Perhaps if you spent some of this money buying or donating to Freecraft not only would we have better games, we'd have free games. Free games would hurt Vivendi Universal and Blizzard more than anything else. Free Games that are good would kill them.
We need to set up a way to support development of games, perhaps a transgaming style game development company, where people subscribe, vote on the type of game they want and its features, and then the coders code it out.
They'd only have to charge 5$ a month, theres plenty of open source game engines to use, they'd only need to hire artists, and do some coding.
Open source game development means once one game is done they'd never need to reinvent the wheel, this means we could have higher quality Open Source games than the current game industry simply because everyone would use the best engine and improve on it instead of everyone writing or licensing their own.
Imagine what could be done? But we first need a way to fund enough games to get millions of people interested. The best way to make these greedy companies pay is to setup a whole open source PC game movement, on a large scale, and let the gamers fund it.
Transgaming is doing pretty good at version 3.1, they have allowed hundreds of games to be ported to Linux within a matter of years. Now I think its time for a company to step up and do a Linux game development setup, and not like what Loki did, but in a transgaming style payment setup.
It makes no sense for us to use the outdated old business model for open source products. Its proven that it doesnt work, the transgaming model is proven to work.
I'd subscribe to a FreeCraft subscription if there was a company out there willing to transfer my money, or if FreeCraft becomes a company and sets it all up. If they make a good game, I keep subscribed to them and if their game sucks I can subscribe to more established game development people who are better.
Vivendi Universal is the owner of Blizzard. Vivendi Universal hates the free software movement, why? Because its assosiated with the Mp3/FileSharing movement.
I think people need to consider certsain media companies to be a threat to open source, and a threat to our personal fair use rights, Vivendi Universal is one of these companies.
Microsoft takes alot of heat, but I think even more heat should be given to companies like Vivendi Universal who sue anyone and everyone who is a threat to their monopoly power and business.
They sue file sharing companies who create new ways of distributing music, they sue open source companies who create new ways to play games, they will sue you and I if we use these networks, even if they dont know why we are using them.
Its not about piracy anymore, its about competition, if they cant own all the code, and all the distribution companies, they sue.
Blizzard is not responsible for this, I'm 100% sure this is Blizzards parent company, who owns Blizzard, Universal or one of those big Music/Media companies who is part of the RIAA.
This is an RIAA/MPAA thing. FreeCraft will live on, they cant stop it just like Unix owners cant stop Linux.
I see it like this, this gives FreeCraft more publicity, the codes already out, so go ahead and make martyrs of them. Go ahead Universal or whichever french company owns them sue them, lock the developers up, please, do us all a favor and do it, all you will do is bring open source to the masses, cause hundreds of thousands of people to work on the code who didnt even know about it before, and start a whole Linux game development movement.
"UN Security Council Resolution 1441 demanded that Saddam provide the proof. I'm not arguing that it was a reasonable demand. I'm stating the fact that the UN demanded it, set out steps to provide "proof" according to the resolution, and Saddam accepted those terms. Then he failed to comply. That is all."
Bush was saying if he didnt accept we were going to war. Bush never gave him a fair chance and you know it.
Because social security isn't really a tax, it's a retirement plan. You pay the "tax" now, you get it back in benefits later. You should get every cent you pay in back, no more, no less (adjusted for inflation). Quite frankly, I think it's a broken system and I'll never see a cent of it again, but that's fine because the old people need it and it's not their fault the government squandered it.
Big business should be paying for my retirement or at least an equal portion to what you pay.
How can we do that? If they're in India they're not ours to tax.
Thats the problem with our system, if they are employed by an American company they ARE ours to tax. I dont understand how we cant tax them, they work for our companies.
In a perfect world, that'd kick ass. The problem is, in the real world, the greedy companies will just raise prises when you tax them more. They'll cover it with a price hike and blame the government.
When they hike prices demand will go down and they will lose even more money, Ask the RIAA, and Adobe, most people dont pay for their stuff because they jack prices. Hell even Microsoft jacks prices through the roof, why not just tax them? They have a monopoly, if they raise prices it actually helps competition, this would stimulate the economy, Apple and Linux companies both would prevent Microsoft from raising the price too high.
"Howso? I don't recall him ever saying Saddam didn't destroy them. He said that the UN said that Saddam had them. He said that the UN demanded that Saddam prove that he destroyed them. He said that Saddam never proved that he destroyed them. Whether he destroyed them or not was never an issue, only Saddam's refusal to present proof."
Thats IMPOSSIBLE!! How do you prove you destroyed something? The only proof is its not there anymore, he must have destroyed it since inspectors cant find it. Inspectors couldnt find anything before we went to war, they cant find anything now, so why exactly did we go to war? Because Saddam couldnt prove he destroyed some weapons we couldnt prove he has? I'm not saying he didnt have some biological weapons in development, I'm betting he did, but I'm also sure he destroyed them before the war, dont you think Bush with all this intelligence and satelites capable of seeing he has these weapons would have seen Saddams men destroying them? Of course Bush knew Saddam destroyed the weapons, Bush however decided to go to war anyway saying Saddam still had them even after Saddam destroyed them.
How the hell can Bush and the CIA know saddam has the weapons yet not know saddam destroyed them? Why couldnt they use the same proof they used to promote and hype the war, to prove Saddam destroyed the weapons, just use some blurry CIA photographs with Saddams guys dumping chemical agents into the river, and say "Look at this proof", Bush didnt do that, Bush covered up the proof or perhaps just was selective at what he was willing to look at in terms of the intelligence reports, so that he could have an excuse to go to war anyway.
Like I said, if we have the technology and knowledge to know where Saddams weapons were before we went to war, we know what Saddam did with them, we were watching him all along. Bush just doesnt want to admit that Saddam destroyed the weapons and we attacked him anyway because it makes us look bad.
Again, the issue wasn't with them disarming or not. We attacked because they refused to comply with the UN's demands that they prove their disarmament. He could be charged with war crimes whether he lied or not actually, but that doesn't mean he'd be convicted. However, I'm sure many people in the world would love to see him executed as a war criminal, but, many people in the world would love to see our entire country burned to the ground.
CIA photographs of Saddams men destroying the weapons, thats the proof, you cannot ask Saddam to provide the proof, its our job. Thats like asking the thief on trial to provide proof that they didnt take the money out the cash register when the video camera shows them taking money out the cash register, then telling the criminal the charges will be dropped if he gives the money back, so the criminal gives the money back and is then sent to jail anyway.
Thats the kinda situation this is, Saddam disarmed himself and as reward we declared war on him knowing he had no way he could ever prove he disarmed himself and that we had the choice to announce proof that he did, or just go to war with him saying he didnt.
All tax cuts help big business unless you specifically exclude them from the tax cut. Also, which tax cuts were targeted at helping big business again?
Most of the tax cuts go to upper income people, and big business, why dont we have a payroll tax cut for the working class? how about a social security tax cut? why dont we give tax credit and benefits to people who live in lower income communities or who arent married?
The tax cut completely ignores single lower-middle income people, sure it helps married people, or people with kids, but theres millions of hard working people who arent married and who have no kids who deserve a tax cut.
So while the tax cut does help married couples, this tax cut ignores single people, unmarried couples, etc, I say it favors the rich because rich single people and unmarried couples still get the tax cut bene
No, I mean Americans, in general, don't care what the government does as long as it doesn't directly impact them in a visible way. The majority of Americans, as reported by one of those ABC or CBS sciency poll things, don't care. Granted, that takes into account the hardcore right wing who don't care because the party says not to care as well as the hardcore morons who take an out of sight, out of mind approach, but facts are facts.
Americans also didnt care about Clinton getting a blowjob, this didnt stop Clinton from getting Impeached.
I personally think the President owes it to the world to tell us what happened to the WMD's because even the UN said Saddam had them. If they were destroyed, they should tell us. I, for one, would be relieved. If not, they need to tell us where they went because the CIA has to have a pretty good idea by now.
If Saddam destroyed them, well then Bush lied. Do you honestly think Bush couldnt have seen Iraqis destroying the weapons and tossing them into the river while our troops had them surrounded and all the worlds spy satelites were watching them.
Clinton was Impeached (not almost) when the House accused him of lying under oath before a Grand Jury. The Senate acquitted him of course, and the rest is history. Bush hasn't testified under oath, so he can't be charged with perjury. Politicians lie to the public all the time, and for some reason (institutional corruption?) that's not a crime.
No but if Bush lied, he can be charged with war crimes, alot of people died over this war, and if its proven Iraq did destroy the weapons and they did disarm yet we still attacked them even while knowing they did this, Bush is in serious trouble.
I knew this before the 2000 election. Compassion isn't something you base a conservative campaign on. Frankly, compassion isn't something you base a political campaign on at all. (Compassion is an emotion, not an issue.) Then again, I wanted McKain to win the primary. I'm not so sure about that anymore though with the party line he's been spewing lately.
McKain is better than Bush.
Actually, those tax cuts help small business, too. My father and mother's businesses are both incorporated (and employing 2 and 8 people respectively), but they can take dividends with the tax cut instead of a salary. They pay taxes on the money at the corporate rate, which is less than the personal rate on the same money. The same situation will help small businesses accross the company. You know, the ones trying to stay afloat, provide services, and give people jobs, despite being stomped on by the big companies.
I'm not against tax cuts, I'm against tax cuts which help big business. Tax cuts which focus on helping small business are good. Big Business should pay more taxes not less.
Please explain. I see no causation here. If the big business paid more taxes, they'd send more jobs to India to cut costs.
IF big business paid less taxes they'd still send more jobs to India to cut costs. Big businesses want to cut cost in every possible way at every possible moment, worrying about taxing them in fear that they will send jobs to India? They will send jobs to India if you tax them or not, so we should just tax them and punish them for sending jobs to India and give tax cuts to companies who hire 90%+ American workers.
Why would big business hire AMERICAN workers when they can keep the tax money and keep hiring workers overseas?? The businesses never really had a problem with capital in the first place.
I had experience with it as a kid, I grew out of it.
I dont really understand why or how, but when I decided to just focus on things which werent interesting and forced myself to do it, eventually I became good at doing this and it becomes easier and easier the older I get.
From where I sit, the moment when my best childhood friend admitted her depression and stopped telling herself to just get over it was the moment she started being able to deal with it. Just my experience, man.
I'm the opposite, I learned to focus on what I'm supposed to focus on instead of just what I thought was interesting.
I'm no expert on depression but I've been depressed before, I'm no ADHD expert but I've had ADHD before.
I can tell you what helped me grow out of it wasnt some damn pills, it was this. I decided to do what had to be done, instead of what I liked doing, I forced myself to do things when they were supposed to be done instead of when I felt like doing them, I learned to focus on something even if it was as boring as watching paint dry. I learned to spend hours, or days at a time focusing on one thing, I learned this kind of focus from programming, playing chess, and because of the way my mind works. My focus can become almost extreme with doing one thing or focusing on one problem so much that I cant sleep for days at a time.
This started when I started seriously playing chess and would spend days thinking about sets of moves, to the point where I couldnt sleep. It then moved on to other things, I am not flawless, I have problems sleeping now, but its better to have problems with sleep than not be able to focus at all.
You see, I dont know if I grew out of ADHD, or if I taught myself how to focus, but the fact that alot of people dont even try and want to hide behind some pills, this is why I call them lazy.
If you try and you just cant do it, thats when you take pills.
I've been depressed before, I got over it. Depression with me is caused by people, direct cause and effect, I dont get depressed naturally so I cannot comment on manic depressed people.
The point I'm trying to make is, alot of these people if they would just learn to focus would have less problems with ADD and might even be cured, some people have it so bad that they'll never grow out of it or learn to focus, these people need pills.
I say try my method first for a few years before trying pills.
I've had childhood experiences with ADHD. I'd say thats about as much experience as any of these posters.
Re:Theres no scientific proof for any of this.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
Suicide has nothing to do with depression.
Alot of people are depressed and never commit suicide, alot of manic depressed people arent suicidal. If a person is suicidal, perhaps its because they are selfish meaning they dont care what happens to their kids and family, friends and other people who need them. Perhaps suicidal people have religious which tell them they will go heaven if they commit suicide.
Trust me, you can be depressed and never commit suicide simply because you dont believe in suicide. Think I'm lying? Why dont manic depressed people turn into suicide bombers and blow themselves up? why dont they join the military and die as a hero? True suicidal people dont commit suicide because they are depressed, they commit suicide because they have no reason for living.
Untreated manic depression has a 20% mortality rate. How many "personality traits" can boast this?
I am manic depressive (bipolar). I can assure you that it is not a personality trait.
Depression is not the cause of suicide. Being happy is not a right, its not required to live, you dont need happiness to survive.
Depression, real depression (for me anyway) has little to do with sadness. It is bleakness that never lifts. It is seeing the world in greys (really, not a figure of speech), it is inescapable pain. It is knowing it will never go away. It is knowing that only death will bring relief.
Death also brings pain and depression to someone else, you dont cure depression with your death, you simply pass it on to the people who love you, now they get to feel your pain. Suicide is selfish.
Mania is not a personality trait. At first, mania feels *good*. It is the feeling of spring, of falling in love, and new car smell all rolled into one. Colors are brighter -- computer beige is Kodachrome vivid. The most annoying of noises becomes music. You feel so creative. You are outgoing and witty. You might buy yourself a few treats. You want this feeling to last forever.
I dont know much about mania so no comment.
Is hearing voices part of a personality trait?
hearing voices is an error caused by a disorder of the brain, depression is not an error. You see everyone gets depressed, not everyone hears voices.
Re:YANANS (You Are Not A Neuroscientist)
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
The mind is not part of the body, the brain is simply a storage device, the external world and the influence it has creates a mind, groups of mind influence a mind, and so on.
What that person failed to understand
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
The brain is a physical organ that is activated by stimulus.
This means a person or mind is not a physical object, the mind is metaphysical because its the result of the envoirnment, the world you live in creates the "mind". The physical structure of the brain adapts to the mind and the mind is influenced by the minds of others, which means we all are connected in terms of our minds, but physically we are seperate.
Right now whoever reads this post, their physical brain was directly altered by me but I didnt physically touch them.
Re:Theres no scientific proof for any of this.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
Actually I grew up exactly like you. This is why I can have such an opinion, however unlike you I learned to concentrate and focus.
Hey I dont like spending HOURS at work, its boring as hell, and I struggle through it, its not fun but hey if you need the money you dont have a choice.
"Whatever you want to call it, a trait, or a disease, it is debilitating and can destroy people's lives who don't have it under control. Medication is sometimes a lifeline that can save ADD people from the abyss of self-destruction."
Its not? So if I hit on you on the head enough times you can develop this disease? Why dont boxers develop this? Their brains are all out of whack from taking hits but none of them have these sorts of problems.
How is manic depression any different than a short temper?
I was diagnosed with it as a kid. I know from experience.
I dont know if I still have it now, but no its not like being in a crowded room, you act like a person with ADHD knows the difference or cares, when you drift off and daydream, you are thinking about things that are interesting to you.
I never had an episode of daydreaming where I'd begin thinking about doing complex math problems, why? Because i never liked math.
Also these features sure as hell helped me with computers. You can say that its bad to daydream but if you are at school doing drudge work thats trivial, and your mind is solving a bunch of computer related problems, if you balance it right, you can be doing one thing and thinking about something else.
Since I've been there as a kid, I can judge "OUR" problem.
I've been able to concentrate in any enviornment. I grew up doing it, perhaps thats one of the reasons everyone THOUGHT I had ADD.
I could be in a classroom where theres 30-40 kids and a teacher all talking, all kinds of noise, and I'm off in my own world of thoughts ignoring the enviornment entirely.
Guess what, if you concentrate too much on something thats not school related thats when its ADHD, if you concentrate like that on the teacher and class, suddenly its not ADHD.
I might still be like that. When I was a kid I would literally play video games for DAYS at a time. Now I'm sorta like that with computers, although not as much as I was when I first got one.
The trick is this, have variety in what you do, but keep that variety on topic, if you do a ton of things on the computer but its all on the computer, you become a computer expert, or at least thats the case with me.
If I just focused on one thing at a time I would know how to use Microsoft Word or IE really well but wouldnt know Linux, Windows, C, Visual Basic, and how to use thousands of programs that I've used over the years.
Standardized tests? You are going to judge him by his tests?
Then again he was bragging quite a bit about his scores.
I did well on certain IQ tests and standized tests too, however these things dont really matter, if you dont do your homework, get to class late, talk, sleep, or make fun of the teacher in class.
Some of the things he mentioned however are valid because I have had some of the same experiences, getting high IQ scores, doing well on tests, and going to school to do work that was so easy I'd sooner fall asleep than finish it.
Instead of asking him what his test scores are, find out his GPA. You can get 100 on all your tests, get 100 on all your work, but with poor attendence, or lack of ass kissing skills, you'll have a low GPA.
I had the same experience, and I agree with your point of view.
The school systems I had been in had no regard for my prowess or my intellectual needs, and regarded me as a disciplinary problem, but the psychiatrist they assigned to find out what was wrong with me figures I need to be in MENSA?
Thats typical.
Here's the kicker: after the selected students had taken the algebra course for half of a year, the entire grade was given the "algebra palcement test." There were 64 questions on the test. My score was a perfect 64 out of 64. The next best score was from one of the students who had been in the algebra class for half a year already. He scored slightly less than 50% correct. I took my test scores to the principal and asked to be admitted to the algrbra class. I was flatly refused. No reason was given even when I asked.
The same kinda stuff happened to me.
Teachers care too much about you doing your homework, being to school on time, etc, thats the main reason I didnt get all As in highschool. The work was never really challenging, its all the stupid rules and structure.
You are right school is boring as hell, College is much better however, while the work in College usually isnt challenging, theres less structure and rules.
The school I attended for 2 years was set up to have children "work at their own pace" without alot of "structure" that could inhibit them. In other words, they let us run free and provided us with a workbook that encapsulated the whole school year's worth of teaching. Needless to say, this was not the best environment for a super-hyper child.
I think you went to one of these schools when you were too young to take advantage of it. I did fine in this enviornment while I was in highschool. I'm doing fine in this enviornment in college.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone insert the whole site if you can on freenet, so we can keep it alive forever.
Developers who want to develop on it can use Invisible IRC and Freenet.
Upload the code to Freenet, and communicate with other developers via Invisible IRC.
They should do just that, then release the code on Freenet or Gnutella. The coders could code in Secret, upload code in secret.
OR how about a better idea, why not develop a P2P Network designed for just this specific purpose, annonymous development.
Perhaps if you spent some of this money buying or donating to Freecraft not only would we have better games, we'd have free games. Free games would hurt Vivendi Universal and Blizzard more than anything else. Free Games that are good would kill them.
We need to set up a way to support development of games, perhaps a transgaming style game development company, where people subscribe, vote on the type of game they want and its features, and then the coders code it out.
They'd only have to charge 5$ a month, theres plenty of open source game engines to use, they'd only need to hire artists, and do some coding.
Open source game development means once one game is done they'd never need to reinvent the wheel, this means we could have higher quality Open Source games than the current game industry simply because everyone would use the best engine and improve on it instead of everyone writing or licensing their own.
Imagine what could be done? But we first need a way to fund enough games to get millions of people interested. The best way to make these greedy companies pay is to setup a whole open source PC game movement, on a large scale, and let the gamers fund it.
Transgaming is doing pretty good at version 3.1, they have allowed hundreds of games to be ported to Linux within a matter of years. Now I think its time for a company to step up and do a Linux game development setup, and not like what Loki did, but in a transgaming style payment setup.
It makes no sense for us to use the outdated old business model for open source products. Its proven that it doesnt work, the transgaming model is proven to work.
I'd subscribe to a FreeCraft subscription if there was a company out there willing to transfer my money, or if FreeCraft becomes a company and sets it all up. If they make a good game, I keep subscribed to them and if their game sucks I can subscribe to more established game development people who are better.
Vivendi Universal is the owner of Blizzard. Vivendi Universal hates the free software movement, why? Because its assosiated with the Mp3/FileSharing movement.
I think people need to consider certsain media companies to be a threat to open source, and a threat to our personal fair use rights, Vivendi Universal is one of these companies.
Microsoft takes alot of heat, but I think even more heat should be given to companies like Vivendi Universal who sue anyone and everyone who is a threat to their monopoly power and business.
They sue file sharing companies who create new ways of distributing music, they sue open source companies who create new ways to play games, they will sue you and I if we use these networks, even if they dont know why we are using them.
Its not about piracy anymore, its about competition, if they cant own all the code, and all the distribution companies, they sue.
Blizzard is not responsible for this, I'm 100% sure this is Blizzards parent company, who owns Blizzard, Universal or one of those big Music/Media companies who is part of the RIAA.
This is an RIAA/MPAA thing. FreeCraft will live on, they cant stop it just like Unix owners cant stop Linux.
I see it like this, this gives FreeCraft more publicity, the codes already out, so go ahead and make martyrs of them. Go ahead Universal or whichever french company owns them
sue them, lock the developers up, please, do us all a favor and do it, all you will do is bring open source to the masses, cause hundreds of thousands of people to work on the code who didnt even know about it before, and start a whole Linux game development movement.
Didnt you learn from Gnutella?
So in reality when we give tax cuts, what we are doing is transfering money directly from our government, to their governments. Interesting.
Our tax cuts go to their governments in tax revenue.
I'd rather live in China than live under the Iron Fist of Orin Hatch, have fun when you lose all your freedom of speech and civil rights.
The day Orin Hatch is president is the day I leave the USA.
That guy would make the whole internet illegal to stop piracy.
"UN Security Council Resolution 1441 demanded that Saddam provide the proof. I'm not arguing that it was a reasonable demand. I'm stating the fact that the UN demanded it, set out steps to provide "proof" according to the resolution, and Saddam accepted those terms. Then he failed to comply. That is all."
Bush was saying if he didnt accept we were going to war. Bush never gave him a fair chance and you know it.
Because social security isn't really a tax, it's a retirement plan. You pay the "tax" now, you get it back in benefits later. You should get every cent you pay in back, no more, no less (adjusted for inflation). Quite frankly, I think it's a broken system and I'll never see a cent of it again, but that's fine because the old people need it and it's not their fault the government squandered it.
Big business should be paying for my retirement or at least an equal portion to what you pay.
How can we do that? If they're in India they're not ours to tax.
Thats the problem with our system, if they are employed by an American company they ARE ours to tax. I dont understand how we cant tax them, they work for our companies.
In a perfect world, that'd kick ass. The problem is, in the real world, the greedy companies will just raise prises when you tax them more. They'll cover it with a price hike and blame the government.
When they hike prices demand will go down and they will lose even more money, Ask the RIAA, and Adobe, most people dont pay for their stuff because they jack prices. Hell even Microsoft jacks prices through the roof, why not just tax them? They have a monopoly, if they raise prices it actually helps competition, this would stimulate the economy, Apple and Linux companies both would prevent Microsoft from raising the price too high.
"Howso? I don't recall him ever saying Saddam didn't destroy them. He said that the UN said that Saddam had them. He said that the UN demanded that Saddam prove that he destroyed them. He said that Saddam never proved that he destroyed them. Whether he destroyed them or not was never an issue, only Saddam's refusal to present proof."
Thats IMPOSSIBLE!! How do you prove you destroyed something? The only proof is its not there anymore, he must have destroyed it since inspectors cant find it. Inspectors couldnt find anything before we went to war, they cant find anything now, so why exactly did we go to war? Because Saddam couldnt prove he destroyed some weapons we couldnt prove he has? I'm not saying he didnt have some biological weapons in development, I'm betting he did, but I'm also sure he destroyed them before the war, dont you think Bush with all this intelligence and satelites capable of seeing he has these weapons would have seen Saddams men destroying them? Of course Bush knew Saddam destroyed the weapons, Bush however decided to go to war anyway saying Saddam still had them even after Saddam destroyed them.
How the hell can Bush and the CIA know saddam has the weapons yet not know saddam destroyed them? Why couldnt they use the same proof they used to promote and hype the war, to prove Saddam destroyed the weapons, just use some blurry CIA photographs with Saddams guys dumping chemical agents into the river, and say "Look at this proof", Bush didnt do that, Bush covered up the proof or perhaps just was selective at what he was willing to look at in terms of the intelligence reports, so that he could have an excuse to go to war anyway.
Like I said, if we have the technology and knowledge to know where Saddams weapons were before we went to war, we know what Saddam did with them, we were watching him all along. Bush just doesnt want to admit that Saddam destroyed the weapons and we attacked him anyway because it makes us look bad.
Again, the issue wasn't with them disarming or not. We attacked because they refused to comply with the UN's demands that they prove their disarmament. He could be charged with war crimes whether he lied or not actually, but that doesn't mean he'd be convicted. However, I'm sure many people in the world would love to see him executed as a war criminal, but, many people in the world would love to see our entire country burned to the ground.
CIA photographs of Saddams men destroying the weapons, thats the proof, you cannot ask Saddam to provide the proof, its our job. Thats like asking the thief on trial to provide proof that they didnt take the money out the cash register when the video camera shows them taking money out the cash register, then telling the criminal the charges will be dropped if he gives the money back, so the criminal gives the money back and is then sent to jail anyway.
Thats the kinda situation this is, Saddam disarmed himself and as reward we declared war on him knowing he had no way he could ever prove he disarmed himself and that we had the choice to announce proof that he did, or just go to war with him saying he didnt.
All tax cuts help big business unless you specifically exclude them from the tax cut. Also, which tax cuts were targeted at helping big business again?
Most of the tax cuts go to upper income people, and big business, why dont we have a payroll tax cut for the working class? how about a social security tax cut? why dont we give tax credit and benefits to people who live in lower income communities or who arent married?
The tax cut completely ignores single lower-middle income people, sure it helps married people, or people with kids, but theres millions of hard working people who arent married and who have no kids who deserve a tax cut.
So while the tax cut does help married couples, this tax cut ignores single people, unmarried couples, etc, I say it favors the rich because rich single people and unmarried couples still get the tax cut bene
No, I mean Americans, in general, don't care what the government does as long as it doesn't directly impact them in a visible way. The majority of Americans, as reported by one of those ABC or CBS sciency poll things, don't care. Granted, that takes into account the hardcore right wing who don't care because the party says not to care as well as the hardcore morons who take an out of sight, out of mind approach, but facts are facts.
Americans also didnt care about Clinton getting a blowjob, this didnt stop Clinton from getting Impeached.
I personally think the President owes it to the world to tell us what happened to the WMD's because even the UN said Saddam had them. If they were destroyed, they should tell us. I, for one, would be relieved. If not, they need to tell us where they went because the CIA has to have a pretty good idea by now.
If Saddam destroyed them, well then Bush lied. Do you honestly think Bush couldnt have seen Iraqis destroying the weapons and tossing them into the river while our troops had them surrounded and all the worlds spy satelites were watching them.
Clinton was Impeached (not almost) when the House accused him of lying under oath before a Grand Jury. The Senate acquitted him of course, and the rest is history. Bush hasn't testified under oath, so he can't be charged with perjury. Politicians lie to the public all the time, and for some reason (institutional corruption?) that's not a crime.
No but if Bush lied, he can be charged with war crimes, alot of people died over this war, and if its proven Iraq did destroy the weapons and they did disarm yet we still attacked them even while knowing they did this, Bush is in serious trouble.
I knew this before the 2000 election. Compassion isn't something you base a conservative campaign on. Frankly, compassion isn't something you base a political campaign on at all. (Compassion is an emotion, not an issue.) Then again, I wanted McKain to win the primary. I'm not so sure about that anymore though with the party line he's been spewing lately.
McKain is better than Bush.
Actually, those tax cuts help small business, too. My father and mother's businesses are both incorporated (and employing 2 and 8 people respectively), but they can take dividends with the tax cut instead of a salary. They pay taxes on the money at the corporate rate, which is less than the personal rate on the same money. The same situation will help small businesses accross the company. You know, the ones trying to stay afloat, provide services, and give people jobs, despite being stomped on by the big companies.
I'm not against tax cuts, I'm against tax cuts which help big business. Tax cuts which focus on helping small business are good. Big Business should pay more taxes not less.
Please explain. I see no causation here. If the big business paid more taxes, they'd send more jobs to India to cut costs.
IF big business paid less taxes they'd still send more jobs to India to cut costs. Big businesses want to cut cost in every possible way at every possible moment, worrying about taxing them in fear that they will send jobs to India? They will send jobs to India if you tax them or not, so we should just tax them and punish them for sending jobs to India and give tax cuts to companies who hire 90%+ American workers.
Why would big business hire AMERICAN workers when they can keep the tax money and keep hiring workers overseas?? The businesses never really had a problem with capital in the first place.
I had experience with it as a kid, I grew out of it.
I dont really understand why or how, but when I decided to just focus on things which werent interesting and forced myself to do it, eventually I became good at doing this and it becomes easier and easier the older I get.
From where I sit, the moment when my best childhood friend admitted her depression and stopped telling herself to just get over it was the moment she started being able to deal with it. Just my experience, man.
I'm the opposite, I learned to focus on what I'm supposed to focus on instead of just what I thought was interesting.
I'm no expert on depression but I've been depressed before, I'm no ADHD expert but I've had ADHD before.
I can tell you what helped me grow out of it wasnt some damn pills, it was this. I decided to do what had to be done, instead of what I liked doing, I forced myself to do things when they were supposed to be done instead of when I felt like doing them, I learned to focus on something even if it was as boring as watching paint dry. I learned to spend hours, or days at a time focusing on one thing, I learned this kind of focus from programming, playing chess, and because of the way my mind works. My focus can become almost extreme with doing one thing or focusing on one problem so much that I cant sleep for days at a time.
This started when I started seriously playing chess and would spend days thinking about sets of moves, to the point where I couldnt sleep. It then moved on to other things, I am not flawless, I have problems sleeping now, but its better to have problems with sleep than not be able to focus at all.
You see, I dont know if I grew out of ADHD, or if I taught myself how to focus, but the fact that alot of people dont even try and want to hide behind some pills, this is why I call them lazy.
If you try and you just cant do it, thats when you take pills.
I've been depressed before, I got over it. Depression with me is caused by people, direct cause and effect, I dont get depressed naturally so I cannot comment on manic depressed people.
The point I'm trying to make is, alot of these people if they would just learn to focus would have less problems with ADD and might even be cured, some people have it so bad that they'll never grow out of it or learn to focus, these people need pills.
I say try my method first for a few years before trying pills.
I've had childhood experiences with ADHD. I'd say thats about as much experience as any of these posters.
Suicide has nothing to do with depression.
Alot of people are depressed and never commit suicide, alot of manic depressed people arent suicidal. If a person is suicidal, perhaps its because they are selfish meaning they dont care what happens to their kids and family, friends and other people who need them. Perhaps suicidal people have religious which tell them they will go heaven if they commit suicide.
Trust me, you can be depressed and never commit suicide simply because you dont believe in suicide. Think I'm lying? Why dont manic depressed people turn into suicide bombers and blow themselves up? why dont they join the military and die as a hero? True suicidal people dont commit suicide because they are depressed, they commit suicide because they have no reason for living.
Untreated manic depression has a 20% mortality rate. How many "personality traits" can boast this?
I am manic depressive (bipolar). I can assure you that it is not a personality trait.
Depression is not the cause of suicide. Being happy is not a right, its not required to live, you dont need happiness to survive.
Depression, real depression (for me anyway) has little to do with sadness. It is bleakness that never lifts. It is seeing the world in greys (really, not a figure of speech), it is inescapable pain. It is knowing it will never go away. It is knowing that only death will bring relief.
Death also brings pain and depression to someone else, you dont cure depression with your death, you simply pass it on to the people who love you, now they get to feel your pain. Suicide is selfish.
Mania is not a personality trait. At first, mania feels *good*. It is the feeling of spring, of falling in love, and new car smell all rolled into one. Colors are brighter -- computer beige is Kodachrome vivid. The most annoying of noises becomes music. You feel so creative. You are outgoing and witty. You might buy yourself a few treats. You want this feeling to last forever.
I dont know much about mania so no comment.
Is hearing voices part of a personality trait?
hearing voices is an error caused by a disorder of the brain, depression is not an error. You see everyone gets depressed, not everyone hears voices.
The mind is not part of the body, the brain is simply a storage device, the external world and the influence it has creates a mind, groups of mind influence a mind, and so on.
The brain is a physical organ that is activated by stimulus.
This means a person or mind is not a physical object, the mind is metaphysical because its the result of the envoirnment, the world you live in creates the "mind". The physical structure of the brain adapts to the mind and the mind is influenced by the minds of others, which means we all are connected in terms of our minds, but physically we are seperate.
Right now whoever reads this post, their physical brain was directly altered by me but I didnt physically touch them.
Actually I grew up exactly like you. This is why I can have such an opinion, however unlike you I learned to concentrate and focus.
Hey I dont like spending HOURS at work, its boring as hell, and I struggle through it, its not fun but hey if you need the money you dont have a choice.
"Whatever you want to call it, a trait, or a disease, it is debilitating and can destroy people's lives who don't have it under control. Medication is sometimes a lifeline that can save ADD people from the abyss of self-destruction."
You can also learn to control it without meds.
People do grow out of ADD. Do your research before you post. People also grow into ADD. You can even grow in and out over the course of decades.
Its not? So if I hit on you on the head enough times you can develop this disease? Why dont boxers develop this? Their brains are all out of whack from taking hits but none of them have these sorts of problems.
How is manic depression any different than a short temper?
I was diagnosed with it as a kid. I know from experience.
I dont know if I still have it now, but no its not like being in a crowded room, you act like a person with ADHD knows the difference or cares, when you drift off and daydream, you are thinking about things that are interesting to you.
I never had an episode of daydreaming where I'd begin thinking about doing complex math problems, why? Because i never liked math.
Also these features sure as hell helped me with computers. You can say that its bad to daydream but if you are at school doing drudge work thats trivial, and your mind is solving a bunch of computer related problems, if you balance it right, you can be doing one thing and thinking about something else.
Since I've been there as a kid, I can judge "OUR" problem.
I've been able to concentrate in any enviornment. I grew up doing it, perhaps thats one of the reasons everyone THOUGHT I had ADD.
I could be in a classroom where theres 30-40 kids and a teacher all talking, all kinds of noise, and I'm off in my own world of thoughts ignoring the enviornment entirely.
Guess what, if you concentrate too much on something thats not school related thats when its ADHD, if you concentrate like that on the teacher and class, suddenly its not ADHD.
I might still be like that. When I was a kid I would literally play video games for DAYS at a time. Now I'm sorta like that with computers, although not as much as I was when I first got one.
The trick is this, have variety in what you do, but keep that variety on topic, if you do a ton of things on the computer but its all on the computer, you become a computer expert, or at least thats the case with me.
If I just focused on one thing at a time I would know how to use Microsoft Word or IE really well but wouldnt know Linux, Windows, C, Visual Basic, and how to use thousands of programs that I've used over the years.
Standardized tests? You are going to judge him by his tests?
Then again he was bragging quite a bit about his scores.
I did well on certain IQ tests and standized tests too, however these things dont really matter, if you dont do your homework, get to class late, talk, sleep, or make fun of the teacher in class.
Some of the things he mentioned however are valid because I have had some of the same experiences, getting high IQ scores, doing well on tests, and going to school to do work that was so easy I'd sooner fall asleep than finish it.
Instead of asking him what his test scores are, find out his GPA. You can get 100 on all your tests, get 100 on all your work, but with poor attendence, or lack of ass kissing skills, you'll have a low GPA.
I had the same experience, and I agree with your point of view.
The school systems I had been in had no regard for my prowess or my intellectual needs, and regarded me as a disciplinary problem, but the psychiatrist they assigned to find out what was wrong with me figures I need to be in MENSA?
Thats typical.
Here's the kicker: after the selected students had taken the algebra course for half of a year, the entire grade was given the "algebra palcement test." There were 64 questions on the test. My score was a perfect 64 out of 64. The next best score was from one of the students who had been in the algebra class for half a year already. He scored slightly less than 50% correct. I took my test scores to the principal and asked to be admitted to the algrbra class. I was flatly refused. No reason was given even when I asked.
The same kinda stuff happened to me.
Teachers care too much about you doing your homework, being to school on time, etc, thats the main reason I didnt get all As in highschool. The work was never really challenging, its all the stupid rules and structure.
You are right school is boring as hell, College is much better however, while the work in College usually isnt challenging, theres less structure and rules.
The school I attended for 2 years was set up to have children "work at their own pace" without alot of "structure" that could inhibit them. In other words, they let us run free and provided us with a workbook that encapsulated the whole school year's worth of teaching. Needless to say, this was not the best environment for a super-hyper child.
I think you went to one of these schools when you were too young to take advantage of it. I did fine in this enviornment while I was in highschool. I'm doing fine in this enviornment in college.