I don't think either the modern left or right are very true to the spirit of America. Both espouse freedom in some area of life, but government control in others. For conservatives, that area is moral and religious matters. For liberals, it's the economy and making everything "fair".
Either extreme is bad and not what our founding fathers had in mind.
Libertarianism isn't about not caring; it's about personal responsibility and personal freedom. Charities are to help the less fortunate. Governments (should) exist to protect our rights, not babysit us.
And don't think I'm rich and that's why I believe in low taxes and the like. That's a common belief about conservatives and I'm relatively conservative in financtial and fiscal matters. I'm a poor student who's in debt. I'm working a minimum wage job and borrowing money to try to (slowly) make it through college. I would stand to gain from having the government take money from those who have it to give it to me, but I don't believe in that. What people earn should be their money to do with as they will. Many people are charitable. Some aren't. The point is that it's their choice to do what they want with their money (and their lives).
I don't think you have a very firm understanding of Libertarianism. Many people think Libertarians are gun-crazy survivalist pseudo-anarchists. While some may be, that's generally not the case. Why not check out www.lp.org (The US Libertarian Party site) or google for a good description of the ideas? If you're not American, then there's probably a Libertarian party in your country also. I know there is in Canada, but I'm not sure about elsewhere. I'm not trying to convert you, but it would be a good idea to be more familiar with the philosophy before making judgments.
The problem with liberalism (and conservatism) is that its definition changes over time. Conservatives want to keep things the way they were when they grew up, liberals want to change it. Neither one is always a good thing. Don't get me wrong--I'd like to see change too, but not toward socialism.
The liberals of 1776 (our founding fathers) would probably be the libertarians of today.
My point is, it's all relative. Many liberals today (those in office as well as those not) seem to be on the crazy side, IMO. The worst ones are America-hating (I'm talking about American liberals) socialists. To be fair, I think many conservatives are full of crap, too. Some are intolerant religious-nut rednecks and border on fascism. I'm a libertarian, so I can see the faults of both right and left, being myself somehwere in the middle and up, according to this quiz. My political beliefs, of course, are perfect in every way.:)
Well, I much prefer airsoft to paintball, but that's beside the point.
The exact same things go for any multiplayer FPS. You don't obviously don't actually kill anyone either way.
Paintball originated as a simulation for armed combat. I don't get the point of playing a computer simulation of a live-action simulation of armed combat. I realize that paintball has been made politically correct and players dress like clowns and call their guns markers, but it's still a combat simulation, whether you admit it or not. Airsoft just embraces that and goes all out for realism. (Guns, gear, tactics, etc) Noone gets killed in airsoft either. Or Quake. Or Doom. Or, paintball.
You know you, can...oh, what's it called...oh yeah, *rent* seasons of the Sopranos along with other movies. This is legal and lets you try before you buy your own copy. You'll also be supporting video rental stores that let you try before you buy for a very reasonable price. Console games too! And some even sell popcorn and drinks. Mmmmm...popcorn. They've been renting videos (and games) for quite a few years now; I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.
In all seriousness, your "poor me, the blighted consumer can't watch seasons of the Sopranos before spending $100, so I'm going to download them for free! Take that evil movie companies!" thing doesn't fly. It's very easy to rent any season you like of the Sopranos before you buy it.
The word n****r has nothing to do with the country Niger. It's a corruption of the term "negro", which I realize may also be offensive, but I'm using it just for the purposes of this discussion. Besides, just because someone is black doesn't mean their ancestors are from Niger. Besides, people from Niger are called Nigerians, which is not offensive (as far as I know). This is a very poor counter-example on your part.
Mohammed was a specific person, but I'm not sure what you mean by "person in general". Buddha just means something like "enlightened one". Buddhists follow the original Buddha's teachings (I forget his name, but he was an Indian individual), just as Muslims/Mohammedans follow those of Mohammed. I was just pointing out that just because you take a name and add "-an" doesn't mean that you worship that person (or now, according to you, want to *be* that person). I would take it to mean "a follower of said person".
I realize that you're just trying your hardest to be offended, but it's not going to work on me. I do not go out of my way to offend anyone, but I don't see why the word would be offensive--at least not given your reasoning. I'm not even the one that used the term "Mohammedan" in the first place. BTW, your link in the previous post is nonworking. Your are using faulty logic to justify why you or anyone else would be offensive. If you prefer another word, fine; use that word instead.
I don't understand why you would want to play a simulation of a simulation of (as much as the modern paintball industry denies it) armed combat ?
If I want to do something physical like that, I'll play airsoft in politically incorrect camouflage with politically incorrect realistic looking fully-automatic plastic bb shooting guns. If I want to do something like that on a computer I'll play a computer simulation of combat.
The others sound...no offense, but very boring. The only other fun FPS sub-genre I've seen is the stealth kind or the roleplaying kind, both of which still sometimes have violence.
If you want a non-violent game, there are plenty out there. Simcity, the Sims (well, people do get in fights, I guess), Railroad Tycoon, etc. Or you could play Civ and just avoid war.
But a game solely about sticking tags on animals?!? Come on. A game about terraforming a planet might be fun, but it's been done and I doubt the first-person perspective would be ideal for it.
I'm no Christian, but I am a historian. It seems to me that Catholicism has more in common with the Roman Empire than with what Jesus of Nazareth taught.
Wasn't there something about not having an organized religion, but having small groups worship at each others houses? I'm no biblical scholar either, in fact I haven't read the Christian Bible since being forced to as a kid.
Just because someone is a sucessor to someone doesn't mean that his leadership or ideas are consistant with the originator of the religion. Isn't the split between Sunni and Shiite Muslims based on a dispute about who is the true successor?
In short, I think that religion should be a personal decision. I don't see why being intolerant of others who worship the same god in a different way makes sense. But then, I'm an atheist, having given up caring about what (IMO) mythological entities might think, so who knows.
But from what I understand, Buddhists don't actually worship Buddha either, so I don't think that adding "-an" or "-ist" necessarily means that you worship the prefix. I think it simply means that you follow the prefix. And if Mohammed was the primary prophet, then Muslims would be following his teachings, correct?
I think that Mohammedan would simply be a native English word for Islam or Muslims, which both derive from Arabic and mean something like submission, if I understand correctly. I'm sure Buddhists in China or Japan don't call themselves "Buddhist", but the China or Japanese word for it. I believe that this is the same concept.
Then again, I'm not on the "politically correct" bandwagon.
I'm no fan of Christianity (I'm an atheist--christian raised), but I must admit it's in general not as intolerant and hateful as Islam (at least its extreme branches). Christianity used to be just as bad, but over many years reformed into a slightly more open-minded and less violent religion. Today many Christians are still close-minded and I have talked to many who think that any religion other than Christianity (or even Protestantism) is the Devil's work.
From what I understand about Islam, one of it's main tenets is that the religion should not change or modernize. And it makes sense, since Islam to me seems to be the most "primitive" major religion. And in that I mean that it still objectifies women and endorses holy wars and the like, whereas Christinanity, in general has given such things up. Of course there's the occasional Christian nut, like the lady who drowned three of four of her children because she thought they were possessed, the people who blow up abortion clinics, and then there's David Koresh. But there aren't whole organizations (anymore) of Christians whose sole aim is to kill nonbelievers like there is in Islam.
A note to any followers of Islam: I don't mean to insult all Muslims, I don't have a problem with anyone of any religion unless: (a) they try to convert me or (b) they kill people don't believe what they do. As long as you don't do one of those things, I will have no problem with you or the branch of your religion that you ascribe to. I have met quite a few Muslims who I'm sure just want to live their lives and practice their religion in peace and I have no problem with that.
I definately prefer games (particularly RPGs) with completely open-ended gameplay. I want a simulated world in which I can do whatever I want and play my character however I want. Daggerfall and later, Morrowind were pretty close to this. I've played bibliophile characters who mainly collected books. I've tried play both good and evil characters. I've played thieves who robbed houses as their main ocupation. One thing I haven't done yet, in either, is play the Main Quest the whole way through. I've had too much fun doing everyrything else to get around to dedicating any time to it. The fact that I can do that and still have stuff do do is my favorite thing about the Elder Scrolls series. My only real complaint about Morrowind is that it's not random *enough*. Daggerfall was much more random and more open-ended IMO. There were *thousands* of towns you could go to and it would take literaly over a week (real time) to walk across the whole map. Where Daggerfall was weak was that the towns and most dungeons were randomly designed (at creation time, not dynamically). So they often didn't make sense and had little flavor to them. MW improves this a lot where everything is designed, but I still miss that randomness that was in Daggerfall. If they could combine DF and MW in the next Elder Scrolls game, it would be great. But I think that Elder Scrolls games also cater to gamers who want to "win" a game. They have (from what I've read) good stories that you can follow and participate in if you want. So if that's your style, I don't know why you can't have fun playing MW also. Just don't wander off the beaten path and do what you're told by NPCs.
Briefly, on the retro game subject, I love retro games also. I've been doing little but playing Doom lately and before that I was playing emulated games (NES, SNES, Arcade, C64) constantly. So I can appreciate a good simple, rigid, and linear, but fun game also.
I also love Simcity because there are no definate goals defined by the game designer. I wish other Strategy/Sim games were like this instead of having the "missions". Most have sandbox mode, but it's often kind of boring with nothing at all going on.
BTW, I just got Arena from the TES site and got it to run under DOSBox, so now I can play the first Elder Scrolls game too.:)
In short, what I often look for is a simulation of another world (or this world, but doing something I wouldn't be able to do), not really a "game" as such.
But the Japanese government told the civilians to fight to the last man and woman...that the Americans would torture them (like the Japanese did to the Chinese). So more than regular soldiers would have died in defense of the home islands. The fighting on other islands was very ferocious as it was and very few surrendered. Civilians hurled themselves from cliffs rather than living in an occupied country. So many more lives other than military personnel would have been lost.
Well, I personally am not guilty of it. I haven't bombed anyone. Anyway, I am studying to be a military historian and I have read in many books (many by British authors) that the American military was against bombing civilian areas, but finally went along for the sake of the alliance.
See, to me if you support the right of every *individual* to defend themselves, then being against gun ownership is hypocritical. You're then depending on the *government* to defend *individuals*. I support the right of every individual to defend him/herself and his/her loved ones.
How do you know that you're not brainwashed? There is so much anti-American sentiment everywhere (even here in the US) that I think a great many people are led to believe that anything to do with the US is Evil (with a capital 'E'). Now, yes, I do agree that many people--all over the world--are sheep and have great difficulty thinking for themselves and simply believe what they are taught. Most media here have a liberal bias, so it's not responsible for any brainwashing, at least not in the direction you're implying. Michael Moore may think he's doing the right thing, but he is so deceitful and misleading that I would call anything he says "truth".
Korea and Vietnam were both indirectly defensive, although I'm not sure they were good ideas. In both we were helping defend half of the country from being overtaken by the communist half. This was mainly to limit the number of communist countries that would be against us in the conflict we feared would come against the USSR.
How would they have been for money? What did we plunder? On that subject, if this Iraq deal is for oil, then why the hell am I paying such high prices for gas? Gas prices have gone nowhere but up since the invasion (even before).
Now, I personally am pretty much an isolationist. I would love to see us pull our military out of every country it's still in and build up our own defense and security and just not worry so much about the affairs of other countries. That seems to be what the world wants, but I wonder if how soon it would be before someone asks us to help with some military matter.
Germany wasn't quite defeated before they declared war on us, and Japan certainly wasn't. Germany had switched to the defensive and was losing ground, but the Normandy invasion by Americans, British and Canadians helped a little, if I recall. How can you argue that Japan was defeated before we were attacked and joined the war? They were at the height of their power. Not only was Japan not yet defeated, but they almost kept fighting to the very bitter end. And I mean to the last Japanese people. The top Japanese generals planned to kidnap the emporer and keep the country fighting until they were obliterated. Luckily, they didn't succeed.
Now, about bombing civilians, the British started deliberately targeting civilian areas and cities with no military significance first (after being subjected to bombings by the Germans), but the US argued about this policy and did not want to participate. The US wanted to conduct daytime raids so that factories and military bases could be targeted with precision (precision in that day, anyway), but the US eventually went along with the British in that regard. So, yes, we were reluctant. And I realize that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were very ugly things, but I believe that they saved many more lives in the long run--both American and Japanese.
Let me ask you something...you say you believe in the right of every human to defend him/herself...but where do you stand on gun rights/gun control?
Also, if you're implying that the terrorist acts occuring in Iraq now is just a country defending itself, I don't buy that. They're attacking their own people and their own (I just heard that the reigns have been handed to the Iraqis today) government. They are radicals that want a fundementalist regime to take over, aparently.
So you have no issue with innocent people being killed as long as it is for a "good cause"?
No. It's sad, but it happens. By your logic, the Allies should not have joined in WWII and should have let Hitler and the Japanese Emporer take over the world and wipe out all Jew, Chinese, and other undersireables, since after all, civilians might die and in fact many did die. It's exactly that kind of thinking that let them get as far as they did before they were opposed.
I know you liberals can't admit it, but sometimes war is justified or is neccesary. Now, I'm not saying I like war or that it's a good thing, or even that we should be in Iraq. I'm just saying that while war is an evil, it is not the greatest evil.
Now, I don't like the idea of purposely targeting civilians to lower morale (the British and, reluctantly, the US) did this in WWII. But in the case of the atomic bombs, they probably saved more lives along with the entire country of Japan.
Your idiotic post just proves to me again that it's a good thing that most people aren't as pacifistic as you, or else, we'd be conquered and oppressed by the first group of people with sharp sticks and the will to use them to come along.
Actually, a lot of the extreme right don't like him anymore and think he's too liberal. I think he's alienated the right trying to appease the left, who'll never vote for him anyway. He basically sold out the US military the other day saying that they could be brought up on UN warcrime charges rather than it being handled within the US. He's also been worrying too much about what the liberal media will think about the war rather than winning it, IMO.
I'm not a fan of Bush, but one good thing I can say is that he's (IMO) better than Kerry.
So I'm at a loss about who to vote for or even to vote at all, really. I'll probably write in Michael Badnarik (the Libertarian Candidate). The Libertarian Party is the only one I agree with to any degree. I think Republicans and the Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals, are both full of crap.
And as far as your Hitler comparisons and wanting to subject the US to terrorism...well, you're full of crap too.
I really hate politics, but I can't help but keep up with it.
Why do people think "kiosk" means ATM? Now, I don't think that "kiosk" describes what the layout of the WaMus are, but here's a definition.
1. A small open gazebo or pavilion.
2. A small structure, often open on one or more sides, used as a newsstand or booth.
3. A cylindrical structure on which advertisements are posted.
There are ATMs, but the point is that the tellers are not behind a counter. Look here in case you actually want to know what you're talking about before talking.
Almost every post says having ATMs is not patentable, but it's not about freaking ATMs. They have ATMs outside like any bank, but inside are tellers. It's a real bank.
I still don't really know what "kiosk" means, but it doesn't mean ATM.
Basically, for those who are making self-righteous comments without having ever been into one of the banks, there are square counters spread around in the lobby at which a teller stands and the customer walks up to the other side. In other words, all the employees aren't behind a counter and window. The kids section is in a corner and has a GBA and other things. I've never personally been offered coffee or popcorn, but that may vary from bank to bank.
Anyway, to reply to your comment, the customer service at the WaMu I go to does *not* suck at all. It's very quick, the people are very friendly and it's relatively painless. I never have to stand in line for more than a minute.
So please try not to reply unless (a) you're commenting on the validity of patenting a lobby/office/service arrangement and method and have read the article, or (b) have actually *been* to one of the banks and are offering your opinion based on your experiences.
BTW, what are you talking about as far as replacing people with things? They still have people working there. The arrangment of the lobby has nothing to do with employees. Have you ever been to a WaMu? I'm guessing not, given your use of the word "queue" to mean a line of people and the fact that they only exist (as far as I know) in the US.
I'm happy with the Washington Mutual branch here. I've never once seen "one fucking teller serving a queue of twenty people." there. There are usually two or three tellers serving a line of maybe 3 people max. The service there is actually very good. It's a very different atmosphere from most banks, which I like. And the Gameboy Advance and toys they have aren't just for kids, either, but the little chairs suck (ouch, my back).
As far as patenting it goes, I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I must admit the concept is very new and novel for banks. It's not just the arrangement of furniture, it's the whole deal.
I think that pollution was a little too bad in Civ3 personally, though it (along with the other "unfun" parts) shouldn't go away. I usually get pretty severe pollution problems very early in the game--much sooner than in real life. Then until I have decent anti-pollution improvements, I have to build a legion of workers just to somewhat keep up with all the polluted squares popping up.
And as far as reducing corruption with things other than buildings...you can in Civ3 Conquests. It adds police (decreases corruption) specialists and engineer (increses production) specilists.
Ok, I've never played RT1 or 2 (or any Tycoon games), but I recently discovered RT3 and thought it was pretty interesting and fun. What's the problem with it and what do 1 and 2 have that 3 doesn't? Yeah, it has nice graphics, but it seems fairly complex and deep to me.
Well, yeah, I know that it was possible to do some WOlf3d editing, but not nearly as easy as Doom. With Doom, user-made content was actively encouraged by id.
I would still play Quake, but I lost my CD. I still play Doom and its ports, though. I think Doom actually started the idea of being able to make your own content, altough in a different form from Mods today.
I think he's talking about how, in an interview with John Romero, he said that Quake was going to be purely medieval and purely melee combat.
I quote:
"In Quake you'll fight, say, three monsters at the max...but it's going to be like a virtual fighter.... In Quake, you'll have to really kill things. You wont' just press the trigger and hit it, you'll have to heat the living shit of of the thing until it's dead. So you'll have this huge hammer and you'll pound in into blood paste on the floor, and you're going to ahve to take a while, too.... You won't have this arrow point-and-click kind of thing."
This may have something to do with Romero leaving, since the rest of the team didn't seem to go along with this. The way he was describing what Quake will be like (there's a lot more) sounds more like Morrowind than anything else.
Anyway, yes, most games have handheld weapons, that are used very rarely as an absolute last resort, but I don't think I would consider that melee combat like was planned in Quake.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think either the modern left or right are very true to the spirit of America. Both espouse freedom in some area of life, but government control in others. For conservatives, that area is moral and religious matters. For liberals, it's the economy and making everything "fair".
Either extreme is bad and not what our founding fathers had in mind.
Libertarianism isn't about not caring; it's about personal responsibility and personal freedom. Charities are to help the less fortunate. Governments (should) exist to protect our rights, not babysit us.
And don't think I'm rich and that's why I believe in low taxes and the like. That's a common belief about conservatives and I'm relatively conservative in financtial and fiscal matters. I'm a poor student who's in debt. I'm working a minimum wage job and borrowing money to try to (slowly) make it through college. I would stand to gain from having the government take money from those who have it to give it to me, but I don't believe in that. What people earn should be their money to do with as they will. Many people are charitable. Some aren't. The point is that it's their choice to do what they want with their money (and their lives).
I don't think you have a very firm understanding of Libertarianism. Many people think Libertarians are gun-crazy survivalist pseudo-anarchists. While some may be, that's generally not the case. Why not check out www.lp.org (The US Libertarian Party site) or google for a good description of the ideas? If you're not American, then there's probably a Libertarian party in your country also. I know there is in Canada, but I'm not sure about elsewhere. I'm not trying to convert you, but it would be a good idea to be more familiar with the philosophy before making judgments.
The problem with liberalism (and conservatism) is that its definition changes over time. Conservatives want to keep things the way they were when they grew up, liberals want to change it. Neither one is always a good thing. Don't get me wrong--I'd like to see change too, but not toward socialism.
:)
The liberals of 1776 (our founding fathers) would probably be the libertarians of today.
My point is, it's all relative. Many liberals today (those in office as well as those not) seem to be on the crazy side, IMO. The worst ones are America-hating (I'm talking about American liberals) socialists. To be fair, I think many conservatives are full of crap, too. Some are intolerant religious-nut rednecks and border on fascism. I'm a libertarian, so I can see the faults of both right and left, being myself somehwere in the middle and up, according to this quiz. My political beliefs, of course, are perfect in every way.
Well, I much prefer airsoft to paintball, but that's beside the point.
The exact same things go for any multiplayer FPS. You don't obviously don't actually kill anyone either way.
Paintball originated as a simulation for armed combat. I don't get the point of playing a computer simulation of a live-action simulation of armed combat. I realize that paintball has been made politically correct and players dress like clowns and call their guns markers, but it's still a combat simulation, whether you admit it or not. Airsoft just embraces that and goes all out for realism. (Guns, gear, tactics, etc) Noone gets killed in airsoft either. Or Quake. Or Doom. Or, paintball.
You know you, can...oh, what's it called...oh yeah, *rent* seasons of the Sopranos along with other movies. This is legal and lets you try before you buy your own copy. You'll also be supporting video rental stores that let you try before you buy for a very reasonable price. Console games too! And some even sell popcorn and drinks. Mmmmm...popcorn. They've been renting videos (and games) for quite a few years now; I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.
In all seriousness, your "poor me, the blighted consumer can't watch seasons of the Sopranos before spending $100, so I'm going to download them for free! Take that evil movie companies!" thing doesn't fly. It's very easy to rent any season you like of the Sopranos before you buy it.
The word n****r has nothing to do with the country Niger. It's a corruption of the term "negro", which I realize may also be offensive, but I'm using it just for the purposes of this discussion. Besides, just because someone is black doesn't mean their ancestors are from Niger. Besides, people from Niger are called Nigerians, which is not offensive (as far as I know). This is a very poor counter-example on your part.
Mohammed was a specific person, but I'm not sure what you mean by "person in general". Buddha just means something like "enlightened one". Buddhists follow the original Buddha's teachings (I forget his name, but he was an Indian individual), just as Muslims/Mohammedans follow those of Mohammed. I was just pointing out that just because you take a name and add "-an" doesn't mean that you worship that person (or now, according to you, want to *be* that person). I would take it to mean "a follower of said person".
I realize that you're just trying your hardest to be offended, but it's not going to work on me. I do not go out of my way to offend anyone, but I don't see why the word would be offensive--at least not given your reasoning. I'm not even the one that used the term "Mohammedan" in the first place. BTW, your link in the previous post is nonworking. Your are using faulty logic to justify why you or anyone else would be offensive. If you prefer another word, fine; use that word instead.
I don't understand why you would want to play a simulation of a simulation of (as much as the modern paintball industry denies it) armed combat ?
If I want to do something physical like that, I'll play airsoft in politically incorrect camouflage with politically incorrect realistic looking fully-automatic plastic bb shooting guns. If I want to do something like that on a computer I'll play a computer simulation of combat.
The others sound...no offense, but very boring. The only other fun FPS sub-genre I've seen is the stealth kind or the roleplaying kind, both of which still sometimes have violence.
If you want a non-violent game, there are plenty out there. Simcity, the Sims (well, people do get in fights, I guess), Railroad Tycoon, etc. Or you could play Civ and just avoid war.
But a game solely about sticking tags on animals?!? Come on. A game about terraforming a planet might be fun, but it's been done and I doubt the first-person perspective would be ideal for it.
I'm no Christian, but I am a historian. It seems to me that Catholicism has more in common with the Roman Empire than with what Jesus of Nazareth taught.
Wasn't there something about not having an organized religion, but having small groups worship at each others houses? I'm no biblical scholar either, in fact I haven't read the Christian Bible since being forced to as a kid.
Just because someone is a sucessor to someone doesn't mean that his leadership or ideas are consistant with the originator of the religion. Isn't the split between Sunni and Shiite Muslims based on a dispute about who is the true successor?
In short, I think that religion should be a personal decision. I don't see why being intolerant of others who worship the same god in a different way makes sense. But then, I'm an atheist, having given up caring about what (IMO) mythological entities might think, so who knows.
But from what I understand, Buddhists don't actually worship Buddha either, so I don't think that adding "-an" or "-ist" necessarily means that you worship the prefix. I think it simply means that you follow the prefix. And if Mohammed was the primary prophet, then Muslims would be following his teachings, correct?
I think that Mohammedan would simply be a native English word for Islam or Muslims, which both derive from Arabic and mean something like submission, if I understand correctly. I'm sure Buddhists in China or Japan don't call themselves "Buddhist", but the China or Japanese word for it. I believe that this is the same concept.
Then again, I'm not on the "politically correct" bandwagon.
I'm no fan of Christianity (I'm an atheist--christian raised), but I must admit it's in general not as intolerant and hateful as Islam (at least its extreme branches). Christianity used to be just as bad, but over many years reformed into a slightly more open-minded and less violent religion. Today many Christians are still close-minded and I have talked to many who think that any religion other than Christianity (or even Protestantism) is the Devil's work.
From what I understand about Islam, one of it's main tenets is that the religion should not change or modernize. And it makes sense, since Islam to me seems to be the most "primitive" major religion. And in that I mean that it still objectifies women and endorses holy wars and the like, whereas Christinanity, in general has given such things up. Of course there's the occasional Christian nut, like the lady who drowned three of four of her children because she thought they were possessed, the people who blow up abortion clinics, and then there's David Koresh. But there aren't whole organizations (anymore) of Christians whose sole aim is to kill nonbelievers like there is in Islam.
A note to any followers of Islam: I don't mean to insult all Muslims, I don't have a problem with anyone of any religion unless: (a) they try to convert me or (b) they kill people don't believe what they do. As long as you don't do one of those things, I will have no problem with you or the branch of your religion that you ascribe to. I have met quite a few Muslims who I'm sure just want to live their lives and practice their religion in peace and I have no problem with that.
I definately prefer games (particularly RPGs) with completely open-ended gameplay. I want a simulated world in which I can do whatever I want and play my character however I want. Daggerfall and later, Morrowind were pretty close to this. I've played bibliophile characters who mainly collected books. I've tried play both good and evil characters. I've played thieves who robbed houses as their main ocupation. One thing I haven't done yet, in either, is play the Main Quest the whole way through. I've had too much fun doing everyrything else to get around to dedicating any time to it. The fact that I can do that and still have stuff do do is my favorite thing about the Elder Scrolls series. My only real complaint about Morrowind is that it's not random *enough*. Daggerfall was much more random and more open-ended IMO. There were *thousands* of towns you could go to and it would take literaly over a week (real time) to walk across the whole map. Where Daggerfall was weak was that the towns and most dungeons were randomly designed (at creation time, not dynamically). So they often didn't make sense and had little flavor to them. MW improves this a lot where everything is designed, but I still miss that randomness that was in Daggerfall. If they could combine DF and MW in the next Elder Scrolls game, it would be great. But I think that Elder Scrolls games also cater to gamers who want to "win" a game. They have (from what I've read) good stories that you can follow and participate in if you want. So if that's your style, I don't know why you can't have fun playing MW also. Just don't wander off the beaten path and do what you're told by NPCs.
:)
Briefly, on the retro game subject, I love retro games also. I've been doing little but playing Doom lately and before that I was playing emulated games (NES, SNES, Arcade, C64) constantly. So I can appreciate a good simple, rigid, and linear, but fun game also.
I also love Simcity because there are no definate goals defined by the game designer. I wish other Strategy/Sim games were like this instead of having the "missions". Most have sandbox mode, but it's often kind of boring with nothing at all going on.
BTW, I just got Arena from the TES site and got it to run under DOSBox, so now I can play the first Elder Scrolls game too.
In short, what I often look for is a simulation of another world (or this world, but doing something I wouldn't be able to do), not really a "game" as such.
But the Japanese government told the civilians to fight to the last man and woman...that the Americans would torture them (like the Japanese did to the Chinese). So more than regular soldiers would have died in defense of the home islands. The fighting on other islands was very ferocious as it was and very few surrendered. Civilians hurled themselves from cliffs rather than living in an occupied country. So many more lives other than military personnel would have been lost.
Well, I personally am not guilty of it. I haven't bombed anyone. Anyway, I am studying to be a military historian and I have read in many books (many by British authors) that the American military was against bombing civilian areas, but finally went along for the sake of the alliance.
See, to me if you support the right of every *individual* to defend themselves, then being against gun ownership is hypocritical. You're then depending on the *government* to defend *individuals*. I support the right of every individual to defend him/herself and his/her loved ones.
How do you know that you're not brainwashed? There is so much anti-American sentiment everywhere (even here in the US) that I think a great many people are led to believe that anything to do with the US is Evil (with a capital 'E'). Now, yes, I do agree that many people--all over the world--are sheep and have great difficulty thinking for themselves and simply believe what they are taught. Most media here have a liberal bias, so it's not responsible for any brainwashing, at least not in the direction you're implying. Michael Moore may think he's doing the right thing, but he is so deceitful and misleading that I would call anything he says "truth".
Korea and Vietnam were both indirectly defensive, although I'm not sure they were good ideas. In both we were helping defend half of the country from being overtaken by the communist half. This was mainly to limit the number of communist countries that would be against us in the conflict we feared would come against the USSR.
How would they have been for money? What did we plunder? On that subject, if this Iraq deal is for oil, then why the hell am I paying such high prices for gas? Gas prices have gone nowhere but up since the invasion (even before).
Now, I personally am pretty much an isolationist. I would love to see us pull our military out of every country it's still in and build up our own defense and security and just not worry so much about the affairs of other countries. That seems to be what the world wants, but I wonder if how soon it would be before someone asks us to help with some military matter.
Germany wasn't quite defeated before they declared war on us, and Japan certainly wasn't. Germany had switched to the defensive and was losing ground, but the Normandy invasion by Americans, British and Canadians helped a little, if I recall. How can you argue that Japan was defeated before we were attacked and joined the war? They were at the height of their power. Not only was Japan not yet defeated, but they almost kept fighting to the very bitter end. And I mean to the last Japanese people. The top Japanese generals planned to kidnap the emporer and keep the country fighting until they were obliterated. Luckily, they didn't succeed.
Now, about bombing civilians, the British started deliberately targeting civilian areas and cities with no military significance first (after being subjected to bombings by the Germans), but the US argued about this policy and did not want to participate. The US wanted to conduct daytime raids so that factories and military bases could be targeted with precision (precision in that day, anyway), but the US eventually went along with the British in that regard. So, yes, we were reluctant. And I realize that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were very ugly things, but I believe that they saved many more lives in the long run--both American and Japanese.
Let me ask you something...you say you believe in the right of every human to defend him/herself...but where do you stand on gun rights/gun control?
Also, if you're implying that the terrorist acts occuring in Iraq now is just a country defending itself, I don't buy that. They're attacking their own people and their own (I just heard that the reigns have been handed to the Iraqis today) government. They are radicals that want a fundementalist regime to take over, aparently.
I hope this is a joke. I'm guessing it is from the smiley. If not, I'm very offended.
So you have no issue with innocent people being killed as long as it is for a "good cause"?
No. It's sad, but it happens. By your logic, the Allies should not have joined in WWII and should have let Hitler and the Japanese Emporer take over the world and wipe out all Jew, Chinese, and other undersireables, since after all, civilians might die and in fact many did die. It's exactly that kind of thinking that let them get as far as they did before they were opposed.
I know you liberals can't admit it, but sometimes war is justified or is neccesary. Now, I'm not saying I like war or that it's a good thing, or even that we should be in Iraq. I'm just saying that while war is an evil, it is not the greatest evil.
Now, I don't like the idea of purposely targeting civilians to lower morale (the British and, reluctantly, the US) did this in WWII. But in the case of the atomic bombs, they probably saved more lives along with the entire country of Japan.
Your idiotic post just proves to me again that it's a good thing that most people aren't as pacifistic as you, or else, we'd be conquered and oppressed by the first group of people with sharp sticks and the will to use them to come along.
Actually, a lot of the extreme right don't like him anymore and think he's too liberal. I think he's alienated the right trying to appease the left, who'll never vote for him anyway. He basically sold out the US military the other day saying that they could be brought up on UN warcrime charges rather than it being handled within the US. He's also been worrying too much about what the liberal media will think about the war rather than winning it, IMO.
I'm not a fan of Bush, but one good thing I can say is that he's (IMO) better than Kerry.
So I'm at a loss about who to vote for or even to vote at all, really. I'll probably write in Michael Badnarik (the Libertarian Candidate). The Libertarian Party is the only one I agree with to any degree. I think Republicans and the Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals, are both full of crap.
And as far as your Hitler comparisons and wanting to subject the US to terrorism...well, you're full of crap too.
I really hate politics, but I can't help but keep up with it.
Why do people think "kiosk" means ATM? Now, I don't think that "kiosk" describes what the layout of the WaMus are, but here's a definition. 1. A small open gazebo or pavilion. 2. A small structure, often open on one or more sides, used as a newsstand or booth. 3. A cylindrical structure on which advertisements are posted. There are ATMs, but the point is that the tellers are not behind a counter. Look here in case you actually want to know what you're talking about before talking. Almost every post says having ATMs is not patentable, but it's not about freaking ATMs. They have ATMs outside like any bank, but inside are tellers. It's a real bank.
I still don't really know what "kiosk" means, but it doesn't mean ATM.
Basically, for those who are making self-righteous comments without having ever been into one of the banks, there are square counters spread around in the lobby at which a teller stands and the customer walks up to the other side. In other words, all the employees aren't behind a counter and window. The kids section is in a corner and has a GBA and other things. I've never personally been offered coffee or popcorn, but that may vary from bank to bank.
Anyway, to reply to your comment, the customer service at the WaMu I go to does *not* suck at all. It's very quick, the people are very friendly and it's relatively painless. I never have to stand in line for more than a minute.
So please try not to reply unless (a) you're commenting on the validity of patenting a lobby/office/service arrangement and method and have read the article, or (b) have actually *been* to one of the banks and are offering your opinion based on your experiences.
BTW, what are you talking about as far as replacing people with things? They still have people working there. The arrangment of the lobby has nothing to do with employees. Have you ever been to a WaMu? I'm guessing not, given your use of the word "queue" to mean a line of people and the fact that they only exist (as far as I know) in the US.
I'm happy with the Washington Mutual branch here. I've never once seen "one fucking teller serving a queue of twenty people." there. There are usually two or three tellers serving a line of maybe 3 people max. The service there is actually very good. It's a very different atmosphere from most banks, which I like. And the Gameboy Advance and toys they have aren't just for kids, either, but the little chairs suck (ouch, my back).
As far as patenting it goes, I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I must admit the concept is very new and novel for banks. It's not just the arrangement of furniture, it's the whole deal.
I think that pollution was a little too bad in Civ3 personally, though it (along with the other "unfun" parts) shouldn't go away. I usually get pretty severe pollution problems very early in the game--much sooner than in real life. Then until I have decent anti-pollution improvements, I have to build a legion of workers just to somewhat keep up with all the polluted squares popping up.
And as far as reducing corruption with things other than buildings...you can in Civ3 Conquests. It adds police (decreases corruption) specialists and engineer (increses production) specilists.
Ok, I've never played RT1 or 2 (or any Tycoon games), but I recently discovered RT3 and thought it was pretty interesting and fun. What's the problem with it and what do 1 and 2 have that 3 doesn't? Yeah, it has nice graphics, but it seems fairly complex and deep to me.
Well, yeah, I know that it was possible to do some WOlf3d editing, but not nearly as easy as Doom. With Doom, user-made content was actively encouraged by id.
I would still play Quake, but I lost my CD. I still play Doom and its ports, though. I think Doom actually started the idea of being able to make your own content, altough in a different form from Mods today.
I think he's talking about how, in an interview with John Romero, he said that Quake was going to be purely medieval and purely melee combat.
... In Quake, you'll have to really kill things. You wont' just press the trigger and hit it, you'll have to heat the living shit of of the thing until it's dead. So you'll have this huge hammer and you'll pound in into blood paste on the floor, and you're going to ahve to take a while, too. ... You won't have this arrow point-and-click kind of thing."
I quote:
"In Quake you'll fight, say, three monsters at the max...but it's going to be like a virtual fighter.
This may have something to do with Romero leaving, since the rest of the team didn't seem to go along with this. The way he was describing what Quake will be like (there's a lot more) sounds more like Morrowind than anything else.
Anyway, yes, most games have handheld weapons, that are used very rarely as an absolute last resort, but I don't think I would consider that melee combat like was planned in Quake.