So if the government pays a private firm to execute some action, it suddenly isn't government action anymore. That is more or less your thesis, stripped from its verbiage. Yeah, I'm going to come right out and say you're an idiot, a real libertard. I'm not going to argue, like arguing with flat-earthers and Young Earth creationists, you are too stupid to waste good arguments on.
You have the causal relationship all wrong: Columbus deliberately sought out the support of Fernando and Isabella, without their support he would have no product to sell to his investors; one part of the deal was that he would gain authority over whatever resources he could claim in name of the crown.
And the Internet was developed by State action. To claim it was a private venture before Al Gore took the initiative to bring it to the market is historical revisionism of the highest sort. Anyone claiming that is a libertard indeed.
Columbus could well have found the balance of the funding from other private investors
But he didn't
This reminds me of libertards like roman_mir who continue to insist that without DARPA and the NSF, private parties might have built the Internet. The point is, when the time came, they didn't. Counterfactuals are nice and all, but we only have one history, and that says you're wrong.
While I agree that Tauriel was a Romantic Plot Tumor, I can live with that; she adds a few minutes to the movie at worst.
No, the worst offenders were those long, drawn-out set pieces, like the chase scenes such as the one through the Goblin Kingdom in the first movie, or that muddled mess at the end of the third movie. That's just Jackson being self-indulgent, cutting that crap would have brought the movies down to two, and some judicious editing might have brought the whole down to only one movie.
Actually, all the apocalyptic ranting, the horrid executions and the terrorist attacks abroad are PR. What ISIS is, is the Sunni Arabs who were kicked out of Baghdad, and what they want is simple: their 'rightful' position on top of the power pyramid back.
Toxic in this context means: "Antisocial, liable to scare people away". In an activity that is meant to be social (multiplayer-gaming), and meant to have a large audience (LoL is a commercial product, after all), it is a nice, pithy description. What is your problem with it?
Actually, I don't ever buy AAA titles on release, and I never pay attention to early reviews. This problem has been known in the game industry for years, and has cost one reviewer his job, but 'gamers' are, curiously, relatively silent about it; some minor grumbling as on this thread is it. And yet for imagined faux-pas by women they bring out the torches and pitchforks.
In short, I was being sarcastic about GamerGate's professed motivation.
Reviewers giving a big studio game a pass on being a buggy piece of shit. Oh if only there was some grass-roots organisation against this kind of unethical behaviour.
So you would prefer a humanity where it is the norm to hack each other with swords to the point of serious injury and even death. Well I have news for you sunshine: there's a lot of people out there who are of a slightly less Hobbesian bent.
And modded +5 Insightful no less. By the same sort of Internet Tough Guys probably.
I really enjoy Heavy Metal at concert levels. Yet I don't think there's a single Slashdotter who would disagree with my neighbours if they called in the police were I to play it that loud at home.
So in short, yes, you're selfish, you're harming your neighbours, and the world would be a better place were you wrap that truck around a tree.
They kicked the Arab Nations' arses in '48 and '67 without US aid, while those nations had Soviet support. '73 and after they had unconditional US support. "Poor little Israel" has always been a myth.
Just as much? Just as much?! And this gets modded to +5 Insightful?
Obviously some seriously racist shitbag has modpoints today. I'm just going to point out that in terms of actual victims, even if the Panthers were the violent group they were portrayed as being, they can't stand in the shadow of decades of lynchings.
Look at the little exhange I had with him upthread. It's not about day care. It's about you being a bad role model because you don't think your wife should stay at home and care for the kids.
He is just rationalising his sexism and using the kids as a shield. Quite a despicable little toad.
You're deflecting. You started the thread by attacking the thread opener for caring more about pursuing wealth than caring for his kids. You just admitted you did the same.
Funny that. A few posts ago you were telling someone else to give up the pursuit of wealth to care for his kids. That's just a tad hypocritical, don't you think?
Slashdot Mirror
Who is putting a gun to your head to have a beer?
So if the government pays a private firm to execute some action, it suddenly isn't government action anymore. That is more or less your thesis, stripped from its verbiage. Yeah, I'm going to come right out and say you're an idiot, a real libertard. I'm not going to argue, like arguing with flat-earthers and Young Earth creationists, you are too stupid to waste good arguments on.
You have the causal relationship all wrong: Columbus deliberately sought out the support of Fernando and Isabella, without their support he would have no product to sell to his investors; one part of the deal was that he would gain authority over whatever resources he could claim in name of the crown.
And the Internet was developed by State action. To claim it was a private venture before Al Gore took the initiative to bring it to the market is historical revisionism of the highest sort. Anyone claiming that is a libertard indeed.
But he didn't
This reminds me of libertards like roman_mir who continue to insist that without DARPA and the NSF, private parties might have built the Internet. The point is, when the time came, they didn't. Counterfactuals are nice and all, but we only have one history, and that says you're wrong.
Yes, NASA has zero track record in planning manned missions.
That still makes it a distro packaging issue. Sheesh, you anti-systemd ranters really have a problem with thinking rationally, don't you?
What's next, blaming Lennart for AGW?
While I agree that Tauriel was a Romantic Plot Tumor, I can live with that; she adds a few minutes to the movie at worst.
No, the worst offenders were those long, drawn-out set pieces, like the chase scenes such as the one through the Goblin Kingdom in the first movie, or that muddled mess at the end of the third movie. That's just Jackson being self-indulgent, cutting that crap would have brought the movies down to two, and some judicious editing might have brought the whole down to only one movie.
That's an awful article. It takes ISIS' words at face value, with a one line sop to the contrary at the end.
Actually, all the apocalyptic ranting, the horrid executions and the terrorist attacks abroad are PR. What ISIS is, is the Sunni Arabs who were kicked out of Baghdad, and what they want is simple: their 'rightful' position on top of the power pyramid back.
Toxic in this context means: "Antisocial, liable to scare people away". In an activity that is meant to be social (multiplayer-gaming), and meant to have a large audience (LoL is a commercial product, after all), it is a nice, pithy description. What is your problem with it?
Actually, I don't ever buy AAA titles on release, and I never pay attention to early reviews. This problem has been known in the game industry for years, and has cost one reviewer his job, but 'gamers' are, curiously, relatively silent about it; some minor grumbling as on this thread is it. And yet for imagined faux-pas by women they bring out the torches and pitchforks.
In short, I was being sarcastic about GamerGate's professed motivation.
Yes, well, obviously the lead dev on Fallout 4 was not female, otherwise there would have been more noise than a single thread in KiA.
Reviewers giving a big studio game a pass on being a buggy piece of shit. Oh if only there was some grass-roots organisation against this kind of unethical behaviour.
Hah. Dog-whistling, and not even the courage to come right out, instead weaselling "I didn't say that".
So you would prefer a humanity where it is the norm to hack each other with swords to the point of serious injury and even death. Well I have news for you sunshine: there's a lot of people out there who are of a slightly less Hobbesian bent.
And modded +5 Insightful no less. By the same sort of Internet Tough Guys probably.
I really enjoy Heavy Metal at concert levels. Yet I don't think there's a single Slashdotter who would disagree with my neighbours if they called in the police were I to play it that loud at home.
So in short, yes, you're selfish, you're harming your neighbours, and the world would be a better place were you wrap that truck around a tree.
They kicked the Arab Nations' arses in '48 and '67 without US aid, while those nations had Soviet support. '73 and after they had unconditional US support. "Poor little Israel" has always been a myth.
A tiny strip of land that already kicked those 22 countries' arses several times and has the support of the world's number 1 superpower.
Stop trying to sell the myth of 'poor little Israel'. It's just not believable anymore.
Just as much? Just as much?! And this gets modded to +5 Insightful?
Obviously some seriously racist shitbag has modpoints today. I'm just going to point out that in terms of actual victims, even if the Panthers were the violent group they were portrayed as being, they can't stand in the shadow of decades of lynchings.
Clearly, they're asking it wrong.
Look at the little exhange I had with him upthread. It's not about day care. It's about you being a bad role model because you don't think your wife should stay at home and care for the kids.
He is just rationalising his sexism and using the kids as a shield. Quite a despicable little toad.
You're deflecting. You started the thread by attacking the thread opener for caring more about pursuing wealth than caring for his kids. You just admitted you did the same.
Funny that. A few posts ago you were telling someone else to give up the pursuit of wealth to care for his kids. That's just a tad hypocritical, don't you think?
Just out of curiousity, why was it your wife that stayed home? Couldn't you have taken the care duties and stayed home?
No, instead they sell bad bonds and take billions of dollars of government handouts when their scam collapses.
Honestly, they've done more damage than poor people trying to buy into the 'get rich quick' dream by engaging in street crime.