Sounds like something pretty serious has been bothering you to come up with such a verbose response.
But he didn't. This is plagiarism. You're correct in noticing that this post is completely off-topic, with only a tiny thread of strained segue- that's because he's pasting an unrelated story.
Just pick any sentence from that post and search for it with google. David Brin's StarWars analysis is famous and interesting (and ancient), but someone always likes to dump it into every StarWars topic on slashdot.
For telling someone they know zero about how it wors, you seem to be pretty off yourself.
How so? You said nothing to contradict me. I didn't want to go into excessive detail with someone who didn't even know that MMORPG death was nonpermanent... for a person that clueless, even the abbreviation "XP" is pushing it.
As another poster pointed out, Japan and Germany are two great examples of how freedom and peace have been imposed by the business end of a weapon.
Japan and Germany in 1945 were so totally different from 2003 Iraq that they make a superb argument against Bush's moronic plans.
G&J were both culturally unified, industrialized nations, without great natural resources, and which had battled themselves to exhaustion in 5 years of total war.
Each of those factors made liberal reconstruction easier, and of course, each of those factors is completely backwards for Iraq today.
However, if your Jedi character you've been paying tons of money and time to level up gets blown to smithereens by some kid, you're gonna be pissed. Is it hard to get killed in this expansion? Is it just an accepted risk?
It seems that you know zero about how any MMORPG works*. SWG handles death like any other game of it's genre: it's a reversible inconvenience that at most sets your character back a few days worth of grinding. Most games are in fantasy worlds and explain it as magical resurrection, but SWG calls it "cloning".
Reviving as a clone apparently only drains 1-5% of your powers. Most likely, a JTL ship that gets destroyed will be recoverable in a similar way.
* Except possibly a totally nonviolent one, like Tale in the Desert.
but don't Star Wars spaceships supposedly go beyond the speed of light,
Yes, but to go faster than a speed, you first much reach that speed.
They use "lightspeed" as a key threshold velocity, rather like the speed of sound. Some planes can travel at mach 3, but breaking the sound barrier is still a somewhat notable milestone in each flight (different areodynamics afterward, etc).
Back when there were supersonic passenger jets, I suppose the crew gave an announcement when you hit "soundspeed", just like Han does for "lightspeed".
Anyone with minor electronic skills can build and operate jammers to block all radio wavelengths. It only takes a few people to disable radio communications for everyone else. The FCC makes it illegal to do that, enabling the police to shut down jammers. Otherwise, it'd be trespassing and vandalism for any citizen to deal with them.
People killing other people would be even less apropriate than nudity, and if Ubuntu had shipped *that*, there would be a hell of a lot more complaints.
Microsoft Windows 95 did.
There was extra space on the CDs, which on some releases was filled up with movie trailers from Geffen films, including the usual amounts of Hollywood action-gunplay. (They were likely put there to demonstrate Microsoft's Media Player)
The concept would work better with ccache. The compile delay only happens on the first execution, and subsquesent ones are fast, not only to start, but also to execute (because the code has been optimized as normal)
The federal government is a drain for all but a few lucky populous states with lots-o-representatives.
Wrong. Completely backwards.
California is the most populous state, with many representatives, and it suffers almost the greatest drain from the federal government. It's ratio of federal taxes to federal spending is greater than 1.
States with a low ratio include places like Alabama, West Virginia, and Kansas.
I mean, it's not like it was a democrat who signed DMCA to law! Oh, wait... Well, it's not like it was a democrat who signed the copyright extension ac....
It's not like both those were supported by a veto-proof majority of a Republican Congress, and it's not like the copyright extension act was written by a Republican and named after Sonny Bono, a Republican... wait.
Yes there were, and they failed. The general who was brought out of retirement to run the war game didn't play by the rules. He used guerrilla warfare tactics instead of just engaging with a superiorly armed enemy. He won the first round, after that they scripted the entire thing; giving emails
That's false. He was never "brought out of retirement"; many ex-military take on other jobs, but they're still retired.
And it wasn't scripted after his successes; it had always been scripted.
And his most successful tactics were nothing like the guerrilla warfare that has happened in Iraq. Read here for the real story, on Slashdot.
To save face the people in charge said it was a demonstration of what the technological effect was, not a real war game.
They didn't say that to save their precious reputations- they said it because it was true. They had Congressmen scheduled to come in on certain days and watch new vehicles go into action, for crying out loud. That project had ALWAYS been a demonstration, not an experiment.
If you want to attack someone about the Millenium Challenge wargame, target the people who claim it was an experiment that actually tested something useful. The people who ran the event knew it was just rehersal for soldiers. Rehersal wargames do not have room for unexpected results. It was only Rumsfeld who came in and claimed it had been some kind of objective proof his ideas were right.
Here's another way to look at it. Suppose candidate A is supported 60% to 40% over candidate B.
Then next year we'll have a different challenger who's more favorable to the public, and the spread will be closer to 50-50, and votes will matter again.
With the EC, it is conceivable that candidate B could win and this makes it necessary for both candidiates to campaign for votes.
The concept of a candidate winning if 60% of the public favors his opponent is wrong and evil.
Would you care to enlighten the ignorant among us and reveal the one true definition of the word "democracy"
Fine. If you're really too lazy to visit dictionary.com, I'll go there myself and paste the first definition it lists:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
Remember, you can only give one definition and that definition cannot contain multiple parts
And why is that? Words can frequently have multiple definitions with different meanings. That's how English works. To claim that something is not XYZ, then none of the definitions of XYZ must apply. If any one of the definitions matches, then the person claiming "We are not a democracy" was wrong.
In fact, the best thing to do is to re-divide up the nation into groups such that every single group would be very likely to deadlock.
Yes, that would be good. It would make things very fair, and still increase the incentive for each person to vote.
But it won't happen! No one will agree to redraw the states into new, even shapes. And since that won't happen, the current system means that residents of Utah and Massachusett have exactly ZERO chance of their votes mattering. Without the EC, their value would improve to equal that of everyone else.
Eliminating the electoral college would make vote fraud determine the outcome of our elections.
Backwards! WITH the electoral college, you can cheat on just 500-600 votes in the right state, and totally change the outcome.
What you call "running up the vote in Chicago" would have to be much more blatant. Without the electoral college, it'll take millions of phony ballots to put your candidate over the top.
I feel like that is a *very* indicative example of the danger posed by giving disproportionate power to the wide open spaces.
The amusing aspect is that even if you agree that low-population areas need greater political power, the current system does a horrible job. States have unequal amounts of land, yet each state gets exactly the same 2 votes for that land!
The east coast is 14 states (28 votes), while the west coast, with about the same land area, is only 3 states (6 votes). Easterners have an unfair 22 point bonus in the presidential election, just because they have older states (from back when borders were drawn more closely).
No president ever campaigns in Alaska, right? Defenders of the electoral college should want to see it strengthened, so that Alaska becomes a political powersource!
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like something pretty serious has been bothering you to come up with such a verbose response.
But he didn't. This is plagiarism. You're correct in noticing that this post is completely off-topic, with only a tiny thread of strained segue- that's because he's pasting an unrelated story.
Just pick any sentence from that post and search for it with google. David Brin's StarWars analysis is famous and interesting (and ancient), but someone always likes to dump it into every StarWars topic on slashdot.
For telling someone they know zero about how it wors, you seem to be pretty off yourself.
How so? You said nothing to contradict me. I didn't want to go into excessive detail with someone who didn't even know that MMORPG death was nonpermanent... for a person that clueless, even the abbreviation "XP" is pushing it.
As another poster pointed out, Japan and Germany are two great examples of how freedom and peace have been imposed by the business end of a weapon.
Japan and Germany in 1945 were so totally different from 2003 Iraq that they make a superb argument against Bush's moronic plans.
G&J were both culturally unified, industrialized nations, without great natural resources, and which had battled themselves to exhaustion in 5 years of total war.
Each of those factors made liberal reconstruction easier, and of course, each of those factors is completely backwards for Iraq today.
However, if your Jedi character you've been paying tons of money and time to level up gets blown to smithereens by some kid, you're gonna be pissed. Is it hard to get killed in this expansion? Is it just an accepted risk?
It seems that you know zero about how any MMORPG works*. SWG handles death like any other game of it's genre: it's a reversible inconvenience that at most sets your character back a few days worth of grinding. Most games are in fantasy worlds and explain it as magical resurrection, but SWG calls it "cloning".
Reviving as a clone apparently only drains 1-5% of your powers. Most likely, a JTL ship that gets destroyed will be recoverable in a similar way.
* Except possibly a totally nonviolent one, like Tale in the Desert.
Half-Life 2 because you need a keyboard wich you didn't need for wolfenstein.
Erm, you needed a keyboard for Wolfenstein. In fact, the first two Wolfenstien games (2d and then 3d) were out before mice were popular.
And then have another guy with you who acts like a rodeo clown: he uses all the mass on his ship for shields and armor,
A rodeo clown? Is that what the MMORPGers are calling "Tanks" these days?
So the star systems are ridiculously close together?
A long, long time ago... the universe hadn't expanded very far yet.
but don't Star Wars spaceships supposedly go beyond the speed of light,
Yes, but to go faster than a speed, you first much reach that speed.
They use "lightspeed" as a key threshold velocity, rather like the speed of sound. Some planes can travel at mach 3, but breaking the sound barrier is still a somewhat notable milestone in each flight (different areodynamics afterward, etc).
Back when there were supersonic passenger jets, I suppose the crew gave an announcement when you hit "soundspeed", just like Han does for "lightspeed".
AC: Explain to me how our taxes pay for airwaves?
Police officers.
Anyone with minor electronic skills can build and operate jammers to block all radio wavelengths. It only takes a few people to disable radio communications for everyone else. The FCC makes it illegal to do that, enabling the police to shut down jammers. Otherwise, it'd be trespassing and vandalism for any citizen to deal with them.
I found that image to be quite sexy, two hot chicks with big smiles, nice top-down boob profiles, standing in a suggestive circle,
In my opinion, the sexier images were when the chicks took their tops off and the guy hugged them.
People killing other people would be even less apropriate than nudity, and if Ubuntu had shipped *that*, there would be a hell of a lot more complaints.
Microsoft Windows 95 did.
There was extra space on the CDs, which on some releases was filled up with movie trailers from Geffen films, including the usual amounts of Hollywood action-gunplay. (They were likely put there to demonstrate Microsoft's Media Player)
Something that was unthinkable under GCC.
The concept would work better with ccache. The compile delay only happens on the first execution, and subsquesent ones are fast, not only to start, but also to execute (because the code has been optimized as normal)
Regardless of how popular Stern is, the public is not well-served by his language or on-air antics.
In one sentence, you managed to be undemocratic, anti-capitalistic, and plain-old self-contradictory.
If a show is popular, then the public enjoys it, and supplying it serves them (well).
The federal government is a drain for all but a few lucky populous states with lots-o-representatives.
Wrong. Completely backwards.
California is the most populous state, with many representatives, and it suffers almost the greatest drain from the federal government. It's ratio of federal taxes to federal spending is greater than 1.
States with a low ratio include places like Alabama, West Virginia, and Kansas.
Just be sure to keep your goggles on.
My eyes! The goggles do nothing!
I mean, it's not like it was a democrat who signed DMCA to law! Oh, wait... Well, it's not like it was a democrat who signed the copyright extension ac....
It's not like both those were supported by a veto-proof majority of a Republican Congress, and it's not like the copyright extension act was written by a Republican and named after Sonny Bono, a Republican... wait.
Standard Oil through years of mergers and buyouts became the American Oil Company (better known as Amoco)
Nope.
Standard Oil = S.O. = SO = "esso" = Esson = Exxon
Yes there were, and they failed. The general who was brought out of retirement to run the war game didn't play by the rules. He used guerrilla warfare tactics instead of just engaging with a superiorly armed enemy. He won the first round, after that they scripted the entire thing; giving emails
That's false. He was never "brought out of retirement"; many ex-military take on other jobs, but they're still retired.
And it wasn't scripted after his successes; it had always been scripted.
And his most successful tactics were nothing like the guerrilla warfare that has happened in Iraq. Read here for the real story, on Slashdot.
To save face the people in charge said it was a demonstration of what the technological effect was, not a real war game.
They didn't say that to save their precious reputations- they said it because it was true. They had Congressmen scheduled to come in on certain days and watch new vehicles go into action, for crying out loud. That project had ALWAYS been a demonstration, not an experiment.
If you want to attack someone about the Millenium Challenge wargame, target the people who claim it was an experiment that actually tested something useful. The people who ran the event knew it was just rehersal for soldiers. Rehersal wargames do not have room for unexpected results. It was only Rumsfeld who came in and claimed it had been some kind of objective proof his ideas were right.
Here's another way to look at it. Suppose candidate A is supported 60% to 40% over candidate B.
Then next year we'll have a different challenger who's more favorable to the public, and the spread will be closer to 50-50, and votes will matter again.
With the EC, it is conceivable that candidate B could win and this makes it necessary for both candidiates to campaign for votes.
The concept of a candidate winning if 60% of the public favors his opponent is wrong and evil.
Fine. If you're really too lazy to visit dictionary.com, I'll go there myself and paste the first definition it lists:
Remember, you can only give one definition and that definition cannot contain multiple parts
And why is that? Words can frequently have multiple definitions with different meanings. That's how English works. To claim that something is not XYZ, then none of the definitions of XYZ must apply. If any one of the definitions matches, then the person claiming "We are not a democracy" was wrong.
In fact, the best thing to do is to re-divide up the nation into groups such that every single group would be very likely to deadlock.
Yes, that would be good. It would make things very fair, and still increase the incentive for each person to vote.
But it won't happen! No one will agree to redraw the states into new, even shapes. And since that won't happen, the current system means that residents of Utah and Massachusett have exactly ZERO chance of their votes mattering. Without the EC, their value would improve to equal that of everyone else.
Eliminating the electoral college would make vote fraud determine the outcome of our elections.
Backwards! WITH the electoral college, you can cheat on just 500-600 votes in the right state, and totally change the outcome.
What you call "running up the vote in Chicago" would have to be much more blatant. Without the electoral college, it'll take millions of phony ballots to put your candidate over the top.
Better yet, why can't Congress let the states decide how they want to elect federal officeholders?
Why can't some scientists invent an electronic system to connect all the worlds' computers for data-exchange?
I feel like that is a *very* indicative example of the danger posed by giving disproportionate power to the wide open spaces.
The amusing aspect is that even if you agree that low-population areas need greater political power, the current system does a horrible job. States have unequal amounts of land, yet each state gets exactly the same 2 votes for that land!
The east coast is 14 states (28 votes), while the west coast, with about the same land area, is only 3 states (6 votes). Easterners have an unfair 22 point bonus in the presidential election, just because they have older states (from back when borders were drawn more closely).
No president ever campaigns in Alaska, right? Defenders of the electoral college should want to see it strengthened, so that Alaska becomes a political powersource!
Remember that the United States is NOT a Democracy, but a Federal Republic.
Thousands of people say that.
Zero of them know the definition of "democracy".