Intel apparently sees a commercial profit in something like this. I happen to agree - it's basically what I've been looking for in a computer for years.
If 3rd world countries want their own computers, they should build the infrastructure to have a use for them, not expect 1st world countries (that is, the US) to come up ways for them to use inexpensive computers. We're doing them a disservice anyway - they need things like domestically-initiated agriculture, industry, and commerce, not more handouts.
It's warm-hearted, half-brained things like what OLPC is doing which leads to 3rd world countries like Nigeria: the only thing they use technology for is to gain access to richer, more affluent societies and prey off their gullible, warm-hearted people more thoroughly.
- if it's just hitting upon spam, no harm, no foul (I guess) - however, if the ng's actual content is triggering the filter, it would seem fairly evident to be the cause
the problem, of course, that google isn't coming to terms with the newsgroup people and telling them what was violated, so they are free to postulate it to be persecution - or not. i imagine any decision the ng people make would be based on the quanitty of spam on the ng.
My brothre is in China, currently, and we've talked about this. Our concensus is that the Chinese Wikipedia censors pretty much anything pertaining to freedom, democracy, and the political history of the West - specifically, the US.
And if he were to run against Hillary, he'd really shine. She's got all the charm of last week's leftover cod and liver casserole; not even a fraction of what Gates has.
I'm sorry to say that I think he'd beat Hillary hands down. He certainly beats the tar out of her as a humanitarian, what with all the money he's donated there.
Frankly, I don't want to think about such a sitation. It's terrifying.
I would want to live in the world where I can change my destiny, with as little meddling from those around me as possible. It's more likely you'll end up at the bottom or even lower-middle than above that, given distributions.
The book of Job talks about such things, if I recall correctly. It's also in several other parts of the Bible, IIRC. Other cultures also have records (either written or word of mouth) of dinosaur-like creatures. What do you think dragons are? Surely dragons did not come about in European folklore due to Asian influence, long before such influence was likely.
Which is more probable: that these "folklore stories" are latent 'whatever' from our evolutionary history as small primates (hunted by large dinos), or that they're a cultural record of something that previously existed and does no longer? You'd think we'd have the same historical memory of, say, being apes or lemmings or whatever, too, and that there'd be large predatory mammals which have been immortalized in our psyche, if they were indeed a problem to our ancestors. I know of no other animal/creature which has been so consistently remembered amongst different cultures.
Ask yourself this: 30 years ago, or even 10 or 20, would it have been a sign of a well-adjusted and "reality based" person to spend an afternoon or more waiting in line for a game system - and then doing it every 2 or three years well into their adulthood?
THe only example I can think of would be Star Wars, and that was a culturally revolutionary event in many respects. With gamers, it's become soemthing akin to an annual holiday, performed out of ritual - for the sake of entertainment.
I want to address each of your items, but in reverse order.
First, vocations: ok. But, which vocation? There are plenty of people who work vocational jobs. Nurses, mechanics, IT, draftsmen, game testers - the list is pretty long and quite varied. Why don't people want to take these jobs? Well, namely, because they don't pay well enough to do much more than work, have kids, and die before you're rich enough to consider taking retirement (due to hard work). You're paid just enough to get you out of the 'poor' tax bracket, but not enough to eat better than the cheap meats at the grocery with canned veggies (if you've got the time for that - you're working 60 hours at the shop to make ends meet, afterall). And, there are a lot of reasons why these fields are becoming less appealing (not the least of which is the cost of overhead - mechanics usually own something like $50k in tools, each, which they have to furnish for themselves. just to name one field.)
Also, there simply aren't all that many 'vocational' jobs anymore. It takes less people to do the same job it did years ago in quite a few fields. draftsmen, 'laborers', IT, mechanics, and many other fields have all been made more 'efficient' in various ways (let's not get into the specifics, please). Not everyone can be an innovator, so you're left with two options if you follow the current course to its ultimate (one of three) conclusion: 1) a select few members of society maintain things (meaning everything), while the majority of mediocre and unmotivated people live off of hand-outs (because the society is really efficient that 10% can supply all the needs and desires for the other 90%) - don't ask me how this one would work 2) society collapses under the strain of people unable to find jobs they can do (not the course I'd prefer, but the one I see happening - see: Europe) but willing, 3) or there needs to be some re-balancing of the equation with more tasks reverting to manual trade skill execution instead of mechanical (something I can not see happening willingly, but being forced by a change in the supply of resources, such as oil)....
Moving on: Schooling. Part of the problem by segregating people by ability and/or desire is that you then run into a situation where your bottom-rung people basically flunk out of life. Moving towards the middle, they have a little more ability and competence, but in general they're going to do the least possible amount of work (as would be natural for anyone in such a situation, and is in all but a few who are not necessarily the best or even above-average). As I'm tired, I'm not going to continue this train of thought, but I think you see where I' mgoing (if not, respond and I'll explain further).
I challenge you to show me one affirmative as to how this increased "socialization" has benefited anyone. I can rattle off a dozen negatives as to how the socialization enforced upon the students does nothing but to enforce a hierarchy of non-meritous rewards and priviledge, sectarian disunity ('cliques'), and "belief in the system" (that is, that authorities are always right). While at the same time the students being collectively depressed by having to be at school at all, resulting in many simply giving up and concentrating on shallow, momentary satisfactions like television.
Let me ask you something: have you ever spoken with another person at work? Yes? Is this socialization? Have you made friends with people before? Can people make friends prior to high school, and is it possible to speak prior to high school? What benefit to socialization does high school have over that of the working world? That there are 'different people'? The working world has a much broader brush of 'different' - namely, by age, but also by gender, race, and ethnicity. Unlike high school, the working world doesn't judge you (usually) on the profession of your father or mother (partially due to the higher expectations of the older adults who won't take that shit anymore). Unlike high school, there is not a predominant and perpetual fraternity of "superior", where if you wait it out you'll simply be the superior.
No, my town has 140,000 people in it, with a minor population of immigrants from Sudan, Nigeria, and Uganda. They're being imported by the Lutheran mission. Despite being a small Midwestern city in a state where it is legal for me to own mostly any firearm I want and carry a weapon on my person (with a permit requiring a background check), there is precious little "white" crime, and a great deal of Muslim crime. For every "husband kills wife over estrangement and custody battle" or "college students arrested for drive-by with a bb gun" news item (a BIG deal around here, none the less), there's one along the lines of "Haji Madmud struck and killed Durka Bugadi with his vehicle over a $20 dispute" or two Nigerians being arrested for meth, assault, weapon discharge, or something else socially destructive.
And I am intentionally not exagerating. If anything, I'm marginalizing so as to not appear as if I'm exagerating.
If I'm taking 3 clams from you, keeping one, and giving 2 to someone else, I'm not 'creating wealth'. I'm redistributing it by fiat. The phrase "wealth creation" (and it's variances) is hokum. The only wealth creation possible comes directly from two sources: agriculture and industry (that is, industrial processes which take raw/unrefined materials and, at marginal loss in value to the unrefined material, produce a new, different product). In other words, wealth comes from things which we need and which improve our lives in a manifestable fashion.
It could be argued that certain services improve our lives and protect wealth, such as fire departments, police, roads, and things like that. But they are not in and of themselves wealth; they're the tools to acquire and maintain wealth.
Ah, but this isn't true. Hits to the environment do not impact the bottom line; they simply make the quality of life less appealing for citizens. The government suffers not.
I don't watch O'Reilly. I hate the man. I'm a mid-20s techno-geek.
That said, I should note that I don't watch TV much, either - to the exception of one or two shows (Law and Order and now Jericho) on occasion. I don't get cable. I watch maybe one or two movies a week. I own an iPod, but I have only used it on rare occasion. I do not listen to the radio or music while in the car; instead I prefer to think.
I would have to agree with his assessment, even though I hate him. Most young people - people my age - spend a large amount of money on this or that new gadget, only to replace them several months later. They live a life of immediacy - when they're not buying new gadgets, they're fantasizing about the latest, greatest. Meanwhile, life is passing them by: they're in their mid-20s, or their mid-30s, and they've had depthless relationship after depthless relationship, while going to a job they don't like, accumulating things they don't need, and barely ever even spend time outdoors - because they don't like the outdoors.
News flash: he's not talking about 'techies' (necessarily). He's talking about every John and Jane out there who buys trendy shit for the cost of a car payment or two, uses it for 3 months, and then discards it to a box or closet until deciding to sell it at a rumage sale for $5 (or simply throw it out). Or, they'll simply keep it: people in my generation have more emotional attachments (both in strength and number) to innanimate objects than to people.
A vote for an atheist is therefore a vote for someone who can make a choice and justify it rationally.
Hitler did that well, and while he can't be conclusively be determined to be an athiest, it can be established quite readily that he held personal contempt for Christianity and organized religion. The result was quite a few dead people, if you'll recall.
So let me get this straight: athiests have free will and self-determinism, but people who hold religious beliefs, by their very nature, do not? Is this your way of saying athiests are superior intellectually, and possibly biologically as well?
Most self-acclaimed athiests I know are not, in the least bit, analytical. They have grown up being taught that the facts are in, and they are conclusive: we evolved. Regardless of the fact that it's a theory, it's taught as doctrine. I'm not saying anything else has any more validity, mind you, but when a single doctrine is taught for an hour a day, 5 days a week, for several years of a child's upbringing, the principles are ingrained to a certain degree - whether it's Sunday school or science/Biology class.
There are a great deal of people who were raised as an athiest, or as nothing at all, and have acclimated towards faith in religion after hopping around on ideology for years. The reverse is also true. And there are those who have tried both sides, and couldn't decide, resulting in agnosticism.
There is no such thing as a person void of prejudices or personal influences. To so much as say that there are demonstrates an extremely unquestioning mind, and what's more, one which isn't even aware of it.
You sir, are a biggot and a fool - to put it kindly!
Probably half of the murders and serious assaults in my town have been comitted by Muslims in the last couple years - and it's probably not even 4% of the population. And don't even think of looking at one of their women (who are oddly attractive, but generally well covered - you literally have to gawk to get a good look at their face).
Would it really be so bad to have the government run with a more business like model?
Are you kidding me? Fuck yes it would!
What is the one, single thing any business is intent on doing? Making profit. When you have a government operating like a business, what does it do? It tries to make a profit. And governments can only reasonably make a profit in three different ways: 1) tax the bejesus out of the population, 2) actually print money, and 3) take wealth out of other nations without their consent.
You can not truly 'create wealth'. You can do more with fuel and machines, but commerce and taxation is only shifting wealth around, when you come down to it.
No, what they're trying to do is drive people towards console - ie, Xbox - gaming and way from PC gaming. Make PC game development as difficult, costly, and contrary as possible for the 'next' system upgrade, but make Xbox development easier and more acessible.
- Original TANKS! for DOS and many of the rip offs - Comet Blasters!, a cheap COMETS 2-player co-op/competitive (mixed role, not different types of play) ripoff, with configurable ship energy (speed, bullet speed/distance, shield). Got this off AOL Shareware back in the day,IIRC. - Tank Wars - I think that's what it was called. Another AOL Shareware. You'd compete against each others tanks on a trid and have to take out enemy tanks, soldiers, and helos at the same time, iirc. - Worms! who can forget this one. Basically TANKS! with humor - Rock'n'Roll Racing for the SNES and Genesis - fun as a single player game, but you could play for days on end multi trying to take each other out. Classic rock MIDI, cars with rockets, lasers, mines, oil slicks - Road Rash series (not too memorable but still fun) - Mechwarror II (and expansions), Mech 3 and 4 (to a substantially lesser degree) multiplayer - most fun, IMO, in an equally matched heads-on. Probably my favorite game of all time. I would LOVE if MS were to re-release Mechwarrior II (provided they have rights to it) with the same game mechanics, updated functional networking and good (at least better) graphics. Even without graphics, really - just so I can still play it.:( - Starcraft, Warcraft II, and Warcraft, good up to probably 4 people at a time. Lots of fun over dialup vs. 1 person w/ someone 'coaching' you - Jackal - 2 player co-op NES arcade style jeep game. - Rampage - 'co-op' quickly turns into 'vs' and lasts for hours:P - Captain America and the Avengers - one of my favorite co-op 'arcade' style games (originally for arcade but I played it mainly on Genesis) - Descent, Descent II (didn't care for D3, too complex for multi vs.) - Oh, how many hours did I spend playing this with my brother and friends over a dialup link or over the network. Favorite level was for Descent, "Jolly Green Giant" IIRC. Basically a large cheerio shape with criss-cross pathways across the center O - Duke Nuke'm 3D - just loved multi deathmatch for this game due to the many creative ways of splattering your opponents - it wasn't so much about 'shoot 'em up' as it was about subterfuge
Most excellent! I'll likely actually be outdoors for multiple hours in the pre-dawn morning over that period of time, getting settled in for a morning deer hunt - so I'll have the opportunity to view it from out in the country.
As a college tutor who has tutored people for mathematics, CS, IT, and English, let me say that I think the results are overly conservative. I'd say the levels of illiteracy are much, much higher, if the sample I've encountered is any example. We're talking about 3rd year students who can't even write a descriptive paper on their daily activities; you know, a fucking journal entry.
I don't know what world you're living in, but there's no way that's true.
My younger sister's senior year student president (that would be high school) was one of the biggest SW geeks I've ever seen. As were many of his friends. Both he and his friends (my younger siblings included) were mostly all star wars geeks, in one respect or another. Mostly, they were just geeks - gaming geeks, photography geeks, and what have you. They were involved in hockey, basketball, drama, and what have you as well. They were most certainly not "geeks" in the pedantic loser mold.
The article states it's a "5.5 milimeter" machine gun. That's only.21 caliber, roughly the same as both 5.56mm NATO ammo (the main Western troop rifle/carbine chambering) and.22LR (defacto "plinking" ammunition in the US - small bullet, small pop). 5.56mm NATO is essentially a "fast".223 Winchester round, with bullets around 55 grains in weight..22LR ammo typically doesn't have a weight over 22 grains (IIRC) and has a substantially weaker powder load. For a general idea of how the cartridges differ: 22LR is about the length of your thumb's nail, whereas.223 (ie 5.56mm) is 45mm long, or roughly 2/3rds the length of your pinky, with a 'necked out' cartridge, also probably about the radius of your pinky (with the end of the cartridge necking down to.22 caliber to affix the bullet).
Also, I suspect that the article meant 5.56 mm; I don't know of a "5.5mm" cartridge, and the size of the bullet is only half the picture: the amount of powder propelling that bullet impacts a LOT of factors.
(And for what it's worth, 5.5 caliber ammunition are in the range of crew-served and ship-based artillery, not a personal arm. 5.5 caliber = 5.5" diameter.)
Slashdot Mirror
Who gives a fuck?
Intel apparently sees a commercial profit in something like this. I happen to agree - it's basically what I've been looking for in a computer for years.
If 3rd world countries want their own computers, they should build the infrastructure to have a use for them, not expect 1st world countries (that is, the US) to come up ways for them to use inexpensive computers. We're doing them a disservice anyway - they need things like domestically-initiated agriculture, industry, and commerce, not more handouts.
It's warm-hearted, half-brained things like what OLPC is doing which leads to 3rd world countries like Nigeria: the only thing they use technology for is to gain access to richer, more affluent societies and prey off their gullible, warm-hearted people more thoroughly.
Here's the thing, though:
- if it's just hitting upon spam, no harm, no foul (I guess)
- however, if the ng's actual content is triggering the filter, it would seem fairly evident to be the cause
the problem, of course, that google isn't coming to terms with the newsgroup people and telling them what was violated, so they are free to postulate it to be persecution - or not. i imagine any decision the ng people make would be based on the quanitty of spam on the ng.
My brothre is in China, currently, and we've talked about this. Our concensus is that the Chinese Wikipedia censors pretty much anything pertaining to freedom, democracy, and the political history of the West - specifically, the US.
And if he were to run against Hillary, he'd really shine. She's got all the charm of last week's leftover cod and liver casserole; not even a fraction of what Gates has.
I'm sorry to say that I think he'd beat Hillary hands down. He certainly beats the tar out of her as a humanitarian, what with all the money he's donated there.
Frankly, I don't want to think about such a sitation. It's terrifying.
So are you saying you think Bill Gates would run as a Democrat?
Interesting. Given his proclivity for 'white guilt' type endeavors and sending all that money overseas to help... whomever... it wouldn't surprise me.
I would want to live in the world where I can change my destiny, with as little meddling from those around me as possible. It's more likely you'll end up at the bottom or even lower-middle than above that, given distributions.
Fuck, I'd rather vote for John Doe.
That said, if by some fluke of temporal plain energy he runs, I'd vote for him before both Hillary and McCain.
The book of Job talks about such things, if I recall correctly. It's also in several other parts of the Bible, IIRC. Other cultures also have records (either written or word of mouth) of dinosaur-like creatures. What do you think dragons are? Surely dragons did not come about in European folklore due to Asian influence, long before such influence was likely.
Which is more probable: that these "folklore stories" are latent 'whatever' from our evolutionary history as small primates (hunted by large dinos), or that they're a cultural record of something that previously existed and does no longer? You'd think we'd have the same historical memory of, say, being apes or lemmings or whatever, too, and that there'd be large predatory mammals which have been immortalized in our psyche, if they were indeed a problem to our ancestors. I know of no other animal/creature which has been so consistently remembered amongst different cultures.
Ask yourself this: 30 years ago, or even 10 or 20, would it have been a sign of a well-adjusted and "reality based" person to spend an afternoon or more waiting in line for a game system - and then doing it every 2 or three years well into their adulthood?
THe only example I can think of would be Star Wars, and that was a culturally revolutionary event in many respects. With gamers, it's become soemthing akin to an annual holiday, performed out of ritual - for the sake of entertainment.
I want to address each of your items, but in reverse order.
....
First, vocations: ok. But, which vocation? There are plenty of people who work vocational jobs. Nurses, mechanics, IT, draftsmen, game testers - the list is pretty long and quite varied. Why don't people want to take these jobs? Well, namely, because they don't pay well enough to do much more than work, have kids, and die before you're rich enough to consider taking retirement (due to hard work). You're paid just enough to get you out of the 'poor' tax bracket, but not enough to eat better than the cheap meats at the grocery with canned veggies (if you've got the time for that - you're working 60 hours at the shop to make ends meet, afterall). And, there are a lot of reasons why these fields are becoming less appealing (not the least of which is the cost of overhead - mechanics usually own something like $50k in tools, each, which they have to furnish for themselves. just to name one field.)
Also, there simply aren't all that many 'vocational' jobs anymore. It takes less people to do the same job it did years ago in quite a few fields. draftsmen, 'laborers', IT, mechanics, and many other fields have all been made more 'efficient' in various ways (let's not get into the specifics, please). Not everyone can be an innovator, so you're left with two options if you follow the current course to its ultimate (one of three) conclusion:
1) a select few members of society maintain things (meaning everything), while the majority of mediocre and unmotivated people live off of hand-outs (because the society is really efficient that 10% can supply all the needs and desires for the other 90%) - don't ask me how this one would work
2) society collapses under the strain of people unable to find jobs they can do (not the course I'd prefer, but the one I see happening - see: Europe) but willing,
3) or there needs to be some re-balancing of the equation with more tasks reverting to manual trade skill execution instead of mechanical (something I can not see happening willingly, but being forced by a change in the supply of resources, such as oil)
Moving on: Schooling. Part of the problem by segregating people by ability and/or desire is that you then run into a situation where your bottom-rung people basically flunk out of life. Moving towards the middle, they have a little more ability and competence, but in general they're going to do the least possible amount of work (as would be natural for anyone in such a situation, and is in all but a few who are not necessarily the best or even above-average). As I'm tired, I'm not going to continue this train of thought, but I think you see where I' mgoing (if not, respond and I'll explain further).
That said, read this: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm (as others have recommended). It is what I and many others what we need to do.
That is a load of crap.
I challenge you to show me one affirmative as to how this increased "socialization" has benefited anyone. I can rattle off a dozen negatives as to how the socialization enforced upon the students does nothing but to enforce a hierarchy of non-meritous rewards and priviledge, sectarian disunity ('cliques'), and "belief in the system" (that is, that authorities are always right). While at the same time the students being collectively depressed by having to be at school at all, resulting in many simply giving up and concentrating on shallow, momentary satisfactions like television.
Let me ask you something: have you ever spoken with another person at work? Yes? Is this socialization? Have you made friends with people before? Can people make friends prior to high school, and is it possible to speak prior to high school? What benefit to socialization does high school have over that of the working world? That there are 'different people'? The working world has a much broader brush of 'different' - namely, by age, but also by gender, race, and ethnicity. Unlike high school, the working world doesn't judge you (usually) on the profession of your father or mother (partially due to the higher expectations of the older adults who won't take that shit anymore). Unlike high school, there is not a predominant and perpetual fraternity of "superior", where if you wait it out you'll simply be the superior.
No, my town has 140,000 people in it, with a minor population of immigrants from Sudan, Nigeria, and Uganda. They're being imported by the Lutheran mission. Despite being a small Midwestern city in a state where it is legal for me to own mostly any firearm I want and carry a weapon on my person (with a permit requiring a background check), there is precious little "white" crime, and a great deal of Muslim crime. For every "husband kills wife over estrangement and custody battle" or "college students arrested for drive-by with a bb gun" news item (a BIG deal around here, none the less), there's one along the lines of "Haji Madmud struck and killed Durka Bugadi with his vehicle over a $20 dispute" or two Nigerians being arrested for meth, assault, weapon discharge, or something else socially destructive.
And I am intentionally not exagerating. If anything, I'm marginalizing so as to not appear as if I'm exagerating.
If I'm taking 3 clams from you, keeping one, and giving 2 to someone else, I'm not 'creating wealth'. I'm redistributing it by fiat. The phrase "wealth creation" (and it's variances) is hokum. The only wealth creation possible comes directly from two sources: agriculture and industry (that is, industrial processes which take raw/unrefined materials and, at marginal loss in value to the unrefined material, produce a new, different product). In other words, wealth comes from things which we need and which improve our lives in a manifestable fashion.
It could be argued that certain services improve our lives and protect wealth, such as fire departments, police, roads, and things like that. But they are not in and of themselves wealth; they're the tools to acquire and maintain wealth.
Ah, but this isn't true. Hits to the environment do not impact the bottom line; they simply make the quality of life less appealing for citizens. The government suffers not.
I don't watch O'Reilly. I hate the man. I'm a mid-20s techno-geek.
That said, I should note that I don't watch TV much, either - to the exception of one or two shows (Law and Order and now Jericho) on occasion. I don't get cable. I watch maybe one or two movies a week. I own an iPod, but I have only used it on rare occasion. I do not listen to the radio or music while in the car; instead I prefer to think.
I would have to agree with his assessment, even though I hate him. Most young people - people my age - spend a large amount of money on this or that new gadget, only to replace them several months later. They live a life of immediacy - when they're not buying new gadgets, they're fantasizing about the latest, greatest. Meanwhile, life is passing them by: they're in their mid-20s, or their mid-30s, and they've had depthless relationship after depthless relationship, while going to a job they don't like, accumulating things they don't need, and barely ever even spend time outdoors - because they don't like the outdoors.
News flash: he's not talking about 'techies' (necessarily). He's talking about every John and Jane out there who buys trendy shit for the cost of a car payment or two, uses it for 3 months, and then discards it to a box or closet until deciding to sell it at a rumage sale for $5 (or simply throw it out). Or, they'll simply keep it: people in my generation have more emotional attachments (both in strength and number) to innanimate objects than to people.
Oh:
A vote for an atheist is therefore a vote for someone who can make a choice and justify it rationally.
Hitler did that well, and while he can't be conclusively be determined to be an athiest, it can be established quite readily that he held personal contempt for Christianity and organized religion. The result was quite a few dead people, if you'll recall.
So let me get this straight: athiests have free will and self-determinism, but people who hold religious beliefs, by their very nature, do not? Is this your way of saying athiests are superior intellectually, and possibly biologically as well?
Most self-acclaimed athiests I know are not, in the least bit, analytical. They have grown up being taught that the facts are in, and they are conclusive: we evolved. Regardless of the fact that it's a theory, it's taught as doctrine. I'm not saying anything else has any more validity, mind you, but when a single doctrine is taught for an hour a day, 5 days a week, for several years of a child's upbringing, the principles are ingrained to a certain degree - whether it's Sunday school or science/Biology class.
There are a great deal of people who were raised as an athiest, or as nothing at all, and have acclimated towards faith in religion after hopping around on ideology for years. The reverse is also true. And there are those who have tried both sides, and couldn't decide, resulting in agnosticism.
There is no such thing as a person void of prejudices or personal influences. To so much as say that there are demonstrates an extremely unquestioning mind, and what's more, one which isn't even aware of it.
You sir, are a biggot and a fool - to put it kindly!
Thank you. Thank you!
Probably half of the murders and serious assaults in my town have been comitted by Muslims in the last couple years - and it's probably not even 4% of the population. And don't even think of looking at one of their women (who are oddly attractive, but generally well covered - you literally have to gawk to get a good look at their face).
Would it really be so bad to have the government run with a more business like model?
Are you kidding me? Fuck yes it would!
What is the one, single thing any business is intent on doing? Making profit. When you have a government operating like a business, what does it do? It tries to make a profit. And governments can only reasonably make a profit in three different ways: 1) tax the bejesus out of the population, 2) actually print money, and 3) take wealth out of other nations without their consent.
You can not truly 'create wealth'. You can do more with fuel and machines, but commerce and taxation is only shifting wealth around, when you come down to it.
No, what they're trying to do is drive people towards console - ie, Xbox - gaming and way from PC gaming. Make PC game development as difficult, costly, and contrary as possible for the 'next' system upgrade, but make Xbox development easier and more acessible.
By no means authoritive, but my favorites:
,IIRC. :( :P
- Original TANKS! for DOS and many of the rip offs
- Comet Blasters!, a cheap COMETS 2-player co-op/competitive (mixed role, not different types of play) ripoff, with configurable ship energy (speed, bullet speed/distance, shield). Got this off AOL Shareware back in the day
- Tank Wars - I think that's what it was called. Another AOL Shareware. You'd compete against each others tanks on a trid and have to take out enemy tanks, soldiers, and helos at the same time, iirc.
- Worms! who can forget this one. Basically TANKS! with humor
- Rock'n'Roll Racing for the SNES and Genesis - fun as a single player game, but you could play for days on end multi trying to take each other out. Classic rock MIDI, cars with rockets, lasers, mines, oil slicks
- Road Rash series (not too memorable but still fun)
- Mechwarror II (and expansions), Mech 3 and 4 (to a substantially lesser degree) multiplayer - most fun, IMO, in an equally matched heads-on. Probably my favorite game of all time. I would LOVE if MS were to re-release Mechwarrior II (provided they have rights to it) with the same game mechanics, updated functional networking and good (at least better) graphics. Even without graphics, really - just so I can still play it.
- Starcraft, Warcraft II, and Warcraft, good up to probably 4 people at a time. Lots of fun over dialup vs. 1 person w/ someone 'coaching' you
- Jackal - 2 player co-op NES arcade style jeep game.
- Rampage - 'co-op' quickly turns into 'vs' and lasts for hours
- Captain America and the Avengers - one of my favorite co-op 'arcade' style games (originally for arcade but I played it mainly on Genesis)
- Descent, Descent II (didn't care for D3, too complex for multi vs.) - Oh, how many hours did I spend playing this with my brother and friends over a dialup link or over the network. Favorite level was for Descent, "Jolly Green Giant" IIRC. Basically a large cheerio shape with criss-cross pathways across the center O
- Duke Nuke'm 3D - just loved multi deathmatch for this game due to the many creative ways of splattering your opponents - it wasn't so much about 'shoot 'em up' as it was about subterfuge
That's all I can think of for now.
Most excellent! I'll likely actually be outdoors for multiple hours in the pre-dawn morning over that period of time, getting settled in for a morning deer hunt - so I'll have the opportunity to view it from out in the country.
As a college tutor who has tutored people for mathematics, CS, IT, and English, let me say that I think the results are overly conservative. I'd say the levels of illiteracy are much, much higher, if the sample I've encountered is any example. We're talking about 3rd year students who can't even write a descriptive paper on their daily activities; you know, a fucking journal entry.
I don't know what world you're living in, but there's no way that's true.
My younger sister's senior year student president (that would be high school) was one of the biggest SW geeks I've ever seen. As were many of his friends. Both he and his friends (my younger siblings included) were mostly all star wars geeks, in one respect or another. Mostly, they were just geeks - gaming geeks, photography geeks, and what have you. They were involved in hockey, basketball, drama, and what have you as well. They were most certainly not "geeks" in the pedantic loser mold.
I don't mean to nitpick, but...
.21 caliber, roughly the same as both 5.56mm NATO ammo (the main Western troop rifle/carbine chambering) and .22LR (defacto "plinking" ammunition in the US - small bullet, small pop). 5.56mm NATO is essentially a "fast" .223 Winchester round, with bullets around 55 grains in weight. .22LR ammo typically doesn't have a weight over 22 grains (IIRC) and has a substantially weaker powder load. For a general idea of how the cartridges differ: 22LR is about the length of your thumb's nail, whereas .223 (ie 5.56mm) is 45mm long, or roughly 2/3rds the length of your pinky, with a 'necked out' cartridge, also probably about the radius of your pinky (with the end of the cartridge necking down to .22 caliber to affix the bullet).
The article states it's a "5.5 milimeter" machine gun. That's only
Also, I suspect that the article meant 5.56 mm; I don't know of a "5.5mm" cartridge, and the size of the bullet is only half the picture: the amount of powder propelling that bullet impacts a LOT of factors.
(And for what it's worth, 5.5 caliber ammunition are in the range of crew-served and ship-based artillery, not a personal arm. 5.5 caliber = 5.5" diameter.)