Re:Why should only Christian parents be challenged
on
ESRB Retorts to NIMF
·
· Score: 1
Nice blanket statement. There is nothing to indicate that NIMF is 100% Christian.
Nice straw man. There is nothing in my posts that claims it is.
Oh, come now. That's a cop-out. We see this all over the place.
If you had actually read through my last post, you would have seen that I am not portraying this as a purely Christian issue. Here's the last paragraph again for you:
In conclusion, when I challenged Christians to lead by example, I certainly didn't mean that exclusively...I only targeted my fellow Christians for two reasons. One: because, frankly, they're the problem, and two: as a Christian myself, I feel I have both a right and a duty to help guide my fellow Christians back on course. Of course, not all Christins are guilty of this, and this offense isn't confined to the ranks of Christianity, either...but Christians are in the vast majority here, and it's a fact that the movement to legislate morality in this country is being spearheaded by them, so they are who I addressed.
I also have to challenge your statement that they are a Christian group by design.
And I have to challenge your insinuation that I made such a statement. Funny how you can do the 'breaking up the response into multiple segments' thing, but not in this instance, since I never made such a statement for you to quote.
Melatonin. 3 mg about 1 hour before bed time. Works great.
And you top it all off with an insulting, offtopic, and flippant remark. By now it's painfully obvious that you're a fundie masquarading as an agnostic, so your mindless, off-base rants about me 'targeting Christians unfairly' doesn't come off as the self-serving pablum it actually is.
In conclusion, log off before you hurt yourself.
Re:Why should only Christian parents be challenged
on
ESRB Retorts to NIMF
·
· Score: 1
Whereas the essence of your post is correct, I find it irresponsible of you to target Christians in your post.
All I'm doing is targeting the people responsible for the problem.
The simple fact of the matter is that whereas most people might identify themselves as Christians, the majority of them probably don't live up to the standards that they claim Christ represents.
Which I believe was the substance of my previous post.
Personally, I'm agnostic. So, why do you not also direct your challenge to me?
Because the fundies are the ones who want to legislate the morality....not the agnostics.
The simple fact is that parents regardless of their religious beliefs or identification should be should be held to the same level of responsibility.
No argument here...I just find it galling that fundamentalists can preach about what is best for America, but throw up their hands and admit defeat when it comes to actually doing what is best for their own children. If I was a better Christian, I could probably come up with a relevant Bible passage here to illustrate my point, but as it is....well, perhaps a more bible-savvy reader could help me out here.
Now, I understand that NIMF is a Christian group, but to target your challenge solely at Christians is irresponsible - some might argue that it's mildly inflammatory as well.
I certainly hope it was inflammatory...that was pretty much the whole point. In essence, I'm challenging the fundies to put up or shut up.
I'm sure there are parents in other religions who would love to legislate morality as well, and that's just as wrong. One need only look to non-Christian theocracies in other parts of the world to see what life is like when morality is dictated by law.
Exactly. And that's precisely what keeps me awake at night.
In conclusion, when I challenged Christians to lead by example, I certainly didn't mean that exclusively...I only targeted my fellow Christians for two reasons. One: because, frankly, they're the problem, and two: as a Christian myself, I feel I have both a right and a duty to help guide my fellow Christians back on course. Of course, not all Christins are guilty of this, and this offense isn't confined to the ranks of Christianity, either...but Christians are in the vast majority here, and it's a fact that the movement to legislate morality in this country is being spearheaded by them, so they are who I addressed.
You're entirely right...the people involved in this aren't as interested in promotiong and preserving good Christian values as they are about justifying their own existence through rabid fearmongering and shameless self-aggrandizement. Thus, when confronted with an organization that actually helps to protect children through a rating system (which actually has a decent track record), their response is not to try to work with this organization, but decry its work as a failure.
Don't Christians comprise something on the order of 80% of the population of the U.S.? It seems to me that if these 'concerned citizens' actually took the time to parent their children, the issue of violent video games corrupting our nation's youth wouldn't be an issue...but it's ever so much easier to abdicate responsibility to a group who claims they're 'looking out for the children'. <sarcasm>Heck, all you have to do is read the first sentence of the tenth annual MediaWise video game 'report card' ("Risk to Children Continues to Grow") to know that these people are genuinely concerned about the safety of our little ones.</sarcasm>
Fellow Christians, I offer you a challenge: Quit trying to legislate morality, and start teaching it instead. Quit trying to lead by coercion, and instead lead by example. Look to the beam in your own eye before you try to remove the mote from your brother's eye.
Yes. I remember playing a demo where you could push crash dummies down some stairs, I forget what it was called, maybe it was 'Stair Dismount' or something like that.
Mark is of course referring to the venerable Porrasturvat (Stair Dismount), which can be found here, along with Rekkaturvat (Truck Dismount) and many, many Porrasturvat mods.
Re:Free Punch Card
on
Why We Fight
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
...knowing when some schmuck pisses you off that you get to connect full on with his eye with no repercussions... that's a beautiful thing.
Beautiful until he retaliates with his punch card...
He has the right to write, and they have the right to disagree. However, they do not have the right to take action. The blogger's comments did not violate any law, and far worse things have been posted on the 'Dog Ears' board accessable via a link from the student government web page. By linking to 'Dog Ears', the university tacitly approved such opinions as free speech. Marquette has no case here, and they would be wise to withdraw, before they take a pounding in the PR arena over this.
After reading this 'article' (and I use the term loosely), one is left wondering if this "Bonhomie Snoutintroff" has an axe to grind against EFF specifically, or if EFF was simply unfortunate enough to present an accessable target for one of "Bonhomie's" mindless rants.
One thing is for sure...even if "Bonhomie" went by a less ludicrous pen name (honestly..."Bonhomie Snoutintroff"???), and refrained from such pejorative terms as 'pigopolists' and 'pale vegetarians', he still couldn't be taken seriously, due to his gross misrepresentation of the facts. Bonhomie cited six losses by the EFF...visit the EFF's legal victories page, and you'll see several wins that Bonhomie conveniently failed to mention.
This kind of vapid tripe is pathetic even for the Register's admittedly lax standards. In case there remains any doubt, I leave you with the short bio of "Bonhomie Snoutintroff", which was appended to the 'article' in question:
Bonhomie Snoutintroff is a plain-spoken strong leader in cyberspace. He did poorly in school but his family is rich and well connected, so he's served as CEO of numerous, well-known Internet ventures that for various reasons unrelated to his forward-looking guidance no longer exist. He developed a cocaine and alcohol problem, although he refuses to dwell on the past: his mission is to bring honor and dignity to the IT profession. His keen insight as a global techno-visionary is matched only by his Christian humility.
Why the hell isn't this in the 'humor' section....of either site?
[Eric] Schmidt is CEO of Google. [Hal] Varian is a Berkeley professor and consultant with Google.
Wow...an article written by Google about how great Google is...the very definition of conflict-of-interest.
While I'm aware that Slashdot is contractually obligated to post any and all stories about Google that possess even the most infinitesimal amount of positive spin, this seems extreme even here.
Replace perjorative term 'spyware' with more neutral 'adware'
Threaten to sue anyone who still insists on saying 'spyware'.
Establish 'guidelines' for adware.
Stay within self-imposed 'guidelines'.
Convince antispyware vendors to remove Claria's name from list of threats.
...
Profit!
Personally, I still despise Gator...uh...Claria, and all it stands for. The legitimization of spyware...uh...adware just leads to it being even more prevalent, and for every 'legitimate' adware app, there's a score of spyware apps out there that don't bother to play by the rules. Things would be much easier if all spyware could be treated like the infectious waste it is, but of course economics dictates that will never happen. From TFA:
Lydia Parnes, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, says it's possible to track people online without being underhanded. The FTC is in favor of online advertising, she explains, "and sometimes tracking makes advertising work better for consumers."
In other news, cats are in favor of open birdcages.
Separately, The American Council on Education filed a court challenge arguing that compliance with the rules would require colleges and universities to spend $7 billion in upgrading switches and routers.
Here's a good reference on just what will be required for universities to comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA),and the resultant costs involved.
I wouldn't characterize them as 'helpful' as much as 'blatantly obvious'. I can sum up the seven paragraphs of the 'suggestions' section in three words:
Parent your children.
If parents can't do that properly, it's not likely that the reactionary psychobabble of a self-proclaimed 'killologist' is going to help them.
It certainly does...after all, child obesity is at epidemic levels in America...I really don't see how the author can make the claim that parents have 'tamed' the TV. Of course, the author might counter that this only further proves his point (after all if we haven't 'tamed the TV', we're in even worse shape regarding video games), but it would have been nice to see this argument in the article (especially as it's more persuasive than any of the 'arguments' he actually cited). Instead, he starts out the article with a demonstrably false statement...kinda makes the remainder of his article even less fit for print.
So many objectionable premises here...where to start?
Eighty percent of the most popular video games feature aggressiveness or violence as the primary themes, and in twenty percent of these games the aggressiveness or violence is directed toward women.
This statement is ambiguously worded...does the author mean against women exclusively, or just against women in addition to men? If he means exclusively, I call shenanigans, and ask for a list of these games. If he means women in addition to men, couldn't this objection be contrued as sexist?
Lieutenant Colonel David Grossman, a psychologist at Arkansas State University and past specialist as a "killologist"...
Sorry, but I find it very hard to take anyone seriously who styles themselves a 'killologist'...unless of course I'm competing against them in Unreal Tournament...^_^
Could these video games trigger what we call "instant replay," so that the player is conditioned to pull a trigger when seeing someone go after his girlfriend?
As has been mentioned so many times before, the person who has difficulty distinguishing the game world from the real world has much deeper problems than mere video game addiction.
We are concerned that this terrifying technology can fill a child's vulnerable and receptive brain with a whole library of scary instant replays, so that by reflex he replays one of these violent scenes when faced with a real-life problem.
I'm concerned for the child whose parents allow video games to teach them values and morals, rather than taking a more active role in their progeny's upbringing...
Colonel Grossman dubs this as AVIDS - acquired violence immune deficiency syndrome.
Ah yes...the 'killollogist'....thaanks ever so much, Colonel.
Children instinctively copy adult behavior, and violent imagery is much more easily stored in the memory than less violent behavior.
This reminds me of when Bender told the TV audience, "Have you ever considered just turning off the television...sitting down with your kids...and hitting them?"
One study even reported an increase in the stress hormone adrenaline during video playing.
I'm sure it does...just as climbing a tree, jumping your dirt bike off a ramp, participating in a sporting event, or just about any other activity children might construe as 'fun'. Should we also discontinue all those activities?
These games give children an out when they don't feel in with other groups.
What the author, as well as other 'anti-game' activists, persist in denying is that the gaming community is a group that is every bit as valid as other social groups. Perhaps the author feels that gamers should stop being so antisocial, and hang out with the stoners behind the school instead....at least they'll be 'in a group' then, right?
During video-playing, children get instant gratification and can manipulate their roles to what they want. Yet, in the real world, they have to wait, and it's not always fun.
I take it the author has never so much as tried to get all the easter eggs in GTA, much less developed a character on Everquest or WoW...we'll show you the meaning of patience.
Media researchers fear that children will grow up viewing the world as violent and dangerous - a viewpoint dubbed the mean world syndrome.
Turn on CNN. Let that sink in for a couple of minutes. Then try to preach to me without choking on your own hyprocrisy.
Scary technology now allows players to "morph" headshots of other people (such as other kids or teachers whom they might hate) onto the bodies of the characters in the video game in order to shoot their heads off.
I used to have a dartboard on which I pinned pictures of people I disliked...and yet, amazingly enough, I never threw a dart at a person.
Allowing violent video games in your home could be considered as a form of child abuse. In fact, it's visual abuse.
The real 'visual abuse' was having to read this article. Thanks so much.
Not really news per se...most of us have known for a while now that Linux is a good strategy for reviving old systems that the latest M$ bloatware won't run on.
I've put the warming sticker from our rack enclosure on the entrance to my cube, informing visitors in 13 different languages that "enclosure may become unstable if more than one component is extended at one time".
Just trying to warn lUsers that visiting my cube carries a 'Risk of Personal Injury'. ^_^
This idea is doomed for the same reason that the.xxx top-level domain was...namely, because setting aside a resource for pr0n is tantamount to condoning it on some level, and if Bush and his cronies want to continue to enjoy the backing of the fundies, they can't be percieved as giving adult content on the internet any legitimacy at all.
To advance as far as they have, the species in question probably had to exterminate all competitors, just as our species out-performed, out-fought, and out-bred all the other competing hominids in our race's infancy. We're bloodthirsty and competitive because these traits enabled us to win the evolutionary race, and there is no reason to suppose that alien species didn't have to undergo a similar 'baptism-by-fire'.
When the evidence was less than conclusive about either global warming in general or our role in it in particular, the administration roundly decried it, calling global warming a 'myth' and a 'fantasy'.
When the evidence was conclusive about global warming in general, but inconclusive about our role in it, the administration switched to "well...perhaps it is real, but it's surely just a natural phenomenon...we can't be more than marginally responsible".
And now that the evidence about both global warming in general and our role in it in particular is conclusive, the line will now be "oh well...water under the bridge. There's nothing we can do about it now".
In other words...business in usual. It might be a good idea to sell that beachfront property and start shopping for property further north...particularly since you'll be hunting for your own food when the climate shift causes worldwide food shortages.
So just because they might have "figured out simple fission/fusion weapons" doesn't mean they can deal with a few gazillion joules of energy suddenly appearing 50 meters off the port quarter of their space ship.
"Suddenly appearing", huh? Exactly when did we develop teleportation technology? Oh, that's right...we haven't.
Any culture capable of interstellar travel should be more than capable of detecting and either sidestepping or shooting down whatever we lob at them with our pathetic chemical rockets.
Wow... a new low. The aliens must be laughing themselves sick at our hubris. The possibility that our weapons might prove a threat to a culture capable of mere interstellar travel (let alone "intergalactic") is about the same as an ant colony against the U.S. Army.
Everyone knows you don't make money on the pipe...it's the stuff you put into it that provides the real cash. Cell phones and razors have been using this model for a while now.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice blanket statement. There is nothing to indicate that NIMF is 100% Christian.
Nice straw man. There is nothing in my posts that claims it is.
Oh, come now. That's a cop-out. We see this all over the place.
If you had actually read through my last post, you would have seen that I am not portraying this as a purely Christian issue. Here's the last paragraph again for you:
I also have to challenge your statement that they are a Christian group by design.
And I have to challenge your insinuation that I made such a statement. Funny how you can do the 'breaking up the response into multiple segments' thing, but not in this instance, since I never made such a statement for you to quote.
Melatonin. 3 mg about 1 hour before bed time. Works great.
And you top it all off with an insulting, offtopic, and flippant remark. By now it's painfully obvious that you're a fundie masquarading as an agnostic, so your mindless, off-base rants about me 'targeting Christians unfairly' doesn't come off as the self-serving pablum it actually is.
In conclusion, log off before you hurt yourself.
Whereas the essence of your post is correct, I find it irresponsible of you to target Christians in your post.
All I'm doing is targeting the people responsible for the problem.
The simple fact of the matter is that whereas most people might identify themselves as Christians, the majority of them probably don't live up to the standards that they claim Christ represents.
Which I believe was the substance of my previous post.
Personally, I'm agnostic. So, why do you not also direct your challenge to me?
Because the fundies are the ones who want to legislate the morality....not the agnostics.
The simple fact is that parents regardless of their religious beliefs or identification should be should be held to the same level of responsibility.
No argument here...I just find it galling that fundamentalists can preach about what is best for America, but throw up their hands and admit defeat when it comes to actually doing what is best for their own children. If I was a better Christian, I could probably come up with a relevant Bible passage here to illustrate my point, but as it is....well, perhaps a more bible-savvy reader could help me out here.
Now, I understand that NIMF is a Christian group, but to target your challenge solely at Christians is irresponsible - some might argue that it's mildly inflammatory as well.
I certainly hope it was inflammatory...that was pretty much the whole point. In essence, I'm challenging the fundies to put up or shut up.
I'm sure there are parents in other religions who would love to legislate morality as well, and that's just as wrong. One need only look to non-Christian theocracies in other parts of the world to see what life is like when morality is dictated by law.
Exactly. And that's precisely what keeps me awake at night.
In conclusion, when I challenged Christians to lead by example, I certainly didn't mean that exclusively...I only targeted my fellow Christians for two reasons. One: because, frankly, they're the problem, and two: as a Christian myself, I feel I have both a right and a duty to help guide my fellow Christians back on course. Of course, not all Christins are guilty of this, and this offense isn't confined to the ranks of Christianity, either...but Christians are in the vast majority here, and it's a fact that the movement to legislate morality in this country is being spearheaded by them, so they are who I addressed.
You're entirely right...the people involved in this aren't as interested in promotiong and preserving good Christian values as they are about justifying their own existence through rabid fearmongering and shameless self-aggrandizement. Thus, when confronted with an organization that actually helps to protect children through a rating system (which actually has a decent track record), their response is not to try to work with this organization, but decry its work as a failure.
Don't Christians comprise something on the order of 80% of the population of the U.S.? It seems to me that if these 'concerned citizens' actually took the time to parent their children, the issue of violent video games corrupting our nation's youth wouldn't be an issue...but it's ever so much easier to abdicate responsibility to a group who claims they're 'looking out for the children'. <sarcasm>Heck, all you have to do is read the first sentence of the tenth annual MediaWise video game 'report card' ("Risk to Children Continues to Grow") to know that these people are genuinely concerned about the safety of our little ones.</sarcasm>
Fellow Christians, I offer you a challenge: Quit trying to legislate morality, and start teaching it instead. Quit trying to lead by coercion, and instead lead by example. Look to the beam in your own eye before you try to remove the mote from your brother's eye.
From TFA:Mark is of course referring to the venerable Porrasturvat (Stair Dismount), which can be found here, along with Rekkaturvat (Truck Dismount) and many, many Porrasturvat mods.
...knowing when some schmuck pisses you off that you get to connect full on with his eye with no repercussions... that's a beautiful thing.
Beautiful until he retaliates with his punch card...
Yes, actually. By persecuting the blogger, while linking to a website containing many other negative comments, they are guilty of discrimination.
He has the right to write, and they have the right to disagree. However, they do not have the right to take action. The blogger's comments did not violate any law, and far worse things have been posted on the 'Dog Ears' board accessable via a link from the student government web page. By linking to 'Dog Ears', the university tacitly approved such opinions as free speech. Marquette has no case here, and they would be wise to withdraw, before they take a pounding in the PR arena over this.
After reading this 'article' (and I use the term loosely), one is left wondering if this "Bonhomie Snoutintroff" has an axe to grind against EFF specifically, or if EFF was simply unfortunate enough to present an accessable target for one of "Bonhomie's" mindless rants.
One thing is for sure...even if "Bonhomie" went by a less ludicrous pen name (honestly..."Bonhomie Snoutintroff"???), and refrained from such pejorative terms as 'pigopolists' and 'pale vegetarians', he still couldn't be taken seriously, due to his gross misrepresentation of the facts. Bonhomie cited six losses by the EFF...visit the EFF's legal victories page, and you'll see several wins that Bonhomie conveniently failed to mention.
This kind of vapid tripe is pathetic even for the Register's admittedly lax standards. In case there remains any doubt, I leave you with the short bio of "Bonhomie Snoutintroff", which was appended to the 'article' in question:
Why the hell isn't this in the 'humor' section....of either site?
From TFA
Wow...an article written by Google about how great Google is...the very definition of conflict-of-interest.
While I'm aware that Slashdot is contractually obligated to post any and all stories about Google that possess even the most infinitesimal amount of positive spin, this seems extreme even here.
Oh, and Newsweek, shame on you.
Steps to regaining legitimacy:
Personally, I still despise Gator...uh...Claria, and all it stands for. The legitimization of spyware...uh...adware just leads to it being even more prevalent, and for every 'legitimate' adware app, there's a score of spyware apps out there that don't bother to play by the rules. Things would be much easier if all spyware could be treated like the infectious waste it is, but of course economics dictates that will never happen.
From TFA:
In other news, cats are in favor of open birdcages.
From TFA:
Here's a good reference on just what will be required for universities to comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA),and the resultant costs involved.
Wow...Bill Gates has really let himself go...
I wouldn't characterize them as 'helpful' as much as 'blatantly obvious'. I can sum up the seven paragraphs of the 'suggestions' section in three words:If parents can't do that properly, it's not likely that the reactionary psychobabble of a self-proclaimed 'killologist' is going to help them.
It certainly does...after all, child obesity is at epidemic levels in America...I really don't see how the author can make the claim that parents have 'tamed' the TV. Of course, the author might counter that this only further proves his point (after all if we haven't 'tamed the TV', we're in even worse shape regarding video games), but it would have been nice to see this argument in the article (especially as it's more persuasive than any of the 'arguments' he actually cited). Instead, he starts out the article with a demonstrably false statement...kinda makes the remainder of his article even less fit for print.
So many objectionable premises here...where to start?
Eighty percent of the most popular video games feature aggressiveness or violence as the primary themes, and in twenty percent of these games the aggressiveness or violence is directed toward women.
This statement is ambiguously worded...does the author mean against women exclusively, or just against women in addition to men? If he means exclusively, I call shenanigans, and ask for a list of these games. If he means women in addition to men, couldn't this objection be contrued as sexist?
Lieutenant Colonel David Grossman, a psychologist at Arkansas State University and past specialist as a "killologist"...
Sorry, but I find it very hard to take anyone seriously who styles themselves a 'killologist'...unless of course I'm competing against them in Unreal Tournament...^_^
Could these video games trigger what we call "instant replay," so that the player is conditioned to pull a trigger when seeing someone go after his girlfriend?
As has been mentioned so many times before, the person who has difficulty distinguishing the game world from the real world has much deeper problems than mere video game addiction.
We are concerned that this terrifying technology can fill a child's vulnerable and receptive brain with a whole library of scary instant replays, so that by reflex he replays one of these violent scenes when faced with a real-life problem.
I'm concerned for the child whose parents allow video games to teach them values and morals, rather than taking a more active role in their progeny's upbringing...
Colonel Grossman dubs this as AVIDS - acquired violence immune deficiency syndrome.
Ah yes...the 'killollogist'....thaanks ever so much, Colonel.
Children instinctively copy adult behavior, and violent imagery is much more easily stored in the memory than less violent behavior.
This reminds me of when Bender told the TV audience, "Have you ever considered just turning off the television...sitting down with your kids...and hitting them?"
One study even reported an increase in the stress hormone adrenaline during video playing.
I'm sure it does...just as climbing a tree, jumping your dirt bike off a ramp, participating in a sporting event, or just about any other activity children might construe as 'fun'. Should we also discontinue all those activities?
These games give children an out when they don't feel in with other groups.
What the author, as well as other 'anti-game' activists, persist in denying is that the gaming community is a group that is every bit as valid as other social groups. Perhaps the author feels that gamers should stop being so antisocial, and hang out with the stoners behind the school instead....at least they'll be 'in a group' then, right?
During video-playing, children get instant gratification and can manipulate their roles to what they want. Yet, in the real world, they have to wait, and it's not always fun.
I take it the author has never so much as tried to get all the easter eggs in GTA, much less developed a character on Everquest or WoW...we'll show you the meaning of patience.
Media researchers fear that children will grow up viewing the world as violent and dangerous - a viewpoint dubbed the mean world syndrome.
Turn on CNN. Let that sink in for a couple of minutes. Then try to preach to me without choking on your own hyprocrisy.
Scary technology now allows players to "morph" headshots of other people (such as other kids or teachers whom they might hate) onto the bodies of the characters in the video game in order to shoot their heads off.
I used to have a dartboard on which I pinned pictures of people I disliked...and yet, amazingly enough, I never threw a dart at a person.
Allowing violent video games in your home could be considered as a form of child abuse. In fact, it's visual abuse.
The real 'visual abuse' was having to read this article. Thanks so much.
From TFS: So...there's too many positive stories of Microsoft's predatory practices? I'm confused...
Not really news per se...most of us have known for a while now that Linux is a good strategy for reviving old systems that the latest M$ bloatware won't run on.
I like the PUPPY myself...give it a shot. ^_^
I've put the warming sticker from our rack enclosure on the entrance to my cube, informing visitors in 13 different languages that "enclosure may become unstable if more than one component is extended at one time".
Just trying to warn lUsers that visiting my cube carries a 'Risk of Personal Injury'. ^_^
This idea is doomed for the same reason that the
To advance as far as they have, the species in question probably had to exterminate all competitors, just as our species out-performed, out-fought, and out-bred all the other competing hominids in our race's infancy. We're bloodthirsty and competitive because these traits enabled us to win the evolutionary race, and there is no reason to suppose that alien species didn't have to undergo a similar 'baptism-by-fire'.
This is an interesting turn of events...
When the evidence was less than conclusive about either global warming in general or our role in it in particular, the administration roundly decried it, calling global warming a 'myth' and a 'fantasy'.
When the evidence was conclusive about global warming in general, but inconclusive about our role in it, the administration switched to "well...perhaps it is real, but it's surely just a natural phenomenon...we can't be more than marginally responsible".
And now that the evidence about both global warming in general and our role in it in particular is conclusive, the line will now be "oh well...water under the bridge. There's nothing we can do about it now".
In other words...business in usual. It might be a good idea to sell that beachfront property and start shopping for property further north...particularly since you'll be hunting for your own food when the climate shift causes worldwide food shortages.
So just because they might have "figured out simple fission/fusion weapons" doesn't mean they can deal with a few gazillion joules of energy suddenly appearing 50 meters off the port quarter of their space ship.
"Suddenly appearing", huh? Exactly when did we develop teleportation technology? Oh, that's right...we haven't.
Any culture capable of interstellar travel should be more than capable of detecting and either sidestepping or shooting down whatever we lob at them with our pathetic chemical rockets.
Wow... a new low. The aliens must be laughing themselves sick at our hubris. The possibility that our weapons might prove a threat to a culture capable of mere interstellar travel (let alone "intergalactic") is about the same as an ant colony against the U.S. Army.
Everyone knows you don't make money on the pipe...it's the stuff you put into it that provides the real cash. Cell phones and razors have been using this model for a while now.