Well, if you want my opinion: I don't care who it is, killing a man in a wheelchair using a missile fired from a helicopter is an act of cowardice. Doubly so in this case, since it killed innocent people as well. I don't see how Sharon can justify his actions: Yassin was responsible for the deaths of civilians, so they assassinated him, with a few extra civilians as an added bonus. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? It makes me wonder if their aim is not to suppress the actions of the extremist militant groups, but rather to terrorize the Palestinian people into submission.
I never said I excuse Yassin because of his condition, but even the vilest criminal deserves a fair trial. I am merely condemning the lawless actions of the Israelis, which don't make them look so good, even when compared to the lawless actions of the Palestinians. Just as the Palestinian extremists wouldn't care about killing a Jewish baby, the Israeli extremists don't care how many Palestinian children they kill. It's horrifying, awful, and saddening, but what's new?
Ask yourself this: even if a man is guilty, is it right to kill him without trial, without provocation, without immediate threat, and at the cost of innocent lives?
This is one of the most sensible nuggets of common sense that some people seem to overlook when talking about energy. There's a place for all different forms of energy-production. Out here beneath the soggy mountains, we have hydroelectric power from the major dams, which is nice because it's so darned cheap. So far the fish haven't complained, so it must be cool.
So, are you saying we shouldn't discuss/speculate on the issue? Why? Because the decision lies in the hands of a court and not in the hands of Joe Slashdot-user?
It's true that this/. posting displays the usual exaggeration and panic-mongering you see 'round here, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still an important issue, and one in which everyone is interested, directly or indirectly. It's foolish to say that there's "nothing to see". It certainly should be discussed, and that includes the tinfoil-hat club.:-)
(BTW, guys, you do realize that it's aluminum foil that you buy at the grocery stores, right? Aluminum won't stop their brainwave scanners as effectively, so you've got to be careful)
Well, how about the "Shock and Awe" campaign earlier in the conflict? IIRC, that was intended to terrify the population of the city (military and civilian) into submission.
And like I said, there were the many civilian "economic" targets destroyed by the US in Iraq. One could argue that the World Trade Center was just an "economic target" in the war against the United States. What exactly is the difference between that terrorist attack and the American missiles that rip through hospitals, schools, and places of commerce?
And how about this video clip, showing a US helicopter crew firing on a group of unarmed civilians? Last time I checked, blasting civilians into a bloody spray as they walk down the street serves no military purpose.
Obviously, not all the civilian deaths in the Iraq conflict were the result of attacks specifically targeting civilians. However, I still call into question the judgement of those in command, who made the decision to exercise military power, knowing full well what the cost would be. After all, you try explaining to the man whose entire family was slaughtered that his loved ones died because of recklessness instead of malice. Do you think it makes much difference to him?
but as far as human rights go, especially women, the afghanis are far more free, and the iraqis are able to protest US involvment. Great. Try protesting under Saddam, or Castro, or Jong-IL.
Really? Iraqis are allowed to protest?
"United States troops opened fire on a crowd hostile to the new pro-American governor in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul yesterday, killing at least 10 people and injuring as many as 100, witnesses and doctors said." "US troops accused of carnage," Sydney Morning Herald, 16 April 2003.
Also see Cox News, 16 April 2003
"American troops again fired on anti-U.S. protesters in Fallujah's streets Wednesday and said they won't give up their foothold in the one-time Baath Party bastion. At least two Iraqis were killed and 18 wounded, hospital officials reported. In a bloodier episode Monday night, 15 protesters and bystanders were killed, and at least 50 wounded, officials said. In both cases, U.S. officers - and the U.S. Central Command - said their soldiers were fired on first from among the crowds. But Iraqis denied it, and no weapons or suspects have been produced." Charles J. Hanley, "More protesters fall to U.S. guns in Fallujah; commander says Americans will remain," Associated Press, 1 May 2003.
"U.S. troops threatened by a stone-throwing crowd killed two Iraqis during a demonstration outside the headquarters of the occupation authorities, the military said.... [The] two Iraqis were killed by American gunfire during a demonstration by former Iraqi Army soldiers seeking back wages. A military spokesman said that the violence had begun when protesters threw rocks at a convoy of military police vehicles moving toward the arched gateway of the Republican Palace, Saddam Hussein's former presidential compound, which is now the headquarters of the U.S.-led administration."
- The Associated Press Wednesday, June 18, 2003
"At least 24 people, including four Salvadoran soldiers, were killed yesterday and 200 people wounded as Spanish-led troops clashed with backers of a Shi'ite radical leader outside this shrine city... An AFP correspondent said the clashes began when demonstrators hurled rocks at a convoy of six vehicles from the coalition's Spanish-led Plus Ultra Brigade and started shouting at them: "No, no to America. No, no to Israel." The convoy pulled back and then opened fire." - AFP, 5 April, 2004
"The Pentagon said yesterday it was investigating cockpit video footage that shows American pilots attacking and killing a group of apparently unarmed Iraqi civilians. The 30-second clip shows the pilot targeting the group of people in a street in the city of Fallujah and asking his mission controllers whether he should "take them out". He is told to do so and, shortly afterwards, the footage shows a huge explosion where the people were. A second voice can be heard on the clip saying: 'Oh, dude.'" - The Independent, 6 October 2004
[See the video clip here]
Oh, well, they're allowed to protest as long as there aren't any Coalition troops within firing range.
Additionally, if you would take a look at Iraq under Saddam Hussein, you'd see that although the people had zero political liberty, they were afforded much more civil liberty. If they spoke out against him, they disappeared in the night, but they could also buy alcohol and the women didn't have to wear veils. If you look at Iraq now, you'll see bars and alcohol-vendors closing down, and women in some areas are afraid to go about without veils, for fear of fundamentalist retribution. Sure, Saddam's gone, and it is my hope that good will still come of that in the future (obviously, I'd rather have the veils and no beer than a brutal tyrant), but there's no denying it's a mess there right now, and this trend towards radical fundamentalism should be troubling.
I understand your point, though. We aren't yet doing as poorly in the civil liberties area as we have in the past; I just don't think that's an excuse to ignore what's going on. Something that is less wrong than a very wrong thing is still wrong.
Okay, I know I'm feeding a troll here, but oh well. The poor things will starve if I don't do this every now and then.:-)
The US didn't blow up unarmed at distance individuals going to work (9/11).
You are correct if you are suggesting that the US did not orchestrate the 9/11 attacks. However, you are dead wrong if you are claiming that the United States has never blown up unarmed civilians, going to work or otherwise. In war, the civilian populations are almost always the ones who suffer the most, and the United States military has its share of civilian deaths under its belt.
Look here for a few examples of what I'm talking about. [Note that that page says, from the "2003 Iraq War", but it should probably say, "2003, 2004, 2005,... Iraq War"] Many of these could be described as unfortunate accidents, as happen in a war, but remember also that it was the United States that employed the practice of striking "economic" targets in the first and second Gulf Wars; that was the euphemism they used for the killing of civilians in their workplaces. What was the World Trade Center but a very large economic target, and those innocents murdered but "collateral damage" (as the military likes to term it)? I'm not trying to justify 9/11, but you should think about these things in perspective. We're not in a position to decry such acts when they occur on our soil if we happily commit them abroad.
Looking a little farther back, there was Operation: Just 'Cause [my apostrophe;-)] in which the US invaded Panama in an attempt to seize General Manuel Noriega, in which somewhere between 300 and 3,000 Panamanian civilians (depending who you ask) were killed in waves of indiscriminate neighborhood bombings, and thousands more were rendered homeless. There are many more examples, if you would care to study our military history. Nothing can possibly justify the slaughter of nearly 3,000 innocent people in the United States on September 11th, but if you look at our history, you'll see that our government and military haven't exactly let civilian lives stand in the way of their objectives either.
The US is not led by rich jerks like Bin Laden or Sadam who's sole purpose in life is to use religeon as an excuse to accumulate power and kill people who do not agree with his views.
You're half-right. The "rich jerks" part is dead on, and the bit about using religion to accumulate power could conceivably be applied. Of course, there's no way to truly understand the motivations of our leaders, but there's little doubt that they have thus far taken advantage of panic and fear to further their political careers. As for the killing of political dissidents, it hasn't happened in this country so far (at least, that we know of;-), but just look at all the other countries that bear the mark of US-sponsored totalitarianism. How about Nicaragua, with the US-trained death squads and terror groups? Or Chile, where the US helped install the brutal tyrant Auguste Pinochet? Or Israel, which is to this day supported by US funding and weapons, and which freely executes alleged "terrorists" (including a paraplegic in a wheelchair) without any trace of due process, and without even any regard for the civilian lives that happen to be around when the missiles hit? The list goes on.
Your ticked because you cannot join the brown (Nati) or Al-queda and be a bigger jerk. If Bush were to kill his political enemies he would not last long.
True. I'm very glad to live in a country where we have such liberties that, even as they are being gradually eroded by panic and fear-mongering, are much greater than those experienced in most other places in the world. But your comment about the grandparent poster wanting to join a terrorist organization doesn't even make sense. H
True, but remember that the millions paid by a wealthy man are still nothing compared to the hundreds that might mean hunger and deprivation for an impoverished family.
I personally knew several who weren't even as fortunate as we were. It's painful seeing a person have to sell their family's home because they can't pay the taxes on it and put food on the table at the same time.
I know that property taxes are handled by the state. That was my point - Bush can't help everybody in every situation, nor should we expect him to. I was merely dispelling the notion that the poor are unaffected by taxation. The truth is that the poor are the most adversely affected by taxes, for the simple reason that they are the least able to afford them.
That's laughable, low income people don't pay any taxes to begin with.
I come from a poor family, and I can tell you firsthand how absolutely wrong that is. My father supported a family of five on an income well below half the poverty level, and we paid approximately ten percent of that income in property taxes. Through hard work and sacrifice, we managed to maintain a decent standard of living, but the taxes were still crippling, especially since we were not allowed to sell or develop our property because of targeted zoning changes. Bush's income tax cuts can't help everyone.
Correction: the ice replaces exactly the amount of water it occupies when floating
Yes; it's kinda funny how many people completely fail to understand this basic concept. A couple of years ago, I saw a full-page ad in an issue of National Geographic, warning about the dangers of global warming. Their visual demonstration was, you guessed it, a glass of water in which was suspended a picturesque iceberg, complete with water spilling over the side.:-/
Therefore if you had sin(x)/x as x -> 0 * billion it would equal a billion.
Um, no it wouldn't. Zero times one billion is still zero. Furthermore, sin(0)/0 does not equal 1, it is undefined. The limit of sin(x)/x as x goes to zero is 1, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't divide by zero. Now, if you take the value of that limit and multiply by 1 billion, the result will be 1 billion, because 1 times 1 billion equals 1 billion. Like this: (lim(sin(x)/x,x,0)*10^9 = 10^9, because the first part (the limit) is equal to one. What you are indicating is the multiplication of the zero, the limiting value for x. Zero times a billion is zero, so you're taking the limit as x approaches zero, which is, surprise surprise, 1.
It is one giant loophole for the governments involved to spy on their own people as well as anyone else.
Where is this "loophole"? The Fourth Amendment makes no reference to any particular government or other entity: it simply states a right of the people. The Constitution being the Law of the Land, it is the duty of the United States Government and all its constituents to uphold that Law and those Rights. Hence, the Government may not spy upon its people, nor may it allow any other government to do so.
I hate to put it so bluntly, but if our security systems can't safeguard our liberty and our safety simultaneously, we are simply forced to prioritize.
Besides; conducting criminal investigations on suspicions that such acts might occur does not in any way require our freedoms to be compromised. There are such things as warrants and evidence. If a person or persons are suspected of plotting a criminal act, existing judicial weaponry can be leveled against them. If the system isn't working, then it is a sign that the system needs to improve its efficiency, not increase its power to pry into our lives. It's silly to demand that the government have the prerogative to act on the grounds of an absence of concrete evidence, isn't it?
Hmm, the computer overriding the human for self-preservation. That could be interesting.....
But that's impossible! The Third Law can never override the First Law!;-)
Judging from situations like these, it seems that maybe Asimov's Laws should be given more consideration; if not as actual "robotic" laws, more as fundamental design principles in safety engineering. Any computerized system upon which human lives depend that is not equipped with an independent and redundant (preferably mechanical) override system is truly alarming.
I fail to see how the last paragraph constituted trolling. Note the poster's selection of language: "Republicans... seem to be under the belief..." (emphasis mine). He's not trolling, he's voicing his opinion. Since when is it trolling to have (and state) what may be a somewhat extreme (or possibly exaggerated) opinion? Just because you disagree with his appraisal of the situation (or are alarmed by it) does not mean he's a troll.
One should at least have some consideration for the fact that it's only too easy to resort to dogmatic statements when discussing a strong opinion or belief.
Absolutely correct; however...
on
Star Wars on DVD
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
the theory is that when a jedi dies he comes back in his purest form
Which is exactly what would make the appearance of an 'old' Anakin in ghostly form all the more poignant. If the whole series is indeed the story of Anakin Skywalker, then is not the very consummation at the point where Darth Vader is finally turned by love for his son? Indeed, it is only then, and never before, that Anakin could truly be said to be pure; it was his final redemption before his death - his son saved him.
2) The current Xbox has much better graphics than the PS2, and there is no reason to believe that this will change with the Xbox2/PS3
I know I'll be playing the old codger here, but do you think I care about graphics? I still have my NES from the mid 80's, and play it regularly. (Hell, I have an Atari 2600 in the closet that might just still work). Gameplay (and to an extent, nostalgia) are what really count for me. Fancy Schmancy graphics be damned.:-)
(Of course, my personal opinion does not speak for the masses. Some gamers actually prefer games to have detailed or realistic graphics and special effects above such trifling things as gameplay or (where applicable) story. I hope it is sufficiently clear from my sarcastic tone that I view this group in the same way Yoda thought of a young Luke Skywalker.;-P)
Even if Microsoft manages to "dominate" Sony, I'll still have my other consoles. There's no way I'll ever give up my PS2, PS1, Gamecube, N64, SNES, NES, Gameboy (both original and Advance), and various Sega systems. Hell, even the ill-fated Virtual Boy has a place in my collection. I still have the Power Pad and ROB (Robotic Operating Buddy) for the NES. But even people less psychopathically obsessive than I will probably still buy the next-gen Sony and Nintendo systems, even if Microsoft woos them with the XBox 2. Gaming is hardly exclusive; I know very few console gamers who own only one brand of console.
My experience tells me that this is due in large part to the varieties of software available for each system. Many titles (almost all of the good ones, IMHO) are exclusive to one console; I used to be very loyal to Nintendo, but when Square started producing exclusively for Sony, I was simply forced buy the Playstation. As far as XBox goes, I've played Halo right through (which seems to be the flagship XBox title, as far as I can tell), and I'll tell you right now I didn't like it much. The gameplay was okay, but simplistic; and I found the story (in single-player mode) positively uninspired. It's an okay multiplayer game, but I would eschew it in preference of others. Obviously, my biased judgement does not mean Halo is a bad or mediocre game; for every person like me, there's at least one more who absolutely adores Halo. I just don't really like FPS games as much as I do RPGs, adventures, or puzzle games. Gamers come in all flavors, and I don't think one company can possibly have complete control of the diverse spectrum that is Gamerdom. In short, I don't think any company, least of all Microsoft, is capable of bringing to the market a sufficient variety of games to satisfy every single gamer.
This is one market MS cannot afford to lose. They will throw everything they have at it.
If that's the case, I'm not too worried. Microsoft may have a lot to throw, but they have terrible aim.:-)
Everbody's different, of course, but my take on this is that the operation of selection should be just that: selection. It's like aiming a gun at something; once you've designated a target, you have to press Ctrl+C, er, I mean, pull the trigger in order to fire. Would you want your gun to go off every time you pointed it at something?
Actually, the human body's resistance reduces the current sufficiently to provide a total discharge time of at least several seconds. I found this out firsthand while building one of these homemade tasers - I happened to touch the contacts on the capacitor (I had just been playing around making sparks, so it was fully charged:P), and I felt a strong buzzing sensation and all the muscles in my arm contracted suddenly. I then had the good sense to discharge the capacitor by bridging the contacts with a screwdriver; it still produced a very strong spark, indicating that it still posessed a fairly high charge.
Later, I experimented by charging it for only about two seconds and touching it to my arm - the small charge was enough to provide several seconds of rather painful buzzing. (Yes, I AM crazy.) Judging by the strength of the shock I received from the fully charged capacitor, I would estimate that it would indeed be possible to incapacitate someone by holding one of these to their neck for a few seconds... or at the very least, make them feel really wobbly and VERY pissed off.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said I excuse Yassin because of his condition, but even the vilest criminal deserves a fair trial. I am merely condemning the lawless actions of the Israelis, which don't make them look so good, even when compared to the lawless actions of the Palestinians. Just as the Palestinian extremists wouldn't care about killing a Jewish baby, the Israeli extremists don't care how many Palestinian children they kill. It's horrifying, awful, and saddening, but what's new?
Ask yourself this: even if a man is guilty, is it right to kill him without trial, without provocation, without immediate threat, and at the cost of innocent lives?
This is one of the most sensible nuggets of common sense that some people seem to overlook when talking about energy. There's a place for all different forms of energy-production. Out here beneath the soggy mountains, we have hydroelectric power from the major dams, which is nice because it's so darned cheap. So far the fish haven't complained, so it must be cool.
It's true that this /. posting displays the usual exaggeration and panic-mongering you see 'round here, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still an important issue, and one in which everyone is interested, directly or indirectly. It's foolish to say that there's "nothing to see". It certainly should be discussed, and that includes the tinfoil-hat club. :-)
(BTW, guys, you do realize that it's aluminum foil that you buy at the grocery stores, right? Aluminum won't stop their brainwave scanners as effectively, so you've got to be careful)
And like I said, there were the many civilian "economic" targets destroyed by the US in Iraq. One could argue that the World Trade Center was just an "economic target" in the war against the United States. What exactly is the difference between that terrorist attack and the American missiles that rip through hospitals, schools, and places of commerce?
And how about this video clip, showing a US helicopter crew firing on a group of unarmed civilians? Last time I checked, blasting civilians into a bloody spray as they walk down the street serves no military purpose.
Obviously, not all the civilian deaths in the Iraq conflict were the result of attacks specifically targeting civilians. However, I still call into question the judgement of those in command, who made the decision to exercise military power, knowing full well what the cost would be. After all, you try explaining to the man whose entire family was slaughtered that his loved ones died because of recklessness instead of malice. Do you think it makes much difference to him?
Really? Iraqis are allowed to protest?
Oh, well, they're allowed to protest as long as there aren't any Coalition troops within firing range.Additionally, if you would take a look at Iraq under Saddam Hussein, you'd see that although the people had zero political liberty, they were afforded much more civil liberty. If they spoke out against him, they disappeared in the night, but they could also buy alcohol and the women didn't have to wear veils. If you look at Iraq now, you'll see bars and alcohol-vendors closing down, and women in some areas are afraid to go about without veils, for fear of fundamentalist retribution. Sure, Saddam's gone, and it is my hope that good will still come of that in the future (obviously, I'd rather have the veils and no beer than a brutal tyrant), but there's no denying it's a mess there right now, and this trend towards radical fundamentalism should be troubling.
I understand your point, though. We aren't yet doing as poorly in the civil liberties area as we have in the past; I just don't think that's an excuse to ignore what's going on. Something that is less wrong than a very wrong thing is still wrong.
You are correct if you are suggesting that the US did not orchestrate the 9/11 attacks. However, you are dead wrong if you are claiming that the United States has never blown up unarmed civilians, going to work or otherwise. In war, the civilian populations are almost always the ones who suffer the most, and the United States military has its share of civilian deaths under its belt.
Look here for a few examples of what I'm talking about. [Note that that page says, from the "2003 Iraq War", but it should probably say, "2003, 2004, 2005, ... Iraq War"] Many of these could be described as unfortunate accidents, as happen in a war, but remember also that it was the United States that employed the practice of striking "economic" targets in the first and second Gulf Wars; that was the euphemism they used for the killing of civilians in their workplaces. What was the World Trade Center but a very large economic target, and those innocents murdered but "collateral damage" (as the military likes to term it)? I'm not trying to justify 9/11, but you should think about these things in perspective. We're not in a position to decry such acts when they occur on our soil if we happily commit them abroad.
Looking a little farther back, there was Operation: Just 'Cause [my apostrophe ;-)] in which the US invaded Panama in an attempt to seize General Manuel Noriega, in which somewhere between 300 and 3,000 Panamanian civilians (depending who you ask) were killed in waves of indiscriminate neighborhood bombings, and thousands more were rendered homeless. There are many more examples, if you would care to study our military history. Nothing can possibly justify the slaughter of nearly 3,000 innocent people in the United States on September 11th, but if you look at our history, you'll see that our government and military haven't exactly let civilian lives stand in the way of their objectives either.
You're half-right. The "rich jerks" part is dead on, and the bit about using religion to accumulate power could conceivably be applied. Of course, there's no way to truly understand the motivations of our leaders, but there's little doubt that they have thus far taken advantage of panic and fear to further their political careers. As for the killing of political dissidents, it hasn't happened in this country so far (at least, that we know of ;-), but just look at all the other countries that bear the mark of US-sponsored totalitarianism. How about Nicaragua, with the US-trained death squads and terror groups? Or Chile, where the US helped install the brutal tyrant Auguste Pinochet? Or Israel, which is to this day supported by US funding and weapons, and which freely executes alleged "terrorists" (including a paraplegic in a wheelchair) without any trace of due process, and without even any regard for the civilian lives that happen to be around when the missiles hit? The list goes on.
True. I'm very glad to live in a country where we have such liberties that, even as they are being gradually eroded by panic and fear-mongering, are much greater than those experienced in most other places in the world. But your comment about the grandparent poster wanting to join a terrorist organization doesn't even make sense. H
I personally knew several who weren't even as fortunate as we were. It's painful seeing a person have to sell their family's home because they can't pay the taxes on it and put food on the table at the same time.
I know that property taxes are handled by the state. That was my point - Bush can't help everybody in every situation, nor should we expect him to. I was merely dispelling the notion that the poor are unaffected by taxation. The truth is that the poor are the most adversely affected by taxes, for the simple reason that they are the least able to afford them.
I come from a poor family, and I can tell you firsthand how absolutely wrong that is. My father supported a family of five on an income well below half the poverty level, and we paid approximately ten percent of that income in property taxes. Through hard work and sacrifice, we managed to maintain a decent standard of living, but the taxes were still crippling, especially since we were not allowed to sell or develop our property because of targeted zoning changes. Bush's income tax cuts can't help everyone.
Yes; it's kinda funny how many people completely fail to understand this basic concept. A couple of years ago, I saw a full-page ad in an issue of National Geographic, warning about the dangers of global warming. Their visual demonstration was, you guessed it, a glass of water in which was suspended a picturesque iceberg, complete with water spilling over the side. :-/
Um, no it wouldn't. Zero times one billion is still zero. Furthermore, sin(0)/0 does not equal 1, it is undefined. The limit of sin(x)/x as x goes to zero is 1, but that doesn't change the fact that you can't divide by zero. Now, if you take the value of that limit and multiply by 1 billion, the result will be 1 billion, because 1 times 1 billion equals 1 billion. Like this: (lim(sin(x)/x,x,0)*10^9 = 10^9, because the first part (the limit) is equal to one. What you are indicating is the multiplication of the zero, the limiting value for x. Zero times a billion is zero, so you're taking the limit as x approaches zero, which is, surprise surprise, 1.
That's a remarkable stopwatch if it measures time in Slashdot comments. Where can I get one? :-)
Where is this "loophole"? The Fourth Amendment makes no reference to any particular government or other entity: it simply states a right of the people. The Constitution being the Law of the Land, it is the duty of the United States Government and all its constituents to uphold that Law and those Rights. Hence, the Government may not spy upon its people, nor may it allow any other government to do so.
Besides; conducting criminal investigations on suspicions that such acts might occur does not in any way require our freedoms to be compromised. There are such things as warrants and evidence. If a person or persons are suspected of plotting a criminal act, existing judicial weaponry can be leveled against them. If the system isn't working, then it is a sign that the system needs to improve its efficiency, not increase its power to pry into our lives. It's silly to demand that the government have the prerogative to act on the grounds of an absence of concrete evidence, isn't it?
But that's impossible! The Third Law can never override the First Law! ;-)
Judging from situations like these, it seems that maybe Asimov's Laws should be given more consideration; if not as actual "robotic" laws, more as fundamental design principles in safety engineering. Any computerized system upon which human lives depend that is not equipped with an independent and redundant (preferably mechanical) override system is truly alarming.
No... Am I supposed to wait until I am before I speak out against ill-conceived, malignant legislation?
One should at least have some consideration for the fact that it's only too easy to resort to dogmatic statements when discussing a strong opinion or belief.
Isn't it obvious? Freedom of religion. :)
the theory is that when a jedi dies he comes back in his purest form
Which is exactly what would make the appearance of an 'old' Anakin in ghostly form all the more poignant. If the whole series is indeed the story of Anakin Skywalker, then is not the very consummation at the point where Darth Vader is finally turned by love for his son? Indeed, it is only then, and never before, that Anakin could truly be said to be pure; it was his final redemption before his death - his son saved him.
I know I'll be playing the old codger here, but do you think I care about graphics? I still have my NES from the mid 80's, and play it regularly. (Hell, I have an Atari 2600 in the closet that might just still work). Gameplay (and to an extent, nostalgia) are what really count for me. Fancy Schmancy graphics be damned. :-)
(Of course, my personal opinion does not speak for the masses. Some gamers actually prefer games to have detailed or realistic graphics and special effects above such trifling things as gameplay or (where applicable) story. I hope it is sufficiently clear from my sarcastic tone that I view this group in the same way Yoda thought of a young Luke Skywalker. ;-P)
Even if Microsoft manages to "dominate" Sony, I'll still have my other consoles. There's no way I'll ever give up my PS2, PS1, Gamecube, N64, SNES, NES, Gameboy (both original and Advance), and various Sega systems. Hell, even the ill-fated Virtual Boy has a place in my collection. I still have the Power Pad and ROB (Robotic Operating Buddy) for the NES. But even people less psychopathically obsessive than I will probably still buy the next-gen Sony and Nintendo systems, even if Microsoft woos them with the XBox 2. Gaming is hardly exclusive; I know very few console gamers who own only one brand of console.
My experience tells me that this is due in large part to the varieties of software available for each system. Many titles (almost all of the good ones, IMHO) are exclusive to one console; I used to be very loyal to Nintendo, but when Square started producing exclusively for Sony, I was simply forced buy the Playstation. As far as XBox goes, I've played Halo right through (which seems to be the flagship XBox title, as far as I can tell), and I'll tell you right now I didn't like it much. The gameplay was okay, but simplistic; and I found the story (in single-player mode) positively uninspired. It's an okay multiplayer game, but I would eschew it in preference of others. Obviously, my biased judgement does not mean Halo is a bad or mediocre game; for every person like me, there's at least one more who absolutely adores Halo. I just don't really like FPS games as much as I do RPGs, adventures, or puzzle games. Gamers come in all flavors, and I don't think one company can possibly have complete control of the diverse spectrum that is Gamerdom. In short, I don't think any company, least of all Microsoft, is capable of bringing to the market a sufficient variety of games to satisfy every single gamer.
This is one market MS cannot afford to lose. They will throw everything they have at it.
If that's the case, I'm not too worried. Microsoft may have a lot to throw, but they have terrible aim. :-)
It was the great Capitalist Andrew Carnegie himself who said, "He who dies wealthy dies disgraced."
Everbody's different, of course, but my take on this is that the operation of selection should be just that: selection. It's like aiming a gun at something; once you've designated a target, you have to press Ctrl+C, er, I mean, pull the trigger in order to fire. Would you want your gun to go off every time you pointed it at something?
True, but those are not very often the first-run cinemas, are they? :)
Actually, the human body's resistance reduces the current sufficiently to provide a total discharge time of at least several seconds. I found this out firsthand while building one of these homemade tasers - I happened to touch the contacts on the capacitor (I had just been playing around making sparks, so it was fully charged :P), and I felt a strong buzzing sensation and all the muscles in my arm contracted suddenly. I then had the good sense to discharge the capacitor by bridging the contacts with a screwdriver; it still produced a very strong spark, indicating that it still posessed a fairly high charge.
Later, I experimented by charging it for only about two seconds and touching it to my arm - the small charge was enough to provide several seconds of rather painful buzzing. (Yes, I AM crazy.) Judging by the strength of the shock I received from the fully charged capacitor, I would estimate that it would indeed be possible to incapacitate someone by holding one of these to their neck for a few seconds... or at the very least, make them feel really wobbly and VERY pissed off.
"Pepsi presents Ansari X-Prize"?