I'm going to get flamed here, but what's wrong with that? If that's truly a representative sample, then what's the problem with people wanting people in charge who share their views and values? Seventy-two percent would vote for a mormon. Ninety-two percent would vote for a jew. Ninety-five percent would vote for a catholic. To me that seems like a pretty good example of Americans overcoming prejudice, since at various times there've been statistically significant portions of the population that claim to hate all three of those religions.
Look at the numbers for ethnic minorities as well. Does it seem interesting to you that 53% of the sample takes religion so seriously that they wouldn't elect an atheist, but only 43% are opposed to the idea of a homosexual president? -A homosexual president-. Not gay marriage, not equal rights, but the leader of the free world being gay. How does that not say progress?
The majority of the people in this country are religious, disgregarding what religion or denomination they claim. It's not unnatural for those people to want representatives they can identify with. To me this poll says that about half of religious people have no particular ill-will toward atheists. Can you say that half of all atheists have no ill will toward religion? Every atheist I've known has been a bitter academic who seems mortally offended at the idea that people can have faith in something.
Finally, it's a matter of conscience. Conscience is at the essence of religion. We want to know (or at least be able to reasonably delude ourselves) that the guy in charge isn't a crooked bastard. People who believe in "the man in the sky" tend to also believe in metaphysical punishment for wrongs done in this life. It's slim comfort, but I'll take it over a guy who believes that he is an end in and of himself having his finger on The Button.
I have more respect for a well-qualified and well-reasoned atheist than I do for someone who gives lip service to their religion, and then goes out and just does whatever they want to. I'd take a sincere, qualified, conscientious atheist over Bush ten times out of ten. The problem is that it's hard to find ten of them. They tend to come off as intellectually superior, smug, and disdainful of the values that the majority of the people in this country seem to hold to. Atheists have the right to their irreligious beliefs just as much as I have the right to my religious beliefs, but majorities still win elections. When the majority views are represented, and represented in such a way that minority reviews remained tolerated and and protected, the system works.
The conspiracy theorists and Oliver Stone are the ones saying the bullet had to curve and hang in mid air. I'm not saying their magic bullet theory is true, I'm saying I saw a documentary wherein a bullet flying on a straight flight path was able to cause all of the wounds that the Warren Commission found the second shot caused. I happen to believe what I saw in that documentary, which was backed up by scientific evidence. I wasn't there when they fired the test shot, but you weren't there when the grey people or whomever fired from the Grassy Knoll or whatever you believe.
All I'm saying is that I saw an incredibly well backed up position for how it might have happened that one bullet could cause those wounds, that is supported by the evidence from that day. You're allowed to doubt it, but I highly recommend the documentary.
I saw a very fascinating Discovery documentary entitled "Beyond the Magic Bullet" wherein they replicated as closely as possible conditions of the day, and a shooter was able to fire a shot nearly perfectly recreating the wounds from the magic bullet, and resulting in a round that had equal deformity (which was very little) to that of the "Magic" bullet. It was very very startling to me, as a doubter of the probability of the theory, and forced me to reevaluate things.
I'm still not sure if I believe that it's what happened, but those decrying the single shooter "magic bullet" theory as scientifically impossible are wrong.
Yeah, sorry. Early morning and I was on the first cup of coffee. I of course meant Valium. I forgot to mention another curiosity about benzos, in that Rohypnol (Flunitrazepam) got a reputation as a date rape drug because in addition to the usual benzo sedation, it causes amnesia in high doses. Benzodiazepines are really a very interesting class of drugs. Aside from their sedative potential, they're kept around in certain hallucinogenic circles because they suppress the centers of the brain stimulated by psychedelic drugs, and be used to abort a bad trip, or to kill a trip from long-lasting psychedelics (like the DOx phenethylamine compounds) that have worn out their (16-24 hour) welcome. Kratom tea gets used similarly.
I accept any Off-Topic moderation in the name of answering the question put forth by the great-grandparent.:P
Not going to cite sources, because I don't have them handy at the moment, but benzodiazepines are some of the more abused OTC meds. Xanax (alprazolam) is less preferable to some people exactly because it can make you so sleepy rather than putting you in the "chilled out" benzo state, but things like Klonopin/Rivotril (klonazepam) are more conducive to the effects that make them abusable without putting you to sleep. The jury is still out on Vicodin (diazepam). Some people like it, some people don't.
who turns out to be a serial killer (I believe 5 or more still qualifies).
If you want to get technical it's not serial killing unless all the killings follow the same motif and/or are part of an overarching "statement" (think of how a serial novel is released as a series of installments). If they were individual pre-planned murders all with their own justification that did not follow any theme then he is a mass murderer. If he just snapped one day and went out and killed 6 or 8 or however many people for no real reason, then he's a spree killer.
If you'd read a few of the books in Hans Reiser's collection you'd know this!
Actually you're right, I screwed up. I knew that somewhere in the midst of all that math I'd make some kind of mistake. To mitigate the damage, I offer the traditional sacrifice of a pop culture quote:
"Ok! Ok! I must have, I must have put a decimal point in the wrong place or something. Shit! I always do that. I always mess up some mundane detail."
Your capacity estimate is way, way too low. My DVD test samples can get 15 discs in a space 1"x5"x5" (e.g., 25in^3). There are 1728in^3 in a cubic foot, which translates to about 69 such stacks, for a total of 1035 discs per cubic foot. With its rear seat folded down the 2008 Volkswagen Jetta SportsWagen has 66.9ft^3 of storage space (source). We'll call it 67ft^3 for the sake of the math, and assume that you've crammed a few discs in the glovebox. This brings us to a total of 69,345 discs in our datawagon. If we use dual layer blu-ray discs at 50gb/disc that comes to 3.07 petabytes (x10^15). I'll use your 200 hour delivery time, which means we have an overall speed of 269.09GB/s (3467250000000000 bytes / 12000 seconds). You can keep your internet2, although I -will- cede that it gets better gas mileage.
I would like to posit a new theorum: Advances in storage space and vehicle capacity will always increase such that a sufficiently well-fueled station wagon will have faster throughput than the latest advances in network architecture.
I've been reading Slashdot for 7 or 8 years, and this is one of the funniest things I've ever seen! And, for anyone who doubts, that is in fact a Pioneer CDJ-1000. Furthermore, the following is from an interview with Oakenfold in DJ Times:
DJ Times: You said that you're using the Pioneer CDJ-1000 -- have you seen the MK3 version?
Oakenfold: The Pioneer CDJ-1000 is such a masterful piece of machinery, I don't know how you can improve on that unless it sprouts legs and makes me a vodka-tonic.
The gold standard in DJing is still a pair of Technics 1210 turntables, but in a scene that's "all about the music" this doesn't matter to a lot of people besides elitist DJs. As the parent noted, Oakie is using CDJ-1000s, but that's not the end of it. Laptops are becoming a more common sight at raves. Ferry Corsten did an entire album in Cubase and Ableton Live. The only ones making a big fuss about how it has to be vinyl or nothing are elitists. I could fire up Ableton, add its Vinyl Distortion filter to a track ripped directly from a CD, and play it through a PA and you'd swear you were hearing vinyl.
Good Wikipedia articles list their sources. You can refer to those sources, cite them properly, and make your own conclusions (since part of using any source is determining bias and pointing it out as such). Wikipedia itself may not be a scholarly source, but it can be a good place to find some starting sources for off-beat topics, which makes it a good weapon in the scholarly arsenal.
No one said anything about taking bids from trees. In the opening statement of the auction-- required by law in most states-- it's stated that anyone on the premises can bid. If I'm working as a Ringman (bid taker) then I'm most definitely on the premises, and can kick the bid at the auctioneer's signal.
"Shill Bidding" (known in the "real" auction business as "kicking the bid") is a legal, and accepted practice, at least in my state. I had my apprentice auctioneer's license for a few years, and it just happens. Buyers know it happens, and they deal with it. The licensing authorities DEFINITELY know it happens, and state concretely that it's not illegal. They even mention it to you in the licensing classes...
If it's common in "real" auctions, why would you not expect it in online auctions? I don't see any problem with it, and I use eBay regularly. Just don't bid more than what you're willing to spend on the item. If you feel emotionally invested in beating the other person bidding so you can "win" that item, then you should probably take a break from auctions, and stay the hell away from casinos while you're at it.
The GP is being a food snob, and mostly (s)he's right. It has to do with how the FDA requires milk to be pasteurized. Rather than being pasteurized for a longer amount of time at slightly lower temperatures (allowing more "good" bacteria to survive), the FDA requires that milk be pretty much nuked at "critical mass" temperatures for a shorter amount of time, because it's cheaper and generally results in a bacterial holocaust.
Milk in other countries isn't pasteurized to the FDA "Chernobyl" Standard, and because of that the cheeses and other products made from it can't be sold in the United States. Whether or not this somehow means that all cheese sold in the US is inferior is up for argument. I'm of the opinion that it's not all bad.
JNOV: Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto. Judges are not allowed to use JNOV to direct a verdict of guilty when the jury returns an acquittal. Once you've requested a jury trial, only a jury can convict you.
Because it would give their absurd definition of "theft" some amount of credence. If you reject it, reject it wholly, and loudly claim that it is no more "wrong" for the CEO's kids than it is for you. Their hypocrisy shows how hollow and profiteering their motives are. Even though hanging them with their own noose might seem fulfilling, we can't afford to give their crusade even the appearance of legitimacy.
I have a degree in history, and I minored in political science. My focus areas in history are the Enlightenment and the Cold War. My focus area in PS was International Relations and the Realist/Realpolitik school of thought. I suggest you be less of an asshat. When I said that neither side is in a hurry to get rid of their weapons, I was referring to the fact that neither side wants a nuclear deficit. That's the kind of thing that started the arms race into high gear to begin with, and it's the exact reason we're doing a mutual stand-down.
The main thrust of my post was to correct the naive idea that AEGIS Cruisers somehow relate to shooting down ballistic missiles, not to give you a reason to be priggish about a fine point of treaty law, as if I have any obligation to defend myself. Go take a Xanax or something.
Good luck with that! I'm attracted to The Greenbrier for some of its more "interesting" accomodations though.;)
I lived in Virginia for about 10 years, and I'd drive often to visit family in Kentucky. My route took me through White Sulphur Springs, WV, so I got to see what little of the Greenbrier you could actually see from I-64. I always wanted to drop in for a visit or a round, but I'm sure the greens fees are outrageous. White Sulphur Springs is kind of a funky place to put it though. The only thing about it that really stands out to me is that it's a bodunk town with quite possibly the nastiest McDonald's I've ever had the displeasure of patronizing (once! only once!).
This kind of response is actually my problem with people who are avidly non-PK, and unlike you I don't make a PK/PvP distinction. It is what it is, and all the semantic wrangling isn't going to change that. How can you honestly draw parallels between PvP on a game and real life crime? You claim that you don't think PvPers are sociopathic murderers, but then you turn around and compare it stealing people's purses. On a game that I've played for about 9 years, and am actually an admin on (it's an old-school MUD with a logged-in base of 300-500 people at pretty much any time) there was an anti-PvP advocate who once compared PvP to real life rape and murder. What's insane to -me- is how anyone could actually make the link to thinking that way about another human being just because their imaginary warrior beat up your imaginary cleric. You just can't draw parallels to real life acts that way.
If PvP/PK causes such deep-seated emotional feelings in you, then I'm sad to say that you're not emotionally secure enough to handle the games you're choosing to play, and -pay for-. Why would anyone choose to shell out money every month for something that they think is emotionally damaging? If you don't like PK, then post suggestions to the developers about how to fix the system. Give them real game-related (and profit-related, for most MMOs) reasons for why it would help. Don't resort to psychodrama about how PvPers are damaging people's psyches. I'd avoid the brick wall analogy too, because it only works if PvP is something that was never intended. In the reality of your analogy, PvP is -one of the bricks-. It was put there to be a cohesive part of the game, and if there's something within that which just isn't working, then it proves my point that the problem isn't PvP, but implementation.
Finally, if your concerns are ignored and you don't feel you're getting redress then leave. Vote with your wallet. Find a game that has no PvP element, or at least one that's closed/opt-in. I could spend hours talking about how, at the end of the day, consensual PvP just doesn't work, but that's mostly my opinion, and that kind of game might suit you.
And just in case you're curious: the game I admin is closed PK/opt-in. I'm a pretty avid fan of allowing players to act in direct competition with one another in combat as well as in other areas, but I'm not the only voice, and I'm fine with that. I advocate a position, but it's not the end of the world when it doesn't pan out my way, and my position may not always be the -best- way. It doesn't tear me up inside emotionally or hurt my feelings. The day it does is the day I resign, and probably quit playing games online, because it'd be a sign that I'm just not capable of handling it. Frankly, I think a lot of people aren't.
If only this were true. Russia has a nuclear arsenal of roughly equivalent size to ours, and neither of us are in a big hurry to completely be rid of all of them. Second, AEGIS cruisers may be capable of shooting down a missile in flight, but so is a complete idiot with a bb gun (it's called the "golden bb theory"), and I'd posit they'd both have about an equal chance of succeeding. AEGIS is for doing simultaneous radar tracking of multiple land, air, and sea targets. That's as far as the cruisers go. What may be confusing to some people is that there is ALSO an Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System in the works based on the same AN/SPY-1 radar that the AEGIS Cruisers use to do target tracking.
It's also worth noting that all the attempts to actually shoot down missiles in flight so far have failed miserably, or succeeded accidentally. Of course, they'd say that even if they were glaring successes, but... If the US actually had a capable Theatre Missile Defense System you'd see all kinds of fallout on the international stage, along with a new arms race. If you remember, this was a very big topic in the news before 9/11 (along with North Korea's nuclear ambitions and rocket tests, and China 'accidentally' downing one of our planes in international waters) that suddenly just disappeared after the planes hit.
While I consider myself a bit of a nationalist, and a definite "military enthusiast," I'm not at all willing to say that we can shoot down a long range missile with anything approaching reliability or regularity, much less a multi-stage ballistic missile with MIRV bomblets. If the nukes ever fly we're just as dead as everyone else who doesn't have a doomsday shelter. If nuclear war ever looks eminent I'll probably be taking a trip to the Greenbrier to "play golf" and "take in the sights.";)
I have yet to hear a valid reason of why people like PvP: "Challenge of a human opponent," "Unpredictable," "Fair chance," or "Dispense justice"
You just named four pretty good ones. The problem is that no one is neutral about PvP. You either enjoy the challenge and the dynamics of it, or you cry about the big bad bullies who are obviously deranged serial killers in real life. If I want a PvE experience I'll play console games offline. MMOs are all about interacting with other people. You trade with them, group with them, sell to them, make friends and enemies among them, and race them to get the best gear. How can you not naturally extend this into fighting them?
I've got a lot of experience with online PvP systems going back almost 10 years with MUDs and the like, and I can honestly say that if you're going to implement it, the fairest way is for it to be totally open. The same people who complain about how the big bad PKer killed them without consent is the same person who would act like an asshat if they knew there were no consequences. For the incredibly low percentage of people who DO use PvP to be bullies, there are usually enough bigger badder badasses out there willing to wipe the floor with them for making PvP look bad that they don't get too out of control. The problems in most PvP systems that are notoriously bad usually boils down to some facet of the implementation or the game mechanics. The PvP itself usually isn't what causes trouble.
Ever done a lot of work with automotive grade paints? The actual paint isn't that glossy. It's the clearcoat that makes it so shiny. If they can speed up this process to the point that you could do automobiles with it efficiently, I'd gladly trade gloss for the fact that I'd have a paint job that can't be scratched.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to get flamed here, but what's wrong with that? If that's truly a representative sample, then what's the problem with people wanting people in charge who share their views and values? Seventy-two percent would vote for a mormon. Ninety-two percent would vote for a jew. Ninety-five percent would vote for a catholic. To me that seems like a pretty good example of Americans overcoming prejudice, since at various times there've been statistically significant portions of the population that claim to hate all three of those religions.
Look at the numbers for ethnic minorities as well. Does it seem interesting to you that 53% of the sample takes religion so seriously that they wouldn't elect an atheist, but only 43% are opposed to the idea of a homosexual president? -A homosexual president-. Not gay marriage, not equal rights, but the leader of the free world being gay. How does that not say progress?
The majority of the people in this country are religious, disgregarding what religion or denomination they claim. It's not unnatural for those people to want representatives they can identify with. To me this poll says that about half of religious people have no particular ill-will toward atheists. Can you say that half of all atheists have no ill will toward religion? Every atheist I've known has been a bitter academic who seems mortally offended at the idea that people can have faith in something.
Finally, it's a matter of conscience. Conscience is at the essence of religion. We want to know (or at least be able to reasonably delude ourselves) that the guy in charge isn't a crooked bastard. People who believe in "the man in the sky" tend to also believe in metaphysical punishment for wrongs done in this life. It's slim comfort, but I'll take it over a guy who believes that he is an end in and of himself having his finger on The Button.
I have more respect for a well-qualified and well-reasoned atheist than I do for someone who gives lip service to their religion, and then goes out and just does whatever they want to. I'd take a sincere, qualified, conscientious atheist over Bush ten times out of ten. The problem is that it's hard to find ten of them. They tend to come off as intellectually superior, smug, and disdainful of the values that the majority of the people in this country seem to hold to. Atheists have the right to their irreligious beliefs just as much as I have the right to my religious beliefs, but majorities still win elections. When the majority views are represented, and represented in such a way that minority reviews remained tolerated and and protected, the system works.
Hardly != 0. Two shots were fired. The magic bullet is not the bullet that killed Kennedy.
The conspiracy theorists and Oliver Stone are the ones saying the bullet had to curve and hang in mid air. I'm not saying their magic bullet theory is true, I'm saying I saw a documentary wherein a bullet flying on a straight flight path was able to cause all of the wounds that the Warren Commission found the second shot caused. I happen to believe what I saw in that documentary, which was backed up by scientific evidence. I wasn't there when they fired the test shot, but you weren't there when the grey people or whomever fired from the Grassy Knoll or whatever you believe. All I'm saying is that I saw an incredibly well backed up position for how it might have happened that one bullet could cause those wounds, that is supported by the evidence from that day. You're allowed to doubt it, but I highly recommend the documentary.
I saw a very fascinating Discovery documentary entitled "Beyond the Magic Bullet" wherein they replicated as closely as possible conditions of the day, and a shooter was able to fire a shot nearly perfectly recreating the wounds from the magic bullet, and resulting in a round that had equal deformity (which was very little) to that of the "Magic" bullet. It was very very startling to me, as a doubter of the probability of the theory, and forced me to reevaluate things. I'm still not sure if I believe that it's what happened, but those decrying the single shooter "magic bullet" theory as scientifically impossible are wrong.
Yeah, sorry. Early morning and I was on the first cup of coffee. I of course meant Valium. I forgot to mention another curiosity about benzos, in that Rohypnol (Flunitrazepam) got a reputation as a date rape drug because in addition to the usual benzo sedation, it causes amnesia in high doses. Benzodiazepines are really a very interesting class of drugs. Aside from their sedative potential, they're kept around in certain hallucinogenic circles because they suppress the centers of the brain stimulated by psychedelic drugs, and be used to abort a bad trip, or to kill a trip from long-lasting psychedelics (like the DOx phenethylamine compounds) that have worn out their (16-24 hour) welcome. Kratom tea gets used similarly. I accept any Off-Topic moderation in the name of answering the question put forth by the great-grandparent. :P
Not going to cite sources, because I don't have them handy at the moment, but benzodiazepines are some of the more abused OTC meds. Xanax (alprazolam) is less preferable to some people exactly because it can make you so sleepy rather than putting you in the "chilled out" benzo state, but things like Klonopin/Rivotril (klonazepam) are more conducive to the effects that make them abusable without putting you to sleep. The jury is still out on Vicodin (diazepam). Some people like it, some people don't.
who turns out to be a serial killer (I believe 5 or more still qualifies).
If you want to get technical it's not serial killing unless all the killings follow the same motif and/or are part of an overarching "statement" (think of how a serial novel is released as a series of installments). If they were individual pre-planned murders all with their own justification that did not follow any theme then he is a mass murderer. If he just snapped one day and went out and killed 6 or 8 or however many people for no real reason, then he's a spree killer.
If you'd read a few of the books in Hans Reiser's collection you'd know this!
Actually you're right, I screwed up. I knew that somewhere in the midst of all that math I'd make some kind of mistake. To mitigate the damage, I offer the traditional sacrifice of a pop culture quote:
"Ok! Ok! I must have, I must have put a decimal point in the wrong place or something. Shit! I always do that. I always mess up some mundane detail."
Au contraire!
Your capacity estimate is way, way too low. My DVD test samples can get 15 discs in a space 1"x5"x5" (e.g., 25in^3). There are 1728in^3 in a cubic foot, which translates to about 69 such stacks, for a total of 1035 discs per cubic foot. With its rear seat folded down the 2008 Volkswagen Jetta SportsWagen has 66.9ft^3 of storage space (source). We'll call it 67ft^3 for the sake of the math, and assume that you've crammed a few discs in the glovebox. This brings us to a total of 69,345 discs in our datawagon. If we use dual layer blu-ray discs at 50gb/disc that comes to 3.07 petabytes (x10^15). I'll use your 200 hour delivery time, which means we have an overall speed of 269.09GB/s (3467250000000000 bytes / 12000 seconds). You can keep your internet2, although I -will- cede that it gets better gas mileage.
I would like to posit a new theorum: Advances in storage space and vehicle capacity will always increase such that a sufficiently well-fueled station wagon will have faster throughput than the latest advances in network architecture.
I've been reading Slashdot for 7 or 8 years, and this is one of the funniest things I've ever seen! And, for anyone who doubts, that is in fact a Pioneer CDJ-1000. Furthermore, the following is from an interview with Oakenfold in DJ Times:
DJ Times: You said that you're using the Pioneer CDJ-1000 -- have you seen the MK3 version?
Oakenfold: The Pioneer CDJ-1000 is such a masterful piece of machinery, I don't know how you can improve on that unless it sprouts legs and makes me a vodka-tonic.
The gold standard in DJing is still a pair of Technics 1210 turntables, but in a scene that's "all about the music" this doesn't matter to a lot of people besides elitist DJs. As the parent noted, Oakie is using CDJ-1000s, but that's not the end of it. Laptops are becoming a more common sight at raves. Ferry Corsten did an entire album in Cubase and Ableton Live. The only ones making a big fuss about how it has to be vinyl or nothing are elitists. I could fire up Ableton, add its Vinyl Distortion filter to a track ripped directly from a CD, and play it through a PA and you'd swear you were hearing vinyl.
Your next google search with come with targeted ads recommending some quality therapy to help you with your commitment issues!
Good Wikipedia articles list their sources. You can refer to those sources, cite them properly, and make your own conclusions (since part of using any source is determining bias and pointing it out as such). Wikipedia itself may not be a scholarly source, but it can be a good place to find some starting sources for off-beat topics, which makes it a good weapon in the scholarly arsenal.
Almost factually? Is that like being sort of pregnant?
No one said anything about taking bids from trees. In the opening statement of the auction-- required by law in most states-- it's stated that anyone on the premises can bid. If I'm working as a Ringman (bid taker) then I'm most definitely on the premises, and can kick the bid at the auctioneer's signal.
"Shill Bidding" (known in the "real" auction business as "kicking the bid") is a legal, and accepted practice, at least in my state. I had my apprentice auctioneer's license for a few years, and it just happens. Buyers know it happens, and they deal with it. The licensing authorities DEFINITELY know it happens, and state concretely that it's not illegal. They even mention it to you in the licensing classes...
If it's common in "real" auctions, why would you not expect it in online auctions? I don't see any problem with it, and I use eBay regularly. Just don't bid more than what you're willing to spend on the item. If you feel emotionally invested in beating the other person bidding so you can "win" that item, then you should probably take a break from auctions, and stay the hell away from casinos while you're at it.
Gambling addiction is a personality flaw.
The GP is being a food snob, and mostly (s)he's right. It has to do with how the FDA requires milk to be pasteurized. Rather than being pasteurized for a longer amount of time at slightly lower temperatures (allowing more "good" bacteria to survive), the FDA requires that milk be pretty much nuked at "critical mass" temperatures for a shorter amount of time, because it's cheaper and generally results in a bacterial holocaust.
Milk in other countries isn't pasteurized to the FDA "Chernobyl" Standard, and because of that the cheeses and other products made from it can't be sold in the United States. Whether or not this somehow means that all cheese sold in the US is inferior is up for argument. I'm of the opinion that it's not all bad.
Hyponatremia. At least when you're dancing at a rave you're sweating the water back out...
JNOV: Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto. Judges are not allowed to use JNOV to direct a verdict of guilty when the jury returns an acquittal. Once you've requested a jury trial, only a jury can convict you.
Wiki it for more info.
Because it would give their absurd definition of "theft" some amount of credence. If you reject it, reject it wholly, and loudly claim that it is no more "wrong" for the CEO's kids than it is for you. Their hypocrisy shows how hollow and profiteering their motives are. Even though hanging them with their own noose might seem fulfilling, we can't afford to give their crusade even the appearance of legitimacy.
I have a degree in history, and I minored in political science. My focus areas in history are the Enlightenment and the Cold War. My focus area in PS was International Relations and the Realist/Realpolitik school of thought. I suggest you be less of an asshat. When I said that neither side is in a hurry to get rid of their weapons, I was referring to the fact that neither side wants a nuclear deficit. That's the kind of thing that started the arms race into high gear to begin with, and it's the exact reason we're doing a mutual stand-down.
The main thrust of my post was to correct the naive idea that AEGIS Cruisers somehow relate to shooting down ballistic missiles, not to give you a reason to be priggish about a fine point of treaty law, as if I have any obligation to defend myself. Go take a Xanax or something.
Good luck with that! I'm attracted to The Greenbrier for some of its more "interesting" accomodations though. ;)
I lived in Virginia for about 10 years, and I'd drive often to visit family in Kentucky. My route took me through White Sulphur Springs, WV, so I got to see what little of the Greenbrier you could actually see from I-64. I always wanted to drop in for a visit or a round, but I'm sure the greens fees are outrageous. White Sulphur Springs is kind of a funky place to put it though. The only thing about it that really stands out to me is that it's a bodunk town with quite possibly the nastiest McDonald's I've ever had the displeasure of patronizing (once! only once!).
This kind of response is actually my problem with people who are avidly non-PK, and unlike you I don't make a PK/PvP distinction. It is what it is, and all the semantic wrangling isn't going to change that. How can you honestly draw parallels between PvP on a game and real life crime? You claim that you don't think PvPers are sociopathic murderers, but then you turn around and compare it stealing people's purses. On a game that I've played for about 9 years, and am actually an admin on (it's an old-school MUD with a logged-in base of 300-500 people at pretty much any time) there was an anti-PvP advocate who once compared PvP to real life rape and murder. What's insane to -me- is how anyone could actually make the link to thinking that way about another human being just because their imaginary warrior beat up your imaginary cleric. You just can't draw parallels to real life acts that way.
If PvP/PK causes such deep-seated emotional feelings in you, then I'm sad to say that you're not emotionally secure enough to handle the games you're choosing to play, and -pay for-. Why would anyone choose to shell out money every month for something that they think is emotionally damaging? If you don't like PK, then post suggestions to the developers about how to fix the system. Give them real game-related (and profit-related, for most MMOs) reasons for why it would help. Don't resort to psychodrama about how PvPers are damaging people's psyches. I'd avoid the brick wall analogy too, because it only works if PvP is something that was never intended. In the reality of your analogy, PvP is -one of the bricks-. It was put there to be a cohesive part of the game, and if there's something within that which just isn't working, then it proves my point that the problem isn't PvP, but implementation.
Finally, if your concerns are ignored and you don't feel you're getting redress then leave. Vote with your wallet. Find a game that has no PvP element, or at least one that's closed/opt-in. I could spend hours talking about how, at the end of the day, consensual PvP just doesn't work, but that's mostly my opinion, and that kind of game might suit you.
And just in case you're curious: the game I admin is closed PK/opt-in. I'm a pretty avid fan of allowing players to act in direct competition with one another in combat as well as in other areas, but I'm not the only voice, and I'm fine with that. I advocate a position, but it's not the end of the world when it doesn't pan out my way, and my position may not always be the -best- way. It doesn't tear me up inside emotionally or hurt my feelings. The day it does is the day I resign, and probably quit playing games online, because it'd be a sign that I'm just not capable of handling it. Frankly, I think a lot of people aren't.
If only this were true. Russia has a nuclear arsenal of roughly equivalent size to ours, and neither of us are in a big hurry to completely be rid of all of them. Second, AEGIS cruisers may be capable of shooting down a missile in flight, but so is a complete idiot with a bb gun (it's called the "golden bb theory"), and I'd posit they'd both have about an equal chance of succeeding. AEGIS is for doing simultaneous radar tracking of multiple land, air, and sea targets. That's as far as the cruisers go. What may be confusing to some people is that there is ALSO an Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System in the works based on the same AN/SPY-1 radar that the AEGIS Cruisers use to do target tracking.
;)
It's also worth noting that all the attempts to actually shoot down missiles in flight so far have failed miserably, or succeeded accidentally. Of course, they'd say that even if they were glaring successes, but... If the US actually had a capable Theatre Missile Defense System you'd see all kinds of fallout on the international stage, along with a new arms race. If you remember, this was a very big topic in the news before 9/11 (along with North Korea's nuclear ambitions and rocket tests, and China 'accidentally' downing one of our planes in international waters) that suddenly just disappeared after the planes hit.
While I consider myself a bit of a nationalist, and a definite "military enthusiast," I'm not at all willing to say that we can shoot down a long range missile with anything approaching reliability or regularity, much less a multi-stage ballistic missile with MIRV bomblets. If the nukes ever fly we're just as dead as everyone else who doesn't have a doomsday shelter. If nuclear war ever looks eminent I'll probably be taking a trip to the Greenbrier to "play golf" and "take in the sights."
I have yet to hear a valid reason of why people like PvP: "Challenge of a human opponent," "Unpredictable," "Fair chance," or "Dispense justice"
You just named four pretty good ones. The problem is that no one is neutral about PvP. You either enjoy the challenge and the dynamics of it, or you cry about the big bad bullies who are obviously deranged serial killers in real life. If I want a PvE experience I'll play console games offline. MMOs are all about interacting with other people. You trade with them, group with them, sell to them, make friends and enemies among them, and race them to get the best gear. How can you not naturally extend this into fighting them?
I've got a lot of experience with online PvP systems going back almost 10 years with MUDs and the like, and I can honestly say that if you're going to implement it, the fairest way is for it to be totally open. The same people who complain about how the big bad PKer killed them without consent is the same person who would act like an asshat if they knew there were no consequences. For the incredibly low percentage of people who DO use PvP to be bullies, there are usually enough bigger badder badasses out there willing to wipe the floor with them for making PvP look bad that they don't get too out of control. The problems in most PvP systems that are notoriously bad usually boils down to some facet of the implementation or the game mechanics. The PvP itself usually isn't what causes trouble.
Ever done a lot of work with automotive grade paints? The actual paint isn't that glossy. It's the clearcoat that makes it so shiny. If they can speed up this process to the point that you could do automobiles with it efficiently, I'd gladly trade gloss for the fact that I'd have a paint job that can't be scratched.