the whole 'tax on the stupid' thing sits awkwardly with my ideological views (the same views which will stop me from ever being rich, no doubt...)
1. You can get rich, and give the 'stupid' their money back.
2. There are a lot of regressive taxes in society (at least, if you're here in the US. Who do you think gets hurt the most by taxes on cigarettes and booze?
[quote]Call me silly but I want a little more from my games. GRANTED, an awfull lot of modern games sadly don't. Take MMO's.You do damage, the enemy moves damage, sooner or later you come across an enemy that does more damage then you, and you need to level up. Then you move on a bit, till you find another monster that does more damage then you, forcing you to level up again.
At no point does the actual battle change, just the numbers involved.
[/quote]
World of Warcraft which is the most popular MMO ever, features PvP, where you play other players and they can come up with different strategies, so in a sense the game does change. Of course, many of the strategies are well known, just like in sports, so it's not 'all that new and innovative' but when you are playing other players there is some change due to the fact that a human is on the other side of the connection.
[quote]
FPS are often the same, you have a pistol, you kill small monsters, you find a shotgun, you kill slightly bigger monsters. It is rare indeed to find a FPS were weapons is a choice of tactics. Were you are not just fighting the same battle over and over again.
[/quote]
Pretty much any FPS game has weapons you will only want in certain situations in multiplayer mode. Many of the newer FPS games have vehicles and 'anti-vehicle guns'. But even FPS games years ago involved making strategic descisions about what weapons you have. In a narrow hall you will want a sniper rifle or chain gun, because you don't want to take splash damage from firing rockets. If you are high up on a perch you usually want a sniper rifle.
Most games really come down to "Here is a puzze/dexterity challenge", "ok you solved it, here is a bigger puzzle/dexterity challenge". It's rare when games break out of that mold.
As much as I want to believe aliens are among us, it just doesn't make sense that a civilization advanced enough to cross interstellar space would crash in New Mexico. And the chances of aliens being humanoid in appearance are close to zero.
We have a civilization advanced enough to go to the moon, yet people still crash their bicycles.
We have a civilization advanced enough to produced software of great depth, but I still forget to throw in a loop counter from time to time.
Having an advanced civiliazation does not preclude us from making dumb mistakes, why would it preclude the aliens from doing so?
Don't you think that the U.S. should protect the only multiethnic, multifaith, and fully participatory democracy in the region from the surrounding dysfunctional regimes that lack free elections, spout Islamist rhetoric to hide their internal problems and direct the anger of their disaffected youth elsewhere, and call again and again for an end to the "Zionist entity" (don't forget, Iraq was developing nuclear technology before Israel took it out in time). Regardless of many past mistakes the U.S. has made in its foreign policy, the protection of Israel is a worthy goal. Just travel around in the region and note how much more freely you can breath in Israel than, say, Saudi Arabia or Syria.
No, because Israel has a military and can easily defend itself against her disfunctional neighbors. America should not be the world policy of democracy, or anything else. Americans should not die to defend a country that can easily defend herself.
I am guessing that you are not a writer for TV. If you were you would understand that it is their responsibility to appeal to as many viewers as possible.
They ought to figure out how to appeal to young males, they always whine they are losing them.
I would much prefer to believe that the problem is economic rather than religious or philosophical, because that to me seems like a tractable problem. However, I'm not particularly upbeat on that being the case.
They hate us for our foreign policy. Stationing our troops in their holy land, proping up leaders that are friendly to us, and interfering in their internal affairs is why most islamic terrorists hate the west.
I'm sure the fact that the west is seen as 'secularized, feminized, crusaders, infidels, etc' doesn't help, nor does the poverty gap. Still, people don't fly planes into buildings because they hate McDonalds, they do it because they hate our Military.
That doesn't excuse their actions, nor does it mean we should get out of the middle east. We should be clear about what the root cause of their animosity is though.
There is govt waste and inefficiency. But the original poster was not making a case for eradicating inefficiency. (S)he was saying things like, "you dont own property in USA because you are obliged to pay taxes which is same as not owning anything but paying rent".
The taxes you pay protect your property directly by the police force. The local govt maintains the proof that you own the property. It maintains the infrasturcture that allows you to ward off intruders and usurpers without having to resort to violent means. If you own some land in Sudan or Angola you will realize how much of a benefit it is to just live in your home without having worry if a local warlord will evict you and take over your property.
That is great, and few people would argue with paying their local police force, firefighters, etc. What about the money that goes to the local schools? Or to help businesses in your hometown? Not all taxes are 'just and fair' and provide you with something as tangible as police protection. As for the police 'warding off' intruders, that is unlikely. They are a deterrent to crime, but when it comes down to it, you are much better if you have a weapon if you have to deal with an intruder then hoping the police get there in time, but that is a different issue.
What is the value of your property? It is largely the amount someone would be willing to pay for it. And laws like truth-in-lending, fairness clauses and the thriving economy increases the buying power of people that directly enhances the value of your property.
Considering it all, see if the amount taxed from you for your property is less than the value created to you by the Government. If the tax is less than the value created by the Govt, shut up and pay it.
I think you are making some incorrect assumptions:
First, you assume American towns would turn into the Sudan without police protection, which is incorrect. If you've ever been to a small town in the middle of nowhere with limited social services, you would find something very different than the Sudan. On the other hand, you can find towns that pour money into their police departments and social services, yet resemble something closer to the Sudan.
Secondly, people shouldn't just 'shut up' and pay taxes. Anytime the government (or anyone) for that matter is taking money from you, you should question where it is going. 'Shut up and pay it' is the attitude that leads to abuse of power.
Dont make snide comments like "paying property tax means I dont own it and I am only renting it." Making such a statement shows the shallow grasp of economics and civics.
I remember in the original Mortal Kombat, you could get to the dual-character matches simply by picking scorpion and pushing back,back,punch for the harpoon, followed by down+punch for uppercut continuously for the entire fight.
Mortal Kombat 1 and 2 probably had the worst AI I've ever seen in fighting games. The computer would fall for idiotic tricks, for example in mortal kombat if you jumped backwards when the computer was in range, it would automatically jump at you, allowing you to uppercut or juggle them. The best was how it would do things that humans couldn't, such as throw two fans so quickly with kitana that they woud be on screen at the same time, or walk forward with scorpian and throw a harpoon (which was physically impossible since you had to use a back motion).
While this is marked as flamebait, there is some truth to it.
My advice would be twofold, first if you love the subject and want a job in IT get your CS degree. For me I was programming when I was 8, and my dad is a programmer, so I've always wanted to be a programmer. If you are going into CS for the money (lol) or other reasons, consider looking into another field.
Secondly, build a *solid* portfolio while you are going through your classes, and make it a point to learn a few in demand languages. Despite the comments above, learning a language that is 'in vogue' can be a skillset you will use for years. For example, Java and C++ aren't going away anytime soon.
Or are you whoring to get mod points?
Learn these basic things about civics. Govt, by its mere, presence adds value to your property. The general law and order, enforcement of contracts, truth-in-labeling laws, truth-in-lending laws etc foster the climate the create value
These things are good, but property tax and state tax is what leads to these. You can lobby for change when it comes to those, or just move if it is that bad. Want to debate the fairness of federal taxation? Want to talk about the $25 million dollars that is being earmarked for spiniach growers in the upcoming federal budget?
Just think, how valuable your home will be if it is wrenched out of USA and plunked smack-dab-in-the-middle of Darfar, Sudan. The property tax there is probably 0. So before you mouth off, "govt is bad and zero tax is the fair tax" just remember that it just shows how shallow your comprehension of the world is.
Just because someone doesn't have the same views as yours on taxation and government doesn't mean their comprehension of the world is 'shallow'.
You bet they can come up with some crime that vaguely matches this though. Anti-graffiti laws maybe, who knows? A bit of creativity and liberal use of words and you can easily make this a crime.
Tampering with a federal election? That wouldn't be fun to go to court over....
On one hand it is stupid that Apple would turn off a feature like tabbed browsing by default.
I think the latest version of IE does this, and didn't some old versions of firefox do that? I do agree it's silly, since tabbed browsing is awesome.:)
On the other hand, it is perfectly consistent with Apple's simplicity first mantra. But still... It took Apple 10 years to add right click functionality to the OS
I'm pretty sure OS X has always had right click functionality, that is if you install a two button mouse. I started working on Macs in 2002, and the single button mouse drove me crazy because I had to control click to get right mouse functionality. I think it lasted about two weeks until I installed a two button USB mouse.
(not to mention another 10 years to add a second button), and even then they turned it off by default. Now it is on by default in the OS, but you have to turn the hardware on (MacBook) since it is set to single mouse click by default. Annoying.
I think sometimes apple goes too far with the 'simplistic' design mindset, but I don't mind it since it can usually be worked around.
All of them are good guys, didn't you read the script?
I wish it were as simple as that. A Republican president would face considerable pressure from their party to be another Bush. The party has been redefined so completely that it's not a simple matter to go back to the Teddy Roosevelt days.
Heh, Sorry. Neoconservatism does not define the party, and you only have to look back to Reagan to see what conservatism is.
The conservative commentator David Brooks himself warns against trying to turn back the clock, telling Republican candidates that they "need to lead the party to a new definition of Republicanism. This is a Republicanism that can provide safety, order and authority, so people can feel secure enough to pursue their dreams." After years of convincing the party base that they need a powerful paternalistic government to protect them, a complete reversal would be political suicide.
Brooks isn't much of a 'conservative', he's a straw man that the NYT pays for their opinion page.
the amazing feat of pissing off Libertarians who don't want a moral authoritarian obsessed with scapegoating immigration for the worlds ills
Uhh, I don't think I've ever heard or said Ron Paul say anything like that. The major impression I've gotten from him is that you can't have unlimited immigration with unlimited social programs, which makes a lot of sense from an economic standpoint. Also I've never heard him say anything bad about immigration, just ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, but I know those of you who like to demagogue the issue feel the need to paint the other side as against all immigrants.
If you'd really vote for Hillary rather than Paul, you are no where near being Libertarian leaning. Hilliary is a pro-government statist, probably the biggest one in the election.
As for Ron Paul's chances, who thought Howard Dean had a chance at this point of the campaign in 2004?
Instead of getting behind Libertarians who have no chance of winning in 2008, why not support Ron Paul who is a libertarian republican and is running for the nomination?
On the contrary- I can play just fine without the competition aspect, look at the MMO genre.
There is competition in MMO's. Take World of Warcraft for example, their are many different levels of competition in that game. Guilds compete to see who can make the most player vs environment progress. PvPers compete in battlegrounds and in the new rated Arena system. Other players see competition is who has the best gear. Even griefers compete to see who can pull off the most outrageous stunts.
I can't stand playing with random gamers, I can't put up with their stupidity and there's no real sense of group accomplishment with them.
I typically like playing with random gamers to compete against, in a MMO, a fighting game, or a FPS. The fact that the majority of them are tards makes winning all the more sweet. There is nothing better than being the kind of tards.;)
A few posts up, someone mentions 'thousands and thousands' of people enjoying multiplayer gaming, but the number is even higher than that. World of Warcraft alone has 6 million users. If you throw in a few more popular games like the various versions of Counter Strike, Halo, Unreal Tournament, etc, I'm sure you can reach 10 million. Many people enjoy online games, even those (like myself) who grew up without them. It beats the arcade because it's cheaper (Even if you used to play for 2$ a day), I can't smell people over the internet, and I don't have to wait in line.
If I want a sense of group accomplishment, then I dig up some real life friends to come play with. Typically the ones who used to play in the arcades.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Yet everyone is still playing world of warcraft!
the whole 'tax on the stupid' thing sits awkwardly with my ideological views (the same views which will stop me from ever being rich, no doubt...)
1. You can get rich, and give the 'stupid' their money back.
2. There are a lot of regressive taxes in society (at least, if you're here in the US. Who do you think gets hurt the most by taxes on cigarettes and booze?
[quote]Call me silly but I want a little more from my games. GRANTED, an awfull lot of modern games sadly don't. Take MMO's.You do damage, the enemy moves damage, sooner or later you come across an enemy that does more damage then you, and you need to level up. Then you move on a bit, till you find another monster that does more damage then you, forcing you to level up again. At no point does the actual battle change, just the numbers involved. [/quote] World of Warcraft which is the most popular MMO ever, features PvP, where you play other players and they can come up with different strategies, so in a sense the game does change. Of course, many of the strategies are well known, just like in sports, so it's not 'all that new and innovative' but when you are playing other players there is some change due to the fact that a human is on the other side of the connection. [quote] FPS are often the same, you have a pistol, you kill small monsters, you find a shotgun, you kill slightly bigger monsters. It is rare indeed to find a FPS were weapons is a choice of tactics. Were you are not just fighting the same battle over and over again. [/quote] Pretty much any FPS game has weapons you will only want in certain situations in multiplayer mode. Many of the newer FPS games have vehicles and 'anti-vehicle guns'. But even FPS games years ago involved making strategic descisions about what weapons you have. In a narrow hall you will want a sniper rifle or chain gun, because you don't want to take splash damage from firing rockets. If you are high up on a perch you usually want a sniper rifle. Most games really come down to "Here is a puzze/dexterity challenge", "ok you solved it, here is a bigger puzzle/dexterity challenge". It's rare when games break out of that mold.
They have a serious overcrowding thing going on in their cities
It wont be as bad in a generation or two.
As much as I want to believe aliens are among us, it just doesn't make sense that a civilization advanced enough to cross interstellar space would crash in New Mexico. And the chances of aliens being humanoid in appearance are close to zero.
We have a civilization advanced enough to go to the moon, yet people still crash their bicycles.
We have a civilization advanced enough to produced software of great depth, but I still forget to throw in a loop counter from time to time.
Having an advanced civiliazation does not preclude us from making dumb mistakes, why would it preclude the aliens from doing so?
Don't you think that the U.S. should protect the only multiethnic, multifaith, and fully participatory democracy in the region from the surrounding dysfunctional regimes that lack free elections, spout Islamist rhetoric to hide their internal problems and direct the anger of their disaffected youth elsewhere, and call again and again for an end to the "Zionist entity" (don't forget, Iraq was developing nuclear technology before Israel took it out in time). Regardless of many past mistakes the U.S. has made in its foreign policy, the protection of Israel is a worthy goal. Just travel around in the region and note how much more freely you can breath in Israel than, say, Saudi Arabia or Syria.
No, because Israel has a military and can easily defend itself against her disfunctional neighbors. America should not be the world policy of democracy, or anything else. Americans should not die to defend a country that can easily defend herself.
I am guessing that you are not a writer for TV. If you were you would understand that it is their responsibility to appeal to as many viewers as possible.
They ought to figure out how to appeal to young males, they always whine they are losing them.
I would much prefer to believe that the problem is economic rather than religious or philosophical, because that to me seems like a tractable problem. However, I'm not particularly upbeat on that being the case.
They hate us for our foreign policy. Stationing our troops in their holy land, proping up leaders that are friendly to us, and interfering in their internal affairs is why most islamic terrorists hate the west.
I'm sure the fact that the west is seen as 'secularized, feminized, crusaders, infidels, etc' doesn't help, nor does the poverty gap. Still, people don't fly planes into buildings because they hate McDonalds, they do it because they hate our Military.
That doesn't excuse their actions, nor does it mean we should get out of the middle east. We should be clear about what the root cause of their animosity is though.
Does this mean if I have an epic ninja looted from me I can write it off?
There is govt waste and inefficiency. But the original poster was not making a case for eradicating inefficiency. (S)he was saying things like, "you dont own property in USA because you are obliged to pay taxes which is same as not owning anything but paying rent". The taxes you pay protect your property directly by the police force. The local govt maintains the proof that you own the property. It maintains the infrasturcture that allows you to ward off intruders and usurpers without having to resort to violent means. If you own some land in Sudan or Angola you will realize how much of a benefit it is to just live in your home without having worry if a local warlord will evict you and take over your property.
That is great, and few people would argue with paying their local police force, firefighters, etc. What about the money that goes to the local schools? Or to help businesses in your hometown? Not all taxes are 'just and fair' and provide you with something as tangible as police protection. As for the police 'warding off' intruders, that is unlikely. They are a deterrent to crime, but when it comes down to it, you are much better if you have a weapon if you have to deal with an intruder then hoping the police get there in time, but that is a different issue.
What is the value of your property? It is largely the amount someone would be willing to pay for it. And laws like truth-in-lending, fairness clauses and the thriving economy increases the buying power of people that directly enhances the value of your property. Considering it all, see if the amount taxed from you for your property is less than the value created to you by the Government. If the tax is less than the value created by the Govt, shut up and pay it.
I think you are making some incorrect assumptions:
First, you assume American towns would turn into the Sudan without police protection, which is incorrect. If you've ever been to a small town in the middle of nowhere with limited social services, you would find something very different than the Sudan. On the other hand, you can find towns that pour money into their police departments and social services, yet resemble something closer to the Sudan.
Secondly, people shouldn't just 'shut up' and pay taxes. Anytime the government (or anyone) for that matter is taking money from you, you should question where it is going. 'Shut up and pay it' is the attitude that leads to abuse of power.
Dont make snide comments like "paying property tax means I dont own it and I am only renting it." Making such a statement shows the shallow grasp of economics and civics.
His position is much more reasonable than yours.
Those would be the ones who ensure you never have to worry about affording basic groceries in Safeway.
There is no industry in the US that is dominated by illegal workers, not even fruit farm workers.
I remember in the original Mortal Kombat, you could get to the dual-character matches simply by picking scorpion and pushing back,back,punch for the harpoon, followed by down+punch for uppercut continuously for the entire fight.
Mortal Kombat 1 and 2 probably had the worst AI I've ever seen in fighting games. The computer would fall for idiotic tricks, for example in mortal kombat if you jumped backwards when the computer was in range, it would automatically jump at you, allowing you to uppercut or juggle them. The best was how it would do things that humans couldn't, such as throw two fans so quickly with kitana that they woud be on screen at the same time, or walk forward with scorpian and throw a harpoon (which was physically impossible since you had to use a back motion).
While this is marked as flamebait, there is some truth to it.
My advice would be twofold, first if you love the subject and want a job in IT get your CS degree. For me I was programming when I was 8, and my dad is a programmer, so I've always wanted to be a programmer. If you are going into CS for the money (lol) or other reasons, consider looking into another field.
Secondly, build a *solid* portfolio while you are going through your classes, and make it a point to learn a few in demand languages. Despite the comments above, learning a language that is 'in vogue' can be a skillset you will use for years. For example, Java and C++ aren't going away anytime soon.
You really think all taxes are bad
No, just most of them.
and all govt is bad?
The bigger it is, the worse it is.
Or are you whoring to get mod points? Learn these basic things about civics. Govt, by its mere, presence adds value to your property. The general law and order, enforcement of contracts, truth-in-labeling laws, truth-in-lending laws etc foster the climate the create value
These things are good, but property tax and state tax is what leads to these. You can lobby for change when it comes to those, or just move if it is that bad. Want to debate the fairness of federal taxation? Want to talk about the $25 million dollars that is being earmarked for spiniach growers in the upcoming federal budget?
Just think, how valuable your home will be if it is wrenched out of USA and plunked smack-dab-in-the-middle of Darfar, Sudan. The property tax there is probably 0. So before you mouth off, "govt is bad and zero tax is the fair tax" just remember that it just shows how shallow your comprehension of the world is.
Just because someone doesn't have the same views as yours on taxation and government doesn't mean their comprehension of the world is 'shallow'.
You bet they can come up with some crime that vaguely matches this though. Anti-graffiti laws maybe, who knows? A bit of creativity and liberal use of words and you can easily make this a crime.
Tampering with a federal election? That wouldn't be fun to go to court over....
conservative than Congress.
I'd venture that Congress wasn't a good measure of conservatism, which is why their base didn't come out in 2006.
On one hand it is stupid that Apple would turn off a feature like tabbed browsing by default.
:)
I think the latest version of IE does this, and didn't some old versions of firefox do that? I do agree it's silly, since tabbed browsing is awesome.
On the other hand, it is perfectly consistent with Apple's simplicity first mantra. But still... It took Apple 10 years to add right click functionality to the OS
I'm pretty sure OS X has always had right click functionality, that is if you install a two button mouse. I started working on Macs in 2002, and the single button mouse drove me crazy because I had to control click to get right mouse functionality. I think it lasted about two weeks until I installed a two button USB mouse.
(not to mention another 10 years to add a second button), and even then they turned it off by default. Now it is on by default in the OS, but you have to turn the hardware on (MacBook) since it is set to single mouse click by default. Annoying.
I think sometimes apple goes too far with the 'simplistic' design mindset, but I don't mind it since it can usually be worked around.
I have had the same experence. Granted this is anecdotal evidence, but Safari runs much quicker than Firefox on my mac.
Oh, so he's a "good guy" Republican.
All of them are good guys, didn't you read the script?
I wish it were as simple as that. A Republican president would face considerable pressure from their party to be another Bush. The party has been redefined so completely that it's not a simple matter to go back to the Teddy Roosevelt days.
Heh, Sorry. Neoconservatism does not define the party, and you only have to look back to Reagan to see what conservatism is.
The conservative commentator David Brooks himself warns against trying to turn back the clock, telling Republican candidates that they "need to lead the party to a new definition of Republicanism. This is a Republicanism that can provide safety, order and authority, so people can feel secure enough to pursue their dreams." After years of convincing the party base that they need a powerful paternalistic government to protect them, a complete reversal would be political suicide.
Brooks isn't much of a 'conservative', he's a straw man that the NYT pays for their opinion page.
the amazing feat of pissing off Libertarians who don't want a moral authoritarian obsessed with scapegoating immigration for the worlds ills
Uhh, I don't think I've ever heard or said Ron Paul say anything like that. The major impression I've gotten from him is that you can't have unlimited immigration with unlimited social programs, which makes a lot of sense from an economic standpoint. Also I've never heard him say anything bad about immigration, just ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, but I know those of you who like to demagogue the issue feel the need to paint the other side as against all immigrants.
If you'd really vote for Hillary rather than Paul, you are no where near being Libertarian leaning. Hilliary is a pro-government statist, probably the biggest one in the election.
As for Ron Paul's chances, who thought Howard Dean had a chance at this point of the campaign in 2004?
This is what pisses me off about the Hilary Clinton crap - everyone hates her, and they can't think of a good reason why.
She's a socialist, that is reason enough for me. I don't hate her personally, but I do hate her politics. So now you have a 'good reason why'.
Somebody tell him the American public wants less imperialism, not more.
It's not so much that I want less imperialism, as much as I'd like us to do it right if we are going to try.
Instead of getting behind Libertarians who have no chance of winning in 2008, why not support Ron Paul who is a libertarian republican and is running for the nomination?
On the contrary- I can play just fine without the competition aspect, look at the MMO genre.
;)
:)
There is competition in MMO's. Take World of Warcraft for example, their are many different levels of competition in that game. Guilds compete to see who can make the most player vs environment progress. PvPers compete in battlegrounds and in the new rated Arena system. Other players see competition is who has the best gear. Even griefers compete to see who can pull off the most outrageous stunts.
I can't stand playing with random gamers, I can't put up with their stupidity and there's no real sense of group accomplishment with them.
I typically like playing with random gamers to compete against, in a MMO, a fighting game, or a FPS. The fact that the majority of them are tards makes winning all the more sweet. There is nothing better than being the kind of tards.
A few posts up, someone mentions 'thousands and thousands' of people enjoying multiplayer gaming, but the number is even higher than that. World of Warcraft alone has 6 million users. If you throw in a few more popular games like the various versions of Counter Strike, Halo, Unreal Tournament, etc, I'm sure you can reach 10 million. Many people enjoy online games, even those (like myself) who grew up without them. It beats the arcade because it's cheaper (Even if you used to play for 2$ a day), I can't smell people over the internet, and I don't have to wait in line.
If I want a sense of group accomplishment, then I dig up some real life friends to come play with. Typically the ones who used to play in the arcades.
Take it up with the democratic congress, odds are you voted for them and they aren't doing what you wanted.