"However I'm almost curious about Alone in the Dark. I like Alone in the Dark and I like Christian Slater."
From what I remember, 'Alone in the dark' was based on the Cthulhu mythos and they've never become very successful movies, generally because 'horror' directors tend to go bucketloads of red corn syrup. It took Korean cinema to reintroduce suspense as more than the bit of music before the gore splashes the screen.
"I am a big pussy and will most likely not say anything to either one of them so I expect this to go on for a while. Fuck."
Say anything? Fuck that, take revenge. Be a carbon-based lifeform about and stop blogging your frustrations. Play loud polka music; call his mom and ring off just after she answers; fake a fire alarm; record the whole thing for a wedding speech.
Jesus, unless you're trolling you need to take some portion of yourself back.
"What I don't get is why the movie/music assosition is not monopolistic or at least price fixing. The whole DVD zone thing is just one big price fixing scam."
I totally and wholeheartedly agree, and it's refreshing to meet someone on/. that can disagree with my methods so nicely and gracefully.
"As for security, I challenge the notion that we are truly significantly more secure today than we were before 9/11."
I wouldn't say more secure, but I would suggest that the US is more wary. The trouble is that it's being applied incorrectly, and the PATRIOT act is being misused to short-circuit due process quite heavily. Quite simply, the US is eventually going to relax again, and you'll be ready for another atrocity.
I'm more worried about the constant crying of 'Wolf' eventually leading to complete apathy or people with itchy trigger fingers due to a climate of fear.
"Terrorist attacks by American-born citizens seem like MORE of a danger to me."
Oh, they are. In fact one of the bigger problems we had with the IRA was the second and third generation British/Irish that would get involved...At the start we reacted exactly the same...the prevention of terrorism act was written to allow people to be held without trial for extended lengths of time, and there was a certain social laxness in allowing 'confessions' to be gained. Later this has meant that the UK Government had to not only apologise, but in some cases pay reparations to those falsely imprisoned. We caught lots of terrorists, arms and their supporters, but numerous innocent people got caught up along the way. I'm not making a distinction between either side in the Irish 'struggle'; they're both as bad as each other.
"Was that less tragic because less people were killed?"
'Tragic' is an emotive word, and be very wary of emotions, especially when used by the media.
"Or, really, there weren't a whole heck of a lot of terrorist attacks on US soil before 9/11, so it's not exactly shocking that there isn't a flood of them now."
Like I said before, it depends on who you call a 'terrorist' and why. Currently in the UK, hacking is covered by the terrorism act. In the US a chap with a meth lab has been charged with making weapons of mass destruction. Both of these are despite the fact that Both the US and the UK have stockpiles of nerve agents that they can never use because of international restrictions. So why keep them?
Post 9/11 USA keeps using the emotional impact of the word 'Terrorist' in pretty much the same way that we have with the word 'peadophile'. Everyone who wants to finish an argument uses their particular strawman as something that cannot be defended. Don't fall for it.
Just to mention something I stated at the start, the most important aspect of all of this is that Terrorism is about fear. It's not about the actual attack, it's about the possibility of attack. Forget the showy explosions, they're nothing compared with the state of fear that an unknown enemy can instil in a nation or the change in social habits that they provoke. The US has panicked early, and hopefully they'll start to recover soon.
"What if we are interested in a free citizenry instead?"
It'll never happen. For one thing a free citizenry tends to be quite creative in it's thinking modes, and some people just don't want to know and don't care.
"The government should get out of the business of prosecuting "victimless" crimes."
Again, it's a question of 'victimless'...current narcotics legislation _creates_ a black market that seems to delight in cutting bits off other people. I've always considered that Government should reflect the society rather than try to increasingly resist social change as a matter of policy, but I do think that there should be controls in place. Driving under the influence of anything harder than aspirin should be a crime because of the potential of harm, but to make a hardline distinction between LSD and Valium is ludicrous.
"How is someone who ruins her life through reckless promiscuity"
Complicated issue; _really_ complicated issue...and for one you need to lose the feminine pronoun, as there's been a lopsided approach to the question of promiscuity since time immemorial, and it needs to stop.
"and doesn't change behavior after getting herpes, or being raped, or being rendered sterile by a botched abortion"
Personally I'd see repetitive self-destructive behaviour as evidence of borderline personality disorder, Bipolar disorder or major depressive episodes as outlined by DSM IV...the trick is to remove the stigma of mental illness equating to madness and start being socially adult about malaises of the mind or the fact that people are being bombarded with images of what their life should be. Nobody is addicted to injury. Nobody is addicted to feeling worthless. Those are evidence of ambivalence rather than addiction; making the distinction is important.
"If as a society we are interested in a healthy citizenry, let's not focus on whether or not people are making excuses, but on helping them be healthy, whether they are drunks or junkies or philanderers or gamblers or whatever."
Okay, I mostly agree, but that does require both a definition of what is normal, acceptable and enriching to society, and although I'm a faithful partner, taxpaying non-drinker and raging dope fiend, I may not be considered to be the model of a good citizen.
My rather offhand comment about sex addiction is that it's mostly the rich that get treatment for it in rehab, and frequently publicists just make up stuff to cover their clients asses, to start creating an 'illness' around it (ie an involuntary condition that victimises the sufferer) starts to fall into the trap of everyone being a survivor of some sort or another.
"Seriously, don't get down on the level they are on."
Unfortunately they have the high moral ground, so you can't really descend to their level. Somewhere along the line Corporations became more important than people, and given that a Corporation can't be jailed, can get protection against poverty, and appears to have no moral obligations to society beyond enforcing a collective opinion of right through the courts...
I'd seriously consider the anti-capitalists if I didn't fundamentally disagree with their central tenet, but they are providing quite an interesting point.
One thing that's becoming increasingly worrying is that Corporations are relying on 'the other guy' defense; their profits fall, and rather than act on the recommendations of everyone that their products are overpriced, they simply choose to believe that their customers are thieves.
Dunno about you, but if I accused my customers of being thieves, they'd find somewhere else to go pretty damn quickly, but in terms of the RIAA, they _are_ the industry.
"Just because the RIAA are using shitty tactics, dosen't mean you should be allowed to infringe copyright."
Okay, I'll stop when they stop using shitty tactics. Deal?
Re:A nit on the "dead white males" section...
on
Human Accomplishment
·
· Score: 1
"Here is a page that lists some of the studies."
Actually it's a cherry-pick of affirmative viewpoints that produces a bias. Robert Whelan, for example, works for the 'Family Education Trust', which strongly supports the 'traditional' family unit to the extent of pressuring government. Simply listing the conclusions without the methodology is used by white supremicists to 'prove' that other races other than causcasion are inferior. I loved the fact they used 20 year old data from the UK to prove a point, though.
None of these people tend to look at the role of community in supporting single parents *beyond* the nuclear family, but then western nations are trying to promote a social paranoia regarding how fit your neighbours are to be neighbours...
Re:A nit on the "dead white males" section...
on
Human Accomplishment
·
· Score: 1
"You'd be surprised how much irrational ill-will there is towards single parents, mothers in particular, even in the highly educated, nominally liberal and well-off classes of the society."
No, I wouldn't. The UK government has at times tried to appeal to the idea that the 'family unit' should be kept together despite abuse or a complete lack of regard for each other, and although my personal feelings are that you should stay together for the kids, you can't apply that feeling across all people. It doesn't work.
As added perspective, my sister is a single parent, and she's doing quite well...
And more Gypsies and disabled people were killed during the Holocaust which was a drop in the ocean compared with the 1918 flu epidemic...you missed the point. It's not about bodycount, it's about security.
All your figures become meaningless if the standard method of protesting your case is to raise a bodycount. I'm completely with you on keeping perspective, but the action of killing another human because you don't agree with their government's policies is like shouting the loudest in a debate, and yes, I do include manifestations of a doctrine of force in this, but there is a vast difference between a national army and some losers with a religious beef.
There was a war on. Admittedly you could argue that Japan was completely beaten during that time, that it's Navy was in tatters, Air force non-existent and basically it was simply a matter of time before blockades increased the mainland starvation to a level where they would have come to the negotiation table, but you have to balance that with what went on in China under Japanese occupation, or the atrocities committed by the Japanese army to POWs.
"The only thing that could have stopped those two airplanes successfully is if the proper surveillance structure were in place to notice that strange things were a'brew. The systems were in place, but they didn't communicate the problems effectively. That's what the Patriot Act is all about, getting these systems to finally work properly so that we can stop another 9/11."
All in all, and accurate precis, but you did miss one small point, and that is that _someone_ would have to have the guts to down a domestic airliner when it became apparent that it wasn't under flightcrew control. The inability to act in that situation is crucial to future events of this nature, and it's to the credit of the passengers that died on the plane that crashed that they had the courage to do something about it, when the standard line is simply to do what the hijackers want.
The world has completely changed, and it might be that ordinary people have to be more willing to take action rather than hope that negotiators can save them.
One thing I was thinking about the other night was the whole question of biological warfare; surely someone with the will to fly a plane into a tower block could have exactly the same amount of will to purposely infect themselves and fly through as many domestic airports as they could?
Re:A nit on the "dead white males" section...
on
Human Accomplishment
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
"women do not make money"
My SO makes more than me. However, she's not in IT. To a certain extent the glass ceiling is starting to give way, but there is the problem of maternity that tends to make employers 'female-shy'.
"invent new technologies"
Lady Ada Byron?
"lead successful companies"
Anita Roddick? Carly Fiorina?
"Man affects the present. It is the teaching of the mother in the home that affects the future."
*cough* so the single parent families are screwed, then?
"The reason why so many games suck, and maybe you'll agree with me, is that so many companies think this sort of thing can be built assembly-line style. They think that if they just mix and match elements from whatever games are selling the most copies, they'll have a hit. It's game development, hollywood style."
Bang on.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the disease affecting Hollywood (The people there making assumptions about the consumer market and forcing script re-writes because a given consumer sector won't 'get it') is beginning to go cross-species into the gaming market. Some games have plots that are excellent, some are a loosely connected series of scenarios that tend to be thrown together in a slipshod fashion.
Personally I can remember being thrown totally for a loop by the plot for 'Warhead' on the Amiga 500; you started off in an experimental warcraft fending off the attentions of insectoids, did a little side-exploration and nearly got swallowed by a black hole, then ran into something so awesomely powerful that it was going to destroy earth if you failed the mission.
Starlancer and Freelancer got close to this, but do we really need gruff russians to play the baddies? Didn't that all die after 'Red Dawn'?
"be psychological addictions to the feelings/perceptual changes."
I hope you're speaking from personal experience, because it doesn't match mine.
"there are two kinds of addiction - physiological and psychological."
Yeah, but both can be argued to be linked to the endorphin/dopamine reward system to a certain degree, which keeps you going back despite nasty experiences during withdrawal or knowledge that it is maladaptive
The problem is that you can't split narcotics so neatly from anything in the pharmocopia, or indeed anything that can cause a mood alteration in humans; recently we've seen people being treated for sex addiction (I regard this as an excuse for philandering) which is going to be connected with endorphin highs. Throw in the things which are like narcotics, but appear to be doled out like sweets to anyone who has the cash, and you have a problem that is both above and below the radar.
The fundamental point is that humans like to get high, and they'll get high no matter what the vector or whether it injures themselves or others. The trick is to flatten the playfield and start to regulate the end result rather than human nature. Start with preaching personal responsibility rather than abstention. Start with Hollywood. Start with the storylines on TV.
"Certainly some people can use recreational drugs and not cause a burden to society, but there are many more who become unable to maintain gainful employment."
Swap 'Fast food' for 'recreational drugs'. Interesting, huh?
The idea that recreational drugs turns you into an unemployable SOB is as old as 'Reefer madness', and given theres a social penetration of cannibis approaching 60% (UK Polls) there have to be some that are useful members of society. Hell, check out my tax bill for a rough idea.
"Just don't let me see them in the unemployment line asking for a check, or in the ER with no insurance asking to have their heart evaluated or their lungs checked."
Yeah, fuck the smokers. They contribute nothing in taxes...oh, wait...
Funnily enough, some people think the same about the UK welfare state and NHS without remembering that it's a safety net for reasonable people. Yes, there are some that are perfectly willing to stay home and watch their ass spread, but that's the downside of society; create rules to provide for special cases and you start descriminating. I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing, but it doesn't take much to add another rule, and another, and another...
Hopefully you get the picture.
"Therefore, we must limit the burden by keeping some of these drugs on the illegal status list."
Huzzah. That way we can keep track of the health implications and dangerous cocktails that dealers (notoriously bad in the field of personal health and safety) have a propensity to develop in the search for higher profits. While I agree that usage under some circumstances should be kept illegal, they present an interesting method of tracking health and black market taxation if they're regulated. The trouble is that the US is fostering a certain level of fear regarding recreational drug use that ignores such things as the current president admitting to having a drink problem up until the age of 40.
On the one hand, it shows that he's human, but on the other hand you have to ape a certain amount of the shocked outrage that permeates any attempt at a reasoned discussion into drugs.
I should point out that modern SSRIs (Anti-depressants) are functionally the same as MDMA with minor kinks; The prescription of Seroxat to under sixteens should be investigated as a criminal offence because of the neurology involved, but that might involve a bit of a scandal...
"Luskin and Krugman deserve each other. It's theatre of the absurd for the entertainment of the masses. It's sort of "World Wide Wrestling for Intellectuals"."
"This seems to imply that the 4.X branch is no longer -STABLE. I thought the 4.X branch was for conservative users. I don't really see how PAE can be the only reason for this since it is only an option for the kernel. Conservative users can simply choose not to turn it on, right?"
The simple answer is 'yes'.
The more complicated answer is that 5.x is significantly different from 4.x in quite a few ways in that it's a technology 'step-up' and would quite possibly break if overlaid on a pre-existing 4.x system before it gets it's own -stable branch; the word is around 5.3.
Personally my dev server has frozen around 4.8 because it does the job, I loathe patching for the sake of having 'current' version numbers without having the time to familiarise myself with the new features.
This is mildly different behaviour from those that like their 'zero day' sources...
"There is a fairly significant amount of Christians in IT. Shouldn't open source be using something less offensive, like "services" instead of glorifying evil?"
"Jim Galvin: that's okay. One is the -- he's going to fix them for me.
Somebody asked, as follow-up question that Verisign did we correctly hear them say that they're not collecting any personal data of course and they said that multiple times that's a clear statement. However can you comment on the presence of the web bug in the SiteFinder webpage?
Scott Hollenbeck: the web bug exists. That was asked at our last session of we have plans to cut back on the information that's being passed from via -- the web bug to the URL. We have one of our development managers, Joel Nylund, if you wanted to say anything more about that.
Joel Nylund: other than we're passing the whole URL we plan to (inaudible).
Scott Hollenbeck: he said what I said. it's going to be changed to pass back only the minimal information.
Steve Crocker: is there an opt-out mechanism?
Ben Turner: the way we do the web bug is compliant with the standards that exist. It is a typical implementation for this type of bug.
Steve Crocker: I'm speechless. "
He's not the only one. For one thing there are privacy implications _outside_ the US.
Slashdot Mirror
"However I'm almost curious about Alone in the Dark. I like Alone in the Dark and I like Christian Slater."
From what I remember, 'Alone in the dark' was based on the Cthulhu mythos and they've never become very successful movies, generally because 'horror' directors tend to go bucketloads of red corn syrup. It took Korean cinema to reintroduce suspense as more than the bit of music before the gore splashes the screen.
"I am a big pussy and will most likely not say anything to either one of them so I expect this to go on for a while. Fuck."
Say anything? Fuck that, take revenge. Be a carbon-based lifeform about and stop blogging your frustrations. Play loud polka music; call his mom and ring off just after she answers; fake a fire alarm; record the whole thing for a wedding speech.
Jesus, unless you're trolling you need to take some portion of yourself back.
"What I don't get is why the movie/music assosition is not monopolistic or at least price fixing. The whole DVD zone thing is just one big price fixing scam."
/. that can disagree with my methods so nicely and gracefully.
I totally and wholeheartedly agree, and it's refreshing to meet someone on
Kudos and props.
"As for security, I challenge the notion that we are truly significantly more secure today than we were before 9/11."
I wouldn't say more secure, but I would suggest that the US is more wary. The trouble is that it's being applied incorrectly, and the PATRIOT act is being misused to short-circuit due process quite heavily. Quite simply, the US is eventually going to relax again, and you'll be ready for another atrocity.
I'm more worried about the constant crying of 'Wolf' eventually leading to complete apathy or people with itchy trigger fingers due to a climate of fear.
"Terrorist attacks by American-born citizens seem like MORE of a danger to me."
Oh, they are. In fact one of the bigger problems we had with the IRA was the second and third generation British/Irish that would get involved...At the start we reacted exactly the same...the prevention of terrorism act was written to allow people to be held without trial for extended lengths of time, and there was a certain social laxness in allowing 'confessions' to be gained. Later this has meant that the UK Government had to not only apologise, but in some cases pay reparations to those falsely imprisoned. We caught lots of terrorists, arms and their supporters, but numerous innocent people got caught up along the way. I'm not making a distinction between either side in the Irish 'struggle'; they're both as bad as each other.
"Was that less tragic because less people were killed?"
'Tragic' is an emotive word, and be very wary of emotions, especially when used by the media.
"Or, really, there weren't a whole heck of a lot of terrorist attacks on US soil before 9/11, so it's not exactly shocking that there isn't a flood of them now."
Like I said before, it depends on who you call a 'terrorist' and why. Currently in the UK, hacking is covered by the terrorism act. In the US a chap with a meth lab has been charged with making weapons of mass destruction. Both of these are despite the fact that Both the US and the UK have stockpiles of nerve agents that they can never use because of international restrictions. So why keep them?
Post 9/11 USA keeps using the emotional impact of the word 'Terrorist' in pretty much the same way that we have with the word 'peadophile'. Everyone who wants to finish an argument uses their particular strawman as something that cannot be defended. Don't fall for it.
Just to mention something I stated at the start, the most important aspect of all of this is that Terrorism is about fear. It's not about the actual attack, it's about the possibility of attack. Forget the showy explosions, they're nothing compared with the state of fear that an unknown enemy can instil in a nation or the change in social habits that they provoke. The US has panicked early, and hopefully they'll start to recover soon.
"What if we are interested in a free citizenry instead?"
It'll never happen. For one thing a free citizenry tends to be quite creative in it's thinking modes, and some people just don't want to know and don't care.
"The government should get out of the business of prosecuting "victimless" crimes."
Again, it's a question of 'victimless'...current narcotics legislation _creates_ a black market that seems to delight in cutting bits off other people. I've always considered that Government should reflect the society rather than try to increasingly resist social change as a matter of policy, but I do think that there should be controls in place. Driving under the influence of anything harder than aspirin should be a crime because of the potential of harm, but to make a hardline distinction between LSD and Valium is ludicrous.
"How is someone who ruins her life through reckless promiscuity"
Complicated issue; _really_ complicated issue...and for one you need to lose the feminine pronoun, as there's been a lopsided approach to the question of promiscuity since time immemorial, and it needs to stop.
"and doesn't change behavior after getting herpes, or being raped, or being rendered sterile by a botched abortion"
Personally I'd see repetitive self-destructive behaviour as evidence of borderline personality disorder, Bipolar disorder or major depressive episodes as outlined by DSM IV...the trick is to remove the stigma of mental illness equating to madness and start being socially adult about malaises of the mind or the fact that people are being bombarded with images of what their life should be. Nobody is addicted to injury. Nobody is addicted to feeling worthless. Those are evidence of ambivalence rather than addiction; making the distinction is important.
"If as a society we are interested in a healthy citizenry, let's not focus on whether or not people are making excuses, but on helping them be healthy, whether they are drunks or junkies or philanderers or gamblers or whatever."
Okay, I mostly agree, but that does require both a definition of what is normal, acceptable and enriching to society, and although I'm a faithful partner, taxpaying non-drinker and raging dope fiend, I may not be considered to be the model of a good citizen.
My rather offhand comment about sex addiction is that it's mostly the rich that get treatment for it in rehab, and frequently publicists just make up stuff to cover their clients asses, to start creating an 'illness' around it (ie an involuntary condition that victimises the sufferer) starts to fall into the trap of everyone being a survivor of some sort or another.
"Seriously, don't get down on the level they are on."
Unfortunately they have the high moral ground, so you can't really descend to their level. Somewhere along the line Corporations became more important than people, and given that a Corporation can't be jailed, can get protection against poverty, and appears to have no moral obligations to society beyond enforcing a collective opinion of right through the courts...
I'd seriously consider the anti-capitalists if I didn't fundamentally disagree with their central tenet, but they are providing quite an interesting point.
One thing that's becoming increasingly worrying is that Corporations are relying on 'the other guy' defense; their profits fall, and rather than act on the recommendations of everyone that their products are overpriced, they simply choose to believe that their customers are thieves.
Dunno about you, but if I accused my customers of being thieves, they'd find somewhere else to go pretty damn quickly, but in terms of the RIAA, they _are_ the industry.
"I still don't understand how I can be modded redundant"
God hates you.
"Just because the RIAA are using shitty tactics, dosen't mean you should be allowed to infringe copyright."
Okay, I'll stop when they stop using shitty tactics. Deal?
"Here is a page that lists some of the studies."
Actually it's a cherry-pick of affirmative viewpoints that produces a bias. Robert Whelan, for example, works for the 'Family Education Trust', which strongly supports the 'traditional' family unit to the extent of pressuring government. Simply listing the conclusions without the methodology is used by white supremicists to 'prove' that other races other than causcasion are inferior. I loved the fact they used 20 year old data from the UK to prove a point, though.
None of these people tend to look at the role of community in supporting single parents *beyond* the nuclear family, but then western nations are trying to promote a social paranoia regarding how fit your neighbours are to be neighbours...
"You'd be surprised how much irrational ill-will there is towards single parents, mothers in particular, even in the highly educated, nominally liberal and well-off classes of the society."
No, I wouldn't. The UK government has at times tried to appeal to the idea that the 'family unit' should be kept together despite abuse or a complete lack of regard for each other, and although my personal feelings are that you should stay together for the kids, you can't apply that feeling across all people. It doesn't work.
As added perspective, my sister is a single parent, and she's doing quite well...
"More died in car crashes"
And more Gypsies and disabled people were killed during the Holocaust which was a drop in the ocean compared with the 1918 flu epidemic...you missed the point. It's not about bodycount, it's about security.
All your figures become meaningless if the standard method of protesting your case is to raise a bodycount. I'm completely with you on keeping perspective, but the action of killing another human because you don't agree with their government's policies is like shouting the loudest in a debate, and yes, I do include manifestations of a doctrine of force in this, but there is a vast difference between a national army and some losers with a religious beef.
"What about Hiroshima?"
There was a war on. Admittedly you could argue that Japan was completely beaten during that time, that it's Navy was in tatters, Air force non-existent and basically it was simply a matter of time before blockades increased the mainland starvation to a level where they would have come to the negotiation table, but you have to balance that with what went on in China under Japanese occupation, or the atrocities committed by the Japanese army to POWs.
"The only thing that could have stopped those two airplanes successfully is if the proper surveillance structure were in place to notice that strange things were a'brew. The systems were in place, but they didn't communicate the problems effectively. That's what the Patriot Act is all about, getting these systems to finally work properly so that we can stop another 9/11."
All in all, and accurate precis, but you did miss one small point, and that is that _someone_ would have to have the guts to down a domestic airliner when it became apparent that it wasn't under flightcrew control. The inability to act in that situation is crucial to future events of this nature, and it's to the credit of the passengers that died on the plane that crashed that they had the courage to do something about it, when the standard line is simply to do what the hijackers want.
The world has completely changed, and it might be that ordinary people have to be more willing to take action rather than hope that negotiators can save them.
One thing I was thinking about the other night was the whole question of biological warfare; surely someone with the will to fly a plane into a tower block could have exactly the same amount of will to purposely infect themselves and fly through as many domestic airports as they could?
"women do not make money"
My SO makes more than me. However, she's not in IT. To a certain extent the glass ceiling is starting to give way, but there is the problem of maternity that tends to make employers 'female-shy'.
"invent new technologies"
Lady Ada Byron?
"lead successful companies"
Anita Roddick? Carly Fiorina?
"Man affects the present. It is the teaching of the mother in the home that affects the future."
*cough* so the single parent families are screwed, then?
...'Mostly Harmless'
"The reason why so many games suck, and maybe you'll agree with me, is that so many companies think this sort of thing can be built assembly-line style. They think that if they just mix and match elements from whatever games are selling the most copies, they'll have a hit. It's game development, hollywood style."
Bang on.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the disease affecting Hollywood (The people there making assumptions about the consumer market and forcing script re-writes because a given consumer sector won't 'get it') is beginning to go cross-species into the gaming market. Some games have plots that are excellent, some are a loosely connected series of scenarios that tend to be thrown together in a slipshod fashion.
Personally I can remember being thrown totally for a loop by the plot for 'Warhead' on the Amiga 500; you started off in an experimental warcraft fending off the attentions of insectoids, did a little side-exploration and nearly got swallowed by a black hole, then ran into something so awesomely powerful that it was going to destroy earth if you failed the mission.
Starlancer and Freelancer got close to this, but do we really need gruff russians to play the baddies? Didn't that all die after 'Red Dawn'?
"be psychological addictions to the feelings/perceptual changes."
I hope you're speaking from personal experience, because it doesn't match mine.
"there are two kinds of addiction - physiological and psychological."
Yeah, but both can be argued to be linked to the endorphin/dopamine reward system to a certain degree, which keeps you going back despite nasty experiences during withdrawal or knowledge that it is maladaptive
The problem is that you can't split narcotics so neatly from anything in the pharmocopia, or indeed anything that can cause a mood alteration in humans; recently we've seen people being treated for sex addiction (I regard this as an excuse for philandering) which is going to be connected with endorphin highs. Throw in the things which are like narcotics, but appear to be doled out like sweets to anyone who has the cash, and you have a problem that is both above and below the radar.
The fundamental point is that humans like to get high, and they'll get high no matter what the vector or whether it injures themselves or others. The trick is to flatten the playfield and start to regulate the end result rather than human nature. Start with preaching personal responsibility rather than abstention. Start with Hollywood. Start with the storylines on TV.
"Certainly some people can use recreational drugs and not cause a burden to society, but there are many more who become unable to maintain gainful employment."
Swap 'Fast food' for 'recreational drugs'. Interesting, huh?
The idea that recreational drugs turns you into an unemployable SOB is as old as 'Reefer madness', and given theres a social penetration of cannibis approaching 60% (UK Polls) there have to be some that are useful members of society. Hell, check out my tax bill for a rough idea.
"Just don't let me see them in the unemployment line asking for a check, or in the ER with no insurance asking to have their heart evaluated or their lungs checked."
Yeah, fuck the smokers. They contribute nothing in taxes...oh, wait...
Funnily enough, some people think the same about the UK welfare state and NHS without remembering that it's a safety net for reasonable people. Yes, there are some that are perfectly willing to stay home and watch their ass spread, but that's the downside of society; create rules to provide for special cases and you start descriminating. I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing, but it doesn't take much to add another rule, and another, and another...
Hopefully you get the picture.
"Therefore, we must limit the burden by keeping some of these drugs on the illegal status list."
Huzzah. That way we can keep track of the health implications and dangerous cocktails that dealers (notoriously bad in the field of personal health and safety) have a propensity to develop in the search for higher profits. While I agree that usage under some circumstances should be kept illegal, they present an interesting method of tracking health and black market taxation if they're regulated. The trouble is that the US is fostering a certain level of fear regarding recreational drug use that ignores such things as the current president admitting to having a drink problem up until the age of 40.
On the one hand, it shows that he's human, but on the other hand you have to ape a certain amount of the shocked outrage that permeates any attempt at a reasoned discussion into drugs.
I should point out that modern SSRIs (Anti-depressants) are functionally the same as MDMA with minor kinks; The prescription of Seroxat to under sixteens should be investigated as a criminal offence because of the neurology involved, but that might involve a bit of a scandal...
"Luskin and Krugman deserve each other. It's theatre of the absurd for the entertainment of the masses. It's sort of "World Wide Wrestling for Intellectuals"."
Pseudo-intellectuals.
"Come on people, use your blogs to talk about yourself, or what you like, etc, but don't talk about anyone else, or this is what can happen."
So are they going to rejuggle the numbers on the amendments to the constitution, or will they keep the first in for historical interest?
"What are some bonuses the Slashdot crowd has received in the past?"
'You won't survive on brains alone' by Scott Adams. Ironic, and redundant because I already had it.
"This seems to imply that the 4.X branch is no longer -STABLE. I thought the 4.X branch was for conservative users. I don't really see how PAE can be the only reason for this since it is only an option for the kernel. Conservative users can simply choose not to turn it on, right?"
The simple answer is 'yes'.
The more complicated answer is that 5.x is significantly different from 4.x in quite a few ways in that it's a technology 'step-up' and would quite possibly break if overlaid on a pre-existing 4.x system before it gets it's own -stable branch; the word is around 5.3.
Personally my dev server has frozen around 4.8 because it does the job, I loathe patching for the sake of having 'current' version numbers without having the time to familiarise myself with the new features.
This is mildly different behaviour from those that like their 'zero day' sources...
"There is a fairly significant amount of Christians in IT. Shouldn't open source be using something less offensive, like "services" instead of glorifying evil?"
Who modded a troll up as 'interesting'?
He's not the only one. For one thing there are privacy implications _outside_ the US.