For now, let's assume (wrong or wrong) that Gore is 100 times dumber than Bush. That still doesn't mean he would subvert science like Bush's administration has. Intelligent != ethical.
At any rate, Gore really has nothing to do with this. If you want to make a comparison that matters, tell me how Kerry, Edwards, or even Dean have been misused or suppressed science to further their political goals like Bush has.
Our alternative is not Gore because we can't go back and change the past. (No matter how much we want to.) Our alternatives are the guys that are going to be running in November, 2004.
RTFA moron. They are not accusing the Bush administration of causing environmental problems. They are accusing the Bush administration of suppressing scientific studies that don't support their goals and of padding scientific advisory boards with industry shills.
Sounds pretty neat to me. I don't recall if their America's Army improved your shooting skill or not, but that game was fun and challenging.
Even though AA has "levels" in the form of Honor points, the only time they help you out is in weapon selection. Higher Honor players tend to get first pick of weapons in a scenario. They do not adjust your accuracy or give you any other benefit.
It doesn't sound like they are sure if they'll release it to the masses though.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if they used the work they do for the Army as the foundation for another game, but i doubt we'll get to play alongside the actual Army guys who are doing their training.
Now that i think about it though, it would probably be a good idea for the Army to hire some 31337 AA or Counterstrike players to play the bad guys, and maybe some deep roleplayers from some MMORPGs to fill in other parts.
Now that brings up some ethical quandries! I won't work for defense contractors IRL for ethical reasons, but would i work for the Army as an NPC/trainer in their MMORPG if the job was offered? On the one hand, i'd get paid to play a game - sweet gig. On the other hand, it's still working for the Army.
I guess it would depend on what kind of training i'd be doing. If i could help them learn to resolve more disputes non-violently, then that's a net positive, but if i'm just helping them learn to intimidate and kill more effectively, then that would be not cool.
I almost thought this was post was from an honest-to-god troglodyte Republican, but when you misspelled "romanticizes" and "sleeves" you tipped your hand. Too funny! Bravo!
Robert Gehorsam works for There, not for the Army directly. I doubt that he is privy to the plans of the US Army. He's probably just a West Wing watcher, but it is an interesting thought.
You don't get the best results, you get the results they want you to get. I can't even see the real results on the screen when the search completes. I have to scroll down past the add for "Yahoo Shopping" and past the paid inclusions that have a sidebar of paid inclusions. Yahoo can kiss my ass.
1) It's not working. How can it be considered a success of supply-side economics if our government helps out businesses and the economic improvement happens in their economy, while at the same time harming our economy?
2) That is not an example of supply-side economics at work. The Indian govt subsidized his education, providing him with the skills to get a job that came from elsewhere. The Indian govt did not give the company that hired him a fat tax break. They built up their labor force and businesses took advantage of it. They gave money to the consumers (in the form of scholarships) and it helped their economy - demand-side economics at work!
You should have been modded down for being -1 (Wrong).
Natural selection is a valid, accurate, and thoroughly scientific concept. I have studied it fairly comprehensively and i do get it.
I'm arguing that because the process is so complex, you cannot predict the outcome when applying it to human beings. Just because we can't understand how the system applies in a particular case doesn't mean it isn't working.
Pull your head out of the sand (and by sand, i mean your ass) and take a look at the real world for a change.
Or, if you prefer, Trickle-Down Genetics, Supply-Side Genetics, or my personal favorite, Reagenetics!
It didn't work for the economy. It won't work for the gene pool.
Seriously though, evolutionary pressure (encompassing the workings of both Natural and "Socioeconomic" selection) among human beings (if it still functions at all) is far too subtle and complicated to be used as rationale for or against any of this. To put it bluntly, we are too stupid to figure out exactly how (if) it works on us. The complexity of human behavior makes it nearly impossible to figure out what traits give modern humans a significant reproductive advantage.
My personal theory (developed in the course of getting my BA in Anthropology) is that because human beings evolved in a "tribal," hunter-gatherer environment, a lot of the problems we encounter in the modern world are a result of our "primitive" minds and bodies trying to cope with the amazing complexity of the world around us - a complexity we created piece by piece. In essence, we are not cut out to handle the world we have made, so each of us must muddle through as best we can and take solace in knowing that noone really knows what the hell they are doing in this life. (IMO the most fucked-up people are the ones that think they understand it all.)
I find it hard to believe that there are men out there who could take on an elephant bare handed and win
That's really more of an issue with heroic fantasy than it is D&D. Plenty of systems (even non-level-based ones) give that same effect.
This leads me to another drawback for me, which is the more you kill, the better you get at EVERYTHING your character wishes to persue.
Actually, if you're going by the book, the more challenges you overcome, the better you get at everything. Whether you kill the Ogre or sneak past him, you get the same XP.
The "getting better at everything" is the main abstraction of D&D's character improvement system. They assume that you are practicing (during downtime) all your abilities even if you actually got the XP for using only your combat skills. If that abstraction is a deal-breaker for you, then there's lots of systems (level-based and non-level based) that regulate that more "realistically". I think it's easier to add such regulations to D&D than to start with a whole different set of rules and change them to be the way i like, but everyone is different that way.
1) D&D is bigger because D&D was first. It has 10 years lead time on other modern gaming systems.
1) D&D was bigger because it was first. It's bigger now because it has kept evolving while maintaining its core aesthetic. It tries to appeal to a bigger audience. It has seen some of its greatest growth in the past few years because of this. Most other modern games have specialised themselves out of the wider audience or they are not newbie friendly.
2) any gaming system can be acceptable with a good gm, but if you have constantly use modified rules and change the objectives the problem is the system. 2) This criticism appplies equally to every game on the market. If there was a game out there whose system was better at this, it would be more popular. Every game fails equally at this because the individual assessment of which rules need changing varies from player to player.
3) I was not expressing an opinion on D20, ONLY on D&D itself 3) D&D is D20! Reading the D20 SRD is like reading a text-only version of the D&D core books! There are other D20 variants, but the vast majority of D20 stuff is D&D stuff.
4) While I agree that many games do get their players from D&D games...you can also say many people have been turned off from roleplaying entirely by D&D. 4) Or you could avoid making lopsided generalizations and say that many people have been turned off from roleplyaing by bad games, bad players, and bad gms - those are the things that ultimately make or break the experience.
I played D&D for several years, the system ITSELF encourages bad roleplaying(munchkins), depicts genocide of "evil" races as a good thing(see that lovely alignment system)and generally promotes a rigid view of roleplaying. Does GURPS encourage munchkinism because its point-buy system can be min-maxed? Does 7th Sea encourage genocide because it sets up national and cultural stereotypes and conflicts? Does Vampire encourage rigidity because there is so much Canon material out there for it?
Bad players will always play stereotypes, no matter what the options available to them. Bad GMs will always resort to the plot of least thought because that's what is easiest to run regardless of the system.
Play whatever game you prefer, but accept that every game has its limitations. The fact that one system's limits work better for you doesn't make the game itself better.
(To address your address to the moderators: You made broad, unsupported generalizations that were contrary to the prevailing opinion. That's practically the definition of flamebait. I don't know that it was outrageous enough to be a troll, but hey - moderation is subjective and ultimately meaningless, so shrug it off.)
Dude, I think your mom is calling you. She wants you to turn off the pr0n and go take out the trash before bedtime.
P.S. Your clan sent you an email because they found out about your 1337 hack and they're banning you from their server. Well, that's 40 more hours a week to spend honing your SoulCalibur2 skillz!
P.P.S. $exyLaydee37698 is waiting for you on AIM. She found your school photo from last year online. She likes the vulcan ears, but didn't buy the "camera adds 167 pounds" line. No more cyber for you dude, but no big deal - her description ("like Pamela Anderson, but with like, totally bigger boobs") wasn't completely accurate either. (More like Jabba the Hutt but with totally bigger zits.)
P.P.P.S And she's only 13, so her dad, Officer Ballbricker will be dropping in to have a nightstick-to-crotch chat with you any day now.
You're right about the order, in which case i'd say cut out the middle man - Fallout borrows from D&D. Really, just about every RPG out there is borrowing from D&D and all the other pen and paper RPGs that came before.
Considering that the majority of the entire tabletop RPG community consists of D&D players, your statement is idiotic. It's like saying only 75% of all people consider America to be a superpower.
D20 (the system on which D&D is based) has a market share that completely dwarfs all other competitors (and always has) and it is getting bigger all the time. Why is that? Because the game is simple enough to be welcoming to newbies and provides enough flexibility to keep experienced people coming back. Most other games get their players from the pool of D&D players - they are bad at drawing in newbies. That's why D&D is the leader and the others will always be distant followers.
Does that mean that D&D is better? No. With a few exceptions, the quality of a system is completely relevant to what you are looking for in a game. (EG I want to play a game about Vampires - is D&D or vampire going to be better?) Also, the assessment of a system's quality is completely dependant on the quality of the individual game the assessor is playing. (EG I am not having any fun in the game i'm playing. This system sucks!)
In my experience, the people who feel the need to bash D&D are people who want to feel cooler about the game that they play - they're trying to establish some sort of geek cred. In the end, the quality of a game is most determined by the quality of the GM and players.
That really depends on what you are looking for in a game. If one prerequisite for a good game for you is "realism", then there are other systems that will satisfy you more than D&D. If a good story, action, adventure, etc. is what you consider good, then those things are often easier to get out of a more abstract (less "realistic") system.
(Note: "realistic" systems tend to be more restrictive, not less. Reality is pretty restrictive. The closer you get to that, the more restrictive your system gets.)
Example:
Hero is fighting Bad Guy on the top of a moving wagon. BG pulls out Device of Ultimate Doom and tries to press the button that activates it. Hero wants to knock it out of his hand with his sword.
Realistic system (assuming the players don't reject the whole scene as silly and unrealistic): GM takes into account the speed of the carriage, the surface over which they are travelling, the weight of the sword vs. the character's strength, the size of the DUD vs. the strength of the BG, both character's relative sizes and agility, how tired and injured both the BG and Hero are, and both characters' encumbrance, offensive and defensive skils, and lots of other miscellaneous factors. In most realistic systems, this involves consulting a half-dozen charts and tables, and making a similar number of rolls. If the Hero is successful, then you have a whole other set of tables that tell you how far away and in which direction the DUD went, plus any other related effects. If not, then the GM decides how much hindrance the Hero provides, checks to see if either of them is unbalanced and falls off, etc. etc.
Simple System: If the Hero rolls high enough it works, otherwise it doesn't. GM decides on the fly how high is high enough or uses a die of his own to decide it. If it works, the GM makes up what happens. If it doesn't, the GM makes up what happens. (Note that the GM has a lot more power here.)
IMO complex, "realistic" systems are good when you 1) value "realism" and 2) dont' trust your GM and/or fellow players to make things realistic on the fly.
I used to be into the realism, but as i get older i tend to prefer simpler systems and just work on finding better GMs/players. If i wanted more realism i'd take a long walk or put in a few more hours at work. What i want in a game is more fun!
I couldn't agree more. Those are not American values. We have a president who wraps himself up in the flag but shits on the ideals for which it stands.
I think a lot of Americans are that way; blindly supportive of the outward symbols of America - the flag, the president, etc. - while harboring a fundamental misunderstanding of the ideals built into our Declaration of Independance and our Bill of Rights.
They want the freedom to be upper-middle-class white Christians with guns, but those are the only freedoms they seem to want to protect.
"The best intelligence we had showed that Iraq was a problem, and you know what? Iraq was a problem."
The best intelligence we had said that reports that said Iraq was a problem were themselves unreliable at best. The administration chose to ignore the best intelligence and use unreliable (and often just plain wrong) intelligence to justify the deaths of hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis.
Iraq is a problem now not because of any (non-existant) WMDs. It's a problem because by invading we de-stabilized the country and gave Al-Qaeda a bunch of new targets that they could strike without fearing repurcussions from the rest of the Arab world.
Is the world better off without Saddam running Iraq? Definitely. Was it an imminent threat to the US? Not even close.
I'm a liberal, and i don't decry the export of real American values. All persons are created equal. All persons have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I do object to fundamentalists who try to mandate their religious beliefs, or businesspuppets who exploit us and the foreign nations we are occupying in order to make a buck. I do object to exporting values via bombs, missiles, and bullets.
Does it make you proud to know your President lied to the American people in order to get them to support sending their sons and daughters off to die?
A better analogy might be if you leave a bottle labelled "POISON" sitting on your front porch. Are you liable if someone takes it and pours it into the punchbowl at a party? Partly, yes, but you can't remove the responsibility from the pourer either.
Gigabyte told me in an online chat room that if the authorities wanted to arrest her and other virus writers, then "they should arrest the creators of guns as well."
sydb: I am the biggest, most pedantic twit that ever was and ever shall be. Do not meddle in the affairs of big pedantic twits, for they are subtle and quick to anger.
I'm not sure i really want ATI and nVidia to open up. There's already so many cheats out there for various games; if the video drivers themselves were more open, wouldn't this make it worse?
What's the benefit? What would you like to be able to do that the current setup doesn't allow?
Slashdot Mirror
For now, let's assume (wrong or wrong) that Gore is 100 times dumber than Bush. That still doesn't mean he would subvert science like Bush's administration has. Intelligent != ethical.
At any rate, Gore really has nothing to do with this. If you want to make a comparison that matters, tell me how Kerry, Edwards, or even Dean have been misused or suppressed science to further their political goals like Bush has.
Our alternative is not Gore because we can't go back and change the past. (No matter how much we want to.) Our alternatives are the guys that are going to be running in November, 2004.
RTFA moron. They are not accusing the Bush administration of causing environmental problems. They are accusing the Bush administration of suppressing scientific studies that don't support their goals and of padding scientific advisory boards with industry shills.
After all, he is one hell of a strategerist!
Sounds pretty neat to me. I don't recall if their America's Army improved your shooting skill or not, but that game was fun and challenging.
Even though AA has "levels" in the form of Honor points, the only time they help you out is in weapon selection. Higher Honor players tend to get first pick of weapons in a scenario. They do not adjust your accuracy or give you any other benefit.
It doesn't sound like they are sure if they'll release it to the masses though.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if they used the work they do for the Army as the foundation for another game, but i doubt we'll get to play alongside the actual Army guys who are doing their training.
Now that i think about it though, it would probably be a good idea for the Army to hire some 31337 AA or Counterstrike players to play the bad guys, and maybe some deep roleplayers from some MMORPGs to fill in other parts.
Now that brings up some ethical quandries! I won't work for defense contractors IRL for ethical reasons, but would i work for the Army as an NPC/trainer in their MMORPG if the job was offered? On the one hand, i'd get paid to play a game - sweet gig. On the other hand, it's still working for the Army.
I guess it would depend on what kind of training i'd be doing. If i could help them learn to resolve more disputes non-violently, then that's a net positive, but if i'm just helping them learn to intimidate and kill more effectively, then that would be not cool.
I almost thought this was post was from an honest-to-god troglodyte Republican, but when you misspelled "romanticizes" and "sleeves" you tipped your hand. Too funny! Bravo!
Robert Gehorsam works for There, not for the Army directly. I doubt that he is privy to the plans of the US Army. He's probably just a West Wing watcher, but it is an interesting thought.
"Yahoo will...expand its use of paid inclusion."
You don't get the best results, you get the results they want you to get. I can't even see the real results on the screen when the search completes. I have to scroll down past the add for "Yahoo Shopping" and past the paid inclusions that have a sidebar of paid inclusions. Yahoo can kiss my ass.
Except for 2 teeny-tiny problems:
1) It's not working. How can it be considered a success of supply-side economics if our government helps out businesses and the economic improvement happens in their economy, while at the same time harming our economy?
2) That is not an example of supply-side economics at work. The Indian govt subsidized his education, providing him with the skills to get a job that came from elsewhere. The Indian govt did not give the company that hired him a fat tax break. They built up their labor force and businesses took advantage of it. They gave money to the consumers (in the form of scholarships) and it helped their economy - demand-side economics at work!
You should have been modded down for being -1 (Wrong).
Natural selection is a valid, accurate, and thoroughly scientific concept. I have studied it fairly comprehensively and i do get it.
I'm arguing that because the process is so complex, you cannot predict the outcome when applying it to human beings. Just because we can't understand how the system applies in a particular case doesn't mean it isn't working.
Pull your head out of the sand (and by sand, i mean your ass) and take a look at the real world for a change.
Or, if you prefer, Trickle-Down Genetics, Supply-Side Genetics, or my personal favorite, Reagenetics!
It didn't work for the economy. It won't work for the gene pool.
Seriously though, evolutionary pressure (encompassing the workings of both Natural and "Socioeconomic" selection) among human beings (if it still functions at all) is far too subtle and complicated to be used as rationale for or against any of this. To put it bluntly, we are too stupid to figure out exactly how (if) it works on us. The complexity of human behavior makes it nearly impossible to figure out what traits give modern humans a significant reproductive advantage.
My personal theory (developed in the course of getting my BA in Anthropology) is that because human beings evolved in a "tribal," hunter-gatherer environment, a lot of the problems we encounter in the modern world are a result of our "primitive" minds and bodies trying to cope with the amazing complexity of the world around us - a complexity we created piece by piece. In essence, we are not cut out to handle the world we have made, so each of us must muddle through as best we can and take solace in knowing that noone really knows what the hell they are doing in this life. (IMO the most fucked-up people are the ones that think they understand it all.)
I find it hard to believe that there are men out there who could take on an elephant bare handed and win
That's really more of an issue with heroic fantasy than it is D&D. Plenty of systems (even non-level-based ones) give that same effect.
This leads me to another drawback for me, which is the more you kill, the better you get at EVERYTHING your character wishes to persue.
Actually, if you're going by the book, the more challenges you overcome, the better you get at everything. Whether you kill the Ogre or sneak past him, you get the same XP.
The "getting better at everything" is the main abstraction of D&D's character improvement system. They assume that you are practicing (during downtime) all your abilities even if you actually got the XP for using only your combat skills. If that abstraction is a deal-breaker for you, then there's lots of systems (level-based and non-level based) that regulate that more "realistically". I think it's easier to add such regulations to D&D than to start with a whole different set of rules and change them to be the way i like, but everyone is different that way.
Happy Gaming!
I was going for Funny, but i got Troll instead. I was expecting Flamebait to be the backlash mod, but that's the thrill of moderation - unpredictable!
1) D&D is bigger because D&D was first. It has 10 years lead time on other modern gaming systems.
1) D&D was bigger because it was first. It's bigger now because it has kept evolving while maintaining its core aesthetic. It tries to appeal to a bigger audience. It has seen some of its greatest growth in the past few years because of this. Most other modern games have specialised themselves out of the wider audience or they are not newbie friendly.
2) any gaming system can be acceptable with a good gm, but if you have constantly use modified rules and change the objectives the problem is the system.
2) This criticism appplies equally to every game on the market. If there was a game out there whose system was better at this, it would be more popular. Every game fails equally at this because the individual assessment of which rules need changing varies from player to player.
3) I was not expressing an opinion on D20, ONLY on D&D itself
3) D&D is D20! Reading the D20 SRD is like reading a text-only version of the D&D core books! There are other D20 variants, but the vast majority of D20 stuff is D&D stuff.
4) While I agree that many games do get their players from D&D games...you can also say many people have been turned off from roleplaying entirely by D&D.
4) Or you could avoid making lopsided generalizations and say that many people have been turned off from roleplyaing by bad games, bad players, and bad gms - those are the things that ultimately make or break the experience.
I played D&D for several years, the system ITSELF encourages bad roleplaying(munchkins), depicts genocide of "evil" races as a good thing(see that lovely alignment system)and generally promotes a rigid view of roleplaying.
Does GURPS encourage munchkinism because its point-buy system can be min-maxed? Does 7th Sea encourage genocide because it sets up national and cultural stereotypes and conflicts? Does Vampire encourage rigidity because there is so much Canon material out there for it?
Bad players will always play stereotypes, no matter what the options available to them. Bad GMs will always resort to the plot of least thought because that's what is easiest to run regardless of the system.
Play whatever game you prefer, but accept that every game has its limitations. The fact that one system's limits work better for you doesn't make the game itself better.
(To address your address to the moderators: You made broad, unsupported generalizations that were contrary to the prevailing opinion. That's practically the definition of flamebait. I don't know that it was outrageous enough to be a troll, but hey - moderation is subjective and ultimately meaningless, so shrug it off.)
Thank god you are so much cooler than us.
What's that?
Dude, I think your mom is calling you. She wants you to turn off the pr0n and go take out the trash before bedtime.
P.S. Your clan sent you an email because they found out about your 1337 hack and they're banning you from their server. Well, that's 40 more hours a week to spend honing your SoulCalibur2 skillz!
P.P.S. $exyLaydee37698 is waiting for you on AIM. She found your school photo from last year online. She likes the vulcan ears, but didn't buy the "camera adds 167 pounds" line. No more cyber for you dude, but no big deal - her description ("like Pamela Anderson, but with like, totally bigger boobs") wasn't completely accurate either. (More like Jabba the Hutt but with totally bigger zits.)
P.P.P.S And she's only 13, so her dad, Officer Ballbricker will be dropping in to have a nightstick-to-crotch chat with you any day now.
You're right about the order, in which case i'd say cut out the middle man - Fallout borrows from D&D. Really, just about every RPG out there is borrowing from D&D and all the other pen and paper RPGs that came before.
Considering that the majority of the entire tabletop RPG community consists of D&D players, your statement is idiotic. It's like saying only 75% of all people consider America to be a superpower.
D20 (the system on which D&D is based) has a market share that completely dwarfs all other competitors (and always has) and it is getting bigger all the time. Why is that? Because the game is simple enough to be welcoming to newbies and provides enough flexibility to keep experienced people coming back. Most other games get their players from the pool of D&D players - they are bad at drawing in newbies. That's why D&D is the leader and the others will always be distant followers.
Does that mean that D&D is better? No. With a few exceptions, the quality of a system is completely relevant to what you are looking for in a game. (EG I want to play a game about Vampires - is D&D or vampire going to be better?) Also, the assessment of a system's quality is completely dependant on the quality of the individual game the assessor is playing. (EG I am not having any fun in the game i'm playing. This system sucks!)
In my experience, the people who feel the need to bash D&D are people who want to feel cooler about the game that they play - they're trying to establish some sort of geek cred. In the end, the quality of a game is most determined by the quality of the GM and players.
Fallout borrowed it from Baldur's Gate which got it from D&D.
That really depends on what you are looking for in a game. If one prerequisite for a good game for you is "realism", then there are other systems that will satisfy you more than D&D. If a good story, action, adventure, etc. is what you consider good, then those things are often easier to get out of a more abstract (less "realistic") system.
(Note: "realistic" systems tend to be more restrictive, not less. Reality is pretty restrictive. The closer you get to that, the more restrictive your system gets.)
Example:
Hero is fighting Bad Guy on the top of a moving wagon. BG pulls out Device of Ultimate Doom and tries to press the button that activates it. Hero wants to knock it out of his hand with his sword.
Realistic system (assuming the players don't reject the whole scene as silly and unrealistic): GM takes into account the speed of the carriage, the surface over which they are travelling, the weight of the sword vs. the character's strength, the size of the DUD vs. the strength of the BG, both character's relative sizes and agility, how tired and injured both the BG and Hero are, and both characters' encumbrance, offensive and defensive skils, and lots of other miscellaneous factors. In most realistic systems, this involves consulting a half-dozen charts and tables, and making a similar number of rolls. If the Hero is successful, then you have a whole other set of tables that tell you how far away and in which direction the DUD went, plus any other related effects. If not, then the GM decides how much hindrance the Hero provides, checks to see if either of them is unbalanced and falls off, etc. etc.
Simple System: If the Hero rolls high enough it works, otherwise it doesn't. GM decides on the fly how high is high enough or uses a die of his own to decide it. If it works, the GM makes up what happens. If it doesn't, the GM makes up what happens. (Note that the GM has a lot more power here.)
IMO complex, "realistic" systems are good when you 1) value "realism" and 2) dont' trust your GM and/or fellow players to make things realistic on the fly.
I used to be into the realism, but as i get older i tend to prefer simpler systems and just work on finding better GMs/players. If i wanted more realism i'd take a long walk or put in a few more hours at work. What i want in a game is more fun!
Oooooooh Shiney!
I couldn't agree more. Those are not American values. We have a president who wraps himself up in the flag but shits on the ideals for which it stands.
I think a lot of Americans are that way; blindly supportive of the outward symbols of America - the flag, the president, etc. - while harboring a fundamental misunderstanding of the ideals built into our Declaration of Independance and our Bill of Rights.
They want the freedom to be upper-middle-class white Christians with guns, but those are the only freedoms they seem to want to protect.
"The best intelligence we had showed that Iraq was a problem, and you know what? Iraq was a problem."
The best intelligence we had said that reports that said Iraq was a problem were themselves unreliable at best. The administration chose to ignore the best intelligence and use unreliable (and often just plain wrong) intelligence to justify the deaths of hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis.
Iraq is a problem now not because of any (non-existant) WMDs. It's a problem because by invading we de-stabilized the country and gave Al-Qaeda a bunch of new targets that they could strike without fearing repurcussions from the rest of the Arab world.
Is the world better off without Saddam running Iraq? Definitely. Was it an imminent threat to the US? Not even close.
I'm a liberal, and i don't decry the export of real American values. All persons are created equal. All persons have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I do object to fundamentalists who try to mandate their religious beliefs, or businesspuppets who exploit us and the foreign nations we are occupying in order to make a buck. I do object to exporting values via bombs, missiles, and bullets.
Does it make you proud to know your President lied to the American people in order to get them to support sending their sons and daughters off to die?
A better analogy might be if you leave a bottle labelled "POISON" sitting on your front porch. Are you liable if someone takes it and pours it into the punchbowl at a party? Partly, yes, but you can't remove the responsibility from the pourer either.
But how would you respond to the quote:
Gigabyte told me in an online chat room that if the authorities wanted to arrest her and other virus writers, then "they should arrest the creators of guns as well."
Has she got a point, even if it is a weak one?
sydb: I am a pedantic twit.
;)
Paolomania: I am a bigger and more pedantic twit.
sydb: I am the biggest, most pedantic twit that ever was and ever shall be. Do not meddle in the affairs of big pedantic twits, for they are subtle and quick to anger.
theghost:
I'm not sure i really want ATI and nVidia to open up. There's already so many cheats out there for various games; if the video drivers themselves were more open, wouldn't this make it worse?
What's the benefit? What would you like to be able to do that the current setup doesn't allow?