Is downloading that much on comcast even fucking possible? I mean, they've already admitted to limiting torrent bandwidths, I doubt I'd be able to even come close to half that with downloads running 24/7 from legitimate sources. So this sounds somewhat fishy to me. But Fuck Comcast, nonetheless.
Someone should also tell someone from MADD to sit down and play through the game enough to see the context of the drunk driving. For those who have not yet seen it, pretty simple, you take your girl out to a bar, get liquored up, and then drive her home. Hell Of Drunk. You're so drunk that you cannot even really stand up straight. When you get behind the wheel, its actually mildly terrifying. Objects screaming by drop tracers, you have very little control over the car, the camera lurches around in a somewhat sickening fashion. It is, in short, NOT FUN. Maybe if someone at MADD had taken the time to NOT have a kneejerk 'OMG THERES DRUNK DRIVING KILL KILL KILL' reaction, they'd have understood. But then, people with crusades tend to be singularly humorless about their issues. Yeah, drunk driving is terrible and kills people all the time, but so does getting shot in the face. Where's Mothers Against Getting Shot In the Face protesting the mere inclusion of someone getting shot in the face in a video game?
consider the possibility that there may have been sarcasm involved. Though a case could be made for the Nazi economic and societal reorganization efforts in the pre war period having similar means and outcomes as one done under more traditional strictly socialist parameters. at least as far as the unifying of the populace (except for the jews, gypsies, gays, etc. obv.) and the centralization of industry goes. but whatever, nuanced analysis may not be your bag.
I notice the difference every time I watch HD content from the broadcast networks at the house of a friend of mine who has comcast. We have the same television but lost looks like ass at his place where it is crisp and beautiful on my digital broadcast.
Same thing with watching supposedly HD movies on his on demand. You dont need side by side screencaps to see the 30-40 pixel square artifacts popping up in motion sequences. you just need eyes.
Though you are correct, I'm not gonna worry about it too much if its on the nanotube level of things. A few tubes out of commission will hardly keep my massively muscular robot body from raining down destruction upon mine enemies.
where is this, exactly, my knowledge of the prequels is not as exhaustive as of the original trilogy, and i honestly have no idea what you're referring to.
So reading further, i see that you probably disregard the content of the kevin j anderson books, which is probably what I'm talking about in my prev post. picking and choosing non-cannon materials if actually fine w/ me, so i can dig disregarding the whole exar kun plotline. Regardless, I think based on the movies as cannon, you're still kindof circular with the whole thing. you state as given that lucas portrays the sith as an unbroken line of decent, but i really just dont see to what you're referring. The only real mention of knowledge of the workings of the sith i can even think of is yoda saying that they roll in pairs. which says that he knows something of them, but not the context of that knowledge. as one of the older and wiser jedi, perhaps yoda has spent a bunch of time reading up.
my understanding is that Parent is correct about the 1000 years w/ out sith. There was one other last lord of the sith 1000 years ago, who was finally defeated by the old republic and that the ruins on Yavin 4 were the ruins of the society he was manipulating or controlling or whatever when the jedi finally offed him. this then leaves palpatine discovering the sith at some point, and i would disagree with your assertion that lucas portrays his genesis as a sith at all, regardless of whether it was serendipity or a secret society. However, i would say that given the lack of evidence either way in cannon, serendipity is a simpler explanation than some unmentioned secret society of other siths, which quite frankly is a bit of a reach. and unnecessary. Palpatine is power-hungry, Palpatine researches ancient cult that used the darkside, Palpatine becomes sith when he realizes how powerful he can become. pretty simple really.
. I was part of a protest against them, we got a chance to talk to them, and Bono was the biggest piece of shit ever. Basically said, "Do you know who I am, and what I've done? I'm the biggest activist in the world, who are you peons to criticize me? I'll hire whoever I like." Uh... 2nd biggest, actually. the biggest was over 100 Courics.
I think the obvious answer to this is that none of those other things matter as long as you can hold a huge fucking assault rifle while they're happening. Its pretty much the only right that matters, when it comes down to it.
You honestly believe that a branch of the government-run armed forces is the intended protection against an abusive government?
Doesn't that sound silly? I'm not saying anything of the kind. Nowhere in the 2nd amendment is any manner of language regarding protection against government tyranny. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state has nothing the fuck to do with armed resistance of the government. Clearly, the national guard is not 'the intended protection' against abusive government, as it is in fact part of the government. The revolution was necessary because of both abusive government *and* the lack of an internal system of recourse for th redressing of wrongs. You know what sounds silly? Thinking that armed resistance to the U.S. Government is a better idea that working within the political and legal structure to ensure that your own interests are protected. Why dont you ask the guys from Ruby Ridge or Waco how that worked out for them? oh, right, they're dead or in jail. Fuck off.
While I don't think we should have personal nukes, I don't think a law about it would help at all. Um... ok. Wait, what? Other nation-states not under the jurisdiction of U.S. law have seen fit to make nuclear weapons , therefore U.S. law preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons into the private sphere wouldn't do any good? that doesnt even make sense. Your example and your conclusion involve non-related legal systems. Saying that other countries are not obeying U.S. law is an inherently useless statement.
If we authorize our government to have them, aren't we saying we think there are times they are desirable to have? If the idea was to let us rebel, do you think they meant to limit us to non-scary weapons? Uh, the differing levels of megadeaths deliverable by the varying size nuclear weapons currently produced has little to nothing to do with whether or not you or i should possess one. wait, nothing to do with it. If you think that owning a nuclear warhead is justified by their presence in the U.S. military arsenal, then I really have nothing more to say to you. Get some perspective and rejoin the discussion when you're capable of something deeper than meaningless polemic.
People knowingly living with irrational fear have no valid case to introduce legislation on the subject of their fear.
We're not talking about an agoraphobe introducing legislation to ban crowds. I listed several irrational fears of things that one may also rationally be wary of. I should have been more consistent in the second part of my first post. I do not have a fear of guns, that was GP. I have a rational wariness and healthy respect for devices created solely for the purpose of killing. Your statement that this is irrational is an empty statement of opinion. I dont mean to be a dick about this point, really, but I take mild offense at having what i feel to be a fairly rational response to something reduced to 'irrational fear.' This wariness has not prevented me from owning a shotgun when i lived in a sketchy neighborhood. I feel perfectly confident in my ability to competently handle most firearms i might legally purchase. But I treat a gun I'm holding with significantly more caution and respect than a cup of coffee, because one can very easily kill a guy, and the other would take a bit more work.
When I checked it out though, this is what I found. Germany didn't invade Switzerland in WW2, a decision most likely influenced by the armed citizenry
They also benefited in having the banking capitol of europe remain neutral.
Fear of inanimate objects is irrational. Fear of inanimate objects you are controling could be rational if you are not confident of your ability to handle it. Otherwise, not rational. An axe or machete in your hands, competently handled, has no capacity to hurt you and to fear it is simply foolishness.
On the contrary, accidents happen. all the time. not all are caused by negligence. sometimes competency is not sufficient to prevent them. I think if might be helpful if you consider 'worry' instead of 'fear.' I'd be afraid of an unrestrained wild tiger being loose in my apartment. I worry that an accident might occur when handling a dangerous object. Does that make more sense?
I was responding to your assertion that you generally avoid lethal objects. It is impossible to avoid lethal objects without someone taking complete care of you.
clearly. I should have been more specific, or you should have taken me less literally. probably both. There are everyday dangers, to which we are somewhat inured by their very everydayness. Driving a car, crossing the street, etc. All of these are to some extent necessary risks in an everyday life, as you point out. That doesnt make the elimination of unnecessary dangers meaningless. Yes, we disagree on my use of the word unnecessary. I'm going to go ahead and stipulate to us not agreeing on this point.
You seem want everyone controled by legislation based on irrational fears. This does not seem to be a position you would be willing to change based on facts of history or reason.
this is an unreasonable generalization to make on an unwarranted interpretation of my feelings regarding firearms, for the reasons i explained above. I, as a matter of fact, want my country's laws to be promulgated solely based on reasoned and rational concerns.
If you give up the means by which your rights are secured, you give up your rights. I fail to see how this could be regarded as less important than almost any other political issue.
Though I do not deny the role that armed resistance to government has played in the evolution of our current understanding of rights I think its a reach to say that the level of citizen-armament is what secures those rights. I do not receive due process only if armed. I am not able to exercise free speech only when armed. Is owning a mini-gun or a sniper rifle going to prevent W from trampling the freedom of speech of protesters by relegating them to 'free-speech zone' and caging them in? probably not. I owning a semi-automatic magazine fed shotgun (which i've used a couple
Personally, I think it was in a different historical context, but the appropriate response is not reinterpretation of the constitution but amendment, for which there is a proper procedure. I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is that at this point, laws limiting gun ownership being left to stand as constitutionally sound isnt reinterpretation, its the standing interpretation. Thus begins the debate between the Plain Words Doctrine folks and those who favor judicial review and the dominance of precedent. Its a mess, and I find neither the gun-nuts nor the anti-gun-nuts to be entirely logical on the subject.
It is two separate points being (1) It is silly to fear inanimate objects, and (2) prohibition of firearms does not prevent murder or mass murder. Point (2) is not opinion, it is demonstrable fact. Sure it is easier with more advanced weapons, but that makes people equal, rather than the weak being subject to the violence of the strong. Ok, that makes more sense. (1) people fear silly things all the time and are otherwise rational. I can't deal with heights. That fear is neither rational nor unjustified. Falling from great heights would be a lame way to go. Fear of high-powered assault rifles is pretty much the same. Could kill you, probably wont if used properly. doesnt mean that feeling uneasy around guns is somehow unjustified. (2) I think we're actually arguing the same point here content-wise, but are drawing different conclusions. I see no way in which the ability of an individual to arm could have any possible effect on resisting a well-organized 1st-world national army. Go ahead and have that pitol that fires full auto. I'm sure it will make a difference when the napalm comes.
I've owned guns in the past and they never struck fear into me As have I. Holding in my hands an object whose sole purpose is to end life weirds me out in a way that holding an axe, or machete, or any other of the lethal tools i own does.
We are all surrounded by things that can kill, electricity, knives, cars. If we are going to let everyone buy petrol, without restriction and without license, then laws against personal firearms are just a farce.
The existence of potentially lethal objects elsewhere has little bearing on the regulated use of objects whose sole intended purpose is to be lethal. I could beat someone to death with a phone book if I wanted to, but I'm not about to advocate restricting the distribution of phone books.
I think that people should be allowed to have guns, i just don't see it as important an issue as you seem to. shrug
I disagree with your assumption that the 2nd amendment is predicated on arming the populace to resist government tyranny. The in the modern context, the well-regulated militia is the national guard. Whether or not a minigun would be handy to have around if we were suddenly thrust even further in to a police-state, I dont feel its ownership is a constitutional right.
My point was simply that nobody in their right mind would defend ownership of nuclear arms as a constitutional right, so there must be a line in there somewhere past which it is in fact acceptable to restrict other weapons ownership. *shrug* seems as self-evident to me as your position must seem to you.
Though I am of the opinion that 'it was a different historical context' is a flawed argument for constitutional interpretation, there are more practical implications in this case. Basically either some weapons can be restricted, or no weapons can be restricted. If no weapons can be restricted then anyone should be able to own nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, shit, whatever you want. Because otherwise the logic breaks down and the argument is no longer internally consistent. Or, some weapons can be restricted, and we are free to legislate on the subject and keep a fluid and everchanging list of death-making devices that we are and are not ok with the general populace having. As I dont want my neighbor packin anthrax and the minigun from an A-10, I'm in the second camp. it just makes more intuitive sense to me that a citizen not in the armed forces should be prevented from owning high-yield and efficiency military weapons. I'm not implying anything about the respect and care w/ which you personally might treat said weaponry, but I really dont trust most of my cohorts to use a fucking stapler safely.
Weapons scare you? Why do you fear inanimate objects? How strange!
Do you ever consider the Rwandan genocide in which many of the protagonists were armed with machetes? 500,000+ dead. I dont believe he ever said he wasn't scared of machetes. look how effective this argument is, I'll reverse the language to agree with my position, and it sounds just as silly. You're not afraid of inanimate objects designed specifically to kill people? how strange. You're getting at the 'guns dont kill people, people kill people' thing, and you know what? people using guns kill people with surprisingly more efficiency than people without guns killing people. Both happen. a lot. but guns just make the whole process that much faster and easier. I'm not scared of guns, but it do have a healthy respect for things that will kill a guy, and generally avoid them.
But this one is ruggedized for military use, therefore it must be awesome, right?
Also, where exactly does the star trek parallel start? is it ruggedized into an aluminum earpiece? Is is only to be used by a foxy black chick? I too am somewhat unclear as to why a talking electronic english to X dictionary is newsworthy.
Oh yes so restrained. You called me an asshole and told me to get off my high horse instead Well, you were, and needed to, so i told you.
Seriously am I suppose to give a monkey's nut that you're offended at being called a liar when you started off so abusively No you're not, I wouldn't expect you to care at all. I'm not offended though, I was just pointing out what a pointless insult liar is in an online debate.
First my initial comment wasn't directed at you you're entirely correct. I meant to say the rest of your subsequent comments.
Third I didn't get abusive or vulgar until you became abusive and vulgar. I play the doormat for no one chump A fair point. Not sure that continuing after I'd stopped is really a necessary part of your stance on doormat playing however. *shrug* whatever the reason, its pretty amusing.
That's what you're reduced to? Nyer nyer you too? I'm not playing any victim here, which is why I hurled 3 times the abuse you gave and pointed out the flaws in your trolling logic. This from Mr. "Well double dumb ass to you too fella." You probably forgot that you said a very similar thing much earlier in the discussion. Well, that's ok. You said so before making an argument, i said so drawing one to a close. I'd hardly say either is being reduced to anything, but if you really feel that way, I'll concede that you were reduced first. As for playing the victim, well, I'd say making a fuss about being the wronged party while using it as a pretense for justifiably accelerating hostilities is a pretty good definition and precisely how you've conducted yourself.
I'm having fun with it now. I can't wait to see who'll quit first. My guess is that the thread will be locked due to age before either of us quit. Unfortunately I'm not really in the mood to contribute to your enjoyment even if it means giving up a bit of my own. congratulations, feel free to exult in whatever manner gives you that 'w0000 number 1!!!' feeling. I'm sure you haven't called me troll enough, you should do that some more.
My entire point and the GP post was about his fear of this happening It would have been a valid point had you not attempted to make it by misstating the facts.
Every time I refute your out and out lies (GP never said blah blah), you try to turn it around with BS and misdirection. You've been caught in a lie. I don't believe I have misstated anything or intentionally lied at all during this discussion. you, on the other hand, have done so both in your original post as well as subsequent posts attributing to me comments (in quotation) I never made. As I cannot really speak as to whether or not you did so consciously and/or intentionally, i have refrained from calling you a liar. You don't seem bound by that particular hangup, so i guess thumbs-up to you.
If you were interested in the original debate you wouldn't have started with abuse and you wouldn't continually misdirect the entire discussion oh, I see, responding to something you said that wasnt the main thing you wanted to talk about is misdirecting the discussion. Interesting. Well, we seem to have been arguing the same points for a while, so I'd say that the discussion re-directed itself. If you wanted to talk about something else, you wouldn't have wasted all this time vainly attempting to refute me.
You're a child. You scream at the top of your lungs and shout down the opposition with BS that has nothing to do with the original argument. The only person doing the digital equivalent of screaming, yelling or otherwise shouting down the opposition is you. I called you an asshole, which in turn makes me an asshole. you pointed that out, and I've not argued otherwise. I told you get the fuck off your high horse, and you called me pathetic, immature, a child, idiot, liar, troll, little troll, lying little troll, petty, stupid and arrogant. I'm perfectly aware that my initial comment was inherently self-reflexive, why aren't you? Of course, its much easier to simply label your opponent's arguments as 'raving' or 'whining' because then you don't actually have to respond to them. You've said I'm playing the victim... well, right back at ya, buddy.
You have a brilliant knack for doing something stupid in your arguing then accusing the opposing orator of doing it. You repeatedly abuse and put me down then when I respond to your trolling come up with garbage like this You have a brilliant knack for confusing dismissing the validity and worth of one's comments with personal abuse. Since I called you an asshole, the only person leveling personal abuse has been you, only confirming my initial assessment.
then when you have managed to piss them off you tell them not to waste their time defending themselves? I only suggested that you stop posting in response to your second request that I do so. seems rather absurd to point to my comment in such an accusatory tone given that. I dont actually care if you keep posting or not, but you seemed concerned that your time was being wasted, so i suggested a solution.
Give it up. You're a proven lying little troll. Go impress someone your own mental age. Yes, because there's no better way to follow up taking me to task for having told you to stop posting than doing it yourself for a third time. well done.
Slashdot Mirror
Is downloading that much on comcast even fucking possible?
I mean, they've already admitted to limiting torrent bandwidths, I doubt I'd be able to even come close to half that with downloads running 24/7 from legitimate sources.
So this sounds somewhat fishy to me.
But Fuck Comcast, nonetheless.
Someone should also tell someone from MADD to sit down and play through the game enough to see the context of the drunk driving.
For those who have not yet seen it, pretty simple, you take your girl out to a bar, get liquored up, and then drive her home. Hell Of Drunk. You're so drunk that you cannot even really stand up straight.
When you get behind the wheel, its actually mildly terrifying. Objects screaming by drop tracers, you have very little control over the car, the camera lurches around in a somewhat sickening fashion.
It is, in short, NOT FUN.
Maybe if someone at MADD had taken the time to NOT have a kneejerk 'OMG THERES DRUNK DRIVING KILL KILL KILL' reaction, they'd have understood. But then, people with crusades tend to be singularly humorless about their issues.
Yeah, drunk driving is terrible and kills people all the time, but so does getting shot in the face. Where's Mothers Against Getting Shot In the Face protesting the mere inclusion of someone getting shot in the face in a video game?
well, kinda I suppose its not really listening, per se.
consider the possibility that there may have been sarcasm involved.
Though a case could be made for the Nazi economic and societal reorganization efforts in the pre war period having similar means and outcomes as one done under more traditional strictly socialist parameters. at least as far as the unifying of the populace (except for the jews, gypsies, gays, etc. obv.) and the centralization of industry goes. but whatever, nuanced analysis may not be your bag.
Most people do not forget this. It was the National Socialist German Workers Party, after all.
Most people do forget that Godwinning isn't the same as meaningfully concluding an argument, though...
I notice the difference every time I watch HD content from the broadcast networks at the house of a friend of mine who has comcast. We have the same television but lost looks like ass at his place where it is crisp and beautiful on my digital broadcast.
Same thing with watching supposedly HD movies on his on demand. You dont need side by side screencaps to see the 30-40 pixel square artifacts popping up in motion sequences.
you just need eyes.
As long as I could still shout "OH NOOOO MY EVIL PLAAAAAAaaaannnssssss," as I died, it would be *totally* worth it.
Though you are correct, I'm not gonna worry about it too much if its on the nanotube level of things. A few tubes out of commission will hardly keep my massively muscular robot body from raining down destruction upon mine enemies.
you keep using that word. i dont think you know what it means.
where is this, exactly, my knowledge of the prequels is not as exhaustive as of the original trilogy, and i honestly have no idea what you're referring to.
So reading further, i see that you probably disregard the content of the kevin j anderson books, which is probably what I'm talking about in my prev post.
picking and choosing non-cannon materials if actually fine w/ me, so i can dig disregarding the whole exar kun plotline.
Regardless, I think based on the movies as cannon, you're still kindof circular with the whole thing. you state as given that lucas portrays the sith as an unbroken line of decent, but i really just dont see to what you're referring. The only real mention of knowledge of the workings of the sith i can even think of is yoda saying that they roll in pairs. which says that he knows something of them, but not the context of that knowledge. as one of the older and wiser jedi, perhaps yoda has spent a bunch of time reading up.
my understanding is that Parent is correct about the 1000 years w/ out sith. There was one other last lord of the sith 1000 years ago, who was finally defeated by the old republic and that the ruins on Yavin 4 were the ruins of the society he was manipulating or controlling or whatever when the jedi finally offed him.
this then leaves palpatine discovering the sith at some point, and i would disagree with your assertion that lucas portrays his genesis as a sith at all, regardless of whether it was serendipity or a secret society.
However, i would say that given the lack of evidence either way in cannon, serendipity is a simpler explanation than some unmentioned secret society of other siths, which quite frankly is a bit of a reach. and unnecessary. Palpatine is power-hungry, Palpatine researches ancient cult that used the darkside, Palpatine becomes sith when he realizes how powerful he can become. pretty simple really.
I think the obvious answer to this is that none of those other things matter as long as you can hold a huge fucking assault rifle while they're happening. Its pretty much the only right that matters, when it comes down to it.
People knowingly living with irrational fear have no valid case to introduce legislation on the subject of their fear.
We're not talking about an agoraphobe introducing legislation to ban crowds. I listed several irrational fears of things that one may also rationally be wary of. I should have been more consistent in the second part of my first post. I do not have a fear of guns, that was GP. I have a rational wariness and healthy respect for devices created solely for the purpose of killing. Your statement that this is irrational is an empty statement of opinion. I dont mean to be a dick about this point, really, but I take mild offense at having what i feel to be a fairly rational response to something reduced to 'irrational fear.' This wariness has not prevented me from owning a shotgun when i lived in a sketchy neighborhood. I feel perfectly confident in my ability to competently handle most firearms i might legally purchase. But I treat a gun I'm holding with significantly more caution and respect than a cup of coffee, because one can very easily kill a guy, and the other would take a bit more work.
When I checked it out though, this is what I found. Germany didn't invade Switzerland in WW2, a decision most likely influenced by the armed citizenry
They also benefited in having the banking capitol of europe remain neutral.
Fear of inanimate objects is irrational. Fear of inanimate objects you are controling could be rational if you are not confident of your ability to handle it. Otherwise, not rational. An axe or machete in your hands, competently handled, has no capacity to hurt you and to fear it is simply foolishness.
On the contrary, accidents happen. all the time. not all are caused by negligence. sometimes competency is not sufficient to prevent them. I think if might be helpful if you consider 'worry' instead of 'fear.' I'd be afraid of an unrestrained wild tiger being loose in my apartment. I worry that an accident might occur when handling a dangerous object. Does that make more sense?
I was responding to your assertion that you generally avoid lethal objects. It is impossible to avoid lethal objects without someone taking complete care of you.
clearly. I should have been more specific, or you should have taken me less literally. probably both. There are everyday dangers, to which we are somewhat inured by their very everydayness. Driving a car, crossing the street, etc. All of these are to some extent necessary risks in an everyday life, as you point out. That doesnt make the elimination of unnecessary dangers meaningless. Yes, we disagree on my use of the word unnecessary. I'm going to go ahead and stipulate to us not agreeing on this point.
You seem want everyone controled by legislation based on irrational fears. This does not seem to be a position you would be willing to change based on facts of history or reason.
this is an unreasonable generalization to make on an unwarranted interpretation of my feelings regarding firearms, for the reasons i explained above. I, as a matter of fact, want my country's laws to be promulgated solely based on reasoned and rational concerns.
If you give up the means by which your rights are secured, you give up your rights. I fail to see how this could be regarded as less important than almost any other political issue.
Though I do not deny the role that armed resistance to government has played in the evolution of our current understanding of rights I think its a reach to say that the level of citizen-armament is what secures those rights. I do not receive due process only if armed. I am not able to exercise free speech only when armed. Is owning a mini-gun or a sniper rifle going to prevent W from trampling the freedom of speech of protesters by relegating them to 'free-speech zone' and caging them in? probably not. I owning a semi-automatic magazine fed shotgun (which i've used a couple
The existence of potentially lethal objects elsewhere has little bearing on the regulated use of objects whose sole intended purpose is to be lethal. I could beat someone to death with a phone book if I wanted to, but I'm not about to advocate restricting the distribution of phone books.
I think that people should be allowed to have guns, i just don't see it as important an issue as you seem to. shrug
I disagree with your assumption that the 2nd amendment is predicated on arming the populace to resist government tyranny. The in the modern context, the well-regulated militia is the national guard. Whether or not a minigun would be handy to have around if we were suddenly thrust even further in to a police-state, I dont feel its ownership is a constitutional right.
My point was simply that nobody in their right mind would defend ownership of nuclear arms as a constitutional right, so there must be a line in there somewhere past which it is in fact acceptable to restrict other weapons ownership.
*shrug* seems as self-evident to me as your position must seem to you.
I wonder how "agropustules" reads in the original Vogon, its probably a much more subtle and deep phrasing.
Citizen: I'm getting the fuck out of here, you should come too, or you'll probably be killed
Phraselator: HA HA HA HA
...bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes...
Also, where exactly does the star trek parallel start? is it ruggedized into an aluminum earpiece? Is is only to be used by a foxy black chick? I too am somewhat unclear as to why a talking electronic english to X dictionary is newsworthy.