"Also, the help came in late in the Revolutionary War - it wasn't like they were the U.S.'s backbone that kept it afloat throughout the conflict."
How long did the US wait before getting involved in WWI and WWII?
I seem to remember that France lost more than a million soldiers in WWI _sucesfully_ defending Paris and the rest of their country before the US decided to get off it's ass.
Here's a news flash, Nintendo is in buisness to _make_money_.
Another news flash, Nintendo is not making gamers go buy game remakes by gun point.
If Nintendo is making lots of remakes, it's because they've found that the players want to buy remakes. Those people who choose to go out and buy remakes are presumably happy with them. And note that Nintendo is not alone in this trend, the PS2 has seen a whole slew of Square remakes.
Theoretically i suppose if they didn't make any remakes they might be releasing a few more totally new games (although probably not as many as you might expect,) which i presume is what you want. However i don't see why your preferences in video games should have a higher priority than anyone else's.
There's some kind of really annoying pop-up named Weather-something that Netscape auto-pop-up-killer doesn't seem to catch. It opens a new, very small window, and if you don't quickly clost it, it tries to start a download for you!
The standard save file window pops up asking where i want to save the file, which i of course cancel. I guess i should be glad that they haven't figure out how to get it to autmatically accept the default name and location and save the file.
This actually sounds like a good idea. Do lots of networking over the LAN, so the rest of us can hack together internet play while Nintendo can keep the delusion that they're still doing living room play only:)
I agree, it's sad that there's no middle ground in these types of things anymore. Except for the GBA, all the startegy games are focused on becoming more and more complex. There aren't any more games were you can just sit down and just play a quick game. Do you like Civ type strategy games as well? You might want to try out Galactic Civilizations. It's basically like Civ in space (wouldn't have guessed that from the name would you?) It's much superior to Moo3, although obviously in a different style.
Some other favorites of mine:
Advance Wars (yay GBA!)
Gemfire (SNES)
Defender of the Crown (NES or GBA)
Nobunaga's Ambition (the original NES one)
Brigandine (PSX)
Here's a quis: When did i say anything about population growth? Answer: I didn't! Why are you suddenly running off on this completly irrelevant tangent? Answer: I don't know!
The number of people we hav now is more than enough to screw up the planet already.
If we run out of petroleum, we may switch over to nuclear power, but that won't solve the problem that a lot manufacturing processes are dependent on petroleum as a raw material, including the production of fertilizer which we need to maintain the level of crop production we currently have.
The number of people we have now are already doing a great job of wiping out species without any help from population growth. Look at the overfishing example. If we wipe out enough species, then there are any number of ways in which the ecosystem might not be able to adapt in time and the whole thing falls apart.
I hate to tell you, but that's not really decreasing your footprint.
If you're talking about muli-tiering the gardens rather than just one on the roof, then you need to provide artificial light, and for that you need to get the energy from somewhere. And where did you get the soil to grow the plants in? And you need to deal with soil depletion, did you know that most large-scale commercial fertilizers today are made out of petroleum products?
If you stack the areas you're using on top of each other, all you've done is put the problems in a stack, you haven't made them go away.
Yup! It's easy! The first world just needs to put it's footprint on the neck of the third world, and everything is fine and dandy!:)
It takes a certain amount of area to grow food to feed a person, I think you mean a sufficiently developed technology, which can help, but there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Modern societies don't fail due to Natural Resources. They fail because we can't seem to get along with each other. Or, we can't get along with our neighbors. Or, our neighbors hate us, and conquer us.
*laugh* Let's see, does this fall under the category of not anticipating the problem before it arives? Or failing to try and solve the problem through denial?
6 billion people have never screwed up a planet in a major way before, so therefore it will never actually happen, right?
The fact that so many different groups of humans want to do each other in is certainly another big area of concern, but it's not the only area we need to worry about, and i really fail to see how your flamebait comment about abortion is even relevant.
Once we chop down most of the rainforests, or once we start running out of oil, or once global warming kicks in, or once any number of those kinds of problems occur, we may start thinking that yeah, 6 billion people can affect the planet. As usual however, by that point it may very well be too late.
Seeing as how that museum documented a history that has strongly influenced the entire human race, i wonder how you can simply dismiss it as "they looted their own museum."
Either we care about the civilians, and should have delegated a couple of marines at each museum (a dozen or so soldiers, out of how many hundreds of thousands of troops?) in order to protect their cultureal heritage for them, or we don't give a fuck about the civilians and we should have had troops guarding the museums in order to protect _our_ cultural heritage.
Gargoyles were "protectors" in the sense that they were supposed to be hideous enough to frighten away the devil and/or evil spirits. So whatever you're using as a gargoyle doesn't have to be _good_, and in fact usually isn't, it's just supposed to be scary.
I have no idea _why_ they thought scary looking evil things would scare away, well, other scary looking evil things, but it apparently made sense to them.
If it truly is retributory justice, shouldn't i just be subjected to someone else's "stupidity"? It's an eye for an eye, not an arm and a leg and your head as well for an eye.
Personally i think having Bush as my unelected "god-king" is more than punishment enough thank you very much. It certainly meets the stupidity requirement in my opinion.
But do we let the victim into the thief's home and let them pick out something to keep?
We return the stolen items to the victem and/or give them some cash, and let the thief figure out what to sell to come up with the cash, so? How exactly does that relate to the question at hand? An eye for an eye is a metaphorical example, and even people who believe in the general idea don't insist that it be carried out in an exactly literal way for every case.
In the movies, murdering bad guys usually don't have families that care about and love them. In the real world, they do.
So it's okay to murder people as long as you make sure you have a loving family first? I'd feel sorry for said loving family, i'd also feel sorry for them if they became destitute because of huge damages levied against him in a civil trial, and i'd feel sorry for them if they never got to see him again cause he got sentenced to multiple life-times in jail. That doesn't mean however that i think that if criminals have people who will regret the punishments levied against the criminal, perhaps even totally innocent people, that they shouldn't be punished, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
I've always been an eye for an eye type guy myself. If you knowingly commit a crime or immoral act, then you forgo your legal/moral protection from the same. No one complains when a thief gets fined or when the murdering bad guy in a movie gets killed (people get much more worked up about state-sanctioned death penalties, but that's more of a political thing)
If they want to send unsolicited junk mail, either because they think that it's okay, or they don't care that it's wrong, they've got no right to complain about the same thing being done to them, and people who have been spammed by them suffer no karmic penalty for doing so.
Likewise, if the spammers are going to try and claim that the right to free speech protects them, they've certainly got no right to try and sue people who use their right to free speech to tell their friends which incoming email addresses they should block.
You've also got a cascade effect. As soon as one company publicly announces themselves, a lot of the others are going to want to speak up so the first company doesn't hog the spotlight. This will be especially true if they are currently seeking investors or plan to start doing so in the near future.
Han Solo can't actually understand Wookie. Chewbacca understands english just fine, so he knows what Han is saying to him, but Han is just pretending that he knows what Chewbacca is saying back. So the whole time Chewie is saying things like "Skywalker? I think i met his dad twenty years ago!" and Han just tells him to go fix a stabalizer or something.
C3PO either can't understand R2-D2, or for some reason chooses not to communicate what he says, so R2-D2 is running around saying things like "Watch out Luke! Vader is your father!" and "Hey Yoda! How's it hangin?" and Threepio doesn't bother to translate them.
Maybe Threepio is still secretly loyal to Vader and doesn't want to tip Luke off?
Naw, it's not that complicated. It's just that back when George Lucas first started making movies, there was actually some editorial oversight. People higher up would slap him down every time he tried to do something stupid.
Now that he's rich and famous, there's no on around to keep him from making those mistakes. He can just tell anyone who doesn't give in to his every whim to take a hike and there are a dozen people/companies in line waiting to take their place.
Slashdot Mirror
How long did the US wait before getting involved in WWI and WWII?
I seem to remember that France lost more than a million soldiers in WWI _sucesfully_ defending Paris and the rest of their country before the US decided to get off it's ass.
My first though on reading this was "Maybe Vernor Vinge's 'Zones of Thought' idea is real after all!"
Where it spends it's time spewing EM waves into the user's crotch :)
Well, they were well respected.
Oh yeah, the PC geeks are _so_ much cooler than the people who own consoles.
Another news flash, Nintendo is not making gamers go buy game remakes by gun point.
If Nintendo is making lots of remakes, it's because they've found that the players want to buy remakes. Those people who choose to go out and buy remakes are presumably happy with them. And note that Nintendo is not alone in this trend, the PS2 has seen a whole slew of Square remakes.
Theoretically i suppose if they didn't make any remakes they might be releasing a few more totally new games (although probably not as many as you might expect,) which i presume is what you want. However i don't see why your preferences in video games should have a higher priority than anyone else's.
The standard save file window pops up asking where i want to save the file, which i of course cancel. I guess i should be glad that they haven't figure out how to get it to autmatically accept the default name and location and save the file.
I want to hear more about the new and mysterious game called "Error" that they keep talking about!
This actually sounds like a good idea. Do lots of networking over the LAN, so the rest of us can hack together internet play while Nintendo can keep the delusion that they're still doing living room play only :)
Some other favorites of mine:
Advance Wars (yay GBA!)
Gemfire (SNES)
Defender of the Crown (NES or GBA)
Nobunaga's Ambition (the original NES one)
Brigandine (PSX)
The number of people we hav now is more than enough to screw up the planet already.
If we run out of petroleum, we may switch over to nuclear power, but that won't solve the problem that a lot manufacturing processes are dependent on petroleum as a raw material, including the production of fertilizer which we need to maintain the level of crop production we currently have.
The number of people we have now are already doing a great job of wiping out species without any help from population growth. Look at the overfishing example. If we wipe out enough species, then there are any number of ways in which the ecosystem might not be able to adapt in time and the whole thing falls apart.
If you're talking about muli-tiering the gardens rather than just one on the roof, then you need to provide artificial light, and for that you need to get the energy from somewhere. And where did you get the soil to grow the plants in? And you need to deal with soil depletion, did you know that most large-scale commercial fertilizers today are made out of petroleum products?
If you stack the areas you're using on top of each other, all you've done is put the problems in a stack, you haven't made them go away.
It takes a certain amount of area to grow food to feed a person, I think you mean a sufficiently developed technology, which can help, but there's no such thing as a free lunch.
*laugh* Let's see, does this fall under the category of not anticipating the problem before it arives? Or failing to try and solve the problem through denial?
6 billion people have never screwed up a planet in a major way before, so therefore it will never actually happen, right?
The fact that so many different groups of humans want to do each other in is certainly another big area of concern, but it's not the only area we need to worry about, and i really fail to see how your flamebait comment about abortion is even relevant.
Once we chop down most of the rainforests, or once we start running out of oil, or once global warming kicks in, or once any number of those kinds of problems occur, we may start thinking that yeah, 6 billion people can affect the planet. As usual however, by that point it may very well be too late.
He was probably thinking "I'm sure there are a few more trees on the other side of the island."
Either we care about the civilians, and should have delegated a couple of marines at each museum (a dozen or so soldiers, out of how many hundreds of thousands of troops?) in order to protect their cultureal heritage for them, or we don't give a fuck about the civilians and we should have had troops guarding the museums in order to protect _our_ cultural heritage.
so tell me why I should be interested in it rather than just making a dual boot Linux/Windows machine.
I have no idea _why_ they thought scary looking evil things would scare away, well, other scary looking evil things, but it apparently made sense to them.
Which immediatly makes me wonder, what got first and second place? And what rounds out the rest of the top ten or however many they did?
Personally i think having Bush as my unelected "god-king" is more than punishment enough thank you very much. It certainly meets the stupidity requirement in my opinion.
We return the stolen items to the victem and/or give them some cash, and let the thief figure out what to sell to come up with the cash, so? How exactly does that relate to the question at hand? An eye for an eye is a metaphorical example, and even people who believe in the general idea don't insist that it be carried out in an exactly literal way for every case.
In the movies, murdering bad guys usually don't have families that care about and love them. In the real world, they do.
So it's okay to murder people as long as you make sure you have a loving family first? I'd feel sorry for said loving family, i'd also feel sorry for them if they became destitute because of huge damages levied against him in a civil trial, and i'd feel sorry for them if they never got to see him again cause he got sentenced to multiple life-times in jail. That doesn't mean however that i think that if criminals have people who will regret the punishments levied against the criminal, perhaps even totally innocent people, that they shouldn't be punished, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
Your analogies are weak.
Your's are nonsensical.
If they want to send unsolicited junk mail, either because they think that it's okay, or they don't care that it's wrong, they've got no right to complain about the same thing being done to them, and people who have been spammed by them suffer no karmic penalty for doing so.
Likewise, if the spammers are going to try and claim that the right to free speech protects them, they've certainly got no right to try and sue people who use their right to free speech to tell their friends which incoming email addresses they should block.
You've also got a cascade effect. As soon as one company publicly announces themselves, a lot of the others are going to want to speak up so the first company doesn't hog the spotlight. This will be especially true if they are currently seeking investors or plan to start doing so in the near future.
C3PO either can't understand R2-D2, or for some reason chooses not to communicate what he says, so R2-D2 is running around saying things like "Watch out Luke! Vader is your father!" and "Hey Yoda! How's it hangin?" and Threepio doesn't bother to translate them.
Maybe Threepio is still secretly loyal to Vader and doesn't want to tip Luke off?
Now that he's rich and famous, there's no on around to keep him from making those mistakes. He can just tell anyone who doesn't give in to his every whim to take a hike and there are a dozen people/companies in line waiting to take their place.