I absolutely loved Bungie's pre-microsoft games. Now, I am not commenting on Halo, 'cause I haven't played it, and the entire franchise has received nothing but great ratings are reviews, but I well remember back in the day going to Bungie's online store, and finding a good bye letter from one of the original members who decried the buyout and called MS the Borg. I also remember seeing Halo previews way back then, the release of which seemed imminent, but the game was subsequently held back for years to be the XBOX' flagship release.
I, for one, would love to see Bungie get back out from under MS, and develop some more original titles, as was their strength.
Myth: The Fallen Lords, and Myth II: Soulbighter remain two of my all-time faves, and are still playable today.
PST is barely even a CRPG. It's more like a throwback to interactive fiction. It's mostly an adventure game.
I disagree, strongly. In BG and its subsequent clones/sequels, you could choose a role and it would direct your potential actions, and usually there was a choice of acting within your role, or acting without and (punitively) becoming a fighter. There were a narrow set of objectives with side quests, but most of the main lines were the same. in the original BG, I felt that the sense of freedom afforded by wide-open frames (the characters not being funneled to only those parts of the map that were "active") as well as refreshing random monsters gave the game a sense of freedom. But in P:T there was a true sense of freedom, you could shape the way the game was going to go dependent on your choices more than any other game of that time or for a while thereafter. I that all of this depends on your definition of "role-playing." The dynamic shift of alignment was a new thing, then. NWN and NWN2 have since added that feature, which is great, but I think that P:T was as close to a true role-playing game as you could get. You actions dictated your alignment, your skills could shift and morph, objectives were altered, etc.
I definitely look at this as an RPG, And one of the best ever, to add my $.02 to that score.
Commentary on the crime of the century there. It reminds me of the Cops episode where they parked a tractor-trailer next to projects in a low-income area with fake electronics and merchandise within... along with a squadron of cops behind a false wall. Yeah, they managed to arrest a few twelve-year olds who couldn't resist prying open the doors. Afterwards those morons stood around giving each other high-fives and whooping it up. What a pathetic waste of time and resources. They sure cleaned up the streets (and I am very pro-cop).
The self-righteous, sanctimonious note struck by the consumerist voice-over is nauseating.
Think what you will about ethics... I have a position with access to everything, and have no issues with keeping my nose out of it... but we're talking kids here, and kids who are getting paid squat, and kids who work with a bunch of other kids... is this news? Personally, I am glad that the consumerist is bringing such egregious acts to light so that luddites and grandparents the world over can enter into a service agreement secure in the knowledge that no pimply-faced kid is going to look at their porn.
One other point: No one was deprived of their media. They were copied, but they also remained on the original system.
Now, what's funny is that all those emotional buzzwords ignore that these students were caught illegally ripping artists off.
Ok, the use of buzzwords is one thing, but your ignorance is entirely another. You are making a leap in logic, and against the presumption of innocence. The RIAA has a history... a documented history, mind you, of making blanket accusations, and many of those accusations have been shown to be wholly erroneous... as in they accused individuals who were proven to be innocent (which is not the burden, of course). The RIAA has lost cases where this has occurred, and has had to remunerate their intended victims. Perhaps you are just as biased as those you claim use emotionally-laden language, hmm?
'Buzz' means squat. Sales and market penetration are everything.
Sure there's buzz, and buzz can lead to sales, but when it's contained in a niche market...
Apple is dominant in a particular market segment, the 'too cool for you' market segment. Just about no one else cares at all, and rather, a lot of people see Apple and die hard Apple users as elitist techno snobs.
I call bullshit. Can I call bullshit? BULLSHIT! Plenty of people who exist in other "market segments" do actually care. Do you know why? Because they are truly not invested in image, as you are, ironically enough. You're invested in your interpretation of Apple and their products, and have marginalized their users with this little bit of BS.
Apple doesn't sell hardware, they sell an image, and most people couldn't be bothered.
They sell hardware. The hardware they sell happens to work pretty well, too. Do they levy image? Sure. And what producer of consumer electronics does not? Ham radio manufacturers? It's just that the image that you perceive apple sells is particularly offensive to you.
Don't get me wrong, they've got some slick shit, but again, that just doesn't matter. Besides, my shit is slick, extendable, reconfigurable, and cost me one piss of a lot less than anything comparably from Apple. And I'm talking home computer, laptop, mp3, and cell phone. (Not that the iPhone is out yet, but for the stated reasons, I'll never buy one)
Image is nothing, unless you care about that sort of thing, then by all the means, step right up and spend your money.
By publically stating that you will "never" buy an apple product you place yourself squarely within the group of people for whom image is very important. It's rather pathetic, actually, in a sadly ironic (non-Alanis Morisette) way.
I feel for you, and certainly wish you did not have to deal with such unfortunate (though human) conditions.
That said, to attempt to draw a parallel between those things and intelligence is both absurd and unsupported. There are many, a majority, in fact, of extraordinarily intelligent people who are not only able to function socially, but are able to apply that intellect and bring a greater awareness to bear in decision-making, and in navigating social and political situations, sans conditions like those from which you suffer.
I also respectfully submit that your "research" is necessarily biased, as you clearly have an emotional desire to have your theories proven true (as you apparently and understandably suffer from feelings of inferiority from your conditions).
Studies have consistently shown that higher intelligence leads to healthier (physically and mentally) and happier people. This "semi-autistic genius geek" thing is a BS myth. Don't say most, say "me." Because that is what you mean, and it ends there.
Furthermore... this cult of personality nonsense (re: listening to Linus because he's Linus) is the height of idiocy.
When he talks, listen. If you don't like what he says, cope.
The first part is reasonable, the second ridiculous. If you don't like what he says, provide a counterpoint. It will be no more or less valid regardless of any factor save its internal logical consistency.
I switched to OO a couple of years ago, and now use it exclusively on my mac (in the form of neo office, though I do have X and OO), my linux workstation, and windows. I have had no problems with document conversion in all that time. I simply refuse to be a part of the MS machine when it comes to office. I've moved my wife to it as well, on windows, and she never has problems.
It works. That's all I ask. Oh yeah, free is nice, too.
--As a point of reference, the assets of General Electric, the fourth largest American corporation, equaled $4,851,718,000 in 1966. Yes. That's four trillion.
That's four billion. Did you forget some zeros, or is this what GE's net worth was?
Maybe it's the alignment of the planets, or sunspots, or a harmonic convergence that is actually going to cause a rise in prices. You can be sure of one thing: No matter WHAT happens, M$ will raise their prices.
I can name my fuckyouRIAA.txt file to The_Matrix.dvix and have my service disconnected. This is a ridiculous position. Does a file name now constitute proof?
I don't know how legit this e-mail is actually, but to discount it on the basis of its composition is absurd. How many of these people (that are decrying it on this basis) actually communicate with professionals on a regular basis, let alone consultants, who are salesmen, essentially?
The fact is that simple spelling mistakes and typos are ubiquitous to any and all users of e-mail.
Yeah...cause Microsoft didn't advertise the service any longer! They bought it to kill it. Had they advertised, WebTV would be ubiquitous. If people buy WebTV, they're not buying a computer...they avoid the MS tax, no sales of office. I can't believe they put WebTV on that list. There are many people out there that buy computers to access the internet only. What better device for a novice user than their TV? I'm not being a proponent for WebTV, I'm just saying that WebTV was taking off up until MS bought it, then nothing. No ads, nothing. They drove it into the ground on PURPOSE! Shoddy shoddy journalism.
I've seen it, and I liked it. Maybe he'll be great; the issue I have is trying to suspend disbelief, or suspend my dislike for him garnered from his appearances in dumbed-down hollywood crapfests over the past decade or so (see MiB, ID4, Wild West, etc).
Did you see The Bicentennial Man? It had a much better lead male (Robin Williams has done a lot more good, serious work than Will Smith), and was terrible, imho
I agree. I guess that any source can be bashed by Hollywood into tripe (and often is), but at least there is some substance to that source in the beginning. I should have said "good, with reservations," on the Asimov aspect. Nightfall was once turned into a TV movie, and it was horrid.
The good: Directed by Alex Proyas, who also directed a couple of top-notch films in The Crow and Dark City. Basing on Asimov certainly qualifies as "good" in my book as well.
notice you have twice now cried "cognitive dissonance!" however, your "blood on our hands" argument is only your opinion; how then does *my* opinion (that we do NOT all have blood on our hands for every misdeed) qualify as cognitive dissonance?
First of all: let's clarify. My "blood on the our hands" argument refers to the fact that we are culpable for any act conducted by our military. That is my opinion. Not misdeed, but act. Our military doesn't have to act wrongly to kill. Do you not agree that when we go to war, we, as citizens, as voters, are complicit?
Secondly, you fire off an obviously angry response to what I wrote, decrying my point that we have blood on our hands; jumping to a number of conclusions about me personally, and attacking me personally by way of an ad hominem (the term apparently causes you some difficulty). That emotional type of reaction, coupled with your examples (which are circular and naive) in answer to a point which I feel is very clear sure looks like cognitive dissonance to me. We have blood on our hands. You don't want to think that it is true, but it is, therefore you feel cognitive dissonance, fire off your poorly thought-out response, and here we are, debunking your rationalization.
Third: I don't "cry" anything. I cite cognitive dissonance twice. It applies in both cases. If you have an issue with the use of a pertinent term, get over it.
For your ad hominem enlightenment, number one: people who feel compelled to engage in self-denigration in order to feel noble and enlightened This serves no logical purpose. The only thing this statement accomplishes is to characterize ME, the original poster. The characterization is wrong, and is based on a series of presumptions made by you which are betrayed later in your diatribe.
Number two: if you want to crucify yourself and wallow in your guilt, be my guest. but please refrain from projecting your self-loathing onto everyone else
Again, this statement means nothing. This attacks me; this presupposes my motives and/or mindset, and uses them in a denigratory manner. Again, you couldn't be more wrong about me, but that isn't the point. The point is, and it is abundantly clear, that these are both ad hominems. Instead of attacking the point with a rational argument, you attack me, cite examples of your own construction which evince circular logic, and use them as straw men to take down the whole point.
Disagreement is one thing, lazy thinking, and then an arrogant response containing more of the same is quite another.
Moving on, circular logic: representative government, as we have in the U.S., is only effective when it is executed under a bond of TRUST between representative and constituency. clearly, that is all too often not the case. but the party with blood on its hands in that case is the representative, not the constituent. furthermore, that trust is null and void (and the constituent's culpability zero) if a representative, without the *express* consent of the constituency, appoints or supports a another "representative" (i.e. i voted for John Doe, but if he then appoints Bob Smith, who commits some unspeakable act, i cannot be held liable for that mistake).
Is there a need to quantify the circular nature of your theoretical up there? Ok. You create an example where the only way you can be responsible is if "a bond of trust" exists between one and one's representative. You then cite an example that severs that bond of trust, and use that example of proof that you aren't responsible. Looks pretty circular to me. Not to mention its nature as a straw man.
Now, you misunderstand my response to you: ironically, your "you're too busy to actually pay attention" speech qualifies as a grade-a ad hominem attack (that is unfounded, to boot!). rather than respond to the argument i presented, you instead attack my character/qualifications/abilities/intelligence. I cannot seriously believe that you feel that
Look forward to a lifetime of high cholesterol, kidney stones, osteoporosis and increased risk of bowel cancer. Not to mention the fact that the Atkins diet is so restrictive as to be completely unpalatable. Although eating only low-carb foods like meat and eggs sounds good in theory, in practice very few people have the willpower to stay on a "pure" Atkins diet. This is partly because carbs are an important part of the diet (and taste good) and partly because ketosis is an unnatural state for the body to be in for long periods of time (greater than 6 monhs) as the body is "digesting" itself to produce fuel.
You betray an astounding ignorance about low-carb diets with this here tripe.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a plan, but to wax didactic about it; educate yourself.
Atkins is not terribly restrictive. It is not meat and eggs. It lowers dangerous cholesterol levels. You mention a "pure" Atkins diet with an obvious lack of what that actually is.
One does eat carbohydrates on any low-carb diet. Ketosis is a early, short-term goal, and effects of non-diabetics remaining in ketosis have not been found to be negative. If one ingests enough fat, ketosis burns that fat and stored body fat as a fuel source, which is the objective early in the plan.
Then individuals are encouraged to increase their carbohydrate intake as they move forward. Even in the beginning one is recommended to eat 20 grams of carbohydrates a day.
Dr. Atkins did not suffer poor health, and his death had nothing to do with his diet.
In terms of Fumento; I find his writings a joke. Taubes' article interested me in giving this plan a shot...not a diet, but a plan of eating for a lifetime. In hunting down info before starting, I cam across a rebuttal by Fumento of the original article. I had been ill-disposed towards low-carb plans prior to reading Taubes article, so I was not predisposed to believe anyone.
Fumento's article was terrible. I noticed it as I was reading. He uses colorful, reactionary language, but little logic, and little reference or attribution. Luckily, the place I read it also included Taubes answer to Fumento's article.
I suggest you (or anyone who is interested) read the entire dialogue:
have zero tolerance for people who feel compelled to engage in self-denigration in order to feel noble and enlightened. if you have a valid point to make, it can be made without the kind of all-encompassing tripe quoted above; if it can't, it's not a valid point.
I am not interested in your tolerance. What I said I stand by. Your stridency in calling it tripe due to cognitive dissonance is not my problem. My point is valid. Our disagreement starts with your assertion that what I wrote is "all-encompassing tripe." It is not, and I will elaborate.
am not responsible for the atrocity committed by some soldier, under command of some appointed general, appointed by some government official (who receives campaign contributions from BigEvil, Inc.), appointed by some other government official, with the support of one of my representatives, for whom i voted. ridiculous!
First of all, one does not have to commit, or be complicit in the commission of an atrocity to be partially responsible for the deaths of others...i.e. to have blood on one's hands, to be quite literal.
Secondly, as Americans we are all guilty of atrocity when our government commits them. Whether or not that makes you angry, whether or not you froth at the mouth and create a host of rationalizations for why you're NOT, you are.
But I didn't say atrocity, I said blood.
Here's the deal: I am politically active. I educate myself on what is going on. I participate in the process far more than merely voting; I know who my representative are, I know how they vote, and I give them my voice, and yet I hold myself accountable. And no, I don't consider myself an unique snowflake.
The simple fact is that most Americans are too lazy to get their fat asses off of the couch, stop watching Survivor, the NFL, stop worrying about a romance between two vacuous stars who couldn't give a crap about them to actually participate in this country.
Joe sixpack can name professional atheletes all day long, can spout the most arcane stat from a number of sports, but generally has no idea who is voting with his voice, who is using his influence, and where his money goes. That's HIS fault, that is HIS responsibility, no matter the machinations in place to keep it just the way it is. And since I am also an American, and I know better, it is my fault. And it's your fault. We all share the responsibility.
That is the climate. And we are all a part of it. Like it or not. Whine about it, bitch about it, I don't give a shit, but you're wrong. You have blood on your hands. If the American military kills ONE person, you are partially responsible, as am I.
I may have stated it in an overly-dramatic way originally, but it is true nonetheless.
representative government, as we have in the U.S., is only effective when it is executed under a bond of TRUST between representative and constituency. clearly, that is all too often not the case. but the party with blood on its hands in that case is the representative, not the constituent. furthermore, that trust is null and void (and the constituent's culpability zero) if a representative, without the *express* consent of the constituency, appoints or supports a another "representative" (i.e. i voted for John Doe, but if he then appoints Bob Smith, who commits some unspeakable act, i cannot be held liable for that mistake).
As to this circular piece of crap: This is not the way it occurs. You vote for John Doe, John Doe appoints Bob Smith. Bob Smith is the head man for some heinous crap, and then you vote for John Doe again...because he's your party representative, and because you're too busy to actually pay attention to the policies being put forth in your name because you're surfing the internet instead, or you're watching Buffy, ST, or some other banal diversion and can't be bothered to actually educate yourself. That takes effort. That takes critical thinking. F that. Who wants to search for alternative sources of information wh
Slashdot Mirror
I absolutely loved Bungie's pre-microsoft games. Now, I am not commenting on Halo, 'cause I haven't played it, and the entire franchise has received nothing but great
ratings are reviews, but I well remember back in the day going to Bungie's online store, and finding a good bye letter from one of the original members who decried the
buyout and called MS the Borg. I also remember seeing Halo previews way back then, the release of which seemed imminent, but the game was subsequently held back for years to be the XBOX' flagship release.
I, for one, would love to see Bungie get back out from under MS, and develop some more original titles, as was their strength.
Myth: The Fallen Lords, and Myth II: Soulbighter remain two of my all-time faves, and are still playable today.
PST is barely even a CRPG. It's more like a throwback to interactive fiction. It's mostly an adventure game.
I disagree, strongly. In BG and its subsequent clones/sequels, you could choose a role and it would direct your potential
actions, and usually there was a choice of acting within your role, or acting without and (punitively) becoming a fighter.
There were a narrow set of objectives with side quests, but most of the main lines were the same. in the original BG, I felt that
the sense of freedom afforded by wide-open frames (the characters not being funneled to only those parts of the map that were
"active") as well as refreshing random monsters gave the game a sense of freedom. But in P:T there was a true sense of freedom, you
could shape the way the game was going to go dependent on your choices more than any other game of that time or for a while thereafter.
I that all of this depends on your definition of "role-playing." The dynamic shift of alignment was a new thing, then. NWN and NWN2 have
since added that feature, which is great, but I think that P:T was as close to a true role-playing game as you could get.
You actions dictated your alignment, your skills could shift and morph, objectives were altered, etc.
I definitely look at this as an RPG, And one of the best ever, to add my $.02 to that score.
Commentary on the crime of the century there. It reminds me of the Cops episode where they parked a tractor-trailer next to projects in a low-income area with fake electronics and merchandise within ... along with a squadron of cops behind a false wall. Yeah, they managed to arrest a few twelve-year olds who couldn't resist prying open the doors. Afterwards those morons stood around giving each other high-fives and whooping it up. What a pathetic waste of time and resources. They sure cleaned up the streets (and I am very pro-cop).
... I have a position with access to everything, and have no issues with keeping my nose out of it... but we're talking kids here, and kids who are getting paid squat, and kids who work with a bunch of other kids ... is this news? Personally, I am glad that the consumerist is bringing such egregious acts to light so that luddites and grandparents the world over can enter into a service agreement secure in the knowledge that no pimply-faced kid is going to look at their porn.
The self-righteous, sanctimonious note struck by the consumerist voice-over is nauseating.
Think what you will about ethics
One other point: No one was deprived of their media. They were copied, but they also remained on the original system.
Fuck off, consumerist.
Now, what's funny is that all those emotional buzzwords ignore that these students were caught illegally ripping artists off.
... a documented history, mind you, of making blanket accusations, and many of ... as in they accused individuals who were proven to be innocent (which
Ok, the use of buzzwords is one thing, but your ignorance is entirely another. You are making a leap in logic, and against the
presumption of innocence. The RIAA has a history
those accusations have been shown to be wholly erroneous
is not the burden, of course). The RIAA has lost cases where this has occurred, and has had to remunerate their intended victims.
Perhaps you are just as biased as those you claim use emotionally-laden language, hmm?
The author states:
"Today, I'm here to explore this theory and hopefully prove why it's false."
You simpy do not go into an examination of a thoery with a bias and expect to come up with any significant
objective findings.
'Buzz' means squat. Sales and market penetration are everything.
Sure there's buzz, and buzz can lead to sales, but when it's contained in a niche market...
Apple is dominant in a particular market segment, the 'too cool for you' market segment. Just about no one else cares at all, and rather, a lot of people see Apple and die hard Apple users as elitist techno snobs.
I call bullshit. Can I call bullshit? BULLSHIT! Plenty of people who exist in other "market segments" do actually care. Do you know why?
Because they are truly not invested in image, as you are, ironically enough. You're invested in your interpretation of Apple and
their products, and have marginalized their users with this little bit of BS.
Apple doesn't sell hardware, they sell an image, and most people couldn't be bothered.
They sell hardware. The hardware they sell happens to work pretty well, too. Do they levy image? Sure. And what producer of
consumer electronics does not? Ham radio manufacturers? It's just that the image that you perceive apple sells is particularly offensive to you.
Don't get me wrong, they've got some slick shit, but again, that just doesn't matter. Besides, my shit is slick, extendable, reconfigurable, and cost me one piss of a lot less than anything comparably from Apple. And I'm talking home computer, laptop, mp3, and cell phone. (Not that the iPhone is out yet, but for the stated reasons, I'll never buy one)
Image is nothing, unless you care about that sort of thing, then by all the means, step right up and spend your money.
By publically stating that you will "never" buy an apple product you place yourself squarely within the group of people for whom image is very important. It's rather pathetic, actually, in a sadly ironic (non-Alanis Morisette) way.
Cavalier DSL. Sons of bitches!
Actually, none of them have any humor that I can see, and their points all basically filter down to "sour grapes!"
I expected to see something along the lines of Hunter Cressall's truly hilarious (and spot on) Mac-bashing, but these videos are banal nonsense.
I feel for you, and certainly wish you did not have to deal with such unfortunate (though human) conditions.
That said, to attempt to draw a parallel between those things and intelligence is both absurd and unsupported.
There are many, a majority, in fact, of extraordinarily intelligent people who are not only able to function
socially, but are able to apply that intellect and bring a greater awareness to bear in decision-making, and in
navigating social and political situations, sans conditions like those from which you suffer.
I also respectfully submit that your "research" is necessarily biased, as you clearly have an emotional desire
to have your theories proven true (as you apparently and understandably suffer from feelings of inferiority from your conditions).
Studies have consistently shown that higher intelligence leads to healthier (physically and mentally) and happier
people. This "semi-autistic genius geek" thing is a BS myth. Don't say most, say "me." Because that is what you mean, and it ends there.
Furthermore... this cult of personality nonsense (re: listening to Linus because he's Linus) is the height of idiocy.
When he talks, listen. If you don't like what he says, cope.
The first part is reasonable, the second ridiculous. If you don't like what he says, provide a counterpoint. It will be no more or less valid regardless of any factor save its internal logical consistency.
I switched to OO a couple of years ago, and now use it exclusively on my mac (in the form of neo office, though I do have X and OO),
my linux workstation, and windows. I have had no problems with document conversion in all that time. I simply refuse to be a part
of the MS machine when it comes to office. I've moved my wife to it as well, on windows, and she never has problems.
It works. That's all I ask. Oh yeah, free is nice, too.
--As a point of reference, the assets of General Electric, the fourth largest American corporation, equaled $4,851,718,000 in 1966. Yes. That's four trillion.
That's four billion. Did you forget some zeros, or is this what GE's net worth was?
Four trillion in the 60's? Sounds dubious.
Cowardice is not feeling fear; it is allowing fear to control action or behavior.
Courage is the trait evinced by those who refuse to bow to their fear.
Courage seems impossible in those who do not feel fear.
Maybe it's the alignment of the planets, or sunspots, or a harmonic convergence that is actually going to cause a rise in prices. You can be sure of one thing: No matter WHAT happens, M$ will raise their prices.
When is this point going to be leveraged?
I can name my fuckyouRIAA.txt file to The_Matrix.dvix and have my service disconnected. This is
a ridiculous position. Does a file name now constitute proof?
I don't know how legit this e-mail is actually, but to discount it on the basis of its composition is absurd. How many of these people (that are decrying it on this basis) actually communicate with professionals on a regular basis, let alone consultants, who are salesmen, essentially?
The fact is that simple spelling mistakes and typos are ubiquitous to any and all users of e-mail.
That's all.
Running solar ignitors to a couple of bottle rockets mounted to the grill of an old Buick Regal, connected to a switch panel in the front?
Ok, maybe not, but it was fun to have bottle rocket launchers in the front of the car.
Once in a while, they actually went where you wanted them to (the rockets, not the car).
Yeah...cause Microsoft didn't advertise the service any longer! They bought it to kill it.
Had they advertised, WebTV would be ubiquitous. If people buy WebTV, they're not buying a computer...they avoid the MS tax, no sales of office. I can't believe they put WebTV on that list. There are many people out there that buy computers to access the internet only. What better device for a novice user than their TV? I'm not being a proponent for WebTV, I'm just saying that WebTV was taking off up until MS bought it, then nothing. No ads, nothing. They drove it into the ground on PURPOSE!
Shoddy shoddy journalism.
See him in Six Degrees of Separation
I've seen it, and I liked it. Maybe he'll be great; the issue I have is trying to suspend disbelief, or suspend my dislike for him garnered from his appearances in dumbed-down hollywood crapfests over the past decade or so (see MiB, ID4, Wild West, etc).
Did you see The Bicentennial Man? It had a much better lead male (Robin Williams has done a lot more good, serious work than Will Smith), and was terrible, imho
I agree. I guess that any source can be bashed by Hollywood into tripe (and often is), but at least there is some substance to that source in the beginning. I should have said "good, with reservations," on the Asimov aspect. Nightfall was once turned into a TV movie, and it was horrid.
The good: Directed by Alex Proyas, who also directed a couple of top-notch films in The Crow and Dark City. Basing on Asimov certainly qualifies as "good" in my book as well.
The bad: Will Smith.
"I don't know about anyone else, but I personally would miss the hobbit-battle at the end against the orcs."
Just to pick a nit: They fought against men only in the Shire. Saruman's men. No orcs.
checking with each other, getting this installed, sharing out libraries.
It's pretty amazing that it takes Apple to create an application for Windows that excites people in such a way.
notice you have twice now cried "cognitive dissonance!" however, your "blood on our hands" argument is only your opinion; how then does *my* opinion (that we do NOT all have blood on our hands for every misdeed) qualify as cognitive dissonance?
First of all: let's clarify. My "blood on the our hands" argument refers to the fact that we are culpable for any act conducted by our military. That is my opinion. Not misdeed, but act. Our military doesn't have to act wrongly to kill. Do you not agree that when we go to war, we, as citizens, as voters, are complicit?
Secondly, you fire off an obviously angry response to what I wrote, decrying my point that we have blood on our hands; jumping to a number of conclusions about me personally, and attacking me personally by way of an ad hominem (the term apparently causes you some difficulty). That emotional type of reaction, coupled with your examples (which are circular and naive) in answer to a point which I feel is very clear sure looks like cognitive dissonance to me. We have blood on our hands. You don't want to think that it is true, but it is, therefore you feel cognitive dissonance, fire off your poorly thought-out response, and here we are, debunking your rationalization.
Third: I don't "cry" anything. I cite cognitive dissonance twice. It applies in both cases. If you have an issue with the use of a pertinent term, get over it.
For your ad hominem enlightenment, number one:
people who feel compelled to engage in self-denigration in order to feel noble and enlightened
This serves no logical purpose. The only thing this statement accomplishes is to characterize ME, the original poster. The characterization is wrong, and is based on a series of presumptions made by you which are betrayed later in your diatribe.
Number two:
if you want to crucify yourself and wallow in your guilt, be my guest. but please refrain from projecting your self-loathing onto everyone else
Again, this statement means nothing. This attacks me; this presupposes my motives and/or mindset, and uses them in a denigratory manner. Again, you couldn't be more wrong about me, but that isn't the point. The point is, and it is abundantly clear, that these are both ad hominems. Instead of attacking the point with a rational argument, you attack me, cite examples of your own construction which evince circular logic, and use them as straw men to take down the whole point.
Disagreement is one thing, lazy thinking, and then an arrogant response containing more of the same is quite another.
Moving on, circular logic:
representative government, as we have in the U.S., is only effective when it is executed under a bond of TRUST between representative and constituency. clearly, that is all too often not the case. but the party with blood on its hands in that case is the representative, not the constituent. furthermore, that trust is null and void (and the constituent's culpability zero) if a representative, without the *express* consent of the constituency, appoints or supports a another "representative" (i.e. i voted for John Doe, but if he then appoints Bob Smith, who commits some unspeakable act, i cannot be held liable for that mistake).
Is there a need to quantify the circular nature of your theoretical up there? Ok. You create an example where the only way you can be responsible is if "a bond of trust" exists between one and one's representative. You then cite an example that severs that bond of trust, and use that example of proof that you aren't responsible. Looks pretty circular to me. Not to mention its nature as a straw man.
Now, you misunderstand my response to you:
ironically, your "you're too busy to actually pay attention" speech qualifies as a grade-a ad hominem attack (that is unfounded, to boot!). rather than respond to the argument i presented, you instead attack my character/qualifications/abilities/intelligence.
I cannot seriously believe that you feel that
Look forward to a lifetime of high cholesterol, kidney stones, osteoporosis and increased risk of bowel cancer. Not to mention the fact that the Atkins diet is so restrictive as to be completely unpalatable. Although eating only low-carb foods like meat and eggs sounds good in theory, in practice very few people have the willpower to stay on a "pure" Atkins diet. This is partly because carbs are an important part of the diet (and taste good) and partly because ketosis is an unnatural state for the body to be in for long periods of time (greater than 6 monhs) as the body is "digesting" itself to produce fuel.
_ Ketosis.htm
You betray an astounding ignorance about low-carb diets with this here tripe.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a plan, but to wax didactic about it; educate yourself.
Atkins is not terribly restrictive. It is not meat and eggs. It lowers dangerous cholesterol levels.
You mention a "pure" Atkins diet with an obvious lack of what that actually is.
One does eat carbohydrates on any low-carb diet. Ketosis is a early, short-term goal, and effects of non-diabetics remaining in ketosis have not been found to be negative. If one ingests enough fat, ketosis burns that fat and stored body fat as a fuel source, which is the objective early in the plan.
http://www.countcarbs.com/advice/LCG_Myth_Reality
http://www.immuneweb.org/lowcarb/faq/myths.html
Then individuals are encouraged to increase their carbohydrate intake as they move forward. Even in the beginning one is recommended to eat 20 grams of carbohydrates a day.
Dr. Atkins did not suffer poor health, and his death had nothing to do with his diet.
In terms of Fumento; I find his writings a joke. Taubes' article interested me in giving this plan a shot...not a diet, but a plan of eating for a lifetime. In hunting down info before starting, I cam across a rebuttal by Fumento of the original article. I had been ill-disposed towards low-carb plans prior to reading Taubes article, so I was not predisposed to believe anyone.
Fumento's article was terrible. I noticed it as I was reading. He uses colorful, reactionary language, but little logic, and little reference or attribution. Luckily, the place I read it also included Taubes answer to Fumento's article.
I suggest you (or anyone who is interested) read the entire dialogue:
Taubes' original article here.
Fumento's rebuttal:
http://reason.com/0303/fe.mf.big.shtml
Taubes' response (also linked from the previous page):
http://www.reason.com/0303/taubes.shtml
have zero tolerance for people who feel compelled to engage in self-denigration in order to feel noble and enlightened. if you have a valid point to make, it can be made without the kind of all-encompassing tripe quoted above; if it can't, it's not a valid point.
I am not interested in your tolerance. What I said I stand by. Your stridency in calling it tripe due to cognitive dissonance is not my problem. My point is valid. Our disagreement starts with your assertion that what I wrote is "all-encompassing tripe." It is not, and I will elaborate.
am not responsible for the atrocity committed by some soldier, under command of some appointed general, appointed by some government official (who receives campaign contributions from BigEvil, Inc.), appointed by some other government official, with the support of one of my representatives, for whom i voted. ridiculous!
First of all, one does not have to commit, or be complicit in the commission of an atrocity to be partially responsible for the deaths of others...i.e. to have blood on one's hands, to be quite literal.
Secondly, as Americans we are all guilty of atrocity when our government commits them. Whether or not that makes you angry, whether or not you froth at the mouth and create a host of rationalizations for why you're NOT, you are.
But I didn't say atrocity, I said blood.
Here's the deal: I am politically active. I educate myself on what is going on. I participate in the process far more than merely voting; I know who my representative are, I know how they vote, and I give them my voice, and yet I hold myself accountable. And no, I don't consider myself an unique snowflake.
The simple fact is that most Americans are too lazy to get their fat asses off of the couch, stop watching Survivor, the NFL, stop worrying about a romance between two vacuous stars who couldn't give a crap about them to actually participate in this country.
Joe sixpack can name professional atheletes all day long, can spout the most arcane stat from a number of sports, but generally has no idea who is voting with his voice, who is using his influence, and where his money goes. That's HIS fault, that is HIS responsibility, no matter the machinations in place to keep it just the way it is. And since I am also an American, and I know better, it is my fault. And it's your fault. We all share the responsibility.
That is the climate. And we are all a part of it.
Like it or not. Whine about it, bitch about it, I don't give a shit, but you're wrong. You have blood on your hands. If the American military kills ONE person, you are partially responsible, as am I.
I may have stated it in an overly-dramatic way originally, but it is true nonetheless.
representative government, as we have in the U.S., is only effective when it is executed under a bond of TRUST between representative and constituency. clearly, that is all too often not the case. but the party with blood on its hands in that case is the representative, not the constituent. furthermore, that trust is null and void (and the constituent's culpability zero) if a representative, without the *express* consent of the constituency, appoints or supports a another "representative" (i.e. i voted for John Doe, but if he then appoints Bob Smith, who commits some unspeakable act, i cannot be held liable for that mistake).
As to this circular piece of crap: This is not the way it occurs. You vote for John Doe, John Doe appoints Bob Smith. Bob Smith is the head man for some heinous crap, and then you vote for John Doe again...because he's your party representative, and because you're too busy to actually pay attention to the policies being put forth in your name because you're surfing the internet instead, or you're watching Buffy, ST, or some other banal diversion and can't be bothered to actually educate yourself. That takes effort. That takes critical thinking. F that. Who wants to search for alternative sources of information wh