I'd like to second this one - Alpha Centauri is great...and don't forget to throw the Alien Crossfire add-on into the mix. It actually does add quite a bit of replay value to the game. (The game isn't lacking any in the first place.)
So when exactly will they be changing the name of the BBC? 'British Bollocks Centre', perhaps?
If we are willing to part with those three magic initials there are plenty of other good names still availble. "British Labour Propaganda Network"? "British Extreme Anti-Israeli Fantasy"? Or perhaps "We Love The EU And You Should Too!" network.
I am not a fan of Fox either, but at least they aren't spreading their version of reality at my expense.
See...here is the rift. We were having this little dicussion under an article about a potential violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.
The U.S. as a whole was accused by the poster, of not honoring the treaty - which is apparently false judging by Article IV of the treaty. Article IV restricts only Nuclear weapons, AKA "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in orbit, and no military platforms/installations on existing celestial bodies.
You (or some other AC...how about logging in?) introduced lumber tariffs into this little debacle, which is what I found curious. I suppose we saw the topic as two different things - you see it as bashing the U.S. over not abiding by international agreements (as implied by the response, IMHO), and I saw the topic as the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and the discussion on the militarization in space. The original poster accused the U.S. of not abiding by this, judging by the context of this article, and I responded to address that. Then lumber tariffs showed up somehow...
The topic (in my eyes) was bashing the U.S. on the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, (and again, my original response addressed that topic) which makes bringing a lumber tariff into this an interesting and revealing quirk. Are you interested in establishing the truth about whether or not the United States is in violation of a treaty, and whether that treaty is even valid - OR - are you interested in working to find more reasons to justify some negative feelings towards the United States?
As for the "Spirit" of an international agreement - can you tell me why the treaty would only explicitly ban nuclear weapons if complete disarmament was the goal? Does being armed automatically imply that people cannot act peacefully? They certainly had other technologies to harm people back in those days...and beyond that, being armed does not make a person violent. Even beyond that - alot of "scientific equipment" could be employed to cause alot of damage. Enforcing the idea of no "weapons" in space would be a little complicated when are basically flying an overgrown missile to get there.
Believe it or not, I hate war, but I think it's naive not to be ready for conflicts. I see two reasons:
1.) Some things are worth fighting for, and 2.) unfortunately, armed conflicts in space are pretty much inevitable...humans have quite a long history of this. That's not to say we shouldn't work on it...but that's just the unfortunate reality.
I like your debate style...you lead with a nice strawman argument, throw in a condescending statement, and then change the subject to a completely different issue.
Now why would you do a thing like that? Are you trying to justify some feelings you are having?
And for the record, I did not say anywhere that you couldn't critisize the United States...I said that people need to get their facts straight before they do it. Am I wrong?
Why all of this instead of accepting that the original statement was a very very fucking stupid one (by one of your very own contrymen no less - if the url attached to his/her account is any indication), and moving on with your life.
1. At one time, the majority of American citizens were pro-slavery. 2. That wasn't right. 3.Bush isn't right.
sooo....
4. You must vote against Bush
Compare this to the Chewbacca Defense:
1. The Star Wars character Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor, which doesn't make sense; 2. Talking about Chewbacca in a totally unrelated trial doesn't make sense; 3. None of this makes any sense; and 4. If it doesn't make sense, the jury must acquit.
I truely understand where you are coming from now...:)
I'd like to second what Pii just said here. I have been to a few countries as well, in my humble travels. Alot of them are very interesting to visit, but when it comes to a place to live - I am sticking with the United States.
And remember kids...socialism is good because the socialist bureaucrats told me so.
Please mod me down with the rest of those willing to hold an unpopular opinion here.
This is slashdot man...voting for Bush IS an extreme side. This thread was damned before it started, and the editors pretty much have to know that...but clicks == cash.
Actually, I am glad to see that this wasn't modded down. I feel very similarly about it.
I think the whole situation boils down to two factors.
1. They needed a place to vent their wide array of political ideologies. (By wide array I mean wide array of left-leaning view points that are being pushed as 'balanced' and 'objective'). That is pretty much the case...they keep Pudge around as a token Republican. While I am glad for his presence...the situation as a whole is completely laughable.
2. Pretty much the reason you just stated - money. Taco might need a new BMW. You know...in this horrible tech economy (all Bush's fault too) how can a code monkey not at LEAST have a late model BMW? Geez...what do they think we are? Savages?:)
Yet, you did not understand any of this and instead attempted to make liberal, anti-monarchist, an insult-you are an American, as you have admitted, so this was inevitable.
No...I understand pretty well actually. And I didn't attempt anything. I did or I didn't. Pick one.
I also am not an admitted American. I am an American. There is nothing to "admit" to. You are giving yourself away here - you sound as if you look at being an American as something someone should "admit" to, as if they should be ashamed of it. I am not, anymore than you should be ashamed of where you come from. I do not believe our originals make us special.
I am going to spell this out, in no uncertain terms:
I am an American. I am a Capitalist. I am a small business owner, as well as an employee of a corporation. I am not "admitting" anything. I am stating it. I am not ashamed of it anymore than you should feel ashamed of being from where ever you are from.
I am also somewhat successful at both of my financial endeavours.
I do not want to be held responsible for the health care of others unless they are willing to live their lives by my rules. I like the freedom of NOT being responsible for the healthcare of others who do not choose to lead as healthy of a life as I do. I want nothing to do with paying healthcare for a smoker. I don't smoke. I don't want to smoke. Who is a smoker to expect me to help pay their medical bills with my tax dollars when they go and give themselves cancer? Or a drunk who wrecks their car and is injured, when I don't drive at all if I have consumed alcohol. I don't want to pay for people who let themselves become obese. I don't want to pay for people to get abortions, because they were irresponsible - not me.
To me, this is freedom. I am largely free from paying for other people's vices. I only have to pay for my own.
I also like the companies offering me healthcare insurance to have to compete. I think the ideal solution to healthcare would be to create real competition in the industry. Currently, companies subsidize healthcare through one single provider - let the employees choose their providers and just offer an amount that the company will contribute instead. Competition will always give you a better result than a buearocracy full of union drones that almost can't lose their jobs. The key is specifying what they are competing to deliver explicitly. I am an engineer. We do this all the time, and the contracts get awarded to the lowest bidder who will deliver the product that we want - to the exact specifications that we want.
Competition would be the truely Captalist solution to healthcare. Capitalism by it's nature and ideology will always get things done as efficiently as possible. That is not to say that there should be no rules - it need not be Laissez-faire (actually, it should NOT be), but the rules should be as simple as possible, and as few as is needed to protect all parties involved.
My votes go for my interests. That is human nature. Deny it if you will, but doing so has a historical track record of ending badly in the long run.
You have attempted insult rather than rebuttal, my interest in your responses has ended.
I have a different perspective on things. First and foremost, you didn't give me a rebuttal. You responded with something that disagreed with my conclusion, without arguing against a single point I made. If you want to handle this like a debate, that is a very very weak rebuttal.
It's ironic that you critisize me for my response when you initially did the exact same thing. It's also ironic that you say your interest in my repsonse has ended, and then you go on to keep typing...I admit, I had originally lost interest in this, but now I am just curious if you are insane or just a troll. It doesn't seem like you lost interest at all...in fact - you even posted another repsonse below this one.
by ideology a socialist democracy or social democracy also improves the greatest number of people as possible
Actually, this is technically correct, but flawed. It does do improve the greatest number of people - by ideology. Ideology and practice are very different, however. At least they mean well...they always do.
There are so many things overlooked in that one simple statement that I don't even know where to begin.
Think of me what you will, at least I am willing to post my opinion while logged in as myself so I can be held accountable for my opinion. I have very little respect for someone who hides behind their opinion with anonymity...it's very easy to be critical of others when no one knows who you are. Slashdot often proves that. I don't have to insult you in that matter...you are effectively doing that yourself.
You can post all of the psuedo-intellectual garbage you want, Anonymous Coward...you still haven't answered to what I said in the previous post.
This is the interesting trait I have noticed amoungst the more liberal-leftist minded people I deal with...they like to try to side-step and twist the points in an argument into something where they actually appear to have a point. Complete with made up and over-simplified figures to try to back it up. (If only the system was so simple...) You don't, however...you have the gall (as an anonymous coward, no less) to ask me for a proper response without giving me one. It's a nice try...but it's very revealing with respect to your mindset.
I am going to say this one more time - look at the numbers. Lets take Germany for example. Germany would be by far more damaged finacially by losing the U.S. market than they U.S. would be by losing the German market. You have to look at the numbers proportionatly, but you will find that it's true. Considering they are having less than stellar economic growth as it is, I am sticking to my original assertion that socialist countries are almost dependant on the existance of capitalist countries to deal with just to even sustem them as they are.
The original posting I responded to was actually almost scarey in a sense...the nation gets the best deal by using maximum buying power - that is only a small step away from that nation saying "Hey...it will be even cheaper if we just have state make what we need for us." I don't mean to throw out a strawman argument - but it has always seemed to be a slippery slope to me.
I'm sticking with a free-market economy without too many rules for entry, and without excess overhead via taxes for services I want nothing to do with...I own a business on the side. The American system is business friendly enough to make it a very very easy thing to do for yourself.
I am not responding to an Anonymous Coward anymore...this is fruitless.
Well...that's a reply I guess, but you really didn't refute pretty much anything I said.
The U.K. hasn't done bad at all, overall. (Never said that.) BUT - I think you'll find that alot of the wealthiest people there were either born in a wealthy family (*cough*royalty*cough*), or work in a multinational corporation that are benefitted greatly by dealing with more capitalist countries.
I really don't think you'll find as many self-made wealthy (and especially not VERY wealthy) people in a socialist system versus a capitalist system - and alot of the wealthy ones you do find will owe a good part of that wealth to dealing with the capitalists. J.K. Rowling is a great example of this, as I really don't think the majority of her book sales are in the U.K.
When you're dealing with multinational corps for services, socialism lets you get maximum buying power and save money.
Which brings to mind, one of the most amusing things I have noticed about socialist 'success' stories out there. The wealthier people in their socialist societies very often seem to have gotten that way (at least in some significant part) by dealing with capitalists outside of their socialist system. Either that, or they were fortunate enough to have come from wealth before the countries were socialist.
Actually, witty quotes generally mean very little...although they do make for interesting conversation sometimes.
You are already implying that this is somehow immoral. Why?
Truthfully, it seems kind of amoral to me, if anything.
I am not trying to be difficult for the sake of it, but this is one of those things that I really don't see much of a problem with. I don't think most of the privacy nuts are going to be happy until technology can make them invisible, so they can act like the anarchists that they don't want to admit being quite yet.
Yeah...because nothing, and I mean NOTHING can stop weak radio signals.
Umm....yeah.
Heck...depending on where they put the chip, a simple piece of foil could probably make the thing unreadable. I am not going to go into great research to back it up here...it's admittedly a shot from the hip, but I am enjoying the fearmongering groupthink following up on this article.
Slashdot Mirror
But I was raised by pigeons, you insensitive clod! :)
Er....but seriously though.. You got me...it was late, I was tired, etc etc.
I don't think you have to be Bush, the "religeous right", or the Catholic Church to have a problem with this.
There are ALOT of ethical issues here outside of religeon - so can we PLEASE try to keep this from turning into the usual religeon flamewar?
I'd like to second this one - Alpha Centauri is great...and don't forget to throw the Alien Crossfire add-on into the mix. It actually does add quite a bit of replay value to the game. (The game isn't lacking any in the first place.)
So when exactly will they be changing the name of the BBC? 'British Bollocks Centre', perhaps?
If we are willing to part with those three magic initials there are plenty of other good names still availble. "British Labour Propaganda Network"? "British Extreme Anti-Israeli Fantasy"? Or perhaps "We Love The EU And You Should Too!" network.
I am not a fan of Fox either, but at least they aren't spreading their version of reality at my expense.
Even before the article the editors linked to.
And for the record, I am STILL enjoying the fearmongering groupthink very much, thanks.
See...here is the rift. We were having this little dicussion under an article about a potential violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.
The U.S. as a whole was accused by the poster, of not honoring the treaty - which is apparently false judging by Article IV of the treaty. Article IV restricts only Nuclear weapons, AKA "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in orbit, and no military platforms/installations on existing celestial bodies.
You (or some other AC...how about logging in?) introduced lumber tariffs into this little debacle, which is what I found curious. I suppose we saw the topic as two different things - you see it as bashing the U.S. over not abiding by international agreements (as implied by the response, IMHO), and I saw the topic as the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and the discussion on the militarization in space. The original poster accused the U.S. of not abiding by this, judging by the context of this article, and I responded to address that. Then lumber tariffs showed up somehow...
The topic (in my eyes) was bashing the U.S. on the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, (and again, my original response addressed that topic) which makes bringing a lumber tariff into this an interesting and revealing quirk. Are you interested in establishing the truth about whether or not the United States is in violation of a treaty, and whether that treaty is even valid - OR - are you interested in working to find more reasons to justify some negative feelings towards the United States?
As for the "Spirit" of an international agreement - can you tell me why the treaty would only explicitly ban nuclear weapons if complete disarmament was the goal? Does being armed automatically imply that people cannot act peacefully? They certainly had other technologies to harm people back in those days...and beyond that, being armed does not make a person violent. Even beyond that - alot of "scientific equipment" could be employed to cause alot of damage. Enforcing the idea of no "weapons" in space would be a little complicated when are basically flying an overgrown missile to get there.
Believe it or not, I hate war, but I think it's naive not to be ready for conflicts. I see two reasons:
1.) Some things are worth fighting for, and 2.) unfortunately, armed conflicts in space are pretty much inevitable...humans have quite a long history of this. That's not to say we shouldn't work on it...but that's just the unfortunate reality.
Thank you for filling my request.
I like your debate style...you lead with a nice strawman argument, throw in a condescending statement, and then change the subject to a completely different issue.
Now why would you do a thing like that? Are you trying to justify some feelings you are having?
And for the record, I did not say anywhere that you couldn't critisize the United States...I said that people need to get their facts straight before they do it. Am I wrong?
Why all of this instead of accepting that the original statement was a very very fucking stupid one (by one of your very own contrymen no less - if the url attached to his/her account is any indication), and moving on with your life.
Try again?
Hey, rest of the world. Please consider getting your facts straight before critisizing us.
Thanks,
An American
P.S. Please talk down to us some more...
Heh...mines only 50% flamebait. You must have hit the nerve much better than I did. I am humbled. :)
Damnit Al...the 2000 election was a long time ago. You lost. Get over it.
1. At one time, the majority of American citizens were pro-slavery.
2. That wasn't right.
3.Bush isn't right.
sooo....
4. You must vote against Bush
Compare this to the Chewbacca Defense:
1. The Star Wars character Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor, which doesn't make sense;
2. Talking about Chewbacca in a totally unrelated trial doesn't make sense;
3. None of this makes any sense; and
4. If it doesn't make sense, the jury must acquit.
I truely understand where you are coming from now...
I'd like to second what Pii just said here. I have been to a few countries as well, in my humble travels. Alot of them are very interesting to visit, but when it comes to a place to live - I am sticking with the United States.
And remember kids...socialism is good because the socialist bureaucrats told me so.
Please mod me down with the rest of those willing to hold an unpopular opinion here.
No...the Patriot Act has affected me terribly.
It filled my former favorite "news for nerds" website into a fucking partisan whinefest.
This is slashdot man...voting for Bush IS an extreme side. This thread was damned before it started, and the editors pretty much have to know that...but clicks == cash.
Actually, I am glad to see that this wasn't modded down. I feel very similarly about it.
:)
I think the whole situation boils down to two factors.
1. They needed a place to vent their wide array of political ideologies. (By wide array I mean wide array of left-leaning view points that are being pushed as 'balanced' and 'objective'). That is pretty much the case...they keep Pudge around as a token Republican. While I am glad for his presence...the situation as a whole is completely laughable.
2. Pretty much the reason you just stated - money. Taco might need a new BMW. You know...in this horrible tech economy (all Bush's fault too) how can a code monkey not at LEAST have a late model BMW? Geez...what do they think we are? Savages?
Yet, you did not understand any of this and instead attempted to make liberal, anti-monarchist, an insult-you are an American, as you have admitted, so this was inevitable.
No...I understand pretty well actually. And I didn't attempt anything. I did or I didn't. Pick one.
I also am not an admitted American. I am an American. There is nothing to "admit" to. You are giving yourself away here - you sound as if you look at being an American as something someone should "admit" to, as if they should be ashamed of it. I am not, anymore than you should be ashamed of where you come from. I do not believe our originals make us special.
I am going to spell this out, in no uncertain terms:
I am an American. I am a Capitalist. I am a small business owner, as well as an employee of a corporation. I am not "admitting" anything. I am stating it. I am not ashamed of it anymore than you should feel ashamed of being from where ever you are from.
I am also somewhat successful at both of my financial endeavours.
I do not want to be held responsible for the health care of others unless they are willing to live their lives by my rules. I like the freedom of NOT being responsible for the healthcare of others who do not choose to lead as healthy of a life as I do. I want nothing to do with paying healthcare for a smoker. I don't smoke. I don't want to smoke. Who is a smoker to expect me to help pay their medical bills with my tax dollars when they go and give themselves cancer? Or a drunk who wrecks their car and is injured, when I don't drive at all if I have consumed alcohol. I don't want to pay for people who let themselves become obese. I don't want to pay for people to get abortions, because they were irresponsible - not me.
To me, this is freedom. I am largely free from paying for other people's vices. I only have to pay for my own.
I also like the companies offering me healthcare insurance to have to compete. I think the ideal solution to healthcare would be to create real competition in the industry. Currently, companies subsidize healthcare through one single provider - let the employees choose their providers and just offer an amount that the company will contribute instead. Competition will always give you a better result than a buearocracy full of union drones that almost can't lose their jobs. The key is specifying what they are competing to deliver explicitly. I am an engineer. We do this all the time, and the contracts get awarded to the lowest bidder who will deliver the product that we want - to the exact specifications that we want.
Competition would be the truely Captalist solution to healthcare. Capitalism by it's nature and ideology will always get things done as efficiently as possible. That is not to say that there should be no rules - it need not be Laissez-faire (actually, it should NOT be), but the rules should be as simple as possible, and as few as is needed to protect all parties involved.
My votes go for my interests. That is human nature. Deny it if you will, but doing so has a historical track record of ending badly in the long run.
You have attempted insult rather than rebuttal, my interest in your responses has ended.
I have a different perspective on things. First and foremost, you didn't give me a rebuttal. You responded with something that disagreed with my conclusion, without arguing against a single point I made. If you want to handle this like a debate, that is a very very weak rebuttal.
It's ironic that you critisize me for my response when you initially did the exact same thing. It's also ironic that you say your interest in my repsonse has ended, and then you go on to keep typing...I admit, I had originally lost interest in this, but now I am just curious if you are insane or just a troll. It doesn't seem like you lost interest at all...in fact - you even posted another repsonse below this one.
by ideology a socialist democracy or social democracy also improves the greatest number of people as possible
Actually, this is technically correct, but flawed. It does do improve the greatest number of people - by ideology. Ideology and practice are very different, however. At least they mean well...they always do.
There are so many things overlooked in that one simple statement that I don't even know where to begin.
Think of me what you will, at least I am willing to post my opinion while logged in as myself so I can be held accountable for my opinion. I have very little respect for someone who hides behind their opinion with anonymity...it's very easy to be critical of others when no one knows who you are. Slashdot often proves that. I don't have to insult you in that matter...you are effectively doing that yourself.
Oh...not really much point in it. Just carrying on the usual editorial groupthink. (Yes Pudge...except for you.)
You can post all of the psuedo-intellectual garbage you want, Anonymous Coward...you still haven't answered to what I said in the previous post.
This is the interesting trait I have noticed amoungst the more liberal-leftist minded people I deal with...they like to try to side-step and twist the points in an argument into something where they actually appear to have a point. Complete with made up and over-simplified figures to try to back it up. (If only the system was so simple...) You don't, however...you have the gall (as an anonymous coward, no less) to ask me for a proper response without giving me one. It's a nice try...but it's very revealing with respect to your mindset.
I am going to say this one more time - look at the numbers. Lets take Germany for example. Germany would be by far more damaged finacially by losing the U.S. market than they U.S. would be by losing the German market. You have to look at the numbers proportionatly, but you will find that it's true. Considering they are having less than stellar economic growth as it is, I am sticking to my original assertion that socialist countries are almost dependant on the existance of capitalist countries to deal with just to even sustem them as they are.
The original posting I responded to was actually almost scarey in a sense...the nation gets the best deal by using maximum buying power - that is only a small step away from that nation saying "Hey...it will be even cheaper if we just have state make what we need for us." I don't mean to throw out a strawman argument - but it has always seemed to be a slippery slope to me.
I'm sticking with a free-market economy without too many rules for entry, and without excess overhead via taxes for services I want nothing to do with...I own a business on the side. The American system is business friendly enough to make it a very very easy thing to do for yourself.
I am not responding to an Anonymous Coward anymore...this is fruitless.
Well...that's a reply I guess, but you really didn't refute pretty much anything I said.
The U.K. hasn't done bad at all, overall. (Never said that.) BUT - I think you'll find that alot of the wealthiest people there were either born in a wealthy family (*cough*royalty*cough*), or work in a multinational corporation that are benefitted greatly by dealing with more capitalist countries.
I really don't think you'll find as many self-made wealthy (and especially not VERY wealthy) people in a socialist system versus a capitalist system - and alot of the wealthy ones you do find will owe a good part of that wealth to dealing with the capitalists. J.K. Rowling is a great example of this, as I really don't think the majority of her book sales are in the U.K.
When you're dealing with multinational corps for services, socialism lets you get maximum buying power and save money.
Which brings to mind, one of the most amusing things I have noticed about socialist 'success' stories out there. The wealthier people in their socialist societies very often seem to have gotten that way (at least in some significant part) by dealing with capitalists outside of their socialist system. Either that, or they were fortunate enough to have come from wealth before the countries were socialist.
I read somewhere awhile ago that this backward compatability gripe pertained more to manufacturing the disks....not the player's functionality.
:)
Manufacturers supposedly liked the HD-DVD more because they could largely use the same equipment in manufacturing.
I'd have to google it up to be sure though...so this is just me spreading rumors for now.
Actually, witty quotes generally mean very little...although they do make for interesting conversation sometimes.
You are already implying that this is somehow immoral. Why?
Truthfully, it seems kind of amoral to me, if anything.
I am not trying to be difficult for the sake of it, but this is one of those things that I really don't see much of a problem with. I don't think most of the privacy nuts are going to be happy until technology can make them invisible, so they can act like the anarchists that they don't want to admit being quite yet.
With RFID it is hardly possible.
Yeah...because nothing, and I mean NOTHING can stop weak radio signals.
Umm....yeah.
Heck...depending on where they put the chip, a simple piece of foil could probably make the thing unreadable. I am not going to go into great research to back it up here...it's admittedly a shot from the hip, but I am enjoying the fearmongering groupthink following up on this article.
And are still virgins?
Be careful about what you ask for...you'll get a much shorter list if you just asked for the ones who aren't virgins.