Re:This is why I come to slasdot. Expert opinions!
on
A Gamer's Manifesto
·
· Score: 1
Quite correct. If you can attack head-on and win, you have proven yourself to be a very good fighter.
Possibly, but (unless you clearly had the advantage) you have also proven yourself to be a stupid fighter. Ask anyone with any kind of infantery training.
My point was that a good fighter plays to his strengths and exploit his enemies weaknesses. If you have a tank and your enemy has an AK47, by all mean assault!
But if the situation is reversed, rushing at a MBT head on just to be mowed down like grass is just stupid.
Similarly, when I need to clobber a few twelve-year olds, I don't bother with anything but a frontal assault either!
Of course not, but if a twelve year old wanted to beat you, a frontal assault would be stupid. ...he'd have to set a tripwire and bash you in the head with a club when you were down.
Does beating a twelve-year old make you a "good fighter"? Hardly, you already had the advantage.
Is the sneaky kid that ambushed you a "good fighter"? Possibly.
This hypotetical psycho-twelve-year old kid changed the circumstances to his favor and won despite being outmatched. Shows some promise, eh?
"...taking voluntary "micropayments" which, so far, have been enough to support him."
What, as opposed to involuntary ones? *scratches head*
Arrhh! Micro-robbery!
This is why I come to slasdot. Expert opinions!
on
A Gamer's Manifesto
·
· Score: 1
The enemy soldiers in Iraq are not very good fighers. Our army would rather they attack head on, since all those encounters lead to tremendous losses for the insurgents.
And, as we all know, the true mark of a good fighter is that he always attacks head on, regardless of circumstances.
Yes, as has been clearly shown, time and again, by (among others) John Rambo, Master Chief and those kids from Red Dawn, it is indeed clever to attack a well organized and superiorly equipped force that has readily accessible artillery and air support head on, wearing nothing but your studly manhood and a crew-served machine gun (Fire from the hip. Remember, aiming is cheating)!
Throughout history underfunded guerilla-type armies has won countless conflicts against a superior enemy by blatantly ignoring the disparity of forces and engaging them head on in a straight fight!
You Sir, is truly a master tactician, and I want to subscribe to your newsletter.
They should not have let anakin turn to a murderer in a single scene, it just didn't make sense.
Well, he did have some prior experience killing children (exterminating the tusken village in ep. 2).
On a side note, Padmé took that baby-killing episode rather lightly.
It basically went something like:
Anakin: They are animals, and I slaughtered them like animals!...and not just the men, but the women, and the children too!
Padmé: There, there I'll just give you a hug and everything will be OK! It doesn't really bother me that much that my romantic interest is a self-confessed mass murderer.
If you're not a vegetarian and you buy meat from a supermarket, there's only one response you deserve:
Sit down and shut the fuck up.
Having someone else kill your meat for you doesn't put you in any better ethical position than a hunter who kills his own meat.
I am a vegetarian, and I agree completely.
If anything, I have a lot more respect for someone that hunts his own meat (as long as he/she is a good shot and knows his limitations), than for someone who buys it neatly packaged at a supermarket.
But, people, if you are going to hunt, be responsible and learn to fcking shoot!.
People willing to take a shot at an animal, but not willing to put in the time to be good enough to make a clean kill (or track down a wounded animal whatever it takes) makes me sick.
They're not any better than "internet hunters".
From a geological standpoint, everything I have read about says that our planet should be about 10 degrees warmer than what it is today. We're coming out of 'abnormal' climtes, and apparently inching back toward 'normal'.
Sure, that the climate is changing isn't automatically all that bad.
It is the rapid change that can be damaging. When the climat changes faster than the eco-system (or human society) can adapt, bad shit happens.
If any national government can be accused of FAILING to PLAN, I think the US Government would be on the top of the list.
Well, I don't wan't to rain on your parade, but they'll be facing some pretty stiff competition...
The US doesn't have a monopoly on stupidity and shortsightedness you know.
As the cost of cameras and digital storage approaches zero, is it inevitable that every machine you interact with will take your photograph and store it?
<tinfoil_hat>
Thats nothing!
Hell, within my liftime i expect my toaster to hold me at gunpoint every morning and demand a DNA sample, a retinal scan, thumb, palm and footprints as well as some navel lint and a 1024 character pass-phrase.
</tinfoil_hat>
Geez, I'll bet the United States Government is not aware of that!!
You know, stranger things has happened before.
Just because something is run by a government doesn't always mean it is run well.
I wouldn't be to surprised if the estimated impact of shutting down something like the GPS-network were seriously underestimated.
How would any government even know about all uses different entities both foreign and domestic has put the system to?
And who cares if Joe Blow gets lost so that the terrorst who hijacked a plane can't find DC.
Let's just hope that the Terrorists doesn't get a hold of one of them darn compasses I've been hearing about. (Didn't China develop them?)
With one of those things and a map they'd be awfully hard to jam...
I dunno about you, but not only am I hesitant of my abilities to project urine into my face, but I'm also rather disinclined to do so, even in an emergency.
Spoken as someone who has obviously not been frozen to a solid metal object and violently ripped loose...
Take my word for it, I live in Sweden, and one winter when I was a very young and very stupid kid I managed to get my tongue stuck on a lightpole (don't ask).
After realizing that I could either freeze to death or free myself I pulled myself free...
There was blood and pain like you wouldn't believe! Oh, and did I mention that the entire part of skin that had touched the metal stayed frozen to it and was ripped off?
Later (when I had healed enough to eat normally) I looked at the pole and you could still see the outline of a tongue frozen to it, it stayed there, as a monument of my stupidity until spring.
If you ever get yourself into that situation (and don't have a friend that can stop laughing at you long enough to rescue you with a cup of hot water), my advice is to pee freely.
Yes, it's gross, but in my opinion it beats the alternative...
What bullshit. The question isn't whether it's alive, but at what point it becomes a human being. It 'life' were the determining factor, you'd never be able to cut into a steak again. But then perhaps you're one of those vegan freaks?
Being a vegan wouldn't help in this case.
You see, plants are alive too. And vegans kill and eat them.
I'm an Independent-by-nature, but I have to say the parent comment is bull. Rarely, if ever, do I see liberal protesters, college professors, et cetera, going into wars. The people who go into wars usually are, sadly enough, conservatives.
Note that my rant was directed at the armchair warriors who are willing to send others to fight, kill and die basically on a whim.
The ones that sign up themselves do take their moral responsibility.
I spent six years in the US Marine Corps, and I consider myself a conservative,...
Well, my rant wasn't really directed at you. You had the courage to put your money where your mouth is.
My point is that many armchair warriors want to go to war basically on a whim.
If they ran a real risk of having to pay the consequences of their actions, maybe wars would have a solid reason and popular support, or not happen at all. A war means tens of thousand, maybe millions dead or suffering, and thus shouldn't be entered lightly.
"This is not bravery, it's lack of moral and responsibility.
The US should reinstituted the draft ASAP."
So your method of encouraging morality and responsibility is to institute slavery.
Well I know getting drafted sucks.
(And I should know, I live in a country with a *somewhat* compulsory military service, so I've been there and done that already.)
However I believe in taking responsibility for your actions, and my point is that many armchair warriors want to go to war basically on a whim.
If they ran a real risk of having to pay the consequences of their actions, maybe we would not have wars without a solid reason and popular support. A war means tens of thousand, maybe millions dead or suffering, and thus shouldn't be entered lightly.
Power to enforce your will without having to pay the consequences is the root of all evil.
So is this scientific "proof" that liberals tend to be more compassionate but also more cowardly?
Disclaimer: Ok, this is going to be a rant, so if you're not in the mood for one, please skip to the next comment.
Still with me? Ok, here goes...
Why is it seen as courageous to support war (any war, as US republicans often do) when all you risk is, at most, a slight tax increase.
You don't even have to get your fat ass out of your comfy chair! Just order some flags and stickers over the internet (got to "Support The Troops") and watch the fireworks on FOX!
Pay someone to fight and die somewhere far away, destroying someone elses country in the process.
This is not bravery, it's lack of moral and responsibility.
The US should reinstituted the draft ASAP. If the common voter had a real possibility of having to directly bear the burden of the decisions of the leaders (like the entire population of $INVADED_COUNTRY will) in the event of war, maybe we wouldn't see any cases of going to war on faulty intelligence?
Ask yourselves: How many "brave" conservatives would support a war if it was going to be fought in their hometown?
The get cleaned up as they are found, by whomever finds them.
Nice euphemism there for being blown to smithereens while plowing your fields, or whatever...
Would you be as cool about it if there were UXOs in your backyard?
So news of the second plane hitting, while appalling, wouldn't be all that surprising. There was nothing he could do, at that precise moment, about the attacks. What he *could* do was follow through his obligation to a bunch of schoolkids.
You don't think an attack in progress on a country would demand the undivided attention of said countries president and commander in chief?
You don't think gathering information about the ongoing attacks, assessing the threat and preparing an appropriate response would warrant just a little higher priority than reading to a bunch of school kids?
You really don't think he should have excusing himself and left to, you know, do his job as commander in chief.?
Well I'll tell you what I think.
I am not a US citizen, but if the commander in chief of my country was irrefutably proved to have spent critical time during an ongoing attack just sitting there with a vacant stare on his face, I would be demanding his head on a platter! It's simply inexcusable for a commander in chief.
At least bush doesn't flip flop on the issues. He sticks with what he believes, popular or not.
Yeah, right, the true mark of a competent leader is being totally unwilling to change your initial position on an issue no matter what the facts turn out to be.
But revolutionary communism is exactly what a social democrat will eventually get you - hence why the parent was indeed correct, just with more foresight than yourself.
An empiric example of why this doesn't have to be true.
Sweden has mostly been ruled by social democrats for more then 70 years, with only short intermissions by liberals and conservatives.
Revolutionary communism hasn't appeared...
If anything Sweden is slowly but surely turning to the right, and the market economy has never been under a serious threat here.
In the 70's, 80's and 90's Saddam Hussein used to harshly prosecute, and outhright murder islamists.
The theocratic Iran was his enemy, and he was a secular dictator. This is largely why he enjoyed US support for more than a decade.
A link between Al Quaida and Iraq would mean that both (notoriously vindictive) sides were willing to forgive decades of incredibly dirty and bloody conflict.
It doesn't ring true to me.
Saddam tried to flirt with religion (for example by changing the iraqi flag to a more pious one) after his defeat in the first gulf war to consolidate his power, but it's no secret that most radical islamists hate and despises him.
Saddam might have been pragmatic enough to change his standpoint, but to the religious fanaticts he is a heretic infidel that have killed more than a million muslims in a war against the islamic state Iran.
Al Quaida and their ilk would never forgive him that. As far as they are concerned he is the devil, every bit as much as GWB is.
Slashdot Mirror
Ask anyone with any kind of infantery training.
My point was that a good fighter plays to his strengths and exploit his enemies weaknesses. If you have a tank and your enemy has an AK47, by all mean assault! But if the situation is reversed, rushing at a MBT head on just to be mowed down like grass is just stupid. Of course not, but if a twelve year old wanted to beat you, a frontal assault would be stupid.
...he'd have to set a tripwire and bash you in the head with a club when you were down.
Does beating a twelve-year old make you a "good fighter"? Hardly, you already had the advantage.
Is the sneaky kid that ambushed you a "good fighter"? Possibly.
This hypotetical psycho-twelve-year old kid changed the circumstances to his favor and won despite being outmatched. Shows some promise, eh?
Yes, as has been clearly shown, time and again, by (among others) John Rambo, Master Chief and those kids from Red Dawn, it is indeed clever to attack a well organized and superiorly equipped force that has readily accessible artillery and air support head on, wearing nothing but your studly manhood and a crew-served machine gun (Fire from the hip. Remember, aiming is cheating)!
Throughout history underfunded guerilla-type armies has won countless conflicts against a superior enemy by blatantly ignoring the disparity of forces and engaging them head on in a straight fight!
You Sir, is truly a master tactician, and I want to subscribe to your newsletter.
On a side note, Padmé took that baby-killing episode rather lightly.
It basically went something like:
Anakin: They are animals, and I slaughtered them like animals!
Padmé: There, there I'll just give you a hug and everything will be OK! It doesn't really bother me that much that my romantic interest is a self-confessed mass murderer.
If anything, I have a lot more respect for someone that hunts his own meat (as long as he/she is a good shot and knows his limitations), than for someone who buys it neatly packaged at a supermarket.
But, people, if you are going to hunt, be responsible and learn to fcking shoot!.
People willing to take a shot at an animal, but not willing to put in the time to be good enough to make a clean kill (or track down a wounded animal whatever it takes) makes me sick.
They're not any better than "internet hunters".
Y'all quit fighting us vegetarians... it's not fair.
It is the rapid change that can be damaging. When the climat changes faster than the eco-system (or human society) can adapt, bad shit happens.
If the criminals are that predictable, the police can setup armed stakeouts at likely targets.
At 3000+ (at the time) separate sites? Not all that easy...
There were _a_lot_ of people missing here, you know.
The US doesn't have a monopoly on stupidity and shortsightedness you know.
<tinfoil_hat>
Thats nothing!
Hell, within my liftime i expect my toaster to hold me at gunpoint every morning and demand a DNA sample, a retinal scan, thumb, palm and footprints as well as some navel lint and a 1024 character pass-phrase.
</tinfoil_hat>
Just because something is run by a government doesn't always mean it is run well.
I wouldn't be to surprised if the estimated impact of shutting down something like the GPS-network were seriously underestimated.
How would any government even know about all uses different entities both foreign and domestic has put the system to?
(Didn't China develop them?)
With one of those things and a map they'd be awfully hard to jam...
I would also add one more. But that's about it.
4. Baker Street: Honor Among Punks
And, worst of all.
If it is made they will ruin the ending, I guarantee you.
You see, that great ending will never, ever fly in a Hollywood flick.
Your average test audience would be rioting, baying for the directors blood as soon as the credits start to roll.
Take my word for it, I live in Sweden, and one winter when I was a very young and very stupid kid I managed to get my tongue stuck on a lightpole (don't ask).
After realizing that I could either freeze to death or free myself I pulled myself free...
There was blood and pain like you wouldn't believe!
Oh, and did I mention that the entire part of skin that had touched the metal stayed frozen to it and was ripped off?
Later (when I had healed enough to eat normally) I looked at the pole and you could still see the outline of a tongue frozen to it, it stayed there, as a monument of my stupidity until spring.
If you ever get yourself into that situation (and don't have a friend that can stop laughing at you long enough to rescue you with a cup of hot water), my advice is to pee freely.
Yes, it's gross, but in my opinion it beats the alternative...
You see, plants are alive too.
And vegans kill and eat them.
Maybe you meant fruitarians instead?
The ones that sign up themselves do take their moral responsibility.
My point is that many armchair warriors want to go to war basically on a whim.
If they ran a real risk of having to pay the consequences of their actions, maybe wars would have a solid reason and popular support, or not happen at all.
A war means tens of thousand, maybe millions dead or suffering, and thus shouldn't be entered lightly.
(And I should know, I live in a country with a *somewhat* compulsory military service, so I've been there and done that already.)
However I believe in taking responsibility for your actions, and my point is that many armchair warriors want to go to war basically on a whim.
If they ran a real risk of having to pay the consequences of their actions, maybe we would not have wars without a solid reason and popular support. A war means tens of thousand, maybe millions dead or suffering, and thus shouldn't be entered lightly.
Power to enforce your will without having to pay the consequences is the root of all evil.
Still with me?
Ok, here goes...
Why is it seen as courageous to support war (any war, as US republicans often do) when all you risk is, at most, a slight tax increase. You don't even have to get your fat ass out of your comfy chair! Just order some flags and stickers over the internet (got to "Support The Troops") and watch the fireworks on FOX!
Pay someone to fight and die somewhere far away, destroying someone elses country in the process.
This is not bravery, it's lack of moral and responsibility.
The US should reinstituted the draft ASAP.
If the common voter had a real possibility of having to directly bear the burden of the decisions of the leaders (like the entire population of $INVADED_COUNTRY will) in the event of war, maybe we wouldn't see any cases of going to war on faulty intelligence?
Ask yourselves: How many "brave" conservatives would support a war if it was going to be fought in their hometown?
The get cleaned up as they are found, by whomever finds them.
Nice euphemism there for being blown to smithereens while plowing your fields, or whatever...
Would you be as cool about it if there were UXOs in your backyard?
You don't think gathering information about the ongoing attacks, assessing the threat and preparing an appropriate response would warrant just a little higher priority than reading to a bunch of school kids?
You really don't think he should have excusing himself and left to, you know, do his job as commander in chief.?
Well I'll tell you what I think.
I am not a US citizen, but if the commander in chief of my country was irrefutably proved to have spent critical time during an ongoing attack just sitting there with a vacant stare on his face, I would be demanding his head on a platter!
It's simply inexcusable for a commander in chief.
Isn't your country worth better than that to you?
Yeah, right, the true mark of a competent leader is being totally unwilling to change your initial position on an issue no matter what the facts turn out to be.
But revolutionary communism is exactly what a social democrat will eventually get you - hence why the parent was indeed correct, just with more foresight than yourself.
An empiric example of why this doesn't have to be true.
Sweden has mostly been ruled by social democrats for more then 70 years, with only short intermissions by liberals and conservatives.
Revolutionary communism hasn't appeared...
If anything Sweden is slowly but surely turning to the right, and the market economy has never been under a serious threat here.
In the 70's, 80's and 90's Saddam Hussein used to harshly prosecute, and outhright murder islamists.
The theocratic Iran was his enemy, and he was a secular dictator.
This is largely why he enjoyed US support for more than a decade.
A link between Al Quaida and Iraq would mean that both (notoriously vindictive) sides were willing to forgive decades of incredibly dirty and bloody conflict.
It doesn't ring true to me.
Saddam tried to flirt with religion (for example by changing the iraqi flag to a more pious one) after his defeat in the first gulf war to consolidate his power, but it's no secret that most radical islamists hate and despises him.
Saddam might have been pragmatic enough to change his standpoint, but to the religious fanaticts he is a heretic infidel that have killed more than a million muslims in a war against the islamic state Iran.
Al Quaida and their ilk would never forgive him that. As far as they are concerned he is the devil, every bit as much as GWB is.