From the article: Points, ammunition and more weapons are awarded for completing missions that include stealing cars, crashing them, shooting pedestrians and other motorists, drug dealing and beating up prostitutes.
Good thing they aren't trying to make the game look bad, or anything. Just so you who have not played the game know, while you *can* do all the things mentioned above, the missions don't require you to do more than steal cars (sometimes), sling dope (in GTA:VC, on an extra mission that isn't required to beat the main story) and shoot criminals (you are never required to kill a random pedestrian or motorist in a mission, nor are you ever required to kill a policeman) and while there is one mission requiring you to beat up a pimp, there's no mission which requires you to beat up a prostitute. It is true that jacking cars is a crime, and so is killing criminals (slinging dope, while criminal, is not in the same league). That is enough of a basis for argument about the game, but making it sound worse than it is doesn't really help anything. The mere fact that you *can* do bad things is irrelevant, unless you wish to argue that everyone on the planet should be locked up because they *could* kill other people, if they wanted to.
Now, for those of you out there who are up in arms because stealing cars and killing criminals is bad enough, please remember that you have to be of age to purchase this game. By the time kids are legally allowed to buy this game, they can also watch NC-17 movies and have probably been watching R-rated movies for years and years, in which stealing cars and killing criminals (and cops, and innocent people) is not only routine but by now ennui-inducing. Anyone who shoots random people in real life has more problems than what video game they're playing. Opponents of video games would have you believe that children are incapable of distinguishing between tv and real life. The mere fact that people entertain this ridiculous supposition is evidence enough that our society is out of control. When I was a child, I played many video games, and not once did I believe that they were anything more than games. I've been a fan of television for my entire life, and I've never once confused a tv character with the actor. Never have I known anyone who did not know that tv characters are just pretend. I once asked my (then) 3-year-old niece if she thought the genie from Aladdin would come visit her, and she replied 'no, he's just on tv, silly!' Please, people. Use common sense.
This isn't a cup of boiling hot coffee in the lap that resulted in 3rd degree burns. You shouldn't sue when it's your own fucking fault for being stupid.
Opening one of those cheap cups of boiling hot coffee over your lap doesn't count as stupidity? You're much more generous than I.
(oh, and can they put the heavy power supply at the bottom of the case with the new design... and the processor UNDER the expansion cards, and... and... mebbe something like the form factor that Apple are using for their G5)
There is a very good reason for putting the power supply at the top of the case. Hot air rises, and that's where the fan can be most effective as a vent fan. Also, the power supply puts out quite a bit of its own heat, which is better to have near the top of the case.
It's also the newest media outlet--its unregulated because large slow-moving beaurocracies (eg. goverments and multinational corporations) haven't figured out how to do so. Yet.
I bet when they do, it'll be to help 'diversity' or 'freedom' or 'starving children' or whatever concept they need to jam their ideas onto the internet at large. Once the bandwidth increases to the extent that we start seeing 'Joe Blow's News Channel' and 'Mary Popular's All-Cooking Channel' and 50 million other homebrew channels, if the government hasn't trampled all over the internet already by then, it will come down with both feet. Our government doesn't want people to actually use their free speech, because then you might criticize the President or disagree with Trent Lott or call Lieberman a hypocrite and that would be anarchy.
Or maybe you have 5 news channels, all with the same type of output?
Umm. You mean like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC? Gee, I wonder what it'd be like if that happened.
If you have one opinion spewed from five different channels, then yes, people WILL watch it.
Why do you assume that? There are other places to get news. (hint: you've posted to at least one)
And no, that's isn't a good thing and it doesn't reflect people's views.
Sure it does. It reflects the views of the writers, and most likely the program directors and the anchors as well. It doesn't reflect all 300 million Americans' points of view, and guess what? Nothing ever will.
The problem with a news show is the way they can manipulate views is very subtle.
Damn. If you think the bias/spin major media outlets put onto stories is 'subtle', I can't help you. It stands out like neon in the night sky to me.
They can selectively report - something that goes on enough as it is - and present stories in a certain light, in order to be more sympathetic towards whatever party, company, whatever...
That's called 'human nature'. Everyone does it every day. Next time your boss asks how your project is going, try to be completely objective, not minimising problems nor maxmimizing accomplishments, not trying to make yourself sound better (at the expense of others or not) and see how well it works. We're opinionated creatures, and spinning is as natural as breathing to most people. The funny part is when people tell you they're completely objective.
THAT is why diversity must be guarenteed.
Please tell me how limiting what people can say and how they can spend their money is 'guaranteeing diversity'. If you want diversity, start your own network. No one's stopping you. Before you tell me it can't be done, go try it. Put everything you have into it, and see if it can be done or not before you whine to me about how hard it is.
Moveon is no different than all the others and so from that perspective is equally deserving of respect.
That's your problem. They are not worthy of respect. Neither is any corrupt official, neither is any official who uses his/her power to further his/her own ends. I realize that your statement can be literally taken to mean 'equally underserving of respect', however that's not the inference made from your phrasing. Giving *any* respect to corrupt assholes only prepetuates the problem. Voting 'none of the above' in races where no candidate of true character is running is a preferable option to giving the theives the keys to the castle.
As for the regulatory wall, let me ask you another question: would the car companies be building cars as safe as they are now, if safety regulations weren't in place? Would fuel efficiency be as high as it is now? I would argue not, and the country would be worse off for it.
So what you are basically saying is that if not for benevolent government riding those car companies' asses, they'd all make deathtraps? I mean, if a consumer had (say) 9 or 10 american car companies to choose from, not one of them would make a safe car if not for government? Consumers would just continue to buy unsafe cars, rather than buying cars from companies who were proven to make safe cars? You appear to exhibit a very common symptom among big government lovers: you feel that 'the public' or 'the masses' are all complete idiots. Yet to me, you're one of 'the public' and 'the masses' and I don't feel that you're inherently stupid. I wouldn't buy a car known to be a deathtrap, no matter what sort of government regulations were in place. When purchasing a new car, I look for many things, including fuel efficiency and safety. If not for government regulation, I'd...still look for the same things. Regulations are not a guarantee of action anyway, and pretending that regulations should be considered to be more important than facts is ridiculous. Knowing that regulations are in place make people feel safer, but don't really make them safer. Ask the Enron employees and stockholders how the heavy regulation of corporate accounting practices helped them.
Economies of scale ARE a factor, and they unfairly favor the big guys.
Do you know how much it costs to comply with government regulations? (note: I'm not talking about the cost for safety equipment and the like, simply proving that you meet the regulations is expensive) Companies that would be able to put out a lesser product (with its commensurately lower price) are barred from building themselves up precisely because they can't afford to toe the regulatory line, and those who are big enough to easily afford to do so are also big enough to trivially manipulate the regulations (or their appearance of meeting them), in which case the consumer feels a safety that is illusory. Here is an analogy which may be helpful: A person lost in the woods with only a small knife has no illusion of safety, and thus must proceed with extreme caution in order to survive. A person equipped with a rifle (and its feeling of safety) would be less likely to see the water moccasin in the damn leaves. An illusion of safety leads to decreased vigilance. For example, you know that the car industry is heavily regulated. Therefore, I doubt you checked crash statistics or safety studies before you bought your last car. Are you really safer relying on regulations than you are relying on yourself? Personally, I'd say no.
Score 1 for democracy (for the moment, at least...)!
Score one for oligarchy, you mean. A small minority is offended by what's on tv, and by the fact that a point of view they don't share dominates popular culture at the moment, and by the fact that people like pop music and don't really care (en masse) if radio stations play the same crap (because they're still tuning into it, and sponsors are still having success with ad campaigns). Since said small minority knows that they can't win without help, they call on their pocket pols to back them up, and since many pols on both sides of the imaginary fence have been taking a lot of flak in the media lately, they push this crap through. Government by the few has a different name than democracy.
This is great news. I was dreading Fox News spewing their bile everywhere. If Rupert Murdoch is legally allowed to take over all the media, he WILL. It would have been an Orwellian disaster (it's close to it already) if this wasn't voted down.
You people are funny. Pols are tired of getting slammed in the media, so they work to more heavily regulate the media. Wow, what a victory for free speech. You idiots. The companies that prosper in the media do so because they can sell ad time (or monthly charges for no-commercial cable channels like HBO and Showtime) and because...wait for it... people tune into them. Now, I don't like pop drivel like Britney Aguilera or the crappy 'reality' shows, but (and I know this concept will be completely ignored here, but I've to try) my opinions should not be made into law, and neither should yours. If people didn't want to watch Fox, it wouldn't exist right now. Rupert has so much money because he gives people what they want....and just because you or I don't like it, more heavily regulating the media isn't good for anyone. Just because you don't like something does not mean it should be illegal, or no one would be legally allowed to eat cranberries, because I'm allergic to them. Think of how you'd feel if some pop-infected teeny bopper got a law passed that made all non-pop music subject to stringent regulation. That wouldn't be very fun for you, would it? Of course not. What these senators are doing is wrong, what the FCC does in regulating communication is wrong, it's all unconstitutional anyways. Free speech was intended to be just that, excepting cases of national interest or public safety. I think it's quite a stretch to equate 'equal time' (shea, right) with national interest or public safety. Let the clearchannels of the world push pop pap onto the masses until they can't take it anymore, and then their dominance will be ended and soon forgotten. Adding (or re-adding) regulation doesn't further our cause of liberty, it flies in its face. Now, I know a bunch of you out there are literally afraid that one company will come to own every single tv and radio station as well as every single newspaper. However, there are enough rich liberals out there, if they wanted to, they'd be free to start their own network. If their network wasn't financially viable, it would fold. That's how things are supposed to work in this country. Sometimes people like things you don't like. Sometimes people say things you don't agree with. The beauty of this country is supposed to be that we're all free to like what we want and say what we want without worrying how others feel about it. Oh well, this nation was at one time a shining example of what to do. Now it's more a comedy of errors, and it won't be long before we slip into tragedy.
That Billy boy can get some lawyers, buy some politicians, and get his way is nothing new. Granted this is just a semi-innocent way of getting his fun little toy legal. However, since this just continues to show a pattern in his M.O., we should worry about what the next law will be that he doesn't like.
I hope it's the drug laws. They cost us more in money and lives than any other laws we have.
Sorry, that bit about the quotation marks was some apparently failed humor.
My mistake. I'm not used to looking for humor on/. that doesn't have ??? or 'welcome, overlords' somewhere in it.
To the rest of your post: well said. I personally would like to see the U.S. take on the role so often thrust upon us, that of world police force, to remove others like saddam from power. However, having said that, I wouldn't feel comfortable with this particular administration carrying that duty out.
Hello? Can you read? Read the sentence you quoted again. See the second last word: armed.
Right. And you were using 'peacekeeper' to insinuate nonviolence. I'm not confusing 'definition' and 'use', just making a point regarding military = violence (controlled violence, hopefully) while you were pretending that 'peacekeepers' aren't in any way associated with violence. Sorry that you missed my point. Better luck next time.
But you then assume that being armed is synonymous with attacking people or countries.
No, that's your bias. I assume that being armed is synonymous with potential violence. Not the same thing at all. Remember that the tanks in Tienemen Square were part of a 'peacekeeping' force. (and they restored the status quo, or 'peace', in which everyone is a good little government follower. How 'civilized' and 'peaceful'.)
It seems all you associate militaries with is attacking other people.
Nope, just violently applying force to them. Again, it's a subtle difference that you have appeared to miss.
Peacekeeping, defense, and policing are legitimate uses of military, and most would agree is more civilized uses.
All of the above, again, require controlled force. You put up the definition of 'peace', and nowhere in it did I see a reference to using force, or violence.
The fact that you don't understand the concept of what peacekeeping is and what they do,
apparently I understand it better than you do.
... and that militaries are only for attacking people,
You're projecting again.
... is exactly the type of attitude that most of the world despises and refers to as "warmongering".
Really? Most of the world despises warmongers? Wow, I suppose history is full of rulers and countries that are aberrations. Personally, I'd prefer it if there weren't any warmongers on this planet, but a good deal of the real world (as opposed to your ivory tower rose-colored pretentious worldview) is led by extremely warlike and aggressive people. Of course, you wouldn't see that, because I'm sure your world consists of CNN and al-jazeera and 30 second sound bites from UN meetings. You might take a look at say, the middle east, africa, or asia sometime. They're part of the world, and warmongers are extremely popular in those places. Of course, those people aren't predominantly white, so I'm sure you don't consider them 'civilized'.
Actually, he was referring to the difference between the Canadian term, peacekeeping, and the American term, "peacekeeping". From what I gathered from his original comment, the word, peacekeeping isn't a euphemism in Canada, but the actual definition of their preferred military strategy. We Americans often misspell our version of the word by leaving off the quotes.... Peacekeeping as a military strategy is based primarily on attempting to determine whether or not the aggravator can be reasoned with before you pull the trigger.
What is the U.S. definition? You don't seem to feel that the U.S. employs diplomacy. Are you implying that people such as Bin Laden and Hussein can be reasoned with? Perhaps you are implying that as long as a tyrant's depredations remain confined to one country, "peace" is maintained. I understand that through the magic of text, my tone cannot be deduced from my inflection. I am sincerely curious, although I realize that the phrasing of the above betrays my bias. If you would prefer, and in order not to go *too* far offtopic, I am always willing to discuss over email. I can be reached at my slashdot username @ hotmail.
Ahhh yes. The past, when Canadia was not yet America Lite(tm). How you must miss those halcyon days. Of course, back then it was the Brits calling the shots, so we didn't really try to invade Canadia, per se, as much as we were trying to take land away from the British, and couching it in distinctly anti-British terms. The Brits drove us out of Canadia, not the mounties. It's not likely that, at any point in history, if Canadia were a sovereign nation it could stand up to the US. Of course, Canadia has gone from being a watered-down Europe to being a watered-down America, and there's no reason for us to bother messing with our poseur neighbors. It's not like Canadian beer is hard to come by, and all the talented Canadians move here anyways; if only they'd stop letting the non-talented Canadians in, everything would be perfect
And what do they 'enforce the peace' with? Flowers? Trying to dress up any military organization by calling them 'peacekeepers' or 'peace enforcers' or 'anti-war engineers' or whatever's PC these days doesn't change what armed forces do. They carry guns because they use them to kill people. That's what armed forces have done since they were invented, and what they'll continue to do unless and until the entire world, with no dissenters at all, decides to stop attacking each other, and to stop preying upon each other. Saying "oh the US is bad because they have 'armed forces' while we have 'peace keepers' in Canada" is misleading.
Not all of us fly first class.... I have never been able to attain anything close to horizontal in any of the commuter flights I've taken.
It's a new American Airlines thing. As well as telling us that.75" is 'more legroom', now they're telling us that a 1 degree tilt is 'horizontal'. When pressed, they say defensively, 'Well, it's not totally vertical anymore.'
Yes, but their primary role for some time has been peace-keeping.
That's a kind way to describe getting loaded on molson ice and fucking moose.
Whoops. Forgot about the language barrier. For you Canadians:
Main Entry: military Function: adjective
1 a : of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war b : of or relating to armed forces; especially : of or relating to ground or sometimes ground and air forces as opposed to naval forces 2 a : performed or made by armed forces b : supported by armed force 3 : of or relating to the army
Weird, I don't see anything about 'peace' in the definition of 'military'. Hint: if there was ever such a thing as lasting peace, there'd be no need for any military force. However, human nature continues to produce a need for military forces. Perhaps, in America Junior, you don't see it because what country in their right mind would want to take over Canadia? I mean, even with Canadia right next door, the U.S. hasn't invaded, so you KNOW it isn't worth invading.
There's an Australia Landing in MS. Also, Texas is a town in Australia. Of course, Americans aren't supposed to know things like that. We all know that no Americans can point to Australia on a map, and that everyone outside the US can fill in an unmarked globe with 100% accuracy, because it's as simple as Americans and everything American bad, anything not American good. It always amuses me when people with that attitude stereotype Americans as simple-minded.
the Turbo Diesel engines can run off of Bio Diesel too!!!
And with very little tinkering, they can run off used fry oil from fast food joints, too. That'll stop you complaining about the high cost of gas prices! (not 'you' meaning the poster but the ephemeral 'you' who converts their diesel to use fry oil) Plus it makes your exhaust smell like a french fry factory.
The point of it being that it was *simmilar to* the kit Sony is selling, and has been for some time, for developing purposes.
Besides, its just fun for some to push normal objects to do more than they were supposed to do.
Gives people Ideas on what to create next sometimes.
Wow. So some people 'innovated' and copied sony. Yay for them. I'm all for people's right to do whatever stupid thing they want with linux, as long as I'm not expected to praise them, like it's some noteworthy accomplishment. 'Look! We did what sony did, only very slightly differently!' (Please, no 'direct hardware acces is so much totally cooler', it's the same basic thing, and it's useless either way.) How is getting a ps2 to run linux pushing it harder than it was supposed to be pushed? It is a computer. linux has run on computers since, well, it came out. Wow! You got 'linux' to run on a 'computer'! You're a genius!
Gives people Ideas on what to create next sometimes.
What? A game console that can run xclock? Yay! Where do I sign up? Please. Besides, sony did this already. I guess now people can 'innovate' and get turbolinux running on the ps2, and we can see another story about it here. Whee.
Actually, just because it *can* be done IS the reason to do it.
Notice I didn't say 'just because it can be done doesn't mean it shouldn't ever'. If you use your reasoning to explain the first ever climb of everest, fine. But using it to explain why people put linux on a ps2, which we all know is basically a dedicated computer, is ridiculous. Doing something completely new is one thing, rehashing a tired concept for no purpose is another. There's no point, as making linux run on a computer has, to put it bluntly, been done before. Turning a good game console into a poor linux box is dumb. Sorry. I don't give kudos to people just because they work hard. We all work hard, and I don't see you giving props to the people working very hard to make the world's biggest ball of tin foil. (at least I don't. I save my props for people doing original stuff, or at least useful stuff.) Again, just because it's effort doesn't mean it's praiseworthy. Just because it's doable doesn't mean it should be done. Get linux running on one of those handheld football games from the 60s if you want my respect.
Now I can have another useless linux box. Oh, look, the system I used to play games on now just sits there contributing to my distributed.net score just like the 3 or 4 other useless linux boxes I have sitting around. Yay. Here's an idea: spend the 180 bucks it costs to buy a ps2 on a p3 or old AMD box instead and it'll run linux better than the ps2, and then you can play ps2 games on your ps2. Just because something *can* be done does not mean there's any real point to doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article: Points, ammunition and more weapons are awarded for completing missions that include stealing cars, crashing them, shooting pedestrians and other motorists, drug dealing and beating up prostitutes.
Good thing they aren't trying to make the game look bad, or anything. Just so you who have not played the game know, while you *can* do all the things mentioned above, the missions don't require you to do more than steal cars (sometimes), sling dope (in GTA:VC, on an extra mission that isn't required to beat the main story) and shoot criminals (you are never required to kill a random pedestrian or motorist in a mission, nor are you ever required to kill a policeman) and while there is one mission requiring you to beat up a pimp, there's no mission which requires you to beat up a prostitute. It is true that jacking cars is a crime, and so is killing criminals (slinging dope, while criminal, is not in the same league). That is enough of a basis for argument about the game, but making it sound worse than it is doesn't really help anything. The mere fact that you *can* do bad things is irrelevant, unless you wish to argue that everyone on the planet should be locked up because they *could* kill other people, if they wanted to.
Now, for those of you out there who are up in arms because stealing cars and killing criminals is bad enough, please remember that you have to be of age to purchase this game. By the time kids are legally allowed to buy this game, they can also watch NC-17 movies and have probably been watching R-rated movies for years and years, in which stealing cars and killing criminals (and cops, and innocent people) is not only routine but by now ennui-inducing. Anyone who shoots random people in real life has more problems than what video game they're playing. Opponents of video games would have you believe that children are incapable of distinguishing between tv and real life. The mere fact that people entertain this ridiculous supposition is evidence enough that our society is out of control. When I was a child, I played many video games, and not once did I believe that they were anything more than games. I've been a fan of television for my entire life, and I've never once confused a tv character with the actor. Never have I known anyone who did not know that tv characters are just pretend. I once asked my (then) 3-year-old niece if she thought the genie from Aladdin would come visit her, and she replied 'no, he's just on tv, silly!' Please, people. Use common sense.
This isn't a cup of boiling hot coffee in the lap that resulted in 3rd degree burns. You shouldn't sue when it's your own fucking fault for being stupid.
Opening one of those cheap cups of boiling hot coffee over your lap doesn't count as stupidity? You're much more generous than I.
A buffer overflow in sendmail? Who woulda thought it?
(oh, and can they put the heavy power supply at the bottom of the case with the new design ... and the processor UNDER the expansion cards, and ... and ... mebbe something like the form factor that Apple are using for their G5)
There is a very good reason for putting the power supply at the top of the case. Hot air rises, and that's where the fan can be most effective as a vent fan. Also, the power supply puts out quite a bit of its own heat, which is better to have near the top of the case.
It's also the newest media outlet--its unregulated because large slow-moving beaurocracies (eg. goverments and multinational corporations) haven't figured out how to do so. Yet.
I bet when they do, it'll be to help 'diversity' or 'freedom' or 'starving children' or whatever concept they need to jam their ideas onto the internet at large. Once the bandwidth increases to the extent that we start seeing 'Joe Blow's News Channel' and 'Mary Popular's All-Cooking Channel' and 50 million other homebrew channels, if the government hasn't trampled all over the internet already by then, it will come down with both feet. Our government doesn't want people to actually use their free speech, because then you might criticize the President or disagree with Trent Lott or call Lieberman a hypocrite and that would be anarchy.
Or maybe you have 5 news channels, all with the same type of output?
Umm. You mean like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC? Gee, I wonder what it'd be like if that happened.
If you have one opinion spewed from five different channels, then yes, people WILL watch it.
Why do you assume that? There are other places to get news. (hint: you've posted to at least one)
And no, that's isn't a good thing and it doesn't reflect people's views.
Sure it does. It reflects the views of the writers, and most likely the program directors and the anchors as well. It doesn't reflect all 300 million Americans' points of view, and guess what? Nothing ever will.
The problem with a news show is the way they can manipulate views is very subtle.
Damn. If you think the bias/spin major media outlets put onto stories is 'subtle', I can't help you. It stands out like neon in the night sky to me.
They can selectively report - something that goes on enough as it is - and present stories in a certain light, in order to be more sympathetic towards whatever party, company, whatever...
That's called 'human nature'. Everyone does it every day. Next time your boss asks how your project is going, try to be completely objective, not minimising problems nor maxmimizing accomplishments, not trying to make yourself sound better (at the expense of others or not) and see how well it works. We're opinionated creatures, and spinning is as natural as breathing to most people. The funny part is when people tell you they're completely objective.
THAT is why diversity must be guarenteed.
Please tell me how limiting what people can say and how they can spend their money is 'guaranteeing diversity'. If you want diversity, start your own network. No one's stopping you. Before you tell me it can't be done, go try it. Put everything you have into it, and see if it can be done or not before you whine to me about how hard it is.
Moveon is no different than all the others and so from that perspective is equally deserving of respect.
That's your problem. They are not worthy of respect. Neither is any corrupt official, neither is any official who uses his/her power to further his/her own ends. I realize that your statement can be literally taken to mean 'equally underserving of respect', however that's not the inference made from your phrasing. Giving *any* respect to corrupt assholes only prepetuates the problem. Voting 'none of the above' in races where no candidate of true character is running is a preferable option to giving the theives the keys to the castle.
As for the regulatory wall, let me ask you another question: would the car companies be building cars as safe as they are now, if safety regulations weren't in place? Would fuel efficiency be as high as it is now? I would argue not, and the country would be worse off for it.
So what you are basically saying is that if not for benevolent government riding those car companies' asses, they'd all make deathtraps? I mean, if a consumer had (say) 9 or 10 american car companies to choose from, not one of them would make a safe car if not for government? Consumers would just continue to buy unsafe cars, rather than buying cars from companies who were proven to make safe cars? You appear to exhibit a very common symptom among big government lovers: you feel that 'the public' or 'the masses' are all complete idiots. Yet to me, you're one of 'the public' and 'the masses' and I don't feel that you're inherently stupid. I wouldn't buy a car known to be a deathtrap, no matter what sort of government regulations were in place. When purchasing a new car, I look for many things, including fuel efficiency and safety. If not for government regulation, I'd...still look for the same things. Regulations are not a guarantee of action anyway, and pretending that regulations should be considered to be more important than facts is ridiculous. Knowing that regulations are in place make people feel safer, but don't really make them safer. Ask the Enron employees and stockholders how the heavy regulation of corporate accounting practices helped them.
Economies of scale ARE a factor, and they unfairly favor the big guys.
Do you know how much it costs to comply with government regulations? (note: I'm not talking about the cost for safety equipment and the like, simply proving that you meet the regulations is expensive) Companies that would be able to put out a lesser product (with its commensurately lower price) are barred from building themselves up precisely because they can't afford to toe the regulatory line, and those who are big enough to easily afford to do so are also big enough to trivially manipulate the regulations (or their appearance of meeting them), in which case the consumer feels a safety that is illusory. Here is an analogy which may be helpful: A person lost in the woods with only a small knife has no illusion of safety, and thus must proceed with extreme caution in order to survive. A person equipped with a rifle (and its feeling of safety) would be less likely to see the water moccasin in the damn leaves. An illusion of safety leads to decreased vigilance. For example, you know that the car industry is heavily regulated. Therefore, I doubt you checked crash statistics or safety studies before you bought your last car. Are you really safer relying on regulations than you are relying on yourself? Personally, I'd say no.
Score 1 for democracy (for the moment, at least...)!
Score one for oligarchy, you mean. A small minority is offended by what's on tv, and by the fact that a point of view they don't share dominates popular culture at the moment, and by the fact that people like pop music and don't really care (en masse) if radio stations play the same crap (because they're still tuning into it, and sponsors are still having success with ad campaigns). Since said small minority knows that they can't win without help, they call on their pocket pols to back them up, and since many pols on both sides of the imaginary fence have been taking a lot of flak in the media lately, they push this crap through. Government by the few has a different name than democracy.
This is great news. I was dreading Fox News spewing their bile everywhere. If Rupert Murdoch is legally allowed to take over all the media, he WILL. It would have been an Orwellian disaster (it's close to it already) if this wasn't voted down.
...wait for it... people tune into them. Now, I don't like pop drivel like Britney Aguilera or the crappy 'reality' shows, but (and I know this concept will be completely ignored here, but I've to try) my opinions should not be made into law, and neither should yours. If people didn't want to watch Fox, it wouldn't exist right now. Rupert has so much money because he gives people what they want....and just because you or I don't like it, more heavily regulating the media isn't good for anyone. Just because you don't like something does not mean it should be illegal, or no one would be legally allowed to eat cranberries, because I'm allergic to them. Think of how you'd feel if some pop-infected teeny bopper got a law passed that made all non-pop music subject to stringent regulation. That wouldn't be very fun for you, would it? Of course not. What these senators are doing is wrong, what the FCC does in regulating communication is wrong, it's all unconstitutional anyways. Free speech was intended to be just that, excepting cases of national interest or public safety. I think it's quite a stretch to equate 'equal time' (shea, right) with national interest or public safety. Let the clearchannels of the world push pop pap onto the masses until they can't take it anymore, and then their dominance will be ended and soon forgotten. Adding (or re-adding) regulation doesn't further our cause of liberty, it flies in its face.
You people are funny. Pols are tired of getting slammed in the media, so they work to more heavily regulate the media. Wow, what a victory for free speech. You idiots. The companies that prosper in the media do so because they can sell ad time (or monthly charges for no-commercial cable channels like HBO and Showtime) and because
Now, I know a bunch of you out there are literally afraid that one company will come to own every single tv and radio station as well as every single newspaper. However, there are enough rich liberals out there, if they wanted to, they'd be free to start their own network. If their network wasn't financially viable, it would fold. That's how things are supposed to work in this country. Sometimes people like things you don't like. Sometimes people say things you don't agree with. The beauty of this country is supposed to be that we're all free to like what we want and say what we want without worrying how others feel about it. Oh well, this nation was at one time a shining example of what to do. Now it's more a comedy of errors, and it won't be long before we slip into tragedy.
That Billy boy can get some lawyers, buy some politicians, and get his way is nothing new. Granted this is just a semi-innocent way of getting his fun little toy legal. However, since this just continues to show a pattern in his M.O., we should worry about what the next law will be that he doesn't like.
I hope it's the drug laws. They cost us more in money and lives than any other laws we have.
Sorry, that bit about the quotation marks was some apparently failed humor.
/. that doesn't have ??? or 'welcome, overlords' somewhere in it.
My mistake. I'm not used to looking for humor on
To the rest of your post: well said. I personally would like to see the U.S. take on the role so often thrust upon us, that of world police force, to remove others like saddam from power. However, having said that, I wouldn't feel comfortable with this particular administration carrying that duty out.
Hello? Can you read? Read the sentence you quoted again. See the second last word: armed.
... and that militaries are only for attacking people,
... is exactly the type of attitude that most of the world despises and refers to as "warmongering".
Right. And you were using 'peacekeeper' to insinuate nonviolence. I'm not confusing 'definition' and 'use', just making a point regarding military = violence (controlled violence, hopefully) while you were pretending that 'peacekeepers' aren't in any way associated with violence. Sorry that you missed my point. Better luck next time.
But you then assume that being armed is synonymous with attacking people or countries.
No, that's your bias. I assume that being armed is synonymous with potential violence. Not the same thing at all. Remember that the tanks in Tienemen Square were part of a 'peacekeeping' force. (and they restored the status quo, or 'peace', in which everyone is a good little government follower. How 'civilized' and 'peaceful'.)
It seems all you associate militaries with is attacking other people.
Nope, just violently applying force to them. Again, it's a subtle difference that you have appeared to miss.
Peacekeeping, defense, and policing are legitimate uses of military, and most would agree is more civilized uses.
All of the above, again, require controlled force. You put up the definition of 'peace', and nowhere in it did I see a reference to using force, or violence.
The fact that you don't understand the concept of what peacekeeping is and what they do,
apparently I understand it better than you do.
You're projecting again.
Really? Most of the world despises warmongers? Wow, I suppose history is full of rulers and countries that are aberrations. Personally, I'd prefer it if there weren't any warmongers on this planet, but a good deal of the real world (as opposed to your ivory tower rose-colored pretentious worldview) is led by extremely warlike and aggressive people. Of course, you wouldn't see that, because I'm sure your world consists of CNN and al-jazeera and 30 second sound bites from UN meetings. You might take a look at say, the middle east, africa, or asia sometime. They're part of the world, and warmongers are extremely popular in those places. Of course, those people aren't predominantly white, so I'm sure you don't consider them 'civilized'.
Actually, he was referring to the difference between the Canadian term, peacekeeping, and the American term, "peacekeeping". From what I gathered from his original comment, the word, peacekeeping isn't a euphemism in Canada, but the actual definition of their preferred military strategy. We Americans often misspell our version of the word by leaving off the quotes. ...
Peacekeeping as a military strategy is based primarily on attempting to determine whether or not the aggravator can be reasoned with before you pull the trigger.
What is the U.S. definition? You don't seem to feel that the U.S. employs diplomacy. Are you implying that people such as Bin Laden and Hussein can be reasoned with? Perhaps you are implying that as long as a tyrant's depredations remain confined to one country, "peace" is maintained.
I understand that through the magic of text, my tone cannot be deduced from my inflection. I am sincerely curious, although I realize that the phrasing of the above betrays my bias. If you would prefer, and in order not to go *too* far offtopic, I am always willing to discuss over email.
I can be reached at my slashdot username @ hotmail.
Actually, the US has tried invading.
Ahhh yes. The past, when Canadia was not yet America Lite(tm). How you must miss those halcyon days. Of course, back then it was the Brits calling the shots, so we didn't really try to invade Canadia, per se, as much as we were trying to take land away from the British, and couching it in distinctly anti-British terms. The Brits drove us out of Canadia, not the mounties. It's not likely that, at any point in history, if Canadia were a sovereign nation it could stand up to the US. Of course, Canadia has gone from being a watered-down Europe to being a watered-down America, and there's no reason for us to bother messing with our poseur neighbors. It's not like Canadian beer is hard to come by, and all the talented Canadians move here anyways; if only they'd stop letting the non-talented Canadians in, everything would be perfect
Enforcing peace is one use of armed forces.
And what do they 'enforce the peace' with? Flowers?
Trying to dress up any military organization by calling them 'peacekeepers' or 'peace enforcers' or 'anti-war engineers' or whatever's PC these days doesn't change what armed forces do. They carry guns because they use them to kill people. That's what armed forces have done since they were invented, and what they'll continue to do unless and until the entire world, with no dissenters at all, decides to stop attacking each other, and to stop preying upon each other. Saying "oh the US is bad because they have 'armed forces' while we have 'peace keepers' in Canada" is misleading.
Not all of us fly first class....
.75" is 'more legroom', now they're telling us that a 1 degree tilt is 'horizontal'. When pressed, they say defensively, 'Well, it's not totally vertical anymore.'
I have never been able to attain anything close to horizontal in any of the commuter flights I've taken.
It's a new American Airlines thing. As well as telling us that
Yes, but their primary role for some time has been peace-keeping.
That's a kind way to describe getting loaded on molson ice and fucking moose.
Whoops. Forgot about the language barrier. For you Canadians:
Main Entry: military
Function: adjective
1 a : of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war b : of or relating to armed forces; especially : of or relating to ground or sometimes ground and air forces as opposed to naval forces
2 a : performed or made by armed forces b : supported by armed force
3 : of or relating to the army
Weird, I don't see anything about 'peace' in the definition of 'military'. Hint: if there was ever such a thing as lasting peace, there'd be no need for any military force. However, human nature continues to produce a need for military forces. Perhaps, in America Junior, you don't see it because what country in their right mind would want to take over Canadia? I mean, even with Canadia right next door, the U.S. hasn't invaded, so you KNOW it isn't worth invading.
(Note: I know it's spelled 'Canada')
...Australia isn't a town in Texas
There's an Australia Landing in MS.
Also, Texas is a town in Australia. Of course, Americans aren't supposed to know things like that. We all know that no Americans can point to Australia on a map, and that everyone outside the US can fill in an unmarked globe with 100% accuracy, because it's as simple as Americans and everything American bad, anything not American good. It always amuses me when people with that attitude stereotype Americans as simple-minded.
the Turbo Diesel engines can run off of Bio Diesel too!!!
And with very little tinkering, they can run off used fry oil from fast food joints, too. That'll stop you complaining about the high cost of gas prices! (not 'you' meaning the poster but the ephemeral 'you' who converts their diesel to use fry oil)
Plus it makes your exhaust smell like a french fry factory.
The point of it being that it was *simmilar to* the kit Sony is selling, and has been for some time, for developing purposes.
Besides, its just fun for some to push normal objects to do more than they were supposed to do.
Gives people Ideas on what to create next sometimes.
Wow. So some people 'innovated' and copied sony. Yay for them. I'm all for people's right to do whatever stupid thing they want with linux, as long as I'm not expected to praise them, like it's some noteworthy accomplishment. 'Look! We did what sony did, only very slightly differently!' (Please, no 'direct hardware acces is so much totally cooler', it's the same basic thing, and it's useless either way.)
How is getting a ps2 to run linux pushing it harder than it was supposed to be pushed? It is a computer. linux has run on computers since, well, it came out. Wow! You got 'linux' to run on a 'computer'! You're a genius!
Gives people Ideas on what to create next sometimes.
What? A game console that can run xclock? Yay! Where do I sign up? Please. Besides, sony did this already. I guess now people can 'innovate' and get turbolinux running on the ps2, and we can see another story about it here. Whee.
I don't take kindly to being besmirked as "Yippie."
Whew, glad I wasn't making a reference to Family Ties!
Actually, just because it *can* be done IS the reason to do it.
Notice I didn't say 'just because it can be done doesn't mean it shouldn't ever'. If you use your reasoning to explain the first ever climb of everest, fine. But using it to explain why people put linux on a ps2, which we all know is basically a dedicated computer, is ridiculous. Doing something completely new is one thing, rehashing a tired concept for no purpose is another. There's no point, as making linux run on a computer has, to put it bluntly, been done before. Turning a good game console into a poor linux box is dumb. Sorry. I don't give kudos to people just because they work hard. We all work hard, and I don't see you giving props to the people working very hard to make the world's biggest ball of tin foil. (at least I don't. I save my props for people doing original stuff, or at least useful stuff.) Again, just because it's effort doesn't mean it's praiseworthy. Just because it's doable doesn't mean it should be done. Get linux running on one of those handheld football games from the 60s if you want my respect.
Now I can have another useless linux box. Oh, look, the system I used to play games on now just sits there contributing to my distributed.net score just like the 3 or 4 other useless linux boxes I have sitting around. Yay. Here's an idea: spend the 180 bucks it costs to buy a ps2 on a p3 or old AMD box instead and it'll run linux better than the ps2, and then you can play ps2 games on your ps2. Just because something *can* be done does not mean there's any real point to doing it.
Its amazing how much these researchers get blinders on and inflate the importance of their research. There must be a term for this.
There is. Marketing. One of the 20th century's additions to the lexicon of curse words.