Oh yeah, the Feds are always careful to respect states' rights. Not like they'd, say, use highway money to grease the wheels or overrule drug laws, right?
I'm not trolling. I think I did read a bit too much into your argument, however. If you're just complaining about the disconnect between acceptable morality (which, to be honest, might not be as extant in America as you think; a lot of Americans like violence) in the real world and what you show on TV, you might have a point. I thought you were talking about the foundations of such morality.
Sex is something very common, a part of a _normal_ life. Violence is not!
What the fuck? So, I guess all those millions of generations of ancestors of ours were just snuggling with those other species that were competing for resources? Perhaps having polite discussions? Violence is just as natural as sex is. You can't appeal to "it's natural" and expect your morality to address anything other than "survive and have children".
There is a reason why there are so many substitute words for female genitalia in English (hoohaa, pussy, box, coochie, hole, snatch, slot, nooch, fanny -- just a couple I could thin of right now.) This is direct result of sexual repression.
Oh yeah, every time I hear those words, it's in overly-sanitized public discourse designed to protect the children.
Using a silicon or glass substrate, the team from TAU created a matrix of tiny holes each 50 microns in diameter and 500 micron deep.
Atoms are on the order of a nanometer in diameter. These batteries are hundreds of thousands of times larger. Hell, you could probably hook these up with current chip lithography techniques (they're doing tens of microns now). Interesting microbattery, but let's keep the nanotech hype out of it.
This is precisely why government shouldn't be using closed-box commercial software. We have no idea whether the machines are functioning as advertised. Do people not realize that we're essentially just handing a bunch of ballots to these companies and then just accepting the verdict they hand down? It boggles the mind that any democracy-loving representative can stand for this. Maybe there just aren't any left?
The ancient Spartans used low-value, heavy iron money. They despised mercantile living and wanted to discourage it. It also made bribery more difficult.
You're thinking far too straightforwardly, just in terms of simple NPCs that can be killed and cities that are razed. The key is to balance out destroyed content with new content. Admittedly, it's a fair bit beyond what most dev houses are capable of doing, but what if, say when you bork an enemy quest giver or town, something new comes up to replace it. If an NPC dies, maybe his son wants revenge and will give a quest to investigate what happened. If a city is destroyed, maybe refugees will send you into the ruins to find lost things. If you bring down the capital city, a faction starts spawning in an internment camp, and your starting area involves hassling guards, finding families, etc.
Is having the Logo really that big of a deal? I mean, I guess it's rather unfortunate that Lego has to pay licensing fees, but from what I've read, they put such spectacular effort into developing their homegrown storylines that it might not actually be much of a net loss. Seriously though, the attachment is only in your mind. A dementor makes a pretty solid ghost, and Gamorreans turn into serviceable orcs. The Harry Potter sets are responsible for the multicolored skeletons, hippogriffs, baby dragons, etc. And if you use your imagination a little (isn't that the point of Legos?), I think you'll find they don't actually need to be the Riddle family, Buckbeak, or Norbert.
Themes only recently started to depart from the overall Lego philosophy. For awhile, yes, they released a bunch of silly one-off pieces (The hideous one-piece molded Sebulba comes to mind), but they've actively cut back on that. Sometimes a tub of bricks just doesn't cut it. Sure, if all you want to do is toss together a blocky house, it's no problem. But really good (small scale) sculptures require the more interesting and esoteric pieces. Yes, you could make a pair of wings out of square plates, but it's much nicer to have a wide variety of choices between various triangular and curved ones.
Also, since when is having other options such a huge chore?
Again, did you look at the bill? It's hundreds of pages of obtuse prose and context-free alterations to random pieces of Federal Code. Far more likely, somebody tacked this in, and maybe a few congressional aides gave their bosses a vague gist of "Government can intervene in disasters".
Of course, the president probably didn't read it all either...
I'm sure that's a reasonable justification. But the granted powers are considerably beyond the scope of rendering aid in an emergency. Why would you grant government powers so incredibly far-reaching when the solution requires something much narrower?
So, did you read the bill? Start to finish? It's absolutely huge. And it's certainly not the only bill before Congress this year or month or week. It's stealthy in the sense that a poison needle in a haystack sitting in the public square is stealthy.
Um, alternatively, a vote against a Libertarian candidate is a show of disbelief about the benefits of a largely unregulated economy. Yes, the Libertarians have a few right ideas. But I think that the mercantile right is, in fact, one of the less-important rights, and sometimes it must be lessened to ensure that other rights are safeguarded and society is bettered.
Slashdot Mirror
Assault with a deadly weapon. If I set off to kill you, but trip on the way down the stairs and call it off, what am I guilty of?
No, it doesn't. BSG has a story to tell, and it should tell that story and then leave.
Oh yeah, the Feds are always careful to respect states' rights. Not like they'd, say, use highway money to grease the wheels or overrule drug laws, right?
I'm not trolling. I think I did read a bit too much into your argument, however. If you're just complaining about the disconnect between acceptable morality (which, to be honest, might not be as extant in America as you think; a lot of Americans like violence) in the real world and what you show on TV, you might have a point. I thought you were talking about the foundations of such morality.
Oh yeah, every time I hear those words, it's in overly-sanitized public discourse designed to protect the children.
Especially snatch.
Argh, damnit. Quick Google searches for the lose :( Oh well, what's three orders of magnitude here and there?
This is precisely why government shouldn't be using closed-box commercial software. We have no idea whether the machines are functioning as advertised. Do people not realize that we're essentially just handing a bunch of ballots to these companies and then just accepting the verdict they hand down? It boggles the mind that any democracy-loving representative can stand for this. Maybe there just aren't any left?
Actually, he will fight you.
It also considerably lowers the value of the computer that's been purchased.
The ancient Spartans used low-value, heavy iron money. They despised mercantile living and wanted to discourage it. It also made bribery more difficult.
Apparently, Google properly understands "184594917 in base 16". Damn, that's cool.
You're thinking far too straightforwardly, just in terms of simple NPCs that can be killed and cities that are razed. The key is to balance out destroyed content with new content. Admittedly, it's a fair bit beyond what most dev houses are capable of doing, but what if, say when you bork an enemy quest giver or town, something new comes up to replace it. If an NPC dies, maybe his son wants revenge and will give a quest to investigate what happened. If a city is destroyed, maybe refugees will send you into the ruins to find lost things. If you bring down the capital city, a faction starts spawning in an internment camp, and your starting area involves hassling guards, finding families, etc.
Ross Perot says yes, they can.
Is having the Logo really that big of a deal? I mean, I guess it's rather unfortunate that Lego has to pay licensing fees, but from what I've read, they put such spectacular effort into developing their homegrown storylines that it might not actually be much of a net loss. Seriously though, the attachment is only in your mind. A dementor makes a pretty solid ghost, and Gamorreans turn into serviceable orcs. The Harry Potter sets are responsible for the multicolored skeletons, hippogriffs, baby dragons, etc. And if you use your imagination a little (isn't that the point of Legos?), I think you'll find they don't actually need to be the Riddle family, Buckbeak, or Norbert.
Themes only recently started to depart from the overall Lego philosophy. For awhile, yes, they released a bunch of silly one-off pieces (The hideous one-piece molded Sebulba comes to mind), but they've actively cut back on that. Sometimes a tub of bricks just doesn't cut it. Sure, if all you want to do is toss together a blocky house, it's no problem. But really good (small scale) sculptures require the more interesting and esoteric pieces. Yes, you could make a pair of wings out of square plates, but it's much nicer to have a wide variety of choices between various triangular and curved ones.
Also, since when is having other options such a huge chore?
Again, did you look at the bill? It's hundreds of pages of obtuse prose and context-free alterations to random pieces of Federal Code. Far more likely, somebody tacked this in, and maybe a few congressional aides gave their bosses a vague gist of "Government can intervene in disasters".
Of course, the president probably didn't read it all either...
I'm sure that's a reasonable justification. But the granted powers are considerably beyond the scope of rendering aid in an emergency. Why would you grant government powers so incredibly far-reaching when the solution requires something much narrower?
So, did you read the bill? Start to finish? It's absolutely huge. And it's certainly not the only bill before Congress this year or month or week. It's stealthy in the sense that a poison needle in a haystack sitting in the public square is stealthy.
Um, alternatively, a vote against a Libertarian candidate is a show of disbelief about the benefits of a largely unregulated economy. Yes, the Libertarians have a few right ideas. But I think that the mercantile right is, in fact, one of the less-important rights, and sometimes it must be lessened to ensure that other rights are safeguarded and society is bettered.
The best short story of all.