The reason for the robots was that it was hard to find workers willing to do the job at any wage, not that it was a cost savings.
Come on now. "at any wage they were willing to pay" (or, of course, any wage they're willing to pay without going bankrupt). If you're going to try and argue from an even psuedo (Economics) scientific position, at least *try* to apply some rigor to your arguments. Hell for a billion dollars a day, I'd tighten the nuts on squirrels until lunch.
What I'm attempting to highlight is the idea that the Republican party would "naturally" tend toward this behaviour. 30 years ago? No, more like 20 AT THE MOST. Sure, the Regan and Bush I administrations were a betrayal of limited government conservatism, but they absolutely pale in comparison to the current incumbent. He makes them look like libertarians.
No, you're wrong. Bush has yet to surpass Reagan as the leader of the largest growth of the US government in history. His war on drugs destroyed the 4th amendment. His corporate welfare programs haven't been matched by Bush. Bush's crimes against this nation are just the next step in the progression that Reagan pushed. He does not make them look like Libertarians, he makes them look just like he does. The problem isn't that Bush is worse than Reagan, it's that the Reagan cultists refuse to look deeper into the issue and spout nonsense like "Bush isn't a Republican". He's exactly what a Republican is. The rejection of the real Republican Barry Goldwater in favor of the fascist Ronald Reagan was the turning point at which Republicans completely rejected their stated platform in favor of the biggest government that they could get. Ron Paul was a last ditch effort at bringing that party back to its stated ideals and it turned out the same.
So, because I believe in a smaller federal government I'm a "wingnut extremist"? Wow. I suppose the other "wingnut extremists" include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Quincy Adams, and a host of others of similar reputation?
No, *if* you believe in a smaller federal government *and* you support the Republicans, then you're a fool. You're a fool in that situation because there is no evidence backing up that link and all evidence points to the contrary.
I believe in a smaller federal government, but I'm not stupid enough to believe that supporting the (current) party of biggest, most invasive government is a rational choice. Thomas Jefferson is spinning in his grave at the idea of religious extremists (hell any religious people) destroying his careful construction. That you would dare to invoke the man who said "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.", in defense of unrestrained military spending at the benefit of said banking institutions *often in other countries*, demonstrates nothing but contempt for yourself, Thomas Jefferson, and everyone around you who's stuck footing the bill for your willful ignorance.
20 years wasn't that long ago. That's my point. It's not ancient history or something.
Like I said, 1980 was 28 years ago, and that's discounting the excesses of Nixon and Eisenhower. I'll ignore them in favor of simple rounding. 30 years is a long time. People born 30 years ago could vote for 12 years. That's 3 presidential election cycles. It's been a progression, and it started long before Reagan.
So, repeating nonsense that was already nonsense 30 years ago is ignorant, and it doesn't require the history to be ancient, recent, or modern. All it requires is for you to put a little thought and research into the matter rather than repeating old lies as if the mere repeating of them could make them true.
I can see this heading towards a new phase of eugenics which the Germans enjoyed under Hitler...
And the Americans, and the British, and on and on and on. I'm not saying eugenics is good, just that you don't need to invoke the nazis to point out that what "everyone" was doing was bad.
This, I can't agree with, because as I see it, all rights are granted only by the society in which you live (back on my original point there sorry), and therefore it's up to the society to determine what "is" and "isn't" a right.
I disagree with this statement. The society you live in can choose to act to defend certain rights, but that doesn't mean that they aren't mine. The rights a society chooses to hold up as important do a lot to illuminate the character of that society, but that does nothing to define a right. Society can only determine what it will or will not choose to defend.
Sorry - English is my native language, but I don't use it nearly as regularly these days and it's also been a LONG work day for me
I'm not the person you're responding to, but...damn.
I didn't go over your post with a microscope or anything, but I didn't notice a single spelling or grammatical error, nor can I pick up anything that would be a clue to your native language (Russians drop articles, German has "backwards" syntax etc.)
I'd never really thought about the significance of the title before. Makes an already great movie, just a little bit better. Thanks for that epiphany...
That's why it goes beyond simple spelling nazism to make fun of people who misspell it;-)
It is only the current crop of Republican "yes men" (and let's face it, the Democrats have been no better in recent years when it's their team in charge) who've been determined to turn the USA into a fascist state.
Wow, your ignorance is truly amazing in a terrifying sense.
the "current crop" isn't an expression referring to every Republican administration since Reagan was elected.
The Bush Administration != Republicans. The democratic party has been more in favour of big government, and therefore anti-civil liberties.
The Bush administration is typical of the modern Republican party. They like even bigger government than the fucking Democrats. Bush is a clone of Reagan in all of his policies. He's just a sleazy liar as opposed to an actor who was good at making you wingnut extremists happy to munch shit right out of his hand while he sold out your country.
In short, if this were 30 years ago, you'd have a point. As it is not 30 years ago, you look like an ignorant fool who chooses a political party like he'd choose a football team and hasn't given it one scrap of thought since then.
The Democrats are no prize, but the Republicans have proven to be far worse at everything you claim is a concern.
Grow up, pull your head out of your ass and spend at least 5 minutes out of your life looking at your chosen, treasonous team and keep in mind, "actions speak louder than words".
Complete freedom for everyone means everyone is free to fuck the other over, the rich have more ways to do so than the poor. It may not be intended as right wing but it is in effect.
No, it isn't. You're arguing an entirely different point now. You're arguing that pure Liberalism is an inherently unstable equilibrium, and that in order to achieve any sort of stable free society a moderate amount of left leaning ideas are necessary. History (and the present even) clearly demonstrate that there's a great deal of merit to that idea, but it doesn't, in any way, back up the point you're trying to make. If it's not the state actively working to promote the elite over the interests of the general citizenry, then it isn't right wing. You're arguing that similar results can (and even inevitably will) occur in the absence of state interference. That might well be true, but then it ceases to be a question of right/left.
If you think that defending the control over 1s and 0s is even sane, then you are not in any conceivable sense of the word an anarcho capitalist. If you can't defend it yourself and you want to whine to big brother to protect your belief in illusory nonsense, then just man up, grow up and give up any delusion in believing in the anarcho part of that.
You are a whiny, big government pussy and nothing more. It is not at all, in any way possible to have one without the other. The fact that you would even disgrace yourself with such a clearly contradictory question demonstrates your utter refutation of the ideal you claim to support.
We lock away a larger percentage of our citizens than any other country (ok, maybe not china... i don't know the current statistics),
We lock away more people per capita *and* in raw numbers than any other country in the world. Primarily due to drug laws which cause far more harm than drugs ever have.
The left and right got their names from the fact that during the French Revolution, the representatives of the Aristocracy and the Church sat on the right of the aisle and the representatives of the commoners sat on the left.
All of them were interested in using the power of the state to fuck the others.
Liberalism was the rejection of both viewpoints and the idea that the government should stay the hell out of people's lives, everyone should just grow up, take responsibility for themselves and quit giving the state more power to use against whoever they didn't like. Individual liberty was held in the highest regard. Liberalism necessarily arose from the left, but rapidly diverged, which makes your assertion that Liberalism is right-wing all the more idiotic. If you'd claimed it was left-wing, you'd still be wrong, but at least you'd have some small historical basis on which you could blame your mistake.
Now, would you care to explain how the fuck you think it's even sane to claim that a philosophy of individual liberty and restriction of state power has SFA to do with an inherently elitist philosophy put forward by royalty and the massively powerful and corrupt church in order to maintain an inherently unfree market, and inherently unclimbable social ladder, and maintain a system where they got paid just because they thought they were born inherently better and therefore deserved to collect off of other people's creativity, labor, and enterprise?
Seriously, that's a completely idiotic statement.
It's no surprise you hear people repeating that nonsense though, given that both the right and the left in this country are totally opposed to Liberalism. Just like the aristocrats and clergy of old, those on the right in America find it much easier to legislate themselves massive corporate welfare payments than to actually provide some worthwhile service. Similarly, those on the left like to vote bread and circuses.
Left and right are inherently both supporters of big government. While the Republicans and Democrats don't map smoothly to Left and Right as they both have elements of both, my point becomes really obvious when you look at them. They are both big government parties, the Republicans even more so than the Democrats since 1980. Republican spending tends to be corporate welfare, while Democrat spending tends more toward individual welfare.
Both of these are true as far as they go, but they're not absolute, just look at farming subsidies, utility subsidies and the rest of the rural welfare programs. Those are destined primarily for Republican strongholds. On the other hand, the DMCA, UCITA and such were Democratic corporate welfare handouts.
One of the major reasons why our economy is in the shitter right now is because of the excesses of the left *and* the right and the near complete elimination of Liberalism, even though it's the basis of our constitution.
So please save that nonsense. Liberalism is the philosophy of individual liberty and equality *under the law*. The left is an ideology of "equality" in the sense that you have 2 chickens and I have none therefore I should use the state to rob you of one of your chickens for my benefit. The right ideology is inherently aristocratic and explicitly *unequal* under the law and says since I'm rich and powerful, I'll seize ownership of both of your chickens and your land and you will be stuck working on it for my benefit.
Liberalism is: all of you keep your grubby mitts off of my chickens. I'm raising them for eggs because I see a market for them, I'm sick to death of eating nothing but chickens and eggs and I plan on making enough to buy a steak.
MMMMM steak.
On that note, since it's the first warm day of the freaking year in Chicago, I'm going out to fire up the grill.
I see at the whole "global warming" crusade in pretty much the same way as I see Greenpeace and Soukagakkai and Scientology.
Do you mean "Soka Gakkai"? They have a big building across the street from a friend's condo. I was wondering what it was. From their website, they seem to be claiming to be some sort of Buddhist sect, but Eckankar claims the same thing and they're a sleazy cult (my dumbass brother and his wife were in it for some time before they went all crazy culty on them).
It's true that there's not much on Jupiter besides atmosphere,
Is that really true? I know it's a lot of gas, and if there is a solid rocky "planet" under all that atmosphere, nobody's going to go walking around on it. But it (naively) seems reasonable that since it managed to collect so much material that it would have gotten enough, rock, iron, etc to make a solid planet many times the size of the earth.
Is there some reason to expect that's not how it is?
If it's a choice between a company with a history of quality and MicroSoft, then it's inevitably worse then only having the first to "choose" from. MS is very good at sleazy market manipulation and little else. If they get into a market, then they will drag it down. That's the only tactic they know.
In any case, not so long ago people were saying the same things about Microsoft, and look how they turned out.
I don't know anybody who ever thought MS did a good job of anything. Paid for shills like Didio and the like were happy to pump them up, but they've been a joke among the technically adept since day one. People were saying, "Don't do that or it will get hacked in minutes" for 30 years and they still haven't learned a damn thing.
P.S. You have got me worked up enough to bang this out over an all-nighter. I'll try to clarify if there are any mistakes.
Meh, I was in the middle of an until 3 AM work session, thought I'd hit submit, checked in from work the next saw my post wasn't there so I hit submit when I got home (before working until 4AM. Why do major problems have to occur in groups), so it only looks like I typed all that in the daytime;-) I just went in and told my boss I'm taking Monday off for comp time. Boy did he get a good laugh out of that;-)
Your statement indicated your belief (facetious or otherwise) that my actions would lead armed thugs to show up at my door for questioning or worse.
It's not anonymous when members of the government can demand the info illegally and not get shot in the head. It's not bullshit either, or why would I even have to worry about the armed thugs sent to defend traitors in the first place?
My attitude is absolutely patriotism in its purest form. The fact that I haven't acted on it just means you'd be correct if you questioned the rather large separation between my money and my mouth.
However, according to you, even though all I've done is talk, I still have to fear the Gestapo kicking in my door.
If that happens, then it's pretty clear how necessary my statements *and the fulfillment of them* is to the possibility of a free America in the future.
I'd never know because I skip that worthless crap that gets in the way of a game (IMO). Hell, that's one reason I gave up on the whole FF franchise. I don't care that they wasted all that time and money on making stupid movies to interrupt a game with, but the fact that they tried to force me to watch that stupid crap is insulting.
There's all the set designers, costume designers, makeup people, camera operators, editors, graphic effects people, etc. who also work for years and put in more effort than the actors but don't get the same pay.There's all the set designers, costume designers, makeup people, camera operators, editors, graphic effects people, etc. who also work for years and put in more effort than the actors but don't get the same pay.
Lots of people will go see a movie just because $FAMOUS_ACTOR is in it. I'm not saying I agree with the amount of disparity, but it is true that a given star can add quite a bit to the bottom line just by having their name in the credits.
I'm nowhere near as hardcore a gamer as a lot of the folks here, but I've never given a crap about voice actors in games. I have a hard time imagining anybody would buy a game based on who they chose to read some lines I mostly ignore anyhow.
Am I missing something? Are there people here who even care about voice actors in video games? Are there people who'd buy a game based solely on the actor? How about refusing to buy one based solely on the actor?
Yeah--a link would be nice. Of course if the link goes to a site "if*ckinghateregan.com/our-made-up-data/reganbudget.html" I'll be a bit suspicious. The fact that you had to predicate the handing-out of the link with a statement like that means it's probably some lib conspiracy site.
No, it's the fucking federal budget office, dipshit. Where do you think you'd go to find out about the federal budget?!?! But your ignorance and your attitude demonstrates that you're the sort to arbitrarily reject links because they disagree with you. I see it all the fucking time from you wingnuts and Reagan cultists.
And your link is only about certain types of spending. I'm talking overall growth in government spending and Reagan owns that.
Now that I've finally managed to teach you how to find information for yourself (even though you failed, at least you finally tried to do something for yourself).\
Slashdot Mirror
Now with oil going up and up, I expect we'll finally start seeing some real break throughs in alternative energy research.
Only if we quit the idiotic subsidies which prevent actual market forces from applying to the situation.
The reason for the robots was that it was hard to find workers willing to do the job at any wage, not that it was a cost savings.
Come on now. "at any wage they were willing to pay" (or, of course, any wage they're willing to pay without going bankrupt). If you're going to try and argue from an even psuedo (Economics) scientific position, at least *try* to apply some rigor to your arguments. Hell for a billion dollars a day, I'd tighten the nuts on squirrels until lunch.
What I'm attempting to highlight is the idea that the Republican party would "naturally" tend toward this behaviour. 30 years ago? No, more like 20 AT THE MOST. Sure, the Regan and Bush I administrations were a betrayal of limited government conservatism, but they absolutely pale in comparison to the current incumbent. He makes them look like libertarians.
No, you're wrong. Bush has yet to surpass Reagan as the leader of the largest growth of the US government in history.
His war on drugs destroyed the 4th amendment. His corporate welfare programs haven't been matched by Bush. Bush's crimes against this nation are just the next step in the progression that Reagan pushed. He does not make them look like Libertarians, he makes them look just like he does. The problem isn't that Bush is worse than Reagan, it's that the Reagan cultists refuse to look deeper into the issue and spout nonsense like "Bush isn't a Republican". He's exactly what a Republican is. The rejection of the real Republican Barry Goldwater in favor of the fascist Ronald Reagan was the turning point at which Republicans completely rejected their stated platform in favor of the biggest government that they could get. Ron Paul was a last ditch effort at bringing that party back to its stated ideals and it turned out the same.
So, because I believe in a smaller federal government I'm a "wingnut extremist"? Wow. I suppose the other "wingnut extremists" include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Quincy Adams, and a host of others of similar reputation?
No, *if* you believe in a smaller federal government *and* you support the Republicans, then you're a fool. You're a fool in that situation because there is no evidence backing up that link and all evidence points to the contrary.
I believe in a smaller federal government, but I'm not stupid enough to believe that supporting the (current) party of biggest, most invasive government is a rational choice. Thomas Jefferson is spinning in his grave at the idea of religious extremists (hell any religious people) destroying his careful construction. That you would dare to invoke the man who said "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.", in defense of unrestrained military spending at the benefit of said banking institutions *often in other countries*, demonstrates nothing but contempt for yourself, Thomas Jefferson, and everyone around you who's stuck footing the bill for your willful ignorance.
20 years wasn't that long ago. That's my point. It's not ancient history or something.
Like I said, 1980 was 28 years ago, and that's discounting the excesses of Nixon and Eisenhower. I'll ignore them in favor of simple rounding.
30 years is a long time. People born 30 years ago could vote for 12 years. That's 3 presidential election cycles. It's been a progression, and it started long before Reagan.
So, repeating nonsense that was already nonsense 30 years ago is ignorant, and it doesn't require the history to be ancient, recent, or modern. All it requires is for you to put a little thought and research into the matter rather than repeating old lies as if the mere repeating of them could make them true.
I can see this heading towards a new phase of eugenics which the Germans enjoyed under Hitler...
And the Americans, and the British, and on and on and on.
I'm not saying eugenics is good, just that you don't need to invoke the nazis to point out that what "everyone" was doing was bad.
This, I can't agree with, because as I see it, all rights are granted only by the society in which you live (back on my original point there sorry), and therefore it's up to the society to determine what "is" and "isn't" a right.
I disagree with this statement. The society you live in can choose to act to defend certain rights, but that doesn't mean that they aren't mine. The rights a society chooses to hold up as important do a lot to illuminate the character of that society, but that does nothing to define a right.
Society can only determine what it will or will not choose to defend.
Sorry - English is my native language, but I don't use it nearly as regularly these days and it's also been a LONG work day for me
I'm not the person you're responding to, but...damn.
I didn't go over your post with a microscope or anything, but I didn't notice a single spelling or grammatical error, nor can I pick up anything that would be a clue to your native language (Russians drop articles, German has "backwards" syntax etc.)
I'd never really thought about the significance of the title before. Makes an already great movie, just a little bit better. Thanks for that epiphany...
That's why it goes beyond simple spelling nazism to make fun of people who misspell it
It is only the current crop of Republican "yes men" (and let's face it, the Democrats have been no better in recent years when it's their team in charge) who've been determined to turn the USA into a fascist state.
Wow, your ignorance is truly amazing in a terrifying sense.
the "current crop" isn't an expression referring to every Republican administration since Reagan was elected.
The Bush Administration != Republicans. The democratic party has been more in favour of big government, and therefore anti-civil liberties.
The Bush administration is typical of the modern Republican party. They like even bigger government than the fucking Democrats. Bush is a clone of Reagan in all of his policies. He's just a sleazy liar as opposed to an actor who was good at making you wingnut extremists happy to munch shit right out of his hand while he sold out your country.
In short, if this were 30 years ago, you'd have a point. As it is not 30 years ago, you look like an ignorant fool who chooses a political party like he'd choose a football team and hasn't given it one scrap of thought since then.
The Democrats are no prize, but the Republicans have proven to be far worse at everything you claim is a concern.
Grow up, pull your head out of your ass and spend at least 5 minutes out of your life looking at your chosen, treasonous team and keep in mind, "actions speak louder than words".
Complete freedom for everyone means everyone is free to fuck the other over, the rich have more ways to do so than the poor. It may not be intended as right wing but it is in effect.
No, it isn't.
You're arguing an entirely different point now. You're arguing that pure Liberalism is an inherently unstable equilibrium, and that in order to achieve any sort of stable free society a moderate amount of left leaning ideas are necessary. History (and the present even) clearly demonstrate that there's a great deal of merit to that idea, but it doesn't, in any way, back up the point you're trying to make.
If it's not the state actively working to promote the elite over the interests of the general citizenry, then it isn't right wing.
You're arguing that similar results can (and even inevitably will) occur in the absence of state interference. That might well be true, but then it ceases to be a question of right/left.
Seriously,
If you think that defending the control over 1s and 0s is even sane, then you are not in any conceivable sense of the word an anarcho capitalist.
If you can't defend it yourself and you want to whine to big brother to protect your belief in illusory nonsense, then just man up, grow up and give up any delusion in believing in the anarcho part of that.
You are a whiny, big government pussy and nothing more. It is not at all, in any way possible to have one without the other.
The fact that you would even disgrace yourself with such a clearly contradictory question demonstrates your utter refutation of the ideal you claim to support.
In short, fuck off you whiny shitbag.
We lock away a larger percentage of our citizens than any other country (ok, maybe not china... i don't know the current statistics),
We lock away more people per capita *and* in raw numbers than any other country in the world. Primarily due to drug laws which cause far more harm than drugs ever have.
Oh I'm with you. I actually knew that one fact ;-)
I was having a go at the other guy.
I'd love to meet her when heroin is explained to her.
Opium, maybe. Heroin is two stages down the road in a lab from Opium.
Opium->Morphine->Heroin
Therefore, by that reasoning, heroin is an evil unnatural chemical and opium is from a plant and therefore harmless.
Liberalism IS a right-wing ideology.
Oh, bull crap.
The left and right got their names from the fact that during the French Revolution, the representatives of the Aristocracy and the Church sat on the right of the aisle and the representatives of the commoners sat on the left.
All of them were interested in using the power of the state to fuck the others.
Liberalism was the rejection of both viewpoints and the idea that the government should stay the hell out of people's lives, everyone should just grow up, take responsibility for themselves and quit giving the state more power to use against whoever they didn't like.
Individual liberty was held in the highest regard. Liberalism necessarily arose from the left, but rapidly diverged, which makes your assertion that Liberalism is right-wing all the more idiotic.
If you'd claimed it was left-wing, you'd still be wrong, but at least you'd have some small historical basis on which you could blame your mistake.
Now, would you care to explain how the fuck you think it's even sane to claim that a philosophy of individual liberty and restriction of state power has SFA to do with an inherently elitist philosophy put forward by royalty and the massively powerful and corrupt church in order to maintain an inherently unfree market, and inherently unclimbable social ladder, and maintain a system where they got paid just because they thought they were born inherently better and therefore deserved to collect off of other people's creativity, labor, and enterprise?
Seriously, that's a completely idiotic statement.
It's no surprise you hear people repeating that nonsense though, given that both the right and the left in this country are totally opposed to Liberalism. Just like the aristocrats and clergy of old, those on the right in America find it much easier to legislate themselves massive corporate welfare payments than to actually provide some worthwhile service.
Similarly, those on the left like to vote bread and circuses.
Left and right are inherently both supporters of big government.
While the Republicans and Democrats don't map smoothly to Left and Right as they both have elements of both, my point becomes really obvious when you look at them. They are both big government parties, the Republicans even more so than the Democrats since 1980.
Republican spending tends to be corporate welfare, while Democrat spending tends more toward individual welfare.
Both of these are true as far as they go, but they're not absolute, just look at farming subsidies, utility subsidies and the rest of the rural welfare programs. Those are destined primarily for Republican strongholds.
On the other hand, the DMCA, UCITA and such were Democratic corporate welfare handouts.
One of the major reasons why our economy is in the shitter right now is because of the excesses of the left *and* the right and the near complete elimination of Liberalism, even though it's the basis of our constitution.
So please save that nonsense. Liberalism is the philosophy of individual liberty and equality *under the law*. The left is an ideology of "equality" in the sense that you have 2 chickens and I have none therefore I should use the state to rob you of one of your chickens for my benefit. The right ideology is inherently aristocratic and explicitly *unequal* under the law and says since I'm rich and powerful, I'll seize ownership of both of your chickens and your land and you will be stuck working on it for my benefit.
Liberalism is: all of you keep your grubby mitts off of my chickens. I'm raising them for eggs because I see a market for them, I'm sick to death of eating nothing but chickens and eggs and I plan on making enough to buy a steak.
MMMMM steak.
On that note, since it's the first warm day of the freaking year in Chicago, I'm going out to fire up the grill.
I see at the whole "global warming" crusade in pretty much the same way as I see Greenpeace and Soukagakkai and Scientology.
Do you mean "Soka Gakkai"? They have a big building across the street from a friend's condo. I was wondering what it was. From their website, they seem to be claiming to be some sort of Buddhist sect, but Eckankar claims the same thing and they're a sleazy cult (my dumbass brother and his wife were in it for some time before they went all crazy culty on them).
What does that tell you?
That if she weighs as much as a duck, then...she's made out of wood?
It's true that there's not much on Jupiter besides atmosphere,
Is that really true?
I know it's a lot of gas, and if there is a solid rocky "planet" under all that atmosphere, nobody's going to go walking around on it.
But it (naively) seems reasonable that since it managed to collect so much material that it would have gotten enough, rock, iron, etc to make a solid planet many times the size of the earth.
Is there some reason to expect that's not how it is?
Lack of choices is never a good thing.
If it's a choice between a company with a history of quality and MicroSoft, then it's inevitably worse then only having the first to "choose" from.
MS is very good at sleazy market manipulation and little else. If they get into a market, then they will drag it down. That's the only tactic they know.
In any case, not so long ago people were saying the same things about Microsoft, and look how they turned out.
I don't know anybody who ever thought MS did a good job of anything. Paid for shills like Didio and the like were happy to pump them up, but they've been a joke among the technically adept since day one.
People were saying, "Don't do that or it will get hacked in minutes" for 30 years and they still haven't learned a damn thing.
Seriously, dude, pay attention once in a while.
Awww, come on. Just when you're starting to learn how to fish you want me to hand you one?
P.S. You have got me worked up enough to bang this out over an all-nighter. I'll try to clarify if there are any mistakes.
;-) ;-)
Meh, I was in the middle of an until 3 AM work session, thought I'd hit submit, checked in from work the next saw my post wasn't there so I hit submit when I got home (before working until 4AM. Why do major problems have to occur in groups), so it only looks like I typed all that in the daytime
I just went in and told my boss I'm taking Monday off for comp time. Boy did he get a good laugh out of that
Anyhow, I'll respond to the rest later..
Your statement indicated your belief (facetious or otherwise) that my actions would lead armed thugs to show up at my door for questioning or worse.
It's not anonymous when members of the government can demand the info illegally and not get shot in the head.
It's not bullshit either, or why would I even have to worry about the armed thugs sent to defend traitors in the first place?
My attitude is absolutely patriotism in its purest form. The fact that I haven't acted on it just means you'd be correct if you questioned the rather large separation between my money and my mouth.
However, according to you, even though all I've done is talk, I still have to fear the Gestapo kicking in my door.
If that happens, then it's pretty clear how necessary my statements *and the fulfillment of them* is to the possibility of a free America in the future.
No, but we'd all bitch if the acting sucked.
I'd never know because I skip that worthless crap that gets in the way of a game (IMO). Hell, that's one reason I gave up on the whole FF franchise. I don't care that they wasted all that time and money on making stupid movies to interrupt a game with, but the fact that they tried to force me to watch that stupid crap is insulting.
When I write code for a software company, should I get a recurring income on every copy of the software sold?
Why shouldn't you?
It's an honest question.
It's entirely arbitrary either way.
There's all the set designers, costume designers, makeup people, camera operators, editors, graphic effects people, etc. who also work for years and put in more effort than the actors but don't get the same pay.There's all the set designers, costume designers, makeup people, camera operators, editors, graphic effects people, etc. who also work for years and put in more effort than the actors but don't get the same pay.
Lots of people will go see a movie just because $FAMOUS_ACTOR is in it. I'm not saying I agree with the amount of disparity, but it is true that a given star can add quite a bit to the bottom line just by having their name in the credits.
I'm nowhere near as hardcore a gamer as a lot of the folks here, but I've never given a crap about voice actors in games. I have a hard time imagining anybody would buy a game based on who they chose to read some lines I mostly ignore anyhow.
Am I missing something? Are there people here who even care about voice actors in video games?
Are there people who'd buy a game based solely on the actor?
How about refusing to buy one based solely on the actor?
Yeah--a link would be nice. Of course if the link goes to a site "if*ckinghateregan.com/our-made-up-data/reganbudget.html" I'll be a bit suspicious. The fact that you had to predicate the handing-out of the link with a statement like that means it's probably some lib conspiracy site.
No, it's the fucking federal budget office, dipshit. Where do you think you'd go to find out about the federal budget?!?!
But your ignorance and your attitude demonstrates that you're the sort to arbitrarily reject links because they disagree with you. I see it all the fucking time from you wingnuts and Reagan cultists.
And your link is only about certain types of spending. I'm talking overall growth in government spending and Reagan owns that.
Now that I've finally managed to teach you how to find information for yourself (even though you failed, at least you finally tried to do something for yourself).\
You're welcome.
Enjoy your chat with the Secret Service!
The price of patriotism.