First paragraph might be true. I know that Al Queda fought for Taliban government, but was also independent from it. The Taliban were certainly in no position to kick them out.
Okay, second paragraph I agree with -- I remember all that from CNN.
Third one is at the very least overstated. We all saw the video of bin Laden admitting to the attack. On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to believe that he was bragging about 9/11 only because we were trying to kill him for it at that point. Some people are born martyrs and others have martyrship thrust upon them, I guess. He was a terrorist, so what the hell, huh? He certainly didn't give us any facts that hadn't already appeared on CNN (even the supposed structural analysis from before the fact was just paraphrasing an engineer I saw on CNN on the first day). The mumbo jumbo about dreams and visions of the towers falling didn't make me confident either.
Moreover, most of the hijackers were Saudis and some funding has been tied to high levels of the Saudi government. There are 28 pages of a censored Congressional report that are being leaked like a sieve at the moment. (Check out New Republic for at least one article, you won't have any trouble bypassing their security.) It's quite possible, I suppose, that the hijackers had only attended a training camp for a month as a kind of Bible camp -- I'm serious, lots of people did it -- and planned the attack completely independently from bin Laden or anybody else for that matter.
Your fourth paragraph exists in a vacuum. I am highly doubtful. The Mossad are that immoral. But they aren't that stupid. And if they were, they sure as hell wouldn't bother leaving any evidence behind. Give me some sources though, I'll take a look. I'm sure they're crackpots, but I'll give any idea a hearing. Actually your statement doesn't really exist in a vacuum because of all the anti-Semitism that goes around on the web, but even knowing that it's probably soaked in that shit, I'm still willing to at least look. So post a link.
High speed? 30 fps is the bare minimum for me. I won't even watch a chemical reaction until it's at least 60 fps. And do you know if they put the 3DMax scores into the paper?
In other words, you are giving them money, and they are promising nothing. This creates a great opportunity to screw the consumer. Corporations enjoy screwing the consumer, because the vast field of gullible and stupid people out there far outnumbers and outdrowns the smaller amount of people smart enough to realize that they are being screwed.
The great mass of people on the other side of the bell curve are the main reason society is like it is. If most people were like you and me, television wouldn't exist because television advertising depends on people about 1 standard deviation of IQ too low to post on Slashdot. Just think about how that would affect political elections. This is also one of the reasons that immigration policy is so well crafted to bring in the world's poorest and stupidest. The elites depend on them. The population that Mexico is sending over the border is for the most part their most criminal and least educated. We could import a million PhDs a year, but instead do things like this.
And I'll add that while Doom is 2D from a rendering standpoint, it's almost a 3D game from the players point of view. That's because you don't need to use actual 3D polygons to make it look like you're moving through three dimension. Just go back that ancient Nintendo game 'Globewalker' (or something like that). It's even easier to make a 2D game with a 3D redendering system.
All modern first person shooters are 3D, and more than that, it's the fps viewpoint from that 2D Doom that is the basis for how most 3D games are organized today.
I had the opposite feeling about Mario 64 that you did. I thought the extra dimensions took quite a bit away from the game. I bought it right when it came out, and I recall that a lot of people at the time agreed with me.
Your last argument is a straw man. All I said was that the 2D game style has a lot more room for innovation than the 3D. Adding that extra dimension means a lot of design compromises because of the extra freedom that you are allowing the gamer. The only game that I can think of which has overcome it well and created a feeling that harkens back to the old button smashers is Serious Sam. There are others, surely, but not too many.
I guess a lot of it boils down to 'aim and click' style versus 'manuver' style. There are certainly games that can overcome this, but it's hard.
Anybody else sorry that 2D games died the death when the consoles all got 3D engines? I like first person shooters, don't get me wrong, but it seems like they have far less possible variety than the old 2D games. 2D seems far better suited to our screens. Games have gotten better as systems have progressed, certainly, but I don't know that they have lived up to their potential. Compare the new 3D versions of Metroid and Zelda to their 2D forbearers. Does the 3D add that much to the game? If the makers had continued on the 2D track with those games would we be better off? Just look at all of the effort that went into Warcraft 3 to make it 3D -- in my mind that effort could have surely been spent better elsewhere.
You don't have to sign the EULA if you don't run the program. Until you run the program, a binary is just like a book. For some reason, our beloved leaders have neglected to extend and expand their laws into the concept of implied contract.
That's the US census data for 1995 and the FBI crime statistics. During that year, Blacks committed 54% of American murders. Note that Hispanics are counted as Whites in the FBI statistics when they commit crimes, but as minorities when they are victims.
You will notice from the census data that Whites (including Hispanics) comprise 68.5% of the nation's poor. They committed at most 46% of the nation's murders (neglecting non-Black and non-White murders).
You'll find some equally interesting statistics from the Department of Justice at: Homicide by Race
Frankly, culture matters. Crime causes poverty as well as poverty causing crime -- throwing money at things won't help. A more profitable approach would attack the horrendous level of Black illegitamacy (68%), the glamour of crime in popular Black entertainment, and the widespread welfare dependance.
I'd imagine it would more probably take the form taxi drivers in cities charging blacks more because of the added risk.
And you know what? I wouldn't have a problem with it. Frankly, black leaders need to get up off their asses and get to work on the problem of black crime. Blacks are as much more likely to commit crimes than whites as men are than women. The black crime rate has always been bad, yes, but it hasn't been this bad. If you look at the statistics, poverty doesn't begin to explain it. It's mainly the culture.
Good points, and I'll defer to your experience with weapons and tables in hostile environments.:)
I did notice a typo in my above post. I meant to write "stick his other hand out or lower his weapon a bit." However it is done though, I'd like to see some sort of animation acknowledging the physical reality of a body moving things. Having seen the movies -- including a new one today -- everything else to do with this looks so stunningly real that it's a shame not to have it. The physics engine in simply incredible. The bodies of others move in an amazingly realistic manner with regard to impact.
Everyone else retracted this yesterday. Anyway, Half-life 2 looks very cool from the movies I've seen on Steam. The physics engine of the game seems to be its best quality. On the other hand, I dislike how character animations haven't improved in a game where there will be so much of pushing things around. Couldn't he at least stick his out and lower his weapon when he's pushing a table? But still, I've been waiting a long time for this. Lots of moveable junk is the nirvana of 3D gaming.
I responded in kind to personal attacks. In fact, I was somewhat restrained.
As far as my statement about Chinese education, I'm deadly serious. The US government attempts propaganda, certainly, and no one denies it. But the propaganda that a totalitarian regime is capable of is on a whole other level. From your statements, I think it's simply that you haven't had enough world experience to know what I'm talking about. Engage a Chinese citizen who has come abroad for an history education about what he thinks of Chinese official history. Or simply engage a Chinese national who has only had exposure to the Chinese offical version about the events of WWII. You will quickly be disabused of the idea that their version is somehow equally valid, I assure you.
Good post. I think you misread some statements of fact for value judgements in my above posts. In fact, I agree with most everything you say. I'd have to add that leadership problems contributed enormously to the problems in Vietnam. They tried to fight Vietnam like WWII, which it wasn't. I agree that it was winnable. Also, our knowledge voyages of Cheng Ho is limited. He is quite often exaggerated for multicultural propaganda purposes. For evidenciary reasons, I am quite skeptical about the actual extent of his voyages and the often claimed dimensions of his ships. I agree with you that China is totalitarian for a number of reasons, and attempted democratic transformation could have disasterous effects. Just look at Russia and much of Africa for examples. On the other hand, I consider the state of China's regime somewhat precarious, and feel that upheaval is possible for the future. The current communist leaders are in fact very much at odds with China's history, in my opinion. Given the economic development going on, I imagine that things may in fact turn out better if change comes.
No of this changes my opinion that regional conflict involving both the United States and China is possible for the reasons of China's expansionism and the United State's regional interests in the region. Again, I'll state my preference for isolationism; I feel that we have no compeling military interest in the region. Yet, knowing my countrymen, I'm sure that my opinion will not win out, making China's expansionism worrying to me.
To your first point: Norway is not in strategic competition with China, nor will it ever be. We are.
To your second: I am aware that America stopped expanding for geographical reasons. That does not change the fact that the period of American expansion is over. Moreover, your point about Chinese empire is completely false. The simple act of being conquered by the Mongols does not give you the right to take over the entire Mongol empire. And do you feel that Japan has the right to take over China anytime it wants simply because it once made China part of its empire? That sort of reasoning is asinine. I do hear it often, however -- it's a product of indoctrination by the Chinese educational system. They're good at it. They are better than most anybody at fooling their own people with bold faced lies, I'd have to say.
And as for your third point about the Vietnamese: We left despite the South Vietnamese asking us to stay. Which is why they were shortly thereafter overthrown by the communists. Do you remember the thing called the Vietnam war? Remember how we left at the end and abandoned the South Vietnamese? Perhaps you need some remedial history. You certainly need a lesson in civility. It would make you seem like less of an ass whenever you open your mouth and reveal your ignorance about history.
I hear you. The open borders crowd owns Congress, however. The American people don't want the vast influx of immigrants who provide what is basically a slave labor force. They don't want to see jobs outsourced to India simply because Indians are so poor that they'll work for nearly nothing. Corporations do want this however, and they own Congress. Republicans are so used to fending off Democratic attacks on American business, that they don't realize that it's slightly different with a multi-national business. A rising tide lifts all boats, sure, but third world countries have a long way to be lifted. And Democrats are so into the hogwash of diversity and multi-culturalism, that they embrace an influx of third-worlders right across the boarder without a second thought. And that's despite the fact that it's primarily poor Americans whom it hurts -- Blacks have lost out to Hispanic labor in an especially big way.
Look, I'm pretty much an isolationist. In fact, it's our military hegemony that makes China more of a threat to the US than to, say, Norway.
But since you are an idiot, I'll say what you pretended I said the first time: "China is more expansionist than the US." It is. The character of China's wars are quite different from the US wars of the last several decades. The US hasn't had a frontier for a hundred years -- China however has numerous territorial designs. The US has enough territory. China doesn't. You are correct that the US has military bases around the globe. But they're just that, bases. They aren't there to oppress the local population. They aren't colonies. Hell, we even leave when the host nations tell us to (they don't because the bases bring them money and security).
Now, if I were to say that "China is less peaceful than the US," I'd be wrong. But I didn't. Funny how that works.
And the comma is correct. There is a difference between being an aggressive military power and an expansionist military power. I don't blame you for making an ass out of yourself with the 'sic.' Your having read into my post a million things that I didn't say gives me the impression that English is your second language anyway. Keep up the good work, it's a difficult language, but there are a lot of rewards.
The author of the above post makes some well-reasoned points. Those modding him down are not doing so because his post is a troll, but rather because they have agendas of their own. Unfortunately they chose the coward's method of combating an idea, rather than the method of tackling it head on with well-reasoned posts of their own.
Frankly, as for the author's points, China is a totalitarian, aggresive, expansionist, military power. Technology leakage to China through Taiwan is a very real problem for the US and its allies. It's not a racist thing. It's realism. We don't, for example, worry so much about technology in the hands of the peaceful democratic country of South Korea.
Slashdot Mirror
First paragraph might be true. I know that Al Queda fought for Taliban government, but was also independent from it. The Taliban were certainly in no position to kick them out.
Okay, second paragraph I agree with -- I remember all that from CNN.
Third one is at the very least overstated. We all saw the video of bin Laden admitting to the attack. On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to believe that he was bragging about 9/11 only because we were trying to kill him for it at that point. Some people are born martyrs and others have martyrship thrust upon them, I guess. He was a terrorist, so what the hell, huh? He certainly didn't give us any facts that hadn't already appeared on CNN (even the supposed structural analysis from before the fact was just paraphrasing an engineer I saw on CNN on the first day). The mumbo jumbo about dreams and visions of the towers falling didn't make me confident either.
Moreover, most of the hijackers were Saudis and some funding has been tied to high levels of the Saudi government. There are 28 pages of a censored Congressional report that are being leaked like a sieve at the moment. (Check out New Republic for at least one article, you won't have any trouble bypassing their security.) It's quite possible, I suppose, that the hijackers had only attended a training camp for a month as a kind of Bible camp -- I'm serious, lots of people did it -- and planned the attack completely independently from bin Laden or anybody else for that matter.
Your fourth paragraph exists in a vacuum. I am highly doubtful. The Mossad are that immoral. But they aren't that stupid. And if they were, they sure as hell wouldn't bother leaving any evidence behind. Give me some sources though, I'll take a look. I'm sure they're crackpots, but I'll give any idea a hearing. Actually your statement doesn't really exist in a vacuum because of all the anti-Semitism that goes around on the web, but even knowing that it's probably soaked in that shit, I'm still willing to at least look. So post a link.
High speed? 30 fps is the bare minimum for me. I won't even watch a chemical reaction until it's at least 60 fps. And do you know if they put the 3DMax scores into the paper?
High-tech solution to a low-tech problem. /pen and paper (you'll need it anyway unless they read lips)
Maybe you could elaborate.
Interesting how your post gives me less faith, not more.
And Java, of course, is the common tongue.
(Goddamn, I hate Java and Java evangelism, but I couldn't resist). +5 funny to the parent as well.
In other words, you are giving them money, and they are promising nothing. This creates a great opportunity to screw the consumer. Corporations enjoy screwing the consumer, because the vast field of gullible and stupid people out there far outnumbers and outdrowns the smaller amount of people smart enough to realize that they are being screwed.
The great mass of people on the other side of the bell curve are the main reason society is like it is. If most people were like you and me, television wouldn't exist because television advertising depends on people about 1 standard deviation of IQ too low to post on Slashdot. Just think about how that would affect political elections. This is also one of the reasons that immigration policy is so well crafted to bring in the world's poorest and stupidest. The elites depend on them. The population that Mexico is sending over the border is for the most part their most criminal and least educated. We could import a million PhDs a year, but instead do things like this.
And I'll add that while Doom is 2D from a rendering standpoint, it's almost a 3D game from the players point of view. That's because you don't need to use actual 3D polygons to make it look like you're moving through three dimension. Just go back that ancient Nintendo game 'Globewalker' (or something like that). It's even easier to make a 2D game with a 3D redendering system.
All modern first person shooters are 3D, and more than that, it's the fps viewpoint from that 2D Doom that is the basis for how most 3D games are organized today.
I had the opposite feeling about Mario 64 that you did. I thought the extra dimensions took quite a bit away from the game. I bought it right when it came out, and I recall that a lot of people at the time agreed with me.
Your last argument is a straw man. All I said was that the 2D game style has a lot more room for innovation than the 3D. Adding that extra dimension means a lot of design compromises because of the extra freedom that you are allowing the gamer. The only game that I can think of which has overcome it well and created a feeling that harkens back to the old button smashers is Serious Sam. There are others, surely, but not too many.
I guess a lot of it boils down to 'aim and click' style versus 'manuver' style. There are certainly games that can overcome this, but it's hard.
Anybody else sorry that 2D games died the death when the consoles all got 3D engines? I like first person shooters, don't get me wrong, but it seems like they have far less possible variety than the old 2D games. 2D seems far better suited to our screens. Games have gotten better as systems have progressed, certainly, but I don't know that they have lived up to their potential. Compare the new 3D versions of Metroid and Zelda to their 2D forbearers. Does the 3D add that much to the game? If the makers had continued on the 2D track with those games would we be better off? Just look at all of the effort that went into Warcraft 3 to make it 3D -- in my mind that effort could have surely been spent better elsewhere.
I'm ahead of you. My younger (minor) brother installs all software on the computer I use.
You don't have to sign the EULA if you don't run the program. Until you run the program, a binary is just like a book. For some reason, our beloved leaders have neglected to extend and expand their laws into the concept of implied contract.
It is probable that this will be remedied soon.
Census data from 1995
FBI Crime data from 1995
That's the US census data for 1995 and the FBI crime statistics. During that year, Blacks committed 54% of American murders. Note that Hispanics are counted as Whites in the FBI statistics when they commit crimes, but as minorities when they are victims.
You will notice from the census data that Whites (including Hispanics) comprise 68.5% of the nation's poor. They committed at most 46% of the nation's murders (neglecting non-Black and non-White murders).
You'll find some equally interesting statistics from the Department of Justice at:
Homicide by Race
Frankly, culture matters. Crime causes poverty as well as poverty causing crime -- throwing money at things won't help. A more profitable approach would attack the horrendous level of Black illegitamacy (68%), the glamour of crime in popular Black entertainment, and the widespread welfare dependance.
I'd imagine it would more probably take the form taxi drivers in cities charging blacks more because of the added risk.
And you know what? I wouldn't have a problem with it. Frankly, black leaders need to get up off their asses and get to work on the problem of black crime. Blacks are as much more likely to commit crimes than whites as men are than women. The black crime rate has always been bad, yes, but it hasn't been this bad. If you look at the statistics, poverty doesn't begin to explain it. It's mainly the culture.
Let this be a lesson to all of you: Listen to shitty music, get sent to prison.
Well, off to listen to my new CD, "Yoshimi vs. the Pink Robots."
Good points, and I'll defer to your experience with weapons and tables in hostile environments. :)
I did notice a typo in my above post. I meant to write "stick his other hand out or lower his weapon a bit." However it is done though, I'd like to see some sort of animation acknowledging the physical reality of a body moving things. Having seen the movies -- including a new one today -- everything else to do with this looks so stunningly real that it's a shame not to have it. The physics engine in simply incredible. The bodies of others move in an amazingly realistic manner with regard to impact.
Everyone else retracted this yesterday. Anyway, Half-life 2 looks very cool from the movies I've seen on Steam. The physics engine of the game seems to be its best quality. On the other hand, I dislike how character animations haven't improved in a game where there will be so much of pushing things around. Couldn't he at least stick his out and lower his weapon when he's pushing a table? But still, I've been waiting a long time for this. Lots of moveable junk is the nirvana of 3D gaming.
I responded in kind to personal attacks. In fact, I was somewhat restrained.
As far as my statement about Chinese education, I'm deadly serious. The US government attempts propaganda, certainly, and no one denies it. But the propaganda that a totalitarian regime is capable of is on a whole other level. From your statements, I think it's simply that you haven't had enough world experience to know what I'm talking about. Engage a Chinese citizen who has come abroad for an history education about what he thinks of Chinese official history. Or simply engage a Chinese national who has only had exposure to the Chinese offical version about the events of WWII. You will quickly be disabused of the idea that their version is somehow equally valid, I assure you.
Good post. I think you misread some statements of fact for value judgements in my above posts. In fact, I agree with most everything you say. I'd have to add that leadership problems contributed enormously to the problems in Vietnam. They tried to fight Vietnam like WWII, which it wasn't. I agree that it was winnable. Also, our knowledge voyages of Cheng Ho is limited. He is quite often exaggerated for multicultural propaganda purposes. For evidenciary reasons, I am quite skeptical about the actual extent of his voyages and the often claimed dimensions of his ships. I agree with you that China is totalitarian for a number of reasons, and attempted democratic transformation could have disasterous effects. Just look at Russia and much of Africa for examples. On the other hand, I consider the state of China's regime somewhat precarious, and feel that upheaval is possible for the future. The current communist leaders are in fact very much at odds with China's history, in my opinion. Given the economic development going on, I imagine that things may in fact turn out better if change comes.
No of this changes my opinion that regional conflict involving both the United States and China is possible for the reasons of China's expansionism and the United State's regional interests in the region. Again, I'll state my preference for isolationism; I feel that we have no compeling military interest in the region. Yet, knowing my countrymen, I'm sure that my opinion will not win out, making China's expansionism worrying to me.
To your first point: Norway is not in strategic competition with China, nor will it ever be. We are.
To your second: I am aware that America stopped expanding for geographical reasons. That does not change the fact that the period of American expansion is over. Moreover, your point about Chinese empire is completely false. The simple act of being conquered by the Mongols does not give you the right to take over the entire Mongol empire. And do you feel that Japan has the right to take over China anytime it wants simply because it once made China part of its empire? That sort of reasoning is asinine. I do hear it often, however -- it's a product of indoctrination by the Chinese educational system. They're good at it. They are better than most anybody at fooling their own people with bold faced lies, I'd have to say.
And as for your third point about the Vietnamese: We left despite the South Vietnamese asking us to stay. Which is why they were shortly thereafter overthrown by the communists. Do you remember the thing called the Vietnam war? Remember how we left at the end and abandoned the South Vietnamese? Perhaps you need some remedial history. You certainly need a lesson in civility. It would make you seem like less of an ass whenever you open your mouth and reveal your ignorance about history.
Which of those three nations did we establish a colony in? Maybe you have a different defintion of expand than I do. China certainly does.
I hear you. The open borders crowd owns Congress, however. The American people don't want the vast influx of immigrants who provide what is basically a slave labor force. They don't want to see jobs outsourced to India simply because Indians are so poor that they'll work for nearly nothing. Corporations do want this however, and they own Congress. Republicans are so used to fending off Democratic attacks on American business, that they don't realize that it's slightly different with a multi-national business. A rising tide lifts all boats, sure, but third world countries have a long way to be lifted. And Democrats are so into the hogwash of diversity and multi-culturalism, that they embrace an influx of third-worlders right across the boarder without a second thought. And that's despite the fact that it's primarily poor Americans whom it hurts -- Blacks have lost out to Hispanic labor in an especially big way.
I'll recommend two websites:
VDARE -- An immigration reform site
The American Conservative -- Pat Buchanan's new magazine It's got some good pieces even if you don't agree with the politics. And it's saying some things no one else is.
Look, I'm pretty much an isolationist. In fact, it's our military hegemony that makes China more of a threat to the US than to, say, Norway.
But since you are an idiot, I'll say what you pretended I said the first time: "China is more expansionist than the US." It is. The character of China's wars are quite different from the US wars of the last several decades. The US hasn't had a frontier for a hundred years -- China however has numerous territorial designs. The US has enough territory. China doesn't. You are correct that the US has military bases around the globe. But they're just that, bases. They aren't there to oppress the local population. They aren't colonies. Hell, we even leave when the host nations tell us to (they don't because the bases bring them money and security).
Now, if I were to say that "China is less peaceful than the US," I'd be wrong. But I didn't. Funny how that works.
And the comma is correct. There is a difference between being an aggressive military power and an expansionist military power. I don't blame you for making an ass out of yourself with the 'sic.' Your having read into my post a million things that I didn't say gives me the impression that English is your second language anyway. Keep up the good work, it's a difficult language, but there are a lot of rewards.
The author of the above post makes some well-reasoned points. Those modding him down are not doing so because his post is a troll, but rather because they have agendas of their own. Unfortunately they chose the coward's method of combating an idea, rather than the method of tackling it head on with well-reasoned posts of their own.
Frankly, as for the author's points, China is a totalitarian, aggresive, expansionist, military power. Technology leakage to China through Taiwan is a very real problem for the US and its allies. It's not a racist thing. It's realism. We don't, for example, worry so much about technology in the hands of the peaceful democratic country of South Korea.
The first time I ever got to the Easter Egg in Excel:
"My God, it's full of stars."
And I am sure that Windows 2025 will periodically lock me out of my house and try to kill me with my robotic lawn mower.