Something about that sentence doesn't seem quite right. If the government printed money and gave it to citizens that waited in line for it, that would not be creating wealth, would it? It would be more like redistributing wealth.
Not quite. If the government prints money, it is not creating anything of value. Skinning that rabbit and creating an in-game item adds something of (admittedly subjective) value to the community.
If the government were handing out money to everyone who waited in line with a manufactured good, then they'd be creating whatever amount of wealth those goods were worth.
The supposed recycling plan negates the whole point of the product: the convenience of not having to return them.
Not necessarily. The convenience is in not having to return the DVD the next day, or at a specified day later. If I want, I can sit at home and collect the things for months, and then bring back fifty at a time in a big garbage bag. I would say one trip every once in a while compared to a trip every time I'm done with a movie is a nice convenience.
Too bad the things were so damn expensive. Ce la vie.
I find it interesting that no one is focusing on the reported contents of these memos. So the Democratic party feels threatened by a Hispanic man gaining a position of power without a hand-out from the government? If this is true, it's absolutely shameful.
Someone in Bush's whitehouse compromises an agent whose mission involves intercepting terrorists trying to buy weapons of mass destruction, compromising a front company set up by the CIA for such purpose, and you think it is the same thing.
So do you back up your accusations, or do you expect us to swallow this whole? The fact is that there is no evidence that Bush or anyone high up had anything to do with the CIA leak. Show me the evidence and THEN hurl accusations, please. Note that unattributed quotes from "anonymous sources" are not evidence.
Not to mention the whole lying to Congress about WMD thing. Lying to Congress vs lying about an affair in civil court: which matters more? But since Bush lied in only 17 words, it doesn't count, right? I guess "I did not have sex with that woman." doesn't count either; I mean that is only 8 words.
Again, show me the evidence that any lying occurred. Now, you can fairly argue that he was wrong (although we still don't know for sure), but there's a big difference between being incorrect and lying purposefully. Bush quoted intelligence reports showing WMDs. If anyone is to blame, it's the intelligence agencies. Clinton, on the other hand, willfully lied, and it's all the more insulting that he lied about something so stupid.
I also find it ironic that, in a post about how it is isn't right to say, "Oh yeah? Well, the other guys did the same thing!" you're basically saying the same thing yourself.
I think it's obvious that both parties have the capacity for corruption. It's human nature to take advantage of something like this, and both parties contain quite a lot of humans.
If this story is true, then whoever responsible should face severe penalties. Heck, if it were Bush himself hacking away, I'd be first in line to punish him. All I ask is that accusations be backed up by facts. Screaming bloody murder before an investigation can even be considered doesn't help anyone.
... but where are the X-Ray glasses promised to us in the throngs of comic books of our youth? Hmmm?
Those turned out to be a fraud, so I ordered the George Atlas body-building kit, stayed up all night lifting weights, and beat up the manufacturers of the glasses the next day.
Seriously, though, this invention sounds like an absolute nightmare. Do you really want to know every time your wife fakes an orgasm? And trust me, if you're on Slashdot, she does.
There's an easy way to boost ratings here and ensure the future of the show. Have the Enterprise blow up and replace it with a new ship that's shaped like a giant, metallic boob. Oil it up frequently.
They would do well to pick up on the current Metrosexual fad and steer the show towards a more Will & Grace kind of gay banter.
Please. The last thing we need is to see Trip talking about how his phaser rifle won't fit into Reed's torpedo tube.
It's plainly obvious to anyone with half a brain what is necessary to save Star Trek. There's one move that can restore dignity to the fast fading franchise, while restoring the sense of wonder the series once possessed.
What's truly evil are the ads that follow you as you scroll down the page. The pop-up ads advertising pop-up ad filters are classic too. Maybe next we can get a porn blocker with a big picture of Paris Hilton giving someone a blumpkin as a welcome screen.
Why is the secret service involved? Arent they only concerned with protecvting the president and fake currency?
Of course. If you're about to frag the President while he's playing a FPS, the Secret Service bursts in and kicks your ass.
I'm going to nominate a console game for the title of Worst Game Ever. Clearly, the lowest of the low was X-Men for the NES. Here's a game where Wolverine's only attack is a kick, Nightcrawler doesn't teleport, and instead of fighting any of the team's well-known villains, you defend the fate of humanity and mutantkind against the likes of a blue double-helix and some flying Speak 'n Spells. The graphics were a joke and the gameplay was enough to make you tear open your NES with your bare hands and beat someone to death with the innards.
If this game was about the X-Men, then Halo is about a talking Ace of Base novelty straw that likes peanut butter. Truly awful.
The simple fact is that most of the world's people are quite content withouth space being militarized, and the only people who long for weapons can be divided into 2 categories:
1) The agressors, and
2) Those who feel a need to defend themselves from (1)
Unfortunately, we don't live in a fantasy land. Despite the rampant demonization of the US government in the media and around the world, I highly doubt you'll find anyone in it who wants weapons for their own sake. History has shown that a position of strength has safeguarded democracy for decades. Or did you think that the Nazis defeated themselves?
As recent world history has shown us, despite all the scare-mongering over 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', the real agressors come from the country that makes and sells more weapons of mass destruction than all the rest of the countries combined. And for those interested in the competitors, Israel and the UK come a distant 2nd and 3rd.
And meanwhile, none of the countries you named have used those weapons in more than fifty years. Israel is a country that would certainly benefit from the use of nuclear weapons, but they show the same restraint that any civilized nation would. Do you think their enemies would show the same restraint? I have a hard time believing that.
I'm not implying by this that Americans are inherintly evil or backward ( as they imply of their enemies ). The US is simply the pinnacle of the world's capitalist empire, and as such, is the most glarying obvious example of what capitalism is really about: profit at any cost.
Exactly. Profit at any cost. And a higher standard of living. Freedom to innovate. Opportunity for the poorest among us to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and make a life for ourselves with nothing more than an idea and the will to make it happen. Did I forget anything?
And that's why the US targets societies with different value systems to it's own for conquering and assimilation: as examples of alternatives to capitalism, they are the biggest threat to the US goal of total global military domination. Don't think that's what the plan is?
When that value system consists of members of said societies strapping bombs to their chests and running into crowded restaurants, you're damn right the US targets them.
And that's why the US targets societies with different value systems to it's own for conquering and assimilation: as examples of alternatives to capitalism, they are the biggest threat to the US goal of total global military domination. Don't think that's what the plan is?
I'm sorry, I prefer not to marginalize other people's views, but I find this to be total nonsense. Never in history has a nation with this much power used it so responsibly. Ask yourself whether any other nation would act the same way. Would China? Would Russia? Would Iran? Would Libya? If you answered, "Yes," you need to try again.
I realize that America-bashing is all the rage worldwide (and has been since way before Bush became President), but please try to seperate facts and logic from the propaganda. Why does the US seek to militarize space? Because if it doesn't, someone else will, and if military superiority goes to a nation without a Democratic form of government, God help us all.
IANASA but 2,000 people, mostly students hardly seems a worthwhile sample when trying to describe a population base of 290 million people.
Actually, you'd be surprised. You don't need a large sample size to run an accurate poll. Look at Gallop and Zogby polls covering elections for an example of this. A poll can be done using a sample size of only a few hundred, yet it will fairly accurately reflect the real-world results.
This is, of course, assuming that the poll is done as scientifically as it should be.
Slashdot Mirror
Something about that sentence doesn't seem quite right. If the government printed money and gave it to citizens that waited in line for it, that would not be creating wealth, would it? It would be more like redistributing wealth.
Not quite. If the government prints money, it is not creating anything of value. Skinning that rabbit and creating an in-game item adds something of (admittedly subjective) value to the community.
If the government were handing out money to everyone who waited in line with a manufactured good, then they'd be creating whatever amount of wealth those goods were worth.
The supposed recycling plan negates the whole point of the product: the convenience of not having to return them.
Not necessarily. The convenience is in not having to return the DVD the next day, or at a specified day later. If I want, I can sit at home and collect the things for months, and then bring back fifty at a time in a big garbage bag. I would say one trip every once in a while compared to a trip every time I'm done with a movie is a nice convenience.
Too bad the things were so damn expensive. Ce la vie.
I find it interesting that no one is focusing on the reported contents of these memos. So the Democratic party feels threatened by a Hispanic man gaining a position of power without a hand-out from the government? If this is true, it's absolutely shameful.
Someone in Bush's whitehouse compromises an agent whose mission involves intercepting terrorists trying to buy weapons of mass destruction, compromising a front company set up by the CIA for such purpose, and you think it is the same thing.
So do you back up your accusations, or do you expect us to swallow this whole? The fact is that there is no evidence that Bush or anyone high up had anything to do with the CIA leak. Show me the evidence and THEN hurl accusations, please. Note that unattributed quotes from "anonymous sources" are not evidence.
Not to mention the whole lying to Congress about WMD thing. Lying to Congress vs lying about an affair in civil court: which matters more? But since Bush lied in only 17 words, it doesn't count, right? I guess "I did not have sex with that woman." doesn't count either; I mean that is only 8 words.
Again, show me the evidence that any lying occurred. Now, you can fairly argue that he was wrong (although we still don't know for sure), but there's a big difference between being incorrect and lying purposefully. Bush quoted intelligence reports showing WMDs. If anyone is to blame, it's the intelligence agencies. Clinton, on the other hand, willfully lied, and it's all the more insulting that he lied about something so stupid.
I also find it ironic that, in a post about how it is isn't right to say, "Oh yeah? Well, the other guys did the same thing!" you're basically saying the same thing yourself.
I think it's obvious that both parties have the capacity for corruption. It's human nature to take advantage of something like this, and both parties contain quite a lot of humans.
If this story is true, then whoever responsible should face severe penalties. Heck, if it were Bush himself hacking away, I'd be first in line to punish him. All I ask is that accusations be backed up by facts. Screaming bloody murder before an investigation can even be considered doesn't help anyone.
Great! Can we use the glasses on their creators to expose this for the horse crap it probably is?
Those turned out to be a fraud, so I ordered the George Atlas body-building kit, stayed up all night lifting weights, and beat up the manufacturers of the glasses the next day.
Seriously, though, this invention sounds like an absolute nightmare. Do you really want to know every time your wife fakes an orgasm? And trust me, if you're on Slashdot, she does.
There's an easy way to boost ratings here and ensure the future of the show. Have the Enterprise blow up and replace it with a new ship that's shaped like a giant, metallic boob. Oil it up frequently.
They would do well to pick up on the current Metrosexual fad and steer the show towards a more Will & Grace kind of gay banter.
Please. The last thing we need is to see Trip talking about how his phaser rifle won't fit into Reed's torpedo tube.
It's plainly obvious to anyone with half a brain what is necessary to save Star Trek. There's one move that can restore dignity to the fast fading franchise, while restoring the sense of wonder the series once possessed.
Big T'Pol/Hoshi cat fight! Bring it!
Automatic pilot sounds well and good until your car decides that the quickest way through Manhattan is to drive through the center of Harlem at 3AM.
Give control to the cars and soon...soon the CARS WILL BE DRIVING US.
What's truly evil are the ads that follow you as you scroll down the page. The pop-up ads advertising pop-up ad filters are classic too. Maybe next we can get a porn blocker with a big picture of Paris Hilton giving someone a blumpkin as a welcome screen.
Why is the secret service involved? Arent they only concerned with protecvting the president and fake currency? Of course. If you're about to frag the President while he's playing a FPS, the Secret Service bursts in and kicks your ass.
If this game was about the X-Men, then Halo is about a talking Ace of Base novelty straw that likes peanut butter. Truly awful.
The simple fact is that most of the world's people are quite content withouth space being militarized, and the only people who long for weapons can be divided into 2 categories: 1) The agressors, and 2) Those who feel a need to defend themselves from (1) Unfortunately, we don't live in a fantasy land. Despite the rampant demonization of the US government in the media and around the world, I highly doubt you'll find anyone in it who wants weapons for their own sake. History has shown that a position of strength has safeguarded democracy for decades. Or did you think that the Nazis defeated themselves? As recent world history has shown us, despite all the scare-mongering over 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', the real agressors come from the country that makes and sells more weapons of mass destruction than all the rest of the countries combined. And for those interested in the competitors, Israel and the UK come a distant 2nd and 3rd. And meanwhile, none of the countries you named have used those weapons in more than fifty years. Israel is a country that would certainly benefit from the use of nuclear weapons, but they show the same restraint that any civilized nation would. Do you think their enemies would show the same restraint? I have a hard time believing that. I'm not implying by this that Americans are inherintly evil or backward ( as they imply of their enemies ). The US is simply the pinnacle of the world's capitalist empire, and as such, is the most glarying obvious example of what capitalism is really about: profit at any cost. Exactly. Profit at any cost. And a higher standard of living. Freedom to innovate. Opportunity for the poorest among us to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and make a life for ourselves with nothing more than an idea and the will to make it happen. Did I forget anything? And that's why the US targets societies with different value systems to it's own for conquering and assimilation: as examples of alternatives to capitalism, they are the biggest threat to the US goal of total global military domination. Don't think that's what the plan is? When that value system consists of members of said societies strapping bombs to their chests and running into crowded restaurants, you're damn right the US targets them. And that's why the US targets societies with different value systems to it's own for conquering and assimilation: as examples of alternatives to capitalism, they are the biggest threat to the US goal of total global military domination. Don't think that's what the plan is? I'm sorry, I prefer not to marginalize other people's views, but I find this to be total nonsense. Never in history has a nation with this much power used it so responsibly. Ask yourself whether any other nation would act the same way. Would China? Would Russia? Would Iran? Would Libya? If you answered, "Yes," you need to try again. I realize that America-bashing is all the rage worldwide (and has been since way before Bush became President), but please try to seperate facts and logic from the propaganda. Why does the US seek to militarize space? Because if it doesn't, someone else will, and if military superiority goes to a nation without a Democratic form of government, God help us all.
IANASA but 2,000 people, mostly students hardly seems a worthwhile sample when trying to describe a population base of 290 million people.
Actually, you'd be surprised. You don't need a large sample size to run an accurate poll. Look at Gallop and Zogby polls covering elections for an example of this. A poll can be done using a sample size of only a few hundred, yet it will fairly accurately reflect the real-world results.
This is, of course, assuming that the poll is done as scientifically as it should be.