No doubt this 'publicity stunt' is aimed at promoting Amnesty's new line of products, so they can reap huge profits when it takes off in the media... oh wait... well, i guess they just like to get attention for no particular reason then. Or maybe THEY CARE ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS? Nah...
Quote 1: "how about the stigma assigned by the anti-gun-nuts to us gun owners because of this"
Quote 2: "You cant have it both ways."
No doubt part of the 'stigma' of being a gunwieldingmaniac... ahem... 'legitimate gun owner' is being called childish names. You, sir (or ma'am), can't have it both ways.
"China's per capita 'try somebody for a crime that isn't really a crime, don't allow them to defend themselves, then execute them and bill their relatives for the bullet' rate is higher than everywhere else in the world"
Yeah, you have to go all the way down the list to fourth to find the USA... plus you guys throw in the bullet/lethal injection for free. Just another way that capitalism is superior to communism! Don't mess with Texas!
I notice that, apart from the movie trailers that Apple has set up a Pimp/Ho relationship with the studios to get hold of, almost everything of any real (pun) interest is available in Windows Media or RealPlayer streaming formats.
I know this because I made a point of not installing any crappy extra software (e.g. RealPlayer/Quicktime) on my machine for a long time, but eventually I folded and got RealPlayer because so much was offered in RP and I was sick of media player. So far I have not felt the need to get Quicktime, and there are very few things I can't watch despite my bereftness of annoying Apple software.
Incidentally, PC users who like iTunes *seriously* need to look at Winamp 5, personally I think it does virtually everything iT does but has a lot more flexibility and is actually designed to run in the Windows environment in terms of the GUI, functionality etc. Plus the visualisation packages are wayyyy cooler.
Because Quicktime blows on the Windows platform, has irritating popups, seizes control of various file formats without permission, integrates itself into browsers without permission, has a crappy Apple-oriented interface even in windows...
Mod this -5: flamebait if you must, but as a serious PC gamer, Bungie Can Go and Fuck Themselves.
The way they acted towards the PC (and worse, Mac) community regarding Halo was disgraceful. On top of that, Halo 1 really wasn't that good - the single player game was boring and repetitive, and the multiplayer was NOTHING on QIII, Medal of Honour or virtually any other half decent MP PC game. The saddest part was seeing all the fawning 13 year olds proclaiming Halo the 'greatest game of all time' and the gushing, sickening reviews of the eventual PC port on IGN and GameSpot.
Anyone who really cares about PC gaming will boycott this game. As was seen with the recent Deus Ex 2 debacle, console-ization of PC games is a recipe for mediocrity. Bungie's X-Box enslavement is the ultimate example, and should be opposed. Save your money, buy Doom III or HL2.
I agree - it doesn't strike me that this is inventive at all. Basic motion tracking has been around for years, which is really all that this machine is doing. Unless the tracking is really precise and high-level then it's not especially hard to do and combining it with some crappy PS2 game is hardly an 'inventive step' either.
I can't help but notice the preachy, almost soviet-style editorialising in the two./ stories about this worm I've seen so far. I have also read Mr. Perens letter to the community, which contained some good points but nonetheless basically requests that noone praise this attack.
Look, if you support free speech, including SCO's, then you must also support the freedom of people here on./ to say "it couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch of total *&^$ing #$%^s." This whole 'let's not say anything positive about this to protect ourselves from the ignorance of the masses' stance is just as bad as any other form of censorship.
In fact, I almost think I detect the unpleasant stink of... yes... it is... spin! PR! Image management! Media manipulation! Once we get into that game (i.e. modifying/suppressing the truth to support our own agenda) then we may as well just run for President and get it over with, because we're on the slippery slope.
So let's not deny, suppress or otherwise fuck around with the truth. Worms are annoying. SCO is bad. Many people here are happy that, if anyone was going to be hit by an unpleasant DDOS attack, it was SCO. Eat it, Darl McBride, and may it last a good few weeks.
Is anyone else concerned about the possible long term effects of living in an environment in which you can always be contacted, always be located, and always contact others?
I'm only in my mid 20's, but when I was young I lived in the country and for whole days would be out of contact with 'civilisation.' I could have fallen down a well and noone would have found me for ages. Somehow I survived. By the time I was 11 or 12 I would camp out with friends, again with no ability to phone home if anything happened and no ability for my parents to check where I was. By the age of 16 I was living in a large city and starting to learn about wine, women and song - still without a mobile phone or TrackCo Tracking Brain Implant. It was only a few years ago that I started using a phone, and although it's useful I make sure to turn it off frequently and leave it at home occaisionally. I also regularly let it ring out so that people don't assume I will be contactable at all times.
Now my question is this: what about people who live their entire lives, from their earliest years, with a phone? Always in contact, always trackable. Surely this will have a serious psychological effect - severing of the umbilical cord of cellular connectivity already leads to panic in some people I know. If we go out camping and there's no reception, they get upset and on more than one occaision have climbed large hills in vain attempts to get back on the network. Other individuals have phoned me at random times sounding panicking and asking - why was your phone off? Are you ok??!
Basically what I am concerned about is that we will become a species addicted to the security of our cell phone blanket, and thereby lose a bit of our independence. I think we should change the culture to make it less centred around constant connectivity and more focused on convenience - convenience for the OWNER of the phone, not others who might wish to contact them. People should make a point of travelling occaisionally without their phones, turning them off during meals, movies, or even just for a few hours when they want to relax. The phone should be a tool, not a social floatation device to reassure us that if anything bad happens help is just a button-press away. Living with a panic alarm is just going to make you worry more about when you might need to use it.
Re:Militarisation of space - one option
on
The Future of NASA
·
· Score: 1
I am arguing for a degree of what we already have - instead of just 'airspace', let's make it a few thousand kilometres or something like that.
You again ignore my point regarding foreigners - if the US's actions affect us, for good or ill, who are you to deny us an opinion about US politics?
As for Islam - there may be a conflict looming. On the other hand, wars that are truly inevitable are very rare. Neither World War needed to happen, and judicious action at the right time might have averted both of them. Unfortunately, in the first governments were too ready to go to war. In the second they weren't ready enough when the time was right to get rid of Hitler. My point: sometimes military force is needed, sometimes it should be avoided at all costs. To take another example, I can hardly see that the Cold War would have been resolved well for anyone if direct force had actually been used.
I must say that while your arrogance is upsetting and displays an astonishingly self-centred world view - masters degree or none - I agree with you about genocidal maniacs. Unfortunately, I do not believe for one second that Bush went into Iraq because he gave a flying fuck about the Iraqis - the whole charade with WMDs, blurring the distinctions between Iraq and Al Qaeda (hey, they're all sand niggers right?) etc. totally devalued the upside, which is that Saddam is gone. If Bush now went through Africa, South East Asia and the Middle East getting rid of all of the bad dictators and totalitarian regimes I would be the first to say that it was a good thing. However, what we have instead is petrol prices at an all time low in the States and no prospect of Bush dealing with any of the other 'evil despots' around the place, or the US's good pals the Israelis.
It seems to me you have a strange sense of cause and effect. To you it seems to be
Massive commercial and political interests -> Lies about Iraq -> Iraqi occupation
9-11 -> Afghani invasion -> no further action
Furthermore, your statements to the effect that you know everyone fears America, you just don't care, and that you will support whatever the DoD does, smack of blind zealousness of the same kind that brought Hitler and all the other evil dictators you would like to be rid of to power. If you really want to fight tyranny, start at home by constantly questioning your own nation's actions and motives. I also note you have significant difficulty seperating right-left issues with moral issues, when I am really trying to talk about the latter. I wouldn't care if the US had a Republican President like McCain. What bothers me is that I think Bush is corrupt, immoral and above all dangerous.
If that is your attitude then you are, unfortunately, stupid.
'Foreigners' are just humans who just happened to be born in another country - I mean, what are the chances, about 1 in 24 that a person won't be born in the US of A? The whole point I was trying to make, which is typified by your response, is that many people in the US seem to be totally clueless as to how you are perceived internationally. We *don't* see you as heroic bastions freedom struggling against swarms of insane moslem aggressors, terrible though the WTC attacks were. The opposition to your little war in Iraq was much, much bigger than a few troublemaking frogs and krauts trying to get one up over Uncle Sam - it was the vast, VAST bulk of public opinion worldwide. Even in the homelands of your heroic allies, Britain and Australia, public opposition to the war was up around 80% most of the time. Elsewhere it ran in the high 90%s most of the time.
Maybe you do realise. Maybe you just don't care. But if that is the case then you should be able to understand why America is the most feared nation on earth, even amongst its 'allies' (who I notice are now completely disposable). But as far as I can tell, you don't realise. You don't realise that even in white, western democracies we are more scared of you than we are of China, or Al Qaeda, or anyone. And that is why we care if you reelect Bush.
I don't presume to speak for 5.75 billion people, but I think you should take the time to seriously consider why people overseas hate Bush and fear America. Your 'cut of your nose to spite your face' attitude is a ridiculous response - it's like saying, "he may be a dangerous maniac who everyone else on earth thinks is an incompetent idiot, but he's OUR dangerous maniac."
PS
Before you complain, yes I can dig up figures to support my assertions about perceptions of the US if I must. On the other hand you could do some of your own research.
Re:Militarisation of space - one option
on
The Future of NASA
·
· Score: 1
"So it's a triumph of the two evils that so many people here on/. seem to abhor: capitalism (anything is for sale) and militarism."
So militarism is a good thing because you won a war once?
"Of the 300 million people that live and work daily under the policies and programs of the Bush Administration..."
Well, as another poster observed it's more like 60 million who actually liked GW enough to vote for him.
"These people must all be stupid and/or tools of biased conservative media"
When did I write that? Don't lump me in with your existing perceptions please.
"the enlightened foreigner (who necessarily must rely on remote feed news services)"
It will amaze you to learn that way out here in the US colonies we actually have our own news services, many of which collect their own footage, interviews etc.
Look, you should realise that I don't give a flying fuck what Shrub does to you at home. My issue is the effect has and may have on me, over here in the Rest of the World team.
Re:Militarisation of space - one option
on
The Future of NASA
·
· Score: 1
"I feel sure that they will continue to use the stick more than the carrot until the insane parts of the world are made to come to there senses"
Ah, wonderful how one sentence can mean two totally different things depending on the context.
"isn't relevant to anything other than Junior's own feelings of inadequacy"
I guess the fact that you care about how unfast the Civic is is relevant to your own supreme feelings of adequacy, hmmm?
Anyway I guess I was just trying to make the point that the Honda is a car for which many upgrades are available that will actually make it a fast car. Plus it would corner about 10 times better than a 'fast' car like a Mustang or whatever.
I would but there ain't enough room in the sig. Plus super erudite people like you will know who said it anyone. Incidentally, he was only a founding father of your country, to me he's just this guy, you know?
Ashcroft would have done well in Hitler's cabinet, incidentally.
Militarisation of space - one option
on
The Future of NASA
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Why not make space, or at least the space around the earth, the same as the air: the space above a particular country belongs to that country, space above the international oceans is open to all. Thus it would be necessary to have other countries' permissions before orbiting anything over them, and issues like spying and weapons platforms would be somewhat marginalised. This would also allow each country to develop a space program as it saw fit in its own bit of space, or optionally to rent that space to others.
As it is now, space seems a bit like the wild west - noone cares who they fly over, or what's orbiting above them, or whatever.
Likewise we should develop a method for dividing up the moon, mars etc. that is not based on present capabilities but on the likelihood that one day any nation will be capable of utilising these resources. Or better yet put them all under the total control of the UN, as things too big for one nation to claim for itself.
I'm not a US basher, but just because the US is powerful right now doesn't mean it should have total rights to everything it finds in space. I mean, by that logic the US itself would still be part of France and Britain.
Personally I wish there were more collaborative space exploration. Instead of 3 countries/consortiums sending a probe each to Mars, we could have a probe to Mars, one to Europa, and one to Venus.
On a political note [not for moderation]: America, the rest of the world is praying that you wake up and dump Bush this year. It may be 50:50 in the polls in the States, but from outside your continuing refusal to realise that he is a dangerous, incompetent, scheming, money grabbing, corrupt fool is increasingly alarming. Mod -100000 for flamebait, but that's how it is. Please realise though: I love the US, I just wish someone would drive it in the right (or should that be centre-left) direction.
Oh, sorry... well if it's a FANTASY we're talking about, why didn't Jackson just give the good guys machine guns? They would have been the orcs pretty good with some of those puppies... and while we're at it, I want to see more bikini babes, yeah, that would rock, and Governor Schwarzenneger cast as a cyborg who comes back to middle earth to protect Frodo... whoo, FANTASY. Also, could Jerry Seinfeld doing some standup maybe be worked into the battle of Helms Deep in the DVD FANTASY Edition of the Two Towers? I think it would really lighten things up.
PS
Yes, I though Neo's super-super powers in the second and third movies were a total load of BS and never adequately explained. I want consistency and logic, DAMMIT.
Hey, people laugh in Adam Sandler movies too, but I think they are worthless pieces of shit. Anyway, although LOTR (the books) had their lighter moments, the overall theme is one of darkness and struggle, and I never read it and thought 'wow, this is fun.' Peter Jackson could put Big Bird into the last movie and that would probably be 'fun' too (and I guarantee the audience would laugh), but it would still be inappropriate.
Look, if you want to laugh and cheer, I suggest you try a Punch and Judy puppet show or maybe some sport. I, and many other people, don't just watch movies for the 'cool bits,' and certainly don't cheer at a movie screen. Yes, I'm a heinous killjoy. No, I don't think it was a good idea to put a reference to the Xtreme Sportz Generation into the Two Towers.
The battles would have been a lot better
on
Message in a Battle
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
If they didn't have all of the ridiculously lame dwarf comedy ("nobody tosses a dwarf", "toss me", etc.) and if Legolas hadn't snowboarded down the stairs on his shield. For a movie with such a realistic look to it, those elements of the battles, especially Helms Deep, were totally unneccessary and really ruined the great ambience that the thousands of CG extras created so effectively.
Why must directors put such painfully lame moments in films, anyway? It's like in Minority Report, when Tom Cruise is fighting the other guy wearing a jet pack and they 'accidentally' cook the hamburgers on the grill to perfection... why? WHY???!
"The Bush/repulican hawk thing is rather recent, historically republicans have been isolationist whimps."
I guess it depends on your version of 'isolationist.' True enough, they have been hesitant with respect to open, state to state warfare; however, in covert war, state sponsored terrorism etc, especially in SE Asia and South America, they are second to none. Most Americans probably don't even realise that US forces have seen combat in numerous South American countries, and continue to do so today.
(a) That every single one of the possible Democrat candidates is mediocre, incompetent and would make a worse president than Bush
or
(b) You are a closed-minded fool who will vote for Bush no matter who the Democrats put up for reelection, all the while bleating that you would consider a 'good' Democrat candidate.
You see, I would never, ever vote for Bush because I think he's an incompetent fool. I would, on the other hand, consider voting for John McCain, even though I tend to lean left. If you compare Dean to Kucinich to Lieberman to Kerry to Clarke I think you would find quite a range of views on a number of issues. Not that you will.
Slashdot Mirror
No doubt this 'publicity stunt' is aimed at promoting Amnesty's new line of products, so they can reap huge profits when it takes off in the media... oh wait... well, i guess they just like to get attention for no particular reason then. Or maybe THEY CARE ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS? Nah...
Quote 1: "how about the stigma assigned by the anti-gun-nuts to us gun owners because of this"
Quote 2: "You cant have it both ways."
No doubt part of the 'stigma' of being a gunwieldingmaniac... ahem... 'legitimate gun owner' is being called childish names. You, sir (or ma'am), can't have it both ways.
Incidentally, you're also a fucking idiot.
"China's per capita 'try somebody for a crime that isn't really a crime, don't allow them to defend themselves, then execute them and bill their relatives for the bullet' rate is higher than everywhere else in the world"
Yeah, you have to go all the way down the list to fourth to find the USA... plus you guys throw in the bullet/lethal injection for free. Just another way that capitalism is superior to communism! Don't mess with Texas!
Oh yeah, and it uses an annoying proprietary wrapper to lock up otherwise open format media, thus rendering it useless on other players/platforms.
What exactly is this piece of wisdom based on?
I notice that, apart from the movie trailers that Apple has set up a Pimp/Ho relationship with the studios to get hold of, almost everything of any real (pun) interest is available in Windows Media or RealPlayer streaming formats.
I know this because I made a point of not installing any crappy extra software (e.g. RealPlayer/Quicktime) on my machine for a long time, but eventually I folded and got RealPlayer because so much was offered in RP and I was sick of media player. So far I have not felt the need to get Quicktime, and there are very few things I can't watch despite my bereftness of annoying Apple software.
Incidentally, PC users who like iTunes *seriously* need to look at Winamp 5, personally I think it does virtually everything iT does but has a lot more flexibility and is actually designed to run in the Windows environment in terms of the GUI, functionality etc. Plus the visualisation packages are wayyyy cooler.
Because Quicktime blows on the Windows platform, has irritating popups, seizes control of various file formats without permission, integrates itself into browsers without permission, has a crappy Apple-oriented interface even in windows...
Mod this -5: flamebait if you must, but as a serious PC gamer, Bungie Can Go and Fuck Themselves.
The way they acted towards the PC (and worse, Mac) community regarding Halo was disgraceful. On top of that, Halo 1 really wasn't that good - the single player game was boring and repetitive, and the multiplayer was NOTHING on QIII, Medal of Honour or virtually any other half decent MP PC game. The saddest part was seeing all the fawning 13 year olds proclaiming Halo the 'greatest game of all time' and the gushing, sickening reviews of the eventual PC port on IGN and GameSpot.
Anyone who really cares about PC gaming will boycott this game. As was seen with the recent Deus Ex 2 debacle, console-ization of PC games is a recipe for mediocrity. Bungie's X-Box enslavement is the ultimate example, and should be opposed. Save your money, buy Doom III or HL2.
I agree - it doesn't strike me that this is inventive at all. Basic motion tracking has been around for years, which is really all that this machine is doing. Unless the tracking is really precise and high-level then it's not especially hard to do and combining it with some crappy PS2 game is hardly an 'inventive step' either.
I can't help but notice the preachy, almost soviet-style editorialising in the two ./ stories about this worm I've seen so far. I have also read Mr. Perens letter to the community, which contained some good points but nonetheless basically requests that noone praise this attack.
./ to say "it couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch of total *&^$ing #$%^s." This whole 'let's not say anything positive about this to protect ourselves from the ignorance of the masses' stance is just as bad as any other form of censorship.
Look, if you support free speech, including SCO's, then you must also support the freedom of people here on
In fact, I almost think I detect the unpleasant stink of... yes... it is... spin! PR! Image management! Media manipulation! Once we get into that game (i.e. modifying/suppressing the truth to support our own agenda) then we may as well just run for President and get it over with, because we're on the slippery slope.
So let's not deny, suppress or otherwise fuck around with the truth. Worms are annoying. SCO is bad. Many people here are happy that, if anyone was going to be hit by an unpleasant DDOS attack, it was SCO. Eat it, Darl McBride, and may it last a good few weeks.
Is anyone else concerned about the possible long term effects of living in an environment in which you can always be contacted, always be located, and always contact others?
I'm only in my mid 20's, but when I was young I lived in the country and for whole days would be out of contact with 'civilisation.' I could have fallen down a well and noone would have found me for ages. Somehow I survived. By the time I was 11 or 12 I would camp out with friends, again with no ability to phone home if anything happened and no ability for my parents to check where I was. By the age of 16 I was living in a large city and starting to learn about wine, women and song - still without a mobile phone or TrackCo Tracking Brain Implant. It was only a few years ago that I started using a phone, and although it's useful I make sure to turn it off frequently and leave it at home occaisionally. I also regularly let it ring out so that people don't assume I will be contactable at all times.
Now my question is this: what about people who live their entire lives, from their earliest years, with a phone? Always in contact, always trackable. Surely this will have a serious psychological effect - severing of the umbilical cord of cellular connectivity already leads to panic in some people I know. If we go out camping and there's no reception, they get upset and on more than one occaision have climbed large hills in vain attempts to get back on the network. Other individuals have phoned me at random times sounding panicking and asking - why was your phone off? Are you ok??!
Basically what I am concerned about is that we will become a species addicted to the security of our cell phone blanket, and thereby lose a bit of our independence. I think we should change the culture to make it less centred around constant connectivity and more focused on convenience - convenience for the OWNER of the phone, not others who might wish to contact them. People should make a point of travelling occaisionally without their phones, turning them off during meals, movies, or even just for a few hours when they want to relax. The phone should be a tool, not a social floatation device to reassure us that if anything bad happens help is just a button-press away. Living with a panic alarm is just going to make you worry more about when you might need to use it.
I am arguing for a degree of what we already have - instead of just 'airspace', let's make it a few thousand kilometres or something like that.
You again ignore my point regarding foreigners - if the US's actions affect us, for good or ill, who are you to deny us an opinion about US politics?
As for Islam - there may be a conflict looming. On the other hand, wars that are truly inevitable are very rare. Neither World War needed to happen, and judicious action at the right time might have averted both of them. Unfortunately, in the first governments were too ready to go to war. In the second they weren't ready enough when the time was right to get rid of Hitler. My point: sometimes military force is needed, sometimes it should be avoided at all costs. To take another example, I can hardly see that the Cold War would have been resolved well for anyone if direct force had actually been used.
I must say that while your arrogance is upsetting and displays an astonishingly self-centred world view - masters degree or none - I agree with you about genocidal maniacs. Unfortunately, I do not believe for one second that Bush went into Iraq because he gave a flying fuck about the Iraqis - the whole charade with WMDs, blurring the distinctions between Iraq and Al Qaeda (hey, they're all sand niggers right?) etc. totally devalued the upside, which is that Saddam is gone. If Bush now went through Africa, South East Asia and the Middle East getting rid of all of the bad dictators and totalitarian regimes I would be the first to say that it was a good thing. However, what we have instead is petrol prices at an all time low in the States and no prospect of Bush dealing with any of the other 'evil despots' around the place, or the US's good pals the Israelis.
It seems to me you have a strange sense of cause and effect. To you it seems to be
9-11 -> Afghani invasion -> *some connection* -> Iraqi War -> Free Iraqis
To me it's more like:
Massive commercial and political interests -> Lies about Iraq -> Iraqi occupation
9-11 -> Afghani invasion -> no further action
Furthermore, your statements to the effect that you know everyone fears America, you just don't care, and that you will support whatever the DoD does, smack of blind zealousness of the same kind that brought Hitler and all the other evil dictators you would like to be rid of to power. If you really want to fight tyranny, start at home by constantly questioning your own nation's actions and motives. I also note you have significant difficulty seperating right-left issues with moral issues, when I am really trying to talk about the latter. I wouldn't care if the US had a Republican President like McCain. What bothers me is that I think Bush is corrupt, immoral and above all dangerous.
If that is your attitude then you are, unfortunately, stupid.
'Foreigners' are just humans who just happened to be born in another country - I mean, what are the chances, about 1 in 24 that a person won't be born in the US of A? The whole point I was trying to make, which is typified by your response, is that many people in the US seem to be totally clueless as to how you are perceived internationally. We *don't* see you as heroic bastions freedom struggling against swarms of insane moslem aggressors, terrible though the WTC attacks were. The opposition to your little war in Iraq was much, much bigger than a few troublemaking frogs and krauts trying to get one up over Uncle Sam - it was the vast, VAST bulk of public opinion worldwide. Even in the homelands of your heroic allies, Britain and Australia, public opposition to the war was up around 80% most of the time. Elsewhere it ran in the high 90%s most of the time.
Maybe you do realise. Maybe you just don't care. But if that is the case then you should be able to understand why America is the most feared nation on earth, even amongst its 'allies' (who I notice are now completely disposable). But as far as I can tell, you don't realise. You don't realise that even in white, western democracies we are more scared of you than we are of China, or Al Qaeda, or anyone. And that is why we care if you reelect Bush.
I don't presume to speak for 5.75 billion people, but I think you should take the time to seriously consider why people overseas hate Bush and fear America. Your 'cut of your nose to spite your face' attitude is a ridiculous response - it's like saying, "he may be a dangerous maniac who everyone else on earth thinks is an incompetent idiot, but he's OUR dangerous maniac."
PS
Before you complain, yes I can dig up figures to support my assertions about perceptions of the US if I must. On the other hand you could do some of your own research.
"So it's a triumph of the two evils that so many people here on /. seem to abhor: capitalism (anything is for sale) and militarism."
So militarism is a good thing because you won a war once?
"Of the 300 million people that live and work daily under the policies and programs of the Bush Administration..."
Well, as another poster observed it's more like 60 million who actually liked GW enough to vote for him.
"These people must all be stupid and/or tools of biased conservative media"
When did I write that? Don't lump me in with your existing perceptions please.
"the enlightened foreigner (who necessarily must rely on remote feed news services)"
It will amaze you to learn that way out here in the US colonies we actually have our own news services, many of which collect their own footage, interviews etc.
Look, you should realise that I don't give a flying fuck what Shrub does to you at home. My issue is the effect has and may have on me, over here in the Rest of the World team.
"I feel sure that they will continue to use the stick more than the carrot until the insane parts of the world are made to come to there senses"
Ah, wonderful how one sentence can mean two totally different things depending on the context.
"isn't relevant to anything other than Junior's own feelings of inadequacy"
I guess the fact that you care about how unfast the Civic is is relevant to your own supreme feelings of adequacy, hmmm?
Anyway I guess I was just trying to make the point that the Honda is a car for which many upgrades are available that will actually make it a fast car. Plus it would corner about 10 times better than a 'fast' car like a Mustang or whatever.
anyWAY, not anyONE
I would but there ain't enough room in the sig. Plus super erudite people like you will know who said it anyone. Incidentally, he was only a founding father of your country, to me he's just this guy, you know?
Ashcroft would have done well in Hitler's cabinet, incidentally.
Why not make space, or at least the space around the earth, the same as the air: the space above a particular country belongs to that country, space above the international oceans is open to all. Thus it would be necessary to have other countries' permissions before orbiting anything over them, and issues like spying and weapons platforms would be somewhat marginalised. This would also allow each country to develop a space program as it saw fit in its own bit of space, or optionally to rent that space to others.
As it is now, space seems a bit like the wild west - noone cares who they fly over, or what's orbiting above them, or whatever.
Likewise we should develop a method for dividing up the moon, mars etc. that is not based on present capabilities but on the likelihood that one day any nation will be capable of utilising these resources. Or better yet put them all under the total control of the UN, as things too big for one nation to claim for itself.
I'm not a US basher, but just because the US is powerful right now doesn't mean it should have total rights to everything it finds in space. I mean, by that logic the US itself would still be part of France and Britain.
Personally I wish there were more collaborative space exploration. Instead of 3 countries/consortiums sending a probe each to Mars, we could have a probe to Mars, one to Europa, and one to Venus.
On a political note [not for moderation]: America, the rest of the world is praying that you wake up and dump Bush this year. It may be 50:50 in the polls in the States, but from outside your continuing refusal to realise that he is a dangerous, incompetent, scheming, money grabbing, corrupt fool is increasingly alarming. Mod -100000 for flamebait, but that's how it is. Please realise though: I love the US, I just wish someone would drive it in the right (or should that be centre-left) direction.
"The Honda Civic is not a fast car"
Au contraire, see for example:
http://www.turboclutch.com/civic.htm
A 13 second quarter mile whips most 'fast' cars senseless. I'm sure it's faster than whatever you drive.
Oh, sorry... well if it's a FANTASY we're talking about, why didn't Jackson just give the good guys machine guns? They would have been the orcs pretty good with some of those puppies... and while we're at it, I want to see more bikini babes, yeah, that would rock, and Governor Schwarzenneger cast as a cyborg who comes back to middle earth to protect Frodo... whoo, FANTASY. Also, could Jerry Seinfeld doing some standup maybe be worked into the battle of Helms Deep in the DVD FANTASY Edition of the Two Towers? I think it would really lighten things up.
PS
Yes, I though Neo's super-super powers in the second and third movies were a total load of BS and never adequately explained. I want consistency and logic, DAMMIT.
Hey, people laugh in Adam Sandler movies too, but I think they are worthless pieces of shit. Anyway, although LOTR (the books) had their lighter moments, the overall theme is one of darkness and struggle, and I never read it and thought 'wow, this is fun.' Peter Jackson could put Big Bird into the last movie and that would probably be 'fun' too (and I guarantee the audience would laugh), but it would still be inappropriate.
Look, if you want to laugh and cheer, I suggest you try a Punch and Judy puppet show or maybe some sport. I, and many other people, don't just watch movies for the 'cool bits,' and certainly don't cheer at a movie screen. Yes, I'm a heinous killjoy. No, I don't think it was a good idea to put a reference to the Xtreme Sportz Generation into the Two Towers.
If they didn't have all of the ridiculously lame dwarf comedy ("nobody tosses a dwarf", "toss me", etc.) and if Legolas hadn't snowboarded down the stairs on his shield. For a movie with such a realistic look to it, those elements of the battles, especially Helms Deep, were totally unneccessary and really ruined the great ambience that the thousands of CG extras created so effectively.
Why must directors put such painfully lame moments in films, anyway? It's like in Minority Report, when Tom Cruise is fighting the other guy wearing a jet pack and they 'accidentally' cook the hamburgers on the grill to perfection... why? WHY???!
"The Bush/repulican hawk thing is rather recent, historically republicans have been isolationist whimps."
I guess it depends on your version of 'isolationist.' True enough, they have been hesitant with respect to open, state to state warfare; however, in covert war, state sponsored terrorism etc, especially in SE Asia and South America, they are second to none. Most Americans probably don't even realise that US forces have seen combat in numerous South American countries, and continue to do so today.
(a) That every single one of the possible Democrat candidates is mediocre, incompetent and would make a worse president than Bush
or
(b) You are a closed-minded fool who will vote for Bush no matter who the Democrats put up for reelection, all the while bleating that you would consider a 'good' Democrat candidate.
You see, I would never, ever vote for Bush because I think he's an incompetent fool. I would, on the other hand, consider voting for John McCain, even though I tend to lean left. If you compare Dean to Kucinich to Lieberman to Kerry to Clarke I think you would find quite a range of views on a number of issues. Not that you will.