If you really want old Avalon Hill games and other such things, you could look here: http://gamersalliance.com/. However, you won't find the good stuff cheap. Also, there is a membership fee required to get access to the catalog. They have Avalon Hill, TSR, and others, depending on their supplies at the time.
So, really, I suppose that site is only good if you have quite a bit of extra money to throw around, but it is the one I found. eBay is often a better (and cheaper) alternative, though.
The loss of Avalon Hill was truly a great one for the strategy board gamer. Their Dune game is one of my favorites. It was incredibly balanced (although that made playing with less than the full number a players a little trickier), and every now and then the Bene Gesserit would predict the winner, giving everyone a story to tell for the next few days/weeks.
Diplomacy was also very good; its complete lack of anything random made for interesting gameplay.
Now, to be fair to "The Borg," I thought that I had played a re-released version of Diplomacy, and it certainly wasn't lacking in any way. However, it is also possible that I am merely thinking of the sort of "going-out-of-business" sale that AH had at one point.
Risk 2210 is also listed on the box I've seen as an AH product, but I don't really know the story behind that, either.
Although I am at the moment just a pie-eyed undergrad, I am inclined to think that I would rather be an underpaid post-doc than a well-paid MBA, though I could also substitute "post-doc" with just about any other job and the statement would still be true. I don't doubt that it will be a little harder to maintain this position when it comes time to pay the bills.
I have personally only worked with two post-docs, but they were certainly not in any danger of having their ideas and work stolen. Granted, the "head" professor will likely get his name put on any publications produced due to his supervisory role. Even as an undergrad, any paper to which I contribute will include my name and that of anyone else involved. However, I cannot assume that these two cases are indicative of the entire system. Incidentally, both post-docs moved on to full-time positions, but there are many factors involved, and they are, after all, only two people.
Doesn't the academic job market tend to fluctuate considerably from year to year? The job market is certainly not particularly good anywhere at the moment, but even in better days one would sometimes see Ph.Ds from top-notch schools taking positions at low-ranking state schools. Other years nearly the reverse may be true. It would seem that, although we shouldn't ignore potential signs of the times, we should also listen to those who would advise us not to proclaim the end of American science to be at hand.
There seems to be one big problem in any sort of atom-by-atom assembly, and it is only complicated by the ideas of home replication suggested here and elsewhere.
Where do you(they, anyone) plan to get all these atoms? It would take quite a bit of energy to obliterate existing materials into their component atoms, thus raising costs considerably. I think this might raise a bit more trouble than any overly-strict copyright laws.
Of course, maybe I'm just taking lots of things too seriously to even raise this problem, I don't know.
Not to continue further on this tangent (and risk further moderator retribution:\), but as my final comment:
Your point about religion is fair enough. I will concede that "religion" meaning a set of doctrines is essentially a human approximation of the real thing.
You specifically require a quote from Jesus. His earthly ministry was not generally concerned with denouncing sinners (although He did have some very harsh words for the religious people of His day, and those today who consider ourselves religious would do well to heed them).
I will give you a few from the writings of Paul nonetheless.
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (Rom. 1:26-27, NIV)
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor the idolators nor the adulterers nor the male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thives nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1. Cor. 6:9-10, NIV)
Something worth noting in that last list: that pretty much covers everyone. We are ALL evil sinners. I am an evil sinner. Billy Graham is an evil sinner. Paul was an evil sinner. Mother Theresa was an evil sinner. We are all in the same boat.
"There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom 3:22b-23, NIV)
But it doesn't stop there
"and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (Rom. 3:24, NIV)
"he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus." (Rom. 3:25, NIV)
Homosexuality is wrong. So is hate. So are the many sins that I commit on a daily basis. The biggest reason not to hate homosexuals or anyone else: I am exactly as depraved and disobedient as they are. If I condemn them, I am condemning myself (where condemn = "to declare unfit for salvation or beyond redemption").
As for absolutism, are some things always wrong? Is it always wrong to rape and kill a woman? If there is a God and if there is truth, wouldn't these things suggest and even require moral absolutes?
Finally, I understand that many people are hesitiant to give words definite meanings. If I say that this person is a Christian and this person is not, am I not being overly judgemental? I would say no. I might say that my earlier definition of a Christian is too broad; perhaps it better applies to "believer." At the core, a Christian is someone who holds to beliefs expounded by the Christian faith in general. It doesn't make any more sense to call those who do not hold these beliefs Christians than it makes to call me a platypus.
Anyway, you have a right to express your opinions, and I do not desire otherwise. You have been quite civil, and if you desire to discuss this further in another venue, I would be more than happy to oblige.
(Good-bye Karma.)
One of the major problems with your argument is that you have not even begun to attempt to provide anything more than a rant. Your entire point may be summed up as "I don't like Christians," or fundamentalists, if you prefer.
When you refer to relgions as something "invented," you make your personal biases quite obvious. After all, why would you make such an impassioned reply in a thread that is supposed to be dealing with the SCO, of all things, if you did not have a lot of emotion invested in this matter? The SCO does evoke strong feelings in many, but they generally involve Linux and OSS. There is no crime in having feelings, but it is hard to take your argument seriously when you accuse a group of people blindly bashing other beliefs by doing exactly the same thing.
To call Mormons good Christians requires a complete lack of understanding of what a Christian is. I understand that you use the word to mean a generally kind and nice person, but that is simply the same thing as saying "someone I like," (as C.S Lewis pointed out in the introduction to Mere Christianity). One might consider letting Christians define themselves. To a believer, a Christian is one who has commited his life to God and has received forgiveness through Jesus' sacrifice. Unfortunately, these people do not cease to be human, and more often than not, they mess up a lot.
As someone who would likely be labeled as a fundamentalist, allow me to address a few of your other accusations.
1. One who follows true Christian principles (as laid out in the Bible) doesn't hate homosexuals, nor does he hate anyone else. If you have run into people who do, I cannot say for certain that they are not truly Christians (as a Christian would define one), but they are not following Jesus' example. You are correct in saying that He would not and in fact does not approve of such behavior.
That said, true Christian principles DO hold that homosexuality is an ungodly lifestyle. However, this is at some level a choice the person has made (i do not deny that certain biological factors may contribute to one's tendency toward homosexuality, but one still has the choice). As a choice, this lifestyle does not define the person completely, and condemnation of the lifestyle does not imply condemnation of the individual.
2. I personally have no desire to see mandated prayer in schools, and I am not alone. However, I am sure we oppose it for different reasons. Prayer is, on the whole, indeed a private matter, and I would not particularly want most teachers or students offering prayers on my behalf, anyway.
3. In a representative democracy, people are going to make efforts to see that their interests are fulfilled. Granted, it is clear that many do not feel that fundamentalists have the best interests of the country in mind, but the reverse is also likely true. By the same token, I am not aware of a great deal of religious law, other than some of Bush's actions. However, I would not be so quick to lump him with fundamentalist Christians. He is a politician; he wants votes, so he does what he thinks will get him votes.
I am not going to tell you that you have not met some pretty scummy people who have called themselves "Christians." This is truly a shame. I am also not claiming to speak for every "fundamentalist." However, I do speak for many, quite possibly a majority, of them.
In closing, I would just like to invite you and those of similar beliefs to have a more open mind on the subject, and to realise that your arguments are no less based on your beliefs and biases than anyone else's.
I am certainly not the first one to notice, and it may not merit posting, but I still figured I would compliment you on the rarest sort of reference--an appropriate one.
Slashdot Mirror
So, really, I suppose that site is only good if you have quite a bit of extra money to throw around, but it is the one I found. eBay is often a better (and cheaper) alternative, though.
The loss of Avalon Hill was truly a great one for the strategy board gamer. Their Dune game is one of my favorites. It was incredibly balanced (although that made playing with less than the full number a players a little trickier), and every now and then the Bene Gesserit would predict the winner, giving everyone a story to tell for the next few days/weeks.
Diplomacy was also very good; its complete lack of anything random made for interesting gameplay.
Now, to be fair to "The Borg," I thought that I had played a re-released version of Diplomacy, and it certainly wasn't lacking in any way. However, it is also possible that I am merely thinking of the sort of "going-out-of-business" sale that AH had at one point.
Risk 2210 is also listed on the box I've seen as an AH product, but I don't really know the story behind that, either.
Come on, people! Head made of sand!
I have personally only worked with two post-docs, but they were certainly not in any danger of having their ideas and work stolen. Granted, the "head" professor will likely get his name put on any publications produced due to his supervisory role. Even as an undergrad, any paper to which I contribute will include my name and that of anyone else involved. However, I cannot assume that these two cases are indicative of the entire system. Incidentally, both post-docs moved on to full-time positions, but there are many factors involved, and they are, after all, only two people.
Doesn't the academic job market tend to fluctuate considerably from year to year? The job market is certainly not particularly good anywhere at the moment, but even in better days one would sometimes see Ph.Ds from top-notch schools taking positions at low-ranking state schools. Other years nearly the reverse may be true. It would seem that, although we shouldn't ignore potential signs of the times, we should also listen to those who would advise us not to proclaim the end of American science to be at hand.
There seems to be one big problem in any sort of atom-by-atom assembly, and it is only complicated by the ideas of home replication suggested here and elsewhere. Where do you(they, anyone) plan to get all these atoms? It would take quite a bit of energy to obliterate existing materials into their component atoms, thus raising costs considerably. I think this might raise a bit more trouble than any overly-strict copyright laws. Of course, maybe I'm just taking lots of things too seriously to even raise this problem, I don't know.
Your point about religion is fair enough. I will concede that "religion" meaning a set of doctrines is essentially a human approximation of the real thing.
You specifically require a quote from Jesus. His earthly ministry was not generally concerned with denouncing sinners (although He did have some very harsh words for the religious people of His day, and those today who consider ourselves religious would do well to heed them).
I will give you a few from the writings of Paul nonetheless.
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (Rom. 1:26-27, NIV)
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor the idolators nor the adulterers nor the male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thives nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1. Cor. 6:9-10, NIV)
Something worth noting in that last list: that pretty much covers everyone. We are ALL evil sinners. I am an evil sinner. Billy Graham is an evil sinner. Paul was an evil sinner. Mother Theresa was an evil sinner. We are all in the same boat.
"There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom 3:22b-23, NIV)
But it doesn't stop there
"and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (Rom. 3:24, NIV)
"he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus." (Rom. 3:25, NIV)
Homosexuality is wrong. So is hate. So are the many sins that I commit on a daily basis. The biggest reason not to hate homosexuals or anyone else: I am exactly as depraved and disobedient as they are. If I condemn them, I am condemning myself (where condemn = "to declare unfit for salvation or beyond redemption").
As for absolutism, are some things always wrong? Is it always wrong to rape and kill a woman? If there is a God and if there is truth, wouldn't these things suggest and even require moral absolutes?
Finally, I understand that many people are hesitiant to give words definite meanings. If I say that this person is a Christian and this person is not, am I not being overly judgemental? I would say no. I might say that my earlier definition of a Christian is too broad; perhaps it better applies to "believer." At the core, a Christian is someone who holds to beliefs expounded by the Christian faith in general. It doesn't make any more sense to call those who do not hold these beliefs Christians than it makes to call me a platypus.
Anyway, you have a right to express your opinions, and I do not desire otherwise. You have been quite civil, and if you desire to discuss this further in another venue, I would be more than happy to oblige. (Good-bye Karma.)
One of the major problems with your argument is that you have not even begun to attempt to provide anything more than a rant. Your entire point may be summed up as "I don't like Christians," or fundamentalists, if you prefer.
When you refer to relgions as something "invented," you make your personal biases quite obvious. After all, why would you make such an impassioned reply in a thread that is supposed to be dealing with the SCO, of all things, if you did not have a lot of emotion invested in this matter? The SCO does evoke strong feelings in many, but they generally involve Linux and OSS. There is no crime in having feelings, but it is hard to take your argument seriously when you accuse a group of people blindly bashing other beliefs by doing exactly the same thing.
To call Mormons good Christians requires a complete lack of understanding of what a Christian is. I understand that you use the word to mean a generally kind and nice person, but that is simply the same thing as saying "someone I like," (as C.S Lewis pointed out in the introduction to Mere Christianity). One might consider letting Christians define themselves. To a believer, a Christian is one who has commited his life to God and has received forgiveness through Jesus' sacrifice. Unfortunately, these people do not cease to be human, and more often than not, they mess up a lot.
As someone who would likely be labeled as a fundamentalist, allow me to address a few of your other accusations.
1. One who follows true Christian principles (as laid out in the Bible) doesn't hate homosexuals, nor does he hate anyone else. If you have run into people who do, I cannot say for certain that they are not truly Christians (as a Christian would define one), but they are not following Jesus' example. You are correct in saying that He would not and in fact does not approve of such behavior.
That said, true Christian principles DO hold that homosexuality is an ungodly lifestyle. However, this is at some level a choice the person has made (i do not deny that certain biological factors may contribute to one's tendency toward homosexuality, but one still has the choice). As a choice, this lifestyle does not define the person completely, and condemnation of the lifestyle does not imply condemnation of the individual.
2. I personally have no desire to see mandated prayer in schools, and I am not alone. However, I am sure we oppose it for different reasons. Prayer is, on the whole, indeed a private matter, and I would not particularly want most teachers or students offering prayers on my behalf, anyway.
3. In a representative democracy, people are going to make efforts to see that their interests are fulfilled. Granted, it is clear that many do not feel that fundamentalists have the best interests of the country in mind, but the reverse is also likely true. By the same token, I am not aware of a great deal of religious law, other than some of Bush's actions. However, I would not be so quick to lump him with fundamentalist Christians. He is a politician; he wants votes, so he does what he thinks will get him votes.
I am not going to tell you that you have not met some pretty scummy people who have called themselves "Christians." This is truly a shame. I am also not claiming to speak for every "fundamentalist." However, I do speak for many, quite possibly a majority, of them.
In closing, I would just like to invite you and those of similar beliefs to have a more open mind on the subject, and to realise that your arguments are no less based on your beliefs and biases than anyone else's.
I am certainly not the first one to notice, and it may not merit posting, but I still figured I would compliment you on the rarest sort of reference--an appropriate one.
Perhaps their unexpected lunacy is really an attempt to score points in Brockian Ultra Cricket. Or maybe not.