instead of trying to fix things and harmonize with nature
Can somebody please explain this one to me? First off, 'fix' implies that it used to be good, it broke, and now we have to get it back there. But it was never this mythical 'good' that you seem to think it was. There's always different species (cultures, ideals, memes, whatever) on the rise, and others on the fall. Are you proposing some kind of perfect balance where it's eternally stable? About the only way that you get stability is to get rid of life.
And 'harmonize with nature'... I mean, seriously, kids, I thought it was 2006, not 1969. You harmonize with other singers in a choir.
"Healthy workers are often the most productive workers, and the healthiest workers use ergonomically correct posture when lifting, in addition to having healthy eating and exercise habits."
To be fair, complete male impotence or female inability to get any kind of arousal would be akin, to use your analogy, to back pain so severe that narcotic painkillers are required to allow them to walk, or clinical depression that requires similair level of medication to allow someone to get out of bed in the morning.
If the government doesn't control, oversee, or indeed have anything to do with the rating system, they can't make laws that rely on that system. It's that simple.
Depending on the savings card, you don't even need to give them your real name / address / whatever. Most of the grocery store cards are instant savings - The card I'm still using today has an address I lived at my first semester in college, and I put some absurd name that was pretty funny to my 18 year old self on it.
Actually, I'm somewhat thankful for the 'Temple of Trials'... in the first game, you started off with a bit better equipment, and it was possible to completely ignore any of the melee skills the entire game. But I could never beat the beginning of the second game without putting at least some points in hand-to-hand - which ended up making it a very different game. (Which is a good thing. I didn't realize quite how awesome a ripper could be in the first game, since I went aimed range shots to the head throughout the entire game...)
But either way, the storyline, gameplay, and even the graphics style of both Fallouts (and even Fallout:Tactics, although I generally dislike the squad-based games) are beyond anything I've ever seen on a console system.
I'll agree on prostitutes (which is only legal in one state, anyway) but what's the difference between a strip-club and live-action, softcore porn? (Well, a good strip club, anyway.)
In this specific instance (U.S. vs. Iraq 2), I agree it was a flawed idea from the beginning. In the more general case, any time a big, powerful state starts a war with a smaller state, it's almost certainly unjustified, with (a very few) exceptions. But the original posters' "having an army = bad" is a bit idealistic.
Get rid of all soldiers, and you get rid of all wars.
It's a nice idea, I'll give you that. The kind of nice idea you probably picked up from your freshman sociology prof, but, heh, whatever. Unless you're just trolling. Either way...
There's a very simple & justifiable reason for a nation to have an army - other nations might not be run by pacifists. If you do get rid of your army, but they don't, then you're even worse off - not only are you in a police state, but the police aren't even local...
Okay, so we'll just have an army for defense. It won't ever leave our own borders, for any reason. That should work, right? Well, okay...
But as much as the idea is appealing, I think the events of the 1930's should have demonstrated the inherent problem with isolationism - if somebody whose honest goal is "conquer the world" gets control of a decent country, you're going to be at war with them eventually. And as with most things, sooner is better than later...
Heh, I got made fun of a lot in high school. Most people do. I may have thought, 'Man, I wish somebody would kill (insert random jackasses name here)', but I wasn't so caught up in the moment to destroy the rest of my life, and other peoples, to do it myself.
Probably depends on the audience you select. If you're just looking at Slashdot readers, yeah, I'd say Douglas Adams is a lot better known than Naughty by Nature. But considering how many of my co-workers or classmates have watched MTV about fifty times as much as they've read for fun, I don't know how you'd stand if we broadened the sample...
Well, the violent crime rate going up since fifty years ago (and down since twenty-five) probably has a lot more to do with motive than opportunity. People (well, a vast majority) don't risk armed robbery if they have a decent job. It's when the economy goes to shit, like mid-1970's till mid 1980's, when you get a rise in all that fun stuff.
I wasn't aware that there was anyone left here with any illusions at all about this one, simple fact - we're all goddamned morons, in our own way. The question is, does your way kill a lot of people slowly, or a few people over a long period of time, or somewhere inbetween?
It always confused me to think that the party that fought a war against state's rights 150 years ago became obsessed with them some 50 years ago. Apparently we've now come full circle, as the CAN-SPAM act, this act, and probably some others I can't think of / don't know about.
In the case of the Asimov short story (Not a novel; it was 29 pages), there was a repeater that sent a one-bit signal 24 hours back in time, by having a series of some 14K automatic vials, each one putting a drop of water on its sample when it sensed the previous one dissolving. One of the researchers decided (once) he wasn't going to press the button after getting a signal. A freak storm caused severe damage to the lab, and it ended up getting pushed anyway.
Course, as it's been said - this was fiction, so it had to make sense.:)
It was undoubtedly a massive slot-up, but there's debate about whether the killings were the fault of the sniper or the ATF itself.
If the agent was a much of a 'loose cannon' as he was made out to be, he never should have been in law enforcement to begin with.As one of the AC's said up above, there was quite a bit of testimony about Lon Horiuchi. How much of that was FUD created by the lawyers in the Ruby Ridge case... well, I don't know.
But he did violate the agency's rules of engagement during the stand-off - well, probably. One of the really interesting things about the whole case is that the agents who arrived after the initial action, in which two deputies were killed, were lied to....
He
points to his initial briefing, which depicted Randy Weaver as
a Rambo-like figure, commanding an unknown number of
heavily armed white separatists who had fired indiscriminately
at the deputy marshals the previous day, killing Deputy
Marshal Degan.
That, and Stalin killed mostly Russians and Ukranians, which were, nominally, his countrymen at the time. It's always been more acceptable to kill your own citizens than to conquer other nations, and then start wiping out some of their citizens.
Nobody seems to have mentioned it, but US government policy has always been that classified information is not allowed on computers that are connected to unsecured networks -- especially, but not limited to, the Internet.
SIPRNET & JWICS aren't a 'separate network' from the internet. They're still going over TCP/IP over the same routers as, say, this post. They're really just a slightly higher grade of VPN than most companies could afford.
When I first saw your comment title, I strangely thought of that exact quote- not because of the FPS shooter, but because of how amazingly sexist it is. You don't have to scroll up very far to see posts about how games that are '"aimed at girls" that were "pink" and "girlish" ' are inherently sexist. Yet nobody's commented on this statement.
The thing that bothers me is that both of these ideas are true, if you prefaced it with "a large percentage", or possibly even "a majority". But rarely does anyone bother...
I know that's what this is, but anyway... the thing that amazes me about conspiracy theorists is how they never notice how much like creationists they are. Anything you can't show them personally (and some things you can) must be heresy/cover-up.
For the record...
If you belive in the scientific method, you should be interested in repeatability of such a major event. So far, I am led to believe this is the most critical, mysterious, unknown event to ever occure in the history of construction. One thing I'm certain tough, terrorists with planes could never have done it without the help of explosive.
Try talking to some actual structural engineers instead of just your fellow conspiracy 'experts'. For instance, a cousin of mine in the southeast US that designs... ta-da! office buildings. He had a vague memory of university professors (circa 1980) being scornful of some of the new skyscrapers for not having enough 'safety net' in the load bearing department. The specific scenario he could remember involved some Houston-area skyscrapers built in the late 1970's, and the new 757 or 767 then entering service. Guess what happened?
Slashdot Mirror
Can somebody please explain this one to me? First off, 'fix' implies that it used to be good, it broke, and now we have to get it back there. But it was never this mythical 'good' that you seem to think it was. There's always different species (cultures, ideals, memes, whatever) on the rise, and others on the fall. Are you proposing some kind of perfect balance where it's eternally stable? About the only way that you get stability is to get rid of life.
And 'harmonize with nature'... I mean, seriously, kids, I thought it was 2006, not 1969. You harmonize with other singers in a choir.
To be fair, complete male impotence or female inability to get any kind of arousal would be akin, to use your analogy, to back pain so severe that narcotic painkillers are required to allow them to walk, or clinical depression that requires similair level of medication to allow someone to get out of bed in the morning.
Depending on the savings card, you don't even need to give them your real name / address / whatever. Most of the grocery store cards are instant savings - The card I'm still using today has an address I lived at my first semester in college, and I put some absurd name that was pretty funny to my 18 year old self on it.
Actually, I'm somewhat thankful for the 'Temple of Trials'... in the first game, you started off with a bit better equipment, and it was possible to completely ignore any of the melee skills the entire game. But I could never beat the beginning of the second game without putting at least some points in hand-to-hand - which ended up making it a very different game. (Which is a good thing. I didn't realize quite how awesome a ripper could be in the first game, since I went aimed range shots to the head throughout the entire game...) But either way, the storyline, gameplay, and even the graphics style of both Fallouts (and even Fallout:Tactics, although I generally dislike the squad-based games) are beyond anything I've ever seen on a console system.
I'll agree on prostitutes (which is only legal in one state, anyway) but what's the difference between a strip-club and live-action, softcore porn? (Well, a good strip club, anyway.)
I'll grab the power armor if you grab the plasma rifles!
The one bunker that needs them will have their spares shipped a few hundred miles away...
In this specific instance (U.S. vs. Iraq 2), I agree it was a flawed idea from the beginning. In the more general case, any time a big, powerful state starts a war with a smaller state, it's almost certainly unjustified, with (a very few) exceptions. But the original posters' "having an army = bad" is a bit idealistic.
It's a nice idea, I'll give you that. The kind of nice idea you probably picked up from your freshman sociology prof, but, heh, whatever. Unless you're just trolling. Either way...
There's a very simple & justifiable reason for a nation to have an army - other nations might not be run by pacifists. If you do get rid of your army, but they don't, then you're even worse off - not only are you in a police state, but the police aren't even local...
Okay, so we'll just have an army for defense. It won't ever leave our own borders, for any reason. That should work, right? Well, okay...
But as much as the idea is appealing, I think the events of the 1930's should have demonstrated the inherent problem with isolationism - if somebody whose honest goal is "conquer the world" gets control of a decent country, you're going to be at war with them eventually. And as with most things, sooner is better than later...
(Given a long enough timeline of this nanny-state silliness, that will probably be considered child abuse.)
Heh, I got made fun of a lot in high school. Most people do. I may have thought, 'Man, I wish somebody would kill (insert random jackasses name here)', but I wasn't so caught up in the moment to destroy the rest of my life, and other peoples, to do it myself.
1 number one being 'this sounds fishy', 1 number two being 'this is slashdot' and 2 being 'you're lying'?
Probably depends on the audience you select. If you're just looking at Slashdot readers, yeah, I'd say Douglas Adams is a lot better known than Naughty by Nature. But considering how many of my co-workers or classmates have watched MTV about fifty times as much as they've read for fun, I don't know how you'd stand if we broadened the sample...
Well, the violent crime rate going up since fifty years ago (and down since twenty-five) probably has a lot more to do with motive than opportunity. People (well, a vast majority) don't risk armed robbery if they have a decent job. It's when the economy goes to shit, like mid-1970's till mid 1980's, when you get a rise in all that fun stuff.
if we make a realistic 1st person (first chicken?) cockfighting game?
I wasn't aware that there was anyone left here with any illusions at all about this one, simple fact - we're all goddamned morons, in our own way. The question is, does your way kill a lot of people slowly, or a few people over a long period of time, or somewhere inbetween?
It always confused me to think that the party that fought a war against state's rights 150 years ago became obsessed with them some 50 years ago. Apparently we've now come full circle, as the CAN-SPAM act, this act, and probably some others I can't think of / don't know about.
Course, as it's been said - this was fiction, so it had to make sense. :)
But he did violate the agency's rules of engagement during the stand-off - well, probably. One of the really interesting things about the whole case is that the agents who arrived after the initial action, in which two deputies were killed, were lied to....
That, and Stalin killed mostly Russians and Ukranians, which were, nominally, his countrymen at the time. It's always been more acceptable to kill your own citizens than to conquer other nations, and then start wiping out some of their citizens.
SIPRNET & JWICS aren't a 'separate network' from the internet. They're still going over TCP/IP over the same routers as, say, this post. They're really just a slightly higher grade of VPN than most companies could afford.
The thing that bothers me is that both of these ideas are true, if you prefaced it with "a large percentage", or possibly even "a majority". But rarely does anyone bother...
For the record...
Try talking to some actual structural engineers instead of just your fellow conspiracy 'experts'. For instance, a cousin of mine in the southeast US that designs... ta-da! office buildings. He had a vague memory of university professors (circa 1980) being scornful of some of the new skyscrapers for not having enough 'safety net' in the load bearing department. The specific scenario he could remember involved some Houston-area skyscrapers built in the late 1970's, and the new 757 or 767 then entering service. Guess what happened?