Why shouldn't each country get an equal vote rather than having it based on arbitrary factors such as the physical size of the country, its wealth or number of people.
Usually I wouldn't even respond to this level of dumb, but...
No, I'm serious. There's so many things wrong with that statement...
Well, let's just hit the big one. If "physical size of the country, its wealth, or number of people" are all arbitrary factors to deciding the relative value of the country, then how is the exsistence of that country not such a factor?
Yeah, so I'm replying to the wrong message, I know. Screw it, this is where I started typing it, this is where it's gonna go.
There's lots of times that I feel my country makes stupid decisions. Going to war in Iraq (the second time), supporting bannana republics in South & Central America, spending billions on (some) war(s) on abstract noun(s).
But telling the UN to go to hell & die rather than letting them take over the internet - that's the best idea they've had in forever.
Face it - the problem of the UN General Assembly is like the problem of the US Senate, multipled a few times. Tiny developing world countries, with little population or wealth, have the same say as the US, UK, China, or Russia? Yes, security council, blah blah blah... in the long run, a good portion of the UN is dedicated to whining about how the wealthy of the world have exploited us.
Is it true? Well, sometimes, yes.
Would it be helpful to direct the further growth of one of the most important 20th century inventions?
Pretty much never.
And that's about all I have to say about that.
For every copy of a game sold on their platform, they get ~$10-15.... I got the numbers during my tenure at EA.
A.We're on the interet. You could be a homeless guy at a library for all we know. We don't want "Well, I used to work at location X". We want a link to a respectable web site that says what you just said.
B.) I'll certainly believe that Bungee gave Microsoft 15 for every copy of Halo 2 at its launch. But for a $20 game, like their "Platinum Hits" (or PS2's "Greatest Hits") 75% of the money going to the console maker... well, that just seems silly.
Wow, I really didn't mean this to look like a flame.
It's not like the story was fleshed out, or even all that original, but I enjoyed it more than most video game backstories. And I enjoyed the game more than most video games. If only TA:Kingdoms had lived up to the expectations...
To answer your question, yes, but (at least the two I saw) were terrible. Probably worse writing than Terminator 3.
You know, it's actually been a really long time since I've seen a good, intelligent flamewar on Slashdot. Calling somebody a shitfaced cockmaster really doesn't count, in my book.
Seriously, I'm wondering, cause that's about how I feel about this.
A little off-topic, remember when Blizzard was the new kid on the block, and not the behemoth that ignores their own fan base? I miss back then, and not just because all I had to worry about was passing enough classes to keep my scholarship.
You do realize that fallout happens because of nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, don't you? The US and Soviets tested 1000s of nukes below ground, like these bunker busters, which doesn't produce fallout.
And how many of the underground nuclear tests were bunker-busting bombs dropped out of an airplane?
Oh, none.
So do you want to bet that none of them will go off before they're far enough in to prevent any blowback, penetrate at an odd angle and blow stuff out the side, or be accidentally dropped on a Chinese embassy?
I think I liked "The Land Leviathan" more, to be honest. Although I thought Moorcock was making some kind of statement about fate when Hiroshima ended up being the first city to get nuked anyway.
I don't see why the State can't take an interest in, say, protecting marriages from the ravages of porn.
The question comes in - does the first ammendment cover pornography? Because if it does, the people's right to see it if they want outweighs, in almost all incidents, (imminent lawless actions aside), the government's authority to restrict it.
Yeah, see this post . True, I don't know what she said herself, only what your opinion of what she says. (Although this discussion has made me add this book to the list of those I'll at least browse through next time I'm at B&N.) But if she never said it, you did a pretty good job of making it sound like she at least suggests it.
Such "smut" can be defended, of course, and the book gives defenders their say.
...
The second major response to the claims in this book follows the First Amendment. Regardless of harm, we must not start down the slippery slope of restricting access to objectionable material.Paul considers this, but her the book discusses concrete harm, and she argues that civil liberties are not absolute where one person's rights hurt other people
Emphasis added by me. Kinda seems to be advocating censorship to me.
but don't be surprised if it's mandatory (or "self-imposed industry standard", or whatever) before too long.
Re:I don't even know where to start
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
Off-topic, but I'm curious... if somebody started insulting your wife, how would you respond?
The difference
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
What you said - You had a problem, you were addicted, you couldn't stop on your own.
What the author of the book (at least, according to the reviewer) said -- Some people have problems, they are addicted, they can't stop on their own... and everyone else's right to view this must be restricted to protect them.
I can sympathize & understand the first statement. The second makes me want to scream.
I don't even know where to start
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
So in response to you parent, I warn you that you may feel it's all fine and dandy to mutually watch porno with your wife, but who's idea was it to start with? Yours I'd bet. How can you be sure it doesn't hurt her feelings to see you gawk at other women on the screen? Perhaps she's just bottling her true feelings. What if your wife is actually having the opposite reaction and she feels you are not good enough for her, and she wants to live out her own pool-boy scene? Oh sure you'd probably go for that, but where is the love in your marriage if you start fantasizing about other people? Just a warning to you. Me, I kicked the porno habit shortly after I got married because it was hurting the wife's feelings.
So, let me get this straight, and see if I understand you correctly. You think because your wife was offended by your hobby, that garcia's wife is probably offended too, but doesn't want to say anything? And you're giving him a friendly warning that his watching porn could lead to his wife being unfaithful? All I can say is, he must either have not read your post yet, or be a much calmer person than me. Cause if somebody implied that about my wife, I'd feel a pretty strong urge to hunt you down and beat you severely.
As far as your little story goes, that proves nothing. Whose to say he got fired because of porn, or a divorce because of it? Maybe he turned to porn after his wife left him for being a pompous ass. Or perhaps he got fired because he drank too much, and turned to porn out of boredom. There's no way to tell...
However, the author proposes that pornography might harm those not mature enough to realize which fantasies are not socially acceptable to perform.
That's really funny. I swear I've read the review about five times, and I don't see "mature" anywhere. I see anecdotes about an "adult" (probably over 18), somebody in the military (definetely over 18), and a "former CEO" (I'd really, really hope he's over 18.) But nothing about "those not mature enough". So, is the review wrong, or are you?
Oh, yeah...
Are you unwilling to even discuss the possibility that conventional pornography might be a gateway to deviant pornography and thus to deviant practices?
Did you run in the Olympics the first time you ran 100 meters? Did your dad teach you to drive in a NASCAR race? No, that would be silly. People start things at the bottom (well, most people. Some people like doing it the hard way). People do easy things in a category because they try the hard things. The only reason marijuana is a "gateway" drug is because it's the easiest illict drug to obtain. And the other reason that "conventional porn" is a "gateway" to "deviant porn" is because... gasp... it's easier to get. The very concept of a "gateway" anything is a tautology. So, yeah, I'm not willing to discuss conventional pornography's "gateway" status - or even "deviant" pornography's - as a precursor to nonconsensual sexual acts, because at its heart, it is a stupid statement.
Negative effects of.... what the hell ever.
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
Just because something doesn't negatively affect you doesn't mean it won't negatively affect someone else
This is a very good point. But some things (like, say, peanuts) will affect some people in a very bad way. And, according to some research, so does porn. But if the government is going to come down and get rid of porn because of "possible negative effects", why not anything that can possibly hurt people? (Like peanuts. I mean, seriously, my mother-in-law would literally explode if you fed her peanuts, apparently. It's weird.)
The point I'm trying to make it, it doesn't fucking matter whether it's "morality", "decency", or "negative psychological effects", censorship is censorship.
My favorite part of the review is, of course...
The obvious response is "porn has been around forever, so stop complaining that it is suddenly a threat to society." But it seems to me that this response is disingenuous.
Followed shortly by
Regardless of harm, we must not start down the slippery slope of restricting access to objectionable material. Paul considers this, but her the book discusses concrete harm, and she argues that civil liberties are not absolute where one person's rights hurt other people (not many argue for their right to cry "fire" in a crowded theater, for example).
Does stern actually know what disingenuous means, and if so, does he/she/it realize the irony?
Speaking of Pikmin, I really liked their solution to the save / restore making things too easy. The time limit (long as it was) made for at least a little bit of tension, at least the first time I played it. (And that freakin' bird. Forget breaking the controller, I almost broke my damn TV after about the tenth time that stupid thing made me waste a day.)
Yes, actually, the response plans ARE classified. For example DHS, FEMA and others have made obtuse references to "a nationwide system of temporary shelters...and stockpiles of supplies," but Ridge, Chertoff, Rice declined to elaborate in a CNN investigative piece in March '05.
Just because they didn't elaborate where each shelter or stockpile is doesn't mean it's classified. There's lots of information that's not supposed to be handed out to everyone, but isn't under the protection of required levels of security clearance.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you that they should disseminate this information ahead of time in the case of a disaster. On the other hand, I do understand, from the "everyone is out to get us" point of view that many in the government have, why they wouldn't want a web site where you could see the complete list of every emergency stockpile.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually I wouldn't even respond to this level of dumb, but...
No, I'm serious. There's so many things wrong with that statement...
Well, let's just hit the big one. If "physical size of the country, its wealth, or number of people" are all arbitrary factors to deciding the relative value of the country, then how is the exsistence of that country not such a factor?
Yeah, so I'm replying to the wrong message, I know. Screw it, this is where I started typing it, this is where it's gonna go. There's lots of times that I feel my country makes stupid decisions. Going to war in Iraq (the second time), supporting bannana republics in South & Central America, spending billions on (some) war(s) on abstract noun(s). But telling the UN to go to hell & die rather than letting them take over the internet - that's the best idea they've had in forever. Face it - the problem of the UN General Assembly is like the problem of the US Senate, multipled a few times. Tiny developing world countries, with little population or wealth, have the same say as the US, UK, China, or Russia? Yes, security council, blah blah blah... in the long run, a good portion of the UN is dedicated to whining about how the wealthy of the world have exploited us. Is it true? Well, sometimes, yes. Would it be helpful to direct the further growth of one of the most important 20th century inventions? Pretty much never. And that's about all I have to say about that.
A.We're on the interet. You could be a homeless guy at a library for all we know. We don't want "Well, I used to work at location X". We want a link to a respectable web site that says what you just said.
B.) I'll certainly believe that Bungee gave Microsoft 15 for every copy of Halo 2 at its launch. But for a $20 game, like their "Platinum Hits" (or PS2's "Greatest Hits") 75% of the money going to the console maker... well, that just seems silly.
Wow, I really didn't mean this to look like a flame.
Oh, well.
This guy proves what we really need is a (+i, Seriously Tweaked) mod.
To answer your question, yes, but (at least the two I saw) were terrible. Probably worse writing than Terminator 3.
at least on slashdot, anyway.
A little off-topic, remember when Blizzard was the new kid on the block, and not the behemoth that ignores their own fan base? I miss back then, and not just because all I had to worry about was passing enough classes to keep my scholarship.
And how many of the underground nuclear tests were bunker-busting bombs dropped out of an airplane?
Oh, none.
So do you want to bet that none of them will go off before they're far enough in to prevent any blowback, penetrate at an odd angle and blow stuff out the side, or be accidentally dropped on a Chinese embassy?
I think I liked "The Land Leviathan" more, to be honest. Although I thought Moorcock was making some kind of statement about fate when Hiroshima ended up being the first city to get nuked anyway.
The question comes in - does the first ammendment cover pornography? Because if it does, the people's right to see it if they want outweighs, in almost all incidents, (imminent lawless actions aside), the government's authority to restrict it.
And congratulations, you made it to a second reply before resorting to personal insults yourself. It's better than most people do.
Yeah, see this post . True, I don't know what she said herself, only what your opinion of what she says. (Although this discussion has made me add this book to the list of those I'll at least browse through next time I'm at B&N.) But if she never said it, you did a pretty good job of making it sound like she at least suggests it.
Emphasis added by me. Kinda seems to be advocating censorship to me.
but don't be surprised if it's mandatory (or "self-imposed industry standard", or whatever) before too long.
Off-topic, but I'm curious... if somebody started insulting your wife, how would you respond?
What the author of the book (at least, according to the reviewer) said -- Some people have problems, they are addicted, they can't stop on their own... and everyone else's right to view this must be restricted to protect them.
I can sympathize & understand the first statement. The second makes me want to scream.
So, let me get this straight, and see if I understand you correctly. You think because your wife was offended by your hobby, that garcia's wife is probably offended too, but doesn't want to say anything? And you're giving him a friendly warning that his watching porn could lead to his wife being unfaithful? All I can say is, he must either have not read your post yet, or be a much calmer person than me. Cause if somebody implied that about my wife, I'd feel a pretty strong urge to hunt you down and beat you severely.
As far as your little story goes, that proves nothing. Whose to say he got fired because of porn, or a divorce because of it? Maybe he turned to porn after his wife left him for being a pompous ass. Or perhaps he got fired because he drank too much, and turned to porn out of boredom. There's no way to tell...
That's really funny. I swear I've read the review about five times, and I don't see "mature" anywhere. I see anecdotes about an "adult" (probably over 18), somebody in the military (definetely over 18), and a "former CEO" (I'd really, really hope he's over 18.) But nothing about "those not mature enough". So, is the review wrong, or are you?
Oh, yeah...
Did you run in the Olympics the first time you ran 100 meters? Did your dad teach you to drive in a NASCAR race? No, that would be silly. People start things at the bottom (well, most people. Some people like doing it the hard way). People do easy things in a category because they try the hard things. The only reason marijuana is a "gateway" drug is because it's the easiest illict drug to obtain. And the other reason that "conventional porn" is a "gateway" to "deviant porn" is because... gasp... it's easier to get. The very concept of a "gateway" anything is a tautology. So, yeah, I'm not willing to discuss conventional pornography's "gateway" status - or even "deviant" pornography's - as a precursor to nonconsensual sexual acts, because at its heart, it is a stupid statement.
This is a very good point. But some things (like, say, peanuts) will affect some people in a very bad way. And, according to some research, so does porn. But if the government is going to come down and get rid of porn because of "possible negative effects", why not anything that can possibly hurt people? (Like peanuts. I mean, seriously, my mother-in-law would literally explode if you fed her peanuts, apparently. It's weird.)
The point I'm trying to make it, it doesn't fucking matter whether it's "morality", "decency", or "negative psychological effects", censorship is censorship.
My favorite part of the review is, of course...
Followed shortly by
Does stern actually know what disingenuous means, and if so, does he/she/it realize the irony?
n/t
There's supposed to be a P at the start of that quote. (sigh)
Speaking of Pikmin, I really liked their solution to the save / restore making things too easy. The time limit (long as it was) made for at least a little bit of tension, at least the first time I played it. (And that freakin' bird. Forget breaking the controller, I almost broke my damn TV after about the tenth time that stupid thing made me waste a day.)
Just because they didn't elaborate where each shelter or stockpile is doesn't mean it's classified. There's lots of information that's not supposed to be handed out to everyone, but isn't under the protection of required levels of security clearance.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you that they should disseminate this information ahead of time in the case of a disaster. On the other hand, I do understand, from the "everyone is out to get us" point of view that many in the government have, why they wouldn't want a web site where you could see the complete list of every emergency stockpile.