The release of Duke Nukem Forever wouldn't kill the joke. It would enhance it, and it would evolve into an even more powerful joke, with bigger guns and more irony.
Will basically be like "Well since you are not in our target audience, therefore not purchasing our products in any quantity what so ever, well thanks for the boycott, it will only help sales"
Well, you know, people who ARE in the target audience might hear about this boycott and the indigenous concerns about the game. Then people who are customers of Activision can boycoot in sympathy.
Besides, why do you say that these people aren't in Activision's market? Do Native Americans not play video games? That sounds like a racist assumption.
"Sharing Technology" means that they'll share the information on building cleaner power plants. Cleaner burning technology isn't a module you slap onto the side of a coal plant, it starts at the design phase.
Yes, I didn't say it was a "module." But you need to do more than share design. We need to give them money, or buy them whole powerplants. They usually can't afford it themselves.
As for not signing Kyoto, I don't see the actual Kyoto signees actually meeting their goals. Kyoto wound up being just a worthless piece of paper.
Because major polluters like America and Australia refused to get involved. They could have improved Kyoto and made it effective. But they buried their heads in the sand, refusing to come to the negotiating table. They also denied environmental issues. This is why they make empty gestures to save face. They were so rabidly in denial of the need for environmentalism, that they have lost credibility now that people are becoming aware of the increasingly toxic environment we live in.
but the residents of Martha's Vineyard and Vermont fight to stop the building of non-emitting windmills.
What does this have to so with environmentalists being hypocrites? I don't think living in Vermont makes one an environmentalist. I have yet to see any actual environmentalist protesting wind farms.
Heaven help us if someone tries to build a nuclear power plant anywhere in the US. Those two technologies emit much smaller amounts of greenhouse gases, but they are stopped by the NIMBY screamers.
But greenhouse gases aren't the only environmental issue. There is also the issue of uranium mining, waste disposal, and arms proliferation. And it's nothing to do with NIMBYism, there are serious environmental and social reasons why nuclear power is not such a good idea.
Why do we need nuclear power plants, when renewable energy such as wind and solar, combined with conservation and energy efficiency can easily meet our needs?
Um, yeah. Oddly, a lot of "pacifists" seem to have no problem with the other side waging war.
What nonsense. Who are these "pacifists" that support Saddam or Al Qaeda? Opposing America's invasion of Iraq is not the same as supporting the enemy. That's just propaganda.
A rational debate assumes someone rational to debate with. Seeing as the other poster has no idea of reality or rationality, then what possibility is there for such a discussion.
What possible discussion can there be when someone says "nothing to see here, move along"? They are indicating they aren't interested in rational discussion or debate. So fuck that. I'd rather if people posted who were willing to discuss things rationally.
It's called "building the brand" or just "branding." Of course, there is nothing wrong with what Google is doing, but it is obvious to see how they stand to financially gain from offering this ad-free service.
The problem with the environmental movements everywhere is that they never present a clear cost/benefit of any solution.
That's absolute horseshit. Modern environmental groups are well aware of economics, and often explain environmental impact. Something that you rarely get from the government a oil/nuclear industries when they plan their exploitation. I've never seen a nuclear power plant fully costed - they simply do not account for the effects of the plant, or what to do with the waste.
If we take part in a plan to improve global warming, how much will it cost, and how much will it benefit us?
It doesn't have to cost anything. In fact, it's likely to save a LOT of money. Conserving energy makes great economic sense, and phasing in new energy technologies creates jobs, research and knowledge.
So maybe the politicians aren't ignoring the problem because it doesn't exist. Maybe they're ignoring the problem because nobody has a solution.
But that's a lie. We definitely know that reducing emissions will reduce the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere. I'm not sure why you are working so hard to make this sound harder and more expensive than it really is.
When the primary governmental authority in New Orleans claims murder in the Superdome, he had damn well better be sure it happened.
That's true, but I think there might be more going on here. I don't think it has anything to do with hobos. the Mayor was probably misinformed by the New Orleans Police Department. They were the ones going around making up stories about looting and gunfire, as a way to justify their violent thug tactics, and delay the recue.
Do you remember that? All those redneck cops behind a podium saying that people can't be rescued until they subdue the looters. Then it turns out that the cops were actually the ones behind major looting, while most of the residents were just "looting" food that would go to waste in the flood, anyway.
I don't have solar panels used for hot water... My house is already built (& I didn't build it), so the cost to change things now is to much for my fairly average salary to cover..
Solar hot water is extremely cheap. You can build a system yourself with little more than some cheap irrigation tubing, and a pump.
Unfortunately I don't see anything that would change this other than a return to sustanence farming or otherwise "living off the land" so that dealing with corporations becomes a luxury and not the necessity that it is today.
I agree with this. We should go back to more basic and sustainable ways of living. But that is impractical with the size of modern populations. So we need a "hybrid" model where the corporate does not compete with the individual. Where we can benefit from automation, but not become automatons.
To have one without also having the other requires a lot of ugly hacks, which is what laws are when they go beyond things like forbidding the use of force or fraud to deprive someone of life, liberty, or property.
That last item, "property," is what really gives me pause when it comes to libertarianism. The word has its root in the word "liberty." But property is basically the opposite of liberty. If I am truly free, I should be able to walk across a patch of earth to get to the river to drink and wash. But with "property rights," the "owner" controls that land, and can dictate my passage. I presume the Libertarian answer is to shoot someone who attempts to cross his land, or charge a toll on passing through the land. That's not freedom or liberty.
Before you think that this is a "way out" example, indigenous people have been having exactly this problem with colonial settlers for hundreds of years. they have shared the land for millenia, then the colonialists come in, and decide that they "own" the land and the indigenous people can't use it. So, because of some arbitrary "property rights," these people are deprived of human rights.
They stopped a bullet train that was proposed between San Diego and Los Angeles back in the 1980s.
Who did? Do you have a link? Usually these projects are killed by government, and blamed on someone else.
But the environmentalist lawyers killed the project. Kind of a shame.
I doubt they are actually environmentalists if they opposed rail transport. Are you sure that wasn't just an excuse? Usually it's the environmentalists who are promoting rail.
In case you are unaware, there are many "astroturfing" companies who pretend to represent environmentalists - to kill projects they don't like, or to give environmentalism a bad name.
Have you taken into account the amount of time and energy to get the product to the train station, to load it, to unload it, to put it on another truck, and then deliver it locally?
Well, it takes even more time to offload a plane and load a truck than it does a train. And the post I was replying to said that planes were more efficient.
With regard to trucks - a train is a lot faster than a truck, so it would likely be faster than a truck, even including loading times. It would be even less if the rail network was more extensive.
Also your posts are really angry with a lot of swear words thrown in. Why is that? Why can't you communicate w/o being so pissed off?
Because I don't like lying propagandists. That was in response to the idea that environmentalists would block rail transit. In actual fact, environmentalists are the ones pushing for rail transit.
And besides who listens to someone that rants all the time?
Indeed. The same could be said of the ranting about environmentalists and lawyers. Just because he did not use profanities, does not make his words any less offensive. Profanity isn't really offensive to anyone but Puritans. But the ideas that the other poster was pushing are offensive to humanity, much more so than a few naughty words.
Why, you ask? Lawyers. Lawyers for environmental groups, mainly, who fight any and all construction projects because they aren't good enough.
You're a fucking idiot. Lawyers from environmental groups would oppose rail infrastructure, and succeed? You have some serious bias there. Since when have environmental groups been able to stop anything significant? They can't even stop nuclear power plants, or sensitive residential developments.
Anyway, you originally claimed that public transposrt was wasteful and inefficient. Now it's the lawyers?
Nothing gets done in America any more.
That's because of America's lack of vision, not lawyers.
Rail is rarely faster than autos.
What do you mean by this? Fast rail can go a lot faster than cars, nearly as fast as a plane, and without the loading/takeoff/landing/security delays. And by saying "rarely," you admit that it can be faster than cars. This is very true in countries that embrace public transport.
the real reason nothing gets done is attitudes like yours - where all you see are negatives, and can't be bothered to think of solutions. Too, hard, don't bother trying.
Trucks and planes are the most efficient way to get goods from point A to B in America. Sorry to burst your bubble.
That's absolute nonsense. How can trucks and planes possibly use less fuel than an efficient locomotive, to transport the same weight in cargo. Are you aware of how much fuel a plane uses to get off the ground? There's a reason planes have to be light. There's a limit to how many trailers a truck can pull. A single locomotive can pull hundreds of heavy cargo containers.
It may be awkward now, because of neglected infrastructure, but that's my point - if rail was taken seriously, and the infrastructure built, it would be much easier than trucks and planes.
Unless the population is so spread out as to make public transit wasteful and inefficient.
What about high-speed trains linking the major cities? What about public transport within the cities? Sure, New York has its subway - but most other large cities don't have decent transit systems.
I wonder how you could ask such a question if you'd genuinely done any research on the subject.
What research have you done? You don't even seem to have common sense. Rail was a major part of America's strength. It linked America. Why can't trains work today? How is rail less efficient than thousands of individual cars? Rail can be even faster than cars, and replace air transport.
And sitting around your dorm smoking blunts and bitching about the "man" isn't research.
My dorm? I graduated long ago, and I never lived in on-campus housing. What's your point?
Why are you so hostile to people that question what the ambigious phrase "tripling of bad harvests" mean?
because it is very obvious what it means, and the only reason they ask the question is out of hostility towards the idea of climate change, thus using it as a distraction. Did you even read my post?
Are you on crack? It was 43 degrees the other day. There have also been wild thunderstorms. The weather here is not normal. It's getting more tropical in Summer, and warmer in winter. It used to be that Melbourne had bitterly cold winters, and moderate, dry summers. Now we have warm winters, and bizarre summers that include all kinds of strange weather.
Slashdot Mirror
The release of Duke Nukem Forever wouldn't kill the joke. It would enhance it, and it would evolve into an even more powerful joke, with bigger guns and more irony.
This means it won't be very long until the Mac version comes out!
Well, you know, people who ARE in the target audience might hear about this boycott and the indigenous concerns about the game. Then people who are customers of Activision can boycoot in sympathy.
Besides, why do you say that these people aren't in Activision's market? Do Native Americans not play video games? That sounds like a racist assumption.
Galloway can hardly be considered a pacifist.
So, if you put a Mac in the same room as a Cray, do they become self-aware and reproduce?
Actually, I run a toy company and we just got an extremely large government order for Etch-a-Sketches.
Yeah, but if you forget to carry the one, it vaporizes Russia.
"Sharing Technology" means that they'll share the information on building cleaner power plants. Cleaner burning technology isn't a module you slap onto the side of a coal plant, it starts at the design phase. Yes, I didn't say it was a "module." But you need to do more than share design. We need to give them money, or buy them whole powerplants. They usually can't afford it themselves. As for not signing Kyoto, I don't see the actual Kyoto signees actually meeting their goals. Kyoto wound up being just a worthless piece of paper. Because major polluters like America and Australia refused to get involved. They could have improved Kyoto and made it effective. But they buried their heads in the sand, refusing to come to the negotiating table. They also denied environmental issues. This is why they make empty gestures to save face. They were so rabidly in denial of the need for environmentalism, that they have lost credibility now that people are becoming aware of the increasingly toxic environment we live in. but the residents of Martha's Vineyard and Vermont fight to stop the building of non-emitting windmills. What does this have to so with environmentalists being hypocrites? I don't think living in Vermont makes one an environmentalist. I have yet to see any actual environmentalist protesting wind farms. Heaven help us if someone tries to build a nuclear power plant anywhere in the US. Those two technologies emit much smaller amounts of greenhouse gases, but they are stopped by the NIMBY screamers. But greenhouse gases aren't the only environmental issue. There is also the issue of uranium mining, waste disposal, and arms proliferation. And it's nothing to do with NIMBYism, there are serious environmental and social reasons why nuclear power is not such a good idea. Why do we need nuclear power plants, when renewable energy such as wind and solar, combined with conservation and energy efficiency can easily meet our needs?
Technically, upgrading an android's internal components is not surgery - it's only called surgery when you operate on a living being.
What nonsense. Who are these "pacifists" that support Saddam or Al Qaeda? Opposing America's invasion of Iraq is not the same as supporting the enemy. That's just propaganda.
What possible discussion can there be when someone says "nothing to see here, move along"? They are indicating they aren't interested in rational discussion or debate. So fuck that. I'd rather if people posted who were willing to discuss things rationally.
But the real question is - can I download Lucy Liu from Google? Is the DRM compatible with my Mac-formatted blank robot?
It's called "building the brand" or just "branding." Of course, there is nothing wrong with what Google is doing, but it is obvious to see how they stand to financially gain from offering this ad-free service.
There is no polite way to respond to your ignorance.
That's absolute horseshit. Modern environmental groups are well aware of economics, and often explain environmental impact. Something that you rarely get from the government a oil/nuclear industries when they plan their exploitation. I've never seen a nuclear power plant fully costed - they simply do not account for the effects of the plant, or what to do with the waste.
If we take part in a plan to improve global warming, how much will it cost, and how much will it benefit us?
It doesn't have to cost anything. In fact, it's likely to save a LOT of money. Conserving energy makes great economic sense, and phasing in new energy technologies creates jobs, research and knowledge.
So maybe the politicians aren't ignoring the problem because it doesn't exist. Maybe they're ignoring the problem because nobody has a solution.
But that's a lie. We definitely know that reducing emissions will reduce the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere. I'm not sure why you are working so hard to make this sound harder and more expensive than it really is.
That's true, but I think there might be more going on here. I don't think it has anything to do with hobos. the Mayor was probably misinformed by the New Orleans Police Department. They were the ones going around making up stories about looting and gunfire, as a way to justify their violent thug tactics, and delay the recue.
Do you remember that? All those redneck cops behind a podium saying that people can't be rescued until they subdue the looters. Then it turns out that the cops were actually the ones behind major looting, while most of the residents were just "looting" food that would go to waste in the flood, anyway.
What a compelling argument.
Solar hot water is extremely cheap. You can build a system yourself with little more than some cheap irrigation tubing, and a pump.
I agree with this. We should go back to more basic and sustainable ways of living. But that is impractical with the size of modern populations. So we need a "hybrid" model where the corporate does not compete with the individual. Where we can benefit from automation, but not become automatons.
To have one without also having the other requires a lot of ugly hacks, which is what laws are when they go beyond things like forbidding the use of force or fraud to deprive someone of life, liberty, or property.
That last item, "property," is what really gives me pause when it comes to libertarianism. The word has its root in the word "liberty." But property is basically the opposite of liberty. If I am truly free, I should be able to walk across a patch of earth to get to the river to drink and wash. But with "property rights," the "owner" controls that land, and can dictate my passage. I presume the Libertarian answer is to shoot someone who attempts to cross his land, or charge a toll on passing through the land. That's not freedom or liberty.
Before you think that this is a "way out" example, indigenous people have been having exactly this problem with colonial settlers for hundreds of years. they have shared the land for millenia, then the colonialists come in, and decide that they "own" the land and the indigenous people can't use it. So, because of some arbitrary "property rights," these people are deprived of human rights.
Who did? Do you have a link? Usually these projects are killed by government, and blamed on someone else.
But the environmentalist lawyers killed the project. Kind of a shame.
I doubt they are actually environmentalists if they opposed rail transport. Are you sure that wasn't just an excuse? Usually it's the environmentalists who are promoting rail.
In case you are unaware, there are many "astroturfing" companies who pretend to represent environmentalists - to kill projects they don't like, or to give environmentalism a bad name.
Well, it takes even more time to offload a plane and load a truck than it does a train. And the post I was replying to said that planes were more efficient.
With regard to trucks - a train is a lot faster than a truck, so it would likely be faster than a truck, even including loading times. It would be even less if the rail network was more extensive.
Also your posts are really angry with a lot of swear words thrown in. Why is that? Why can't you communicate w/o being so pissed off?
Because I don't like lying propagandists. That was in response to the idea that environmentalists would block rail transit. In actual fact, environmentalists are the ones pushing for rail transit.
And besides who listens to someone that rants all the time?
Indeed. The same could be said of the ranting about environmentalists and lawyers. Just because he did not use profanities, does not make his words any less offensive. Profanity isn't really offensive to anyone but Puritans. But the ideas that the other poster was pushing are offensive to humanity, much more so than a few naughty words.
You're a fucking idiot. Lawyers from environmental groups would oppose rail infrastructure, and succeed? You have some serious bias there. Since when have environmental groups been able to stop anything significant? They can't even stop nuclear power plants, or sensitive residential developments.
Anyway, you originally claimed that public transposrt was wasteful and inefficient. Now it's the lawyers?
Nothing gets done in America any more.
That's because of America's lack of vision, not lawyers.
Rail is rarely faster than autos.
What do you mean by this? Fast rail can go a lot faster than cars, nearly as fast as a plane, and without the loading/takeoff/landing/security delays. And by saying "rarely," you admit that it can be faster than cars. This is very true in countries that embrace public transport.
the real reason nothing gets done is attitudes like yours - where all you see are negatives, and can't be bothered to think of solutions. Too, hard, don't bother trying.
Trucks and planes are the most efficient way to get goods from point A to B in America. Sorry to burst your bubble.
That's absolute nonsense. How can trucks and planes possibly use less fuel than an efficient locomotive, to transport the same weight in cargo. Are you aware of how much fuel a plane uses to get off the ground? There's a reason planes have to be light. There's a limit to how many trailers a truck can pull. A single locomotive can pull hundreds of heavy cargo containers.
It may be awkward now, because of neglected infrastructure, but that's my point - if rail was taken seriously, and the infrastructure built, it would be much easier than trucks and planes.
What about high-speed trains linking the major cities? What about public transport within the cities? Sure, New York has its subway - but most other large cities don't have decent transit systems.
I wonder how you could ask such a question if you'd genuinely done any research on the subject.
What research have you done? You don't even seem to have common sense. Rail was a major part of America's strength. It linked America. Why can't trains work today? How is rail less efficient than thousands of individual cars? Rail can be even faster than cars, and replace air transport.
And sitting around your dorm smoking blunts and bitching about the "man" isn't research.
My dorm? I graduated long ago, and I never lived in on-campus housing. What's your point?
because it is very obvious what it means, and the only reason they ask the question is out of hostility towards the idea of climate change, thus using it as a distraction. Did you even read my post?
Are you on crack? It was 43 degrees the other day. There have also been wild thunderstorms. The weather here is not normal. It's getting more tropical in Summer, and warmer in winter. It used to be that Melbourne had bitterly cold winters, and moderate, dry summers. Now we have warm winters, and bizarre summers that include all kinds of strange weather.