I'd rather we declare war against these buttheads rather than sending them past due tax bills. Gold farmers destroy the economies of games like Warcraft, at least they make like damned hard on honest in-game farmers. They depress the prices on the resources you harvest and increase the costs of the auction house goodies you're looking to buy. I wouldn't mind seeing some of these guys waterboarded.
Well, that's a bad example since it's so ridiculous. But, I don't believe in absolute free speech because of the open door for abuse. What if in a political campaign someone starts spouting bold-faced lies? Even in today's politics it's hard enough to hold people to account for misleading or even false statements (like the Swiftboat vets). You need a strong legal way to respond rather than just hoping people just figure it out (as did NOT happen with the Swiftboat vets).
Of course, there's the proverbial cry of fire in a crowded theater.
Wow, I can already tell where you get your news by your dropping slogans like "all carrot no stick." The "stick" we had under Clinton was on-site inspections and cameras installed in NK's reactor(s). The problems arose when NK tried to build another reactor in secret and Bush walked away from diplomacy. For some reason he thinks that diplomacy is a reward for good behavior. In reality, you use diplomacy to impose limits on your enemies through some given and take. The dynamics always change and shady characters like KJI are always going to try topush the limits and cheat. The trick is to maintain your containment. Now, under Bush's "we're taking our ball and going home" approach, we've got a NK testing bombs.
Now, which President is the fuckup?
That's what a *good* interrogator can do. Unfortunately, there are a lot of cases of the "lazy investigator" who will exploit whatever he thinks will stick to you, crop your statements, maybe hold you for so long that you just get so mentally exhausted that you say "yes," or tell you that he just needs you to sign a confession to make his boss happy and that you can go afterwards. After the Central Park Jogger's convicted rapists were found to have been innocent, one of the crime channels had a great expose on how cops coerce confessions; usually from the underclass.
I disagree with your first bullet. Maybe capitalism was intended to be a "best design wins" model, but in reality its just as easy if not easier for the toxic mold model to win out. That's what I find so ridiculous about Libertarianism and free market advocates. There's too much room left for toxic tactics like collusion, corruption, and monolopy brute force that produce results antithetical to the capitalist ideal. I'm not saying capitalism is bad, it's great but you'd better have regulations in place to hold the darker side of human nature in check.
You confuse foreshadowing with ads and your inability to distinguish the two. The premise of the whole movie is the teacher being surpassed by the pupil, and all the while the next successor is right behind the student (which sets up the conflict that turns Anakin). This all leads to the finale where the student beats an opponent one-on-one where his master fails. Here is what I mean by foreshadowing, NOT what you gleaned from previews or leaks from SciFi Geek Magazine.
Quigon (sp) doesn't sense the trap at the very beginning of the movie while Obi Wan does.
Quigon screws up the Vulcan death grip on Jar Jar, which Obi Wan chides him for.
Quigon doesn't sense the danger in training Anakin which Obi Wan does.
Quigon doesn't heed Yoda's advice to "be mindful of the future" which Obi Wan does.
Quigon makes the comment after Anakin says Jedi can't be killed; something like "if only that were true."
Quigon's reaction when he senses his own death in the forcefield wall hallway. He drops to his knees in an act of deference to his own fate. That's not the typical reaction of someone involved in a brawl.
That's what I can remember. Hence the word "foreshadowing" and not "the previews gave away the ending."
Can you explain to me how a light saber works, or how space ships bank in space, or how a missile fired at jet speeds can make a 90 degree turn straight down into a battle station, never hit the vent sides, and initiate the destruction of a something the size of a moon?
The lack of dialogue in the Episode I Darth Maul finale is what I loved most about that movie. You didn't need words. The foreshadowing tells you what's about to happen. And, contrary to the majority opinion on the acting, the actors used their body language and facial expressions so well that you know at every point what's going through their minds throughtout the duel. Spare me the melodramatic speeches in a brawl when two guys are just trying to kick each others asses. It worked in the first 3 because there was an emotional connection between the combatants when they had something to say to each other.
I think people never give the new 3 enough credit as movies in their own right rather than just an alternative to the original three.
That was my initial guess, but I started seeing arbitrary job losses. Sprint is huge here in Kansas city and while they did have legitimate job cuts, they started slashing and burning entire departments and projects. I know some very competent people let go and worthless people making ridiculous money with pathetic skillsets. There were a lot of schmucks who came into IT for the cash, but I haven't seen any microfiltering of the job market. I don't know if it's even feasible the way most shops hire IT staff. The only good thing I can say about the bubble bursting is that it's probably a deterent to people who didn't truly like IT work.
I feel for those competent workers who loved this field and have had to leave it. I can't imagine doing anything else for a career (except porn star).
I'm sure the timing of Foley story was just coincidental right? Despite Rove's tactics, Bush should have been easy to beat. Despite the voting fraud which likely occured on both sides (although with electronic voting it most certainly shifted to the right), SOMEONE should have been able to beat him. Unfortunately Gore and Kerry had the personalities of sticks, and whiny ones at that.
Funny that you should mention the Foley story. The GOP has known about it for 5 years and did nothing. As for Gore and Kerry's personalities, that's precisely the kind of caracature crap I was talking about. I hate the "everyone does it" argument. We're talking about the degrees of corruption. Yes, there was a congressman's kid busted for slashing election drive tires, but the right-wing voter disenfranchisement tactics were national.
As for Democratic stands, they aren't bullshit bumper sticker slogans which is why Republicans are doing so well in the current climate. You can make a claim like "Kerry first voted for the war then he voted against it" without the details and that sticks in the public mind. It takes time to explain how misleading that statement is.
As for the "they just hate Bush" argument, there's a reason people hate Bush. It's not because of his accent or the (R) after his name. Look at all of the arguments stately more eloquently than I can pull off in this thread. The Democrats are the opposition party, though a very weak one not having control of *any* branch of government.
As for knowing where you get your news, I make the guesses I do because I use a wide range of sources and there's a distinctly different message coming from some places in the media. You can peg people from the arguments they use. So, when you make the argument that Dems "just hate Bush and the have no plan" when there are alternative directions expressed and people have at least rational reasons for hating Bush, well then I say you're getting most of your info from right-wing sources.
No, Bush is in office because Karl Rove is a genius when it comes to understanding public sentiments and how to manipulate public opinion. He knows our citizens are apathetic, uneducated about our own political system, short of memory, and obsessed with scandals. Anyone who follows politics with a critical and open mind can see what a disaster Bush is as a president. But, all is takes is a cartoonish and negative representation of your opponents, bogus scandals leaked through whisper campaigns( Swiftboats, McCain's "black" baby), a convenient and inexplicable drop in gas prices (BTW predicted by many analysts as a potential pre-election ploy), Goebel-esque criticisms of the anti-war movement, misrepresentations of facts and outright lies, incredulous spin just acceptable enough to placate your base, and a bullshit cowboy image for a man from Connecticut. They claim to hate Hollywood, but they're created the perfect fantasy world for their administration and the majority of us have bought it.
You don't know the direction the Democratics want to move in because you haven't been listening to Democrats. You've been listening to the O'Reillys, Limbaughs and Savages of the world tell you that.
Well, the Bush administration's definition of torture only includes killing and massive organ failure. So, you whiney liberal factinistas can shut up since we'll only use beatings, sleep and sensory deprivation, removal of finger nails, incisions on one's scrotum with a razor, and anal violation (from the accounts I've read). If you're Arabic, we'll have our infidel women smear their menstrual blood on you. How bad is that? That's the kind of stuff that goes on in a frat house, at least according to Rush Limbaugh.
The opposition was more concerned that there wouldn't be enough time to switch over before the election. And, the move was interpreted by the Dems as a backhanded way to suppress turnout, especially considering his earlier stands on absentee and early voting. Personally, I've hugely in favor of a paper trail and the Maryland Dems have an inexplicable level of confidence in Diebold.
Early detection wouldn't even be a problem if women weren't so damned sensitive about strangers groping their breasts. Every time I try to diagnose a girl at the local bar I get smacked and treated like a pervert.
I use food poisoning as an example because the goverment has created standards by which some foods are prepared that we all accept as good for us. I don't want a Libertarian system for food distribution as I described, where the "free market" (i.e. the number of people hurt by a company's poor food prep) determines the food standards. We've tried that before and it doesn't work. Without regulations, businesses always settle on a lowest common denominator. We're not talking about the government saying you can't eat cheeseburgers, we're talking about unhealthy food prep (and isn't it just a recommendation, not a law)?. You couldn't go out to city hall and swallow a cup of arsenic without government intervention (probably going to get you sent to a mental institution). We don't live in a Libertarian system where you have an absolute right to do anything you want to your body or that of one of your independents.
I never said you were pro-life, you're the one who referred to abortion in your argument and I made a counterargument. I don't see it as having any equivalence to eating foods cooked with trans fats.
Noam Chomsky calls himself a Libertarian Communist or something like that. That's a satirical term since both are opposites. I think he's implying that he's for the right answer, not the left or right answer.
If you ask Republicans if they're for universal health care, welfare, or unions, most will say "no." You know what I meant, no need to parse language.
The terms Republican and Democrat aren't tainted. But, liberal is which is why so many lefties now call themselves progressives.
The Democrats aren't destroying the 2nd amendment. The left just draws a different line than the Republicans do. Should a private citizen be able to purchase a modern armed air superiority fighter and fly it around US airspace with a full load? No. Is that an infringement on your right to bear arms? Maybe under the strictest definition. Republicans probably draw the line up to machine guns. Democrats draw it lower at hunting rifles and registration.
The Feds and State have a wink-wink agreement on the 10th. The states abstain from certain duties and rely on the federal government to take care of it for them. If any state wants sole control over some power not defined by the Constitution, they can go to court over it and win. I bet they could just ask for it most of the time.
So, by your Libertarian logic we should let the number of food poisoning cases a meat packer has drive customer selection, doing away for the need for food safety standards? Government doesn't exist just to grease the way for corporations. Government has a responsibility for the well-being of its citizens, that's assuming you agree with the preamble to our Constitution. As for abortion, its a very safe procedure for surgery and far more safe than back in the days when street alley hanger jobs were killing women. You might as well make an argument against plastic surgery.
I call you Republican for exactly the same reason I call Bill O'Reilly a Republican (who calls himself an Independent) and Tucker Carlson (who calls himself Libertarian). You're making all of their arguments and criticisms of the left.
If you think universal health care, worker rights, and social services are just rhetorically different from the dismantling of our Constitutional rights, I don't think you truly understand what's been happening over the last 5 years.
The Democrats want warrantless wiretapping of criminals? How the hell can you compare regulations that prevent corporations from producing foods that will kill you to Big Brother? You Republicans are in some weird form of denial if you think that a Democratically controlled government would be pulling this same crap. Take and deep breath and accept the fact that a Republican controlled Executive, Judicial, and Legislative government is turning the ship towards fascism.
I guarantee you that if the Dems take over the Presidency and Congress this authoritarian idiocy will end pronto. Your comment that we on the left want government "to protect them from percieved exploitation, unpleasant speech, or personal responsibility" pretty much says that you've never held a political conversation with someone on the left.
You're not reading the amendment correctly. It's the prerogative of the executive to seek a warrant for reasonable searches and seizures. But, you only get the warrant if there is PROBABLE CAUSE. This is a legal standard that is well defined as far as precedents go. It's a very Bush-Nixonian view to try to reinterpret this amendment as restricted by the word REASONABLE while ignoring the key PROBABLE CAUSE standard. In fact, I watched Congressional testimony where (I believe the CoJCS) a Bushie make the frightening claim that there IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE benchmark in the Constitution.
Those of you in California with half a brain also fell for the Enron/Rove ploy that put this Hitler-admirer (his words not mine) into office. And, you half-brained geniuses also paid the bills for Enron screwing you out of billions then turned around and booted out of office the Governor and Lt. Governor who were going to take Enron to court over it.
I always hated Star Trek. It creates such an unbelievable vision of the future. Everything is so pristine, but you never the the laborers or even robots to keep it that way. Even the actors (in the Next Generation and later) were stiff and spoke perfect emotionless english. Just a bunch of cold automatons moving through pristine sci-fi sets.
Contrast that with the original Star Wars trilogy. Everything is dirty, weathered and worn. The banter added to the credibility of the characters. Humans aren't living in some utopian vision with just the occassional evil alien to battle. I had the Star Wars RPG as a kid and their description of the Star Wars feel nailed it. Lucas' characters felt like they actually lived in their world. They weren't impressed with their own technology. I remember after the first shot of the Millenium Falcon (which is amazing to the movie viewer), Luke calls it a piece of junk. It's a small remark, but it tells you a hell of a lot about the setting the writer is trying to present.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd rather we declare war against these buttheads rather than sending them past due tax bills. Gold farmers destroy the economies of games like Warcraft, at least they make like damned hard on honest in-game farmers. They depress the prices on the resources you harvest and increase the costs of the auction house goodies you're looking to buy. I wouldn't mind seeing some of these guys waterboarded.
Well, that's a bad example since it's so ridiculous. But, I don't believe in absolute free speech because of the open door for abuse. What if in a political campaign someone starts spouting bold-faced lies? Even in today's politics it's hard enough to hold people to account for misleading or even false statements (like the Swiftboat vets). You need a strong legal way to respond rather than just hoping people just figure it out (as did NOT happen with the Swiftboat vets). Of course, there's the proverbial cry of fire in a crowded theater.
That said, I don't approve of censoring anything. So, you don't mind if I spout of claims that you fuck sheep to whoever will listen with no evidence?
Wow, I can already tell where you get your news by your dropping slogans like "all carrot no stick." The "stick" we had under Clinton was on-site inspections and cameras installed in NK's reactor(s). The problems arose when NK tried to build another reactor in secret and Bush walked away from diplomacy. For some reason he thinks that diplomacy is a reward for good behavior. In reality, you use diplomacy to impose limits on your enemies through some given and take. The dynamics always change and shady characters like KJI are always going to try topush the limits and cheat. The trick is to maintain your containment. Now, under Bush's "we're taking our ball and going home" approach, we've got a NK testing bombs. Now, which President is the fuckup?
That's what a *good* interrogator can do. Unfortunately, there are a lot of cases of the "lazy investigator" who will exploit whatever he thinks will stick to you, crop your statements, maybe hold you for so long that you just get so mentally exhausted that you say "yes," or tell you that he just needs you to sign a confession to make his boss happy and that you can go afterwards. After the Central Park Jogger's convicted rapists were found to have been innocent, one of the crime channels had a great expose on how cops coerce confessions; usually from the underclass.
Well, since we're talking about Kim Jong Il, I think it would be "SUPPLIES!"
Just like in CounterStrike, team killing counts as -1 so the parent is correct.
I disagree with your first bullet. Maybe capitalism was intended to be a "best design wins" model, but in reality its just as easy if not easier for the toxic mold model to win out. That's what I find so ridiculous about Libertarianism and free market advocates. There's too much room left for toxic tactics like collusion, corruption, and monolopy brute force that produce results antithetical to the capitalist ideal. I'm not saying capitalism is bad, it's great but you'd better have regulations in place to hold the darker side of human nature in check.
That's what I can remember. Hence the word "foreshadowing" and not "the previews gave away the ending."
Can you explain to me how a light saber works, or how space ships bank in space, or how a missile fired at jet speeds can make a 90 degree turn straight down into a battle station, never hit the vent sides, and initiate the destruction of a something the size of a moon?
There's a difference between what someone CAN do and what someone CHOOSES to do.
The lack of dialogue in the Episode I Darth Maul finale is what I loved most about that movie. You didn't need words. The foreshadowing tells you what's about to happen. And, contrary to the majority opinion on the acting, the actors used their body language and facial expressions so well that you know at every point what's going through their minds throughtout the duel. Spare me the melodramatic speeches in a brawl when two guys are just trying to kick each others asses. It worked in the first 3 because there was an emotional connection between the combatants when they had something to say to each other. I think people never give the new 3 enough credit as movies in their own right rather than just an alternative to the original three.
That was my initial guess, but I started seeing arbitrary job losses. Sprint is huge here in Kansas city and while they did have legitimate job cuts, they started slashing and burning entire departments and projects. I know some very competent people let go and worthless people making ridiculous money with pathetic skillsets. There were a lot of schmucks who came into IT for the cash, but I haven't seen any microfiltering of the job market. I don't know if it's even feasible the way most shops hire IT staff. The only good thing I can say about the bubble bursting is that it's probably a deterent to people who didn't truly like IT work. I feel for those competent workers who loved this field and have had to leave it. I can't imagine doing anything else for a career (except porn star).
I'm sure the timing of Foley story was just coincidental right? Despite Rove's tactics, Bush should have been easy to beat. Despite the voting fraud which likely occured on both sides (although with electronic voting it most certainly shifted to the right), SOMEONE should have been able to beat him. Unfortunately Gore and Kerry had the personalities of sticks, and whiny ones at that. Funny that you should mention the Foley story. The GOP has known about it for 5 years and did nothing. As for Gore and Kerry's personalities, that's precisely the kind of caracature crap I was talking about. I hate the "everyone does it" argument. We're talking about the degrees of corruption. Yes, there was a congressman's kid busted for slashing election drive tires, but the right-wing voter disenfranchisement tactics were national. As for Democratic stands, they aren't bullshit bumper sticker slogans which is why Republicans are doing so well in the current climate. You can make a claim like "Kerry first voted for the war then he voted against it" without the details and that sticks in the public mind. It takes time to explain how misleading that statement is. As for the "they just hate Bush" argument, there's a reason people hate Bush. It's not because of his accent or the (R) after his name. Look at all of the arguments stately more eloquently than I can pull off in this thread. The Democrats are the opposition party, though a very weak one not having control of *any* branch of government. As for knowing where you get your news, I make the guesses I do because I use a wide range of sources and there's a distinctly different message coming from some places in the media. You can peg people from the arguments they use. So, when you make the argument that Dems "just hate Bush and the have no plan" when there are alternative directions expressed and people have at least rational reasons for hating Bush, well then I say you're getting most of your info from right-wing sources.
No, Bush is in office because Karl Rove is a genius when it comes to understanding public sentiments and how to manipulate public opinion. He knows our citizens are apathetic, uneducated about our own political system, short of memory, and obsessed with scandals. Anyone who follows politics with a critical and open mind can see what a disaster Bush is as a president. But, all is takes is a cartoonish and negative representation of your opponents, bogus scandals leaked through whisper campaigns( Swiftboats, McCain's "black" baby), a convenient and inexplicable drop in gas prices (BTW predicted by many analysts as a potential pre-election ploy), Goebel-esque criticisms of the anti-war movement, misrepresentations of facts and outright lies, incredulous spin just acceptable enough to placate your base, and a bullshit cowboy image for a man from Connecticut. They claim to hate Hollywood, but they're created the perfect fantasy world for their administration and the majority of us have bought it. You don't know the direction the Democratics want to move in because you haven't been listening to Democrats. You've been listening to the O'Reillys, Limbaughs and Savages of the world tell you that.
Well, the Bush administration's definition of torture only includes killing and massive organ failure. So, you whiney liberal factinistas can shut up since we'll only use beatings, sleep and sensory deprivation, removal of finger nails, incisions on one's scrotum with a razor, and anal violation (from the accounts I've read). If you're Arabic, we'll have our infidel women smear their menstrual blood on you. How bad is that? That's the kind of stuff that goes on in a frat house, at least according to Rush Limbaugh.
The opposition was more concerned that there wouldn't be enough time to switch over before the election. And, the move was interpreted by the Dems as a backhanded way to suppress turnout, especially considering his earlier stands on absentee and early voting. Personally, I've hugely in favor of a paper trail and the Maryland Dems have an inexplicable level of confidence in Diebold.
Early detection wouldn't even be a problem if women weren't so damned sensitive about strangers groping their breasts. Every time I try to diagnose a girl at the local bar I get smacked and treated like a pervert.
I use food poisoning as an example because the goverment has created standards by which some foods are prepared that we all accept as good for us. I don't want a Libertarian system for food distribution as I described, where the "free market" (i.e. the number of people hurt by a company's poor food prep) determines the food standards. We've tried that before and it doesn't work. Without regulations, businesses always settle on a lowest common denominator. We're not talking about the government saying you can't eat cheeseburgers, we're talking about unhealthy food prep (and isn't it just a recommendation, not a law)?. You couldn't go out to city hall and swallow a cup of arsenic without government intervention (probably going to get you sent to a mental institution). We don't live in a Libertarian system where you have an absolute right to do anything you want to your body or that of one of your independents. I never said you were pro-life, you're the one who referred to abortion in your argument and I made a counterargument. I don't see it as having any equivalence to eating foods cooked with trans fats. Noam Chomsky calls himself a Libertarian Communist or something like that. That's a satirical term since both are opposites. I think he's implying that he's for the right answer, not the left or right answer. If you ask Republicans if they're for universal health care, welfare, or unions, most will say "no." You know what I meant, no need to parse language. The terms Republican and Democrat aren't tainted. But, liberal is which is why so many lefties now call themselves progressives. The Democrats aren't destroying the 2nd amendment. The left just draws a different line than the Republicans do. Should a private citizen be able to purchase a modern armed air superiority fighter and fly it around US airspace with a full load? No. Is that an infringement on your right to bear arms? Maybe under the strictest definition. Republicans probably draw the line up to machine guns. Democrats draw it lower at hunting rifles and registration. The Feds and State have a wink-wink agreement on the 10th. The states abstain from certain duties and rely on the federal government to take care of it for them. If any state wants sole control over some power not defined by the Constitution, they can go to court over it and win. I bet they could just ask for it most of the time.
So, by your Libertarian logic we should let the number of food poisoning cases a meat packer has drive customer selection, doing away for the need for food safety standards? Government doesn't exist just to grease the way for corporations. Government has a responsibility for the well-being of its citizens, that's assuming you agree with the preamble to our Constitution. As for abortion, its a very safe procedure for surgery and far more safe than back in the days when street alley hanger jobs were killing women. You might as well make an argument against plastic surgery. I call you Republican for exactly the same reason I call Bill O'Reilly a Republican (who calls himself an Independent) and Tucker Carlson (who calls himself Libertarian). You're making all of their arguments and criticisms of the left. If you think universal health care, worker rights, and social services are just rhetorically different from the dismantling of our Constitutional rights, I don't think you truly understand what's been happening over the last 5 years.
The Democrats want warrantless wiretapping of criminals? How the hell can you compare regulations that prevent corporations from producing foods that will kill you to Big Brother? You Republicans are in some weird form of denial if you think that a Democratically controlled government would be pulling this same crap. Take and deep breath and accept the fact that a Republican controlled Executive, Judicial, and Legislative government is turning the ship towards fascism.
I guarantee you that if the Dems take over the Presidency and Congress this authoritarian idiocy will end pronto. Your comment that we on the left want government "to protect them from percieved exploitation, unpleasant speech, or personal responsibility" pretty much says that you've never held a political conversation with someone on the left.
You're not reading the amendment correctly. It's the prerogative of the executive to seek a warrant for reasonable searches and seizures. But, you only get the warrant if there is PROBABLE CAUSE. This is a legal standard that is well defined as far as precedents go. It's a very Bush-Nixonian view to try to reinterpret this amendment as restricted by the word REASONABLE while ignoring the key PROBABLE CAUSE standard. In fact, I watched Congressional testimony where (I believe the CoJCS) a Bushie make the frightening claim that there IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE benchmark in the Constitution.
Terrible idea, you'll end up with idiots in office. Yes, I'm using both the ancient Greek and contemporaneous definitions.
Those of you in California with half a brain also fell for the Enron/Rove ploy that put this Hitler-admirer (his words not mine) into office. And, you half-brained geniuses also paid the bills for Enron screwing you out of billions then turned around and booted out of office the Governor and Lt. Governor who were going to take Enron to court over it.
Stop patting yourself on the back.
I always hated Star Trek. It creates such an unbelievable vision of the future. Everything is so pristine, but you never the the laborers or even robots to keep it that way. Even the actors (in the Next Generation and later) were stiff and spoke perfect emotionless english. Just a bunch of cold automatons moving through pristine sci-fi sets.
Contrast that with the original Star Wars trilogy. Everything is dirty, weathered and worn. The banter added to the credibility of the characters. Humans aren't living in some utopian vision with just the occassional evil alien to battle. I had the Star Wars RPG as a kid and their description of the Star Wars feel nailed it. Lucas' characters felt like they actually lived in their world. They weren't impressed with their own technology. I remember after the first shot of the Millenium Falcon (which is amazing to the movie viewer), Luke calls it a piece of junk. It's a small remark, but it tells you a hell of a lot about the setting the writer is trying to present.