A guy in 2005 has so much more buying power then a guy in 1970 that you can't even put the two on the same scale. Buy a 100 Mhz computer today. What would it cost you? Hell, you could probably get it for free at a swap shop at a dump or for $20 at techie pawn shop. Okay, now buy one in 1970. Did they even have super computers that fast? If they did, I can promise you that it would cost you will into the tens of millions. Just imagine that. Something we consider junk today would have been worth millions in the 1970's. People forget that technology does wonders to buying power. A guy in the 1970's would kill to have the buying power we have today.
As far as your point about debt, I almost completely agree. I think we are spending stupidly. It burns every fiber of my being that "conservatives" are hemorrhaging money on such a scale that would leave a Stalinist looking shocked and mortified. The conservatives should be lynching their own party for such recklessness. Every time I meet a self proclaimed fiscal conservative who voices support with the current government, I desperately want to smack him up side the head then shake him until he is able to see reality again.
I am an irritated iPod Nano owner. I highly suggest NOT getting an iPod as you are getting a needlessly cripple MP3 player. That goes double and triple if you want to actually obtain music legally. There are two very large problems with my iPod Nano.
First, the screen is a piece of shit. After a week it is scratched to hell. No, I didn't get the defective kind of Nano. The screen just sucks on all Nanos. Your nano will be scratched to hell well within a week if you keep it in your pocket. Whatever engineer decided to make the screens out the material that they did should be dragged out into a field and shot. If you build something as small as a nano, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that people are going to want to put it in their pocket. Do this with your nano and you will get your screen scratched to hell within a week. Now, you CAN go buy a cover, but that seems pretty fucking stupid if you ask me. If the Nano needed a screen, it should have come with one.
Second, buying an iPod locks you out of all of the all you can eat music services. I don't know about you, but I personally don't have a favorite artist whose crap I must buy and keep for all of eternity. $15 a month to load of my MP3 player with all the music I want is a frigging steal in my book. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't want to support WMA and it doesn't want to let others use AAC. The net result? If you want a pay MP3 provider, you are stuck with iTunes and the few music services that deal in MP3s.
I got my iPod Nano as a gift. If I could have chosen, I would have gotten an MP3 player compatible with either Napster or Rhapsody's all you can eat services. Being trendy and cool really doesn't make up for the fact that I can't download a 100 songs to just randomly brows through them unless I feel like handing over $100 to iTunes... and well, fuck that.
Yeah yeah, I know I am getting a flamebait mod. My Karma is sky high though, you really can't hurt it.
I don't think he was mocking 50 cent. He was mocking the people who listen to it. Hell, if I could make millions by making popular crap I wouldn't even think twice. There is nothing wrong with making money of suckers. The only thing that is wrong is being the sucker.
-- corporations still had to claim to serve the public good -- corporations had to act to benefit all their stakeholders to keep their charter renewed. When is the last time a corporations charter got denied because they didn't help the community at all?
I don't ever recall corporations having their character removed for not serving the public good. It might have happened on occasion, but I am very skeptical that it has ever happened in any larger number. That said, you could throw me a link proving me wrong.
More to the point though, this is simply a complaint about the 'means' not the 'ends'. The ends are greater wealth, an improved environment, less hunger, and longer lives. If you look at the world from the perspective of the ends, it is clear that whatever dysfunction we have socially, we are clearly advancing technologically quickly enough to compensate. A simple case in point is memory. 25 years ago, only an extremely wealthy person could own a storage device capable of holding half of a gig of memory. Just the other day, I bought a half gig memory stick for 20 dollars. That is only 4 hours of work even at the lowest minimum wage.
Public spaces were everywhere
There might very well have been a decline in public spaces. That said, I doubt that there has been a substantial decline. Further, there has been a dramatic increase in public spaces in other forms. Namely, us chatting away on Slashdot represents a massive increase in public interaction. 25 years ago, the thought of having thousands of people debate issues in an organized and coherent manner every single hour at any time of the day was completely unthinkable. Now no one even bats an eyelash over having a conversation with people from all over the world at all hours of the day on all topics.
People believed in govenment regulation as a net good. The only question was how much is too much? Minimum wage, labor law... were rising and being enforced
This is purely a complaint about how the 'means' have changed. The real issue is the ends. Is your car safer today then it was 25 years ago? Will you keep your eye sight longer? Will you live longer? Can you buy things, that would be completely incomprehensible for someone 25 years ago to be able to buy? Buy most metrics that you can measure how things are today compared to yesterday, things are getting better. Sure, we might complain that if we used other means they could be even better, but the point remains. Things are getting better every day. Not only are things getting better, they are getting better faster and faster. There are things we can do socially to pick up the pace even further, but even with our most incompetent political blundering things are going to continue to steam ahead a faster and faster simply do to technology if nothing else.
I don't see why me saying that liberals are running around screaming like the sky is falling is a 'cheap shot at liberals'. Personally, I completely agree with you. It is conservatives who should be running around crying doom. The fact that there is even a debate around gay marriage should scare the conservatives who worry about their social ideals shitless. If anyone can take a look at today and cry that the dark ages are upon us, it is the conservatives. They are slowly losing on every single bread and butter social issue that they have.
As you point out, from a liberal perspective, things couldn't be much better. Every single liberal social ideal is advancing. Sure, we are not all the way there, but the direction of progress is pretty clear. My point is that liberals need to take a very deep breath and get over Bush. Yes, he drives liberals nuts. Hell, he drives conservatives nuts some times. With an approval rating of 35%, it is safe to say he is driving close to everyone nuts. That said, stop giving the guy so much credit. 8 years of Bush is not the end of the world. He doesn't control every aspect of our lives and society. He isn't going to topple the US and or the EU before he is booted out of office. We survived Regan and Britain survived Thatcher. If it is any consolation, the Republicans survived Clintons first term and some how managed to keep from resorting to mass suicide under Carter.
My point is that society and culture is far more resilient then people give it credit. A simple example of this is the gay marriage debate. Before Bush's term in office, there was absolutely no debate on the issue. Now conservatives are in a panic and trying to quickly erect laws before their support vanishes, Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage, and unlike any time before in history in the US, there is an actual debate over the issue. If a debate over gay marriage can arise under Bush... I think that speaks pretty strongly about society and how little control a president really has over it.
I would like to point out that it was the liberals who fought for womens rights, civil rights, clean air, and unions. They are still fighting for more and are still being resisted by the same forces.
Don't take my comment that liberals think the world is coming to an end as a statement against liberals. My point was more that liberals are more inclined to look for the doom and gloom over the past few years and declare that the world is about to come to an end. Pick a broad liberal ideal; civil rights, health care quality/coverage, infant mortality/life expectancy, hunger, tolerance, wages / hours, whatever, it is better today then it was 50 years ago. We are even more well off if you look a 100 years back. Look 200 years back and the difference is so stark that it isn't even a meaningful comparison. The liberals are winning.
If anyone has reason to cry doom and gloom it is actually the right wing folks. All of their 'morality' issues are being hacked to pieces. There is more sex for non reproductive purposes, greater acceptance of homosexuals, proportionally fewer marriages, more broken homes, and all of the bread and butter of a conservative platform. Hell, the fact that we are at the point where we can even have a gay marriage debate is rocking conservatives to the core. Just 15 years back, talking about gay marriage would illicit roughly the response of talking about bestiality.
I suppose it all depends on whether you look at the glass as being half full or half empty. In this day and age we have the power and the technology to ensure that nobody is starving, that nobody has to die from poverty or war or famine. All it takes is a little money and little will.
There certainly is more that could be done, but the relics of the past do not easily die. There is no amount of money, technology, and will that could make North Korea a happy place unless by 'happy place' you mean 'war zone'. War and famine are political problems. No one in this world should starve. Not only do we have more then enough food for everyone, but we are trying to get that food to the people. Somalia is a perfect example of this. Somalians are not starving because the rest of the world is unwilling to feed them. Somalians are starving because short of going in guns blazing, we can't we can't keep our aid out of the hands of warlords. In fact, this very dilemma is what resulted in the US invading Somalia. We wanted to give them food. We had the food and the means to get it there; we just needed to keep warlords from taking it. If you recall, things didn't go so well when we tried to intervene (IE see Black Hawk Down).
So sure, we could certainly do more, it just boils down to disagreement as to how to do more (does globalism hurt or help?), and the problems with humans some times sucking no matter how much power and technology you have. The larger point is that even though we certainly screw up, fail politically, and in general act like the imperfect humans that we are, we are still steam rolling forward. Things are getting better. A political charged look at the best 6 years might make you think differently, but the second you look at this era from a historical point of view, it quickly becomes clear which direction things are headed. Now is a great time to be alive.
Do you honestly think that we are in a 'dark ages'? We are accelerating so quickly technologically and connecting so fast that I don't think the average human comprehends it. Think back just 10 years ago. Most people were not connected to the Internet. Internet usage has sky rocketed up faster then anything in our wildest dreams. Further, it isn't even the Internet. Cell phones are another fine example. I remember being awed by my friends massive clunky cell phone in the mid 90's that got shit for reception. Now, it is easier to count the people I know who don't own a cell phone then it is to count the people that do. I got a jump drive I keep in my pocket the other day for $20 with more hard drive space then the computer I owned back in 95.
Further, it isn't just technology that is interconnecting. The entire world is interconnecting. China, EU, and the US are all so dependent upon each other that any sort of conflict between them is unthinkable to the point that loss of one could lead to a collapsing (or at least crippled) society in the others.
Look, I am not saying that everything is rosy colored and wonderful, but point to a time in history that was better. Do you long for the brutal dictatorships that existed almost exclusively up until the past few centuries? Do you miss the wonderful days of the industrial revolution when it was common place to die early and lose a hand in hazardous machinery? Maybe you miss the days of American expansion westward and European colonialism that chewed up the natives they got in the way. Do you long for the days when a married woman couldn't own property, much less vote? Maybe you miss the good old days of New Deal, complete with withering racism and World War. Maybe your nostalgia only reaches back a couple days and blindly forgets the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the ever present and very real threat of nuclear annihilation, and starvation in the millions that afflicted pretty much everyone on the Asian content. If this is the Dark Ages, what the hell exactly was everything that came before this time?
This is only "The Dark Ages" is you are a jaded liberal who has some how managed to shrink his view of history down to the past 6 years or so. Stop, take a deep breath, and realize that 6 years is a hiccup in the grand scheme of things. Further, even in those 6 years things have gotten better despite Bush's ham fisted blundering. Further still, things are better now then they were at any other time in history.
Honestly, take a deep breath and realize that the world isn't so bad. You can post angry rants on Slashdot, you clearly have an Internet connection, chances are you can vote, and I imagine you probably are not starving. Those four things alone make this time in history better then all the times before it. Relax and don't let today's day to day politics get you all worked up and taint your view of history in the long term.
But put on a T-shirt saying "Osama rules !", go stand next to where the World Trade Center used to be, and start giving Al-Qaida recruitment leaflets to everyone passing by. Let's see how long you'll walk free.
But put on a T-shirt saying "Osama rules !", go stand next to where the World Trade Center used to be, and start giving Al-Qaida recruitment leaflets to everyone passing by. Let's see how long you'll walk free.
I hate to burst your bubble buddy, but you would merrily walk free from the police. Now, a private New Yorker citizen might beat the piss out of you, but even in that case the guy beating the shit out of you would be the one getting arrested. Hell, there is a perfect example of this. A couple years back there was a KKK rally in my home state. The KKK killed thousands of black Americans and terrorized many thousands more. They stand for all the things that we look back at the confederacy during the civil war and reviled. At this KKK rally (like most KKK rallies), there was an even larger counter demonstration.
The best part? There was a line of cops, at least half of which were black, holding back an angry counter demonstration that was not all that pleased that a dozen or so KKK fuck heads were giving a racist hate filled speech in their town. In fact, I even saw a women get arrested because she flung a coke bottle at the guy giving a speech.
The US has a lot of problems. The government fucking around with free speech isn't one of them. The only place that it can be argued that free speech is inhibited in the US is in campaign financing laws. The US has limits on who can donate to who for political reasons, and you could make an argument that this in effect limited speech. That said, Europe has much stricter laws on campaign spending.
I am not saying that the US is a big shinny and pretty ball of good, but if you honestly believe that police will arrest you for acting like a jack ass with you free speech, well, you need to come visit New York and Washington D.C. and see that US Americans fully use and abuse our free speech rights.
Today, no one but the ultra-wealthy have a vote. Your ballot choices means zilch -- everyone you vote into office just extends the future power of that office.
That simply is not true in the EU, US, or any of the other established democracies. Corporations and the wealthy don't win through force. They win through apathy. You could run for president tomorrow if you wanted. The only thing stopping you from winning is the reluctance of private citizens to hand you a buck to further advertise, and the fact that some people let their opinions be swayed by who has the best marketing campaign.
There are no storm troopers to keep you from voting for anyone you damn well please, just apathy and ignorance. In the US the Libertarian and Green party are ALWAYS on the ballot on the vast majority of the states. Pick your flavor of poison and vote; crazy enviro-socialist or crazy gun loving anarchic-capitalist. Don't like them? Vote or write in the candidate for the Constitution party to establish the theocracy you always wanted, or vote in those lovable American Communist and bring that dictatorship of the proletariat that you have been dying to see. Hell, even the latter two nut jobs are on the ballot in most states.
Been to Kashmir lately? What Gandhi did was awesome. However, the resolution was not exactly stellar. When India succeeded successfully from Britain, they managed to do it with a minimal amount of violence. Sure there were killing, radicals, and a government massacre or two, but when you look at the numbers, you see that it is was pretty damn bloodless. The problem is that they didn't just break off from Britain. They also managed divided amongst themselves into India and Pakistan. Even this would not have been all that bad of a situation if it was not for Kashmir. Kashmir basically fucked up a perfectly good example as to how to overthrow an imperial democracy.
Kashmir aside, I think it is infinitely disheartening that Gandhi's lessons to the world have fallen on deaf ears. Palestine and Israel in particular could use a Gandhi.
This is a "we know you can't afford to defend against our coporate lawyer onslaught, so you'll have to settle" lawsuit. If she tried to defend herself, they would ensure the attourney costs would financially ruin her. I'm sure they just want to settle out of court for her taking the site down.
You are either dead wrong, or I have been wasting money giving to environmentalist not-for-profit organizations. She doesn't need a billion dollars. She needs a couple of lawyers. She is maybe a dozen phone calls away from getting one. I bet that there is more then one environmental non-prof that would jump a the chance to send her a lawyer or three, especially when she has pictures and the case is so cut and dry.
Is this an attempt to silence her? Sure. I imagine they slapped her with the suit in gamble that she would drop the whole thing. According to her website, they gambled wrong. If you are really worried, I would suggest writing a letter to whatever non-prof environmental organization you regularly donate to and inform them of the situation. Lawyers are not exactly cheap, but most non-profs that deal with environmental law tend to have more then a few handy.
I don't think funding is going to be an issue. I highly doubt that the building company can out spend her. Sure, she is just some woman probably making roughly median income, but if she has even a little grey matter between her ears, the solution is obvious. Pick up a phone and start calling non-profit environmentalist organization. I imagine that more then one non-prof organization out there will jump with glee to send their own lawyers after the company in question.
They don't need as much money as the offending corporation. I read the cached version of the website. It seems to me that it is pretty cut and clear that this woman was simply posting direct observations complete with pictures. While I hear Canada's libel law is much more brutal on the one being accused of libel then the American equivalent, I still imagine that libel is not a trivial thing to show. She has pictures and a pretty clear defense. Unless the pictures are shown to be doctored, I imagine she is in the clear.
And yes, Sid sold his company. He sold out everyone who works there.
What on earth makes you think that the people who worked there didn't have equity in the company? On the contrary, everyone might have just gotten a massive bonus and spent the day they learned the news drinking Champaign. I worked for a startup company at one time and can tell you that everyone there was dying to be bought out because a large fraction of our pay was in equity.
More to the point, this hasn't slashed anyone's independence. If Take Two decides it wants to do something evil to Fraxis, I imagine Sid will pack his bags, start a new company, and probably take every person of value from Fraxis with him. There isn't a thing in the world to prevent Sid from simply leaving the company he is working at and taking the best and brightest with him. Hell, he has done it once already.
Take Two didn't buy slaves. Take Two bought a company name, some titles, and an already formed programming and design team. Take Two keeps the company name and the titles, but those are the least valuable parts of Fraxis. What makes Fraxis valuable are the members of Fraxis and Sid. Those people can leave at any time. Knowing Sid's reputation, he probably will not hesitate much to loot Take Two of all of the REAL valuables that Fraxis has if Take Two fucks up.
I think you are confused at who is at whose mercy. Take Two is at the mercy of Fraxis, not the other way around. Take Two owns a few names. Sid owns the people through loyalty and leadership. The people are what are valuable, and they can be taken away the second Take Two fucks up. If that happens, it means that Take Two wasted a pile of cash for some titles. Take Two is the one that stands to lose, not the workers.
Re:Blinding a driver that drives through a roadblo
on
Set PHASRs On Stun
·
· Score: 2
When the US first invaded Iraq, US soldiers killed hundreds of civilians. Why? A bunch of US soldiers would set up a roadblock. A scared civilian would see a bunch of soldiers in the road ordering them to stop, and promptly slam on the accelerator to try and speed through. Marines would fire into the air as a warning, but simply scare said civilian further into accelerating. Marines fearful that the accelerating car was going to attack them would then pump it full of bullets, generally killing the occupants.
Personally, I wish that those Marines had been armed with ANYTHING that sends a clear signle of "MOTHER FUCKING STOP" without killing everyone in the car. Is there a danger that the civilian in question would simply crash instead of stopping? Sure. Is crashing better then having a.50 cal gun rake through your windshield? You better fucking believe it. I can think of at least one Italian that would probably still be alive if the Army had something other then bullets to stop cars crashing through the roadblocks.
You want the internet to stay as it is? Share control. You want the internet to fall apart in small segments each controlled by their own root servers? Fine, keep it as it is and it will happen in the coming years.
You are right that this is the threat, but this is not a threat to the Americans, which are of course the American government's primary concern. Fragmentation for Americans is going to result in a few site bounces but no real headaches in the US. The real pain is for non-Americans. Personally, I think this is all a bluff. The US doesn't really have much to lose. Most Americans would barely notice if a few non-American websites started acting up. The US has the lions share of the content, and if that content is suddenly inaccessible to other nations, they are going to notice.
There is no credible reason for the US to change where they are pointing their own internal servers, which is what this battle is really over. I doubt irrational national pride and paranoia that the US is suddenly going to block the EU becauase it kicked over a few dictators is going to stand up to the reality that if the US doesn't want to change where it is pointing its own internal serves, it doesn't have to.
Personally, I am happy that US ISPs will remain pointed at US servers. If other nations want to be on the same network, they are more then welcome to. If they don't, they are welcome to try their luck pointing at their own servers. The US is 1/4 of the world's economy. Who is threatening who by breaking away from the network? You better believe that the world will notice if 1/4 of the world's economy is suddenly inaccessible from their nation.
First off, Take Two isn't that bad. Its reputation as a publisher is fairly clean.
Second, Sid did not sell himself into slavery. Sid sold his company. Sid could very well create ANOTHER startup, make another awesome game, then get bought up again, each time pocketing a pile of cash. So long as Sid kicks out some kick ass games, good for him. That guy deserves a big firgging pile of money. Sid just lined his pockets, lined the pockets of Fraxis, and can still merrily jump ship if he wants to. It seems like win win for everyone.
How can anyone expect the rest of the world to keep the USA in control of something as essential for 1st world economies as the internet. With a press of the button the USA could disable a large part of the economy in every first world country they choose, nobody is going to take that chance.
That simply is not true. While the US technically owns the servers, about half of them are located off of US soil. I imagine if the US cut off Britian, Britian would promptly nationalize their server. More to the point, if the US really wanted to harm someone's economy, screwing with the Internet is just a cool party trick compared to sanctions or an actual embargo.
All of that said, the US has shown that it is unwilling to use ICAAN do anything of that nature. Cuba, North Korea, and Iran all have Internet access that is restricted only by their own respective governments. The US cutting off a nation would result in the world quickly setting up their own servers and creating a de facto standard.
People really blow the control the US has out of proportion. The only control the US has is the fact that everyone has agreed collectively to point at US servers. The rest of the world could point to someone else's servers if they wanted to. People have not done this already because they don't want to be cut off from the US administered Internet due to conflicting messages from the two different servers. You could set up your own server at home right now. No US government storm troopers would crash through your window. The only reason why it wouldn't work is because no one would bother pointing at your server.
The US isn't doing anything. It is just flatly refusing change how they administer the Internet within the US. The US points to its own servers. It just so happens that everyone else wants to be on the same network as the US. This isn't the UN trying to save the Internet from the US. This is the UN demanding that the US stop using its own servers on its own soil and the US flatly refusing. No one is stopping any other nation from setting up their own servers, the US ISPs just won't point to them.
Think of it like a party. The Fred is the US and is throwing a party. The some people at the party want to move the party to some other location. Fred isn't stopping anyone from leaving their party, he just refusing to end his party. Anyone can leave at any time, but no one wants to go unless everyone (Fred included) comes. Fred has made it clear that he is going to keep on partying in his own house and that everyone can either stay or leave, but that he isn't going anywhere. No one wants to leave unless Fred goes too.
Bah, we can destroy all the guns as soon as you make the Saudi Arabias, Irans, North Koreas, and Chinas of the world disappear. If the entire would looked like the EU, Japan, South Korea, and the US, I bet the number of guns in the world would drop like a rock. The reality is that the world is full of strongmen and people more then happy to pick up a gun and enforce their will upon others, and the only defense against that is to have guns of your own. Kuwait didn't have enough guns. Bosnia didn't have enough guns. South Korea didn't have enough guns (though thankfully they knew someone who did). France didn't have enough guns. Poland didn't have enough guns. The list is endless. There is a damn good reason why nations load up on guns, and a quick glance at history reveals why.
It is easy to sit in your cozy chair in Europe or the US and declare that alls we need to do is drop the guns and love each other. Park your ass up and head to South Korea on the border with North Korea, THEN tell me we don't need guns and I'll be impressed.
Rental schemes in the music industry have yet to take off (Napster? Yahoo music?). iTunes provides ownership, which I think is a cause of it's popularity...
That simply isn't true. iTunes is big because iPods are big. I got an iPod nano as a present. If my iPod worked with Napsters all you can eat $15 a month service I wouldn't even think twice before switching. iTunes is big because the iPod is big and doesn't support WMA.
Further, I bet if iTunes offered an all you can eat service, I bet it would quickly become their most popular service. Of course, iTunes doesn't want to do this as offering music for a dollar a pop is far more profitable.
iTunes isn't a success because iTunes is better or more innovative. iTunes is a success because iPods are better, more innovative, and expertly marketed.
Personally, I like subscription models. I use Netflix over buying DvDs and would switch to an all you can eat music service for a flat rate like what Napster offers without a second thought if I had a compatible player. Buying stuff is good for collectors. Renting things is much more efficient for those that simply want to explore. I don't want to buy music to collect it. I want to listen to music for a little while and then throw it away. The same goes with DvDs, TV, and most other forms of media. Hell, if I had nice eBook, I would rent books and throw them away when I was done too.
Ever stop to wonder for a second how our world might change if EVERYBODY was required to have their own landfill in their own backyard?
Uh, I imagine that it would create a new meaning to urban sprawl as everyone tries to spread out as far as possible so that they have room to dump on their own land without making a stench.
So yes, we could do as you suggest, or we could centralize all of our trash collecting, and then develop technological solutions to minimize the impact of this dumping. We could properly line and protect these places and build them such that once they become full, we could seal them, and burry them. We could then apply our technological know how to work towards methods of bioremediation to deal with any remaining negative consequences of our dumping.
Oh wait, we already do this.
There is a good reason why trash collection is centralized. We tried non-centralized trash collection. Europe lost 1/3 of their population due to a plague. We have people and companies that trash collection for the same reason we have people and companies that specialize in making cars and computerchips. Even if I had the time and the know how (which I don't), I can't build my own car or computerchips nearly as effectively as a centralized source.
The United States government tried to kill a man without even giving him a fair trial. In 1998, they just sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan and they announced that they were trying to kill Osama bin Laden.
Afgnistan did not declare war on the US, but Al-qaeda had when that strike commenced. If you declare war on a nation and carry out terrorist strikes against it, you shouldn't be terribly surprised when they strike you. That said, the US would have been MORE then happy to give Osama a trial instead of trying to kill him with cruise missiles. The problem of course was that neither Osama nor the Taliban would consent to a trail.
Are you suggesting that anyone can launch whatever terrorist attacks against the US that they want and that the US should not bother to respond until they convince said terrorist to come in for a fair an impartial trial? Is that a joke?
The lesson is pretty clear. Blatantly and intentionally harbor terrorist, and you run the risk of invasion. If you house an entity that has declared war on the US, you best either kick them out or deal with them yourself. If you pull what the Taliban pulled, which was to not only allow them to stay, but give them funding and positions of power within the government, don't be surprised when the US comes knocking - with bombs.
I used to play muds religiously - Sanctuary, Armageddon...
Armageddon? As in the RPI? Hahaha... oh man. That is so funny. You think you can quit. No my friend, you just take breaks. You know Allanak is calling you back... you crave talking your way out of a Templar's grips... loading up on spice from Kurac... going on missions in the Byn... and dodgy fucking 'rinth elves everywhere. Stop fooling yourself, reload zMUD, and come back home. Muhahahaha!
I think the point that people miss isn't combat vs not-combat. It is combat for a reason vs combat without a reason. No MMORPG to date has managed to make combat have a point. People go out and fight get better and fighting and score ph4t l00t. I personally would be madly impressed with a game that let you join an orginization of mercenaries and spend your time actually being a mercenary. Or imagine a game where you could join an army and actually get to act like a soldier.
I'll be impressed the day an MMORPG can even hold a candle to the RPI MUDs in terms of giving the world a point.
You are missing the point. Yes, the GOP sent the bill up under rules where it would fail. Why? They wanted the Democrats to scuttle a free speech bill. The Democrats obliged. Now the GOP can simply pass the bill under normal rules. This is win-win for the GOP. Not only do they get their bill, but they get a big headline of "Democrats scuttle free speech bill".
From the GOP perspective, this was a highly successful way of getting the democrats to vote down a free speech bill at the cost of nothing. At the end of the day the bill will be passed through with a Republican majority amd be signed by a Republican president, but only after the Democrats unsuccessfully tried to stop it. I personally am baffled as to why the Democrats let themselves be set up so cleanly.
The Democrats only savings grace is that the American public is much more interested in American Idol then free speech issues. The indifference of the American public will turn what would have been a political coo into a footnote and a nice blurb in some political campaign.
If it makes you feel any warmer, I think neither party gives much of a care about free speech. I loath election day and having to pick between the lesser of the two evils. I feel like I am checking off who I think will be the lesser douche bag with my liberties, not the guy who has any interest in protecting them. Yeah yeah, the Republicans set this bill up to protect free speech. Of course, they are also the same dick heads who want to ban flag burning and passed a number of lovely measures via the Patriot Act (with democratic help none the less).
Under the rule it was harder to pass, conversely, easier for one (either) party to block.
I imagine that was the point. Set up a bill that expands free speech. Set up the rules for the vote so that the Democrats can sink it. Let the Democrats sink it. Bring the bill back up under normal rules pass the bill.
What does this accomplish? The Democrats who voted against the bill (rightfully) look like assholes that sank a free speech bill. This is what would happen even if the bill is passed, BUT because the bill was actually rejected, democrats collectively will get blame for killing off the bill. There will be a news blurb about democrats killing off a free speech bill that would not normally have gotten aired if the bill had simply passed on a Republican majority. Finally, after the Democrats get done looking like fools, the Republicans will just pass the bill under normal rules and declare victory over pro-censorship Democrats.
Personally, I am amazed at how stupid the Democrats were for getting themselves in this position. True, they can slap, "I voted for campaign finance reform" onto their commercials, but believe me, that won't hold a bucket against Republicans slapping "I prevented the Democrats for censoring the blogs" on their commercials. The only way humanly possible that this makes any sense for the Democrats is if they can push through their own bill to do what the Republicans tried but with a few strings attached before the Republicans resubmit the bill under normal rules.
Of course, I don't know why I even bother to try and understand their actions. They are all slimy. I vote every election, and I always feel like shit for doing it. I know that in the end I either voted for someone who isn't going to win, or is the lesser of two evils.
Slashdot Mirror
A guy in 2005 has so much more buying power then a guy in 1970 that you can't even put the two on the same scale. Buy a 100 Mhz computer today. What would it cost you? Hell, you could probably get it for free at a swap shop at a dump or for $20 at techie pawn shop. Okay, now buy one in 1970. Did they even have super computers that fast? If they did, I can promise you that it would cost you will into the tens of millions. Just imagine that. Something we consider junk today would have been worth millions in the 1970's. People forget that technology does wonders to buying power. A guy in the 1970's would kill to have the buying power we have today.
As far as your point about debt, I almost completely agree. I think we are spending stupidly. It burns every fiber of my being that "conservatives" are hemorrhaging money on such a scale that would leave a Stalinist looking shocked and mortified. The conservatives should be lynching their own party for such recklessness. Every time I meet a self proclaimed fiscal conservative who voices support with the current government, I desperately want to smack him up side the head then shake him until he is able to see reality again.
I am an irritated iPod Nano owner. I highly suggest NOT getting an iPod as you are getting a needlessly cripple MP3 player. That goes double and triple if you want to actually obtain music legally. There are two very large problems with my iPod Nano.
First, the screen is a piece of shit. After a week it is scratched to hell. No, I didn't get the defective kind of Nano. The screen just sucks on all Nanos. Your nano will be scratched to hell well within a week if you keep it in your pocket. Whatever engineer decided to make the screens out the material that they did should be dragged out into a field and shot. If you build something as small as a nano, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that people are going to want to put it in their pocket. Do this with your nano and you will get your screen scratched to hell within a week. Now, you CAN go buy a cover, but that seems pretty fucking stupid if you ask me. If the Nano needed a screen, it should have come with one.
Second, buying an iPod locks you out of all of the all you can eat music services. I don't know about you, but I personally don't have a favorite artist whose crap I must buy and keep for all of eternity. $15 a month to load of my MP3 player with all the music I want is a frigging steal in my book. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't want to support WMA and it doesn't want to let others use AAC. The net result? If you want a pay MP3 provider, you are stuck with iTunes and the few music services that deal in MP3s.
I got my iPod Nano as a gift. If I could have chosen, I would have gotten an MP3 player compatible with either Napster or Rhapsody's all you can eat services. Being trendy and cool really doesn't make up for the fact that I can't download a 100 songs to just randomly brows through them unless I feel like handing over $100 to iTunes... and well, fuck that.
Yeah yeah, I know I am getting a flamebait mod. My Karma is sky high though, you really can't hurt it.
I don't think he was mocking 50 cent. He was mocking the people who listen to it. Hell, if I could make millions by making popular crap I wouldn't even think twice. There is nothing wrong with making money of suckers. The only thing that is wrong is being the sucker.
Everything you cite are 'means' not an 'ends'.
-- corporations still had to claim to serve the public good
-- corporations had to act to benefit all their stakeholders to keep their charter renewed. When is the last time a corporations charter got denied because they didn't help the community at all?
I don't ever recall corporations having their character removed for not serving the public good. It might have happened on occasion, but I am very skeptical that it has ever happened in any larger number. That said, you could throw me a link proving me wrong.
More to the point though, this is simply a complaint about the 'means' not the 'ends'. The ends are greater wealth, an improved environment, less hunger, and longer lives. If you look at the world from the perspective of the ends, it is clear that whatever dysfunction we have socially, we are clearly advancing technologically quickly enough to compensate. A simple case in point is memory. 25 years ago, only an extremely wealthy person could own a storage device capable of holding half of a gig of memory. Just the other day, I bought a half gig memory stick for 20 dollars. That is only 4 hours of work even at the lowest minimum wage.
Public spaces were everywhere
There might very well have been a decline in public spaces. That said, I doubt that there has been a substantial decline. Further, there has been a dramatic increase in public spaces in other forms. Namely, us chatting away on Slashdot represents a massive increase in public interaction. 25 years ago, the thought of having thousands of people debate issues in an organized and coherent manner every single hour at any time of the day was completely unthinkable. Now no one even bats an eyelash over having a conversation with people from all over the world at all hours of the day on all topics.
People believed in govenment regulation as a net good. The only question was how much is too much?
Minimum wage, labor law... were rising and being enforced
This is purely a complaint about how the 'means' have changed. The real issue is the ends. Is your car safer today then it was 25 years ago? Will you keep your eye sight longer? Will you live longer? Can you buy things, that would be completely incomprehensible for someone 25 years ago to be able to buy? Buy most metrics that you can measure how things are today compared to yesterday, things are getting better. Sure, we might complain that if we used other means they could be even better, but the point remains. Things are getting better every day. Not only are things getting better, they are getting better faster and faster. There are things we can do socially to pick up the pace even further, but even with our most incompetent political blundering things are going to continue to steam ahead a faster and faster simply do to technology if nothing else.
I don't see why me saying that liberals are running around screaming like the sky is falling is a 'cheap shot at liberals'. Personally, I completely agree with you. It is conservatives who should be running around crying doom. The fact that there is even a debate around gay marriage should scare the conservatives who worry about their social ideals shitless. If anyone can take a look at today and cry that the dark ages are upon us, it is the conservatives. They are slowly losing on every single bread and butter social issue that they have.
As you point out, from a liberal perspective, things couldn't be much better. Every single liberal social ideal is advancing. Sure, we are not all the way there, but the direction of progress is pretty clear. My point is that liberals need to take a very deep breath and get over Bush. Yes, he drives liberals nuts. Hell, he drives conservatives nuts some times. With an approval rating of 35%, it is safe to say he is driving close to everyone nuts. That said, stop giving the guy so much credit. 8 years of Bush is not the end of the world. He doesn't control every aspect of our lives and society. He isn't going to topple the US and or the EU before he is booted out of office. We survived Regan and Britain survived Thatcher. If it is any consolation, the Republicans survived Clintons first term and some how managed to keep from resorting to mass suicide under Carter.
My point is that society and culture is far more resilient then people give it credit. A simple example of this is the gay marriage debate. Before Bush's term in office, there was absolutely no debate on the issue. Now conservatives are in a panic and trying to quickly erect laws before their support vanishes, Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage, and unlike any time before in history in the US, there is an actual debate over the issue. If a debate over gay marriage can arise under Bush... I think that speaks pretty strongly about society and how little control a president really has over it.
I would like to point out that it was the liberals who fought for womens rights, civil rights, clean air, and unions. They are still fighting for more and are still being resisted by the same forces.
Don't take my comment that liberals think the world is coming to an end as a statement against liberals. My point was more that liberals are more inclined to look for the doom and gloom over the past few years and declare that the world is about to come to an end. Pick a broad liberal ideal; civil rights, health care quality/coverage, infant mortality/life expectancy, hunger, tolerance, wages / hours, whatever, it is better today then it was 50 years ago. We are even more well off if you look a 100 years back. Look 200 years back and the difference is so stark that it isn't even a meaningful comparison. The liberals are winning.
If anyone has reason to cry doom and gloom it is actually the right wing folks. All of their 'morality' issues are being hacked to pieces. There is more sex for non reproductive purposes, greater acceptance of homosexuals, proportionally fewer marriages, more broken homes, and all of the bread and butter of a conservative platform. Hell, the fact that we are at the point where we can even have a gay marriage debate is rocking conservatives to the core. Just 15 years back, talking about gay marriage would illicit roughly the response of talking about bestiality.
I suppose it all depends on whether you look at the glass as being half full or half empty. In this day and age we have the power and the technology to ensure that nobody is starving, that nobody has to die from poverty or war or famine. All it takes is a little money and little will.
There certainly is more that could be done, but the relics of the past do not easily die. There is no amount of money, technology, and will that could make North Korea a happy place unless by 'happy place' you mean 'war zone'. War and famine are political problems. No one in this world should starve. Not only do we have more then enough food for everyone, but we are trying to get that food to the people. Somalia is a perfect example of this. Somalians are not starving because the rest of the world is unwilling to feed them. Somalians are starving because short of going in guns blazing, we can't we can't keep our aid out of the hands of warlords. In fact, this very dilemma is what resulted in the US invading Somalia. We wanted to give them food. We had the food and the means to get it there; we just needed to keep warlords from taking it. If you recall, things didn't go so well when we tried to intervene (IE see Black Hawk Down).
So sure, we could certainly do more, it just boils down to disagreement as to how to do more (does globalism hurt or help?), and the problems with humans some times sucking no matter how much power and technology you have. The larger point is that even though we certainly screw up, fail politically, and in general act like the imperfect humans that we are, we are still steam rolling forward. Things are getting better. A political charged look at the best 6 years might make you think differently, but the second you look at this era from a historical point of view, it quickly becomes clear which direction things are headed. Now is a great time to be alive.
Do you honestly think that we are in a 'dark ages'? We are accelerating so quickly technologically and connecting so fast that I don't think the average human comprehends it. Think back just 10 years ago. Most people were not connected to the Internet. Internet usage has sky rocketed up faster then anything in our wildest dreams. Further, it isn't even the Internet. Cell phones are another fine example. I remember being awed by my friends massive clunky cell phone in the mid 90's that got shit for reception. Now, it is easier to count the people I know who don't own a cell phone then it is to count the people that do. I got a jump drive I keep in my pocket the other day for $20 with more hard drive space then the computer I owned back in 95.
Further, it isn't just technology that is interconnecting. The entire world is interconnecting. China, EU, and the US are all so dependent upon each other that any sort of conflict between them is unthinkable to the point that loss of one could lead to a collapsing (or at least crippled) society in the others.
Look, I am not saying that everything is rosy colored and wonderful, but point to a time in history that was better. Do you long for the brutal dictatorships that existed almost exclusively up until the past few centuries? Do you miss the wonderful days of the industrial revolution when it was common place to die early and lose a hand in hazardous machinery? Maybe you miss the days of American expansion westward and European colonialism that chewed up the natives they got in the way. Do you long for the days when a married woman couldn't own property, much less vote? Maybe you miss the good old days of New Deal, complete with withering racism and World War. Maybe your nostalgia only reaches back a couple days and blindly forgets the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the ever present and very real threat of nuclear annihilation, and starvation in the millions that afflicted pretty much everyone on the Asian content. If this is the Dark Ages, what the hell exactly was everything that came before this time?
This is only "The Dark Ages" is you are a jaded liberal who has some how managed to shrink his view of history down to the past 6 years or so. Stop, take a deep breath, and realize that 6 years is a hiccup in the grand scheme of things. Further, even in those 6 years things have gotten better despite Bush's ham fisted blundering. Further still, things are better now then they were at any other time in history.
Honestly, take a deep breath and realize that the world isn't so bad. You can post angry rants on Slashdot, you clearly have an Internet connection, chances are you can vote, and I imagine you probably are not starving. Those four things alone make this time in history better then all the times before it. Relax and don't let today's day to day politics get you all worked up and taint your view of history in the long term.
But put on a T-shirt saying "Osama rules !", go stand next to where the World Trade Center used to be, and start giving Al-Qaida recruitment leaflets to everyone passing by. Let's see how long you'll walk free.
But put on a T-shirt saying "Osama rules !", go stand next to where the World Trade Center used to be, and start giving Al-Qaida recruitment leaflets to everyone passing by. Let's see how long you'll walk free.
I hate to burst your bubble buddy, but you would merrily walk free from the police. Now, a private New Yorker citizen might beat the piss out of you, but even in that case the guy beating the shit out of you would be the one getting arrested. Hell, there is a perfect example of this. A couple years back there was a KKK rally in my home state. The KKK killed thousands of black Americans and terrorized many thousands more. They stand for all the things that we look back at the confederacy during the civil war and reviled. At this KKK rally (like most KKK rallies), there was an even larger counter demonstration.
The best part? There was a line of cops, at least half of which were black, holding back an angry counter demonstration that was not all that pleased that a dozen or so KKK fuck heads were giving a racist hate filled speech in their town. In fact, I even saw a women get arrested because she flung a coke bottle at the guy giving a speech.
The US has a lot of problems. The government fucking around with free speech isn't one of them. The only place that it can be argued that free speech is inhibited in the US is in campaign financing laws. The US has limits on who can donate to who for political reasons, and you could make an argument that this in effect limited speech. That said, Europe has much stricter laws on campaign spending.
I am not saying that the US is a big shinny and pretty ball of good, but if you honestly believe that police will arrest you for acting like a jack ass with you free speech, well, you need to come visit New York and Washington D.C. and see that US Americans fully use and abuse our free speech rights.
Today, no one but the ultra-wealthy have a vote. Your ballot choices means zilch -- everyone you vote into office just extends the future power of that office.
That simply is not true in the EU, US, or any of the other established democracies. Corporations and the wealthy don't win through force. They win through apathy. You could run for president tomorrow if you wanted. The only thing stopping you from winning is the reluctance of private citizens to hand you a buck to further advertise, and the fact that some people let their opinions be swayed by who has the best marketing campaign.
There are no storm troopers to keep you from voting for anyone you damn well please, just apathy and ignorance. In the US the Libertarian and Green party are ALWAYS on the ballot on the vast majority of the states. Pick your flavor of poison and vote; crazy enviro-socialist or crazy gun loving anarchic-capitalist. Don't like them? Vote or write in the candidate for the Constitution party to establish the theocracy you always wanted, or vote in those lovable American Communist and bring that dictatorship of the proletariat that you have been dying to see. Hell, even the latter two nut jobs are on the ballot in most states.
Been to Kashmir lately? What Gandhi did was awesome. However, the resolution was not exactly stellar. When India succeeded successfully from Britain, they managed to do it with a minimal amount of violence. Sure there were killing, radicals, and a government massacre or two, but when you look at the numbers, you see that it is was pretty damn bloodless. The problem is that they didn't just break off from Britain. They also managed divided amongst themselves into India and Pakistan. Even this would not have been all that bad of a situation if it was not for Kashmir. Kashmir basically fucked up a perfectly good example as to how to overthrow an imperial democracy.
Kashmir aside, I think it is infinitely disheartening that Gandhi's lessons to the world have fallen on deaf ears. Palestine and Israel in particular could use a Gandhi.
This is a "we know you can't afford to defend against our coporate lawyer onslaught, so you'll have to settle" lawsuit. If she tried to defend herself, they would ensure the attourney costs would financially ruin her. I'm sure they just want to settle out of court for her taking the site down.
You are either dead wrong, or I have been wasting money giving to environmentalist not-for-profit organizations. She doesn't need a billion dollars. She needs a couple of lawyers. She is maybe a dozen phone calls away from getting one. I bet that there is more then one environmental non-prof that would jump a the chance to send her a lawyer or three, especially when she has pictures and the case is so cut and dry.
Is this an attempt to silence her? Sure. I imagine they slapped her with the suit in gamble that she would drop the whole thing. According to her website, they gambled wrong. If you are really worried, I would suggest writing a letter to whatever non-prof environmental organization you regularly donate to and inform them of the situation. Lawyers are not exactly cheap, but most non-profs that deal with environmental law tend to have more then a few handy.
I don't think funding is going to be an issue. I highly doubt that the building company can out spend her. Sure, she is just some woman probably making roughly median income, but if she has even a little grey matter between her ears, the solution is obvious. Pick up a phone and start calling non-profit environmentalist organization. I imagine that more then one non-prof organization out there will jump with glee to send their own lawyers after the company in question.
They don't need as much money as the offending corporation. I read the cached version of the website. It seems to me that it is pretty cut and clear that this woman was simply posting direct observations complete with pictures. While I hear Canada's libel law is much more brutal on the one being accused of libel then the American equivalent, I still imagine that libel is not a trivial thing to show. She has pictures and a pretty clear defense. Unless the pictures are shown to be doctored, I imagine she is in the clear.
And yes, Sid sold his company. He sold out everyone who works there.
What on earth makes you think that the people who worked there didn't have equity in the company? On the contrary, everyone might have just gotten a massive bonus and spent the day they learned the news drinking Champaign. I worked for a startup company at one time and can tell you that everyone there was dying to be bought out because a large fraction of our pay was in equity.
More to the point, this hasn't slashed anyone's independence. If Take Two decides it wants to do something evil to Fraxis, I imagine Sid will pack his bags, start a new company, and probably take every person of value from Fraxis with him. There isn't a thing in the world to prevent Sid from simply leaving the company he is working at and taking the best and brightest with him. Hell, he has done it once already.
Take Two didn't buy slaves. Take Two bought a company name, some titles, and an already formed programming and design team. Take Two keeps the company name and the titles, but those are the least valuable parts of Fraxis. What makes Fraxis valuable are the members of Fraxis and Sid. Those people can leave at any time. Knowing Sid's reputation, he probably will not hesitate much to loot Take Two of all of the REAL valuables that Fraxis has if Take Two fucks up.
I think you are confused at who is at whose mercy. Take Two is at the mercy of Fraxis, not the other way around. Take Two owns a few names. Sid owns the people through loyalty and leadership. The people are what are valuable, and they can be taken away the second Take Two fucks up. If that happens, it means that Take Two wasted a pile of cash for some titles. Take Two is the one that stands to lose, not the workers.
When the US first invaded Iraq, US soldiers killed hundreds of civilians. Why? A bunch of US soldiers would set up a roadblock. A scared civilian would see a bunch of soldiers in the road ordering them to stop, and promptly slam on the accelerator to try and speed through. Marines would fire into the air as a warning, but simply scare said civilian further into accelerating. Marines fearful that the accelerating car was going to attack them would then pump it full of bullets, generally killing the occupants.
.50 cal gun rake through your windshield? You better fucking believe it. I can think of at least one Italian that would probably still be alive if the Army had something other then bullets to stop cars crashing through the roadblocks.
Personally, I wish that those Marines had been armed with ANYTHING that sends a clear signle of "MOTHER FUCKING STOP" without killing everyone in the car. Is there a danger that the civilian in question would simply crash instead of stopping? Sure. Is crashing better then having a
You want the internet to stay as it is? Share control. You want the internet to fall apart in small segments each controlled by their own root servers? Fine, keep it as it is and it will happen in the coming years.
You are right that this is the threat, but this is not a threat to the Americans, which are of course the American government's primary concern. Fragmentation for Americans is going to result in a few site bounces but no real headaches in the US. The real pain is for non-Americans. Personally, I think this is all a bluff. The US doesn't really have much to lose. Most Americans would barely notice if a few non-American websites started acting up. The US has the lions share of the content, and if that content is suddenly inaccessible to other nations, they are going to notice.
There is no credible reason for the US to change where they are pointing their own internal servers, which is what this battle is really over. I doubt irrational national pride and paranoia that the US is suddenly going to block the EU becauase it kicked over a few dictators is going to stand up to the reality that if the US doesn't want to change where it is pointing its own internal serves, it doesn't have to.
Personally, I am happy that US ISPs will remain pointed at US servers. If other nations want to be on the same network, they are more then welcome to. If they don't, they are welcome to try their luck pointing at their own servers. The US is 1/4 of the world's economy. Who is threatening who by breaking away from the network? You better believe that the world will notice if 1/4 of the world's economy is suddenly inaccessible from their nation.
First off, Take Two isn't that bad. Its reputation as a publisher is fairly clean.
Second, Sid did not sell himself into slavery. Sid sold his company. Sid could very well create ANOTHER startup, make another awesome game, then get bought up again, each time pocketing a pile of cash. So long as Sid kicks out some kick ass games, good for him. That guy deserves a big firgging pile of money. Sid just lined his pockets, lined the pockets of Fraxis, and can still merrily jump ship if he wants to. It seems like win win for everyone.
How can anyone expect the rest of the world to keep the USA in control of something as essential for 1st world economies as the internet. With a press of the button the USA could disable a large part of the economy in every first world country they choose, nobody is going to take that chance.
That simply is not true. While the US technically owns the servers, about half of them are located off of US soil. I imagine if the US cut off Britian, Britian would promptly nationalize their server. More to the point, if the US really wanted to harm someone's economy, screwing with the Internet is just a cool party trick compared to sanctions or an actual embargo.
All of that said, the US has shown that it is unwilling to use ICAAN do anything of that nature. Cuba, North Korea, and Iran all have Internet access that is restricted only by their own respective governments. The US cutting off a nation would result in the world quickly setting up their own servers and creating a de facto standard.
People really blow the control the US has out of proportion. The only control the US has is the fact that everyone has agreed collectively to point at US servers. The rest of the world could point to someone else's servers if they wanted to. People have not done this already because they don't want to be cut off from the US administered Internet due to conflicting messages from the two different servers. You could set up your own server at home right now. No US government storm troopers would crash through your window. The only reason why it wouldn't work is because no one would bother pointing at your server.
The US isn't doing anything. It is just flatly refusing change how they administer the Internet within the US. The US points to its own servers. It just so happens that everyone else wants to be on the same network as the US. This isn't the UN trying to save the Internet from the US. This is the UN demanding that the US stop using its own servers on its own soil and the US flatly refusing. No one is stopping any other nation from setting up their own servers, the US ISPs just won't point to them.
Think of it like a party. The Fred is the US and is throwing a party. The some people at the party want to move the party to some other location. Fred isn't stopping anyone from leaving their party, he just refusing to end his party. Anyone can leave at any time, but no one wants to go unless everyone (Fred included) comes. Fred has made it clear that he is going to keep on partying in his own house and that everyone can either stay or leave, but that he isn't going anywhere. No one wants to leave unless Fred goes too.
Bah, we can destroy all the guns as soon as you make the Saudi Arabias, Irans, North Koreas, and Chinas of the world disappear. If the entire would looked like the EU, Japan, South Korea, and the US, I bet the number of guns in the world would drop like a rock. The reality is that the world is full of strongmen and people more then happy to pick up a gun and enforce their will upon others, and the only defense against that is to have guns of your own. Kuwait didn't have enough guns. Bosnia didn't have enough guns. South Korea didn't have enough guns (though thankfully they knew someone who did). France didn't have enough guns. Poland didn't have enough guns. The list is endless. There is a damn good reason why nations load up on guns, and a quick glance at history reveals why.
It is easy to sit in your cozy chair in Europe or the US and declare that alls we need to do is drop the guns and love each other. Park your ass up and head to South Korea on the border with North Korea, THEN tell me we don't need guns and I'll be impressed.
Rental schemes in the music industry have yet to take off (Napster? Yahoo music?). iTunes provides ownership, which I think is a cause of it's popularity ...
That simply isn't true. iTunes is big because iPods are big. I got an iPod nano as a present. If my iPod worked with Napsters all you can eat $15 a month service I wouldn't even think twice before switching. iTunes is big because the iPod is big and doesn't support WMA.
Further, I bet if iTunes offered an all you can eat service, I bet it would quickly become their most popular service. Of course, iTunes doesn't want to do this as offering music for a dollar a pop is far more profitable.
iTunes isn't a success because iTunes is better or more innovative. iTunes is a success because iPods are better, more innovative, and expertly marketed.
Personally, I like subscription models. I use Netflix over buying DvDs and would switch to an all you can eat music service for a flat rate like what Napster offers without a second thought if I had a compatible player. Buying stuff is good for collectors. Renting things is much more efficient for those that simply want to explore. I don't want to buy music to collect it. I want to listen to music for a little while and then throw it away. The same goes with DvDs, TV, and most other forms of media. Hell, if I had nice eBook, I would rent books and throw them away when I was done too.
Ever stop to wonder for a second how our world might change if EVERYBODY was required to have their own landfill in their own backyard?
Uh, I imagine that it would create a new meaning to urban sprawl as everyone tries to spread out as far as possible so that they have room to dump on their own land without making a stench.
So yes, we could do as you suggest, or we could centralize all of our trash collecting, and then develop technological solutions to minimize the impact of this dumping. We could properly line and protect these places and build them such that once they become full, we could seal them, and burry them. We could then apply our technological know how to work towards methods of bioremediation to deal with any remaining negative consequences of our dumping.
Oh wait, we already do this.
There is a good reason why trash collection is centralized. We tried non-centralized trash collection. Europe lost 1/3 of their population due to a plague. We have people and companies that trash collection for the same reason we have people and companies that specialize in making cars and computerchips. Even if I had the time and the know how (which I don't), I can't build my own car or computerchips nearly as effectively as a centralized source.
The United States government tried to kill a man without even giving him a fair trial. In 1998, they just sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan and they announced that they were trying to kill Osama bin Laden.
Afgnistan did not declare war on the US, but Al-qaeda had when that strike commenced. If you declare war on a nation and carry out terrorist strikes against it, you shouldn't be terribly surprised when they strike you. That said, the US would have been MORE then happy to give Osama a trial instead of trying to kill him with cruise missiles. The problem of course was that neither Osama nor the Taliban would consent to a trail.
Are you suggesting that anyone can launch whatever terrorist attacks against the US that they want and that the US should not bother to respond until they convince said terrorist to come in for a fair an impartial trial? Is that a joke?
The lesson is pretty clear. Blatantly and intentionally harbor terrorist, and you run the risk of invasion. If you house an entity that has declared war on the US, you best either kick them out or deal with them yourself. If you pull what the Taliban pulled, which was to not only allow them to stay, but give them funding and positions of power within the government, don't be surprised when the US comes knocking - with bombs.
I used to play muds religiously - Sanctuary, Armageddon...
Armageddon? As in the RPI? Hahaha... oh man. That is so funny. You think you can quit. No my friend, you just take breaks. You know Allanak is calling you back... you crave talking your way out of a Templar's grips... loading up on spice from Kurac... going on missions in the Byn... and dodgy fucking 'rinth elves everywhere. Stop fooling yourself, reload zMUD, and come back home. Muhahahaha!
I think the point that people miss isn't combat vs not-combat. It is combat for a reason vs combat without a reason. No MMORPG to date has managed to make combat have a point. People go out and fight get better and fighting and score ph4t l00t. I personally would be madly impressed with a game that let you join an orginization of mercenaries and spend your time actually being a mercenary. Or imagine a game where you could join an army and actually get to act like a soldier.
I'll be impressed the day an MMORPG can even hold a candle to the RPI MUDs in terms of giving the world a point.
You are missing the point. Yes, the GOP sent the bill up under rules where it would fail. Why? They wanted the Democrats to scuttle a free speech bill. The Democrats obliged. Now the GOP can simply pass the bill under normal rules. This is win-win for the GOP. Not only do they get their bill, but they get a big headline of "Democrats scuttle free speech bill".
From the GOP perspective, this was a highly successful way of getting the democrats to vote down a free speech bill at the cost of nothing. At the end of the day the bill will be passed through with a Republican majority amd be signed by a Republican president, but only after the Democrats unsuccessfully tried to stop it. I personally am baffled as to why the Democrats let themselves be set up so cleanly.
The Democrats only savings grace is that the American public is much more interested in American Idol then free speech issues. The indifference of the American public will turn what would have been a political coo into a footnote and a nice blurb in some political campaign.
If it makes you feel any warmer, I think neither party gives much of a care about free speech. I loath election day and having to pick between the lesser of the two evils. I feel like I am checking off who I think will be the lesser douche bag with my liberties, not the guy who has any interest in protecting them. Yeah yeah, the Republicans set this bill up to protect free speech. Of course, they are also the same dick heads who want to ban flag burning and passed a number of lovely measures via the Patriot Act (with democratic help none the less).
Under the rule it was harder to pass, conversely, easier for one (either) party to block.
I imagine that was the point. Set up a bill that expands free speech. Set up the rules for the vote so that the Democrats can sink it. Let the Democrats sink it. Bring the bill back up under normal rules pass the bill.
What does this accomplish? The Democrats who voted against the bill (rightfully) look like assholes that sank a free speech bill. This is what would happen even if the bill is passed, BUT because the bill was actually rejected, democrats collectively will get blame for killing off the bill. There will be a news blurb about democrats killing off a free speech bill that would not normally have gotten aired if the bill had simply passed on a Republican majority. Finally, after the Democrats get done looking like fools, the Republicans will just pass the bill under normal rules and declare victory over pro-censorship Democrats.
Personally, I am amazed at how stupid the Democrats were for getting themselves in this position. True, they can slap, "I voted for campaign finance reform" onto their commercials, but believe me, that won't hold a bucket against Republicans slapping "I prevented the Democrats for censoring the blogs" on their commercials. The only way humanly possible that this makes any sense for the Democrats is if they can push through their own bill to do what the Republicans tried but with a few strings attached before the Republicans resubmit the bill under normal rules.
Of course, I don't know why I even bother to try and understand their actions. They are all slimy. I vote every election, and I always feel like shit for doing it. I know that in the end I either voted for someone who isn't going to win, or is the lesser of two evils.