In The Godfather Michael Corleone has Moe Greene shot in the face. Right in the eye, if memory serves. There's also a scene where Clemenza explains to Michael how he should shoot Sollozzo and McCluskey in the head ("Twice in the head and you know he's dead"). But then again, that's just the movies.
But I guess games aren't the only way to learn how to kill. I wonder, if video games are "murder simulators" (at least according to Jack Thompson), then are violent movies "murder instructional videos"?
This reminds me of a friend of mine, who believes that if, say, a major company's network gets hacked or whatever, even if damage is done to property, then it's the company's fault for not properly securing themselves, and that the hacker or whoever shouldn't be held liable. I've always thought that's utter crap. If I don't properly lock the door to my house and I get robbed and/or vandalized, then I probably do deserve it, but it doesn't mean that the person who unlawfully entered should be off the hook.
As for the whole "The US Government wants to extract some kind of species of administrative revenge because he exposed their security systems as weak and helpless as they were." thing, I'm sure somebody isn't very happy, and there's probably a few people getting fired or at least repirmanded for it. I'm sure somebody would like to get revenge on this guy, but overall it's not about revenge, but the law, right? If I broke into Bob Dole's house and stole his pen (it may seem small, but that's his pen!), I'm sure Bob would want to get back at me and put me in jail, but what I did was still illegal. Whether he was "testing weaknesses" or whatever is technically against the law in the US, and Britain has an extradition treaty with the US (unless we want to put him to death, in which case they're legally bound not to do so).
The US isn't preparing for war "on" the internet... as much as it's preparing for a war via the internet. The article goes on to use a bunch of careful prepositional games where I have to guess whether the US is actually thinking about attacking the internet... or considering how warfare will be conducted via the internet.
I dunno. I think it's a good idea to attack the Internet, given that warfare will be conducted on it in the future. Kinda like attacking the physical planet itself, because warfare is conducted on it's surface.
Uh ok. First of all, please show us the numbers. Of course if, as you say, it depends on the numbers you use, then maybe you can prove anything. But just for the fun of it, try comparing two similar and bordering nations like, say, the USA and Canada. See what you come up with. And by the way, I'd much rather be attacked by a kid with a knife than a kid with a gun. There's a reason why there's not much knife regulations: it's much easier to kill with a gun than a knife.
But then again, as I said, there are rather varying numbers on the subject. Kinda like eggs. There's always a study every two months about how eggs are good for you, but they're bad, but they're also good. Personally, I think our gun control laws are pretty good as they are, but could certainly due to at least have a bit more strictness to it. If I were actually making the policy I'd probably like to better review the laws and the statictics, as well as more theories about how they affect eachother, but I don't have the time, so I can only make vague generalizations.
Only 15% of the country voted for him
Well, more like 20%. Of course, only 40% voted. And yeah, that does actually suck. It'd be nice if more people voted. Well, I shouldn't talk, because I didn't vote due to my bizarre political beliefs, but I think that the 60% who didn't vote were just too lazy/apathetic to do so. Well, I guess it makes sense, then, that his job approval ratings are near around the percent of the population who voted for him! As for myself, I don't really like the president too much. He does things that I agree with (i.e. staying in Iraq; I agree that the war was on shaky moral ground, but I think that leaving now would be doing more of a disservice to the Iraqis...), but I'm becoming increasingly fed up with his bullshit (I once had high hopes for his second term, where he'd be less of a Republican ass, but not so much; for example, he keeps talking about "alternative energy", but I see nothing happening. And his in-ability to veto a single spending bill makes me wonder...)
99% of Americans ARE voting for him everyday by letting him in power.
I keep hearing that Americans need to "overthrow" the government on this thread, but how are we suppose to do this without guns? But that aside, what makes you think that the resulting government would be any better, especially how crazy the American people are/are percieved? No offense, but I doubt that will work. But there's good news on the horizon: based on Bush's poor ratings, there's expected to be in a backlash in the 2006 Congressional elections, leading to a Democratic congress and a Republican presidency. Kinda like a reversed version of the Clinton era. Personally, I think that the balance will make for better policy over the next two years.
Mod me down all you want. That doesn't change the fact that, in reality, despite what CNN and Fox might say, Americans are seen as a bunch of morons pretty much everywhere. Don't blame me, that's just the way it is and will be until you show some common sense.
I agree with you in general, if not in the specifics. Whether we deserve it or not we are percieved rather poorly overseas. Hell, we're often poorly percieved in our own country. I think a fair amount of this in undeserved (we're the only remaining superpower, so we're bound to be a target; plus, anti-american sentiment has alot of historical roots), but yes, there is alot of stupid things that America, as a people AND as a government, do. Hopefully in the future things will get better.
"Drug abuse" isn't a disease; it's nothing like manic depression; people who use cocaine are not necessarily "incapable of gaining any joy from anything but cocaine"; it's called "drug abuse" by people who are against people having the right to use drugs; "pot-heads" is a pejorative term for the millions of people around the world who smoke cannabis (to give it its proper name).
I was under the impression, from multiple reputable sources, that, for example, cocaine addiction eventually inhibits the brain from producing dopamine under all circumstances except while under the influence of cocaine. And given that many people who are heavily addicted to drugs pretty much devote their lives to the continuance of their addiction. Of course, I draw a distinct line between casual use and true addicts. I'm quite sure that it's possible to enjoy drugs without getting addited, like how many people casually drink but don't end up going to AA meetings or beating their wife. But apparently you are more knowledgable on drug use, so I'll bow to your more "professional" opinion.
Also, I don't mean to offend by refering to users of cannabis as "pot-heads". I actually used it there because I misquoted the parent comment, which is my own fault. I meant it more as a term of affection, but if it really bothers you I'll retract it. Personally, on a moral level, I don't care what people do with their personal drug use habits, as long as they don't harm anyone else in the course of it. I don't actually support the legalization of drugs (though cannabis, if I had more proof of the assertions of many users that it's benign, I'd favor a controlled legalization of it; unfortunately, I haven't seen much evidence either way), but if people want to, well, I really don't care.
Of course, I'm rather unknowlegeable about the subject, knowing mostly what I learned in health class and what little I've picked up elsewhere. So if I've stated any gross mistruths here, I'm sorry.
you don't care that you have a completely insane attitude to firearms (everybody should have one (which the rest of the world sees as ludicrous))
1.) Not every American has a gun. In fact, there are many who think that noone should even have so much as a pointy stick. We also have to go through an extensive (by some measures too extensive, by others not extensive enough) system of registration and permit application, depending on the class of weapon. We ban the mentally ill, criminals, and many other people from owning firearms.
2.) Depending on the numbers you use, the United States has fewer violent crimes than many other nations (I don't remember the exact details, however. I am sorry), and that crimes such as muggings and home invasions are down due to the fact that many criminals are afraid of being shot. Of course, like many numbers, these are subject to debate, so we can practically ignore them. But still, it is a compelling possibility. However, it is a documented fact that in many countries where gun possession is illegal, knife and other weapon crimes increase substantially.
3.) So most of the rest of the civilized world thinks our gun policies are "ludicrous"? Switzerland actually has a required period of military service for all able males, and many afterwards serve in a militia capacity, and are therefore ISSUED an assault rifle by the government. Also, it is the "only country in which it is lawful to make your own black powder". From what I gather they have quite a low crime rate. Australia also has historically lax laws on guns due to high need for guns as pest control and a low crime rate, which is kinda funny for a nation decended from a penal colony. That is changing due to increased crime rates in some areas, but still, they're relatively hands-off on guns. Finland also has similar gun laws, as they have alot of huntil in their nation. They are also one of the few countries where silencers are completely unregulated (here in the US I believe you can apply for a permit, but not always, and it's very difficult to get). Many of these countries also have a high emphasis on gun safety, which many of the true hardcore gun people in the US would also say is very important.
In conclusion, our gun laws may be among the more "loose" or "unrestrictive", and there are many unfortunate things that happen due to this. Personally, I think we could due to have slightly better control of the situation and tighten certain parts of our gun laws up. But we're not the only ones who like our guns. There are a number of other, well respected nations, that have fairly loose gun laws, much like our own. We're only a target on this matter because we're the biggest nation of the bunch, and we have a large imprint on the world scene in other matter.
drugs (the war on drugs can be won, all pot smokers are criminals, drug abuse is a disease (for crying out loud))
It could be won, but even if it can't we should still fight it to at least reduce the damage done. Drug abuse is a disease, much like manic depression and other mental disorders are diseases (for example, cocaine abuse renders the brain incapable of gaining any joy from anything but cocaine. That's why it's called abuse, boys and girls. As for the pot-heads, perhaps our laws are a bit too heavy on them, and that maybe it should be legalized along the same lines as alcohol and tobacco, but frankly I don't know enough about the situation to make a judgement.
You don't care about corruption at home (e.g. Florida vote rigging), you don't care about inaction at home (e.g. New Orleans)
O RLY? I was pretty sure I heard much angry debate about both issues over here!
and you actually voted in George W. Bush. Is that guy really the v
We can't control our own borders but we will use tech like this to monitor our own citizens...
Anyone else find that just a little weird?
Couldn't this very technology be used, and to great effect might I add, to better control the border? Instead of building a wall on the border to keep the illegals and smugglers out and overstocking the border with large amounts of patrols and guards, have these UAV's scan the border for movement/heat signatures (i.e. bodies) and then alert the smaller amount of live patrol guards to move to that location for interception.
Sure, it could be used illegally, but so can nearly every other technology. It also has plenty of other valid uses, like patroling around secure areas (power plants, military installations, political events like speeches, etc).
And the Americans (though I'm sure the list is much much longer): Gay Bomb (from a report that included such bizarre ideas as "spraying enemy troops with bee pheromones and then hiding lots of beehives in the combat area")
and Goya state that their upcoming batch of red kidney beans are going to be the absolute mind-blowingly best batch of red kidney beans ever set upon by human sensory organs.
Well, if this was "Beandot: News for Beanographers. Beans that matter.", then yes. It would be news.
I saw an article about this in, I think, Popular Science. I wish I remembered the issue, but I don't. Anyway, they used one of these things with a backpack mounted with solar cells to create a backpack that would serve a wireless network anywhere, like in the woods. It's kinda a neat idea to play with, and would be definately useful for anybody seriously doing work in the field. That and it'd be really hot for long distance roadtrips.
Believe me, China would care. Especially with the way their economy is growing.
As for North Korea, Kim Jong-Il wouldn't give a crap. During a famine once he and his cronies kept all the food for themselves and told issued propaganda telling the people to harvest and eat grass from the hillsides.
Slashdot Mirror
...and yours can have what's left down here.
Unless we get bored and decide to start shelling them with rocks from orbit.
I can see it now:
Mike: "Man, I think we should stop hitting Cheyenne Mountain."
Mannie: "Why?"
Mike: "It's not there any more."
5) No obligation and no cost
I guess you haven't paid your tithe recently.
the second coming is happening soon
But 6/6/06 already happened.
In The Godfather Michael Corleone has Moe Greene shot in the face. Right in the eye, if memory serves. There's also a scene where Clemenza explains to Michael how he should shoot Sollozzo and McCluskey in the head ("Twice in the head and you know he's dead"). But then again, that's just the movies.
But I guess games aren't the only way to learn how to kill. I wonder, if video games are "murder simulators" (at least according to Jack Thompson), then are violent movies "murder instructional videos"?
You never treat your lawnmower as a toy
I had a toy lawnmower as a kid. It blew bubbles.
All the actual baby piking will be done overseas by non-union workers, of course.
With any luck it's be overseas non-union babies too.
In time their population will drop and we'll get all our jobs back!
This is Slashdot!
Indeed.
This reminds me of a friend of mine, who believes that if, say, a major company's network gets hacked or whatever, even if damage is done to property, then it's the company's fault for not properly securing themselves, and that the hacker or whoever shouldn't be held liable. I've always thought that's utter crap. If I don't properly lock the door to my house and I get robbed and/or vandalized, then I probably do deserve it, but it doesn't mean that the person who unlawfully entered should be off the hook.
As for the whole "The US Government wants to extract some kind of species of administrative revenge because he exposed their security systems as weak and helpless as they were." thing, I'm sure somebody isn't very happy, and there's probably a few people getting fired or at least repirmanded for it. I'm sure somebody would like to get revenge on this guy, but overall it's not about revenge, but the law, right? If I broke into Bob Dole's house and stole his pen (it may seem small, but that's his pen!), I'm sure Bob would want to get back at me and put me in jail, but what I did was still illegal. Whether he was "testing weaknesses" or whatever is technically against the law in the US, and Britain has an extradition treaty with the US (unless we want to put him to death, in which case they're legally bound not to do so).
The US isn't preparing for war "on" the internet... as much as it's preparing for a war via the internet. The article goes on to use a bunch of careful prepositional games where I have to guess whether the US is actually thinking about attacking the internet... or considering how warfare will be conducted via the internet.
I dunno. I think it's a good idea to attack the Internet, given that warfare will be conducted on it in the future. Kinda like attacking the physical planet itself, because warfare is conducted on it's surface.
Oh, wait...
Uh ok. First of all, please show us the numbers. Of course if, as you say, it depends on the numbers you use, then maybe you can prove anything. But just for the fun of it, try comparing two similar and bordering nations like, say, the USA and Canada. See what you come up with. And by the way, I'd much rather be attacked by a kid with a knife than a kid with a gun. There's a reason why there's not much knife regulations: it's much easier to kill with a gun than a knife.
Well, I did a quick Google search, and here are just a few links:
http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/crime21.html
http://www.jpfo.org/data-docs.htm
But then again, as I said, there are rather varying numbers on the subject. Kinda like eggs. There's always a study every two months about how eggs are good for you, but they're bad, but they're also good. Personally, I think our gun control laws are pretty good as they are, but could certainly due to at least have a bit more strictness to it. If I were actually making the policy I'd probably like to better review the laws and the statictics, as well as more theories about how they affect eachother, but I don't have the time, so I can only make vague generalizations.
Only 15% of the country voted for him
Well, more like 20%. Of course, only 40% voted. And yeah, that does actually suck. It'd be nice if more people voted. Well, I shouldn't talk, because I didn't vote due to my bizarre political beliefs, but I think that the 60% who didn't vote were just too lazy/apathetic to do so. Well, I guess it makes sense, then, that his job approval ratings are near around the percent of the population who voted for him! As for myself, I don't really like the president too much. He does things that I agree with (i.e. staying in Iraq; I agree that the war was on shaky moral ground, but I think that leaving now would be doing more of a disservice to the Iraqis...), but I'm becoming increasingly fed up with his bullshit (I once had high hopes for his second term, where he'd be less of a Republican ass, but not so much; for example, he keeps talking about "alternative energy", but I see nothing happening. And his in-ability to veto a single spending bill makes me wonder...)
99% of Americans ARE voting for him everyday by letting him in power.
I keep hearing that Americans need to "overthrow" the government on this thread, but how are we suppose to do this without guns? But that aside, what makes you think that the resulting government would be any better, especially how crazy the American people are/are percieved? No offense, but I doubt that will work. But there's good news on the horizon: based on Bush's poor ratings, there's expected to be in a backlash in the 2006 Congressional elections, leading to a Democratic congress and a Republican presidency. Kinda like a reversed version of the Clinton era. Personally, I think that the balance will make for better policy over the next two years.
Mod me down all you want. That doesn't change the fact that, in reality, despite what CNN and Fox might say, Americans are seen as a bunch of morons pretty much everywhere. Don't blame me, that's just the way it is and will be until you show some common sense.
I agree with you in general, if not in the specifics. Whether we deserve it or not we are percieved rather poorly overseas. Hell, we're often poorly percieved in our own country. I think a fair amount of this in undeserved (we're the only remaining superpower, so we're bound to be a target; plus, anti-american sentiment has alot of historical roots), but yes, there is alot of stupid things that America, as a people AND as a government, do. Hopefully in the future things will get better.
"Drug abuse" isn't a disease; it's nothing like manic depression; people who use cocaine are not necessarily "incapable of gaining any joy from anything but cocaine"; it's called "drug abuse" by people who are against people having the right to use drugs; "pot-heads" is a pejorative term for the millions of people around the world who smoke cannabis (to give it its proper name).
I was under the impression, from multiple reputable sources, that, for example, cocaine addiction eventually inhibits the brain from producing dopamine under all circumstances except while under the influence of cocaine. And given that many people who are heavily addicted to drugs pretty much devote their lives to the continuance of their addiction. Of course, I draw a distinct line between casual use and true addicts. I'm quite sure that it's possible to enjoy drugs without getting addited, like how many people casually drink but don't end up going to AA meetings or beating their wife. But apparently you are more knowledgable on drug use, so I'll bow to your more "professional" opinion.
Also, I don't mean to offend by refering to users of cannabis as "pot-heads". I actually used it there because I misquoted the parent comment, which is my own fault. I meant it more as a term of affection, but if it really bothers you I'll retract it. Personally, on a moral level, I don't care what people do with their personal drug use habits, as long as they don't harm anyone else in the course of it. I don't actually support the legalization of drugs (though cannabis, if I had more proof of the assertions of many users that it's benign, I'd favor a controlled legalization of it; unfortunately, I haven't seen much evidence either way), but if people want to, well, I really don't care.
Of course, I'm rather unknowlegeable about the subject, knowing mostly what I learned in health class and what little I've picked up elsewhere. So if I've stated any gross mistruths here, I'm sorry.
you don't care that you have a completely insane attitude to firearms (everybody should have one (which the rest of the world sees as ludicrous))
1.) Not every American has a gun. In fact, there are many who think that noone should even have so much as a pointy stick. We also have to go through an extensive (by some measures too extensive, by others not extensive enough) system of registration and permit application, depending on the class of weapon. We ban the mentally ill, criminals, and many other people from owning firearms.
2.) Depending on the numbers you use, the United States has fewer violent crimes than many other nations (I don't remember the exact details, however. I am sorry), and that crimes such as muggings and home invasions are down due to the fact that many criminals are afraid of being shot. Of course, like many numbers, these are subject to debate, so we can practically ignore them. But still, it is a compelling possibility. However, it is a documented fact that in many countries where gun possession is illegal, knife and other weapon crimes increase substantially.
3.) So most of the rest of the civilized world thinks our gun policies are "ludicrous"? Switzerland actually has a required period of military service for all able males, and many afterwards serve in a militia capacity, and are therefore ISSUED an assault rifle by the government. Also, it is the "only country in which it is lawful to make your own black powder". From what I gather they have quite a low crime rate. Australia also has historically lax laws on guns due to high need for guns as pest control and a low crime rate, which is kinda funny for a nation decended from a penal colony. That is changing due to increased crime rates in some areas, but still, they're relatively hands-off on guns. Finland also has similar gun laws, as they have alot of huntil in their nation. They are also one of the few countries where silencers are completely unregulated (here in the US I believe you can apply for a permit, but not always, and it's very difficult to get). Many of these countries also have a high emphasis on gun safety, which many of the true hardcore gun people in the US would also say is very important.
In conclusion, our gun laws may be among the more "loose" or "unrestrictive", and there are many unfortunate things that happen due to this. Personally, I think we could due to have slightly better control of the situation and tighten certain parts of our gun laws up. But we're not the only ones who like our guns. There are a number of other, well respected nations, that have fairly loose gun laws, much like our own. We're only a target on this matter because we're the biggest nation of the bunch, and we have a large imprint on the world scene in other matter.
drugs (the war on drugs can be won, all pot smokers are criminals, drug abuse is a disease (for crying out loud))
It could be won, but even if it can't we should still fight it to at least reduce the damage done. Drug abuse is a disease, much like manic depression and other mental disorders are diseases (for example, cocaine abuse renders the brain incapable of gaining any joy from anything but cocaine. That's why it's called abuse, boys and girls. As for the pot-heads, perhaps our laws are a bit too heavy on them, and that maybe it should be legalized along the same lines as alcohol and tobacco, but frankly I don't know enough about the situation to make a judgement.
You don't care about corruption at home (e.g. Florida vote rigging), you don't care about inaction at home (e.g. New Orleans)
O RLY? I was pretty sure I heard much angry debate about both issues over here!
and you actually voted in George W. Bush. Is that guy really the v
We can't control our own borders but we will use tech like this to monitor our own citizens...
Anyone else find that just a little weird? Couldn't this very technology be used, and to great effect might I add, to better control the border? Instead of building a wall on the border to keep the illegals and smugglers out and overstocking the border with large amounts of patrols and guards, have these UAV's scan the border for movement/heat signatures (i.e. bodies) and then alert the smaller amount of live patrol guards to move to that location for interception.
Sure, it could be used illegally, but so can nearly every other technology. It also has plenty of other valid uses, like patroling around secure areas (power plants, military installations, political events like speeches, etc).
Go read up on the kind of things the Soviet Russians did research on.
In Soviet Russia...
Antonov A-40 (in both the "World War II Soviet tanks" AND "Soviet military aircraft 1940-1949" categories)
Anti-tank dog
Tsar Tank
Tsar Bomba
The British too:
Who me?
Blue Peacock(Chicken powered nuclear bomb
And the Americans (though I'm sure the list is much much longer):
Gay Bomb (from a report that included such bizarre ideas as "spraying enemy troops with bee pheromones and then hiding lots of beehives in the combat area")
and Goya state that their upcoming batch of red kidney beans are going to be the absolute mind-blowingly best batch of red kidney beans ever set upon by human sensory organs.
Well, if this was "Beandot: News for Beanographers. Beans that matter.", then yes. It would be news.
Won't somebody think of the poor shark's right to privacy?!?!
But seriously, we all know they're gonna use the sharks to spy on hot girls at the beach. And get them to bite fat guys to sell the videos to Fox.
Are we sure those are coffee cups and not Grecian urns?
Maybe we can get John Keats to write "Ode to a Coffee Cup"!
I saw an article about this in, I think, Popular Science. I wish I remembered the issue, but I don't. Anyway, they used one of these things with a backpack mounted with solar cells to create a backpack that would serve a wireless network anywhere, like in the woods. It's kinda a neat idea to play with, and would be definately useful for anybody seriously doing work in the field. That and it'd be really hot for long distance roadtrips.
When I was a boy, I had to walk 18 miles, uphill, in the snow, with no shoes on, just to get to Yahoo.com. And back then, it only had 4 links.
Was it uphil both ways?
And how many of those links were pr0n?
Believe me, China would care. Especially with the way their economy is growing.
As for North Korea, Kim Jong-Il wouldn't give a crap. During a famine once he and his cronies kept all the food for themselves and told issued propaganda telling the people to harvest and eat grass from the hillsides.
shotgun pellets (just seeing if you're paying attention!)
So when we run out of that very important resource, will we be overrun by zombies?
Not a problem. The trend will die out.
Aww, damn. I was hoping to make a killing in suicide booths...
"Thank you for using Stop'n'Drop. America's favorite suicide booth since 2008."
Yeah! That thing looks like it could convert 240 volts AC to 120 volts AC! I wonder if it has an iron core...
I was wondering why I had a suicidal attraction to cat urine!
...there's nothing to say that one or more of your kids still won't grow up to be bullies.
Have you ever tried simply turning off the TV, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?