Last time I checked, Israel is not a part of the USA....They can take care of themselves. As much as I agree the US needs to stop worrying about what happens to Israel, I think you might not understand why we do. Israel is a US/UN holding in the middle east. Israel was formed for the exact purpose of the US and other allied nations to have a base of operations in the middle east. Israel was artificial established (they did not establish themselves but were rather set up by foreign powers). Israel doesn't actually exist without US or other foreign involvement. So in actuality if the USA does not defend Israel then Israel doesn't exist, so there really is no way for the USA to not defend Israel. I know it seems like circular logic, but it's the truth none the less.
You need to wake up to what a nuclear equipped Iran means to the world. What, that there will be one more country free from the threat of US invasion. Guess I don't see the down side. The only country to ever use nuclear weaponry is the USA, and no mater how insane we may thing other world leaders are, the out cry that country such and such would be a threat if they had nuclear capability has yet to come true. It might also mean that certain countries stop wasting resources on the defense of an artificially established nation.
Currently, you are probably right that macs are newer on average than the PCs. This is because Mac just went through a significant hardware change. This has happened a few times in the history of Apple. It has also happened in the history of PCs. But my experience, I have owed a number of windows boxes as well as my apples and commodores, is that PCs require upgrades due to software needs as well as significant hardware changes. As soon as vista gains in popularity, probably some point next year, we will see PCs remain leading the new hardware debate until another significant hardware change for apple, which is most likely 10 years away, unless apple decides to make a Cell based PC.
Let's face it, the apple way is to buy new stuff and often. I'm not sure where you get this idea from. In the past 10 years I have purchased 2 computers, both Macs and my wife has purchased 1. I expect to get at least 5 years out of my current mac, which I just purchased, without buying a single new piece of hardware. All the WinTel PC Users I know purchase hardware upgrades every 6 months at the bare minimum. My 5 year old PowerBook will still meet the minimum requirements for the vast majority of all Mac Software (I have never run into a piece it would not run), yet ever year new PC software comes out that requires a hardware upgrade. OS X has been out for 8 years and with all it's upgrades it will still run, sometimes better than it used to, on 8 year old hardware. You can't honestly say this for Windows (yes I realize it may be possible to trim XP or even Vista down so it would run on older hardware, but OS X does it with full functionality)
Another "faultless" poverty scenario, that I am intimately familiar with, is when mom stays home with the kids until dad moves in with his girlfriend, they get divorced, and he rarely if ever pays child support...I fail to see how any of this was due to a lack of responsibility on my mom's part Try not to get too offended here, but making poor life choices, such as who to have children with, is not "faultless." I'm personally sick of people not taking responsibility for their own action.
I do hope that you an your brother got any help you might have needed to get out of the situation.
My number one concern is for the well being of all children. They did not ask to be brought up in a situation where they can not be well cared for, and should not be punished from birth for there parents situation. I would much rather have all people have access to the same resources, and hope that someday that happens. In the meantime, while we live in a world and nation of inequality, people should do what they can to make sure that no children are brought up in less than acceptable situations. When you are homeless, and you actually wish to improve your situation to the point where you are capable of caring for a child, you should probably be working on finding work and a home, or, at the least, the resources to provide you access to these things, rather than having sex at all. Sexual intercourse and, even more so, procreation are not needs by any stretch of the imagination. Considering sex to be the only "joy" a person can naturally have is a narrow view of joy at best, but most likely bordering on sociopathic.
I'm willing to bet you are conservative and have a low sex drive. I'd be happy to take you up on the bet for any thing you feel you can spare. Just so you realized I already know the answer so I do have a bit of an advantage in the wager. But even if you don't decide to go through with the wager you did provide me, and those that know me, with great amounts of laughter and hilarity. Unless by Conservative you mean "anyone that does not think like I do" and by low sex drive you mean "considers being able to provide for family as more important than sex"
Yeah, well, that's what happens when you work for Wal-Mart. You get no health care insurance, and just enough money to pay for rent and food. Selfish parents, spending that money on food. Selfish parents, having children when they aren't capable of caring for them.
In Kennesaw, every household is legally obligated to keep a gun. Rubbish. Kennesaw law states that every head of household must maintain a firearm with ammunition. First of all there is no specifics of how or where that fire arm is maintained. Second there are multiple exceptions including not only those that can not afford a firearm but also those that conscientiously object, which pretty much says if you don't object to maintain a firearm and can afford to then you must. And finally there is no punishment prescribed for violation of the law and no one has ever be prosecuted for such violations so it is basically an empty law on the books just to make a point.
Beyond your blatant attempt to spread false information your comparison between Kennesaw and New York comes no were close to the comparison between the US and England that you are trying to dispute. Kennesaw has a populaiton density of ~ 990 people per square kilometer as compared to New Yorks 10,000 +, nearly 100 times the population density, which means the average New York is in proximity to 100 times as many people as the residents of Kennesaw, and therefor 100 times the chance of criminal activity. So to be compared equally NYC should have 100 times the crime rate per capita. In reality NYC has 1 violent crime for every 136 residents (not to mention the millions of visitors), while Kennesaw's is 1 per 1100. So if you don't take density (among many other things like no resident populace) into account then sure it looks like Kennesaws gun laws are better for reducing violent crime than NYCs, but that would only be half the story. Not to mention that objective studies have actually shown Kennesaw's crime rate to have increased since the law went into effect.
I don't care if you carry a gun or not but either way, but try and make arguments that at least sound reasonable. (I am well aware that these types of statistics can be manipulated to prove any point)
So as examples of good new run and jump games you mention 3 games. 1 that doesn't yet exist and one that is just a rehash of a worn out formula just like you have been complaining about, and I'm not sure what to say about Gish. But I can say that LittleBigPlanet is anything but a run and jump game. I mean right in IGNs blurb they say "There are obstacles to explore, bits and pieces to collect and puzzles to solve..." three things you complained about already. But you did evetually clear up why you don't like platformers and have stuck to the run and jump sub genre when you said:
...the single most important element: the jumping. Personally I find jumping to be a consequential side effect of the level design of platform games and certainly not the central aspect facilitating the enjoyment of the game.
Sadly you will probably be finding your self highly disappointed in the future of corporate gaming, but if you look around at emulation or home brew gaming you might just be able to get your fix. luckily for you 2D run and jump games are relatively simple to design and program so you could probably start making your own if need be.
Sorry I am willing to be that you are not going to find anything new in the 2D run and jump without item collection or puzzles genre. I'm not sure how you even expect there to be anything new in such a narrowly defined genre. Other than graphical and map layout there real are no possible changes. Personally I find running, jumping and the occasional use of the single attack option to be down right boring, and why I never really got into platform games until Odd World, But it's also why I have no grown bored with the modern platformer, since they can at the very least have new items to find, weapons to use and most importantly puzzles to solve. To play the same run and jump game over and over again would be like playing FPSes, which also bore the piss out of me.
On the other hand I too would like to see some new 2D games, be them platformers or whatever, but I'm not going to suggest the new 2D games be pigeon holed into the run, jump, etc. mini genre.
As for your dislike of the double jump, I think you need to realize that you are playing a game, and with as unrealistic as it is for an ex-plumber to be jumping on on turtles and saving princesses the idea of being able to do a higher than usual jump shouldn't be so hard to understand. As a game it has rules that only apply to it, and the fact that those rules happen to translate on screen to the character pushing off in mid air really should detract from the level of enjoyment you get from it. I just don't get how the double jump irritates you because it doesn't "obey the last of physics", but using a raccoon tail to fly doesn't seem to bother you much at all.
I for example love platformers... I would welcome to finally see new heroes, enemies, universes and such. I didn't become interested in platformers until recently (I've been playing platformers since Rush 'N Attack, just didn't find them interesting) and you didn't mention any of my favorites, Like Jak and Daxter and Ratchet and Clank. So it seems that it's not that there are not new franchises being created, but more that either you aren't playing them, or they are so different that they don't interest you. If it is the former then you might need to move away from Nintendo, and if it is the later then you probably aren't actually interested in something new. Honestly the first 3 Ratchet and Clanks are some of my favorite games, even though they are certainly not in my preferred genres.
I will assert that the reason you don't find critical bugs in your programs is because they are either trivial or because they aren't stressed enough. You can assert all you would like, but you would be wrong. Oddly enough, bug riddled software like Office Suites are far more trivial, being common place, ordinary and even of little importance, than the most bug free software, including projects I have lead. Non-trivial software, such as where lives are at stake, does not have these types of flaws, or are less likely to have these flaws.
Even the acknowledged experts in this field such as the OpenSSL and OpenBSD... Anyone that has known me realizes I am no supporter of Software projects that allow pretty much anyone to put their hands in the code (which is not to be confused with the concept of free or open source software), so using the examples of OpenSSL and OpenBSD developers as an example of "experts" is not going to go far. But that being said both of those projects are well above average in quality and that is without the ability to use strict engineering techniques.
If you are looking for a "silver bullet" to all the woes of software development you are not going to find it, just like the architects and physical engineers of the world have never found one in their fields. But what Engineers have found is that building something right the first time is the most effective (a.k.a. cheapest) way to build. It may be sad but if we started allowing users and clients to sue for bugs in software you would see software become more stable and bug free fast. Yes it does take a lot of resources to build something that will last the test of time, but it's far more effective than rebuilding it for eternity (could you image trying to keep the Great Pyraminds standing had they been built from cheap materials like card board, or should I say papyrus board).
99.9% isn't bug free, not even close. By 99.9% I mean no critical bugs, with a possible superficial bug like a button in a UI being slightly out of place. I certainly meant no fatal bugs or exploits. A non critical functions that only triggers 99 out of 100 attempts is a bug, but nothing compared to what is being released these days. Personally I think 100% bug free software can be released, I just didn't want to scare anyone.
...to claim that...we think the bugs result in job security is simply idiotic. I would have thought so too if I hadn't heard this on multiple occasions by so called "Senior Developers", and that's just one of the despicable phrases that gets thrown around by rapid development oriented teams. I know that probably comes of as some sort of anti-agile rant but that's not the point. The point is that it's common developer attitude, as is illustrated clearly in the quote below, that is causing the industry to be full of bug riddled software and generally unhappy, and certainly no more productive, users.
I guarantee that your software has bugs, even critical ones, and you have no secret sauce that the rest of us don't. Yes and no. Software written under my direction, without some higher up undermining my decisions, is bug free, released on time or earlier, with lower budgets than most other projects doing equivalent work. I make sure specs are meet to the exact degree necessary without trying to be fancy or have the teams imagination run wild with "enhancements." What you are correct about is that I have no "secret" that allows this to happen, just like there was no secret behind MOS Technologies ability to create Integrated Circuitry at 1/5th the cost of competitors. The answers are right in front of everyones face they just have to get out of artistic/magician mode and into engineer/architect mode.
It really irks me when people think good products are expensive and time consuming. It's like shopping at Wal-Mart. Sure it seems cheaper, until you have bought the same product 6 times because it's so "cheaply" constructed it keeps breaking. I doubt you can even find a compelling reason for there to be a new version of MS Office, just to name one program, other than to fix the bugs in the last one.
I think you missed my statement that being petty about what people call a product is asinine. I happen to call them legos. I grew up playing with legos and my kid will also play with legos. But if you are going to be a prick about what people call a product, then you might as well be technically correct (technically there is no such product as Lego). So go on calling things what ever you want and making up what ever words you think accurately describe the situation, just don't come down on other people when you don't have a leg to stand on. (This was not directed at the parent, just trying to clear up my original post).
No way will you walk out of the store for "forty-nine ninety-nine". Unless you are shopping in an area without sales tax. In places like the state of Delaware you actually pay the price on the tag (assuming your foolish enough to not barter for a better price). Plus the company is probably legal bound to have their sales clerks quote exact prices or risk being sued.
You can write bug free software, it's just several orders of magnitude more expensive and time consuming to write it. I was gonna let all this slide by but after reading that line I had to jump in. This is complete rubish. An absolute line made up by supporters of Agile development and Frauds out to suck millions of dollars from ignorant venture capitalists. Look I'm sick of hearing this. As a software Engineer I have experienced bad software development and good software development, and believe it or not, good, solid, bug free (99.9%) software takes less time to design, write and test, than the majority of the crap beta software corporations like MS spits out to the unsuspecting public. And that's not even getting into the fact that programs like word are far more complex than they need to be to accomplish exactly what they end up doing.
I'd apologize for the rant but this kind of bullshit spouted by slack ass "Programmers" and "Developers" just pisses me off to no end. Keep thinking your gonna have that job security you always wanted by making sure there's no one else that can weed threw your garbled mesh of spaghetti, when in reality making software that actually works if far more job securing. But then again I would probably be out of work if the "developers" of the world actually did their shit right since organizations would need people like me to clean it all up.
Fuck the karma, some one had to finally clear this up, too bad no one in a position to actually change things will read this.
surely by now everyone here ought to know that if you say "legos" not "lego" when talking about more than 1 lego brick, yet another barely-on-topic flame war about the pluralisation of Lego is inevitable The pluralisation of LEGO is imposible, because not only is "pluralisation" most likely not a word, but also because LEGO is a brand. You can't have more than one LEGO. On the other hand you can have more than one LEGO brand building block, LEGO brand building brick, or even just LEGO brick.
On the other hand being anal about the term people use to refer to the blocks in a children's toy is a little asinine.
I'm thinking that you're remembering the game through rose tinted glasses. I'd call it relative, not rose colored. And I will agree it certainly wasn't optimal, like running WC off of floppy, I was just saying it was playable and enjoyable on a 8086, and didn't require a 80286 or higher. The box claimed 286 12 mhz or better with Dual Floppy or a Hard Disk. Never tried it with dual floppy but if it was anything like one floppy it would have been far less enjoyable than the frame rate on an 8086. And since most sci fi movies are 24 frames per second, I can't see playing a game at 10 fps being all that bad (I'm old enough to remember slower frame rates than that).
I sincerely doubt that. Doubt it all you want, but trust me, the first system I ever ran it on were the CAD machines in the computer lab at the college an associate of mine worked at. I was a pretty dedicated Commodore user at the time so didn't have a PC available and my buddy had a copy of Wing Commander. So we would play it at his work, a blatant abuse of university equipment that nearly got him canned, but that is beside the point. I can't remember the full statistics on the machines but I do recall they were 8086 (because the only 286s available were lacking hard drives, and Wing Commander did not run well from disk, at least we never had the patients to get through the start up) with EGA adapters, and I'm not positive but I believe these were either have been 7.14mhz desktop pros or 8 mhz NEC clone based machines. We ran through WC and the First of the Secret Missions on those machines. Had all the visual options turned off, such as in being able to see the character controlling the yoke and in cockpit damage details (which is probably the EMS options you mentioned), and the systems had no sound processors, but other than a slight pause during explosions the game actually ran quite well.
Looking at the claimed minimum requirements for the game I wouldn't believe it either had I not actually been there and done it. Then again it wouldn't be the only time Origin overstated the minimum requirements for a game, as was well documented in the Mac Version of WC 3.
Of course he kind of cheated seeing as how Wing Commander required a high-end 286. I first played Wing Commander on an 8086, so I wouldn't say that Wing Commander required a high-end anything let alone a 286. You couldn't run it with all graphical options on but it would run smoothly otherwise.
Getting rid of envy through Marxism is like getting rid of racism by ethnic cleansing. It's more like getting rid of racism by removing the concept of race. Socialism (and my extension Marxism) does not remove property, only the concept of property owned by individuals. By making all property shared by all people you no longer have anything to be envious about, at least as property is concerned. The same would be true if we could remove the concept of race without actually removing people. Equality or race, gender or other sub culture (sub meaning "part of" not "less than") is actually a common aspect of many socialist factions. Gender Equality specifically has always come about earlier in Socialist countries (Communist and Fascist alike).
Sorry you don't like the question I posed but so far I have yet to have someone come to me with an example where there was no other course of action, that would have actually resolved the issue, other than use of deadly force. You know as well as I that there were many alternate solutions to the example you gave, and that there is no proof that the convict in question would have killed the victim, unless of course you have abilities to see alternate outcomes that the rest of us can't, specially if no violent means of resolution were employed. Does this mean if I perceived my child's life was in danger that I would not take what ever means I had available to remove that perception? Of course not, I'm not half the man Ghandi was and as much as I would like to live a life of true non violence I know that I have the capability to harm, maim and kill.
And speaking of Ghandi, you point out two great things. First that Ghandi was an opponent of disarmament of an entire nation, and that he died by firearm. The fact that Ghandi did not support the whole sale removal of all weaponry from a nation does not mean that he supported a complete lack of regulation of deadly arms. Ghandi's death, on the other hand, is great example of a situation where the availability of firearms would not have saved him from death, no mater how many weapons he could have carried or used the out come would have been the same. Now had his assailant not had access to weapons with deadly force, Ghandi may have lived a number of additional years.
All of that is beside the point, as usual. The points are that there are always solutions to solvable problems other than deadly force, and more direct to the thread, that the constitution does not unilaterally protect an individuals right to own and use firearms without regulation. If you want to change the laws of to country so that select citizens (sense I rarely hear people standing up for the rights of rehabilitated criminals) do have that right to own arms of any level of lethality, then feel free to convince people to support you and elect officials that support that stance, but do not try and state that your belief is the correct one because of your interpretation of the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution. And if you really what to fight for reinstatement of constitutional amendments that look at the 9th and 10th as for more clearly defined and regularly misused or disused.
Where does the word 'firearm' appear in the text of the 2nd ammendment? My mistake, which I cleared up in another response to another poster. Regardless of the mistake the statement holds true that people, such as yourself, pick and chose which definitions are allowed to change with the times and which are not. Mind you that is also regardless of the fact that the founding fathers never use the term "regulated" to mean what you think it means anywhere else in the Constitution.
...keeping with my practice to, whenever possible, interpret the consitution using it's original meaning... You use of the phrase "whenever possible" pretty much gives you the right to make up what ever meaning you want, unless of course you personal communications with the framers. The understanding and interpretation of the Constitution is one of the tasks of the Supreme court. If you don't like there interpretations then feel free to elect different judges when then chance comes around, which I assume you will. But don't get all high and mighty and act like your personal interpretation is some how guaranteed to be how the original documents were intended.
Look, I own a.50cal black power rifle. It's about the same size as many period rifles. Nice leap there. You can't honestly tell me you are using a modern production black powder rifle as a measurement of 18th century unrifled flint/match lock muskets? The difference in Muzzle Velocity is staggeringly different. I'm not saying I didn't exaggerate a little bit, since certainly I did (though as you said air rifles of such force do exist), but the point that a 1700 musket or pistol is even remotely comparable to modern firearms is quit laughable. And since you obviously know what the original writers of the constitution thought then I am sure you know they never perceived people carrying around concealed hand guns capable of punching holes through inches of steel.
Well, going along the same lines as the militia being well regulated taken to mean able to show up armed with ammo First of all I don't understand where this interpretation of the world "regulate" comes from. Nowhere else that the term is used in the constitution would this definition fit.
...but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations...
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof...
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein...
I think that makes that point clear.
I would think that the type of firearms would keep up with the ability to serve the same functional purpose. Nowhere in the second amendment of the US constitution does it say what type of "arms" only that the right to bear arms, if you read it this way, will not be infringed. Until the Government declares all possible weapons as being illegal the second amendment is still being upheld. The second amendment can be taken literally or as the founding fathers meant it, and until we find "the unabridged annotations to the US Constitution" or we figure out how to revive the dead then we have to follow the accept word of the constitution which, as it is understood by the majority, the Supreme Court of the United states is supposed to handle all interpretations of the wording of the constitution and its amendments.
I have seen situations were firearms saved the day with regard to loss of life. I would love to hear an example of a situation were at no point an solution not involving firearms was available. Sure it may happen that by ignore earlier solutions people have backed themselves into situations where they feel they have no recourse other than use of deadly force, but this is, and yes I will say it, always avoidable. Ghandi was instrumental in the changing of entire societies and the may never once took violent action and he lived through far worse times than anyone in the US born after Vietnam has ever had to live through.
Unless someone is a psychopath, I see no reason to remove their abilities to do the same. Where in the constitution does it state that Psychopaths, or even rehabilitated criminals, have less rights than other US citizens? You do realize that psychopaths and criminals are normal people right up until they act in an anti-social way, and I don't know about you but I am not precognitive.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I am neither proponent or opponent to firearm control. I personal fired a gun before I was old enough to even remember it and was taught how to handle an respect firearms. I raised in a family that frequently hunted but that does not give me the right to change the meaning of the amendments of the constitution to fit my current needs or to determine alone what is best for the citizens of the United States of America.
Actually I only have an issue with pronouncing acronyms as single words when they sound stupid, like "zool." But in case you really wanted to know I do say G.N.U. and don't know what N.A.M.B.L.A. means, so have never had a reason to say it.
So, uh, how do you pronounce your nick? "Ex-eero-three-fourteen"? You almost made a good joke, but I think you meant "Ex-ee-ar-oh-three-one-four." I mean really, "fourteen," double ewe tea eff?
The difference between by nick and XUL is that my nick is not a acronym. If it was Xul that would be one thing, but it's not it's eXtensible User interface Language or X.U.L.
Slashdot Mirror
Currently, you are probably right that macs are newer on average than the PCs. This is because Mac just went through a significant hardware change. This has happened a few times in the history of Apple. It has also happened in the history of PCs. But my experience, I have owed a number of windows boxes as well as my apples and commodores, is that PCs require upgrades due to software needs as well as significant hardware changes. As soon as vista gains in popularity, probably some point next year, we will see PCs remain leading the new hardware debate until another significant hardware change for apple, which is most likely 10 years away, unless apple decides to make a Cell based PC.
I do hope that you an your brother got any help you might have needed to get out of the situation.
Beyond your blatant attempt to spread false information your comparison between Kennesaw and New York comes no were close to the comparison between the US and England that you are trying to dispute. Kennesaw has a populaiton density of ~ 990 people per square kilometer as compared to New Yorks 10,000 +, nearly 100 times the population density, which means the average New York is in proximity to 100 times as many people as the residents of Kennesaw, and therefor 100 times the chance of criminal activity. So to be compared equally NYC should have 100 times the crime rate per capita. In reality NYC has 1 violent crime for every 136 residents (not to mention the millions of visitors), while Kennesaw's is 1 per 1100. So if you don't take density (among many other things like no resident populace) into account then sure it looks like Kennesaws gun laws are better for reducing violent crime than NYCs, but that would only be half the story. Not to mention that objective studies have actually shown Kennesaw's crime rate to have increased since the law went into effect.
I don't care if you carry a gun or not but either way, but try and make arguments that at least sound reasonable. (I am well aware that these types of statistics can be manipulated to prove any point)
...the single most important element: the jumping. Personally I find jumping to be a consequential side effect of the level design of platform games and certainly not the central aspect facilitating the enjoyment of the game.Sadly you will probably be finding your self highly disappointed in the future of corporate gaming, but if you look around at emulation or home brew gaming you might just be able to get your fix. luckily for you 2D run and jump games are relatively simple to design and program so you could probably start making your own if need be.
Sorry I am willing to be that you are not going to find anything new in the 2D run and jump without item collection or puzzles genre. I'm not sure how you even expect there to be anything new in such a narrowly defined genre. Other than graphical and map layout there real are no possible changes. Personally I find running, jumping and the occasional use of the single attack option to be down right boring, and why I never really got into platform games until Odd World, But it's also why I have no grown bored with the modern platformer, since they can at the very least have new items to find, weapons to use and most importantly puzzles to solve. To play the same run and jump game over and over again would be like playing FPSes, which also bore the piss out of me.
On the other hand I too would like to see some new 2D games, be them platformers or whatever, but I'm not going to suggest the new 2D games be pigeon holed into the run, jump, etc. mini genre.
As for your dislike of the double jump, I think you need to realize that you are playing a game, and with as unrealistic as it is for an ex-plumber to be jumping on on turtles and saving princesses the idea of being able to do a higher than usual jump shouldn't be so hard to understand. As a game it has rules that only apply to it, and the fact that those rules happen to translate on screen to the character pushing off in mid air really should detract from the level of enjoyment you get from it. I just don't get how the double jump irritates you because it doesn't "obey the last of physics", but using a raccoon tail to fly doesn't seem to bother you much at all.
If you are looking for a "silver bullet" to all the woes of software development you are not going to find it, just like the architects and physical engineers of the world have never found one in their fields. But what Engineers have found is that building something right the first time is the most effective (a.k.a. cheapest) way to build. It may be sad but if we started allowing users and clients to sue for bugs in software you would see software become more stable and bug free fast. Yes it does take a lot of resources to build something that will last the test of time, but it's far more effective than rebuilding it for eternity (could you image trying to keep the Great Pyraminds standing had they been built from cheap materials like card board, or should I say papyrus board).
It really irks me when people think good products are expensive and time consuming. It's like shopping at Wal-Mart. Sure it seems cheaper, until you have bought the same product 6 times because it's so "cheaply" constructed it keeps breaking. I doubt you can even find a compelling reason for there to be a new version of MS Office, just to name one program, other than to fix the bugs in the last one.
I'd apologize for the rant but this kind of bullshit spouted by slack ass "Programmers" and "Developers" just pisses me off to no end. Keep thinking your gonna have that job security you always wanted by making sure there's no one else that can weed threw your garbled mesh of spaghetti, when in reality making software that actually works if far more job securing. But then again I would probably be out of work if the "developers" of the world actually did their shit right since organizations would need people like me to clean it all up.
Fuck the karma, some one had to finally clear this up, too bad no one in a position to actually change things will read this.
On the other hand being anal about the term people use to refer to the blocks in a children's toy is a little asinine.
Looking at the claimed minimum requirements for the game I wouldn't believe it either had I not actually been there and done it. Then again it wouldn't be the only time Origin overstated the minimum requirements for a game, as was well documented in the Mac Version of WC 3.
Sorry you don't like the question I posed but so far I have yet to have someone come to me with an example where there was no other course of action, that would have actually resolved the issue, other than use of deadly force. You know as well as I that there were many alternate solutions to the example you gave, and that there is no proof that the convict in question would have killed the victim, unless of course you have abilities to see alternate outcomes that the rest of us can't, specially if no violent means of resolution were employed. Does this mean if I perceived my child's life was in danger that I would not take what ever means I had available to remove that perception? Of course not, I'm not half the man Ghandi was and as much as I would like to live a life of true non violence I know that I have the capability to harm, maim and kill.
And speaking of Ghandi, you point out two great things. First that Ghandi was an opponent of disarmament of an entire nation, and that he died by firearm. The fact that Ghandi did not support the whole sale removal of all weaponry from a nation does not mean that he supported a complete lack of regulation of deadly arms. Ghandi's death, on the other hand, is great example of a situation where the availability of firearms would not have saved him from death, no mater how many weapons he could have carried or used the out come would have been the same. Now had his assailant not had access to weapons with deadly force, Ghandi may have lived a number of additional years.
All of that is beside the point, as usual. The points are that there are always solutions to solvable problems other than deadly force, and more direct to the thread, that the constitution does not unilaterally protect an individuals right to own and use firearms without regulation. If you want to change the laws of to country so that select citizens (sense I rarely hear people standing up for the rights of rehabilitated criminals) do have that right to own arms of any level of lethality, then feel free to convince people to support you and elect officials that support that stance, but do not try and state that your belief is the correct one because of your interpretation of the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution. And if you really what to fight for reinstatement of constitutional amendments that look at the 9th and 10th as for more clearly defined and regularly misused or disused.
...keeping with my practice to, whenever possible, interpret the consitution using it's original meaning... You use of the phrase "whenever possible" pretty much gives you the right to make up what ever meaning you want, unless of course you personal communications with the framers. The understanding and interpretation of the Constitution is one of the tasks of the Supreme court. If you don't like there interpretations then feel free to elect different judges when then chance comes around, which I assume you will. But don't get all high and mighty and act like your personal interpretation is some how guaranteed to be how the original documents were intended. Look, I own aI've said it before and I'll say it again, I am neither proponent or opponent to firearm control. I personal fired a gun before I was old enough to even remember it and was taught how to handle an respect firearms. I raised in a family that frequently hunted but that does not give me the right to change the meaning of the amendments of the constitution to fit my current needs or to determine alone what is best for the citizens of the United States of America.
Actually I only have an issue with pronouncing acronyms as single words when they sound stupid, like "zool." But in case you really wanted to know I do say G.N.U. and don't know what N.A.M.B.L.A. means, so have never had a reason to say it.
The difference between by nick and XUL is that my nick is not a acronym. If it was Xul that would be one thing, but it's not it's eXtensible User interface Language or X.U.L.