This would be breach of fiduciary. What benefits one doesn't necessarily benefit another, and there's a wide consortium of interests here.
The whole "scorched earth" idea of let's just ruin the potential of anybody making any profit if that keeps Sony from making any profit is pretty freaking pathetic.
We have a great hi cap format, it's called blu-ray. Toshiba stands to make money from it, just not as much as HD-DVD could have netted. These companies have no reason to just make licenses free. Doing so would take billions of dollars out of the market.
Also, I don't see how it helps you to have a slightly cheaper optical disc solution with no movies released on it. Unless piracy is your thing, what do you do with that? It's a terrible backup solution compared with spare HDDs or networked backups. Maybe I'm missing something.
People like to complain that Warner stabbed HDDVD folks in the back, but this is a true stab in the back.
These guys know it's over and are trying to squeeze the last few bucks out of this things before it's all over, so they put out crap like this to get a few suckers.
It's bad for the industry, for their partners (except Microsoft), for the consumer, to let this format war last any longer, and it's over, so let's move on.
This is how I got my dreamcast and games, and I don't regret it a bit. I actually loved that system.
You're totally spot on that this is not the worst thing in the world for HD-DVD folks.
I guess you wasted a bit of money on the dual format discs, but that's nothing compared to what a ton of folks lost. Frankly, by waiting you'll make that money back on a cheaper blu-ray player anyway. Too bad they won't exchange your HD-DVD disc for a blu-ray disc, but you are still doing well with the dvd copy.
Well yeah, you're right. Sony won the war, if you see it in those terms, by heavily subsidizing PS3s and free movies. Now they get to pay for it.
The customer seems to have done nicely in the deal. Early adopters pay more and take a risk, but PS3 early adopters paid less thanks to Sony (and won over the risk). The prices of all players plummeted.
this isn't that bad. Sure, numbers got skewed around, but it was clear long, long ago, that the best HD-DVD could do is stretch this war out. It's been kinda obvious they could not win, so I'm not sure that the statistic skewing were that influential. If anything, they balanced eachother out.
except that Ron Paul is a white supremacist, and his message of love doesn't exist.
By accepting teh support of neonazis, they are given a voice. Other candidates, namely 2nd amendment Republicans in general, refuse money from hate groups out of respect for the republic. It shows selflessness, even if it's just for show. Money is the lifeblood of politicians, and by refusing neo-nazi money, politicians show that some voices must not be heard. That they will not let racism give them an advantage.
The entire purpose of Stormfront is white supremacy. there is no reason for stormfront to support Ron Paul except for Ron's repeated white supremacist statements.
Don Black is being made much more famous by his association with Ron Paul. Gee thanks Ron! By refusing the money, he has a chance to marginalize the hate on the extreme right. The GOP deserves credit for doing so with Pat Buchanan. We need more of that, not less, and Ron's excuses ring hollow and cynical, especially now that his lies are becoming more and more well known.
The wii isn't as successful as some think. I'm not sure why it's credited so much. The PS2 sold a lot of systems, but that's only a small part of it. The PS2 sold lots of GAMES. That's huge. In Japan, the attach rate is 3 games (and wii sports is not bundled, so it's actually one of the games). I can't think of any system doing that badly in the entire history of gaming. Is the wii more than wii sports? How much more?
The 360 is selling a lot of games, and the PS3, which is plumetting in price, is going to sell some games too. I think the wii is going to prove that graphics really are more important than novel gameplay. I don't think Nintendo is going make anywhere near as much as Sony this round. As you say, there's plenty of reason for the blu-ray to now save the PS3.
and don't get me wrong, I want nintendo to be right so I can see more cool innovations. I just don't think it's working out. But maybe my perspective is screwed up. It's certainly done far far better than anyone expected, and put nintendo back in living rooms. They need more third party games, urgently.
Re:A release date without a new gameplay video?
on
GTAIV Dated to April 29th
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Does it? It's not a revolution above GTA3, it's just GTA3 with much better graphics. I'm not sure this game will be as much fun as San Andreas, a very open and versatile game.
I'm not sure that Rockstar has ever had truly well crafted games, though they always have interesting ideas and content.
I hope this GTA4 is as good as they say it is. I just get the impression it's not.
PC's have superior power? Clearly? Sounds like you just proved they do not.
You cannot compare systems solely on ram and processor speed in mhz. There's more to it, and obviously a PS3 with.5 gigs ram does a hell of a lot better than the equivalent computer. The PC architecture is excellent for flexibility and terrible for specific applications.
I like PCs too, but we should just expect a PC to take a lot more Ram and processor to do a task than a system geared very specifically to a task.
Also, what input options do you mean? I think game consoles are starting to allow keyboards and mice, but the general game controller makes games very easy to use. I can use any PS2 controller on the planet. I can go to a pal's house and play football much more easily. things are simpler. Sure, it's not quite as flexible as a keyboard, and that makes the games very simple sometimes, but one is not clearly better than the other. It's a tradeoff situation. As more PS3 games use keyboard/mouse, I expect this issue to completely disappear.
Also, the PS3 has too much market share to be ignored. Even if it is easier to develop on the 360 and PC, it's smarter to develop on PS3 and then port to the more flexible 360 and then port that to the PC, since you probably need something on all those systems anyway, a lot of developers will just start at teh wierd one and work outwards. Remember, easy is only in terms of per dollar earned. And the PS3 is easy enough for the money it makes (not as good as 360, but enough).
I have to say that Sun Tzu would be very unable to control you from a position of weakness. L Ron would also probably be unable to control you because he's a lousy liar. But L Ron could control the gullible with lies.
Sony has been a member of many successful formats in technology. The whole 'Sony is an utter failure in formats' is totally inaccurate.
And I don't see what your message is. 'Sony puts their format in their technology' isn't a point, it's a truism. They also put all kinds of other formats in their tech. SATA 2.5 inch HDD, SD cards, CDs, DVDs, uPNP, Compactflash, DivX, etc etc etc, are int he PS3. Sony made great VCRs and would have happily made great HD-DVD players had things gone that way. Sony made a ton of cash on Beta and Minidisc, though not as much as they'd like.
It's hard to tell what your line of thought is from one post to another. I don't think this post is very well related to the one the parent was replying to, which was absurd. Kinda seems like you have some kind of issue with Sony, and are vaguely triying to make your argument but not sure how.
Also, his point specifically was that most media is proprietary. I don't understand why you tell him he misses the point and then repeat his point.
the Sony owns blu-ray thing is part of some bizarre FUD campaign, as best as I can tell. To defeat blu-ray, it was thought wise to associate it as closely with Sony as possible, which is easy since Sony is the leader of the consortium, and the PS3 is the vehicle of blu-ray success.
Sony has done a lot of stupid stuff, but I think they are coming out of this mess looking pretty good.
Totally fair analysis. MS just made a decision, is all.
Though outside the US, the 360 really is falling or has already fallen into a distant third. In Spain or Italy or Japan, blu-ray and the PS3 are outpacing. How valuable is the short-term benefit? I think very. The 360 changed MS from a joke to a serious contender, even if they do eventually lose, they led for a period. The developer relationships alone make this a solid move, and since I believe a new xbox is coming soon, MS may leave this battle before it's possible to look bad.
While you're right, the fact that HD-DVD players also often come with free movies probably balances this out quite a bit. I assume that folks do analyze the attach of movies you have to get yourself.
The remote is an interesting point. All good points, but that kind of information is probably too valuable to give away. I imagine Warner Bros. knows this stuff.
I guess we're getting to the point where it is Blu-Ray vs. DVD or internet and HD-DVD isn't important. It is going to be very hard to determine how many blu-ray homes are out there with the PS3 factor.
Anyone know if the blu-ray folks were similarly inconsistent? Excluding the PS3 when discussing attach rate? Seems unlikely to me.
The HD-DVD campaign failed as soon as it became evident the PS3 was not going to flop, at least that's my view of the situation. When the PS3 looked doomed and 600$, it wasn't hard to believe that the HD0DVD camp would prevail.
But how do you compete with the PS3? It's not that expensive next to a great TV and movie collection, and it does all that media stuff + is a future proof blu-ray player. Almost unfair. I wonder why the 360 didn't come out with built in HD-DVD? I beleive it HD-DVD would have dominated had that been the case.
If you count the PS3s, then you also increase the denominator when determining the ratio of players to media purchases, the attach rate.
I think the only honest way to report on blu-ray is to include PS3s and accept a lower attach rate (if there is one). Frankly, most blu-ray players are PS3s, and it's simply an obvious selection for those who aren't interested in video games, so excluding it is insane.
I know of several PS3 owners. Some of them only have the free blu-rays. Fair enough. None of them are unaware of the HD disc abilities, but some just don't watch movies. The statistics reflect this reality, so I see no reason to adjust things strangely.
I was kidding, mostly, but there's a lot of truth to it.
Germany was a massive proxy battle between the USSR and the USA. Germany is a wonderful free place, and the USA spent enormous sums of money and life to ensure this. We were very forgiving of Germany's mistakes, and that turned out to be a wise choice.
Why would anyone not give the USA great credit for the way it handles her defeated foes? If anything, it would be nice if the USA and the rest of the world made a bigger deal out of it, because I don't think the USA of today is quite as noble.
You can look at Japan and South Korea as the USA's other great projects. Sure, the citizens of those counties have done much of the work, but only thanks to US policies and leadership. None of those countries are subjects of the US. Think about that. It's historically amazing and probably the decisive fact behind modern progress that the most powerful nation does not consume her enemies, but sets them up for progress and independence.
I truly hope that Iraq and Afghanistan can follow, but I'm not sure this will happen. Not only are the "wars" far less precise, but the USA is not the same. People don't care as much about this stuff.
I firmly believe that recognizing what credit is due, and enormous credit is due, can help shape policies in the future.
What exactly is wrong with what I'm saying? I know it's fashionable to claim the US is a monster, and surely the US has aspects worthy of criticism, but the US has been a tremendous source of good in the world. Am I claiming that Germans, British, others, are not also deserving of credit? Nope.
Pal, don't sweat it. So some people are more into it than others. Star Trek is still interesting and better than the other crap out there. Just laugh a little when the show stretches suspension of belief.
There is nothing good out there that some total bastard doesn't also like. Tom Cruise also liked Nicole Kidman, for example.
I totally agree with you. I have a fake Rolex that I would wear more often if it weren't totally douchy to ear a Rolex. It keeps time just fine and looks good.
it's not that Scientology actually has meritorious copyright claims. They actually sue folks just for saying the word "scientology". They have barely non-frivolous legal claims to use as a hammer. They usually drop the suit before it can be ruled upon.
Germany has a tough problem with the nazi issue, and I agree that they definitely take it seriously and try to curb it. I know that asserting that Germany is responsible for Hitler (because he was so popularly elected) can make some Germans angry, and that a very significant portion of the population didn't even believe in the holocaust exterminations until the old nazi reels were aired over and over again.
I guess I don't know why Germany still has any neo-nazies (obviously not in the millions, of course, but quite a lot of 'em). Germany is one of America's great success stories. Japan handles this knowledge completely differently from how Germany does, and it's obviously got a lot to do with the typical pride each European provincial segment exhibits.
Scientology isn't as bad, but they seem to kill as many people these days as neo-nazis. There's reason enough for Germany's actions.
The war on drugs is very destructive and probably isn't doing an aggregate good even if it is getting some drugs off the streets, which itself is debatable. I want to figure out how to keep fighting meth, heroin, all that crap, while not destroying the lives of people smoking pot. Frankly, I think we should just focus on prosecuting dealers of the hard substances, but we should be extremely severe to them. We should not even charge the users of drugs unless we need leverage to build cases against dealers. Using drugs really isn't a crime against society the way selling harder drugs is. Anyway, my point is that I probably don't have a problem with your view.
But if Hitler agreed with legalizing pot, would you be ok with Hitler as president (and that is not a Godwin since Ron Paul loves Hitler)?
You probably want black people to be allowed to smoke weed too. And note that many Neo-nazis think drugs are good because they are so much more harmful to minority communities. We don't know what's going on in ron paul's head besides aushwitz fantasies.
I kiiinda like Obama and realize the "he's a muslim" chain emails are very dishonest, but I don't really think there's anything wrong with being a Muslim so long as you don't think Jihad=kill those you disagree with. I do not appreciate my truthful comments being lumped in with that sort of obvious smear, and you kinda owe me an apology for suggesting my claims are on that level.
But let's permit Ron Paul to explain his views on Obama, who we all can see is clearly a BLACK PERSON.
"[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists--and they can be identified by the color of their skin."
"I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational."
Chief, I understand your skepticism. After all, I accused a man of accepting donations from neo-nazis. That's so horrible it's tough to believe. Anyone who would accept support from nazis is totally unfit for anything good. I can't believe I almost forgot a link, since apparently this is first you've heard of it: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/19/paul-to-keep-donation-from-white-supremacist/
And I also accuse Ron of writing racist hate-speech, and lying about it. That's pretty damn extreme, as far as accusations go. Anyone who wrote the things I refer to is a monster, and any of Ron's supporters who would actually attempt to hide the truth, as this fucker does: http://revolusion2008.blogspot.com/2008/01/conscience-of-ron-paul-supporter.html, is also a monster. Worse than most Scientologists, possibly. And anyone who knows about Lisa McPhereson knows that Scientologists are monsters too.
I'm a bit surprised that a slashdot reader is unaware of these well-worn, practically old facts. I don't watch TV news often or listen to talk radio, so maybe this stuff isn't as well known out there as it should be. I feel as though a demand to prove what is as obvious about Ron is akin to demanding proof of the moon landing or 9/11 being caused by terrorists. I don't think every assertion that slams a monster like Ron Paul must have citations. I'm just having a conversation, not building an indictment.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php this is one expose that was pretty well written. The author was actually a fairly outspoken Ron Paul supporter. Gave him money, helped organize efforts, etc. But unlike some, this supporter stopped supporting Ron Paul when it became obvious Ron Paul is a monster. This is not someone who is biased against Ron Paul, this is someone who was biased in FAVOR of Ron Paul's presidential promises.
Some actually say Ron didn't write that stuff. But Ron's bank account paid for the publishing, and Ron signed the checks. Could a normal sane person pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to print racist stuff signed in the sane person's name? Also, why don't you actually read the newsletter: http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pdf/RonPaul-december1990.pdf
The author of the hate literature seems to believe he is married to Ron Paul's wife and grandparent to Ron Paul's grandkids and represents Texas's 14th congressional district (Paul's district). That's not hard to explain, because Ron Paul is the author of this newsletter and all the others that say:
"The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics."
"The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained
Yeah, Ron Paul pretended he never wrote these articles and has no idea who wrote them. Even though he paid for the publication, and the articles were written in his own name, and specifically mentioned aspects of Ron's life, such as his wife, as though he were Ron Paul.
You have not contradicted my assertion that Ron lied about not writing racist trash.
Slashdot Mirror
This would be breach of fiduciary. What benefits one doesn't necessarily benefit another, and there's a wide consortium of interests here.
The whole "scorched earth" idea of let's just ruin the potential of anybody making any profit if that keeps Sony from making any profit is pretty freaking pathetic.
We have a great hi cap format, it's called blu-ray. Toshiba stands to make money from it, just not as much as HD-DVD could have netted. These companies have no reason to just make licenses free. Doing so would take billions of dollars out of the market.
Also, I don't see how it helps you to have a slightly cheaper optical disc solution with no movies released on it. Unless piracy is your thing, what do you do with that? It's a terrible backup solution compared with spare HDDs or networked backups. Maybe I'm missing something.
People like to complain that Warner stabbed HDDVD folks in the back, but this is a true stab in the back.
These guys know it's over and are trying to squeeze the last few bucks out of this things before it's all over, so they put out crap like this to get a few suckers.
It's bad for the industry, for their partners (except Microsoft), for the consumer, to let this format war last any longer, and it's over, so let's move on.
These folks are starting to embarrass themselves.
This is how I got my dreamcast and games, and I don't regret it a bit. I actually loved that system.
You're totally spot on that this is not the worst thing in the world for HD-DVD folks.
I guess you wasted a bit of money on the dual format discs, but that's nothing compared to what a ton of folks lost. Frankly, by waiting you'll make that money back on a cheaper blu-ray player anyway. Too bad they won't exchange your HD-DVD disc for a blu-ray disc, but you are still doing well with the dvd copy.
Well yeah, you're right. Sony won the war, if you see it in those terms, by heavily subsidizing PS3s and free movies. Now they get to pay for it.
The customer seems to have done nicely in the deal. Early adopters pay more and take a risk, but PS3 early adopters paid less thanks to Sony (and won over the risk). The prices of all players plummeted.
this isn't that bad. Sure, numbers got skewed around, but it was clear long, long ago, that the best HD-DVD could do is stretch this war out. It's been kinda obvious they could not win, so I'm not sure that the statistic skewing were that influential. If anything, they balanced eachother out.
except that Ron Paul is a white supremacist, and his message of love doesn't exist.
By accepting teh support of neonazis, they are given a voice. Other candidates, namely 2nd amendment Republicans in general, refuse money from hate groups out of respect for the republic. It shows selflessness, even if it's just for show. Money is the lifeblood of politicians, and by refusing neo-nazi money, politicians show that some voices must not be heard. That they will not let racism give them an advantage.
The entire purpose of Stormfront is white supremacy. there is no reason for stormfront to support Ron Paul except for Ron's repeated white supremacist statements.
Don Black is being made much more famous by his association with Ron Paul. Gee thanks Ron! By refusing the money, he has a chance to marginalize the hate on the extreme right. The GOP deserves credit for doing so with Pat Buchanan. We need more of that, not less, and Ron's excuses ring hollow and cynical, especially now that his lies are becoming more and more well known.
The wii isn't as successful as some think. I'm not sure why it's credited so much. The PS2 sold a lot of systems, but that's only a small part of it. The PS2 sold lots of GAMES. That's huge. In Japan, the attach rate is 3 games (and wii sports is not bundled, so it's actually one of the games). I can't think of any system doing that badly in the entire history of gaming. Is the wii more than wii sports? How much more?
The 360 is selling a lot of games, and the PS3, which is plumetting in price, is going to sell some games too. I think the wii is going to prove that graphics really are more important than novel gameplay. I don't think Nintendo is going make anywhere near as much as Sony this round. As you say, there's plenty of reason for the blu-ray to now save the PS3.
and don't get me wrong, I want nintendo to be right so I can see more cool innovations. I just don't think it's working out. But maybe my perspective is screwed up. It's certainly done far far better than anyone expected, and put nintendo back in living rooms. They need more third party games, urgently.
Does it? It's not a revolution above GTA3, it's just GTA3 with much better graphics. I'm not sure this game will be as much fun as San Andreas, a very open and versatile game.
I'm not sure that Rockstar has ever had truly well crafted games, though they always have interesting ideas and content.
I hope this GTA4 is as good as they say it is. I just get the impression it's not.
PC's have superior power? Clearly? Sounds like you just proved they do not.
.5 gigs ram does a hell of a lot better than the equivalent computer. The PC architecture is excellent for flexibility and terrible for specific applications.
You cannot compare systems solely on ram and processor speed in mhz. There's more to it, and obviously a PS3 with
I like PCs too, but we should just expect a PC to take a lot more Ram and processor to do a task than a system geared very specifically to a task.
Also, what input options do you mean? I think game consoles are starting to allow keyboards and mice, but the general game controller makes games very easy to use. I can use any PS2 controller on the planet. I can go to a pal's house and play football much more easily. things are simpler. Sure, it's not quite as flexible as a keyboard, and that makes the games very simple sometimes, but one is not clearly better than the other. It's a tradeoff situation. As more PS3 games use keyboard/mouse, I expect this issue to completely disappear.
Also, the PS3 has too much market share to be ignored. Even if it is easier to develop on the 360 and PC, it's smarter to develop on PS3 and then port to the more flexible 360 and then port that to the PC, since you probably need something on all those systems anyway, a lot of developers will just start at teh wierd one and work outwards. Remember, easy is only in terms of per dollar earned. And the PS3 is easy enough for the money it makes (not as good as 360, but enough).
I have to say that Sun Tzu would be very unable to control you from a position of weakness. L Ron would also probably be unable to control you because he's a lousy liar. But L Ron could control the gullible with lies.
Different strokes.
Sony has been a member of many successful formats in technology. The whole 'Sony is an utter failure in formats' is totally inaccurate.
And I don't see what your message is. 'Sony puts their format in their technology' isn't a point, it's a truism. They also put all kinds of other formats in their tech. SATA 2.5 inch HDD, SD cards, CDs, DVDs, uPNP, Compactflash, DivX, etc etc etc, are int he PS3. Sony made great VCRs and would have happily made great HD-DVD players had things gone that way. Sony made a ton of cash on Beta and Minidisc, though not as much as they'd like.
It's hard to tell what your line of thought is from one post to another. I don't think this post is very well related to the one the parent was replying to, which was absurd. Kinda seems like you have some kind of issue with Sony, and are vaguely triying to make your argument but not sure how.
Also, his point specifically was that most media is proprietary. I don't understand why you tell him he misses the point and then repeat his point.
the Sony owns blu-ray thing is part of some bizarre FUD campaign, as best as I can tell. To defeat blu-ray, it was thought wise to associate it as closely with Sony as possible, which is easy since Sony is the leader of the consortium, and the PS3 is the vehicle of blu-ray success.
Sony has done a lot of stupid stuff, but I think they are coming out of this mess looking pretty good.
Totally fair analysis. MS just made a decision, is all.
Though outside the US, the 360 really is falling or has already fallen into a distant third. In Spain or Italy or Japan, blu-ray and the PS3 are outpacing. How valuable is the short-term benefit? I think very. The 360 changed MS from a joke to a serious contender, even if they do eventually lose, they led for a period. The developer relationships alone make this a solid move, and since I believe a new xbox is coming soon, MS may leave this battle before it's possible to look bad.
While you're right, the fact that HD-DVD players also often come with free movies probably balances this out quite a bit. I assume that folks do analyze the attach of movies you have to get yourself.
The remote is an interesting point. All good points, but that kind of information is probably too valuable to give away. I imagine Warner Bros. knows this stuff.
I guess we're getting to the point where it is Blu-Ray vs. DVD or internet and HD-DVD isn't important. It is going to be very hard to determine how many blu-ray homes are out there with the PS3 factor.
Anyone know if the blu-ray folks were similarly inconsistent? Excluding the PS3 when discussing attach rate? Seems unlikely to me.
The HD-DVD campaign failed as soon as it became evident the PS3 was not going to flop, at least that's my view of the situation. When the PS3 looked doomed and 600$, it wasn't hard to believe that the HD0DVD camp would prevail.
But how do you compete with the PS3? It's not that expensive next to a great TV and movie collection, and it does all that media stuff + is a future proof blu-ray player. Almost unfair. I wonder why the 360 didn't come out with built in HD-DVD? I beleive it HD-DVD would have dominated had that been the case.
Good point. If I was going to buy HD-DVD, I might wait fo rthe obvious price drops that are sure to come as HD-DVD liquidates away.
But the overall point, that this format war is over, stands. Toshiba has to get what they can, and will have sales and such, but it's over.
I hear this line a lot. Why does it matter?
If you count the PS3s, then you also increase the denominator when determining the ratio of players to media purchases, the attach rate.
I think the only honest way to report on blu-ray is to include PS3s and accept a lower attach rate (if there is one). Frankly, most blu-ray players are PS3s, and it's simply an obvious selection for those who aren't interested in video games, so excluding it is insane.
I know of several PS3 owners. Some of them only have the free blu-rays. Fair enough. None of them are unaware of the HD disc abilities, but some just don't watch movies. The statistics reflect this reality, so I see no reason to adjust things strangely.
I was kidding, mostly, but there's a lot of truth to it.
Germany was a massive proxy battle between the USSR and the USA. Germany is a wonderful free place, and the USA spent enormous sums of money and life to ensure this. We were very forgiving of Germany's mistakes, and that turned out to be a wise choice.
Why would anyone not give the USA great credit for the way it handles her defeated foes? If anything, it would be nice if the USA and the rest of the world made a bigger deal out of it, because I don't think the USA of today is quite as noble.
You can look at Japan and South Korea as the USA's other great projects. Sure, the citizens of those counties have done much of the work, but only thanks to US policies and leadership. None of those countries are subjects of the US. Think about that. It's historically amazing and probably the decisive fact behind modern progress that the most powerful nation does not consume her enemies, but sets them up for progress and independence.
I truly hope that Iraq and Afghanistan can follow, but I'm not sure this will happen. Not only are the "wars" far less precise, but the USA is not the same. People don't care as much about this stuff.
I firmly believe that recognizing what credit is due, and enormous credit is due, can help shape policies in the future.
What exactly is wrong with what I'm saying? I know it's fashionable to claim the US is a monster, and surely the US has aspects worthy of criticism, but the US has been a tremendous source of good in the world. Am I claiming that Germans, British, others, are not also deserving of credit? Nope.
Pal, don't sweat it. So some people are more into it than others. Star Trek is still interesting and better than the other crap out there. Just laugh a little when the show stretches suspension of belief.
There is nothing good out there that some total bastard doesn't also like. Tom Cruise also liked Nicole Kidman, for example.
I totally agree with you. I have a fake Rolex that I would wear more often if it weren't totally douchy to ear a Rolex. It keeps time just fine and looks good.
dude,
it's not that Scientology actually has meritorious copyright claims. They actually sue folks just for saying the word "scientology". They have barely non-frivolous legal claims to use as a hammer. They usually drop the suit before it can be ruled upon.
Scientologists believe that space dramas are our thetans retelling all their true stories.
So Scientologists do believe Star Wars is real. They love Star Trek and you will find many Star Trek minor role actors and extras are Scientologists.
They believe that crap.
Germany has a tough problem with the nazi issue, and I agree that they definitely take it seriously and try to curb it. I know that asserting that Germany is responsible for Hitler (because he was so popularly elected) can make some Germans angry, and that a very significant portion of the population didn't even believe in the holocaust exterminations until the old nazi reels were aired over and over again.
I guess I don't know why Germany still has any neo-nazies (obviously not in the millions, of course, but quite a lot of 'em). Germany is one of America's great success stories. Japan handles this knowledge completely differently from how Germany does, and it's obviously got a lot to do with the typical pride each European provincial segment exhibits.
Scientology isn't as bad, but they seem to kill as many people these days as neo-nazis. There's reason enough for Germany's actions.
The war on drugs is very destructive and probably isn't doing an aggregate good even if it is getting some drugs off the streets, which itself is debatable. I want to figure out how to keep fighting meth, heroin, all that crap, while not destroying the lives of people smoking pot. Frankly, I think we should just focus on prosecuting dealers of the hard substances, but we should be extremely severe to them. We should not even charge the users of drugs unless we need leverage to build cases against dealers. Using drugs really isn't a crime against society the way selling harder drugs is. Anyway, my point is that I probably don't have a problem with your view.
But if Hitler agreed with legalizing pot, would you be ok with Hitler as president (and that is not a Godwin since Ron Paul loves Hitler)?
You probably want black people to be allowed to smoke weed too. And note that many Neo-nazis think drugs are good because they are so much more harmful to minority communities. We don't know what's going on in ron paul's head besides aushwitz fantasies.
I kiiinda like Obama and realize the "he's a muslim" chain emails are very dishonest, but I don't really think there's anything wrong with being a Muslim so long as you don't think Jihad=kill those you disagree with. I do not appreciate my truthful comments being lumped in with that sort of obvious smear, and you kinda owe me an apology for suggesting my claims are on that level.
But let's permit Ron Paul to explain his views on Obama, who we all can see is clearly a BLACK PERSON.
"[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists--and they can be identified by the color of their skin."
"I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational."
Chief, I understand your skepticism. After all, I accused a man of accepting donations from neo-nazis. That's so horrible it's tough to believe. Anyone who would accept support from nazis is totally unfit for anything good. I can't believe I almost forgot a link, since apparently this is first you've heard of it: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/19/paul-to-keep-donation-from-white-supremacist/
And I also accuse Ron of writing racist hate-speech, and lying about it. That's pretty damn extreme, as far as accusations go. Anyone who wrote the things I refer to is a monster, and any of Ron's supporters who would actually attempt to hide the truth, as this fucker does: http://revolusion2008.blogspot.com/2008/01/conscience-of-ron-paul-supporter.html, is also a monster. Worse than most Scientologists, possibly. And anyone who knows about Lisa McPhereson knows that Scientologists are monsters too.
I'm a bit surprised that a slashdot reader is unaware of these well-worn, practically old facts. I don't watch TV news often or listen to talk radio, so maybe this stuff isn't as well known out there as it should be. I feel as though a demand to prove what is as obvious about Ron is akin to demanding proof of the moon landing or 9/11 being caused by terrorists. I don't think every assertion that slams a monster like Ron Paul must have citations. I'm just having a conversation, not building an indictment.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php this is one expose that was pretty well written. The author was actually a fairly outspoken Ron Paul supporter. Gave him money, helped organize efforts, etc. But unlike some, this supporter stopped supporting Ron Paul when it became obvious Ron Paul is a monster. This is not someone who is biased against Ron Paul, this is someone who was biased in FAVOR of Ron Paul's presidential promises.
Some actually say Ron didn't write that stuff. But Ron's bank account paid for the publishing, and Ron signed the checks. Could a normal sane person pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to print racist stuff signed in the sane person's name? Also, why don't you actually read the newsletter: http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pdf/RonPaul-december1990.pdf
The author of the hate literature seems to believe he is married to Ron Paul's wife and grandparent to Ron Paul's grandkids and represents Texas's 14th congressional district (Paul's district). That's not hard to explain, because Ron Paul is the author of this newsletter and all the others that say:
"The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics."
"The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained
Yeah, Ron Paul pretended he never wrote these articles and has no idea who wrote them. Even though he paid for the publication, and the articles were written in his own name, and specifically mentioned aspects of Ron's life, such as his wife, as though he were Ron Paul.
You have not contradicted my assertion that Ron lied about not writing racist trash.