Maybe on some other planet where the cops don't look for a lame pretext in order to arrest/detain/search you. Disorderly conduct, "looks suspicious", drug dogs that could never pass a double-blind test....
And as I was saying, you sound pretty stupid right now. Because the US successfully used two nuclear weapons to kill at least 150,000 people over a few days, the US didn't have a case to defend again such terribly effective nuclear weapon attacks, especially attacks that could be delivered within the hour? Idiotic.
Do you still have that bandana? We detonated two nukes on Russia's eastern doorstep. Can you say with a straight face that that did not give the Russians an immediate desire to develop their own nuclear weapons ASAP? How about testing ICBM missiles capable of dropping said nukes on Russian soil in half an hour?
Similarly, we have a remarkably successful cyberattack, presumably by the US and perhaps Israel, and somehow as a result the US can only "pretend" to need defense against yet another effective weapon? Here's a dunce cap for you.
Were you dropped on the head as a child? Serious question. The entire point here is the fact that the U.S. has a long history of whining about how we need to be able to defend ourselves from Scary Weapon XYZ when were the first to develop and sometimes use Scary Weapon XYZ.
Yesterday, it was nukes and ICBM's. Today, it's "cyber-warfare" and drone attacks. And we're giving other nations an immediate and obvious incentive to obtain the same sort of weapons for themselves.
Then we hear politicians on TV whining about how we need to increase defense spending to defend ourselves from "cyber-warfare", never mentioning who let the cat out of the bag in the first place.
So.... if the internet was created sometime after 1992, what was I using in 1984? Again, he didn't CREATE the internet. He co-wrote a bill to help fund something that already existed. His statement is total pants.
Since you skipped over it the first time:
That's as reasonable as saying that European lawmakers deserve no credit for pushing high speed rail in the 50's and 60's because coal-powered trains were operating a century beforehand.
Was there email, WWW and usenet in 1970? No? How about access from your home or school?
Heeeeere's your sign: the Internet was not an overnight invention, it was an ongoing process that continues to this day. Did the U.S. government have something to do with it's development? Not just research, but funding and opening up the network to commercial envelopment?
Gore's claim, again, was entirely reasonable to make. But, it's hard to explain something to a guy who's storyline is dependent on his not understanding it.
With all due respect, that isn't what he said, it is your interpretation of what he meant. The two statements (my hypothetical one which fits the facts and the actual quote you name) are different in meaning for any reasonable definition of what is, is.
With all due respect, you're projecting with a cannon. You're ignoring the obvious context of what he was obviously saying and replacing it with one that was invented by Republicans like Dick Army.
And you're still dodging disparity in attention paid to the words coming out of Gore's mouth vs those of his general election opponent. Pedantic hairsplitting of an off-the-cuff response in an interview vs taking credit for legislation you vetoed as governor in a nationally televised debate.
But it looks like you'll keep trying to buildup a molehill rather than look at the mountain.
Did you really say with a straight face to "get over the 2000 election" after continuing to throw Gore under the bus for an even older interview? Really?
I find your lack of self-awareness disturbing.
Now, back to Bush. It was the same election. The only honest response to finding out that Bush took credit for legislation he vetoed, after a decade of ragging on Gore, is:
"Holy shit. The press really dropped the ball on that one. Why have I been harping on this molehill instead of that mountain?"
But that would mean having to be honest, as opposed to clinging to a storyline despite the facts. Like the wingers that still blame Clinton for Waco and Ruby Ridge, nevermind the first started 38 days into Clinton's presidency and the second when the first Bush was still president.
He was accurate. Was the Internet an overnight invention or was it's creation a decades-long process? Heeeeere's your sign. Al Gore took the initiative in that process - it's not like the people of Tennessee were demanding their representatives promote a network of networks, or open it for commercial development.
More than that. The nations of Europe have been pwning the Middle East since before the USA was a superpower.
Absolutely. Another gem: the U.S. getting together with Britain to overthrow Iran's peaceful, secular democracy in 1953 to install a friendly dictator.
But, Al Queda didn't choose to fly their planes into European buildings....old wrongs vs current cornholings....
I don't think Obama has seen fit to release his records on the matter (a cursory google search certainly didn't turn anything factual up, just some debunked rumors), but it certainly seems possible he might have earned an academic scholarship, along with possibly some race-based ones. He might even have fulfilled some Affirmative Action / Diversity type quota.
I'm sure Obama earned many academic scholarships over the course of his life. But his grandmother was still the vice president of a bank. The Dunham's weren't Bush's, and Barack wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth. But they were still a looong way away from "nothing".
Not even that, given the fact that it was an off-the-cuff interview and Gore was explicitly talking about 'taking the initiative' as a member of Congress.
The entire nontroversy was a hit piece from start to finish, and a mark of how pathetic this country is by how many bought into it.
Perhaps there wouldn't be so many clinging to the notion that Al Gore is a buffoon, if he didn't supply so many handles.
Did he supply handles, or were people engaged in anal-gazing on a biblical scale in order to back up a dishonest meme?
Like ragging Gore for saying he accompanied the director of FEMA to a hurricane disaster area because he wasn't on the same physical plane?
Like ragging Gore because the girl without a desk had one the next week - but only because another student had to stand in her place? The latter detail left out of the storyline, of course.
And again, this was all in the same election where Gore's opponent was given a free pass on taking credit for passing legislation that he actually vetoed as governor of Texas.
Not if the context was what Edison was doing as a member of Congress, and that legislation he sponsored helped paved the way for the commercial development of the lightbulb, it's not.
And why all the hair-splitting and microanyalization over an off-the-cuff response to a minor interview, anyway? It's not like Gore was taking credit in a national debate for legislation he actually veteod as governor of Texas.
That was Bush. Who got a free pass. Because the press was too busy obsessing with the Gore "fib factor" meme, facts be damned.
The actual quote was "I took the initiative in creating the internet" which is arguably wrong and (my opinion) a monstrous conceit.
Again, that's actually half the quote.
But it does illustrate the point that if you're gonna rag on someone, be certain of what he actually said.
You don't say.
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Since Gore was speaking from the perspective of a member of the legislative branch, and that the legislation he sponsored opened up NSFNET to commercial development (just a wee bit relevant to the development of the Internet), his claim was entirely fair to make.
"I took the initiative in creating the internet" is not technically sound.
Except that it is, of course. Gore sponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992, which opened NSFNET to commercial development. This was kind of a Big Deal in turning a small government network into the Internet with millions of hosts, so his claim was 1000% reasonable to make.
That Al Gore took the initiative in creating something that already existed.
That's as reasonable as saying that European lawmakers deserve no credit for pushing high speed rail in the 50's and 60's because coal-powered trains were operating a century beforehand.
Obama, like Clinton, are 2 of the very few US presidents who came from *nothing* families
"Nothing" families don't send their kids to the most expensive private schools in the state, the way Obama's grandparents (who raised him after his mother's death) were able to do.
Had he said "I took the initiative in co-authoring legislation to fund some of the backbone hardware in the newly emerging internet", his detractors wouldn't have had a lot to say.
That is what he said. "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
He was explicitly talking about what he did as a Congressman, which by definition would involve legislation. Any why the hairsplitting and microanalyzation of an off-the-cuff response to a techie interview? Why, in the same election, was Bush given a free pass for taking credit for Texas health care legislation that he actually vetoed as governor? In a nationally televised general election debate?
Terrorists try to maximize civilian deaths. The 2003 "shock and awe" campaign tried to minimize civilian deaths while still achieving its military objectives. If you can't see the difference, I am sorry.
American exceptionalists always try to rationalize their hypocrisy. The U.S. has routinely hit economic targets in its various wars of choice, in addition to military ones. Guess what the WTC and the Pentagon are?
Would the lights start to flicker on if you knew that the United States considers "double taps" to be terrorist actions - attacking rescuers responding to a bombing - yet routinely engages in "double taps" overseas?
But Muslims need to stop running around the world blowing up civilians.
You mean killing 168+ children with bombs, bombing weddings, bombing funerals, bombing people trying to rescue those hurt by our bombs, and even bombing people when nobody's even sure who the target is?
Oh wait, that's us. I find your lack of self-awareness disturbing.
Not true. For example, after Gulf War I there was a lot of hostility from the Muslim world when the USA failed to kill Saddam Hussein. At that time the US was considered culpable for "abandoning our allies" and thus justified terrorist revenge.
Horseshit. We got "hostility from the Muslim world" because:
1. We encouraged the Kurds and Shiites to rise up against Saddam, then left them to be slaughtered by Saddam's forces. 2. We killed half a million Iraqi children via sanctions. 3. We set up military bases allll over the region. 4. We talk a lot about supporting "rights" and "freedom" (see: Libya) yet are perfectly happy to support brutal dictatorships if they "support out interests". See: Saudi Arabia, Egypt. 5. Blank-check support for Israel's apartheid regime and land theft.
No offense, but you sound pretty stupid right now.
No offense, but I already know you're used to making a fool out of yourself. Nuclear arms race, heard of it? How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Then there's the already-mentioned ICBM, which was thought up by the Nazi's but first developed and tested by....the United States. Then there's Stuxnet, the first known use of "cyber warfare", released on Iran by Israel....and the United States.
But don't let those facts get in the way of your storyline. It's never stopped you before....
What's that you say? You want to walk down the road of historical pedantry and hairsplitting? Oh, okay.
Then to be really retentive you'd be noting that the Nazi's had the first true intercontinental ballistic missile program, that early Soviet efforts focused on bombing targets in Europe, but the main issue is....the U.S. predated the R-7 with the MX-774 project, with testing, by half a decade.
So, to recap: the U.S. builds the first weapon (ICBM) then squacks and ramps up development of new, better missiles when the Soviets showed they could build and demonstrate similar toys. You were saying?
Someone just busted into an action movie showing and lit people up without them realizing what was happening this morning. Are you under the impression that was particularly HARD until today?
Are you under the impression that bringing guns into a theater is on remotely the same scale as crashing national infrastructure?
Read your own words. Once you yourself have done something extraordinary, isn't THAT as good a time as any to prepare for "it could happen to us"?? Are you sane?
Are you in need of a sense of proportion and the ability to think logically? It's possible that you've never eaten frog legs before but could do that this weekend. It's also possible that you could be the first astronaut to land on Mars.
Of the above scenarios, is there a slight chance that one is more likely to happen, or are they equally possible because they both could "happen"?
SCADA systems all over the country are constantly being probed and attacked. Avery day. IT's not hyperbole at all.
It's total hyperbole. If it was so easy to crash major systems it would have happened already. Then there's the fact that, as with many facets of war, the United States is the first one to use the weapon it pretends it needs defense against. Like nukes, ICBM's, and now "cyber warfare", in Iran with the stuxnet virus.
Or, you could simply stop questioning the skill and expertise of the multimillion dollar marketing department
This guy loves the Koch! He's insatiable!
using good old fashioned supply and demand 101 to determine the price
What on earth are you going on about? Video games are copyrighted and trademarked products, not commodities with multiple suppliers. Ever heard of market collusion? The classic example is an airline that raises prices on a Friday, then checks to see if it's competitors have followed suit by Monday.
Or with cell phones. Do you think that Verizon would have kept their greed, I mean "upgrade" fee if Sprint and AT&T had slashed their fees in response to Verizon's announcement?
So EA "accidentally" lets it slip that they plan on increasing new game fees to $70, then waits to see if Activision and Ubisoft follow suit.
Slashdot Mirror
Or dams, of course. But why let pesky details get in the way of a storyline? Wouldn't be the first time.
Maybe on some other planet where the cops don't look for a lame pretext in order to arrest/detain/search you. Disorderly conduct, "looks suspicious", drug dogs that could never pass a double-blind test....
Do you still have that bandana? We detonated two nukes on Russia's eastern doorstep. Can you say with a straight face that that did not give the Russians an immediate desire to develop their own nuclear weapons ASAP? How about testing ICBM missiles capable of dropping said nukes on Russian soil in half an hour?
Were you dropped on the head as a child? Serious question. The entire point here is the fact that the U.S. has a long history of whining about how we need to be able to defend ourselves from Scary Weapon XYZ when were the first to develop and sometimes use Scary Weapon XYZ.
Yesterday, it was nukes and ICBM's. Today, it's "cyber-warfare" and drone attacks. And we're giving other nations an immediate and obvious incentive to obtain the same sort of weapons for themselves.
Then we hear politicians on TV whining about how we need to increase defense spending to defend ourselves from "cyber-warfare", never mentioning who let the cat out of the bag in the first place.
Since you skipped over it the first time:
That's as reasonable as saying that European lawmakers deserve no credit for pushing high speed rail in the 50's and 60's because coal-powered trains were operating a century beforehand.
Was there email, WWW and usenet in 1970? No? How about access from your home or school?
Heeeeere's your sign: the Internet was not an overnight invention, it was an ongoing process that continues to this day. Did the U.S. government have something to do with it's development? Not just research, but funding and opening up the network to commercial envelopment?
Gore's claim, again, was entirely reasonable to make. But, it's hard to explain something to a guy who's storyline is dependent on his not understanding it.
With all due respect, you're projecting with a cannon. You're ignoring the obvious context of what he was obviously saying and replacing it with one that was invented by Republicans like Dick Army.
And you're still dodging disparity in attention paid to the words coming out of Gore's mouth vs those of his general election opponent. Pedantic hairsplitting of an off-the-cuff response in an interview vs taking credit for legislation you vetoed as governor in a nationally televised debate.
But it looks like you'll keep trying to buildup a molehill rather than look at the mountain.
Did you really say with a straight face to "get over the 2000 election" after continuing to throw Gore under the bus for an even older interview? Really?
I find your lack of self-awareness disturbing.
Now, back to Bush. It was the same election. The only honest response to finding out that Bush took credit for legislation he vetoed, after a decade of ragging on Gore, is:
"Holy shit. The press really dropped the ball on that one. Why have I been harping on this molehill instead of that mountain?"
But that would mean having to be honest, as opposed to clinging to a storyline despite the facts. Like the wingers that still blame Clinton for Waco and Ruby Ridge, nevermind the first started 38 days into Clinton's presidency and the second when the first Bush was still president.
He was accurate. Was the Internet an overnight invention or was it's creation a decades-long process? Heeeeere's your sign. Al Gore took the initiative in that process - it's not like the people of Tennessee were demanding their representatives promote a network of networks, or open it for commercial development.
Absolutely. Another gem: the U.S. getting together with Britain to overthrow Iran's peaceful, secular democracy in 1953 to install a friendly dictator.
But, Al Queda didn't choose to fly their planes into European buildings....old wrongs vs current cornholings....
I'm sure Obama earned many academic scholarships over the course of his life. But his grandmother was still the vice president of a bank. The Dunham's weren't Bush's, and Barack wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth. But they were still a looong way away from "nothing".
Not even that, given the fact that it was an off-the-cuff interview and Gore was explicitly talking about 'taking the initiative' as a member of Congress.
The entire nontroversy was a hit piece from start to finish, and a mark of how pathetic this country is by how many bought into it.
Did he supply handles, or were people engaged in anal-gazing on a biblical scale in order to back up a dishonest meme?
Like ragging Gore for saying he accompanied the director of FEMA to a hurricane disaster area because he wasn't on the same physical plane?
Like ragging Gore because the girl without a desk had one the next week - but only because another student had to stand in her place? The latter detail left out of the storyline, of course.
And again, this was all in the same election where Gore's opponent was given a free pass on taking credit for passing legislation that he actually vetoed as governor of Texas.
Not if the context was what Edison was doing as a member of Congress, and that legislation he sponsored helped paved the way for the commercial development of the lightbulb, it's not.
And why all the hair-splitting and microanyalization over an off-the-cuff response to a minor interview, anyway? It's not like Gore was taking credit in a national debate for legislation he actually veteod as governor of Texas.
That was Bush. Who got a free pass. Because the press was too busy obsessing with the Gore "fib factor" meme, facts be damned.
Again, that's actually half the quote.
You don't say.
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Since Gore was speaking from the perspective of a member of the legislative branch, and that the legislation he sponsored opened up NSFNET to commercial development (just a wee bit relevant to the development of the Internet), his claim was entirely fair to make.
Except that it is, of course. Gore sponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992, which opened NSFNET to commercial development. This was kind of a Big Deal in turning a small government network into the Internet with millions of hosts, so his claim was 1000% reasonable to make.
That's as reasonable as saying that European lawmakers deserve no credit for pushing high speed rail in the 50's and 60's because coal-powered trains were operating a century beforehand.
"Nothing" families don't send their kids to the most expensive private schools in the state, the way Obama's grandparents (who raised him after his mother's death) were able to do.
What is there to apologize for?
That is what he said. "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
He was explicitly talking about what he did as a Congressman, which by definition would involve legislation. Any why the hairsplitting and microanalyzation of an off-the-cuff response to a techie interview? Why, in the same election, was Bush given a free pass for taking credit for Texas health care legislation that he actually vetoed as governor? In a nationally televised general election debate?
American exceptionalists always try to rationalize their hypocrisy. The U.S. has routinely hit economic targets in its various wars of choice, in addition to military ones. Guess what the WTC and the Pentagon are?
Would the lights start to flicker on if you knew that the United States considers "double taps" to be terrorist actions - attacking rescuers responding to a bombing - yet routinely engages in "double taps" overseas?
You mean killing 168+ children with bombs, bombing weddings, bombing funerals, bombing people trying to rescue those hurt by our bombs, and even bombing people when nobody's even sure who the target is?
Oh wait, that's us. I find your lack of self-awareness disturbing.
Horseshit. We got "hostility from the Muslim world" because:
1. We encouraged the Kurds and Shiites to rise up against Saddam, then left them to be slaughtered by Saddam's forces.
2. We killed half a million Iraqi children via sanctions.
3. We set up military bases allll over the region.
4. We talk a lot about supporting "rights" and "freedom" (see: Libya) yet are perfectly happy to support brutal dictatorships if they "support out interests". See: Saudi Arabia, Egypt.
5. Blank-check support for Israel's apartheid regime and land theft.
No offense, but I already know you're used to making a fool out of yourself. Nuclear arms race, heard of it? How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Then there's the already-mentioned ICBM, which was thought up by the Nazi's but first developed and tested by....the United States. Then there's Stuxnet, the first known use of "cyber warfare", released on Iran by Israel....and the United States.
But don't let those facts get in the way of your storyline. It's never stopped you before....
What's that you say? You want to walk down the road of historical pedantry and hairsplitting? Oh, okay.
Then to be really retentive you'd be noting that the Nazi's had the first true intercontinental ballistic missile program, that early Soviet efforts focused on bombing targets in Europe, but the main issue is....the U.S. predated the R-7 with the MX-774 project, with testing, by half a decade.
So, to recap: the U.S. builds the first weapon (ICBM) then squacks and ramps up development of new, better missiles when the Soviets showed they could build and demonstrate similar toys. You were saying?
Are you under the impression that bringing guns into a theater is on remotely the same scale as crashing national infrastructure?
Are you in need of a sense of proportion and the ability to think logically? It's possible that you've never eaten frog legs before but could do that this weekend. It's also possible that you could be the first astronaut to land on Mars.
Of the above scenarios, is there a slight chance that one is more likely to happen, or are they equally possible because they both could "happen"?
It's total hyperbole. If it was so easy to crash major systems it would have happened already. Then there's the fact that, as with many facets of war, the United States is the first one to use the weapon it pretends it needs defense against. Like nukes, ICBM's, and now "cyber warfare", in Iran with the stuxnet virus.
Obvious bigot is obvious.
This guy loves the Koch! He's insatiable!
What on earth are you going on about? Video games are copyrighted and trademarked products, not commodities with multiple suppliers. Ever heard of market collusion? The classic example is an airline that raises prices on a Friday, then checks to see if it's competitors have followed suit by Monday.
Or with cell phones. Do you think that Verizon would have kept their greed, I mean "upgrade" fee if Sprint and AT&T had slashed their fees in response to Verizon's announcement?
So EA "accidentally" lets it slip that they plan on increasing new game fees to $70, then waits to see if Activision and Ubisoft follow suit.