And there's nothing that stops people from creating wealth, besides hard work.
Here's your first mistake. It would be nice if this were true and, in an ideal world, it would be. But there are many other factors that stop people from becoming wealthy and, in fact, keep them poor. For every person who "pulls himself up by his bootstraps" there are about a thousand more who did every thing right and, through no fault of their own, failed. Their job was outsourced, or their child got sick and they couldn't afford insurance, or a corporate outlet opened up next to their store and drove them out of business, and so on. The power that comes with great wealth also seems to bring with it a desire to retain and increase that wealth, no matter what the cost. Obviously there are a few altruistic billionaires out there, but not many.
we've created a game that people can only win by creating value for others!
And here's your second mistake. It may start out this way, but with greater accumulation of wealth, and thus power, people find that they can win by manipulating and/or changing the rules, rather than by creating something useful. Case in point, the GOP's attempts to rewrite Senate rules to make ethics less important, or Haliburton's no-bid contract awards, or Microsoft's successful monopoly.
The main problem I have with that is that it sounds like you're justifying the existence of a superior class of people who are smart enough to have wealth, making everyone else inferior. I think if wealth is distributed, you might be surprised at the number of people who are smart enough to use that wealth wisely. Sure, there will always be jackasses who starve their kids so they can wear Armani suits and watch their 52-inch plasma TVs. But a few generations of increased funding for education will take care of a lot of that.
If the entertainment factor is all you're after, ditch Rush and try Mike Malloy - he's much more entertaining. Come to think of it, so is Randy Rhodes, Al Franken, Chuck D., etc.
That's probably the opinion that most people will disagree with, but no, I'm not kidding. No one needs $40 Billion. Allowing a small number of people to hoard so much wealth allows too much power to be concentrated in too small a place. I'm all for a limit on how wealthy a person can be. I'm not saying there can't be rich people (relatively speaking) but there comes a point where the drive to acquire more "stuff" overrides all concern for the people the quest for wealth destroys.
I'm glad someone finally made this point. The opposite of Communism is Capitalism, not Democracy. I'm all for Democracy. I love it... when it works. It's out current capitalist system that needs to be rethinked. Free market capitalism should only apply to small businesses. All corporations should be subject to heavy governmental regulations (that are actually enforced.) Personal wealth should also have limits.
Screw the rich.
But then, I must be one of them there "new commies."
As a matter of fact, I consider the Mac a viable gaming platform, and I do all of my hardcore gaming on it. I have a GameCube for a few pickups, but most of my time is spent gaming on my Mac. And yes, I'm quite serious.
You talk the way you do because you're in the majority. Were fortune to change, you'd feel the way we do.
No. This is incorrect. Gamespy support in Mac games that have already purchased a license will continue to work. Gamespy is contractually obligated to support them for the life of the product. They said so themselves, so I'm not just speculating.
No. You're wrong on both counts. They may have also increased PC licensing fees, but they've increased Mac fees MUCH more. And it's not just Aspyr that can't pay the fees, which apparently add up to the entire development cost of some games, effectively doubling their cost to port. If this continues, no Mac publisher will touch GameSpy. The market just isn't big enough to justify it.
Since it is not my story, I would rather hear what Prof. Tolkien wanted them to do, first. Barring that, my imagination is perfectly capable of making up something interesting.
I've always wondered what those other two wizards were doing during the Third Age, but the most I've ever found is that they went south and their stories "are not told." I'd love to know where you got this info, as it does not appear in either LotR or The Silmarillion. I have several of Christopher Tolkien's Histories of Middle Earth; I assume you must have gotten this info from one of them?
Alright! Finally found someone like myself. When I started living alone, I balked at paying almost $60 per month for cable TV and the four channels that I watch (Comedy, Food, History, CNN). And, since network TV is mostly crap, I just started collecting TV on DVD. It's great.
Like some others here, I didn't really appreciate Wesley Crusher until years later. He actually had some very good episodes in the second, third, and fourth seasons. It's a shame what they did to him in "Nemesis."
Amazon is now completely out of stock, but there are 23 people selling them in Amazon Marketplace. I wonder how many of these jackasses bought them from Amazon at retail.
And yet I've noticed that there are already people scalping them through Amazon Marketplace for as much as $269. And Amazon has them in stock for the standard $149.99 price. Sick.
Perhaps, but that still doesn't fit the definition of 'terrorism.' The Columbine perpetrators were probably more interested in getting some sort of revenge on the people who they felt had mistreated them. They likely weren't trying to instill feelings of terror in their classmates in order to get them to change their behavior patterns. They just wanted them to hurt because they themselves had been hurt. Revenge is not terrorism.
Killing a doctor because he performed an abortion on your girlfriend without your knowledge is revenge. Killing a doctor so that other doctors will refuse to perform abortions is terrorism.
Of course, I don't know what the Columbine kids were really thinking. I'm just going on the evidence I've seen.
According to the press release, Nintendo already has over 100 third-party developers signed up to develop for the DS. Seems like that bandwagon is more enticing that you might think.
Actually, the XNox is NOT kicking Nintendo's ass. The only place it outsells the Cube is in the US, and that's not by much. The Cube still leads the XBox worldwide.
I've only seen a handful of episodes of this show, all from the first season, but I have heard that the writers have been taking liberties with Trek canon and the accepted timeline. But how could they possibly introduce the Borg to the 22nd Century? It was Picard and his crew who made first contact with them in the Delta Quadrant. How did the writers manage to pull this on off?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you honestly think the events of the last four years have made any part of the world a better place for anyone?
Wait, it has gotten a lot better for the wealthy, so you must be among them.
If you have nothing constructive to offer, stay silent.
And there's nothing that stops people from creating wealth, besides hard work.
Here's your first mistake. It would be nice if this were true and, in an ideal world, it would be. But there are many other factors that stop people from becoming wealthy and, in fact, keep them poor. For every person who "pulls himself up by his bootstraps" there are about a thousand more who did every thing right and, through no fault of their own, failed. Their job was outsourced, or their child got sick and they couldn't afford insurance, or a corporate outlet opened up next to their store and drove them out of business, and so on. The power that comes with great wealth also seems to bring with it a desire to retain and increase that wealth, no matter what the cost. Obviously there are a few altruistic billionaires out there, but not many.
we've created a game that people can only win by creating value for others!
And here's your second mistake. It may start out this way, but with greater accumulation of wealth, and thus power, people find that they can win by manipulating and/or changing the rules, rather than by creating something useful. Case in point, the GOP's attempts to rewrite Senate rules to make ethics less important, or Haliburton's no-bid contract awards, or Microsoft's successful monopoly.
In the end, society doesn't need wealth at all.
The main problem I have with that is that it sounds like you're justifying the existence of a superior class of people who are smart enough to have wealth, making everyone else inferior. I think if wealth is distributed, you might be surprised at the number of people who are smart enough to use that wealth wisely. Sure, there will always be jackasses who starve their kids so they can wear Armani suits and watch their 52-inch plasma TVs. But a few generations of increased funding for education will take care of a lot of that.
If the entertainment factor is all you're after, ditch Rush and try Mike Malloy - he's much more entertaining. Come to think of it, so is Randy Rhodes, Al Franken, Chuck D., etc.
That's probably the opinion that most people will disagree with, but no, I'm not kidding. No one needs $40 Billion. Allowing a small number of people to hoard so much wealth allows too much power to be concentrated in too small a place. I'm all for a limit on how wealthy a person can be. I'm not saying there can't be rich people (relatively speaking) but there comes a point where the drive to acquire more "stuff" overrides all concern for the people the quest for wealth destroys.
I'm glad someone finally made this point. The opposite of Communism is Capitalism, not Democracy. I'm all for Democracy. I love it... when it works. It's out current capitalist system that needs to be rethinked. Free market capitalism should only apply to small businesses. All corporations should be subject to heavy governmental regulations (that are actually enforced.) Personal wealth should also have limits.
Screw the rich.
But then, I must be one of them there "new commies."
I loved Dungeon of Doom. So simple, yet so much fun.
"Jones lives across the street."
Don't judge a 10 year old game by current standards. For its time, Marathon was many times the game Doom ever was.
As a matter of fact, I consider the Mac a viable gaming platform, and I do all of my hardcore gaming on it. I have a GameCube for a few pickups, but most of my time is spent gaming on my Mac. And yes, I'm quite serious.
You talk the way you do because you're in the majority. Were fortune to change, you'd feel the way we do.
No. This is incorrect. Gamespy support in Mac games that have already purchased a license will continue to work. Gamespy is contractually obligated to support them for the life of the product. They said so themselves, so I'm not just speculating.
No. You're wrong on both counts. They may have also increased PC licensing fees, but they've increased Mac fees MUCH more. And it's not just Aspyr that can't pay the fees, which apparently add up to the entire development cost of some games, effectively doubling their cost to port. If this continues, no Mac publisher will touch GameSpy. The market just isn't big enough to justify it.
Since it is not my story, I would rather hear what Prof. Tolkien wanted them to do, first. Barring that, my imagination is perfectly capable of making up something interesting.
But thanks for the tip.
I've always wondered what those other two wizards were doing during the Third Age, but the most I've ever found is that they went south and their stories "are not told." I'd love to know where you got this info, as it does not appear in either LotR or The Silmarillion. I have several of Christopher Tolkien's Histories of Middle Earth; I assume you must have gotten this info from one of them?
Alright! Finally found someone like myself. When I started living alone, I balked at paying almost $60 per month for cable TV and the four channels that I watch (Comedy, Food, History, CNN). And, since network TV is mostly crap, I just started collecting TV on DVD. It's great.
Like some others here, I didn't really appreciate Wesley Crusher until years later. He actually had some very good episodes in the second, third, and fourth seasons. It's a shame what they did to him in "Nemesis."
Amazon is now completely out of stock, but there are 23 people selling them in Amazon Marketplace. I wonder how many of these jackasses bought them from Amazon at retail.
And yet I've noticed that there are already people scalping them through Amazon Marketplace for as much as $269. And Amazon has them in stock for the standard $149.99 price. Sick.
I get it. You're a bitter goth chick who was rejected by SG. Well, if it makes you feel any better, I'll be glad to look at your nudie pics.
Really, AC. What do you have against SG? If you think these girls are ugly, then I want to see what you think is attarctive. And mommy don't count.
As a dues paying member of SG, I can truthfully say that this AC is completely full of shit. But then, most ACs are.
It's pretty simple, really. If it has shadows, it's art. Porn is usually pretty well-lit.
Perhaps, but that still doesn't fit the definition of 'terrorism.' The Columbine perpetrators were probably more interested in getting some sort of revenge on the people who they felt had mistreated them. They likely weren't trying to instill feelings of terror in their classmates in order to get them to change their behavior patterns. They just wanted them to hurt because they themselves had been hurt. Revenge is not terrorism.
Killing a doctor because he performed an abortion on your girlfriend without your knowledge is revenge. Killing a doctor so that other doctors will refuse to perform abortions is terrorism.
Of course, I don't know what the Columbine kids were really thinking. I'm just going on the evidence I've seen.
According to the press release, Nintendo already has over 100 third-party developers signed up to develop for the DS. Seems like that bandwagon is more enticing that you might think.
Actually, the XNox is NOT kicking Nintendo's ass. The only place it outsells the Cube is in the US, and that's not by much. The Cube still leads the XBox worldwide.
But yes, the PS2 still trumps them both.
Oh, that's okay. Over in my secure home we have a great big box full of them. Must have been delivered by mistake...
I've only seen a handful of episodes of this show, all from the first season, but I have heard that the writers have been taking liberties with Trek canon and the accepted timeline. But how could they possibly introduce the Borg to the 22nd Century? It was Picard and his crew who made first contact with them in the Delta Quadrant. How did the writers manage to pull this on off?