"Yet they both busted their rears so that my siblings and I would have better lives, and I work hard so that my children will have an even better opportunity."
Why? If it is so important that all of us work hard, then your parents should have done absolutely nothing for you and your siblings, and you should be doing nothing for your children. You should work for your lifestyle as hard as your parents had to (or moreso, if you expect a better standard of living than they had), otherwise your parents are only harming you by giving you a hand up.
"Government-run programs are generally maintained by unionized public workers."
Who are all currently part of the diaspora spread out across the country. If the cops didn't stick around, you think all those other evil government workers are still there?
"The city mentions they'll outsource the program to private companies, but do you believe these companies won't be owned by cronies?"
The city won't be doing it voluntarily. As the summary mentioned, the only reason it'll be outsourced is because Baton Rouge (read "BellSouth and Cox") insists on it.
"Is providing Internet access ever a city's responsible?"
If the city has a republican form of government and the people say it is, then the answer is "yes."
"bring businesses and entrepreneurs to LA to create jobs and better lives that jobs help to build."
Katrina hit in August. It's almost December. Where are these entrepeneuers?
"The hurricane damage is evidence to me of the decay of government projects and the wasted taxpayer money."
Silly me, I thought it was evidence of a category 4 hurricane hitting a city built on shifting soil.
And really, the city is a shining example of one built with little rhyme or reason, no real oversight beyond those entrepeneuers you extoll. Somebody builds on the river, somebody builds next to that, some people start throwing up skyscrapers where there is no bedrock, and *poof*. New Orleans was built the way it was because nobody ever came in and said "No, you really shouldn't build there like that."
"The Color Gameboy played regular games along with original gameboy games. Publishers published games that were compatible on both systems."
Only briefly. It wasn't long before publishers started to sell transparent GBC-only carts, and I'd say it was less than a year before publishers stopped producing four-color games entirely, bringing about the death of the old four-color Game Boy.
Zelda: Link's Awakening DX ran on both four-color and GBC. The Oracle games were GBC only.
"When the DS came out, which does everything the Advance does and them some, people still write DS software along with new Advance software."
The DS isn't a new flavor of Game Boy, it's a new platform that runs new software. GBA functionality on the DS is less a matter of "expanding the Game Boy line" (or else why produce the GBA Micro?) and more a matter of "cross-platform compatability." I don't believe it's possible for a GBA cartridge to even know that it's being played on a DS. And the DS does not do everything the GBA can do: it won't play any of the aforementioned Zelda games while a true GBA will, nor does it allow multi-player GBA games, wired or wireless. Generally speaking, Nintendo doesn't advertise the DS' GBA capabilities (commercials for Donkey Kong Country 3, for example, say "for Game Boy Advance," not "for Game Boy Advance and DS").
For this PS3 connectivity you're suggesting, not only must the customers be aware of what flavor of PSP they are buying software for, but also the games themselves must be able to tell what flavor they're being run on. The only way it could work is, like your previous example with the GBC, Sony expects all PSP users to abandon their old harware and buy a whole new machine.
"Do you really think the morons at the DMV don't abuse their power? Do you think the local cop doesn't? Do you think your zoning board doesn't abuse their power?"
Do you really think you are without recourse? After all, that's the whole point of a constitutional government to begin with. 99.999% of the time, those abuses persist soley becuase nobody is complaining.
As you describe yourself as an anarchocapitalist, the more important question is: do you really believe that you would have as much recourse, if not more, if your neighbor violated your rights instead of a member of the government?
"Want to live as a socialist? Find 30,000 other socialists and form a local government completely seperate from those outside of your town."
Convenient arbitrary number. What about 30,001? 31,000? 300,000? At what point do you arbitrarily decide that they no longer have the right to have such a government? The moment you are born into or move into such a community?
What if I told you your community of anarchocapitalists is too large to allow you to establish such a scheme?
"Don't pass any law without a completely unanimous voting group."
In the words of Madison in Federalist #43, that "would have subjected the essential interests of the whole to the caprice or corruption of a single member."
"You seem to presume that if murder weren't illegal people would run about doing it all the time.
If murder weren't illegal you'd just kill the murderer yourself if they had taken the life of somebody you cared about."
You assume it would stop at "an eye for an eye." Why would it stop at killing murderers? Why not child molesters? Rapists? Thieves? That guy that cut you off in traffic?
If you got out of your home every once in a while, you'd come to learn that there really are people out there who withold from doing morally reprehensible solely because it is illegal.
"He has systematically worked to centralize the federal government on a scale not seen since FDR"
Nice qualifier. If FDR's centralization efforts were greater, does that make him worse?
"has worked to make the military an active component of civil government,"
FDR institutded a peacetime draft. Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and shut down the civil courts outright (pissing off the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the process).
"and has found no shortage of reasons to give the government sweeping power to spy on us,"
The Sedition Act of 1798 was passed on Adams' watch.
"Our border is still open during a "state of war,""
Lincoln went so far as to encourage immigration during a "state of war." Join the Army, become a citizen.
"the Congress should impeach him for failure to uphold Article IV, Section 4 which guarantees the states the protection of the federal government from invasion."
Like they did with Madison?
Don't pretend that things have never been worse, especially when you're just trying to support some petty political point. Otherwise you're just as bad as those folks calling recent events "the War on Terror."
"The only party that truly believes in small government anymore is the Libertarians."
Depends on one's definition of "government." If by "those elected people in DC and/or $STATE_CAPITAL," then yes. If you mean "the ability of one person to tell another what they can or cannot do, then no. Libertarians are all for tyrranical control over what they do with their own property and would require that actual harm be demonstrated before anybody else can make them stop, and they would allow only the wronged party to have that right. Basically, they're in favor of replacing government with a landed gentry; he who has the gold makes the rules.
Yeah, I voted for Badnarik last election, but it was more out of dissatisfaction with the other candidates on the ballot than any actual desire to see the man in office.
"This question is irrelevant as the Constitution does NOT give our Federal government any power to do anything about these problems."
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason.
"Our Federal government is also guilty of causing the anger and hatred that exists against the country by others."
We elected them. The federal government does not exist in a vacuum.
"US Intelligence and the US military has no power to be used against the citizens in any way, or on US soil in any way but defensive."
The Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to suppress Insurrections.
The United States shall protect every State in this Union against domestic Violence.
"If they want to tap our phones so they can NOTIFY a citizen they're a target, there MIGHT be some Constitutional authority (in defense) but I can't see much beyond that."
The Constitution only protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures.
"The biggest problem is that government has no power to privacy -- they must be transparent and completely answerable to any citizen."
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy.
"Yes, leave it to the States and the People."
Somebody needs to go read Federalist Papers 2-5.
"you'd find a genuine and deep-seated desire to do what is best, for the government person's self or family or friends."
Double-edged sword. Leaving defense in the hands of private or balkanized interests will, again, benefit mostly (or only) only those directly connected to those special interests. The idea of a democratic government is to make sure the jobs of those in the government relies on the public opinion, requiring the government to act in the general interest, at least moreso than special interests would.
"I would be interested to hear a detailed explanation of how you would plan to proceed with an insurrection in such a way that currently permissable firearms in the hands of private citizens are a vital component."
The answer: it doesn't. The Second Amendment was never intended as a way of making sure the people could always revolt against the government. The purpose of the amendment was to make sure that all people were allowed to sign up for and serve in their state's militia in defense of their homes and their state, regardless of federal political views or loyalty to the federal government. It was intended keep the militia from becoing a "select corps," "composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power" in the words of Alexander Hamilton in Federalst #29. While the federal government may get to pick and choose who serves in the federal military, the philosophy of the Second Amendment was to make sure that those serving in the state militias were are more representative cross-section of the population at large ("Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens?").
What was supposed to make it easier for a revolution to happen was this little bit:
The Congress shall have the Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.
For whatever reason, the concept of the annual budget is a more recent invention than the United States Constitution. The federal government wasn't suposed to have a standing army at all in any meaningfuly defintion of the word "standing." A skeleton force to man the forts on the shores and the fronties, and not much else. However, the requirement of asking "Do we need an army?" at least once every two years becomes meaningless when it's all rolled up into the annual dog-and-pony show that is the modern federal budget.
If the federal budget was decennial, coinciding with the Census, that requirement might mean something again; four times out of five, it would be the only budgetary question asked.
The militia wasn't intended to guarantee the possibility of revolution, it was supposed to be the nation's primary defense. There wasn't supposed to be anybody for the militia to fight against.
"Participate politically using whatever method you have at your disposal. States don't run themselves, and if you aren't satisfied, then by all means, take it over lawfully. Ultimately, folks like YOU can become representative, senator, and president. So stop moaning and start getting elected."
Nobody posting on Slashdot, and probably nobody reading anything on Slashdot, could ever make their way into elected office. Being elected requires being electable, and all that the word entails: kissings hands, shaking babies, mingling with the masses, acting concerned, looking good on television, wearing the power ties, and generally being everything a geek is not. If you start browsing at -1, you'll come to realize we don't even like each other all that much, so why would the electorate like one of us?
The best we could possibly hope for is to find some electable dupe whose strings can be pulled, a Christian to someone else's Cyrano.
"So this might blow that wide open. And sharing 100 to 1000 movies per 32 cent stamp,"
Yeah... the fact that you don't even know the price of a stamp for a first class letter (currently $0.37, going to $0.39 next month) demonstrates just how prevalent this thinking is: little to none.
The problem with the USPS is that it requires people to get out of their chairs and walk out to their mailboxes, thereby exposing themselves to actual sunlight. People are inherently lazy.
The FBI has other things to take care of, everything from organized crime to "counter-intelligence." The Postal Inspectors, though, are an independent law enforcement arm that literally has nothing better to do than investigate crimes that involve US mail.
On the other hand, unlike with your friendly neighborhood ISP and DMCA notices, so long as those discs are sent First Class, Priority or Express Mail (i. e. not Media Mail), it's going to take an honest-to-God warrant from a federal judge before they're allowed to see what it is you're sending. Even with Medial Mail, I'm pretty sure they're only allowed to inspect the contents to ensure that you really are sending media.
"Xbox 360 will have terrible sales in Japan, Ps3 will beat it by a landslide and Nintendo will follow."
Despite the usual "Japan hate US technology" trolls on here, the main reason why Xbox failed in Japan is that it didn't have games Japanese players wanted to play. This may or may not change for the 360. I'm curious to see what will happen when FFXI is ported to the 360.
"The revolution controller wont be enough for Nintendo to beat Sony or MS only a few games will use it as advertised still kids and non-regular gamers will go crazy with it."
You seem to forget something: "kids and non-regular gamers" >> "regular gamers." The first category is more commonly referred to as "normal people." Nintendo may not win the "hearts and minds" of the "regular gamers," but stuff aimed at "regular gamers" won't be picked up by peoples' grandmothers. The Revolution has the potential to reach this untapped market.
"Nintendo will keep pleasing fans but alienating third parties and the teen/mature market,"
So, how are PSP sales going compared to the DS and GBA?
Again, "non teen/'mature'" >> "teen/'mature'"
"the price will drop and a new version will be announced,"
If a new PSP has new capabilities that the original PSP cannot do, this will single-handedly kill the device. People buy consoles because they don't like having to read fine print on the packaging to make sure they have the right hardware to play the game. If this theoretical "PSP2" will do everything the PSP will do "and then some," nobody will write any software to take advantage of the "and then some" because not everybody will have it. Witness the Sega CD, the PS2 HDD, etc.
The GBA was a GCN controller even before we knew it was going to be called "GameCube." They built on their experiences in Japan with using a GBC as a controller for the N64.
"but as General Motors reminds us, size is no guarantee of survival. I suppose they have internal institutions that keep them nimble."
Yeah, I saw the news about General Motors while watching DirecTV*. Then a ditech.com commercial came on.
*Yes, I know they're now owned by News Corp, but I think my point still stands. Despite all the sound and the fury, I don't see GM going anywhere any time soon, at least not the executives. Labor, as always, is expendable for the sake of Wall Street.
Any race capable of serious interplanetary transport (let alone interstellar) isn't going to be that affected by gravity wells. The more you're affected by (or worse yet, rely upon) gravity, the less delta-v you must have and the more predictable your path will be. All your enemy has to do is put a chaff cloud on an intercept course with you, something to perforate your hull as you go through, and that ends that.
"being close in space may not mean you can reach each other to dock or shoot each other, what about each others speed?"
If you can't shoot at them, they can't shoot at you. If they actually want to do anything to you, they'll have to match velocity vectors with you sooner or later.
"what about each others speed?"
Your velocity vector isn't as important as your ability to alter it. A straight line is a straight line, the important part is your ability to deviate from that straight line, or else all your enemy has to do is put something in your way.
"In that sense there is some terain,"
Even if you are seriously affected by gravity wells such as those around planets (in which case, you're probably already screwed), the important part here is terrain's ability to mask your movement. Having to go around an obstacle isn't as harmful as your enemy seeing you go around said obstacle, seeing you manuever, seeing what acceleration your craft is capable of, and extrapolating your destination within a certain radius with the help of Galileo, or Newton at most.
You're assuming that maneuver technology will outstrip detection technology. Once you start talking about detection vs. interception, things can get easier or harder depending on the manuever and detection technologies in play. But assuming near-future technology, though you're playing with three-dimensional volumes, it is very, very hard to be undetected in space. Unlike the vagrancies of dealing with the atmosphere, you will stand out against a hard vacuum, something that's about as "black body" as you're going to get. You will reflect microwaves, you will give off heat, the only question is whether or not somebody is looking for you.
Once you're spotted, it's nothing but your delta-v against his, a classic battle of maneuver that even ancient, primitive humans like Sun-Tzu could tell you about.
Basically, the scenario you're talking about is similar to what happened in the US Civil War; with railroads, etc. allowing for rapid movement of forces, as fast or even faster than your scouts could report back enemy movements, battles tended to happen around fixed locations where the attacker wanted to go (otherwise something would have happened to the Army of Northern Virginia somewhere between Sharpsburg and Gettysburg). However, since then we've improved upon the hot air balloons used in the Civil War with radios, airplanes, and even satellites, all mitigating the advantages of hiding your movements behind terrain. Pearl Harbor happened only because nobody could see over the horizon at the time.
There is no terrain in space. You might gain some sort of surprise coming in with the sun at your back, but first you have to get to the sun undetected.
"How can you go out with someone who has interests so different from your own?"
So long as we're just talking "interests," it shouldn't matter too much. Though I have precious little experience, I think the important part is how the personalities mesh, and the only really important shared interest is an interest in each other.
"I shit you not, some guy had to watch anime in secret because his wife would have thrown out the DVDs if she saw them."
See, this isn't "lack of shared interest," this is "domineering wife." His problem isn't that his wife isn't an otaku, his problem is that he's whipped.
"What kind of relationship is that?"
It's the one you end up in when you let yourself get too desperate. If you're just looking for "a woman, any woman," this is where you'll end up. I hear you shouldn't set your standards too high, but you should have some standards.
"But also remember, girls can't expect to be the only thing that gets attention from the guy."
Yeah, but some women are "high maintenance" and some are outright misandrists. There are women out there, like your previous example, who are of the opinion that men were put on this planet to fulfill their whims.
"Everybody get a life and don't be with incompatible people."
Define "life." Define "incompatible." I'm willing to bet the guy from your example is all too compatible with his wife.
Now that we've had this accurate portrayal of crime and gaming in Miami, I think now we can all understand where Miami-resident Jack Thompson is coming from!
"However, all his movies are highly dependent on manipulating his viewers' emotions into what he thinks they should feel and rarely do they engage the viewers' intellect."
So what you're saying is that Bruckheimer is the Acclaim of movies and television?
Seriously, it feels like it's time to whip out the overused "pot/kettle" metaphor.
Slashdot Mirror
"Yet they both busted their rears so that my siblings and I would have better lives, and I work hard so that my children will have an even better opportunity."
Why? If it is so important that all of us work hard, then your parents should have done absolutely nothing for you and your siblings, and you should be doing nothing for your children. You should work for your lifestyle as hard as your parents had to (or moreso, if you expect a better standard of living than they had), otherwise your parents are only harming you by giving you a hand up.
"Why the hell is there a 144Kbps restriction?"
Two words: BellSouth and Cox. We're talking about the best government money can buy!
"Government-run programs are generally maintained by unionized public workers."
Who are all currently part of the diaspora spread out across the country. If the cops didn't stick around, you think all those other evil government workers are still there?
"The city mentions they'll outsource the program to private companies, but do you believe these companies won't be owned by cronies?"
The city won't be doing it voluntarily. As the summary mentioned, the only reason it'll be outsourced is because Baton Rouge (read "BellSouth and Cox") insists on it.
"Is providing Internet access ever a city's responsible?"
If the city has a republican form of government and the people say it is, then the answer is "yes."
"bring businesses and entrepreneurs to LA to create jobs and better lives that jobs help to build."
Katrina hit in August. It's almost December. Where are these entrepeneuers?
"The hurricane damage is evidence to me of the decay of government projects and the wasted taxpayer money."
Silly me, I thought it was evidence of a category 4 hurricane hitting a city built on shifting soil.
And really, the city is a shining example of one built with little rhyme or reason, no real oversight beyond those entrepeneuers you extoll. Somebody builds on the river, somebody builds next to that, some people start throwing up skyscrapers where there is no bedrock, and *poof*. New Orleans was built the way it was because nobody ever came in and said "No, you really shouldn't build there like that."
"Do you seriously think that the US Military will have less of a morale problem suppressing American dissidents than they had in Vietnam?"
Two words: Kent State.
"The Color Gameboy played regular games along with original gameboy games. Publishers published games that were compatible on both systems."
Only briefly. It wasn't long before publishers started to sell transparent GBC-only carts, and I'd say it was less than a year before publishers stopped producing four-color games entirely, bringing about the death of the old four-color Game Boy.
Zelda: Link's Awakening DX ran on both four-color and GBC. The Oracle games were GBC only.
"When the DS came out, which does everything the Advance does and them some, people still write DS software along with new Advance software."
The DS isn't a new flavor of Game Boy, it's a new platform that runs new software. GBA functionality on the DS is less a matter of "expanding the Game Boy line" (or else why produce the GBA Micro?) and more a matter of "cross-platform compatability." I don't believe it's possible for a GBA cartridge to even know that it's being played on a DS. And the DS does not do everything the GBA can do: it won't play any of the aforementioned Zelda games while a true GBA will, nor does it allow multi-player GBA games, wired or wireless. Generally speaking, Nintendo doesn't advertise the DS' GBA capabilities (commercials for Donkey Kong Country 3, for example, say "for Game Boy Advance," not "for Game Boy Advance and DS").
For this PS3 connectivity you're suggesting, not only must the customers be aware of what flavor of PSP they are buying software for, but also the games themselves must be able to tell what flavor they're being run on. The only way it could work is, like your previous example with the GBC, Sony expects all PSP users to abandon their old harware and buy a whole new machine.
"Do you really think the morons at the DMV don't abuse their power? Do you think the local cop doesn't? Do you think your zoning board doesn't abuse their power?"
Do you really think you are without recourse? After all, that's the whole point of a constitutional government to begin with. 99.999% of the time, those abuses persist soley becuase nobody is complaining.
As you describe yourself as an anarchocapitalist, the more important question is: do you really believe that you would have as much recourse, if not more, if your neighbor violated your rights instead of a member of the government?
"Want to live as a socialist? Find 30,000 other socialists and form a local government completely seperate from those outside of your town."
Convenient arbitrary number. What about 30,001? 31,000? 300,000? At what point do you arbitrarily decide that they no longer have the right to have such a government? The moment you are born into or move into such a community?
What if I told you your community of anarchocapitalists is too large to allow you to establish such a scheme?
"Don't pass any law without a completely unanimous voting group."
In the words of Madison in Federalist #43, that "would have subjected the essential interests of the whole to the caprice or corruption of a single member."
"You seem to presume that if murder weren't illegal people would run about doing it all the time.
If murder weren't illegal you'd just kill the murderer yourself if they had taken the life of somebody you cared about."
You assume it would stop at "an eye for an eye." Why would it stop at killing murderers? Why not child molesters? Rapists? Thieves? That guy that cut you off in traffic?
If you got out of your home every once in a while, you'd come to learn that there really are people out there who withold from doing morally reprehensible solely because it is illegal.
"He has systematically worked to centralize the federal government on a scale not seen since FDR"
Nice qualifier. If FDR's centralization efforts were greater, does that make him worse?
"has worked to make the military an active component of civil government,"
FDR institutded a peacetime draft. Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and shut down the civil courts outright (pissing off the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the process).
"and has found no shortage of reasons to give the government sweeping power to spy on us,"
The Sedition Act of 1798 was passed on Adams' watch.
"Our border is still open during a "state of war,""
Lincoln went so far as to encourage immigration during a "state of war." Join the Army, become a citizen.
"the Congress should impeach him for failure to uphold Article IV, Section 4 which guarantees the states the protection of the federal government from invasion."
Like they did with Madison?
Don't pretend that things have never been worse, especially when you're just trying to support some petty political point. Otherwise you're just as bad as those folks calling recent events "the War on Terror."
"The only party that truly believes in small government anymore is the Libertarians."
Depends on one's definition of "government." If by "those elected people in DC and/or $STATE_CAPITAL," then yes. If you mean "the ability of one person to tell another what they can or cannot do, then no. Libertarians are all for tyrranical control over what they do with their own property and would require that actual harm be demonstrated before anybody else can make them stop, and they would allow only the wronged party to have that right. Basically, they're in favor of replacing government with a landed gentry; he who has the gold makes the rules.
Yeah, I voted for Badnarik last election, but it was more out of dissatisfaction with the other candidates on the ballot than any actual desire to see the man in office.
We elected them. The federal government does not exist in a vacuum.
"US Intelligence and the US military has no power to be used against the citizens in any way, or on US soil in any way but defensive." "If they want to tap our phones so they can NOTIFY a citizen they're a target, there MIGHT be some Constitutional authority (in defense) but I can't see much beyond that."
The Constitution only protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures.
"The biggest problem is that government has no power to privacy -- they must be transparent and completely answerable to any citizen." "Yes, leave it to the States and the People."
Somebody needs to go read Federalist Papers 2-5.
"you'd find a genuine and deep-seated desire to do what is best, for the government person's self or family or friends."
Double-edged sword. Leaving defense in the hands of private or balkanized interests will, again, benefit mostly (or only) only those directly connected to those special interests. The idea of a democratic government is to make sure the jobs of those in the government relies on the public opinion, requiring the government to act in the general interest, at least moreso than special interests would.
The answer: it doesn't. The Second Amendment was never intended as a way of making sure the people could always revolt against the government. The purpose of the amendment was to make sure that all people were allowed to sign up for and serve in their state's militia in defense of their homes and their state, regardless of federal political views or loyalty to the federal government. It was intended keep the militia from becoing a "select corps," "composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power" in the words of Alexander Hamilton in Federalst #29. While the federal government may get to pick and choose who serves in the federal military, the philosophy of the Second Amendment was to make sure that those serving in the state militias were are more representative cross-section of the population at large ("Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens?").
What was supposed to make it easier for a revolution to happen was this little bit:For whatever reason, the concept of the annual budget is a more recent invention than the United States Constitution. The federal government wasn't suposed to have a standing army at all in any meaningfuly defintion of the word "standing." A skeleton force to man the forts on the shores and the fronties, and not much else. However, the requirement of asking "Do we need an army?" at least once every two years becomes meaningless when it's all rolled up into the annual dog-and-pony show that is the modern federal budget.
If the federal budget was decennial, coinciding with the Census, that requirement might mean something again; four times out of five, it would be the only budgetary question asked.
The militia wasn't intended to guarantee the possibility of revolution, it was supposed to be the nation's primary defense. There wasn't supposed to be anybody for the militia to fight against.
"Participate politically using whatever method you have at your disposal. States don't run themselves, and if you aren't satisfied, then by all means, take it over lawfully. Ultimately, folks like YOU can become representative, senator, and president. So stop moaning and start getting elected."
Nobody posting on Slashdot, and probably nobody reading anything on Slashdot, could ever make their way into elected office. Being elected requires being electable, and all that the word entails: kissings hands, shaking babies, mingling with the masses, acting concerned, looking good on television, wearing the power ties, and generally being everything a geek is not. If you start browsing at -1, you'll come to realize we don't even like each other all that much, so why would the electorate like one of us?
The best we could possibly hope for is to find some electable dupe whose strings can be pulled, a Christian to someone else's Cyrano.
"So this might blow that wide open. And sharing 100 to 1000 movies per 32 cent stamp,"
Yeah... the fact that you don't even know the price of a stamp for a first class letter (currently $0.37, going to $0.39 next month) demonstrates just how prevalent this thinking is: little to none.
The problem with the USPS is that it requires people to get out of their chairs and walk out to their mailboxes, thereby exposing themselves to actual sunlight. People are inherently lazy.
The FBI has other things to take care of, everything from organized crime to "counter-intelligence." The Postal Inspectors, though, are an independent law enforcement arm that literally has nothing better to do than investigate crimes that involve US mail.
On the other hand, unlike with your friendly neighborhood ISP and DMCA notices, so long as those discs are sent First Class, Priority or Express Mail (i. e. not Media Mail), it's going to take an honest-to-God warrant from a federal judge before they're allowed to see what it is you're sending. Even with Medial Mail, I'm pretty sure they're only allowed to inspect the contents to ensure that you really are sending media.
"Xbox 360 will have terrible sales in Japan, Ps3 will beat it by a landslide and Nintendo will follow."
Despite the usual "Japan hate US technology" trolls on here, the main reason why Xbox failed in Japan is that it didn't have games Japanese players wanted to play. This may or may not change for the 360. I'm curious to see what will happen when FFXI is ported to the 360.
"The revolution controller wont be enough for Nintendo to beat Sony or MS only a few games will use it as advertised still kids and non-regular gamers will go crazy with it."
You seem to forget something: "kids and non-regular gamers" >> "regular gamers." The first category is more commonly referred to as "normal people." Nintendo may not win the "hearts and minds" of the "regular gamers," but stuff aimed at "regular gamers" won't be picked up by peoples' grandmothers. The Revolution has the potential to reach this untapped market.
"Nintendo will keep pleasing fans but alienating third parties and the teen/mature market,"
So, how are PSP sales going compared to the DS and GBA?
Again, "non teen/'mature'" >> "teen/'mature'"
"the price will drop and a new version will be announced,"
If a new PSP has new capabilities that the original PSP cannot do, this will single-handedly kill the device. People buy consoles because they don't like having to read fine print on the packaging to make sure they have the right hardware to play the game. If this theoretical "PSP2" will do everything the PSP will do "and then some," nobody will write any software to take advantage of the "and then some" because not everybody will have it. Witness the Sega CD, the PS2 HDD, etc.
The GBA was a GCN controller even before we knew it was going to be called "GameCube." They built on their experiences in Japan with using a GBC as a controller for the N64.
"but as General Motors reminds us, size is no guarantee of survival. I suppose they have internal institutions that keep them nimble."
Yeah, I saw the news about General Motors while watching DirecTV*. Then a ditech.com commercial came on.
*Yes, I know they're now owned by News Corp, but I think my point still stands. Despite all the sound and the fury, I don't see GM going anywhere any time soon, at least not the executives. Labor, as always, is expendable for the sake of Wall Street.
"hint: gravity orbits may play a large role,"
Any race capable of serious interplanetary transport (let alone interstellar) isn't going to be that affected by gravity wells. The more you're affected by (or worse yet, rely upon) gravity, the less delta-v you must have and the more predictable your path will be. All your enemy has to do is put a chaff cloud on an intercept course with you, something to perforate your hull as you go through, and that ends that.
"being close in space may not mean you can reach each other to dock or shoot each other, what about each others speed?"
If you can't shoot at them, they can't shoot at you. If they actually want to do anything to you, they'll have to match velocity vectors with you sooner or later.
"what about each others speed?"
Your velocity vector isn't as important as your ability to alter it. A straight line is a straight line, the important part is your ability to deviate from that straight line, or else all your enemy has to do is put something in your way.
"In that sense there is some terain,"
Even if you are seriously affected by gravity wells such as those around planets (in which case, you're probably already screwed), the important part here is terrain's ability to mask your movement. Having to go around an obstacle isn't as harmful as your enemy seeing you go around said obstacle, seeing you manuever, seeing what acceleration your craft is capable of, and extrapolating your destination within a certain radius with the help of Galileo, or Newton at most.
You're assuming that maneuver technology will outstrip detection technology. Once you start talking about detection vs. interception, things can get easier or harder depending on the manuever and detection technologies in play. But assuming near-future technology, though you're playing with three-dimensional volumes, it is very, very hard to be undetected in space. Unlike the vagrancies of dealing with the atmosphere, you will stand out against a hard vacuum, something that's about as "black body" as you're going to get. You will reflect microwaves, you will give off heat, the only question is whether or not somebody is looking for you.
Once you're spotted, it's nothing but your delta-v against his, a classic battle of maneuver that even ancient, primitive humans like Sun-Tzu could tell you about.
Basically, the scenario you're talking about is similar to what happened in the US Civil War; with railroads, etc. allowing for rapid movement of forces, as fast or even faster than your scouts could report back enemy movements, battles tended to happen around fixed locations where the attacker wanted to go (otherwise something would have happened to the Army of Northern Virginia somewhere between Sharpsburg and Gettysburg). However, since then we've improved upon the hot air balloons used in the Civil War with radios, airplanes, and even satellites, all mitigating the advantages of hiding your movements behind terrain. Pearl Harbor happened only because nobody could see over the horizon at the time.
There is no terrain in space. You might gain some sort of surprise coming in with the sun at your back, but first you have to get to the sun undetected.
Disclaimer: I am the stereotypical Slashdotter.
"How can you go out with someone who has interests so different from your own?"
So long as we're just talking "interests," it shouldn't matter too much. Though I have precious little experience, I think the important part is how the personalities mesh, and the only really important shared interest is an interest in each other.
"I shit you not, some guy had to watch anime in secret because his wife would have thrown out the DVDs if she saw them."
See, this isn't "lack of shared interest," this is "domineering wife." His problem isn't that his wife isn't an otaku, his problem is that he's whipped.
"What kind of relationship is that?"
It's the one you end up in when you let yourself get too desperate. If you're just looking for "a woman, any woman," this is where you'll end up. I hear you shouldn't set your standards too high, but you should have some standards.
"But also remember, girls can't expect to be the only thing that gets attention from the guy."
Yeah, but some women are "high maintenance" and some are outright misandrists. There are women out there, like your previous example, who are of the opinion that men were put on this planet to fulfill their whims.
"Everybody get a life and don't be with incompatible people."
Define "life." Define "incompatible." I'm willing to bet the guy from your example is all too compatible with his wife.
"Without WoW, it would have been much harder to pin the blame on Warcraft because it's a strategy game, not role playing."
It was a heck of a lot more RPG than WarCraft II or StarCraft, what with the whole "heroes" mechanic and all.
"Jaci and Jake, who both attend Kansas State University, are a modern couple dealing with a modern issue. One of them is a gamer; the other is not."
"Jaci" and "Jake," hm? Guess which is the gamer!
"Theirs is not an unusual plight."
Around here it is. Actual dating?
"For decades gamers and non-gamers in love have struggled to find harmony."
Which decades, exactly? I'm pretty sure "gamer" = "single."
"At Kansas State the frustration is rampant."
What, the gamer guys have started to give themselves tennis elbow?
"Like most college campuses, it is a place where the release of Halo 2 last year was the best of times and the worst of times."
"The best of times?" Last I heard, it was a collective "What, that's it?"
"And while there is such a thing as couples in which both people are into games"
Yes, but are they both into video games?
"-- and while there are sometimes boyfriends who are the non-gamers --"
Where, San Francisco?
"the most frequent complaint involves game-crazy guys leaving their girlfriends out in the Xbox-free cold."
This confuses me. In order to leave one's girlfriend out in the cold, one must have a girlfriend to begin with.
Now that we've had this accurate portrayal of crime and gaming in Miami, I think now we can all understand where Miami-resident Jack Thompson is coming from!
"However, all his movies are highly dependent on manipulating his viewers' emotions into what he thinks they should feel and rarely do they engage the viewers' intellect."
So what you're saying is that Bruckheimer is the Acclaim of movies and television?
Seriously, it feels like it's time to whip out the overused "pot/kettle" metaphor.
"Some of us gamers actually do go on killing sprees , eat babies and Worship Satan whilst sacrificing virgins ."
This is Slashdot; we are the virgins.
"But the Cell will be used in a lot more than just the PS3."
Yeah yeah, and the PS2 can render Toy Story 2 in real time and they're justified in selling audio discs with rootkits.
Disraeli nees to be modified for the Twenty-First Century: There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and then Sony market-ese.