"next-gen games" sounds like a different way of saying "wicked awesome graphics" in your context.
Next-gen games means games that use more powerful and modern hardware. The wii arguably is not much more powerful than the last generation.
If you don't see the value in next-gen games why don't you just play on the SNES? And if you don't see the value in better graphics (i.e. HDTV), why don't you connect your wii to a black and white TV?
If you take out all the repeats (including prime-time slots showing programmes that were on last week), then I'd be surprised if the BBC averaged 15 minutes of content an hour. Take out all the reality TV crap and you're down to 5.
That's what you get when the commoners have been barred from owning guns and swords for a few hundred years.
Well, Britain has banned gun and sword ownership and you can barely open the newspaper without reading about the latest shooting, stabbing or armed robbery.
Also, ever notice how much apartment rents are in Japan?
They're expensive, because they have more money.
On the other hand, they are restricting the free speech of the candidates.
Every country has laws regarding political campaigning. Would you rather the media was filled with political propaganda leading up to an election?
The only way to reduce traffic is to increase the price as much as possible. This is the ONLY way that people will stop driving. You can make public transport free, with dancing girls and free beer, leaving from your stop every 20 seconds, and people will still complain, and get in their car. The UK has great public transport, compared to most over countries - yet still people whinge, and drive the 3 miles into work.
What's the point in getting people off the roads to reduce traffic. Even if traffic is reduced, if you're not driving you don't get any benefit anyway. Things like the London congestion charge only benefit the rich who can afford to pay it. Everyone else is screwed.
Public transport barely exists where I live, I drive on an obscure route to get to work. Public transport only works in big cities. And only if you travel entirely within that city. And then only going from the outskirts to the centre and vice versa, not from one outskirt to the other. And only at certain times of the day. On certain days of the week. When you don't have any luggage.
The real solution to congestion is to scrap the service economy and go back to manufacturing, so everyone doesn't have to go into city centres every day, all at 9-5. There's no congestion when everyone's working shifts in factories in the middle of nowhere.
Before, the balance of law was tilted in favour of the owners of private premises to allow in whoever they want. I'm in favour of banning smoking in public places, however a pub, or a bar, or a restaurant, is NOT a public place. It is a private place.
Find me a smoke-free pub, pre-ban.
There were none, because if a pub banned smoking, it would go bust, because people want to smoke, and the people who don't smoke want to hang around the people who do.
Do you understand what "tax neutral" means? It means that overall, the level of taxation, and therefore cash in the economy, will remain the same.
Exactly. And for it to be neutral, tax cuts must be balanced out by tax raises. And where do you guess these raises will be?
Enlarge the tax base by developing policies on land taxation.
Ah, here we go. No doubt this is weasel-talk for council tax increases.
Overhaul the system of taxing transport and congestion to reflect the potential of road user pricing.
In other words, extortionate taxes to drive. Everything you save via the income tax cuts you pay back getting to work. Unless they're suddenly going to exponentially increase public transport. But then they have a tax-neutral policy, so there can be no more revenue...
And how do you think they're going to make up that deficit? By even higher taxes on the people who actually produce the money in the first place. Great idea, that'll make more poeple want to live and work and run businesses in Britain. If the Lib Dems ever put the bottle down long enough to get themselves elected, you can probably look at paying £2 a litre for petrol, £1 for a carrier bag and double benefits to people who just can't be bothered working.
New York City passed the law several years ago and it has been AMAZINGLY successful. It has been popular with smokers and non-smokers alike.
If it was that successful, pubs would have banned smoking themselves, to make more money. The fact that it hasn't speaks volumes.
They banned smoking in pubs in Ireland, and something like one in three pubs closed down. The same is happening in England, with many semi-rural pubs turning into restaurants. Eventually all there'll be left is trendy inner-city wine bars, and another great tradition will be lost to the politically-correct brigade.
Unfortuanately in modern Britain, all the major parties are control freaks, and the minor parties are all nazis and communists, so there's no-one to vote for. And they wonder why voting turnouts are so low...
Lib Dems or the Greens are probably the best parties if you want a slightly (ever so slightly, lets face facts pretty much all parties suck) better government.
Yeah, if you want taxes to exponentially increase, and driving to be all but banned.
This argument all relies on an assumption that all employees are of the same standard. I all the best American workers are already employed, then you have to look for equivalent foreign workers, whatever the wage. Maybe you think that sub-standard Americans should be employed instead of better foreigners, just because of luck of birth.
So you would only buy products made by companies which hire a majority if Americans? So you are in favour of a complete ban on world trade?
If an American company with a hundred thousand American employees makes a product, should an Indonesian not buy it unless it's made instead entirely by Indonesians?
There is no shortage of programmers or software engineers in the U.S
Yet the U.S accounts for only 5% of the world's population. When you're looking for talented workers, why restrict yourself to just 5% of the potential candidates? It's very unlikely that Americans are all significantly better than foreigners, so by cutting out 95% of potential employees you'll end up worse off.
Expect all the high-technology in farm work to take place in Europe where they don't have the masses of undocumented and untrackable migrant farm workers to pick the food.
We don't need them because we fly it all in from Africa, picked by workers paid far less than Mexicans. Even if we did need cheap labour, there are plenty of Eastern Europeans willing to come over.
If you are in Australia and also in a "life threatening" medical situation you are taken the BEST CARE POSSIBLE, even if this means putting the patient in a fucking helicopter to get to a surgeon who can (say) unblock the vien in the patients temple.
In Britain, you're left to go blind because the NHS considers the drugs you need too expensive. But there is plenty of money to pay for millions of pointless civil servants having fifty sick-days a year and retiring before they've even started work.
But chess and go are boring as hell. I bet more people play computer games than board games. Chess has survived so long because for most of history there were no other games!
Except those few million people who play it are the only people who've really heard of it. It's unheard of outside the hardcore FPS demographic. On the other hand, pretty much everyone in the developed world has heard of Mario, even those who've never played it, because it's a cultural phenomenom.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't see the value in next-gen games why don't you just play on the SNES? And if you don't see the value in better graphics (i.e. HDTV), why don't you connect your wii to a black and white TV?
If you take out all the repeats (including prime-time slots showing programmes that were on last week), then I'd be surprised if the BBC averaged 15 minutes of content an hour. Take out all the reality TV crap and you're down to 5.
You don't eat it by itself you fry it in batter and dip it in sauce. Very few foods are meant to be eaten alone.
The worst that happens if you make mistakes in making dinner? You have to eat bread and butter or go hungry.
The worst that happens if you make mistakes in running a country? Too terrible to even imagine.
Public transport barely exists where I live, I drive on an obscure route to get to work. Public transport only works in big cities. And only if you travel entirely within that city. And then only going from the outskirts to the centre and vice versa, not from one outskirt to the other. And only at certain times of the day. On certain days of the week. When you don't have any luggage.
The real solution to congestion is to scrap the service economy and go back to manufacturing, so everyone doesn't have to go into city centres every day, all at 9-5. There's no congestion when everyone's working shifts in factories in the middle of nowhere.
Who's forcing you to go to a pub that allows smoking? Maybe you're not aware, but a pub is a private business, you don't have a right to go there.
And how do you think they're going to make up that deficit? By even higher taxes on the people who actually produce the money in the first place. Great idea, that'll make more poeple want to live and work and run businesses in Britain. If the Lib Dems ever put the bottle down long enough to get themselves elected, you can probably look at paying £2 a litre for petrol, £1 for a carrier bag and double benefits to people who just can't be bothered working.
Why should people be able to force their lifestyle on other people?
Which liberals are these? Definitely not the Liberal Democrats, who are infavour of increased taxes and more control over everyone's lives.
They banned smoking in pubs in Ireland, and something like one in three pubs closed down. The same is happening in England, with many semi-rural pubs turning into restaurants. Eventually all there'll be left is trendy inner-city wine bars, and another great tradition will be lost to the politically-correct brigade.
Unfortuanately in modern Britain, all the major parties are control freaks, and the minor parties are all nazis and communists, so there's no-one to vote for. And they wonder why voting turnouts are so low...
But let's say you're right. If a company makes all its money in a single town, should they only be able to hire people born in that town?
This argument all relies on an assumption that all employees are of the same standard. I all the best American workers are already employed, then you have to look for equivalent foreign workers, whatever the wage. Maybe you think that sub-standard Americans should be employed instead of better foreigners, just because of luck of birth.
So you would only buy products made by companies which hire a majority if Americans? So you are in favour of a complete ban on world trade?
If an American company with a hundred thousand American employees makes a product, should an Indonesian not buy it unless it's made instead entirely by Indonesians?
It doesn't work like that. The percentage brackets only apply on money in those brackets.
But chess and go are boring as hell. I bet more people play computer games than board games. Chess has survived so long because for most of history there were no other games!
Except those few million people who play it are the only people who've really heard of it. It's unheard of outside the hardcore FPS demographic. On the other hand, pretty much everyone in the developed world has heard of Mario, even those who've never played it, because it's a cultural phenomenom.