I agree, I think these soldiers should be home, safe and sound. However, when you pay your taxes, you do not gain a say in American policy anymore than buying a loaf of bread gets you stock at a local supermarket. Bottom line, if we have soldiers fighting, I want them to survive to go home to their families and friends. Yes, it would be better if we didn't send him away at all, but sometimes we don't really have a choice. (Not to imply that I think that the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq were necessary to the continued survival of democratic America, of course.)
What else are they going to use the sats for? Watching the neighbor lady relaxing at the pool? These satellites are designed to gather intelligence. Intelligence makes operations and missions safer. Safer missions means less dead soldiers. Therefore, spy sats result in less dead soldiers.
Yeah yeah yeah, war is bad, all that happy jazz. Fact of the matter is, we are engaged in an armed conflict with enemies. I personally don't agree with it, but your and my opinions matter little to the joint chiefs of staff. If Joe Average is going to get sent off to war, I'd like to have the best intel assets available to make sure he get home alive.
Beings as we're talking about the CIA, I imagine it'd be pretty difficult to be specific. Just spitballing, I'd say at least a handful of soldiers' lives were saved by satellite intel in each conflict since they hit orbit.
Again, the end result is what matters. Either way, in either scenario, the person could not play their game when they should have been able to.
Better version of your example would be the company delivering the TV calling and saying, "Yeah, you bought the TV and all, but because you went online and made a snide comment about our company, we're not going to deliver it for another day and a half."
Mind you, this is working on the assumption that 1) This was not a bug, and 2) it was intentional (Unintentional being James A. Mod accidentally pressing the "Ban everything" button rather than the "Forum-ban" button).
Very true. All signs point to malice from what I've read (Although that could be attributed to the guilty-until-proven-innocent mentality when it comes to big developers these days), so I extrapolated from there. If it was, in fact, a bug, then I have no problem with this- but the fact of the matter is that EA reserves the right to deny you access to your game when they feel you've behaved badly, and that's not OK. Even if that wasn't the case here, it brought that sad fact to light.
Preventing the user from playing a game he'd bought. Preventing the user from installing a game he'd bought (And, by extension, preventing the user from playing a game he'd bought).
The installation is irrelevant. The important parts are that he bought the game legally and then was not able to play it. The mechanism of denial isn't important.
Whether through incompetence or malice, the result was the same. If it was incompetence, it means that it could happen again. If it was malice, then that it likely will happen again.
Still, this will never happen. This penalizes those that don't care about music, and those that pay for it. I suppose those that pay for it might go over to the "Hey, I can get it for free (sorta). Why bother with iTunes anymore?" camp, but then Apple and all the other digital music distributors will throw a fit (and rightfully so).
I live over in Salina, so I make it a point to go down there every other year for the airshow. I've never seen the urban area, but you can see shot-up vehicles within 50 feet of the main road. Those guys certainly know how to build atmosphere.
Bombing range, maybe? I know my local bombing range (Smoky Hill ANG Range) has an urban training area for troops, and lord knows they drop enough ordinance from aircraft. Maybe they were practicing with live bombs?
This kind of closed-mindedness blurs the line between us and the Beckians. Outright dismissing anything said by the Republicans makes us as bad as they are. Believe it or not, there ARE Republicans who have more moderate opinions and can present evidence of their arguments. We should listen to the cool ones and ignore the nutbars. Thinking that all Republicans are "OMG COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM AND DRUGS AND ROCK-AND-ROLL AND VIDJAMAGAMES ARE KILLING AMERICA" is like thinking that all Democrats are pot-smoking communists.
I take (mild) offense to this statement. It's probably the phrasing of it that bugs me, but it smacks of elitism and superiority- and if we're going to be able to communicate and cooperate effectively, we need to discard such pedestrian notions as "Democrats are the only way!" or "Conservatism will save America!" There are merits to both systems. In a perfect world, both pure communism and pure fascism would be perfect in just about every way. However, as we've proven, neither works right now due to the innate desire to get ahead at any cost. The answer is a (careful) combination of both systems- Direct democratic elections, but with a definite central government.
That said, my political views could best be chalked up as libertarian. I don't like the idea of a strictly bipartisan system (like the US is effectively using today)
The problem here is that the attention- and by extention, viewers- are coming from the left- and he's pandering to that audience. Left- and neutral news sites can ignore it all they like, but the right will continue to broadcast his words as gospel.
When that happens, you will be the only person without their piss in a jar and tinfoil on their heads, and you will be all the better for it. One of the few silver linings for this situation, I suppose.
I think the point of contention here is that Beck is making baseless accusations that Google is in collaboration with the US Government. He certainly has a point on reading originals, but the fact that he has to say that Google is in bed with the gubmint shows you how bad press is becoming these days- TV news, anyway, isn't news anymore, really- it's sensationalist stories designed to get attention and, by extention, viewers.
I keep trying to think up a helpful, constructive, neutral comment- but every way I think of it, it comes out as really, aggressively anti-Republican. Maybe there's a reason for that. It might just be my choice of news outlets, but I keep hearing a lot less stupid stuff from Democrats than I do from Republicans. As someone who likes to think of themselves as unaffiliated and neutral, I can't really think of many good things coming from the right- all we're seeing is baseless accusations and attempts to stifle legitimate progress, social and otherwise.
(Actually, I use FoxNews for news a lot- their site gets information sooner than CNN, and MSNBC's site is a jumbled mess. I take everything I read there with a grain of salt or five, though.)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, I think these soldiers should be home, safe and sound. However, when you pay your taxes, you do not gain a say in American policy anymore than buying a loaf of bread gets you stock at a local supermarket. Bottom line, if we have soldiers fighting, I want them to survive to go home to their families and friends. Yes, it would be better if we didn't send him away at all, but sometimes we don't really have a choice. (Not to imply that I think that the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq were necessary to the continued survival of democratic America, of course.)
What else are they going to use the sats for? Watching the neighbor lady relaxing at the pool? These satellites are designed to gather intelligence. Intelligence makes operations and missions safer. Safer missions means less dead soldiers. Therefore, spy sats result in less dead soldiers.
Yeah yeah yeah, war is bad, all that happy jazz. Fact of the matter is, we are engaged in an armed conflict with enemies. I personally don't agree with it, but your and my opinions matter little to the joint chiefs of staff. If Joe Average is going to get sent off to war, I'd like to have the best intel assets available to make sure he get home alive.
Beings as we're talking about the CIA, I imagine it'd be pretty difficult to be specific. Just spitballing, I'd say at least a handful of soldiers' lives were saved by satellite intel in each conflict since they hit orbit.
They let us keep tabs on our enemies and their behaviors. Intel saves lives, you know.
I could see a really cool use of this on news sites- a scrolling ticker at the top of the page.
Again, the end result is what matters. Either way, in either scenario, the person could not play their game when they should have been able to.
Better version of your example would be the company delivering the TV calling and saying, "Yeah, you bought the TV and all, but because you went online and made a snide comment about our company, we're not going to deliver it for another day and a half."
Mind you, this is working on the assumption that 1) This was not a bug, and 2) it was intentional (Unintentional being James A. Mod accidentally pressing the "Ban everything" button rather than the "Forum-ban" button).
Very true. All signs point to malice from what I've read (Although that could be attributed to the guilty-until-proven-innocent mentality when it comes to big developers these days), so I extrapolated from there. If it was, in fact, a bug, then I have no problem with this- but the fact of the matter is that EA reserves the right to deny you access to your game when they feel you've behaved badly, and that's not OK. Even if that wasn't the case here, it brought that sad fact to light.
Preventing the user from playing a game he'd bought.
Preventing the user from installing a game he'd bought (And, by extension, preventing the user from playing a game he'd bought).
The installation is irrelevant. The important parts are that he bought the game legally and then was not able to play it. The mechanism of denial isn't important.
Whether through incompetence or malice, the result was the same. If it was incompetence, it means that it could happen again. If it was malice, then that it likely will happen again.
That...
Actually makes a lot of sense.
Still, this will never happen. This penalizes those that don't care about music, and those that pay for it. I suppose those that pay for it might go over to the "Hey, I can get it for free (sorta). Why bother with iTunes anymore?" camp, but then Apple and all the other digital music distributors will throw a fit (and rightfully so).
Figures this happens not three days after the administration at my school were issued brand new iPads.
I live over in Salina, so I make it a point to go down there every other year for the airshow. I've never seen the urban area, but you can see shot-up vehicles within 50 feet of the main road. Those guys certainly know how to build atmosphere.
Bombing range, maybe? I know my local bombing range (Smoky Hill ANG Range) has an urban training area for troops, and lord knows they drop enough ordinance from aircraft. Maybe they were practicing with live bombs?
Just because the leader did some unkosher things (And honestly, even that's in the air right now) doesn't mean the organization is bad.
I suppose there's few reasons better to name your daughter Facebook.
This kind of closed-mindedness blurs the line between us and the Beckians. Outright dismissing anything said by the Republicans makes us as bad as they are. Believe it or not, there ARE Republicans who have more moderate opinions and can present evidence of their arguments. We should listen to the cool ones and ignore the nutbars. Thinking that all Republicans are "OMG COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM AND DRUGS AND ROCK-AND-ROLL AND VIDJAMAGAMES ARE KILLING AMERICA" is like thinking that all Democrats are pot-smoking communists.
I take (mild) offense to this statement. It's probably the phrasing of it that bugs me, but it smacks of elitism and superiority- and if we're going to be able to communicate and cooperate effectively, we need to discard such pedestrian notions as "Democrats are the only way!" or "Conservatism will save America!" There are merits to both systems. In a perfect world, both pure communism and pure fascism would be perfect in just about every way. However, as we've proven, neither works right now due to the innate desire to get ahead at any cost. The answer is a (careful) combination of both systems- Direct democratic elections, but with a definite central government.
That said, my political views could best be chalked up as libertarian. I don't like the idea of a strictly bipartisan system (like the US is effectively using today)
The problem here is that the attention- and by extention, viewers- are coming from the left- and he's pandering to that audience. Left- and neutral news sites can ignore it all they like, but the right will continue to broadcast his words as gospel.
When that happens, you will be the only person without their piss in a jar and tinfoil on their heads, and you will be all the better for it. One of the few silver linings for this situation, I suppose.
I think the point of contention here is that Beck is making baseless accusations that Google is in collaboration with the US Government. He certainly has a point on reading originals, but the fact that he has to say that Google is in bed with the gubmint shows you how bad press is becoming these days- TV news, anyway, isn't news anymore, really- it's sensationalist stories designed to get attention and, by extention, viewers.
I keep trying to think up a helpful, constructive, neutral comment- but every way I think of it, it comes out as really, aggressively anti-Republican. Maybe there's a reason for that. It might just be my choice of news outlets, but I keep hearing a lot less stupid stuff from Democrats than I do from Republicans. As someone who likes to think of themselves as unaffiliated and neutral, I can't really think of many good things coming from the right- all we're seeing is baseless accusations and attempts to stifle legitimate progress, social and otherwise.
(Actually, I use FoxNews for news a lot- their site gets information sooner than CNN, and MSNBC's site is a jumbled mess. I take everything I read there with a grain of salt or five, though.)
The majority of atheists are left-leaning because the right doesn't really play nice with atheism.
It's good to know that even back in the 70's people were still using multiple punctuation marks to make a point.
"Danger! What are you doing about this???"
Do it for 24 hours and see how they take it.