But why were these servers taken? What grounds did the government have to take them? What information was on them, or allegedly on them, so that was so sensitive to national security that they had to be confiscated? It's not rhetorical, I just want to know what the government said they were looking for.
I've read through all the prior articles and I can't seem to find that information-- all I can find is the legality/illegality of foreign countries (read: US) barging into other countries for 'national security'...
PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT MICHAEL BADNARIK/RICHARD V. CAMPAGNA . 1,828.28 GEORGE W. BUSH/DICK CHENEY (REP). . . 215,624 33.05 JOHN F. KERRY/JOHN EDWARDS (DEM). . . 433,262 66.41 CANDIDATE DISQUALIFIED . . . . . . 0 MICHAEL A. PEROUTKA/CHUCK BALDWIN . . 1,667.26
Adding up, we get 652,381 Total votes for president.
A difference of about 13,000 votes between ballots cast and COUNTED BALLOTS. So according to your measure, this means there are 13,000 want to choose one).
According to the linked page, the discrepancy of ballots to registered voters is 97,489 ballots.
So if we assume that ALL of the non-president votes were provisional ballots (thus why they are not in the COUNTED TOTALS there) there is still an overall discrepancy of ~84,000 ballots!
I don't think terrorist backing will help the Kerry campaign as much as bin Laden seems to think it will.
Maybe, just maybe... we've become so politically polarized that we associate anti-war, back off the Muslim assault and changing the policies with the Democrats and the opposite with the Republicans.
In actuality, no matter who gets elected, it isn't going to change. Listen to what they've both said-- both have promised to fight a "better" war on terror. No change in policy, no telling Israel to back off of Palestine, no repeal of the Patriot Act, or withdrawl of troops from anywhere. Just more bombs, more troops, more hunting down and killing of terrorists.
I'm no peacenick, and I'm a Kerry voter... but I'm just sayin'... we've created these false caricatures of each candiate, neither of which are true. Both are just promising more of the same, but going about it in a different way.
Yes, and when a person circled "Al Gore" or punched "Al Gore" twice, a Republican secretary of state said "Hmmm, I don't know who they want as president... disqualified."
Heavily Democrat, county government controlled by Democrats.
In a state controlled by Republicans who refuse to uphold the law and constitution for their own political gain-- by having a statewide recount as is mandated by Florida law.
The draft? Charlie Rangel (D) proposes it -- and they're still flogging the notion that it's Bush planning for a draft.
Then you please tell me... where is Bush going to get the troops? We are clearly not winning in Iraq. These people are not going to give up./Republican noise machine
You know, giving away access to legal file sharing networks probably would save the university money in the long run. For instance, I attend Villanova, a relatively small school, and we just had 9 kids sued for file sharing. I give the school credit, they refused to disclose the names of the IP addresses until they were subpoeaned and forced to do so, but now 9 of our students have to pay the RIAA a fine of $10,000.
I would imagine it'd be better for the schools to pay the money, give students free access to legal file sharing, and avoid the hassles of court and bad publicity.
Wouldn't it still be conscience since it's trying to, uhh, earn the most amount of money possible?
There's been an assumption that since communism failed, capitalism is triumphant
China isn't doing so badly. It seems most capitalistic societies are taking a more socialist turn - providing healhcare, welfare, education, etc. Seems capitalism sort of fused with the ideas of communism.
Rheingold is worried that established companies with business models that are threatened by these new technologies
Open source is superior to brand name any day. Linux > windows. Firefox > IE. However, the latter both dominate the market, but Linux and Mozilla still have their fair share. Open source is the only example of REAL capitalism - since it's based on rugged individualism and can compete with huge corperations. That being said, it also forces big companies to innovate their software. You can bet that IE 7 will closely resemble FireFox.
quash such nascent innovations as file-sharing -- and potentially put the U.S. at risk of falling behind the rest of the world.'"
That is a fairly valid assumption, however, file sharing seems to be as rampant as ever. Kazaa, Ares, Gnucleus, eMule... if you want it, it's out there.
Case in point, desire for profit still does give companies incentive to improve upon existing models. The best thing that has ever happened to big corperations was open source - free, creative innovations which they can utilize in their up and coming products. Most of it was way too technologically advanced for the average user (try and explain to your parents how and why you need a 3 partition drive to have Linux and Windows).
I'm all for freedom of privacy and not humiliating people... but c'mon, what about COPS? They feature criminals kicking, screaming, and drunkenly making themselves look like idiots on national television! Even if they give their consent to have it played on TV, it seems like most of them are too out of it to know what's going on...
What I'm wondering is if Bush gets reelected, can they can use the "Patriot Act" to catch file swappers? One of the major points in the "State of the Union" address was renewing the Patriot Act. It'd be pretty easy for the RIAA to manipulate it to catch file sharers, though it's obviously doesn't uphold the "spirit of the law".
Sounds like things are going to get worse before they get better...
The actions of the military consist of the murder of men, women, and children. You can say it was "collateral damage" or "during war", but that doesn't change the fact that murder is murder.
Oh yeah? Which military? Have our enemies been as humane as the United States military? I think not. Our enemies have been the ones using underhanded tactics, torture, the muder of civilians and innocents. They dress military personal as civilians, torture and starve prisoners, throw the Geneva Convention out the window, and I can promise you, would not hesitate to kill American women and children.
Hitler, WWII: Caused by the short-sighted and ignorant actions of the victors of WWI. WWII was made inevitable by the politicians who set up the treaty after WWI.
And how would you have resolved it? Regardless of why it happened, it did. Adolf Hilter murdered and tortured millions of innocent men and women. What do you suggest should have been done? "Well, Mr. Hitler, we should have resolved World War I a little bit better... so I guess it's our fault." World War I was resolved in a way that everyone thought was best at the time. No one could predict that Germany would rise up and start murdering Jews. Hitler was an evil man, and the US was heroic in overthrowing him. We could have easily spared all of the American lives and said "You know what, it's just not worth it", but we're a good nation of good people. We try and fight for what is right.
Somalians starving: I don't see how the plight of starving people can be solved by murder. In fact, pretty much all starvation and other miseries of the world are caused by The State.
No, not by murder. We sent in PEACEKEEPING FORCES to try and stop the militias from taking all of the humanitarian aid. Simply put, the UN would hand out food and supplies, and the warlords would come in and take everything. We had nothing economic to gain from Somalia, we were just trying to do what was right. The militias were doing the murdering, that is what we were trying to stop. Once again, we could have saved the time, money, and American lives, but we tried to do what was right.
Taliban, Afghanistan, WTC, and terrorists: The US is only a target of terrorism because of our imperialistic invasion in everyone else' business. Fanatical religious nutcases wouldn't give a shit about the US if we weren't interfering in everyone else's business.
No, actually, fundamental Islam would have the entire world ruled by an Islamic theocracy. Talk about trying to push beliefs on people, they're 20x worse than the US, they're just not as large. Our culture is spreading and they hate us for it. What's even funnier is we let muslims come here and study, take advantage of our wealth and education, regardless of their creed and background. Our enemies aren't nearly as generous. We overthrow their oppressive governments and try and install something better. Reverse the situation, see what would happen if they overthrew the United States. We'd be living in a world I'm sure you wouldn't be too pleased with.
The solution is not for these various power-blocks to demolish eachother and murder the opposing State's citizens, but to eliminate The State.
Worst theory EVER. There will always be some form of "The State", because as soon as it becomes abolished, someone with power will reestablish it. Would you rather have people like Saddam Hussein ruling or ascend to power? Perhaps Osama Bin Laden? As flawed as it is, our "The State" is the best one in place. Pacifism, anarchy, all of it sounds beautiful in theory but it doesn't work, plain and simple.
I am disgusted at how little credit people give the United States and it's military. Sometimes, we fuck up. We're a little arrogant. But dammit, we have helped more nations, rebuilt more cities, given out more foreign aid, and sacrificed more lives for the good of the world than anyone else. Often times it was for the sake
No, thats a horrible idea. Then big business essentially gets to do whatever it wants.
Libertarianism sounds great at first, a world where you can do what you want and nobody bugs you, but in actuality, then big business can be as large as it wants, do as it pleases, in a world where they aren't bugged. Philosophically, its close to exstentialism, which any philosopher knows is clearly incorrect and flawed.
C'mon now, especially here on/., lets let Microsoft just fuck everyone as hard as they can, because it's their "right". At least we have some safeguards in place to keep them from taking over.
The only thing Libertarianism says is this: "Me me me me me me me! Fuck everyone else! Fuck helping other nations! Me!"
The war in Iraq was about one thing at the beginning. WMD. Afterwards, when Bush and his puppy couldn't get the support of the UN
Yes, it was about WOMDs. Though they haven't been found yet, would you rather Saddam Hussein stay in power? Regardless what the war was about, getting him out of power was beneficial for the entire global community, including Iraq. The time for talk and half measures was over, Hussein had clearly violated UN resolutions.
I see your president as a new Hitler
Oh really? And the United States as Nazi Germany? You forget that we give more to the global community, rebuild more countries, and let more immigrants take advantage of our wealth than any other country. I doubt your government is so generous (both Greek and Portugese). It seems no matter how much the United States does, it's never enough to satisfy everyone.
what I am doing my dear friend is making people realise that Iraq was the same as Poland but NOBODY GAVE A FUCK this time
So Poland was run by one of the most bloodthirsty dictators ever to live, invaded Kuwait, and promoted violence against foreigners? Poland dumped oil into the ocean? Are you kidding me? Iraq was not an innocent nation, nor was Hussein an innocent man. If you really promote human rights, why would you want that man in power and continue to let him continue to commit attrocities against his own people?
But the tide is turning, and your president WILL face the question come election day 2004.
The Iraqi government didn't have this option until now. Instead, they were stuck under a brutal madman until he died or was killed. Now they'll get to choose their leadership as well. Democracy is a beautiful thing.
YOUR GOVERNMENT DIRECTLY financed the Taliban and provided diplomatic cover for them.
We've made mistakes, but they've been rectified through the blood, sweat, and tears of our soldiers. Not protestors, not poets, not artists, not bloggers... soldiers.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
-Edmund Burke
Either way, regardless of your views, you've done nothing but complain... your apathy to both sides amuses me. "I think both sides are wrong, so instead of doing something about it either way, I'll just be cynical". You may disagree with my standpoint, but like it or not, at least I've done something proactive about it.
As for Vietnam, all cadets and junior officers study it extensively so that the mistakes are never again repeated. You, on the other hand, never having seen war, never having one of your buddies shot, never having to speculate if that is a civilian or a soldier dressed as a civilian, have no idea what soldiers in Vietnam were dealing with, and have no viable leg to stand on arguing their actions. Lack of action, lack of insight, you appear to have both.
Go post in your news groups, wear anti-war pins, listen to punk rock, be anti-military, protest, and post your rants on your website. I don't care. Just know this:
"It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."
-Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, Sergeant, USMC
All of the freedoms you enjoy were paid for in blood by soldiers.
I didn't ask where the United Nations was, I asked where were you. Where were you specifically? Probably sitting at home watching the events unfold, playing no part.
You know, as military personal, I can honestly say, you people do a lot of talk, but I don't see a lot of action.
Where were you when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Or when the Kosovars were getting massacred by Bosnians? When Hilter invaded? What were you doing while Somalians were starving? Or when the Taliban had Afghanistan under it's terroristic grip? When two planes crashed in the World Trade Center, what were you doing?
I hear a lot of talk from a lot of people. But never any action.
Final Fantasy XI is just so damn appealing it's insane. It appeals to people who enjoy the whole Final Fantasy world, n00bs to MMORPG's who find the familiar world and easy to use interface a breath of fresh air, and hardcore gamers looking for a new experience in a world that's already very developed.
I tried to jump on the whole "Everquest" boat a few years ago, but found it was too complex and annoying. I kept falling in what appeared to be puddles and drowning. The whole "Everquest" world was unfamiliar and kind of overwhelming, so I decided MMORPG's weren't for me. I never even made it out of the first town. Being reared of games like "Exitilus" and "Legend of the Red Dragon", the idea of an MMORPG was very appealing, but I figured they were too complex and annoying, and required too much time for someone like myself to get into.
Until, of course, Final Fantasy XI. Within a week, I have a level 10 warrior doing things like joining parties, slaying monsters, making gil, and chatting it up. It was so easy to become part of the 'community' and do basic easy things. It's literally like playing Final Fantasy, except with a bunch of other people and a slower leveling up process. There are story based missions, lots of NPCs, familiar characters... the list goes on. I feel like I've been playing for months, hell, I even help n00bs out when I can.
5 other people in my hall have decided to give it a try, because it looks so easy to get into. 3 of them have played Final Fantasy prior to XI, and the other two just think it 'looks really fun'. It lacks that 'overhwhelming feel' you get from other MMORPGs, the interface is so friendly and familiar, yet in reality, complex and effective.
Final Fantasy XI has been the best investment I've put into a video game in years. I highly recomend anyone reading this try it. And look for Dyrian.;)
"Alright, so I'm playing Final Fantasy X, and I decide I hate Wakka so I want to slaughter him, roash him over a fire until he's nothing but charred ashes, and then use him as a toilet. Can I do that in the game? NO! I do need to make on correction, when I say "pen & paper" I'm refering to the actual system used, because you can use a pen & paper rpg system through other mediums, but it's still the same system used"
Though that paragraph is incoherent, I belive what you're trying to say is 'you can't roast Wakka in FFX but you could do it in paper D&D'. Thats fine, but just as digital games limit you in some way shape or form, so does paper D&D. If the dungeon master says 'no you can't do that...' then you can't. You're limited in both mediums, but limited by different things. One can think of the design and the story to be the 'dungeon master' of the game. Just as your DM limits you, so do a game's designers.
Instead of trying to offer examples of why I'm wrong, try actually argueing a counter-point. If I'm wrong about the traits of RPGs, then name another trait that when put into the "RPG" definition, doesn't break the games currently labeled as an RPG.
I did. You obviously didn't read. I said 'story driven games that aren't centered around action'.
You can't define a genre on a storyline. Take a look at Halo, you've got a backstory, progressive in-game quest, an epilogue, and character interaction/building, does that make it an RPG? No, it's a first person shooter because you use the game engine of a first person shooter!
Yawn. Sigh. What i said its an RPG is a game where the focus is on the storyline, not the action. Halo's action is on the action, NOT the storyline.
Character growth is not a huge factor in pen & paper systems.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever played paper D&D? Why do you think there's so many classes with so many different requirements? Prestige classes? The whole damn game is centered around character growth.
How do you improve your pick pocket skill in real life? You work at it with practice and exercises. How do you do it in a game other than a pen & paper? Kill monsters.
First off that depends on the game. If you repeated a task over and over again in Secret of Mana, you'd get better at it. In pen and paper D&D, you by, uhh, yes, killing monsters and distributing the skill points properly. In Final Fantasy XI, you get better at tasks by performing them.
Concluding, I don't think you can effectively argue that RPG's are based upon character growth, nor can you argue that pen and paper is the only format which one can roleplay. Story and character development are the main focus of an RPG, and can be effectively done in any medium.
So, uhh, basically what they're saying is in about a year i'm going to have to purchase a Playstation 3, a Gamecircle, an XBox2, and upgrade my graphics card/processor to keep current with the video game market.
Between owning 3 PCs, an Atari 2600/7800, NES, SNES, Genesis, SegaCD, Dreamcast, a PS, PS2, a Gamecube, and tons and tons of games over the last few years, I can honestly say this hobby is more expensive than a crack addiction...
"For a good story, you are usually better off reading a book or watching a movie. Some RPGs have great storylines, but few can compete with the best that the silver screen has to offer, and most RPGs are downright tedious and redundant compared to film"
Are you kidding me? Hello! Final Fantasy (you ALL freaked when Aries died)! Xenogears! Tactics Ogre! FF Tactics! Xenosaga! Compared to the tripe out in the movies?! I find that 99% of the time, video games plots are better and have more developed characters than most of the crap in the theater. Plus, since you develop your characters and watch them grow, you feel closer to them than some lame actor.
If you want an intense half hour of strategic combat, any number of current real-time strategy games will deliver a better fix
Uhh, some of the most 'intense' battles I've ever played through were in Final Fantasy 2 and 3. Utilizing all your techniques, casting spells like "reflect" on your enemies and then reflecting "heal" spells on yourself, there is a ton of strategy required in text based RPGs.
The best examples of RPG improvements are seen in Freedom Force and Star Wars: KOTOR. In both of these games, if one of your party members reaches zero health, he is just knocked out of the fight, not killed outright.
I think the ONLY game I've ever played where characters die outright was "Tactics Ogre". Your characaters usually affect the story too much to "die" for good. so if they do its usually built into the story, and not from melee combat. Frankly, I think it was awesome that in Tactics Ogre characters could die outright because it would affect the storyline. Has this idiot ever played an RPG? Can Tidus "die" in FFX?
Hybrid RPGs are popping up everywhere. Game developers are starting to realize that almost every game can include and would benefit from RPG elements. Maybe Grand Theft Auto IV will give you the choice between improving your outlaw's shooting skills or his driving skills. It's just a matter of time.
I think it's more that people enjoy RPGs, particularly the element that you can start with a weak character and develop him/her. They give you much more of a sense of accomplishment than running around and shooting stuff. Don't get me wrong, FPSs can be fun, but there's no genre that gives you more satisfaction than an RPG. You start with a weak group of adventurers and develop them into something awesome. On top of that, MMORPGs are taking RPG gaming to the next, quite possibly most intense level ever. Hell, they even put disclaimers on them saying they're "extremely addictive"! Has anyone ever committed suicide over an FPS or a RTS? RPGs can be REALLY intense.
RPGs are so satisfying and such an effective genre that other genre's are starting to borrow from them, not the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
It appears that democracy, however, is not a "feature" of these machines...
But why were these servers taken? What grounds did the government have to take them? What information was on them, or allegedly on them, so that was so sensitive to national security that they had to be confiscated? It's not rhetorical, I just want to know what the government said they were looking for.
I've read through all the prior articles and I can't seem to find that information-- all I can find is the legality/illegality of foreign countries (read: US) barging into other countries for 'national security'...
Found here
.28 .26
BALLOTS CAST TOTAL . . . . . . . 665,334
PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT
MICHAEL BADNARIK/RICHARD V. CAMPAGNA . 1,828
GEORGE W. BUSH/DICK CHENEY (REP). . . 215,624 33.05
JOHN F. KERRY/JOHN EDWARDS (DEM). . . 433,262 66.41
CANDIDATE DISQUALIFIED . . . . . . 0
MICHAEL A. PEROUTKA/CHUCK BALDWIN . . 1,667
Adding up, we get
652,381 Total votes for president.
A difference of about 13,000 votes between ballots cast and COUNTED BALLOTS. So according to your measure, this means there are 13,000 want to choose one).
According to the linked page, the discrepancy of ballots to registered voters is 97,489 ballots.
So if we assume that ALL of the non-president votes were provisional ballots (thus why they are not in the COUNTED TOTALS there) there is still an overall discrepancy of ~84,000 ballots!
Can you explain this?
You mean the same CNN who is reporting this?
Or perhaps the San Fransisco gate reporting it.
Maybe Yahoo New's report?
C'mon man, turn on the TV... normally I'd say just because it's not in the mainstream media doesn't mean it's not true. But this time it is...
Suddenly, this video isn't so funny anymore...
I don't think terrorist backing will help the Kerry campaign as much as bin Laden seems to think it will.
Maybe, just maybe... we've become so politically polarized that we associate anti-war, back off the Muslim assault and changing the policies with the Democrats and the opposite with the Republicans.
In actuality, no matter who gets elected, it isn't going to change. Listen to what they've both said-- both have promised to fight a "better" war on terror. No change in policy, no telling Israel to back off of Palestine, no repeal of the Patriot Act, or withdrawl of troops from anywhere. Just more bombs, more troops, more hunting down and killing of terrorists.
I'm no peacenick, and I'm a Kerry voter... but I'm just sayin'... we've created these false caricatures of each candiate, neither of which are true. Both are just promising more of the same, but going about it in a different way.
They're resending the ballots, check it out.
Right here
A Democrat County Clerk designed it.
/Republican noise machine
Yes, and when a person circled "Al Gore" or punched "Al Gore" twice, a Republican secretary of state said "Hmmm, I don't know who they want as president... disqualified."
Heavily Democrat, county government controlled by Democrats.
In a state controlled by Republicans who refuse to uphold the law and constitution for their own political gain-- by having a statewide recount as is mandated by Florida law.
The draft? Charlie Rangel (D) proposes it -- and they're still flogging the notion that it's Bush planning for a draft.
Then you please tell me... where is Bush going to get the troops? We are clearly not winning in Iraq. These people are not going to give up.
You know, giving away access to legal file sharing networks probably would save the university money in the long run. For instance, I attend Villanova, a relatively small school, and we just had 9 kids sued for file sharing. I give the school credit, they refused to disclose the names of the IP addresses until they were subpoeaned and forced to do so, but now 9 of our students have to pay the RIAA a fine of $10,000.
I would imagine it'd be better for the schools to pay the money, give students free access to legal file sharing, and avoid the hassles of court and bad publicity.
'unconscious cooperation'
Wouldn't it still be conscience since it's trying to, uhh, earn the most amount of money possible?
There's been an assumption that since communism failed, capitalism is triumphant
China isn't doing so badly. It seems most capitalistic societies are taking a more socialist turn - providing healhcare, welfare, education, etc. Seems capitalism sort of fused with the ideas of communism.
Rheingold is worried that established companies with business models that are threatened by these new technologies
Open source is superior to brand name any day. Linux > windows. Firefox > IE. However, the latter both dominate the market, but Linux and Mozilla still have their fair share. Open source is the only example of REAL capitalism - since it's based on rugged individualism and can compete with huge corperations. That being said, it also forces big companies to innovate their software. You can bet that IE 7 will closely resemble FireFox.
quash such nascent innovations as file-sharing -- and potentially put the U.S. at risk of falling behind the rest of the world.'"
That is a fairly valid assumption, however, file sharing seems to be as rampant as ever. Kazaa, Ares, Gnucleus, eMule... if you want it, it's out there.
Case in point, desire for profit still does give companies incentive to improve upon existing models. The best thing that has ever happened to big corperations was open source - free, creative innovations which they can utilize in their up and coming products. Most of it was way too technologically advanced for the average user (try and explain to your parents how and why you need a 3 partition drive to have Linux and Windows).
I'm all for freedom of privacy and not humiliating people... but c'mon, what about COPS? They feature criminals kicking, screaming, and drunkenly making themselves look like idiots on national television! Even if they give their consent to have it played on TV, it seems like most of them are too out of it to know what's going on...
"we're also seeking ideas that will make Firefox 2.0 blow every other browser out of the water."
The competition: Internet Explorer, Netscape, Lynx, and Safari.
I'd say it's already pretty much covered...
(love my FireFox)
Just like buying the actual CD is a very important aspect of aquiring music, right?
What I'm wondering is if Bush gets reelected, can they can use the "Patriot Act" to catch file swappers? One of the major points in the "State of the Union" address was renewing the Patriot Act. It'd be pretty easy for the RIAA to manipulate it to catch file sharers, though it's obviously doesn't uphold the "spirit of the law".
Sounds like things are going to get worse before they get better...
The actions of the military consist of the murder of men, women, and children. You can say it was "collateral damage" or "during war", but that doesn't change the fact that murder is murder.
Oh yeah? Which military? Have our enemies been as humane as the United States military? I think not. Our enemies have been the ones using underhanded tactics, torture, the muder of civilians and innocents. They dress military personal as civilians, torture and starve prisoners, throw the Geneva Convention out the window, and I can promise you, would not hesitate to kill American women and children.
Hitler, WWII: Caused by the short-sighted and ignorant actions of the victors of WWI. WWII was made inevitable by the politicians who set up the treaty after WWI.
And how would you have resolved it? Regardless of why it happened, it did. Adolf Hilter murdered and tortured millions of innocent men and women. What do you suggest should have been done? "Well, Mr. Hitler, we should have resolved World War I a little bit better... so I guess it's our fault." World War I was resolved in a way that everyone thought was best at the time. No one could predict that Germany would rise up and start murdering Jews. Hitler was an evil man, and the US was heroic in overthrowing him. We could have easily spared all of the American lives and said "You know what, it's just not worth it", but we're a good nation of good people. We try and fight for what is right.
Somalians starving: I don't see how the plight of starving people can be solved by murder. In fact, pretty much all starvation and other miseries of the world are caused by The State.
No, not by murder. We sent in PEACEKEEPING FORCES to try and stop the militias from taking all of the humanitarian aid. Simply put, the UN would hand out food and supplies, and the warlords would come in and take everything. We had nothing economic to gain from Somalia, we were just trying to do what was right. The militias were doing the murdering, that is what we were trying to stop. Once again, we could have saved the time, money, and American lives, but we tried to do what was right.
Taliban, Afghanistan, WTC, and terrorists: The US is only a target of terrorism because of our imperialistic invasion in everyone else' business. Fanatical religious nutcases wouldn't give a shit about the US if we weren't interfering in everyone else's business.
No, actually, fundamental Islam would have the entire world ruled by an Islamic theocracy. Talk about trying to push beliefs on people, they're 20x worse than the US, they're just not as large. Our culture is spreading and they hate us for it. What's even funnier is we let muslims come here and study, take advantage of our wealth and education, regardless of their creed and background. Our enemies aren't nearly as generous. We overthrow their oppressive governments and try and install something better. Reverse the situation, see what would happen if they overthrew the United States. We'd be living in a world I'm sure you wouldn't be too pleased with.
The solution is not for these various power-blocks to demolish eachother and murder the opposing State's citizens, but to eliminate The State.
Worst theory EVER. There will always be some form of "The State", because as soon as it becomes abolished, someone with power will reestablish it. Would you rather have people like Saddam Hussein ruling or ascend to power? Perhaps Osama Bin Laden? As flawed as it is, our "The State" is the best one in place. Pacifism, anarchy, all of it sounds beautiful in theory but it doesn't work, plain and simple.
I am disgusted at how little credit people give the United States and it's military. Sometimes, we fuck up. We're a little arrogant. But dammit, we have helped more nations, rebuilt more cities, given out more foreign aid, and sacrificed more lives for the good of the world than anyone else. Often times it was for the sake
No, thats a horrible idea. Then big business essentially gets to do whatever it wants.
/., lets let Microsoft just fuck everyone as hard as they can, because it's their "right". At least we have some safeguards in place to keep them from taking over.
Libertarianism sounds great at first, a world where you can do what you want and nobody bugs you, but in actuality, then big business can be as large as it wants, do as it pleases, in a world where they aren't bugged.
Philosophically, its close to exstentialism, which any philosopher knows is clearly incorrect and flawed.
C'mon now, especially here on
The only thing Libertarianism says is this: "Me me me me me me me! Fuck everyone else! Fuck helping other nations! Me!"
Disgusting.
Oh, and what is better? Dictatorship? Monarchy? Communism?
The war in Iraq was about one thing at the beginning. WMD. Afterwards, when Bush and his puppy couldn't get the support of the UN
Yes, it was about WOMDs. Though they haven't been found yet, would you rather Saddam Hussein stay in power? Regardless what the war was about, getting him out of power was beneficial for the entire global community, including Iraq. The time for talk and half measures was over, Hussein had clearly violated UN resolutions.
I see your president as a new Hitler
Oh really? And the United States as Nazi Germany? You forget that we give more to the global community, rebuild more countries, and let more immigrants take advantage of our wealth than any other country. I doubt your government is so generous (both Greek and Portugese). It seems no matter how much the United States does, it's never enough to satisfy everyone.
what I am doing my dear friend is making people realise that Iraq was the same as Poland but NOBODY GAVE A FUCK this time
So Poland was run by one of the most bloodthirsty dictators ever to live, invaded Kuwait, and promoted violence against foreigners? Poland dumped oil into the ocean? Are you kidding me? Iraq was not an innocent nation, nor was Hussein an innocent man. If you really promote human rights, why would you want that man in power and continue to let him continue to commit attrocities against his own people?
But the tide is turning, and your president WILL face the question come election day 2004.
The Iraqi government didn't have this option until now. Instead, they were stuck under a brutal madman until he died or was killed. Now they'll get to choose their leadership as well. Democracy is a beautiful thing.
YOUR GOVERNMENT DIRECTLY financed the Taliban and provided diplomatic cover for them.
We've made mistakes, but they've been rectified through the blood, sweat, and tears of our soldiers. Not protestors, not poets, not artists, not bloggers... soldiers.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
-Edmund Burke
Either way, regardless of your views, you've done nothing but complain... your apathy to both sides amuses me. "I think both sides are wrong, so instead of doing something about it either way, I'll just be cynical". You may disagree with my standpoint, but like it or not, at least I've done something proactive about it.
As for Vietnam, all cadets and junior officers study it extensively so that the mistakes are never again repeated. You, on the other hand, never having seen war, never having one of your buddies shot, never having to speculate if that is a civilian or a soldier dressed as a civilian, have no idea what soldiers in Vietnam were dealing with, and have no viable leg to stand on arguing their actions. Lack of action, lack of insight, you appear to have both.
Go post in your news groups, wear anti-war pins, listen to punk rock, be anti-military, protest, and post your rants on your website. I don't care. Just know this:
"It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."
-Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, Sergeant, USMC
All of the freedoms you enjoy were paid for in blood by soldiers.
I didn't ask where the United Nations was, I asked where were you. Where were you specifically? Probably sitting at home watching the events unfold, playing no part.
You know, as military personal, I can honestly say, you people do a lot of talk, but I don't see a lot of action.
Where were you when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Or when the Kosovars were getting massacred by Bosnians? When Hilter invaded? What were you doing while Somalians were starving? Or when the Taliban had Afghanistan under it's terroristic grip? When two planes crashed in the World Trade Center, what were you doing?
I hear a lot of talk from a lot of people. But never any action.
Final Fantasy XI is just so damn appealing it's insane. It appeals to people who enjoy the whole Final Fantasy world, n00bs to MMORPG's who find the familiar world and easy to use interface a breath of fresh air, and hardcore gamers looking for a new experience in a world that's already very developed.
;)
I tried to jump on the whole "Everquest" boat a few years ago, but found it was too complex and annoying. I kept falling in what appeared to be puddles and drowning. The whole "Everquest" world was unfamiliar and kind of overwhelming, so I decided MMORPG's weren't for me. I never even made it out of the first town. Being reared of games like "Exitilus" and "Legend of the Red Dragon", the idea of an MMORPG was very appealing, but I figured they were too complex and annoying, and required too much time for someone like myself to get into.
Until, of course, Final Fantasy XI. Within a week, I have a level 10 warrior doing things like joining parties, slaying monsters, making gil, and chatting it up. It was so easy to become part of the 'community' and do basic easy things. It's literally like playing Final Fantasy, except with a bunch of other people and a slower leveling up process. There are story based missions, lots of NPCs, familiar characters... the list goes on. I feel like I've been playing for months, hell, I even help n00bs out when I can.
5 other people in my hall have decided to give it a try, because it looks so easy to get into. 3 of them have played Final Fantasy prior to XI, and the other two just think it 'looks really fun'. It lacks that 'overhwhelming feel' you get from other MMORPGs, the interface is so friendly and familiar, yet in reality, complex and effective.
Final Fantasy XI has been the best investment I've put into a video game in years. I highly recomend anyone reading this try it. And look for Dyrian.
"Alright, so I'm playing Final Fantasy X, and I decide I hate Wakka so I want to slaughter him, roash him over a fire until he's nothing but charred ashes, and then use him as a toilet. Can I do that in the game? NO! I do need to make on correction, when I say "pen & paper" I'm refering to the actual system used, because you can use a pen & paper rpg system through other mediums, but it's still the same system used"
Though that paragraph is incoherent, I belive what you're trying to say is 'you can't roast Wakka in FFX but you could do it in paper D&D'. Thats fine, but just as digital games limit you in some way shape or form, so does paper D&D. If the dungeon master says 'no you can't do that...' then you can't. You're limited in both mediums, but limited by different things. One can think of the design and the story to be the 'dungeon master' of the game. Just as your DM limits you, so do a game's designers.
Instead of trying to offer examples of why I'm wrong, try actually argueing a counter-point. If I'm wrong about the traits of RPGs, then name another trait that when put into the "RPG" definition, doesn't break the games currently labeled as an RPG.
I did. You obviously didn't read. I said 'story driven games that aren't centered around action'.
You can't define a genre on a storyline. Take a look at Halo, you've got a backstory, progressive in-game quest, an epilogue, and character interaction/building, does that make it an RPG? No, it's a first person shooter because you use the game engine of a first person shooter!
Yawn. Sigh. What i said its an RPG is a game where the focus is on the storyline, not the action. Halo's action is on the action, NOT the storyline.
Character growth is not a huge factor in pen & paper systems.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever played paper D&D? Why do you think there's so many classes with so many different requirements? Prestige classes? The whole damn game is centered around character growth.
How do you improve your pick pocket skill in real life? You work at it with practice and exercises. How do you do it in a game other than a pen & paper? Kill monsters.
First off that depends on the game. If you repeated a task over and over again in Secret of Mana, you'd get better at it. In pen and paper D&D, you by, uhh, yes, killing monsters and distributing the skill points properly. In Final Fantasy XI, you get better at tasks by performing them.
Concluding, I don't think you can effectively argue that RPG's are based upon character growth, nor can you argue that pen and paper is the only format which one can roleplay. Story and character development are the main focus of an RPG, and can be effectively done in any medium.
So, uhh, basically what they're saying is in about a year i'm going to have to purchase a Playstation 3, a Gamecircle, an XBox2, and upgrade my graphics card/processor to keep current with the video game market.
Between owning 3 PCs, an Atari 2600/7800, NES, SNES, Genesis, SegaCD, Dreamcast, a PS, PS2, a Gamecube, and tons and tons of games over the last few years, I can honestly say this hobby is more expensive than a crack addiction...
"For a good story, you are usually better off reading a book or watching a movie. Some RPGs have great storylines, but few can compete with the best that the silver screen has to offer, and most RPGs are downright tedious and redundant compared to film"
Are you kidding me? Hello! Final Fantasy (you ALL freaked when Aries died)! Xenogears! Tactics Ogre! FF Tactics! Xenosaga! Compared to the tripe out in the movies?! I find that 99% of the time, video games plots are better and have more developed characters than most of the crap in the theater. Plus, since you develop your characters and watch them grow, you feel closer to them than some lame actor.
If you want an intense half hour of strategic combat, any number of current real-time strategy games will deliver a better fix
Uhh, some of the most 'intense' battles I've ever played through were in Final Fantasy 2 and 3. Utilizing all your techniques, casting spells like "reflect" on your enemies and then reflecting "heal" spells on yourself, there is a ton of strategy required in text based RPGs.
The best examples of RPG improvements are seen in Freedom Force and Star Wars: KOTOR. In both of these games, if one of your party members reaches zero health, he is just knocked out of the fight, not killed outright.
I think the ONLY game I've ever played where characters die outright was "Tactics Ogre". Your characaters usually affect the story too much to "die" for good. so if they do its usually built into the story, and not from melee combat.
Frankly, I think it was awesome that in Tactics Ogre characters could die outright because it would affect the storyline. Has this idiot ever played an RPG? Can Tidus "die" in FFX?
Hybrid RPGs are popping up everywhere. Game developers are starting to realize that almost every game can include and would benefit from RPG elements. Maybe Grand Theft Auto IV will give you the choice between improving your outlaw's shooting skills or his driving skills. It's just a matter of time.
I think it's more that people enjoy RPGs, particularly the element that you can start with a weak character and develop him/her. They give you much more of a sense of accomplishment than running around and shooting stuff. Don't get me wrong, FPSs can be fun, but there's no genre that gives you more satisfaction than an RPG. You start with a weak group of adventurers and develop them into something awesome. On top of that, MMORPGs are taking RPG gaming to the next, quite possibly most intense level ever. Hell, they even put disclaimers on them saying they're "extremely addictive"! Has anyone ever committed suicide over an FPS or a RTS? RPGs can be REALLY intense.
RPGs are so satisfying and such an effective genre that other genre's are starting to borrow from them, not the other way around.
This author has obviously never played an RPG...