Yes, well, most people know right from wrong, but a lot of them still behave badly in spite of that. I'm sure that Obama knows the Constitutional status of ACTA much more clearly than any of us Slashdotters, but given that he's a. a Democrat and b. has a VP who is probably more beholden to Hollywood than he is and c. has been stacking the deck in favor of big rightsholders since he took office, I think he'll sign it anyway.
No argument from me. I'll admit, Hubbard had a good premise for Battlefield Earth, but his book wasn't exactly great literature (mainly because he was a mediocre sci-fi author at best.) Still, they could have done a lot better: who knows, maybe if they'd stuck with the original screenplay rather than try to promote their worthless value system they'd have had more commercial success. Maybe.
So I ask you... was that nonsense from the book or added because of low budgets?
It was from the book, sort of. In other words, the human survivors found a couple of vast Russian and American underground bases (presumably Cold War-era) and scavenged them for guns, books, and whatever else they could find.
If Battlefield Earth is one of your all-time favourites, you've either only seen one movie, you're mentally retarded, or a Scientologist, but now I repeat myself.
I will admit that I enjoyed the part where Travolta got his arm chopped off and was feeling the stump. That was about it though.
I read the original novel by L. Ron (yeah, I know, there are some things one should not admit to in public) and while it was about what you'd expect from writer of Hubbard's caliber, the movie didn't even measure up to that. How the Scientologists could have so badly botched the film adaptation of one of their founder's better-known works is beyond me.
I've got a spark coil here that could help with the "electrifyin'" part. Maybe if we connect it up to John Travolta's earlobes we can shock some sense into him. Probably have to crank up the voltage to make a dent on that Cruise asshole though.
No, your government just bombs the fuck out of countries that disagree with them...
Only if they have something we want, just like every major power since the Roman Empire has done, all throughout history. We don't agree with North Korea, for example... they don't have a single goddamn thing we want, but do keep making threatening noises about nuking our allies, so we keep buying them off with free food and diesel fuel. So we don't bomb other nations just because they disagree with us: fact is, most of the world is full of complete assholes who disagree with us, and while actually do have enough bombs to take care of them all, there wouldn't be much left when we finished the job.
"Communism has not been tried and failed, Communism has not been tried."
Neither has true democracy, not on a significant scale. That's because both break down at a certain point. America is not, has never been, and hopefully never will be a democracy (in spite of metric fucktons of political rhetoric to the contrary) It is a republic, a fact which regularly escapes our leaders when they open their mouths on TV. Our Founders knew perfectly well that "democracy" is roughly synonymous with "mob rule", and that the popular will is often an idiot. Consequently, We the People require limits on our power to screw things up just as much as the government does.
ok at what they are doing with Africa, instead of just donating money, they create jobs
Maybe... but they are also using cheap goods to extract as much wealth out of Africa as they can (just like they're doing with everyone else.) My girlfriend is Nigerian, and she tells me there's a huge market for Chinese-made high-tech products there: China wants their slice of all that oil money, and rich Nigerians like their toys as much as anyone else. So don't give China too much credit for philanthropy here.
They could, except they would go out of business since no one would buy their more expensive products.
Not if they made the proper investment in automation, if they had continued the progress we made in manufacturing efficiency in the past fifty or sixty years. Unions thoroughly screwed themselves when they did the Luddite routine, fighting automation because they were afraid they would lose their jobs. Well, they lost them anyway, and now they aren't even in the same country.
Almost certainly true, which is why I qualified my remark with "if we get sufficiently worked up about it". The reality is that life in America hasn't gotten bad enough yet, for enough of us. That will change eventually, however. My point is still valid: our legal system does, in fact, permit us to make changes but only if we make the effort.
Oh, he learned it. It's just that irrational finger-pointing at the U.S. has apparently replaced the national sport of many countries. That's too bad... there's plenty of legitimate criticisms to make.
No, your government just bombs the fuck out of countries that disagree with them...
Only if they have something we want, just like every major power since the Roman Empire has done, all throughout history. We don't agree with North Korea, for example... they don't have a single goddamn thing we want, but do keep making threatening noises about nuking our allies, so we keep buying them off with free food and diesel fuel. So we don't bomb other nations just because they disagree with us: fact is, most of the world is full of complete assholes who disagree with us, and while actually do have enough bombs to take care of them all, there wouldn't be much left when we finished the job.
h. Those that live in the US will be quick to point out the heinousness of Chinese policy, but very slow to recognize anything untoward in their own country's policies, foreign or domestic. Way too much Kool-Aid.
Nice attempt at the appearance of "balanced viewpoint", but it seems like you are either a. ignorant of the United States and its people, b. just America-bashing for the fun of it or (and this is my personal favorite) c. just ignorant. Either way, you're the one sucking down the Kool-Aid. As it happens, a lot of us are pretty damned dissatisfied with our various forms of government here, and we're pretty damn vocal about it. We can talk about it on public forms like this one. We can call the President of the United States a porchmonkey if we want to, and nobody will arrest us (although some of our neighbors might burn down our house.) We can even, if we get sufficiently worked up about it, change how our government(s) operate. It's not easy, to be sure, but is still a lot more than anyone living in China (or any other totalitarian regime) can say for themselves. So watch your tongue.
And we have every right to point out the heinousness of Chinese policy because it is heinous. Whether or not you like the United States doesn't change that fact one little bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Megan Meier ... Phoebe Prince ...
Apparently you are more likely to be cyberbullied if your first and last names start with the same letter.
Next time, we should elect a constitutional law professor to be president. Oh...wait...
Yes, well, most people know right from wrong, but a lot of them still behave badly in spite of that. I'm sure that Obama knows the Constitutional status of ACTA much more clearly than any of us Slashdotters, but given that he's a. a Democrat and b. has a VP who is probably more beholden to Hollywood than he is and c. has been stacking the deck in favor of big rightsholders since he took office, I think he'll sign it anyway.
The whole movie was bad, bad, bad.
No argument from me. I'll admit, Hubbard had a good premise for Battlefield Earth, but his book wasn't exactly great literature (mainly because he was a mediocre sci-fi author at best.) Still, they could have done a lot better: who knows, maybe if they'd stuck with the original screenplay rather than try to promote their worthless value system they'd have had more commercial success. Maybe.
So I ask you... was that nonsense from the book or added because of low budgets?
It was from the book, sort of. In other words, the human survivors found a couple of vast Russian and American underground bases (presumably Cold War-era) and scavenged them for guns, books, and whatever else they could find.
What's up with the fighter jets that sat in a cave like 1,000 years and started up just fine? The ancient walkie-talkie's with working batteries?
Why not? It worked for Woody Allen.
It's probably where the Scientologists got the idea.
If Battlefield Earth is one of your all-time favourites, you've either only seen one movie, you're mentally retarded, or a Scientologist, but now I repeat myself.
I will admit that I enjoyed the part where Travolta got his arm chopped off and was feeling the stump. That was about it though.
I read the original novel by L. Ron (yeah, I know, there are some things one should not admit to in public) and while it was about what you'd expect from writer of Hubbard's caliber, the movie didn't even measure up to that. How the Scientologists could have so badly botched the film adaptation of one of their founder's better-known works is beyond me.
Yeah, but are they . . muliplyin?
I've got a spark coil here that could help with the "electrifyin'" part. Maybe if we connect it up to John Travolta's earlobes we can shock some sense into him. Probably have to crank up the voltage to make a dent on that Cruise asshole though.
Will ACTA Be Found Unconstitutional?
Yes.
Will Obama sign it anyway?
Yes.
You mean like Wikinews, which already exists or something different like Indymedia or the whole blogosphere?
Yeah. Or you could just Google it. Or Bing it. Or Yahoo it.
No, your government just bombs the fuck out of countries that disagree with them...
Only if they have something we want, just like every major power since the Roman Empire has done, all throughout history. We don't agree with North Korea, for example ... they don't have a single goddamn thing we want, but do keep making threatening noises about nuking our allies, so we keep buying them off with free food and diesel fuel. So we don't bomb other nations just because they disagree with us: fact is, most of the world is full of complete assholes who disagree with us, and while actually do have enough bombs to take care of them all, there wouldn't be much left when we finished the job.
I disagree on Korea, I want and love Kimchi
I've never tried that ... what is it?
You should have signed in before submitting this comment...it's worthy of some +1 mods, in my opinion.
I agree ... one of the most reasoned opinions I've yet heard on the subject.
Wonder how many more US companies are going to pull out of China.
When that happens, a frustrated China will not be available for comment.
Soviet union was totalitarian socialism, it's supposed to be a stage on the way to communism. Never made it there.
Human nature being what it is, I would argue that no "communist" government will ever reach that point.
"Communism has not been tried and failed, Communism has not been tried."
Neither has true democracy, not on a significant scale. That's because both break down at a certain point. America is not, has never been, and hopefully never will be a democracy (in spite of metric fucktons of political rhetoric to the contrary) It is a republic, a fact which regularly escapes our leaders when they open their mouths on TV. Our Founders knew perfectly well that "democracy" is roughly synonymous with "mob rule", and that the popular will is often an idiot. Consequently, We the People require limits on our power to screw things up just as much as the government does.
ironically-named Peoples' Republic
More like hypocritically-named. Any country which has the word "republic" in its name generally isn't. A republic, that is.
ok at what they are doing with Africa, instead of just donating money, they create jobs
Maybe ... but they are also using cheap goods to extract as much wealth out of Africa as they can (just like they're doing with everyone else.) My girlfriend is Nigerian, and she tells me there's a huge market for Chinese-made high-tech products there: China wants their slice of all that oil money, and rich Nigerians like their toys as much as anyone else. So don't give China too much credit for philanthropy here.
They could, except they would go out of business since no one would buy their more expensive products.
Not if they made the proper investment in automation, if they had continued the progress we made in manufacturing efficiency in the past fifty or sixty years. Unions thoroughly screwed themselves when they did the Luddite routine, fighting automation because they were afraid they would lose their jobs. Well, they lost them anyway, and now they aren't even in the same country.
So I can't say what I please if I don't vote for one the two major parties? Explain the fact that I do exactly that, please.
I think what the GP is trying to say is, in short, "talk is cheap."
Almost certainly false
Almost certainly true, which is why I qualified my remark with "if we get sufficiently worked up about it". The reality is that life in America hasn't gotten bad enough yet, for enough of us. That will change eventually, however. My point is still valid: our legal system does, in fact, permit us to make changes but only if we make the effort.
The new release also includes much better integration with social networking services such as Twitter, identi.ca and Facebook
Why should an operating system "integrate" with a social networking service?
I know I learned it at my public high school.
Oh, he learned it. It's just that irrational finger-pointing at the U.S. has apparently replaced the national sport of many countries. That's too bad ... there's plenty of legitimate criticisms to make.
No, your government just bombs the fuck out of countries that disagree with them...
Only if they have something we want, just like every major power since the Roman Empire has done, all throughout history. We don't agree with North Korea, for example ... they don't have a single goddamn thing we want, but do keep making threatening noises about nuking our allies, so we keep buying them off with free food and diesel fuel. So we don't bomb other nations just because they disagree with us: fact is, most of the world is full of complete assholes who disagree with us, and while actually do have enough bombs to take care of them all, there wouldn't be much left when we finished the job.
h. Those that live in the US will be quick to point out the heinousness of Chinese policy, but very slow to recognize anything untoward in their own country's policies, foreign or domestic. Way too much Kool-Aid.
Nice attempt at the appearance of "balanced viewpoint", but it seems like you are either a. ignorant of the United States and its people, b. just America-bashing for the fun of it or (and this is my personal favorite) c. just ignorant. Either way, you're the one sucking down the Kool-Aid. As it happens, a lot of us are pretty damned dissatisfied with our various forms of government here, and we're pretty damn vocal about it. We can talk about it on public forms like this one. We can call the President of the United States a porchmonkey if we want to, and nobody will arrest us (although some of our neighbors might burn down our house.) We can even, if we get sufficiently worked up about it, change how our government(s) operate. It's not easy, to be sure, but is still a lot more than anyone living in China (or any other totalitarian regime) can say for themselves. So watch your tongue.
And we have every right to point out the heinousness of Chinese policy because it is heinous. Whether or not you like the United States doesn't change that fact one little bit.
Biggest problem in
{Iran, Egypt, Syria, Israel, Turkey, Russia, China, The UK, America, etc.}
isn't so much the
{Iranians, Egyptans, Syrians, Israelis, Turks, Russians, Chinese, _ Americans, etc.}
as it is the government, AFAICT
You missed someone in the second list :-)
Sorry, thumbfingered it.
Bah. Wake me up when they have a maneuverable superluminal cruise missile.
Do 100MW shipborne lasers count?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/technology_news/4321422.html?nav=RSS20
Only if they can shoot around corners.