Beginners should play single player first. Get yourself a copy of doom. Beat the game on at least hurt me plenty mode. Then beat doom 2 the same way. It doesn't take long. Then beat quake 2 single player on normal. Forget quake 1. Then beat half-life single player on normal. After that you should have amassed enough fps skill to rock the house.
Just because it has taken you 10 years to learn how to play a FPS doesn't mean the average geek reading this site will require that much time.
Doom I??? Doom II??? I haven't heard of anyone playing either of those games in at least 5 years. My god, they had a Doom release on the Atari Jaguar!!! Think about that!
I think you have dedicated way too much of your life to playing these games.
In the amount of time that has expired since Doom I came out, you could have gotten your undergrad degree, gone to medical school, AND finished your residency. You would be a real, licened, ready to probe the vagina gynecologist.
Lets get our priorities straight here. Games should be a minor diversion, not an activity which requires 15% of your life to master.
And as this is New York City, there's no need for plain brown paper wrappers to conceal what these magazines are all about. We're not talking about Penthouse or Playboy, but covers that show closeups of ass-to-mouth and animal sex action.
I have never seen anything like that in any convenience store anywhere in New York. I've stopped and gotten cigarettes at least once in every neighborhood in the city (I get around a lot with my job).
I can also tell you that peep shows and porn shops maybe gone from 42nd and Broadway, Times Square proper... but that doesn't mean they are gone for good. Just walk down 8th or 9th ave, there are still quite a few of those kinds of shops.
I think you are merely displaying your ignorance of philosophy if you think that those two men are the reason for for nihilism.
Kant laid the foundation for modern analytical thought. Nietzsche was the first man to write extensively about how nihilism comes into being, and his primary goal was searching for a way to avoid it.
If you actually read Nietzsche, you would realize his predictions of our modern culture are in fact amazingly accurate, almost prophetic.
If everyone begins outsourcing to India, then the law of supply and demand requires that eventually the cost of doing this will rise.
I don't think you understand the principle of supply and demand (it is NOT a law).
Perhaps a cheaper alternative to India will arise, but that has nothing to do with supply and demand. There are 6.8 billion people on this planet. The supply is far greater than the demand, that is why human labor is cheaper now than ever before.
Your mention of the word "cycle" also indicates that you really have no fucking clue what you are talking about. The most Internationalist economics buffoon will claim that the ultimate goal of free trade is the levelling of living standards the world over. The end result is the cost of labor will be the SAME all over the world.
This is the egalitarian vision, that all people are equal, that they all have the same abilities, and that they will all work for the same wage.
What the Internationalist egalitarians do not realize is that humans will always form cadres to fight for their own advantage. In their most advanced form, we called them "nations". I think you will find that the majority of people will not join your little game as willingly as you think.
War will be fought over this idelogical issue in your lifetime. Choose your side wisely.
Instead of that bullshit link to definitions of your Internationalist newspeak phrase, why don't you tell us what the export of the future will be. It cannot be biotechnology.
If you cannot think of anything other than biotechnology, you have to speculate what will happen once we render all the biotechnologists obsolete just like we have the software engineers. Assume that time frame will be roughly 20 years. If you can't speculate on the specific industry, try to speculate on the particular problems that are not yet solved in this world which an inventive mind could exploit.
Lets not forget Linksys is owned by Cisco these days. I hope they are not stupid enough to sell a router for $2000 under the cisco brand, but only $150 under Linksys.
OMFG I can't believe I am still reading posts like this. How do people mod up such innane bullshit?
Can we ever have a 64-bit related discussion without these insanley simplistic criticisms that have been addressed 1000 times already?
I know PLENTY of people who have machines with a gig of ram!! 512 megs of ram has been standard for 2 years now!!! If 1 gig is the standard in a new machine today, don't you fucking think maybe 5 years from now we will need MORE than 4 gigs of ram??? HMM????
Perhaps that is the case for abortion, but other more important discussions are censored. In particular, compare the article on Democracy to the article on Fascism or the article on Monarchism.
Despite many valid criticisms of democracy throughout the ages, most notably Socrates and Plato in his book Republic, any attempt to express those views in Wikipedia are removed. Fascism as it existed in the 20th century was basically the modern manifestation of the ideas put forth in Plato's Republic, as well as those of Sparta. The Athens versus Sparta debate has captured the imagination of leaders and intellectuals for over 2500 years now, yet on Wikipedia it is forbidden. Athens good. Sparta bad.
Further, the criticism of egalitarianism specifically as it involves the destruction of culture is also not allowed, even though Plato himself makes that very prediction. This is particularly outrageous when people are well aware that local culture is disappearing all over the world.
Unfortunately, the issue here is as you say "use politically correct language". This, in a way highlights how twisted the modern man can be, after being indoctrinated his entire life. Who determines what is politically correct? What are those standards? It is what you see on television and read in newspapers. It is not like your peers and fellow citizens came up with that nonsense. The elite promote those views through popular culture because it serves their purposes. Consumerism does not work unless you instill in the masses an extreme desire to be different and unique. The freedom to be an individual must be exalted because ultimately it is a desire that can only be satisfied through the acquisition of material goods. Egalitarianism must be promoted because everyone must feel like they have a real chance to better than everyone else, or to be a leader otherwise their desire to be an individual will be crushed.
The principles Egalitarianism and Democracy make up the foundation of the new religion of the ruling class. Both are required for them to maintain the illusion of freedom and self determination in our society. The moment those false constructions collapse, our entire society will crumble.
In the grand scheme of human history, the abortion debate is practically irrelevent. In fact, it is more a symptom of the egalitarian mindset. Only in a world where people believe all humans are equal and deserving of life can a fetus have any value. It is a debate that MUST be allowed, for to silence it would expose the fraud that is egalitarianim. Yet at the same time, the ruling class is very much aware that there are too many people on this planet and that abortion is the best solution to that problem. So the false dichotomy is allowed. Both goals are achieved. Egalitarianism is maintained amongst the masses, and some measure of population control is put in place.
The only issues which allow a diversity of viewpoints are those which result as a conflict between the unnatural egalitarian vision of existence and the very real pressures of life itself.
Someday, politics will follow. But not today.
When considering which debates allow for a diversity of viewpoints, you should consider what the result of that argument will be. Could it change the world? Will it really be something that is remembered a millenia from now?
The New Testament was written at least 100 years after Jesus died.
Are you familiar at all with the history of ancient Judea? Lets just say that they fought whole wars against hellenized Jews who spoke Greek. The traditional Jews won, and Hanukkah is the resulting holiday which commemorates the slaughter of the hellenized Jews.
This extremist attitude towards gentile culture ultimately led to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by Emperor Vespatian. Decades of turmoil followed until the Jews revolted again in 132 AD. Emperor Hadrian simply eradicated the population of Jersualem, and prohibited all Jewish customs,language, culture, and laws. Roman culture was then imposed on the region and Judea ceased to exist until 1948.
Thus, when the bible was being written in 100 AD, it was not going to be written in any language of the Jews.
The Holy Lands changed very radically between the time Jesus was supposedly born and when the first gospels were written. Further, Jews were quite hostile to Roman and Greek culture and in Jerusalem itself neither would have been used by Jews except perhaps after 132.
Let's face it, as long as there is a human element involved, there will be difference of opinion , no matter what the topic is about. And editing out parts which you don't necessaryly agree to is censorship.
The mainstream Wikipedia user is one educated by MTV. Such viewers are decidedly egalitarian and internationalist, thus only superficial differences between peoples and cultures are acknowledged. These are the people who associate culture with cuisine and religious rituals, and little else.
Any articles dealing with history, politics, current events, or anything that could possibly involve the scenarios you mention are always framed from the viewpoint of a 20 something raised on MTV.
It should be possible to have different articles from the viewpoints of different people, rather than the accepted truth. Not only is this the fair method, it would provide a great insight into human thought, as well as persuasion and propaganda.
I worry greatly about our future world where there is only one viewpoint, especially when that viewpoint is perpetuated by the select few who control the major media outlets. Wikipedia should allow for the expression of unpopular ideas and history.
Fortunately, economics is NOT a zero sum game (see: Wealth of Nations, Smith, 1776.)
You mean the same book that mentions the importance of tariffs in protecting domestic industry?
Like you have ever read it.
Why don't you at least give me the chapter that deals with your BS statement.
The book was written a long time ago, advocating a financial system that was in its infancy. Just because the 10 points on the Libertarian Party's website makes sense to you doesn't mean you have a clue about society, human nature, or the purpose of life itself. It also doesn't mean you can pretend to have read famous books.
For some definition of "stolen", anyway. From Cortez to the East India Company to the slave trade, natural and human resources were systematically removed from the rest of the world by European colonial powers.
"Stolen" implies that one group of people has the right to property or resources.
Nature IS competition for resources. Does the wolf steal from the mountain lion because it killed the lamb first, thus depriving the lion of food?
Ever since the first single celled organisms in the primordial ocean began to consume each other due to the exhaustion of glucose in that ancient environment, life forms have been stealing resources from one another.
The lie you are perpetuating is that amongst humans, this is unique to white men. The fact is only they were good enough at it to affect the whole world. What about the mongels? Who got all the way to vienna? Or the huns?
Every major war, every revolution, every system of society, and every culture has come into being to assist that extended tribe in the conquest of and competition for natural resources.
Yes, since then, most of the wealth of the west has been generated. You have to understand, however, that it takes wealth to make wealth. The rest of the world is only just now starting to bounce back thanks to globalisation, despite the best efforts of wealthy countries to keep protectionism alive in all industries except the ones they do well.
It takes human ingenuity and civilized behavior to create wealth. It should be clear that wealth in the material sense is insufficient, otherwise Africa would be the wealthiest continent. For primitive people, wealth cannot be created. Their instincts only allow for the most basic form of resource exploitation.
I would also question your suggestion internationalism helps third world countries. The major issue with India never discussed is why they as a people are focusing on software engineering and not improving the country they are in. We are talking about a country where the vast majority of people live in housing inferior to most urban housing in the Roman Empire over 2000 years. India is a prime example of how Internationalism only benefits a select elite. The average Indian citizen is probably worse off today than under British rule.
What hope does the average fellow have in India except to work as a servant for the wealthy who get their money from the US?
Internationalism is only going to further the caste system in India, except that even the upper echelons of society there will be little more than parasites on the great fat Internationalists.
There are billions of people in these third world countries, there most certainly aren't billions of landmines. Just round up an, make 'em walk and finish the job once and for all.
This sounds like a cheap and inexpensive way to deal with our tremendous overpopulation problem.
Sir have you tried buying a new car without AC? Pretty hard to find.
You do realize that the vast majority of the civilized world is in climates that make AC rather unnecessary, don't you?
Do you really think the cars the sell in Alaska and Canada don't let you opt out of getting an air conditiong unit? What about in Sweden?
Pretty much all low end cars like a Honda Civic or Ford Focus have optional air conditioning.
It is quite common in much of the US to have houses without air conditioning. Go to anywhere in New England, or Maine, Wisconsin, or Minnesota... a lot people decide it isn't worth the money to get an air conditioner you use for 2 weeks a year, if that.
Are you from california or something? Just not aware of the rest of the world?
I would strongly disagree with your opinion regarding the internet. I think it is much more powerful then newspapers or radio. How can you even compare them? The internet is not simply a news source.
Did you read my post? I am not making a total value judgement... I am only questioning the BENEFIT of the dissemination of ideas, particularly in the political realm. I am not convinced the benefits have materialized. So we have these fun message boards, is that really earth shattering? Has it made our day to day lives any better?
Ever hear on the Genome?
Sure, but has that really improved your life substantially? I see a lot of promises but nothing is materializing.
Ever see modern warfare?
Thats a bad example. Nuclear weapons were designed before and during WWII. It was a goal the entire time. Modern submarines are not mechanically that different than a U-boat type IX, the external shape was decided upon then... Our guns are not anymore advanced than the Sturmgewehr-44. Its amazing how similar a modern Abrahms tank looks compared to a 1943 Tiger I.
Considering how mounted cavalry was still a staple of warfare 50 years prior to that, have we achieved so much in equal time? Refinement versus invention. Thats the only point I am making. Something to think about.
Read about the string theory?
Which was based on a lot of work done by Heisenberg in the 1930's? Has string theory lead to anything truly useful yet?
Been to a hospital lately?
Are people really living longer, healthier lives in the post war world? Can we even develop a superior replacement to morphine? Look around you, the vast majority of people in the United States are far from healthy. Compare it to pictures from the depression or something... Humans today look closer to monsters than men.
Nevermind the very valid argument that our obsession puts TOO MUCH emphasis on life, that we should simply let nature take its course.
Maybe you are referring to the fact that computers and the internet aided in the invention/discovery of most new things.
Invention is different than discovery... We have certainly learned a great deal of new and interesting facts, but the practicality of that new knowledge is not always very clear. If you think the purpose of life is to learn lots of useless facts, then so be it... But I have a different view.
Whats so bad about living in a plywood box? Mine is 1500 square feet and has everything I need. Maybe it won't last 100 years, but I couldn't afford a stone castle or Solid Oak Log Cabin.
Nothing is bad about LIVING in that house, but there are unforseen economic consequences of housing that doesn't last very long. Some old people can't sell their homes because no one will want to fix it up, so they are stuck living in them. The often times get stuck with repair bills they weren't prepared for.
Another big issues is intergenerational wealth. A primary economic mover was once the inheritence you would receive upon the death of your parents. Many people got their first house using that money as a down payment. The vast majority of parents today can't give their children anything as a result.
And my final point to your trolling, and to get use even further from the topic of star trek, is that the internet is not a final proof of anything. Its still in its infancy.
I suppose my post did get a little off topic, but I would hardly call it trolling. You obviously found my post interesting enough to respond to it, and thats really why we are all here isn't it?
It is amazing how when faced with the truth, only insults can fly... that ideas alone can incite such rage.
And you wonder why the internet hasn't brought world peace? Millions of people simply engaging in mindless ad homimum attacks... "I don't like what you have to say, so Fuck You! You're a fucking cunt!"
And you wonder why progress is not made? We are to trust the future of the human race to crass individuals like yourself? Who cannot debate, merely insult?
It is people like you who are the best evidence as to why democracy can only lead to anarchy and endless conflict.
Nothing is valued for its longevity until it has existed long enough to have longevity.
Thats now true. It is quite easy to determine, based on the method and materials of construction, the expected life of a building.
Do you really think building materials are worse now than before?
Duuhh, genius. Did I say the building materials today are inferior to those used in the past? We certainly have some superior methods of building, but outside of slightly improved metals, and slightly improved concrete, building materials haven't changed that much in the time frame I am discussing.
With the huge jump in logic you have made regarding my statement, I should just assume you think plywood is a better building material than brick. Didn't your mother ever tell you of the three little pigs?
What are you using as evidence of that?
Talk to anyone involved in real estate. This isn't exactly secret news.
Houses before WWII had an expected life about 80 years, in some markets (particularly the south) houses last only 25 years before they are condemned.
Chances are you live in a part of the country that wasn't really settled until after WWII, but in most of the old cities the majority of the housing stock is quite old. A well maintained brick house can be last for well over a century. I have personally seen quite a few townhomes built in the 1880's that were not very well maintained, but still are standing and are habitable.
Is that perhaps because (gasp) only the good buildings last? You seriously need to develop a better perspective than your 2 decades of awareness has thusfar afforded you.
Jackoff, I am heavily involved with real estate analysis. What I am telling you is 100% fact. Go to New York City. There are tens of thousands of houses there built over a century ago, most not in the best condition and the facade probably was replaced with siding. But they are still standing, even when barely maintained for decades. Those townhouses, even the ones in need of repair, will command at least $400K in a ghetto neighborhood. You can't find a townhouse with an intact facade in Bedford-Stuyvesant will cost you at least $500K. You want a 19th century home in Harlem? Minimum $1 million. This was housing that was built from the beginning to be middle class housing. It was these neighborhoods which descended into slums after WWII. They are still undesirable to the majority of the population.
The majority of houses built in the 19th cenutry in New York did not collapse, they were torn down to make larger properties. In Brooklyn this is less true, and that is where you have the most 19th century housing stock.
In New York, the premium placed on this higher quality housing stock is designated as simply "pre-war". You can go to any real estate web site to see for yourself.
Chances are you are simply a loser who lives in some god forsaken suburban hell hole that was a farm 50 years ago, and never put much thought into how things used to be in the rest of the country. You visit one of the older big cities and you think it is disney world, not realizing that was actually home to a large percentage of the US population at one point.
I find that you using a web browser, the internet, and web servers to post a diatribe about how lousy the "post war world" is terribly ironic.
Perhaps then, you don't quite understand the meaning of irony.
Is the internet really that radically different than a newspaper? a radio? Do you really think someone living in 1930 would not believe such an invention is possible?
Computers are the one thing that have really advanced significantly, and you will not be able to name anything else. There is a very big difference between refinement and invention, and the last 60 years has been the former in every single sphere, except for computer technology.
Do you really want a future where we live in plywood boxes, going to work at the service industry of the day, and have nothing resembling a human community? Technological advancement does not necessarily lead to cultural improvement.
Try to look past the end of your nose and if you think it's all tired crap then try to change it.
My the vitriol! I do try and change it, primarily by confronting the short sighted such as yourself.
(The tools that allow your message to be heard are 1000 times better today than in the "pre war world"
Are you sure about that? You would think, that without this great god of the internet things like politics would be radically different. Are they? It seems that propaganda is becoming more refined as an art even with the millions of people who supposedly can communicate on the internet.
Perhaps the internet demostrates one crucial fact that our modern society cannot accept: that the majority of the people are intellectually inferior, dominated by fear, and crave conformity.
The internet is the final proof that egalitarianism and democracy are not merely abject failures, but they are contrary to human nature as a whole. It doesn't matter how much freedom to jibber people have, they ultimately choose leaders that are corrupt and simply exploit the weaknesses of the masses.
Yet, it is a great tool for practicing rhetorical technique.
Slashdot Mirror
Beginners should play single player first. Get yourself a copy of doom. Beat the game on at least hurt me plenty mode. Then beat doom 2 the same way. It doesn't take long. Then beat quake 2 single player on normal. Forget quake 1. Then beat half-life single player on normal. After that you should have amassed enough fps skill to rock the house.
Just because it has taken you 10 years to learn how to play a FPS doesn't mean the average geek reading this site will require that much time.
Doom I??? Doom II??? I haven't heard of anyone playing either of those games in at least 5 years. My god, they had a Doom release on the Atari Jaguar!!! Think about that!
I think you have dedicated way too much of your life to playing these games.
In the amount of time that has expired since Doom I came out, you could have gotten your undergrad degree, gone to medical school, AND finished your residency. You would be a real, licened, ready to probe the vagina gynecologist.
Lets get our priorities straight here. Games should be a minor diversion, not an activity which requires 15% of your life to master.
You actually use a browser that can't block popups???
I guess that means you use IE and can't even be bothered to download the google bar.
And as this is New York City, there's no need for plain brown paper wrappers to conceal what these magazines are all about. We're not talking about Penthouse or Playboy, but covers that show closeups of ass-to-mouth and animal sex action.
I have never seen anything like that in any convenience store anywhere in New York. I've stopped and gotten cigarettes at least once in every neighborhood in the city (I get around a lot with my job).
I can also tell you that peep shows and porn shops maybe gone from 42nd and Broadway, Times Square proper... but that doesn't mean they are gone for good. Just walk down 8th or 9th ave, there are still quite a few of those kinds of shops.
I think you are merely displaying your ignorance of philosophy if you think that those two men are the reason for for nihilism.
Kant laid the foundation for modern analytical thought. Nietzsche was the first man to write extensively about how nihilism comes into being, and his primary goal was searching for a way to avoid it.
If you actually read Nietzsche, you would realize his predictions of our modern culture are in fact amazingly accurate, almost prophetic.
but could it be that NKS is nothing more than a computer-science primer for physicists?
Perhaps a computer-science primer for biologists. Most of the mathematical patterns discussed in the book are organic.
I so pity the German people. To think the home of Mozart, Beethoven, Goethe, Nietzsche, and Kant has become the nihilistic cess pool of today.
I only hope that their legacy can be saved before its too late.
Name a country that isn't communist where an entire industry is controlled by one entity.
Trades will be corporatized, so if you want to be a plumber you'll have to work for National Plumbers, inc.
And you base this prediction on what theory? The Soviet Union?
So, basically there will be a two class system, since they've effectively figured out how to eliminate the merchant class and the professional class.
I don't think you read Das Kapital quite as thoroughly as you should have.
If everyone begins outsourcing to India, then the law of supply and demand requires that eventually the cost of doing this will rise.
I don't think you understand the principle of supply and demand (it is NOT a law).
Perhaps a cheaper alternative to India will arise, but that has nothing to do with supply and demand. There are 6.8 billion people on this planet. The supply is far greater than the demand, that is why human labor is cheaper now than ever before.
Your mention of the word "cycle" also indicates that you really have no fucking clue what you are talking about. The most Internationalist economics buffoon will claim that the ultimate goal of free trade is the levelling of living standards the world over. The end result is the cost of labor will be the SAME all over the world.
This is the egalitarian vision, that all people are equal, that they all have the same abilities, and that they will all work for the same wage.
What the Internationalist egalitarians do not realize is that humans will always form cadres to fight for their own advantage. In their most advanced form, we called them "nations". I think you will find that the majority of people will not join your little game as willingly as you think.
War will be fought over this idelogical issue in your lifetime. Choose your side wisely.
Instead of that bullshit link to definitions of your Internationalist newspeak phrase, why don't you tell us what the export of the future will be. It cannot be biotechnology.
If you cannot think of anything other than biotechnology, you have to speculate what will happen once we render all the biotechnologists obsolete just like we have the software engineers. Assume that time frame will be roughly 20 years. If you can't speculate on the specific industry, try to speculate on the particular problems that are not yet solved in this world which an inventive mind could exploit.
Lets not forget Linksys is owned by Cisco these days. I hope they are not stupid enough to sell a router for $2000 under the cisco brand, but only $150 under Linksys.
Actually, there are a few tasks that benefit from 64-bit code: Encryption, Databases, and file-systems.
Don't forget media encoding.
Ripping that DVD will be a LOT faster with a 64-bit optimized encoder.
OMFG I can't believe I am still reading posts like this. How do people mod up such innane bullshit?
Can we ever have a 64-bit related discussion without these insanley simplistic criticisms that have been addressed 1000 times already?
I know PLENTY of people who have machines with a gig of ram!! 512 megs of ram has been standard for 2 years now!!! If 1 gig is the standard in a new machine today, don't you fucking think maybe 5 years from now we will need MORE than 4 gigs of ram??? HMM????
Perhaps that is the case for abortion, but other more important discussions are censored. In particular, compare the article on Democracy to the article on Fascism or the article on Monarchism.
Despite many valid criticisms of democracy throughout the ages, most notably Socrates and Plato in his book Republic, any attempt to express those views in Wikipedia are removed. Fascism as it existed in the 20th century was basically the modern manifestation of the ideas put forth in Plato's Republic, as well as those of Sparta. The Athens versus Sparta debate has captured the imagination of leaders and intellectuals for over 2500 years now, yet on Wikipedia it is forbidden. Athens good. Sparta bad.
Further, the criticism of egalitarianism specifically as it involves the destruction of culture is also not allowed, even though Plato himself makes that very prediction. This is particularly outrageous when people are well aware that local culture is disappearing all over the world.
Unfortunately, the issue here is as you say "use politically correct language". This, in a way highlights how twisted the modern man can be, after being indoctrinated his entire life. Who determines what is politically correct? What are those standards? It is what you see on television and read in newspapers. It is not like your peers and fellow citizens came up with that nonsense. The elite promote those views through popular culture because it serves their purposes. Consumerism does not work unless you instill in the masses an extreme desire to be different and unique. The freedom to be an individual must be exalted because ultimately it is a desire that can only be satisfied through the acquisition of material goods. Egalitarianism must be promoted because everyone must feel like they have a real chance to better than everyone else, or to be a leader otherwise their desire to be an individual will be crushed.
The principles Egalitarianism and Democracy make up the foundation of the new religion of the ruling class. Both are required for them to maintain the illusion of freedom and self determination in our society. The moment those false constructions collapse, our entire society will crumble.
In the grand scheme of human history, the abortion debate is practically irrelevent. In fact, it is more a symptom of the egalitarian mindset. Only in a world where people believe all humans are equal and deserving of life can a fetus have any value. It is a debate that MUST be allowed, for to silence it would expose the fraud that is egalitarianim. Yet at the same time, the ruling class is very much aware that there are too many people on this planet and that abortion is the best solution to that problem. So the false dichotomy is allowed. Both goals are achieved. Egalitarianism is maintained amongst the masses, and some measure of population control is put in place.
The only issues which allow a diversity of viewpoints are those which result as a conflict between the unnatural egalitarian vision of existence and the very real pressures of life itself.
Someday, politics will follow. But not today.
When considering which debates allow for a diversity of viewpoints, you should consider what the result of that argument will be. Could it change the world? Will it really be something that is remembered a millenia from now?
The New Testament was written at least 100 years after Jesus died.
Are you familiar at all with the history of ancient Judea? Lets just say that they fought whole wars against hellenized Jews who spoke Greek. The traditional Jews won, and Hanukkah is the resulting holiday which commemorates the slaughter of the hellenized Jews.
This extremist attitude towards gentile culture ultimately led to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by Emperor Vespatian. Decades of turmoil followed until the Jews revolted again in 132 AD. Emperor Hadrian simply eradicated the population of Jersualem, and prohibited all Jewish customs,language, culture, and laws. Roman culture was then imposed on the region and Judea ceased to exist until 1948.
Thus, when the bible was being written in 100 AD, it was not going to be written in any language of the Jews.
The Holy Lands changed very radically between the time Jesus was supposedly born and when the first gospels were written. Further, Jews were quite hostile to Roman and Greek culture and in Jerusalem itself neither would have been used by Jews except perhaps after 132.
The issue is they don't admit their bias. If they did, there would different articles for topics representing the viewpoints of different people.
There is no single truth.
Let's face it, as long as there is a human element involved, there will be difference of opinion , no matter what the topic is about. And editing out parts which you don't necessaryly agree to is censorship.
The mainstream Wikipedia user is one educated by MTV. Such viewers are decidedly egalitarian and internationalist, thus only superficial differences between peoples and cultures are acknowledged. These are the people who associate culture with cuisine and religious rituals, and little else.
Any articles dealing with history, politics, current events, or anything that could possibly involve the scenarios you mention are always framed from the viewpoint of a 20 something raised on MTV.
It should be possible to have different articles from the viewpoints of different people, rather than the accepted truth. Not only is this the fair method, it would provide a great insight into human thought, as well as persuasion and propaganda.
I worry greatly about our future world where there is only one viewpoint, especially when that viewpoint is perpetuated by the select few who control the major media outlets. Wikipedia should allow for the expression of unpopular ideas and history.
Fortunately, economics is NOT a zero sum game (see: Wealth of Nations, Smith, 1776.)
You mean the same book that mentions the importance of tariffs in protecting domestic industry?
Like you have ever read it.
Why don't you at least give me the chapter that deals with your BS statement.
The book was written a long time ago, advocating a financial system that was in its infancy. Just because the 10 points on the Libertarian Party's website makes sense to you doesn't mean you have a clue about society, human nature, or the purpose of life itself. It also doesn't mean you can pretend to have read famous books.
For some definition of "stolen", anyway. From Cortez to the East India Company to the slave trade, natural and human resources were systematically removed from the rest of the world by European colonial powers.
"Stolen" implies that one group of people has the right to property or resources.
Nature IS competition for resources. Does the wolf steal from the mountain lion because it killed the lamb first, thus depriving the lion of food?
Ever since the first single celled organisms in the primordial ocean began to consume each other due to the exhaustion of glucose in that ancient environment, life forms have been stealing resources from one another.
The lie you are perpetuating is that amongst humans, this is unique to white men. The fact is only they were good enough at it to affect the whole world. What about the mongels? Who got all the way to vienna? Or the huns?
Every major war, every revolution, every system of society, and every culture has come into being to assist that extended tribe in the conquest of and competition for natural resources.
Yes, since then, most of the wealth of the west has been generated. You have to understand, however, that it takes wealth to make wealth. The rest of the world is only just now starting to bounce back thanks to globalisation, despite the best efforts of wealthy countries to keep protectionism alive in all industries except the ones they do well.
It takes human ingenuity and civilized behavior to create wealth. It should be clear that wealth in the material sense is insufficient, otherwise Africa would be the wealthiest continent. For primitive people, wealth cannot be created. Their instincts only allow for the most basic form of resource exploitation.
I would also question your suggestion internationalism helps third world countries. The major issue with India never discussed is why they as a people are focusing on software engineering and not improving the country they are in. We are talking about a country where the vast majority of people live in housing inferior to most urban housing in the Roman Empire over 2000 years. India is a prime example of how Internationalism only benefits a select elite. The average Indian citizen is probably worse off today than under British rule.
What hope does the average fellow have in India except to work as a servant for the wealthy who get their money from the US?
Internationalism is only going to further the caste system in India, except that even the upper echelons of society there will be little more than parasites on the great fat Internationalists.
There are billions of people in these third world countries, there most certainly aren't billions of landmines. Just round up an, make 'em walk and finish the job once and for all.
This sounds like a cheap and inexpensive way to deal with our tremendous overpopulation problem.
Sir have you tried buying a new car without AC? Pretty hard to find.
You do realize that the vast majority of the civilized world is in climates that make AC rather unnecessary, don't you?
Do you really think the cars the sell in Alaska and Canada don't let you opt out of getting an air conditiong unit? What about in Sweden?
Pretty much all low end cars like a Honda Civic or Ford Focus have optional air conditioning.
It is quite common in much of the US to have houses without air conditioning. Go to anywhere in New England, or Maine, Wisconsin, or Minnesota... a lot people decide it isn't worth the money to get an air conditioner you use for 2 weeks a year, if that.
Are you from california or something? Just not aware of the rest of the world?
I would strongly disagree with your opinion regarding the internet. I think it is much more powerful then newspapers or radio. How can you even compare them? The internet is not simply a news source.
Did you read my post? I am not making a total value judgement... I am only questioning the BENEFIT of the dissemination of ideas, particularly in the political realm. I am not convinced the benefits have materialized. So we have these fun message boards, is that really earth shattering? Has it made our day to day lives any better?
Ever hear on the Genome?
Sure, but has that really improved your life substantially? I see a lot of promises but nothing is materializing.
Ever see modern warfare?
Thats a bad example. Nuclear weapons were designed before and during WWII. It was a goal the entire time. Modern submarines are not mechanically that different than a U-boat type IX, the external shape was decided upon then... Our guns are not anymore advanced than the Sturmgewehr-44. Its amazing how similar a modern Abrahms tank looks compared to a 1943 Tiger I.
Considering how mounted cavalry was still a staple of warfare 50 years prior to that, have we achieved so much in equal time? Refinement versus invention. Thats the only point I am making. Something to think about.
Read about the string theory?
Which was based on a lot of work done by Heisenberg in the 1930's? Has string theory lead to anything truly useful yet?
Been to a hospital lately?
Are people really living longer, healthier lives in the post war world? Can we even develop a superior replacement to morphine? Look around you, the vast majority of people in the United States are far from healthy. Compare it to pictures from the depression or something... Humans today look closer to monsters than men.
Nevermind the very valid argument that our obsession puts TOO MUCH emphasis on life, that we should simply let nature take its course.
Maybe you are referring to the fact that computers and the internet aided in the invention/discovery of most new things.
Invention is different than discovery... We have certainly learned a great deal of new and interesting facts, but the practicality of that new knowledge is not always very clear. If you think the purpose of life is to learn lots of useless facts, then so be it... But I have a different view.
Whats so bad about living in a plywood box? Mine is 1500 square feet and has everything I need. Maybe it won't last 100 years, but I couldn't afford a stone castle or Solid Oak Log Cabin.
Nothing is bad about LIVING in that house, but there are unforseen economic consequences of housing that doesn't last very long. Some old people can't sell their homes because no one will want to fix it up, so they are stuck living in them. The often times get stuck with repair bills they weren't prepared for.
Another big issues is intergenerational wealth. A primary economic mover was once the inheritence you would receive upon the death of your parents. Many people got their first house using that money as a down payment. The vast majority of parents today can't give their children anything as a result.
And my final point to your trolling, and to get use even further from the topic of star trek, is that the internet is not a final proof of anything. Its still in its infancy.
I suppose my post did get a little off topic, but I would hardly call it trolling. You obviously found my post interesting enough to respond to it, and thats really why we are all here isn't it?
Wow. It's amazing how much of an asshole you are.
It is amazing how when faced with the truth, only insults can fly... that ideas alone can incite such rage.
And you wonder why the internet hasn't brought world peace? Millions of people simply engaging in mindless ad homimum attacks... "I don't like what you have to say, so Fuck You! You're a fucking cunt!"
And you wonder why progress is not made? We are to trust the future of the human race to crass individuals like yourself? Who cannot debate, merely insult?
It is people like you who are the best evidence as to why democracy can only lead to anarchy and endless conflict.
Nothing is valued for its longevity until it has existed long enough to have longevity.
Thats now true. It is quite easy to determine, based on the method and materials of construction, the expected life of a building.
Do you really think building materials are worse now than before?
Duuhh, genius. Did I say the building materials today are inferior to those used in the past? We certainly have some superior methods of building, but outside of slightly improved metals, and slightly improved concrete, building materials haven't changed that much in the time frame I am discussing.
With the huge jump in logic you have made regarding my statement, I should just assume you think plywood is a better building material than brick. Didn't your mother ever tell you of the three little pigs?
What are you using as evidence of that?
Talk to anyone involved in real estate. This isn't exactly secret news.
Houses before WWII had an expected life about 80 years, in some markets (particularly the south) houses last only 25 years before they are condemned.
Chances are you live in a part of the country that wasn't really settled until after WWII, but in most of the old cities the majority of the housing stock is quite old. A well maintained brick house can be last for well over a century. I have personally seen quite a few townhomes built in the 1880's that were not very well maintained, but still are standing and are habitable.
Is that perhaps because (gasp) only the good buildings last? You seriously need to develop a better perspective than your 2 decades of awareness has thusfar afforded you.
Jackoff, I am heavily involved with real estate analysis. What I am telling you is 100% fact.
Go to New York City. There are tens of thousands of houses there built over a century ago, most not in the best condition and the facade probably was replaced with siding. But they are still standing, even when barely maintained for decades. Those townhouses, even the ones in need of repair, will command at least $400K in a ghetto neighborhood. You can't find a townhouse with an intact facade in Bedford-Stuyvesant will cost you at least $500K. You want a 19th century home in Harlem? Minimum $1 million. This was housing that was built from the beginning to be middle class housing. It was these neighborhoods which descended into slums after WWII. They are still undesirable to the majority of the population.
The majority of houses built in the 19th cenutry in New York did not collapse, they were torn down to make larger properties. In Brooklyn this is less true, and that is where you have the most 19th century housing stock.
In New York, the premium placed on this higher quality housing stock is designated as simply "pre-war". You can go to any real estate web site to see for yourself.
Chances are you are simply a loser who lives in some god forsaken suburban hell hole that was a farm 50 years ago, and never put much thought into how things used to be in the rest of the country. You visit one of the older big cities and you think it is disney world, not realizing that was actually home to a large percentage of the US population at one point.
I find that you using a web browser, the internet, and web servers to post a diatribe about how lousy the "post war world" is terribly ironic.
Perhaps then, you don't quite understand the meaning of irony.
Is the internet really that radically different than a newspaper? a radio? Do you really think someone living in 1930 would not believe such an invention is possible?
Computers are the one thing that have really advanced significantly, and you will not be able to name anything else. There is a very big difference between refinement and invention, and the last 60 years has been the former in every single sphere, except for computer technology.
Do you really want a future where we live in plywood boxes, going to work at the service industry of the day, and have nothing resembling a human community? Technological advancement does not necessarily lead to cultural improvement.
Try to look past the end of your nose and if you think it's all tired crap then try to change it.
My the vitriol! I do try and change it, primarily by confronting the short sighted such as yourself.
(The tools that allow your message to be heard are 1000 times better today than in the "pre war world"
Are you sure about that? You would think, that without this great god of the internet things like politics would be radically different. Are they? It seems that propaganda is becoming more refined as an art even with the millions of people who supposedly can communicate on the internet.
Perhaps the internet demostrates one crucial fact that our modern society cannot accept: that the majority of the people are intellectually inferior, dominated by fear, and crave conformity.
The internet is the final proof that egalitarianism and democracy are not merely abject failures, but they are contrary to human nature as a whole. It doesn't matter how much freedom to jibber people have, they ultimately choose leaders that are corrupt and simply exploit the weaknesses of the masses.
Yet, it is a great tool for practicing rhetorical technique.