I don't recall much of that in 1996, when I voted for Harry Browne.
Then I suspect you weren't paying attention.
In 1996, the country would surely never recover from another four years of Bush (no wait, Clinton). You were just throwing your vote away if you wasted it on some third-party loser like Badnerik (oops, I mean Browne) just because you thought him to be the best candidate; you were supposed to vote for Kerry (Dole, sorry, my bad) because he had the best chance to beat Bush (Clinton, fuck!), and that's ALL THAT MATTERED, DAMMIT!
That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that the way you're presenting the situation is objectively wrong. "Almost certainly going to win" does not equal "has already won".
That's beside the point. The decision that has already been made is the one that means nothing, and is therefore the "window dressing". The one that hasn't yet happened is the one that means everything, and is therefore the "real contest". Thomas Dewey learned this lesson. There is a small but non-zero chance that you will as well.
Bush vs Gore, Bush vs Kerry were both great elections where a 3rd party could have made great gains but right now our constitution is being washed away and government is becoming less and less transparent
In those elections, independent and third-party candidates were crapped on using your exact same reasoning. Remember "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush"?
Voting for someone completely unelectable won't accomplish anything right now
"Completely unelectable" is a self-fulfilling prophecy that relies on the incorrect notion that your vote was wasted if your guy didn't win.
Ordinarily I'd completely agree with this sentiment. Unfortunately this sentiment divides us right now when we need to take a stand against pretty much everything that's happening right now. Once we come back from the brink of insanity we can act more directly on our principles and vote accordingly.
This is what gets said at every single election.
"We can do the right thing later, right now all that matters is that The Other Guy MUST LOSE AT ALL COSTS!"
This, far more than any "spoiler" candidates, is what gets bad presidents elected.
The tutorial help mentions it only fleetingly, but the enemy's lifebar flashes right at the moment you need to block. If you hit the block button quickly enough after that (I'd guess 1/10th of a second leeway), you'll get a counterattack.
I also found it a little easier to start by holding the button partially down, then complete the press on cue. But that was on the 360 using the triggers; it might not work as well on a keyboard.
Please stop submitting Jack Thompson stories. His only point to his shenanigans is to gain press via controversy. Please don't give it to him by crossposting stories about him to Slashdot, Fark, etc. etc.
Screw that. Jack Thompson's incompetence makes him a detriment to his own insipid cause. The more time he spends in the spotlight, the better.
I'd think that an operator would tend to look at a remotely-controlled suit as more expendable and might get into situations where the suit is more likely to be "killed" if they didn't have to worry about being injured in the process.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, though. It means the operator can afford to throw his "life" away when the situation requires it, like self-destructing to avoid enemy capture.
Clearly, you didn't bother reading the essay I wrote
Yes, I did. It addresses none of what I mentioned. And you're still trying to wiggle out of supporting this: "Propaganda is violence, and should be responded to with violence". Back it up, wannabe.
in which I break all this down for you.
No, you don't. All of the points I raised against your childish idea stand, as you don't even attempt to defend it.
You just want to talk trash
A standard-issue dodge from an intellectually lazy coward who wants to feel like he got the last word but isn't capable of a real rebuttal.
I don't have time to waste on trash, sorry.
A brief glance at your journal and your posts proves that to be a lie.
Try a trailer park.
If I ever want to find a more logical and practical way to engineer society than you could ever hope to dream up, sure, I'll try a trailer park.
That's the dumbest thing I've seen in years. And I read Digg.
Let's assume you could invent this magical language that somehow makes it impossible to say misleading things (we'll call it Handwavish, as this is too ridiculous even for a moniker like Newspeak). While you're waving that magic wand around, let's also assume you could get everyone to agree to voluntarily use this language to the exclusion of all others. Let's even grant you an extra freebie and assume that every single written and audio record in the world is totally and permanently converted to Handwavish, thus completely obliterating every other written and spoken language humanity has ever seen.
Once you've done that, guess what? Handwavish evolves. New words are coined, old words take on new meanings, new phrases come into style, new grammatical and syntactical structures arise, and so on. Many of these changes will be for the explicit purpose of enabling people to say misleading things, convey meanings hidden to the casual listener, to inflame emotions and provoke strong reactions, and to outright lie. These changes will arise directly from the need and desire on people's part to say such things; they will find new ways to express the thoughts they're already having. Any attempt you made to stop this from happening would not only be doomed to fail (you gonna have an armed soldier listening to every conversation? Even that won't suffice), but would nullify your goal of avoiding censorship as a means to achieve your goal.
Furthermore, none of that addresses, let alone justifies, your hypocritical and patently false claim that "Propaganda is violence, and should be responded to with violence". Only would-be tyrant takes such a notion seriously, and they always have very convenient ideas about what does and does not constitute "propaganda".
The Dems need solidarity like the Reps need souls. Else we're going to have another bullshit fiasco of an election.
You'll repeat that "OH GOD THE OTHER GUY MUST LOSE NO MATTER WHAT" garbage again in 2012. And 2016. And so on. And in so doing, you'll be more responsible for producing more Bushes than a thousand Naders ever could.
Get a million people together (shouldn't be hard if all the torrent sites make note of the campaign) to chip in $1 or $10 each to make a matching offer: "We'll pay you to take this to trial."
I'm pretty sure settlements are usually offered and negotiated in private, and that it rarely happens on the weeks-to-months timescale that it would take to organize and execute a donation drive of that magnitude. Even after the case is settled the terms of the settlement are often held in confidence, so you'd have a hard time using it as a baseline for future cases.
Plus there's the question of enforcement; how do you keep her from just taking both offers and settling? Since you can't enter a legally binding agreement with The Internets, you'd have to either create an organization with legal standing to enter a contract, or entrust the money to an existing one like the EFF. That has its own pitfalls, and still doesn't address the first problem.
Your ineptly-regurgitated party line does not address the point I made, which is that the kind of blind loyalty you display - regardless of what party receives it - is a sign of being too intellectually lazy to consider the issues properly. You are acting exactly like the "Democans" and "Republicrats".
Lucas has demonstrated that he is perfectly willing (for better or worse) to disregard the continuity established in secondary Star Wars media. The origin of Boba Fett, the nature of the Clone Wars, and the "stormtroopers = clones" thing come to mind, and I'm sure a less casual fan than I could name a dozen more.
Slashdot Mirror
Then I suspect you weren't paying attention.
In 1996, the country would surely never recover from another four years of Bush (no wait, Clinton). You were just throwing your vote away if you wasted it on some third-party loser like Badnerik (oops, I mean Browne) just because you thought him to be the best candidate; you were supposed to vote for Kerry (Dole, sorry, my bad) because he had the best chance to beat Bush (Clinton, fuck!), and that's ALL THAT MATTERED, DAMMIT!
That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that the way you're presenting the situation is objectively wrong. "Almost certainly going to win" does not equal "has already won".
That's beside the point. The decision that has already been made is the one that means nothing, and is therefore the "window dressing". The one that hasn't yet happened is the one that means everything, and is therefore the "real contest". Thomas Dewey learned this lesson. There is a small but non-zero chance that you will as well.
This is what gets said at every single election.
"We can do the right thing later, right now all that matters is that The Other Guy MUST LOSE AT ALL COSTS!"
This, far more than any "spoiler" candidates, is what gets bad presidents elected.
The tutorial help mentions it only fleetingly, but the enemy's lifebar flashes right at the moment you need to block. If you hit the block button quickly enough after that (I'd guess 1/10th of a second leeway), you'll get a counterattack.
I also found it a little easier to start by holding the button partially down, then complete the press on cue. But that was on the 360 using the triggers; it might not work as well on a keyboard.
If I ever want to find a more logical and practical way to engineer society than you could ever hope to dream up, sure, I'll try a trailer park.
Or a special-ed kindergarten class.
Or a sewage plant.
That's the dumbest thing I've seen in years. And I read Digg.
Let's assume you could invent this magical language that somehow makes it impossible to say misleading things (we'll call it Handwavish, as this is too ridiculous even for a moniker like Newspeak). While you're waving that magic wand around, let's also assume you could get everyone to agree to voluntarily use this language to the exclusion of all others. Let's even grant you an extra freebie and assume that every single written and audio record in the world is totally and permanently converted to Handwavish, thus completely obliterating every other written and spoken language humanity has ever seen.
Once you've done that, guess what? Handwavish evolves. New words are coined, old words take on new meanings, new phrases come into style, new grammatical and syntactical structures arise, and so on. Many of these changes will be for the explicit purpose of enabling people to say misleading things, convey meanings hidden to the casual listener, to inflame emotions and provoke strong reactions, and to outright lie. These changes will arise directly from the need and desire on people's part to say such things; they will find new ways to express the thoughts they're already having. Any attempt you made to stop this from happening would not only be doomed to fail (you gonna have an armed soldier listening to every conversation? Even that won't suffice), but would nullify your goal of avoiding censorship as a means to achieve your goal.
Furthermore, none of that addresses, let alone justifies, your hypocritical and patently false claim that "Propaganda is violence, and should be responded to with violence". Only would-be tyrant takes such a notion seriously, and they always have very convenient ideas about what does and does not constitute "propaganda".
Are you going to make a logical case for the banning of speech you don't like, or are you going to continue to spout empty, hypocritical rhetoric?
Propaganda is speech. Responding to speech with violence is the act of a coward, and an admission that one is unable to prove the propaganda wrong.
Plus there's the question of enforcement; how do you keep her from just taking both offers and settling? Since you can't enter a legally binding agreement with The Internets, you'd have to either create an organization with legal standing to enter a contract, or entrust the money to an existing one like the EFF. That has its own pitfalls, and still doesn't address the first problem.
Your ineptly-regurgitated party line does not address the point I made, which is that the kind of blind loyalty you display - regardless of what party receives it - is a sign of being too intellectually lazy to consider the issues properly. You are acting exactly like the "Democans" and "Republicrats".
Voting a straight party ticket is only a simple solution if the problem you're trying to solve is "I'm tired of thinking".
Lucas has demonstrated that he is perfectly willing (for better or worse) to disregard the continuity established in secondary Star Wars media. The origin of Boba Fett, the nature of the Clone Wars, and the "stormtroopers = clones" thing come to mind, and I'm sure a less casual fan than I could name a dozen more.
Your "greatest evidence" sucks.