This series was almost made to be converted to a screenplay. And we have the CGI tech to pull it off now. The sexual content would have to be toned down quite a bit for American audiences, though.
Considering what happened to JV with Millennium, however, dunno if it'll happen any time soon.
With all due respect sir, you are incorrect.
>> What a load of rubbish. Without government, you'd have NO freedoms.
>> Your existence would be defined by the one stronger than you.
>> Government enforces the law. The law is defined by government.
>> That can be a good thing or bad thing.
>>>In some countries where government has defined laws where its citizens have no freedoms, obviously er duh they don't.
Government cannot grant rights, they can only grant privileges. All the rights enumerated by the Constitution you already possess with or without the actual paper. The Constitution merely SECURES those rights by prohibiting government from infringing upon them. That's why you'll see so many sections worded as a prohibition on government, rather than as a granting of privilege:
"..the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
"..shall pass any law impairing the obligation of Contracts."
>> Fortunately for many democratic countries, their governments have been set up to give its citizens freedoms which they deserve, back it up with law, and back that up with more law (common law, constitution, whatever) that says you can't take those freedoms away...
See the above.
>> If you want lack of government meddling in your lives, I suggest you move to a country that has horrible ineffective government, like Columbia. >> Then your "freedoms" would be defined by the closest drug lord...
Our freedoms ARE defined by the closest drug lord. Are you aware how much political clout the major drug manufacturers have within our government?
The corruptive power of a drug is not defined by whether it's legal or not. If Heroin suddenly became legal again, it would be no less wrong or stupid to take it. A large majority of drugs that are currently legal are either completely counterproductive(Prozac, Ritalin, Xanax, Luvox, etc., etc., ad nauseum), or being applied to the wrong purposes(AZT). And all because it's insanely profitable. The fact that people are dying en masse is completely irrelevant.
How is this government any more or less horrible or ineffective than Columbia's?
>> Also, guess what, government takes money to run it, and that comes from taxation.
Guess what? The 1983 Grace Commission Report found that %0, that's right, >> %0 > You enjoy benefits from the government like 1) protecting you 2) defining a stable currency 3) providing infrastructure.
>> That comes with an obligation to pay for that stuff.
Wrong again.
The Constitution specifically delineated the powers and limitations of power on the Federal Government. They also defined exactly how it would be funded. Through duties, tariffs, and excise taxes gained by doing business abroad. If we reduced the government back to handling only those functions delegated to it by the Constitution, those proceeds would be more than ample to fund it. As was the Founders' express intention.
>> I always love those people who whine about their taxes with the mantra "It's my money, it's my money." Er yeah, it *was* your money.
Once again..
The Supreme Court ruled on this issue back in 1906 in Hale v. Henkel:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in
his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his
business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the
State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.
"His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land (Common Law) long antecedent to the organization of the
State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.
"He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
This has never been overruled. And the laws in this country are structured in accordance to these principles. It IS your money.
>> Somehow if I walk into a grocery store and attempt to buy food and then cry to the cashier "You can't have my money, it's my money, I earned it." I don't think it would get me too far!
This is not a sound argument. The government was set up to pay for itself. It's specifically set up in such a way within the same document which creates it. Your voluntary transaction with another free being to exchange your property for theirs is something completely different.
Now, I personally believe that Nader is right, for the wrong reasons.
Currently, almost every person resident in the united States is a slave. You are, unlawfully and under of threat detention or death, forced to turn over property and/or the proceeds of your labor to another party. This is slavery. Every citizen has been put under bondage to the Federal Reserve Bank. They have title to your house, your car, every major item of value. They are also given the proceeds of your labor directly by the Dept of the Treasury via the IRS.
None of this is by law, but simply by propaganda and misdirection. People believe these actions are based in law, whereas they actually are not.
The American Revolutionary War could not have been won without the sizable propaganda campaign instigated by the founders. It works because most people will believe what they are told repeatedly. Face it, most people are pretty stupid. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that you actually believe that the current government has your welfare at heart, and is operating in accordance with the written law. You've been told it all your life, so in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary, you'll keep on believing it.
Whoever owns the media, establishes the current political climate. Whoever can control what most people view as "reality", controls our culture and our government. Right now, Corporations own our government. A very, very small group of people control, through Corporate anonymity, not only the major media outlets, but the oil, drug, banking, and virtually every other major industry. These people quite literally own the united States.
All these corporations have PAC's to ensure the government does what they want.
The big problem with all this is not the idea of a corporation itself. It's that corporations are a perfect shield for the activities of evil people. These individuals have one goal, and one goal only: power at any cost. Corporations are the perfect vehicle for achieving this. They, through the Corporation, can take any action they want to further their goals at no risk to them. There is no longer any concept of accountability or consequences in our culture.
You're not crazy.. Old-time SF freaks refer to the genre as Science Fiction or (privately, when no one is watching) SF. The term Sci-Fi did not come into existence until IIRC the mid 60's. This had more to do with the sudden surge of popularity of shows such as Star Trek, and a rash of new SF/F books by fresh new authors. As such, it represents "pulp" SF, not serious, thoughtful work. Kind of the difference between Robert L. Forward or William Gibson(SF), and any number of these one-hit wonders that litter the shelves in B&N. So, yes in a sense you're correct. Sci-Fi is short for Science Fiction. But in reality the two terms are slightly different. Some people will care a lot about which term you use. I personally don't. There are fanatics within the Science Fiction community, just like everywhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
Titan/Wizard/Demon
This series was almost made to be converted to a screenplay. And we have the CGI tech to pull it off now. The sexual content would have to be toned down quite a bit for American audiences, though.
Considering what happened to JV with Millennium, however, dunno if it'll happen any time soon.
With all due respect sir, you are incorrect. >> What a load of rubbish. Without government, you'd have NO freedoms. >> Your existence would be defined by the one stronger than you. >> Government enforces the law. The law is defined by government. >> That can be a good thing or bad thing. >>>In some countries where government has defined laws where its citizens have no freedoms, obviously er duh they don't. Government cannot grant rights, they can only grant privileges. All the rights enumerated by the Constitution you already possess with or without the actual paper. The Constitution merely SECURES those rights by prohibiting government from infringing upon them. That's why you'll see so many sections worded as a prohibition on government, rather than as a granting of privilege: "..the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." "..shall pass any law impairing the obligation of Contracts." >> Fortunately for many democratic countries, their governments have been set up to give its citizens freedoms which they deserve, back it up with law, and back that up with more law (common law, constitution, whatever) that says you can't take those freedoms away... See the above. >> If you want lack of government meddling in your lives, I suggest you move to a country that has horrible ineffective government, like Columbia. >> Then your "freedoms" would be defined by the closest drug lord... Our freedoms ARE defined by the closest drug lord. Are you aware how much political clout the major drug manufacturers have within our government? The corruptive power of a drug is not defined by whether it's legal or not. If Heroin suddenly became legal again, it would be no less wrong or stupid to take it. A large majority of drugs that are currently legal are either completely counterproductive(Prozac, Ritalin, Xanax, Luvox, etc., etc., ad nauseum), or being applied to the wrong purposes(AZT). And all because it's insanely profitable. The fact that people are dying en masse is completely irrelevant. How is this government any more or less horrible or ineffective than Columbia's? >> Also, guess what, government takes money to run it, and that comes from taxation. Guess what? The 1983 Grace Commission Report found that %0, that's right, >> %0 > You enjoy benefits from the government like 1) protecting you 2) defining a stable currency 3) providing infrastructure. >> That comes with an obligation to pay for that stuff. Wrong again. The Constitution specifically delineated the powers and limitations of power on the Federal Government. They also defined exactly how it would be funded. Through duties, tariffs, and excise taxes gained by doing business abroad. If we reduced the government back to handling only those functions delegated to it by the Constitution, those proceeds would be more than ample to fund it. As was the Founders' express intention. >> I always love those people who whine about their taxes with the mantra "It's my money, it's my money." Er yeah, it *was* your money. Once again.. The Supreme Court ruled on this issue back in 1906 in Hale v. Henkel: "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. "His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land (Common Law) long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. "He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights." This has never been overruled. And the laws in this country are structured in accordance to these principles. It IS your money. >> Somehow if I walk into a grocery store and attempt to buy food and then cry to the cashier "You can't have my money, it's my money, I earned it." I don't think it would get me too far! This is not a sound argument. The government was set up to pay for itself. It's specifically set up in such a way within the same document which creates it. Your voluntary transaction with another free being to exchange your property for theirs is something completely different. Now, I personally believe that Nader is right, for the wrong reasons. Currently, almost every person resident in the united States is a slave. You are, unlawfully and under of threat detention or death, forced to turn over property and/or the proceeds of your labor to another party. This is slavery. Every citizen has been put under bondage to the Federal Reserve Bank. They have title to your house, your car, every major item of value. They are also given the proceeds of your labor directly by the Dept of the Treasury via the IRS. None of this is by law, but simply by propaganda and misdirection. People believe these actions are based in law, whereas they actually are not. The American Revolutionary War could not have been won without the sizable propaganda campaign instigated by the founders. It works because most people will believe what they are told repeatedly. Face it, most people are pretty stupid. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that you actually believe that the current government has your welfare at heart, and is operating in accordance with the written law. You've been told it all your life, so in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary, you'll keep on believing it. Whoever owns the media, establishes the current political climate. Whoever can control what most people view as "reality", controls our culture and our government. Right now, Corporations own our government. A very, very small group of people control, through Corporate anonymity, not only the major media outlets, but the oil, drug, banking, and virtually every other major industry. These people quite literally own the united States. All these corporations have PAC's to ensure the government does what they want. The big problem with all this is not the idea of a corporation itself. It's that corporations are a perfect shield for the activities of evil people. These individuals have one goal, and one goal only: power at any cost. Corporations are the perfect vehicle for achieving this. They, through the Corporation, can take any action they want to further their goals at no risk to them. There is no longer any concept of accountability or consequences in our culture.
You're not crazy.. Old-time SF freaks refer to the genre as Science Fiction or (privately, when no one is watching) SF. The term Sci-Fi did not come into existence until IIRC the mid 60's. This had more to do with the sudden surge of popularity of shows such as Star Trek, and a rash of new SF/F books by fresh new authors. As such, it represents "pulp" SF, not serious, thoughtful work. Kind of the difference between Robert L. Forward or William Gibson(SF), and any number of these one-hit wonders that litter the shelves in B&N. So, yes in a sense you're correct. Sci-Fi is short for Science Fiction. But in reality the two terms are slightly different. Some people will care a lot about which term you use. I personally don't. There are fanatics within the Science Fiction community, just like everywhere else.