So, Teenage Extraterrestrial Ninja...Aliens? With a maybe on the Teenage and Ninja part.
Wait, do they come to Earth and study Ninjutsu or did they know it beforehand? Why would aliens have something called Ninjutsu?
And this alien planet also has a 2nd sentient species that looks like rats, or is Splinter from here? If they are capable of interstellar travel why are they using swords and nunchaku?
I'd usually suggest we wait for a script or at least actual plot details but this is Bay, the script will just be drawings of things blowing up and pages from a Victoria's Secret catalog.
The modern web is like going to watch a show while two dozen ugly people with screeching voices walk the aisles constantly screaming at you to pay attention to them instead.
So it's a lot like the last time I went to the movies?
Wow, we've certainly taken this further than I'm guessing either one of us thought it would go. But I'm enjoying it, which is why I started it in the first place.
Trying to use the "If another guy thought that way, and another, and another then the world would change!" argument is bogus. This isn't an idealized world where my one purchase actually makes a difference.
Those two statements don't go together. This is a world where people can band together and make a difference, whether it happened with the PS3 or not doesn't change the fact that it is possible. Your second sentence just repeats what I was arguing against with my 'if another guy thought that way...' statement, it doesn't actually refute anything.
I don't understand why you believe I have this great moral dilemma I have to justify to myself.
Because you did. It may not be a 'great' moral dilemma, but you did justify yourself and set aside your opinion of a company's business practices in order to satisfy your need to view HD content. And that's what I latched on to. You aren't alone, and I don't think you eat babies and kick puppies because of it, but you did do it, no matter how small or insignificant of a choice you may feel it to be. And again, what if everyone stopped doing that?
Let me reiterate my original argument. You don't like the way a company does business, ('I don't like his business practices and arrogance'), but you are willing to give them money anyways because they make something you want. That is going against your morals, and saying that it is because they make good products is the justification. Maybe you think the use of the word 'morals' should be reserved for life or death situations or things of greater importance than a movie player, but it doesn't change the fact that you were willing to give over money to a company you dislike. I have a 5 year old nephew, and I don't make a habit of rewarding him for things he isn't supposed to do. You did, and whether it was just a 'drop in a bucket' that no one noticed isn't the crux of the matter, it just circles back to my 'if another guy thought that way...' argument.
Well... Sony's not going away. Sony's financial future didn't hinge on the one single PS3 that I bought. As far as Sony is concerned, my one single purchase isn't worth spit. It wouldn't matter to them if I personally did or did not buy them.
People always use this argument as a justification. I wonder what would happen if everyone stopped justifying their actions. You are just one person, and so is the other guy justifying his purchase the same way. Now there are two of you. See where this is going? Would it ever amount to enough people to affect a change, I don't know. But I do know that it is a cop-out as far as arguments go.
Where's the logic in boycotting Sony if they won?
Whoops, I thought we were debating your lack of moral fortitude. These are your principles, things you believe in and uphold. The 'logic' is that you stick to them or you don't. You didn't, and that's fine since you've obviously justified it to yourself, but don't act otherwise.
If I honestly thought I would be a worse person for doing buying a PS3, I wouldn't have. Sony doesn't even register on my morality meter. They just provide a means to an end for me to accomplish something I want to do. Other than that, they're pretty much a non-entity to me.
Then why even bring up your feelings about them in the original post? It just makes you look hypocritical. I honestly don't care one way or the other that you bought a PS3 or that you hate/love Sony. But your posts are an exercise in hypocrisy at the very least.
I save my morals for things I know I can change.
But you don't seem to think one person can ever make a change. Even if Sony used sweatshop workers you wouldn't care. So what exactly are you saving these morals for?
I was pissed off by Sony's arrogance about their system. I was voting for HD-DVD to win. But they didn't. Blu-Ray won. And I'm a pragmatist. If I want to watch movies in 1080p (which I do) there's only one way to do. The president of Sony can go eat a dick. I don't like his business practices and arrogance, but my opinion isn't going to change that.
No, but your dollars could. Too late now though. Spew all the vitriol you want about Sony's business practices, but it's all hollow bluster once you've validated those same business practices by handing over your money.
So, your morals for the 'shiny', was it a fair trade?
That, frankly, is a piss-poor reason to see a movie.
How did you come to that conclusion? It is the fourth film in a franchise that has produced, at the very least, some entertaining movies.
And if there is imitation going on, it is all the people from the first three imitating themselves. This isn't some Flavor of the Month franchise that they handed to a no name director because the guy that handled the first one moved on to bigger and better things. This is the team that brought us one of the most iconic action movies of recent times taking another stab at the character.
In my book, that's a damn good reason to see a movie.
Yes, even if it turns out to be crap. How am I going to know until I see it? Reviewers? (insert sounds of maniacal laughter)
I understand what you are trying to say, and with almost any other sequel (hell, any other movie) released lately I would be agreeing with you, but in this case I think your ire is misdirected.
Everyone knew the ending of "Titanic" but it is the biggest blockbuster ever.
Everyone always says this, I've even made the joke myself, but it's not really true. Yes, we knew beforehand that the ship would sink, but that wasn't the end of the movie. The Titanic was really just a backdrop and a convenient way to provide/move along the necessary plot elements (meeting of two different classes of society, tragedy, death/loss).
So while I agree that knowing the ending rarely ruins a movie, Titanic might not be the best example:)
Unless you are playing quite often, it's simply not worth the subscription fee. That is assuming it's worth the price to begin with, which may be debatable given the continuous expansion packs that eventually become necessity. That's how I see it at least. If I had no life and could play it for several hours a day almost every single day, then the subscription price might be justified (assuming the combat wasn't of the boring click-n-wait variety). But since that isn't the case, it's essentially just a waste of money. Good thing you added "That's how I see it at least", because this is just one more post attacking people who don't share the same hobbies as the poster. This one just didn't have any cursing or leet speak in it.
Lets list your hobbies and how much you spend on each one. Chances are you spend more time and money than I do playing WoW. And I'm reasonably certain I can look down my nose at things you enjoy as well.
And before you start going on about me defending a game or some crap, I'm not. What I'm posting about is the attitude that somehow the way you spend your free time is more...important? than how I spend mine, and if I don't do something from your "approved" list, I'm throwing away money.
Isn't it fun to be an ass? And if you weren't trying to be an ass, you might use the Preview button next time.
What you are dissing is what you read into the GP. Which is happening all over the place in this thread.
He said you have a lot of the muscles developed to progress more quickly. He didn't say you develop exactly the same muscles. Or all of the muscles needed. He didn't say that the actions translated 1 to 1 from GH to a real guitar.
He said your hand would be stronger, you'd be able to move your fingers faster. And it is, and you can. And that is an advantage that will let you progress more quickly. If he had said the kid spent several months with one of those grip strengtheners and that helped him be able to learn chords faster and hold them for longer than his fellow students that started at the same time, you wouldn't have even made your comment. But because his hand strength increased through GH, we have to beat down any positives from it. Also ignoring the fact that this fake game inspired this kid to pick up an actual guitar.
I have nothing against you getting excited to watch an ad, I simply have no desire whatsoever to do so myself. No, you'll just come onto an Internet message board and act condescending to anyone who may have enjoyed a small fan moment. Feel free to act high and mighty if you respond to this, I sat through all the credits and I enjoyed the extra scene (oh sorry, advertisement....i r so dum, i r big sukr, plees taek mi monee Mr. Corperation). On top of that, I had already been spoiled as to what would happen!
I could just as easily make an argument for your precious Pixar shorts being an ads as well.
Ok, Vista runs slower than XP. I don't debate that. But, XP ran slower than Windows 98, OR Windows 2000. How much of this is love-to-hate-microsoft, and how much of it is really truly bad?
The "really truly bad" is that you just used a trend of new tech being slower than older tech to show why Vista isn't that bad. And you seem ok with that. For some reason did we all just decide to be morons? When did I say it was ok to make the upgrades worse?
I'm still just stunned by this. Vista is ok because brand new technology is supposed to be slower than the previous generation!
And for the record, this was posted from a Vista machine. Pre-installed. Soon to be not installed.
WARNING! I QUOTE THE TITLE AND OPENING BLURB OF THE ARTICLE!! IF YOU DON"T WANT THOSE SPOILED BEFORE YOU GO TO THE SITE, STOP READING!!!!
I guess you missed this part:
The streaming revelation along with other show secrets and anecdotes, was revealed last night at the Morgan Library during a panel discussion with series executive producers David Eick and Ron Moore and nine of the show's stars.
More news on a confirmed BSG prequel, identifying the final cylon and what it's like to find out you're a toaster, all after the jump.
And while not directed solely at the parent, people need to suck it up and take some personal responsibility. The HEADING of the article is Battlestar Galactica Streams Into Season 4.
If people have not even finished season TWO and still read past the title then they have only themselves to blame, either for lack of willpower, inability to grasp the English language, or general stupidity.
Unless you just got your first computer, chances are you know how this "web" thing works and that going to a site about a show or a movie could possibly contain SPOILERS. Sure it's nice when they give you a warning, but in the Big Bad World, Mommy and Daddy can't always be there to hold your hand or help you make decisions.
I will make one concession, the Slashdot summary could be better (shocking!). The line about the new show and last season of BSG is a bit ambiguous given the context and state of the show. Does "last season" mean the Final Season (yes, in this case) or does it mean the Previous Season? But even being confused by that, the article itself contained enough warning once you got there. Unless you need huge, 72pt., red spoiler warnings because you're an idiot.
I actually base it on the fact that providing health care to detainees seems like the right thing to do. Given that the sort of people who like Michael Moore films would (like me) be angry if the US didn't provide healthcare it is hypocrtical to complain when it does. Cost is a secondary issue.
Show me where I said it wasn't the right thing to do. That doesn't change the overall point, which I still contend you missed. Healthcare is better for prisoners of war than for U.S. citizens. It really doesn't get any simpler than that. Everything else is just a justification for why this is acceptable. And that is where we disagree. But me saying it is unacceptable doesn't mean I want to lower the standard of healthcare for the prisoners, but rather raise it for the citizens.
In terms of cost, look at it this way. The base needs to provide health care to the US personnel. There's a marginal cost to providing care to the detainees too, but since they are kept in very controlled conditions this is probably not high per capita compared to the US personnel. It's not like they can injure themselves or get medical problems from a bad diet, because the military control everything they do. There are also a rather small number of detainees (200-500 compared to 9500 US personnel). And foreign military bases are expensive in general and Gitmo is probably more expensive than average since the Cuban government won't cooperate.
Even if it's not negligable, the DOD can just request more money to cover it. DOD resources are practically unlimited anyway.
What about this is even a valid argument? You think it's negligible, but if it's not let's just throw more money at it? They can't hurt themselves? Of course they can. I can break my own arm with nothing but a wall and some force, and I think they have a few walls. But you mean they are monitored and who in their right mind would hurt themselves or others. I don't know, prisoners? And this doesn't account for care of existing conditions or the introduction of a disease, virus, what have you.
The costs of providing health care to Americans is nowhere near negligable. In fact the US spends more on health care per capita than anywhere else
There are also 300 million Americans compared to 200-500 gitmo detainees. So the comparison between the cost of providing healthcare to Americans vs Gitmo detainees is absurd. And I'm sure Michael Moore knows this, even if his idiot fans can't accept that he's pulled some slight of hand to make the two situations seem remotely comparable.
First, I never said it was negligible, I said it was negligible as a percentage of what it takes to run a nation. And the fact that we spend more per capita than anywhere else in the world only helps to illustrate the absurdity that Moore is trying to point out; too many Americans go with substandard healthcare. How does that happen in the country spending the most on it?
I don't think you know what a strawman is. Please look it up on wikipedia. I'm sure that rights for gitmo detainees are determined at least partly with what the US can get away with politically. And one of the downsides about freedom is that the government is no longer obligated to give you free healthcare, at least in the US model. If you really prefer gitmo to "working every day and struggling to stay alive" then resign your citizenship (if you are American, otherwise skip this step), head to Iraq and join the people Moore called freedom fighters. Get captured by US forces and I'm sure you can sample the delights of free healthcare at Gitmo.
I went and looked straw man up on Wiki, like you asked. Let's see if I'm close. You setup the argument that we needed healthcare for Gitmo prisoners, something that wasn't being argued beforehand, but deals with a portion of the main argument (the detainees and their healthcare). Then you made the easy argument th
Way to miss the point. And make generalizations to back up your claims while providing no proof. You partly hinge your argument on the cost being negligible. Care to show where you found the financial data for Gitmo?
Here let me try one.
And the cost of providing healthcare to American citizens is probably negligible anyway if you look at it as a percentage of the vast cost of running a nation.
Yes, there would be complaints about a lack of healthcare for detainees. That strawman doesn't change the fact that prisoners of war, citizens of foreign nations, have access to better healthcare than citizens of the U.S. who work everyday and struggle to stay alive.
Yay for you, you found a phone you like. Let's have a party. All you sound like is someone bitter that they didn't wait long enough and now can't get the new shiny gadget they wanted. And if you aren't bitter, why do you give enough of a crap to post a laundry list of how your phone stacks up? Are you selling vx6700s? Do you have a link so you can get commission?
And a laptop? Did you ACTUALLY just suggest a LAPTOP as a reason not to have a certain PHONE? Do *I* have to make a laundry list with how utterly STUPID of a comparison that is, or can we just assume you weren't sober at the time? And PLEASE, for the love of GOD, don't respond with some argument about free WiFi, fast startup times if you use hibernate, or any of that shit. When I can carry the laptop without needing a bag or killing my arm, and I can walk around without doing a balancing act of touchpad usage / holding the LAPTOP in one HAND / not running into anything, THEN we can make that comparison.
To be honest there isn't a market left...Any one who is really after a good fantasy game is already playing Everquest and I know from people I come across there is already a huge Warcraft fanbase in the game. Hell every member of my squad is an out right addict of The Frozen Throne.
So the question is how do these people think they can get the depth and sophistication of Everquest to draw people away from characters they've already put at least a year into developing. My answer is that I doubt they can for a very long time; Everquest is very complex and very well thought out plus by the time this mob have a game out Everquest will probably have even more features added. I really can't see myself moving away from it for a simple name branding of Warcraft on another game.
Please. Exactly what were you expecting here? The lives lost are a tragedy, no one is saying otherwise, but if you think that people who have dealings in the area aren't questioning their future you are being naive.
People who live and work there are wondering if they should anymore (if they even have a choice). People who do business there are wondering if they should take their business elsewhere. The people that run these companies are paid to keep the companies running, not shut down operations in protest or mobilize a vigilante strike force to kill the attackers. So yes, their primary concern is going to be the welfare of their company should they continue to have dealings in the area.
And what if there is a future IT outage due to terrorist attacks? How would that affect the world? How would that affect the companies that are subject to that outage? Would they fold? Would their employees be out of work and as such no longer able to support their families? Is that not worth worrying about? Should the companies' only focus be on the people who are dead, the ones they can no longer do anything for, or should they concentrate on the future and the ones they can still help?
As for what makes people think this could happen again here? Location, location, location.
This is twice in the comments for this story that I have seen you making remarks suggesting (or outright saying) that DRM isn't the issue, they should just burn a disc and rip it to the format of their choice.
Wow, how's the Kool-aid taste?
Now stop. Before you hit reply and start in with some caustic remark about my laziness or what not, do yourself a favor and think about what you are saying. For starters, DRM is the problem, that you have a solution or work around to it doesn't change that fact. Without the DRM no one would need a work around. Why are you so accepting of DRM? Can you answer that without quoting or paraphasing some corporation? Is your reply something other than "because that's the only way the RIAA will let us download music". What caused you to be so willing to give up your own rights so easily? Could it be your own laziness?
Now go ahead and label me a liberal, hippie, un-American, so and so. Ignore my remarks. Insult me, tell me I'm lazy, whatever makes it easier for you to brush me off and not give the issue any serious thought. And keep enjoying the Kool-aid. I hope it's a flavor you like.
One other thing to consider about the comparison is the generation of players that was into video games at the time of the Neo-Geo. Until recently video games were always kid's toys. It's the generation that grew up with the 2600 (my generation) that is changing that. Our parents didn't grow up with video games, they never had them until they bought a system for their kids (us). Meanwhile, we've grown up with them, starting with one system and moving on through the upgrades. I've owned atleast one console (generally more) from every generation since the 2600 (and we had an Odyssey II that I played from time to time).
When the Neo-Geo was introduced we were still around high school age, there was no way we were going to spend $700 on a video game system. But now we have grown up a bit, most of us have jobs that allow us a margin of disposable income and we can better afford something like a $700 video game system.
That is by no means a guarantee that we will buy it, or that Sony will be successful since it will probably take more than just the hardcore gamers to elevate the PS3 to the number 1 spot, but it makes the comparison to the Neo-Geo not so clear cut.
Slashdot Mirror
So, Teenage Extraterrestrial Ninja...Aliens? With a maybe on the Teenage and Ninja part.
Wait, do they come to Earth and study Ninjutsu or did they know it beforehand? Why would aliens have something called Ninjutsu?
And this alien planet also has a 2nd sentient species that looks like rats, or is Splinter from here? If they are capable of interstellar travel why are they using swords and nunchaku?
I'd usually suggest we wait for a script or at least actual plot details but this is Bay, the script will just be drawings of things blowing up and pages from a Victoria's Secret catalog.
Screw it, bring on the explosions!!!
The one-armed man did it!
Since his crime involved the Internet, it was more likely the one-hand-free man.
The modern web is like going to watch a show while two dozen ugly people with screeching voices walk the aisles constantly screaming at you to pay attention to them instead.
So it's a lot like the last time I went to the movies?
Wow, we've certainly taken this further than I'm guessing either one of us thought it would go. But I'm enjoying it, which is why I started it in the first place.
Trying to use the "If another guy thought that way, and another, and another then the world would change!" argument is bogus. This isn't an idealized world where my one purchase actually makes a difference.
Those two statements don't go together. This is a world where people can band together and make a difference, whether it happened with the PS3 or not doesn't change the fact that it is possible. Your second sentence just repeats what I was arguing against with my 'if another guy thought that way...' statement, it doesn't actually refute anything.
I don't understand why you believe I have this great moral dilemma I have to justify to myself.
Because you did. It may not be a 'great' moral dilemma, but you did justify yourself and set aside your opinion of a company's business practices in order to satisfy your need to view HD content. And that's what I latched on to. You aren't alone, and I don't think you eat babies and kick puppies because of it, but you did do it, no matter how small or insignificant of a choice you may feel it to be. And again, what if everyone stopped doing that?
Let me reiterate my original argument. You don't like the way a company does business, ('I don't like his business practices and arrogance'), but you are willing to give them money anyways because they make something you want. That is going against your morals, and saying that it is because they make good products is the justification. Maybe you think the use of the word 'morals' should be reserved for life or death situations or things of greater importance than a movie player, but it doesn't change the fact that you were willing to give over money to a company you dislike. I have a 5 year old nephew, and I don't make a habit of rewarding him for things he isn't supposed to do. You did, and whether it was just a 'drop in a bucket' that no one noticed isn't the crux of the matter, it just circles back to my 'if another guy thought that way...' argument.
Well... Sony's not going away. Sony's financial future didn't hinge on the one single PS3 that I bought. As far as Sony is concerned, my one single purchase isn't worth spit. It wouldn't matter to them if I personally did or did not buy them.
People always use this argument as a justification. I wonder what would happen if everyone stopped justifying their actions. You are just one person, and so is the other guy justifying his purchase the same way. Now there are two of you. See where this is going? Would it ever amount to enough people to affect a change, I don't know. But I do know that it is a cop-out as far as arguments go.
Where's the logic in boycotting Sony if they won?
Whoops, I thought we were debating your lack of moral fortitude. These are your principles, things you believe in and uphold. The 'logic' is that you stick to them or you don't. You didn't, and that's fine since you've obviously justified it to yourself, but don't act otherwise.
If I honestly thought I would be a worse person for doing buying a PS3, I wouldn't have. Sony doesn't even register on my morality meter. They just provide a means to an end for me to accomplish something I want to do. Other than that, they're pretty much a non-entity to me.
Then why even bring up your feelings about them in the original post? It just makes you look hypocritical. I honestly don't care one way or the other that you bought a PS3 or that you hate/love Sony. But your posts are an exercise in hypocrisy at the very least.
I save my morals for things I know I can change.
But you don't seem to think one person can ever make a change. Even if Sony used sweatshop workers you wouldn't care. So what exactly are you saving these morals for?
I was pissed off by Sony's arrogance about their system. I was voting for HD-DVD to win. But they didn't. Blu-Ray won. And I'm a pragmatist. If I want to watch movies in 1080p (which I do) there's only one way to do. The president of Sony can go eat a dick. I don't like his business practices and arrogance, but my opinion isn't going to change that.
No, but your dollars could. Too late now though. Spew all the vitriol you want about Sony's business practices, but it's all hollow bluster once you've validated those same business practices by handing over your money.
So, your morals for the 'shiny', was it a fair trade?
...said SOE director Constance Phuckup. I laughed. I cried. I kissed my karma goodbye?That, frankly, is a piss-poor reason to see a movie.
How did you come to that conclusion? It is the fourth film in a franchise that has produced, at the very least, some entertaining movies.
And if there is imitation going on, it is all the people from the first three imitating themselves. This isn't some Flavor of the Month franchise that they handed to a no name director because the guy that handled the first one moved on to bigger and better things. This is the team that brought us one of the most iconic action movies of recent times taking another stab at the character.
In my book, that's a damn good reason to see a movie.
Yes, even if it turns out to be crap. How am I going to know until I see it? Reviewers? (insert sounds of maniacal laughter)
I understand what you are trying to say, and with almost any other sequel (hell, any other movie) released lately I would be agreeing with you, but in this case I think your ire is misdirected.
Everyone knew the ending of "Titanic" but it is the biggest blockbuster ever.
:)
Everyone always says this, I've even made the joke myself, but it's not really true. Yes, we knew beforehand that the ship would sink, but that wasn't the end of the movie. The Titanic was really just a backdrop and a convenient way to provide/move along the necessary plot elements (meeting of two different classes of society, tragedy, death/loss).
So while I agree that knowing the ending rarely ruins a movie, Titanic might not be the best example
Lets list your hobbies and how much you spend on each one. Chances are you spend more time and money than I do playing WoW. And I'm reasonably certain I can look down my nose at things you enjoy as well.
And before you start going on about me defending a game or some crap, I'm not. What I'm posting about is the attitude that somehow the way you spend your free time is more...important? than how I spend mine, and if I don't do something from your "approved" list, I'm throwing away money.
Isn't it fun to be an ass? And if you weren't trying to be an ass, you might use the Preview button next time.
What you are dissing is what you read into the GP. Which is happening all over the place in this thread.
He said you have a lot of the muscles developed to progress more quickly. He didn't say you develop exactly the same muscles. Or all of the muscles needed. He didn't say that the actions translated 1 to 1 from GH to a real guitar.
He said your hand would be stronger, you'd be able to move your fingers faster. And it is, and you can. And that is an advantage that will let you progress more quickly. If he had said the kid spent several months with one of those grip strengtheners and that helped him be able to learn chords faster and hold them for longer than his fellow students that started at the same time, you wouldn't have even made your comment. But because his hand strength increased through GH, we have to beat down any positives from it. Also ignoring the fact that this fake game inspired this kid to pick up an actual guitar.
I could just as easily make an argument for your precious Pixar shorts being an ads as well.
Sadly, Google and its ilk have taken the obscure out of obscure sayings.
House M.D. Season 4, Episode 12: Don't ever change
I had seen the episode but still had to search. My first guess was Buffy or Angel.
Ok, Vista runs slower than XP. I don't debate that. But, XP ran slower than Windows 98, OR Windows 2000. How much of this is love-to-hate-microsoft, and how much of it is really truly bad?
The "really truly bad" is that you just used a trend of new tech being slower than older tech to show why Vista isn't that bad. And you seem ok with that. For some reason did we all just decide to be morons? When did I say it was ok to make the upgrades worse?
I'm still just stunned by this. Vista is ok because brand new technology is supposed to be slower than the previous generation!
And for the record, this was posted from a Vista machine. Pre-installed. Soon to be not installed.
WARNING! I QUOTE THE TITLE AND OPENING BLURB OF THE ARTICLE!! IF YOU DON"T WANT THOSE SPOILED BEFORE YOU GO TO THE SITE, STOP READING!!!!
I guess you missed this part:
The streaming revelation along with other show secrets and anecdotes, was revealed last night at the Morgan Library during a panel discussion with series executive producers David Eick and Ron Moore and nine of the show's stars.
More news on a confirmed BSG prequel, identifying the final cylon and what it's like to find out you're a toaster, all after the jump.
And while not directed solely at the parent, people need to suck it up and take some personal responsibility. The HEADING of the article is Battlestar Galactica Streams Into Season 4 .
If people have not even finished season TWO and still read past the title then they have only themselves to blame, either for lack of willpower, inability to grasp the English language, or general stupidity.
Unless you just got your first computer, chances are you know how this "web" thing works and that going to a site about a show or a movie could possibly contain SPOILERS. Sure it's nice when they give you a warning, but in the Big Bad World, Mommy and Daddy can't always be there to hold your hand or help you make decisions.
I will make one concession, the Slashdot summary could be better (shocking!). The line about the new show and last season of BSG is a bit ambiguous given the context and state of the show. Does "last season" mean the Final Season (yes, in this case) or does it mean the Previous Season? But even being confused by that, the article itself contained enough warning once you got there. Unless you need huge, 72pt., red spoiler warnings because you're an idiot.
I actually base it on the fact that providing health care to detainees seems like the right thing to do. Given that the sort of people who like Michael Moore films would (like me) be angry if the US didn't provide healthcare it is hypocrtical to complain when it does. Cost is a secondary issue.
Show me where I said it wasn't the right thing to do. That doesn't change the overall point, which I still contend you missed. Healthcare is better for prisoners of war than for U.S. citizens. It really doesn't get any simpler than that. Everything else is just a justification for why this is acceptable. And that is where we disagree. But me saying it is unacceptable doesn't mean I want to lower the standard of healthcare for the prisoners, but rather raise it for the citizens.
In terms of cost, look at it this way. The base needs to provide health care to the US personnel. There's a marginal cost to providing care to the detainees too, but since they are kept in very controlled conditions this is probably not high per capita compared to the US personnel. It's not like they can injure themselves or get medical problems from a bad diet, because the military control everything they do. There are also a rather small number of detainees (200-500 compared to 9500 US personnel). And foreign military bases are expensive in general and Gitmo is probably more expensive than average since the Cuban government won't cooperate.
Even if it's not negligable, the DOD can just request more money to cover it. DOD resources are practically unlimited anyway.
What about this is even a valid argument? You think it's negligible, but if it's not let's just throw more money at it? They can't hurt themselves? Of course they can. I can break my own arm with nothing but a wall and some force, and I think they have a few walls. But you mean they are monitored and who in their right mind would hurt themselves or others. I don't know, prisoners? And this doesn't account for care of existing conditions or the introduction of a disease, virus, what have you.
The costs of providing health care to Americans is nowhere near negligable. In fact the US spends more on health care per capita than anywhere else
http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
There are also 300 million Americans compared to 200-500 gitmo detainees. So the comparison between the cost of providing healthcare to Americans vs Gitmo detainees is absurd. And I'm sure Michael Moore knows this, even if his idiot fans can't accept that he's pulled some slight of hand to make the two situations seem remotely comparable.
First, I never said it was negligible, I said it was negligible as a percentage of what it takes to run a nation. And the fact that we spend more per capita than anywhere else in the world only helps to illustrate the absurdity that Moore is trying to point out; too many Americans go with substandard healthcare. How does that happen in the country spending the most on it?
I don't think you know what a strawman is. Please look it up on wikipedia. I'm sure that rights for gitmo detainees are determined at least partly with what the US can get away with politically. And one of the downsides about freedom is that the government is no longer obligated to give you free healthcare, at least in the US model. If you really prefer gitmo to "working every day and struggling to stay alive" then resign your citizenship (if you are American, otherwise skip this step), head to Iraq and join the people Moore called freedom fighters. Get captured by US forces and I'm sure you can sample the delights of free healthcare at Gitmo.
I went and looked straw man up on Wiki, like you asked. Let's see if I'm close. You setup the argument that we needed healthcare for Gitmo prisoners, something that wasn't being argued beforehand, but deals with a portion of the main argument (the detainees and their healthcare). Then you made the easy argument th
Way to miss the point. And make generalizations to back up your claims while providing no proof. You partly hinge your argument on the cost being negligible. Care to show where you found the financial data for Gitmo?
Here let me try one.
And the cost of providing healthcare to American citizens is probably negligible anyway if you look at it as a percentage of the vast cost of running a nation.
Yes, there would be complaints about a lack of healthcare for detainees. That strawman doesn't change the fact that prisoners of war, citizens of foreign nations, have access to better healthcare than citizens of the U.S. who work everyday and struggle to stay alive.
Being crazy doesn't make me wrong.
Why do you people even respond? Seriously.
Yay for you, you found a phone you like. Let's have a party. All you sound like is someone bitter that they didn't wait long enough and now can't get the new shiny gadget they wanted. And if you aren't bitter, why do you give enough of a crap to post a laundry list of how your phone stacks up? Are you selling vx6700s? Do you have a link so you can get commission?
And a laptop? Did you ACTUALLY just suggest a LAPTOP as a reason not to have a certain PHONE? Do *I* have to make a laundry list with how utterly STUPID of a comparison that is, or can we just assume you weren't sober at the time? And PLEASE, for the love of GOD, don't respond with some argument about free WiFi, fast startup times if you use hibernate, or any of that shit. When I can carry the laptop without needing a bag or killing my arm, and I can walk around without doing a balancing act of touchpad usage / holding the LAPTOP in one HAND / not running into anything, THEN we can make that comparison.
To be honest there isn't a market left...Any one who is really after a good fantasy game is already playing Everquest and I know from people I come across there is already a huge Warcraft fanbase in the game. Hell every member of my squad is an out right addict of The Frozen Throne.
So the question is how do these people think they can get the depth and sophistication of Everquest to draw people away from characters they've already put at least a year into developing. My answer is that I doubt they can for a very long time; Everquest is very complex and very well thought out plus by the time this mob have a game out Everquest will probably have even more features added. I really can't see myself moving away from it for a simple name branding of Warcraft on another game.
but iPods can actually boot after absorbing a large amount of water.
He dropped it in the toilet. He wishes he just had to worry about water.
I can't count the times I've asked myself something similar in the morning.
Instead of Roman numerals you should count using a more modern number system, specifically one that can represent zero.
Please. Exactly what were you expecting here? The lives lost are a tragedy, no one is saying otherwise, but if you think that people who have dealings in the area aren't questioning their future you are being naive.
People who live and work there are wondering if they should anymore (if they even have a choice). People who do business there are wondering if they should take their business elsewhere. The people that run these companies are paid to keep the companies running, not shut down operations in protest or mobilize a vigilante strike force to kill the attackers. So yes, their primary concern is going to be the welfare of their company should they continue to have dealings in the area.
And what if there is a future IT outage due to terrorist attacks? How would that affect the world? How would that affect the companies that are subject to that outage? Would they fold? Would their employees be out of work and as such no longer able to support their families? Is that not worth worrying about? Should the companies' only focus be on the people who are dead, the ones they can no longer do anything for, or should they concentrate on the future and the ones they can still help?
As for what makes people think this could happen again here? Location, location, location.
This is twice in the comments for this story that I have seen you making remarks suggesting (or outright saying) that DRM isn't the issue, they should just burn a disc and rip it to the format of their choice.
Wow, how's the Kool-aid taste?
Now stop. Before you hit reply and start in with some caustic remark about my laziness or what not, do yourself a favor and think about what you are saying. For starters, DRM is the problem, that you have a solution or work around to it doesn't change that fact. Without the DRM no one would need a work around. Why are you so accepting of DRM? Can you answer that without quoting or paraphasing some corporation? Is your reply something other than "because that's the only way the RIAA will let us download music". What caused you to be so willing to give up your own rights so easily? Could it be your own laziness?
Now go ahead and label me a liberal, hippie, un-American, so and so. Ignore my remarks. Insult me, tell me I'm lazy, whatever makes it easier for you to brush me off and not give the issue any serious thought. And keep enjoying the Kool-aid. I hope it's a flavor you like.
One other thing to consider about the comparison is the generation of players that was into video games at the time of the Neo-Geo. Until recently video games were always kid's toys. It's the generation that grew up with the 2600 (my generation) that is changing that. Our parents didn't grow up with video games, they never had them until they bought a system for their kids (us). Meanwhile, we've grown up with them, starting with one system and moving on through the upgrades. I've owned atleast one console (generally more) from every generation since the 2600 (and we had an Odyssey II that I played from time to time).
When the Neo-Geo was introduced we were still around high school age, there was no way we were going to spend $700 on a video game system. But now we have grown up a bit, most of us have jobs that allow us a margin of disposable income and we can better afford something like a $700 video game system.
That is by no means a guarantee that we will buy it, or that Sony will be successful since it will probably take more than just the hardcore gamers to elevate the PS3 to the number 1 spot, but it makes the comparison to the Neo-Geo not so clear cut.