried breaking into your friend's home 11 years ago, was arrested, and thrown in jail. You're so mad still that you go to the jail, find his cell, and shoot him, then claim that he was thinking of breaking out and coming after you, so it was justified.
A post can be redundant if it simply restates something in the story without adding any information or interpretation.
For example, if someone had posted a reply to this story saying simply "wow, what do you know, sonicblue is going out of business" that could justifiably labelled redundant.
Personally I think people take the moderation system way too seriously. There should be 3 moderations in my opinion; interesting, funny, and troll. Don't really need anything else.
To Internet users who complain that their e-mail inboxes are crammed with ads for products and services they would never purchase, Childs' response is, "Quit your whining. I'm asking you, how stressful is it to push the delete button? We have become a nation of crybabies."
Oh god, here we go with the old "waah why isn't everyone as tough as I am" complaint.
I wonder, does he have children? If not, would he relish the idea of them constantly being hit with sex ads? How about elderly relatives?
Complete FUD. American workers work longer than anyone in the industrialized world. Of course this presents a problem, as corporations want to have an excuse to go elsewhere for cheaper labor, so this idiotic rumor has risen. It has completely no basis in reality.
Slashdot Mirror
He isn't referring to that. He's referring to the way CN will (for example) get three episodes into Tenchi Universe, then not show it for six months or so.
I thought it was funny when they brought back *gasp* Robotech for Giant Robot Week, made a big deal about it--and all they showed were the final 3 episodes of the final series. Yes, I know Robotech was the hybrid from 3 different anime, but I don't care, I was looking forward to it. I mean, let's be honest, they're never going to release Genesis Climber Mospeada here, how else would I see it?
Dubbing has gotten substantially better in recent years; in some instances it compares favorably with the native voices.
I think the production values have gone up and they've started hiring professional (if not especially well-known) actors, who've received voice training. At least, newer series such as Cowboy Bebop or Tenchi Muyo have far better voice acting than say, Bubblegum Crisis.
Alright, this is pointless. I don't like being angry, especially over a posting on slashdot, so I'm getting out. You know, I'm not even against the war in general; I DO think humanitarianism is a valid reason to go to war, even if it's the only one. But I sure as hell don't believe this group when they tell me that's a main reason.
My anger came not out of disagreement, but because you actually stated that someone was "better" than me. I'm an American, nobody is inherently "better" or deserves more rights than me. You want to take away my rights? Then you'd better be willing to kill me.
As for our president, I just watched for 8 freaking years the reptiles of the right wing try to topple a democratically elected president. I saw our current one lose the popular vote, and he would have lost the electoral one if everyone who was legally allowed to vote had. After he gets elected he tries to ram in an extremist agenda, accuses me and anyone else who disagrees with him of patriotism, and now lies about his motives in Iraq. I should respect THAT?
"Cretin-in-chief?" Fuck you.
Masterful debate style you have there, idiot.
Too many people better than you have fought to give you the liberty to make smart-assed remarks like that.
So "how dare you use the freedom that you have"? God you offend me you snivelling little creep.
How dare you be so disrespectful.
How dare I? The Constitution gives me the RIGHT; how dare YOU try to limit MY freedom of speech.
I can't believe it; someone LYING in an ADVERTISEMENT?! This threatens the integrity of the entire advertising field!
I do not fear getting jumped because I have taken necessary precautions to largely guarantee my safety in the event.
Nothing can guarantee your safety.
I know how to shoot a gun very well
Your assailant might be a better shot. And you might not be carrying a gun.
I am also trained in hand to hand combat.
They might be better trained. Or they might simply be bigger; as much as we all like to think skill is everything, in a physical melee the bigger/more massive guy usually wins. It's just a simple fact.
I have faith in my abilities to escape a situation unharmed with anybody trained less than special forces in military.
Alright, now that's just macho posturing. A professional, or even an amateur boxer would rip apart most soldiers pretty easily. Ditto for a professional martial artist, such as an instructor. If you're actually claiming you'd be able to take on almost anyone, then I think you're more at risk because of your overconfidence.
They've waged a campaign of violent oppression against their own people.
Fine. Then why hasn't the Bush administration advocated going after North Korea or China or any number of African countries? This is where the credibility gap is. When Bush advocates going after Iraq because of human rights violation everyone knows he's lying. The biggest war hawks are the people who criticized Clinton for intervening in Kosovo and Rwanda. How can we trust these people's motives?
That's not true. They have camps both in Kurdistan and in northwestern Iraq
In other words, in areas outside of Baghdad's control.
Iraqi military intelligence has a full-time liaison officer assigned to Ansar al Islam. There's nothing tenuous about the connection.
Alleged. Do you believe everything the Iraqi government says?
I can't believe you just said that.
I'm sure you'll get over it, as hard as it is to believe that someone doesn't agree slavishly with everything you say.
A suicide bomber's purpose is to kill as many people as possible.
And, in the process, kill himself. "Suicide bombing" has always meant an attempt to kill people along with yourself. Why change it?
your anti-Israel wisecrack is not helpful.
Which would that be? My comment about Sharon is not anti-Israel, it's anti-Sharon. Sharon's a reptile, a profoundly immoral man whose fanaticism is a threat to the region.
Okay. So? Are you going to suggest that it won't have an effect?
The whole thing may have a net negative effect, because we're making more enemies than we can defeat through the incompetent "diplomacy" that our cretin-in-chief has tried carrying out.
One: the Baath government has been in almost a constant state of aggressive war since Saddam came into power. Saddam assumed power in 1978, and in 1980 Iraq started the war with Iran. They fought that war, brutally, until 1988, then in 1990 Saddam invaded Kuwait and attempted to invade Saudi Arabia. The Baath government is a brutal, warmongering regime.
What have they done in the past 12 years though? If you want to punish them for invading Kuwait, then be honest about it; don't try to pretend that Iraq was about to invade anybody. It's like if someone said "Since 1938 Germany has invaded Czecholovakia, Poland, France, Norway, Denmark, and Belgium"; accurate, but misleading.
Removing them from power will implicitly improve the stability of the region.
No, it's NOT implicit, which is the whole point. You damage your credibility when you try taking as a given what your opponents don't accept. It's a way of trying to win the argument before it begins.
Two: Iraq under the Baath party is a totalitarian autocracy. Those types of states are inherently less stable, both internally and externally, than representative states like federal republics. So replacing the Baath government with a federal republic will inherently improve the stability of the region.
I think your mistake is confusing "Iraq" and "the region"; the stability of Iraq may be improved by removing Saddam, but the Bush administration's claims extend beyond it. They have publicly stated that invading Iraq will somehow help solve the Israel-Palestinian problem. That's what I find idiotic.
And as a counter-example to your theory that democratic republics somehow exert a stabilizing effect on surrounding countries, why hasn't Turkey? Or Israel?
Three: the Baath government provides aid and assistance to domestic terrorist groups such as Ansar al Islam. You may have heard of this group; last month they carried out an assassination against the leadership of the PUK. Removing this support for terrorist groups inside Iraq will improve the stability of the region.
Your point makes no sense. Ansar al Islam is based in a territory outside of Baghdad's control; how would toppling Saddam affect it? The group's connections to Baghdad and Saddam are tenuous at best, and a war dedicated to toppling Saddam will not necessarily result in destroying them.
Four: the Baath government also supports terrorism outside of Iraq. The Iraqi government pays cash rewards, formerly in the range of $20-25,000 but recently lowered to $10,000, to the families of Palestinian suicide (i.e., homicide) bombers.
First of all, they're suicide bombers. It's a more precise term, it's better defined, it's more accurate. Don't let Ariel Sharon convince you otherwise.
Removing this source of aid and encouragement to terrorists will inherently improve the stability of the region.
This is a miniscule effect at best. Suicide bombers attacked before Iraq started offering rewards, and they certainly will continue after Iraq stops. The best way to stop the violence in Israel is to strongarm both sides into giving concessions. You can do this with Israel by refusing any more military or financial aid until they stop the bully tactics and reign in the religious fanatics who build settlements in occupied land. The Palestinians can be coerced by appealing to the surrounding Arab states, but they'll only put pressure on the Palestinians if the U.S. will stop turning a blind eye to Israel's tactics.
You do not act out of fear.
Obviously in certain situations of immediate danger I'll experience fear. But I'm not going to act preemptively like that.
For example, you asked me about whether someone broke into my house, what would I do? I would first try to leave my house through the back, then alert the police. If that was not possible, I'd alert the police, then tell the criminals I had done so.
I would not let my fear of a possible break-in dictate my actions beyond the simplest precautions (i.e. locking my door). I would not, for example, buy a gun. And if I had a gun for whatever reason, and someone broke in, I wouldn't open fire immediately.
Summation: Don't suppose becasuse you're a WASP with an educated opinion (albeit a public school one)
Huh? I thought WASPs tended to go to private schools. Or are you a Brit, in which case I'd understand the confusion, as the meanings are reversed on this side of the pond...
The idiotic tax cuts that this president gave the rich are going to hurt us for decades. You think the interest payments on the deficit he's racking up aren't a)his fault, and b)won't be hurting us down the road?
How about the environment?
Hahahahahahaha...yes, there's nothing Bush is more concerned about like the environment.
Or that we're trying to preserve _infrastructure_.
Then why are we blowing up everything else?
This makes a lot of sense once you get by your hatred of GWB.
He's earned my hatred and contempt, again and again.
I don't think the oil fields are the main reason he's going in, you just made that assumption. I do, however, think they factor into his decision. If he wants to convince us and the rest of the world that it has nothing to do with oil, he should make sure the Iraqis grant drilling rights to non-American companies to avoid the appearance of impropriety. What are the odds that he's going to do that?
You obvious don't have any idea about military strategy, do you.
So enlighten us. Explain how Saddam out of Iraq will somehow stabilize the region. You can't, can you. Hell, you're too cowardly to even log on.
Completely incorrect analogy. He's not coming to our house, we're going to his. Considering how ringed in he's been by us for the past 11 years, he poses little threat.
A better analogy would be if someone tried breaking into your friend's home 11 years ago, was arrested, and thrown in jail. You're so mad still that you go to the jail, find his cell, and shoot him, then claim that he was thinking of breaking out and coming after you, so it was justified.
Oops, my mistake, read that too fast. Thought you meant that the Kosovo coverage was more.
Anyway, I think it's mostly due to the scale involved. There are a LOT of troops heading in.
The protests were non existent.
Uhhhh..wha?
The media attention wasn't 1/100th this size in Kosovo or when Clinton bombed Iraq. What am I missing?
A television, newspaper, or radio apparently.
If they didn't click on the story, then they wouldn't be able to complain about it. And they love complaining.
I find it disappointing the way so many people deny that Saddam Hussein is responsible not only for direct attacks on America
Which attacks would these be? What attacks on America was Saddam directly the cause of?
Can you imagine a world with a peaceful Middle East? Our President can.
Anyone who thinks that taking over Iraq will cause peace in the rest of the reason is either insane or dumber than a bag of hammers.
And just remember all you anti-war types, you're still an infidel that needs to die in the eyes of a militant islamic terrorist.
Unlike you I don't conduct my actions out of fear.
In addition to the strategic advantage of that much smoke, it also annoys Bush. The oil fields are one of the reason he's going in.
Nothing quite ups the contempt level like watching your president on TV begging Iraqis not to set fire to the oil fields.
A post can be redundant if it simply restates something in the story without adding any information or interpretation.
For example, if someone had posted a reply to this story saying simply "wow, what do you know, sonicblue is going out of business" that could justifiably labelled redundant.
Personally I think people take the moderation system way too seriously. There should be 3 moderations in my opinion; interesting, funny, and troll. Don't really need anything else.
Oh god, here we go with the old "waah why isn't everyone as tough as I am" complaint.
I wonder, does he have children? If not, would he relish the idea of them constantly being hit with sex ads? How about elderly relatives?
Actually, the parent post said that Americans have lost their work ethic, which is blatantly untrue.
Here's one article on it.
Complete FUD. American workers work longer than anyone in the industrialized world. Of course this presents a problem, as corporations want to have an excuse to go elsewhere for cheaper labor, so this idiotic rumor has risen. It has completely no basis in reality.