Better yet...why stop at the Chinese? Why not kill everyone living on Earth right now? I mean...it will obviously take care of all our problems with other countries...
Get real, you couldn't kill a race by genetic makeup, because there is too much similarity to create a virus that would only target race. Besides, what would get accomplished if you tried such a thing?
What are you talking about?/only uses the S controller...you know...the one that Microsoft originally designed for the Asian market...//best controller I have ever had the opportunity of using on a console
What if their parents actually feel that their kids CAN handle it? What if they want to give their kids a choice in the matter, because they trust them?
People act too much "in the interest of children" today. Believe me...not caring about the children 24/7/365 is not always the worst thing that can happen. Sometimes, children need to be given a choice, or they will never be ready for the real world. Coddling and babying them won't help them in the end.
The game's script had all references to Hot Coffee removed before the game was released. Rockstar did not intend for anyone to find it. The ONLY reason this mod ever came up is because someone found out that this game did exist, and added a new reference to it in the script. Without that modified script, Hot Coffee is, for all intents and purposes, not there. This does NOT equal "pulling the woll over the eyes of the ESRB". All this equals is some dumbass congressasshole trying to pander to "family" (read: Christian Fundamentalist) groups for votes getting enough pressure placed on the ESRB to further their own agenda. Rockstar did not "have it coming" to them. The ESRB should not have pressure put on it, because the government should not be allowed to regulate morals like they have attempted to before.
This game is no more "dangerous for children" than watching a violent movie makes people want to kill, or watching a porno makes people want to go out and rape someone. If there is any danger with this game, it should be the responsibility of the parents to make sure their kids are raised so they know murder and rape are wrong. I have been raised to know that killing or raping is wrong...and me playing GTA:SA killing cops and having consensual sex in a crappy mod won't change that fact.
If only we could turn the tables against them and pander to our voters and get the Bible pulled from bookstore shelves. After all...GTA has NOTHING on the Bible. GTA never encouraged the wholesale slaughter of whole countries (it stopped at slaughtering a 25 person gang at a time), or encouraged the rape and pillage of whole cities for "God". I wonder if there's a politican somewhere out in California or New York that would support this cause...if the far right can do it to GTA, the far left can sure as hell do it to the Bible (Clinton may be a Democrat, but she's certainly right when it comes to letting people decide their gaming choices)./not posting anon
What about the energy costs of gasoline production? I love how people, in their attempt to discredit new technologies, talk about the "hidden" costs of these new technologies (I do realize they exist, however) while not remembering that our standard energy sources also have a signifigant number of "hidden" costs.
But, even though you do have a small point, at least all the pollution is centered in one or two locations, instead of being spread all over thousands of miles by the vehicles themselves.
While it was a very accurate troll...I hate the Democratic Party because of that. Very hypocritical if you ask me./not as much as I hate the Republicans, however//liberal
How, exactly, is it a bad thing? I don't see how you can equate the dangers of not wearing a seat belt during a car crash with some teenager looking at the exposed "dirty" parts of the human body.
As much as I agree with your statement, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say this:
Guns: Massive(in the sense that it has mass) bundles of heavy metals being propelled by gunpower, resulting in a speed of hundreds of meters per second(still fast, but can potentially dodge if you're far enough away and able to step out of the wa)y. The shooter has to compensate for the target moving if necessary. Shouldn't be banned because of the Second Amendment(obviously), and the fact that people should be able to do what they want if they are responsible and will not try to harm someone.
Lasers: Massless(bunch of high powered photons) bundles of pure energy travelling at 3*10^9 meters per second. All you need if you have a sufficiently powerful laser is to point the thing at your target and fire. No compensation for movement needed if all you need to do is briefly flash the beam to damage the target. Even a supposedly "harmless" laser can cause blindness...could potentially blind someone doing something imporant(like, flying planes). That said, lasers shouldn't be banned either. The whole "freedom" thing applies to most dangerous activities as well(also the same reason why I disagree with banning drugs, abortions, and prostitution).
Then again, you don't see people carrying 50 watt CO2 lasers and being able to hold them, do you? It would be relatively easy to create a laser turret capable of cutting through steel, and pointing it near an airport. That is, if they can compensate for the atmosphere distorting and dissipating the laser. For now, as long as the power supplies capable of getting the voltages high enough to power a laser powerful enough to kill someone are the size of large trucks, guns would be more dangerous.
No hope in hell would the US allow common people to get their hands on plutonium. Just imagine...a terrorist being able to get the fuel to create a bomb capable of levelling a city just by going down to the local convenience store.
As much as it sounds like "the terorrists could do this, so we must ban this", you would not want Average Joe getting their hands on anything that could level a city, even if it would require a Ph.D in Nuclear Engineering to build such a device. Nor would Average Joe want to have to put on a hazmat suit just to fuel up their car.
Other than that, alternative fuel is a great thing, and I'm glad to see the US, in spite of being controlled by Big Oil(a.k.a Dick Cheney and his friends over at Halliburton), investing in better ways of getting cars to work.
I would have to agree with you...leave Mars alone until we can determine it's properties as they are before interference. Colonization is important, but we can always build space stations or a colony on the moon.
They have fusion generators for the impulse drives...and I do believe the fuel is deuterium/antideuterium./has the ST:TNG Technical Manual, as all good nerds should
Not only is it okay to think like that as a liberal...pro-nuclear really is a pro-environment stance. Sure, the issue of nuclear waste is a major one, and we should be taking a lot of steps to ensure that the waste is properly dealt with, but remember this. Gas/coal pollution will ALWAYS be a greater threat than a nuclear accident. Every year, a typical coal power plant emits millions of tons of all sorts of toxic compounds(including more radioactive compounds than a nuclear power plant will ever emit in its life[which, if designed properly and not maintained by idiots...is nearly zero]). Lung cancer and all sorts of other illnesses result from people who live downwind of coal plants, whereas anyone near a nuclear power plant won't even notice its there unless they are told of a far-fetched possibility of a near-leak.
So, to summarize this post...yes, being pro-nuclear really is a liberal idea. It's too sad environmentalists will decry coal plants (a good stance in my eyes) while also calling nuclear a bad thing (not such a good stance).
Hydrogen is cheapest to get from one of two sources. Electrolysis...which uses electricity(and a lot of it) to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The electricity has to come from somewhere...and guess what it would most likely be at this point? Coal/oil.
The other is just to extract hydrogen from oil. That's not going to reduce our independence on foreign countries at all...
Bush is doing this to move the pollution from the cars to the power plants, where it can be controlled easier. Same amount of pollution is created, but due to it being centralized...it can be managed easier.
Right...it's like if someone were to sue a drug dealer in court by saying the cocaine they bought was actually flour. The cause would be laughed out, and both parties would be arrested anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Better yet...why stop at the Chinese? Why not kill everyone living on Earth right now? I mean...it will obviously take care of all our problems with other countries...
Get real, you couldn't kill a race by genetic makeup, because there is too much similarity to create a virus that would only target race. Besides, what would get accomplished if you tried such a thing?
Fucking racist...
What are you talking about? /only uses the S controller...you know...the one that Microsoft originally designed for the Asian market... //best controller I have ever had the opportunity of using on a console
Not if you have, say, solar panels on your rooftop to power said electrolysis machine...
What if their parents actually feel that their kids CAN handle it? What if they want to give their kids a choice in the matter, because they trust them?
People act too much "in the interest of children" today. Believe me...not caring about the children 24/7/365 is not always the worst thing that can happen. Sometimes, children need to be given a choice, or they will never be ready for the real world. Coddling and babying them won't help them in the end.
The game's script had all references to Hot Coffee removed before the game was released. Rockstar did not intend for anyone to find it. The ONLY reason this mod ever came up is because someone found out that this game did exist, and added a new reference to it in the script. Without that modified script, Hot Coffee is, for all intents and purposes, not there. This does NOT equal "pulling the woll over the eyes of the ESRB". All this equals is some dumbass congressasshole trying to pander to "family" (read: Christian Fundamentalist) groups for votes getting enough pressure placed on the ESRB to further their own agenda. Rockstar did not "have it coming" to them. The ESRB should not have pressure put on it, because the government should not be allowed to regulate morals like they have attempted to before.
/not posting anon
This game is no more "dangerous for children" than watching a violent movie makes people want to kill, or watching a porno makes people want to go out and rape someone. If there is any danger with this game, it should be the responsibility of the parents to make sure their kids are raised so they know murder and rape are wrong. I have been raised to know that killing or raping is wrong...and me playing GTA:SA killing cops and having consensual sex in a crappy mod won't change that fact.
If only we could turn the tables against them and pander to our voters and get the Bible pulled from bookstore shelves. After all...GTA has NOTHING on the Bible. GTA never encouraged the wholesale slaughter of whole countries (it stopped at slaughtering a 25 person gang at a time), or encouraged the rape and pillage of whole cities for "God". I wonder if there's a politican somewhere out in California or New York that would support this cause...if the far right can do it to GTA, the far left can sure as hell do it to the Bible (Clinton may be a Democrat, but she's certainly right when it comes to letting people decide their gaming choices).
What about the energy costs of gasoline production? I love how people, in their attempt to discredit new technologies, talk about the "hidden" costs of these new technologies (I do realize they exist, however) while not remembering that our standard energy sources also have a signifigant number of "hidden" costs.
But, even though you do have a small point, at least all the pollution is centered in one or two locations, instead of being spread all over thousands of miles by the vehicles themselves.
While it was a very accurate troll...I hate the Democratic Party because of that. Very hypocritical if you ask me. /not as much as I hate the Republicans, however //liberal
Banned? Funny...I saw "The Guy Game" on the shelves just a few days ago at Best Buy...
Just another instance of the government going to places they do not belong...
How, exactly, is it a bad thing? I don't see how you can equate the dangers of not wearing a seat belt during a car crash with some teenager looking at the exposed "dirty" parts of the human body.
Especially when 9000 tons of water crashes down on a ton of sodium metal. /ducks
Actually...that would be a great way of thinking of music downloading.
Agreed...I'm surprised Bush didn't try to "liberate" Titan yet...it's got craploads of hydrocarbons, after all ;)
As opposed to traditional CRTs that have lead shielding in them, or the LCDs that take many toxic chemicals to produce?
As much as I agree with your statement, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say this:
Guns: Massive(in the sense that it has mass) bundles of heavy metals being propelled by gunpower, resulting in a speed of hundreds of meters per second(still fast, but can potentially dodge if you're far enough away and able to step out of the wa)y. The shooter has to compensate for the target moving if necessary. Shouldn't be banned because of the Second Amendment(obviously), and the fact that people should be able to do what they want if they are responsible and will not try to harm someone.
Lasers: Massless(bunch of high powered photons) bundles of pure energy travelling at 3*10^9 meters per second. All you need if you have a sufficiently powerful laser is to point the thing at your target and fire. No compensation for movement needed if all you need to do is briefly flash the beam to damage the target. Even a supposedly "harmless" laser can cause blindness...could potentially blind someone doing something imporant(like, flying planes). That said, lasers shouldn't be banned either. The whole "freedom" thing applies to most dangerous activities as well(also the same reason why I disagree with banning drugs, abortions, and prostitution).
Then again, you don't see people carrying 50 watt CO2 lasers and being able to hold them, do you? It would be relatively easy to create a laser turret capable of cutting through steel, and pointing it near an airport. That is, if they can compensate for the atmosphere distorting and dissipating the laser. For now, as long as the power supplies capable of getting the voltages high enough to power a laser powerful enough to kill someone are the size of large trucks, guns would be more dangerous.
No hope in hell would the US allow common people to get their hands on plutonium. Just imagine...a terrorist being able to get the fuel to create a bomb capable of levelling a city just by going down to the local convenience store.
As much as it sounds like "the terorrists could do this, so we must ban this", you would not want Average Joe getting their hands on anything that could level a city, even if it would require a Ph.D in Nuclear Engineering to build such a device. Nor would Average Joe want to have to put on a hazmat suit just to fuel up their car.
Other than that, alternative fuel is a great thing, and I'm glad to see the US, in spite of being controlled by Big Oil(a.k.a Dick Cheney and his friends over at Halliburton), investing in better ways of getting cars to work.
I would have to agree with you...leave Mars alone until we can determine it's properties as they are before interference. Colonization is important, but we can always build space stations or a colony on the moon.
The mods are to put the steering wheel on the left side of the car, so as to fit all other US cars.
They have fusion generators for the impulse drives...and I do believe the fuel is deuterium/antideuterium. /has the ST:TNG Technical Manual, as all good nerds should
Not only is it okay to think like that as a liberal...pro-nuclear really is a pro-environment stance. Sure, the issue of nuclear waste is a major one, and we should be taking a lot of steps to ensure that the waste is properly dealt with, but remember this. Gas/coal pollution will ALWAYS be a greater threat than a nuclear accident. Every year, a typical coal power plant emits millions of tons of all sorts of toxic compounds(including more radioactive compounds than a nuclear power plant will ever emit in its life[which, if designed properly and not maintained by idiots...is nearly zero]). Lung cancer and all sorts of other illnesses result from people who live downwind of coal plants, whereas anyone near a nuclear power plant won't even notice its there unless they are told of a far-fetched possibility of a near-leak.
So, to summarize this post...yes, being pro-nuclear really is a liberal idea. It's too sad environmentalists will decry coal plants (a good stance in my eyes) while also calling nuclear a bad thing (not such a good stance).
Hydrogen is cheapest to get from one of two sources. Electrolysis...which uses electricity(and a lot of it) to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The electricity has to come from somewhere...and guess what it would most likely be at this point? Coal/oil.
The other is just to extract hydrogen from oil. That's not going to reduce our independence on foreign countries at all...
Bush is doing this to move the pollution from the cars to the power plants, where it can be controlled easier. Same amount of pollution is created, but due to it being centralized...it can be managed easier.
Lead-210 can emit an alpha particle that decays to Mercury-206, which can in turn decay into Gold-206.
So yes...you can turn lead into gold, and it has been done before.
Do you want to die of cancer doing it, however(after waiting, oh, say, 160 years)?
For all you know...cancer may be nature's way of positive evolution by getting rid of weaker members.
So shut up, because mechanics students can't do shit about cancer either way.
GAIM has a dog-awful interface...that's why.
Right...it's like if someone were to sue a drug dealer in court by saying the cocaine they bought was actually flour. The cause would be laughed out, and both parties would be arrested anyway.
Except you'll need asbestos gloves to hold the can.
I expect Coca-cola or Pepsi to see a sudden increase in third degree burns using the product.