The fascination with it in DAOC is the high you get when you kill another player other then a computer controlled character. It is like seeing who has the biggest dick.
I don't get it: even if you win, you're still checking out some other dude's junk.
They were taunting us into overreacting.
The 93 bombing didn't work.
The cole bombing didn't work.
Unfortunately, 9/11 did work. We initially went after their assets in Afghanistan, but then we overreacted and somehow turned Iraq into the central from of the War On Terror. Do you think Bin Laden was unaware of PNAC's agenda? I'd say we played right into his hands. But you make it sound like the only issue people are complaining about is long lines at airports, and that's a ridiculous exaggeration.
??? Won what? Just who the heck declared fear as the determining factor of if we're whipped? what lily livered book worm pacifist came up with that grand scheme? Look kids, life is a lot different from what you think it's like from your ivory towers, so get with the freaking program already.
If everyone is scared shitless, they've won.
If we're willing to give up rights, they've won.
If our new and improved homeland security is nothing more than security theater, they've won.
If our retaliation is to wage war against a nation that wasn't affiliated with the attackers, thus causing us to waste lives, money, time, and goodwill in an effort that is only destabilizing the region, they've won.
Face it, we were attacked, and 6 years later we still don't have any meaningful protection.
"get with the freaking program", indeed.
Because several times already, government agencies have learned about possible terrorist acts being planned and didn't act because they didn't consider the source 'credible'.
1) Cite some examples. C'mon, you should know that's mandatory.
2) Even if that is the case, why is the proper reaction to just target anybody who's acting 'different'? Why isn't the proper action better training of our apparently inept government agencies? Isn't your point that said agencies aren't intelligent enough to know when a threat is credible or not?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all documents are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creators with certain identical Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Funnily enough, Jefferson didn't actually "write" the preamble, so much as dictate it, and in his original vision our self-evident truths were: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of a penis. TJ didn't catch the goof in time, and the rest is our nonpenis-pursuing history.
most peace terrorists have been arrested in their lifetimes, usually for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, vandalism, and other misdemeanor crimes
Oh, do shut the fuck up. Terrorists? Man, let's just throw that label on anyone whose speech we don't like.
Disorderly conduct? "Oh bloody hell guvnah! Those people's conduct, it's disorderly!"
Do you just conveniently forget that the great moments of this nation's history were acts of resisting arrest, vandalism, and disorderly conduct". Do you remember those damn Boston Tea Party Terrorists?
What a sad day when I have to remind someone that not only was this country founded in protest, protests were still needed 200 years later because this nation still wasn't as great as it needed to be. You have zero concept of your nation's history, yet you have the nerve to suggest that resisting arrest is itself bad behavior?
What's keeping you from copying with any other card game? The players, copyrights, etc
Takes a bit more skill to make copy of a card that needs to be physically identical (card stock, colors, etc). Try playing with an imperfect copy, and your opponent will very likely notice. But in the case of this story, you don't even need it to be a good copy for it to work in the game. Big difference there.
I can't possibly see people wanting to buy a game then hundreds of cards just for the fun of it. Surely once you buy the game that's all you should need, instead this way you have to keep buying every few months or your cards are too weak and useless in such a cutthroat place like online gaming.
That's the CCG model, just updated for online-play. Having to buy the latest cards hasn't made M:TG die.
Having cards actually be rare is a good thing, if they could pull it off. Games get boring when everyone has access to the same spells and same powerdecks. Sure, the even-playing field means that there's now a skill-requirement (a good thing, as well), but only at the expense of variety. Too bad R&D didn't give the idea more than 2 seconds of thought.
No it's like saying that the bible speaks for all Christians. And it does, obviously.
Again, you prove yourself to have a binary view. For example, despite having some shared beliefs, there's a many differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants, but how can this be if in your world holy books "speak for all" denominations?
How can it be that some Christians ignore Leviticus, while others don't (after all, god "dictated" it).
Islam is not a religion, it is a political ideology,
Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant. If it's "not a religion", then by your definition, every Muslim I've ever encountered and ever will encounter believes that "non-muslims are worth less than animals". You're making blanket statements and pointing fingers at a subset of a group claiming that said subset represents the whole. That's like stating that the klan speaks for all Christians.
Are you that fucking dense that you can't comprehend that your test-case is an Iranian court. Are you that fucking dense that you can't comprehend that there isn't a such thing as a "Muslim court"? Holy shit, you're not just drinking the kool-aid, you're snorting it too. Does your next step involve an enema-kit?
Yes, the US's democracy is totally not in a pretty fragile state, protestors have nothing to worry about at all. "democrybabies"? Did you seriously call us a name as your counterargument? Zing!
After all, if we weren't, we'd have to go after a hell of a lot of muslims urgently. And they do a lot more silencing than even the kremlin.
Wow. What kind of kool-aid did you get? I got a pack of Cheneyberry sitting in my cupboard, but I haven't tried it yet. Is the new FoxCherryBlast formula as good as the old?
Oh really, friend? Considering my post is referencing what the administration knew it was getting into, the exact quote from 1991's Dick Cheney on what an invasion of Iraq would entail:
"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there.... How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there?.... I think to have American military forces engaged in a civil war inside Iraq would fit the definition of quagmire, and we have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in that fashion."
I'd reckon that you've effortlessly shown who the dipshit is. Couple that with your inability to state why the situation is not a quagmire, it's clear that you're just another talking-points-memo echo-chamber. Try coming up with an argument beyond "nuh-uh! You're a liberal!", fucktard.
I agree, and I'd probably use tor to connect to it.
Tor has significant weaknesses, especially in the face of government resources. You'd be better off using (or at least combining tor with the use of) public wifi access from a workstation that is ideally not linked to you. Obviously, the security of public wifi access is another issue. Unfortunately, true anonymous communications are a bit of a technical hurdle to the average would-be whistleblower.
(and to be completely honest, our problems are more due to GWB taking incompetent action than taking malicious action)
Bull. Our problems are due to the GWB administration incompetently implementing malicious action. Iraq was not an incompetent mistake: the administration knew that WMD's weren't present, that Saddam wasn't tied to 9/11 or Al Qaeda, and that invading Iraq would result in a quagmire, but yet the invasion was marketed to the American people as a necessary and relevant front to the "Global War on Terror". That is treasonous malice.
I didn't say science claims to have observed the creation of the universe. That was my point. The parent poster claimed that both the science and religion equally "guess" at the Creation. I stated that science makes no such guess - it's still working on the answer, but has some observations as to what's occurred. Whereas religions don't use any observations, each having created their own version of a creation story, and yet claim that their story has absolute weight over any other creation story.
While science has some really interesting guesses about the origins of the universe, as does religion,
Incorrect. Science says "we don't know the complete origin of the universe, but here are some parts we do know from observation. We still need to observe and understand more before we'll know the complete origin."
Whereas religion says, "we know the complete origin of the universe: God made it."
However, most real agnostics and atheists I know will admit it's a guess either way, and as a Christian I need to honestly admit the same.
Again, science doesn't "guess", neither does it yet claim to know the whole picture. Religion claims to know the whole picture, and each denomination has a completely different story that they claim as the one true story. There's nothing to support the guess that the Christian God created the universe and a Hindu god did not, but yet Christianity says "no, ours is the real story". My point being, why claim faith that Christianity proposes the true God when there's no observable proof to support it (especially only any other religion?) Shouldn't belief in a specific God require some form of proof?
Go down you local street corner and see how many people can solve the simplest of equations
Well, for any equations where the solution is "go fuck yourself!", "I got somethin' you can solve, sugah!", or "no seriously, go fuck yourself" the subjects in my test study pass with flying colors.
Last time I walked through Harlem, the hoodz said I had to fucking PROVE my wealth and whitenses before they would even consider robbing me. I showed them paystubs, my Discover card, even an ATM receipt, and still they doubted how rich I was! And don't get me started on the "white" thing, apparently they don't go by complexion any more, you gotta keep a DNA sample on you with a notarized letter from a scientist stating that he confirms your race.
Us white, rich folk never had it so tough.
Also, you really ought to be awarded with some sort of "waste of a condom" trophy.
"It is unfortunate that it is human nature to fear losing privacy"
Where do you see a reference to "microblogging" in that? The ONLY thing that sentence states is that it's unfortunate for people to fear losing their privacy, and THAT is what I took issue with.
Again, read the parent fucking post, and stop making tangential arguments.
Slashdot Mirror
as opposed to the republican health care program in which the richest country in the world can't take care of its citizens' basic needs.
I don't get it: even if you win, you're still checking out some other dude's junk.
The 93 bombing didn't work.
The cole bombing didn't work.
Unfortunately, 9/11 did work. We initially went after their assets in Afghanistan, but then we overreacted and somehow turned Iraq into the central from of the War On Terror. Do you think Bin Laden was unaware of PNAC's agenda? I'd say we played right into his hands. But you make it sound like the only issue people are complaining about is long lines at airports, and that's a ridiculous exaggeration.
If everyone is scared shitless, they've won.
If we're willing to give up rights, they've won.
If our new and improved homeland security is nothing more than security theater, they've won.
If our retaliation is to wage war against a nation that wasn't affiliated with the attackers, thus causing us to waste lives, money, time, and goodwill in an effort that is only destabilizing the region, they've won.
Face it, we were attacked, and 6 years later we still don't have any meaningful protection.
"get with the freaking program", indeed.
1) Cite some examples. C'mon, you should know that's mandatory.
2) Even if that is the case, why is the proper reaction to just target anybody who's acting 'different'? Why isn't the proper action better training of our apparently inept government agencies? Isn't your point that said agencies aren't intelligent enough to know when a threat is credible or not?
Funnily enough, Jefferson didn't actually "write" the preamble, so much as dictate it, and in his original vision our self-evident truths were: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of a penis. TJ didn't catch the goof in time, and the rest is our nonpenis-pursuing history.
oh, really? Referring to protestors as "peace terrorists" isn't trying to speak to his opinion of protests?
Oh, do shut the fuck up. Terrorists? Man, let's just throw that label on anyone whose speech we don't like. Disorderly conduct? "Oh bloody hell guvnah! Those people's conduct, it's disorderly!"
Do you just conveniently forget that the great moments of this nation's history were acts of resisting arrest, vandalism, and disorderly conduct".
Do you remember those damn Boston Tea Party Terrorists?
Do you remember when that pesky negro wouldn't learn her place?
What a sad day when I have to remind someone that not only was this country founded in protest, protests were still needed 200 years later because this nation still wasn't as great as it needed to be. You have zero concept of your nation's history, yet you have the nerve to suggest that resisting arrest is itself bad behavior?
Takes a bit more skill to make copy of a card that needs to be physically identical (card stock, colors, etc). Try playing with an imperfect copy, and your opponent will very likely notice. But in the case of this story, you don't even need it to be a good copy for it to work in the game. Big difference there.
That's the CCG model, just updated for online-play. Having to buy the latest cards hasn't made M:TG die.
Having cards actually be rare is a good thing, if they could pull it off. Games get boring when everyone has access to the same spells and same powerdecks. Sure, the even-playing field means that there's now a skill-requirement (a good thing, as well), but only at the expense of variety. Too bad R&D didn't give the idea more than 2 seconds of thought.
Again, you prove yourself to have a binary view. For example, despite having some shared beliefs, there's a many differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants, but how can this be if in your world holy books "speak for all" denominations?
How can it be that some Christians ignore Leviticus, while others don't (after all, god "dictated" it).
Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant. If it's "not a religion", then by your definition, every Muslim I've ever encountered and ever will encounter believes that "non-muslims are worth less than animals". You're making blanket statements and pointing fingers at a subset of a group claiming that said subset represents the whole. That's like stating that the klan speaks for all Christians.
No, I'm saying that "Muslim court" is a blanket label.
Are you that fucking dense that you can't comprehend that your test-case is an Iranian court. Are you that fucking dense that you can't comprehend that there isn't a such thing as a "Muslim court"? Holy shit, you're not just drinking the kool-aid, you're snorting it too. Does your next step involve an enema-kit?
So how does the US arming of Iraq with chemical weapons fit with your world? Surely that's as bad as "arming non-Demoractic (sic) states), no?
Wow. What kind of kool-aid did you get? I got a pack of Cheneyberry sitting in my cupboard, but I haven't tried it yet. Is the new FoxCherryBlast formula as good as the old?
"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there.... How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there?.... I think to have American military forces engaged in a civil war inside Iraq would fit the definition of quagmire, and we have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in that fashion."
I'd reckon that you've effortlessly shown who the dipshit is. Couple that with your inability to state why the situation is not a quagmire, it's clear that you're just another talking-points-memo echo-chamber. Try coming up with an argument beyond "nuh-uh! You're a liberal!", fucktard.
Tor has significant weaknesses, especially in the face of government resources. You'd be better off using (or at least combining tor with the use of) public wifi access from a workstation that is ideally not linked to you. Obviously, the security of public wifi access is another issue. Unfortunately, true anonymous communications are a bit of a technical hurdle to the average would-be whistleblower.
Bull. Our problems are due to the GWB administration incompetently implementing malicious action. Iraq was not an incompetent mistake: the administration knew that WMD's weren't present, that Saddam wasn't tied to 9/11 or Al Qaeda, and that invading Iraq would result in a quagmire, but yet the invasion was marketed to the American people as a necessary and relevant front to the "Global War on Terror". That is treasonous malice.
I didn't say science claims to have observed the creation of the universe. That was my point. The parent poster claimed that both the science and religion equally "guess" at the Creation. I stated that science makes no such guess - it's still working on the answer, but has some observations as to what's occurred. Whereas religions don't use any observations, each having created their own version of a creation story, and yet claim that their story has absolute weight over any other creation story.
Incorrect. Science says "we don't know the complete origin of the universe, but here are some parts we do know from observation. We still need to observe and understand more before we'll know the complete origin."
Whereas religion says, "we know the complete origin of the universe: God made it."
However, most real agnostics and atheists I know will admit it's a guess either way, and as a Christian I need to honestly admit the same.
Again, science doesn't "guess", neither does it yet claim to know the whole picture. Religion claims to know the whole picture, and each denomination has a completely different story that they claim as the one true story. There's nothing to support the guess that the Christian God created the universe and a Hindu god did not, but yet Christianity says "no, ours is the real story". My point being, why claim faith that Christianity proposes the true God when there's no observable proof to support it (especially only any other religion?) Shouldn't belief in a specific God require some form of proof?
Stats?
Courts have already ruled that there is no "right to transport".
Citation?
Well, for any equations where the solution is "go fuck yourself!", "I got somethin' you can solve, sugah!", or "no seriously, go fuck yourself" the subjects in my test study pass with flying colors.
Us white, rich folk never had it so tough.
Also, you really ought to be awarded with some sort of "waste of a condom" trophy.
"It is unfortunate that it is human nature to fear losing privacy"
Where do you see a reference to "microblogging" in that? The ONLY thing that sentence states is that it's unfortunate for people to fear losing their privacy, and THAT is what I took issue with.
Again, read the parent fucking post, and stop making tangential arguments.