Right, they "capitalize", like anyone who writes books about it, makes movies, TV shows, documentary, reports about it on the news, and so on. The real reason here is it's because it's new for this media.
See, for some strange reason, we react very differently to the same content depending on the media. Everybody loves a Schwarzenegger or Stallone killing people, cops included, by the dozen in movies, but if you talk about the same thing in a song or do a video game about it you'll get protests against you. Go figure, but at some point we decided that music was for love songs and partying, that video games weren't meant to be serious, or that animated films were for children.
Off topic : that's what I hate about "rebel" rockers who make a big deal out of talking about Satan, when the stuff that really disturbs is in what's real but that we don't want to hear about.
We got *this* close to at last having a war game that was even vaguely anything like war. A chance we've avoided that, the crude reality of war should only be depicted in movies, TV shows and documentary, as God intended!
Anything of any practical use that's connected to the Internet can be hacked.
Agreed. Which is different from "Everything can be hacked somehow. If it's got a network port with a cable plugged into it, and that cable allows physical (logical connection not necessary - only physical) connection with the Internet somewhere along the line, then it can be hacked and abused."
No look, that's just bullshit. You can make something unhackable. In practice that's impossible with the huge modern OS and web browsers, but saying "something cannot be made unhackable from the Internet" is utter balls. Period. Seriously.
Maybe in practice, but in theory it'd be trivial to make a unhackable computer connected to the Internet. If the only thing running on your computer is an OS which only knows how to turn raw data from the Ethernet cable into coloured pixels, I'd say that's pretty unhackable.
We have built 135 F-22s as of now, don't you think that's enough for the time being? Besides, this "Cold War" is/will be even colder than the one with Russia : whereas the previous Cold War was ICBM rain vs ICBM rain, this one with China is ICBM rain vs ICBM rain + we depend on them because we owe them trillions + they depend on us since their economy is mainly export-based, and now more than ever they need to maintain a certain pace in their economic growth, failing that, civil unrest might get out of hand and sign the current Chinese regime's death warrant.
So keep your F-22 money, they're not likely to take on the Chinese air force anytime soon. Although I suppose wars of proxy would be doable, but right now I don't see the interest that China would have in creating a new Korea or Vietnam war.
What does she destroy it? By the way iirc that's not Keynes' idea but Napoleon Bonaparte's, and Keynesian economics are making a huge comeback since deregulation has proven to be madness.
Spending doesn't stimulate, really? So what if everybody stops spending? The whole economy dies. Money is economy's blood, and spending is the heart that pumps it. The only way you can say that "spending doesn't stimulate" is if you take spending entirely as granted.
Anything can have "wiki" in its name, here that's different, Wikipedia only refers to one possible very specific thing. It's like the difference between "Encyclopaedia" and "Encyclopaedia Britannica"
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like the Grand Theft Auto series to me.
Only if the government/armed forces surrendered. Because then that's no army, that's... an insurgence!
Right, they "capitalize", like anyone who writes books about it, makes movies, TV shows, documentary, reports about it on the news, and so on. The real reason here is it's because it's new for this media.
See, for some strange reason, we react very differently to the same content depending on the media. Everybody loves a Schwarzenegger or Stallone killing people, cops included, by the dozen in movies, but if you talk about the same thing in a song or do a video game about it you'll get protests against you. Go figure, but at some point we decided that music was for love songs and partying, that video games weren't meant to be serious, or that animated films were for children.
Off topic : that's what I hate about "rebel" rockers who make a big deal out of talking about Satan, when the stuff that really disturbs is in what's real but that we don't want to hear about.
We got *this* close to at last having a war game that was even vaguely anything like war. A chance we've avoided that, the crude reality of war should only be depicted in movies, TV shows and documentary, as God intended!
Well, I feel for those who live near La Guardia or JFK...
If you were in Manhattan and saw a low-flying commercial airliner tailed by two F-16s, you wouldn't blink an eyelash?
I wouldn't see it to begin with, I never look at planes, I'm too scared of eventually making eye contact with that plane.
Right, sure, every claim is true if you read the right stuff in between the lines.
Wow, whoever modded this flamebait needs to get a clue lol.
Anything of any practical use that's connected to the Internet can be hacked.
Agreed. Which is different from " Everything can be hacked somehow. If it's got a network port with a cable plugged into it, and that cable allows physical (logical connection not necessary - only physical) connection with the Internet somewhere along the line, then it can be hacked and abused."
Sorry, turns out you're right, anyone on welfare is a lazy stupid fried chicken and watermelon eating crack head. Oops, did I just speak your mind?
No look, that's just bullshit. You can make something unhackable. In practice that's impossible with the huge modern OS and web browsers, but saying "something cannot be made unhackable from the Internet" is utter balls. Period. Seriously.
OMG you too epic fail rofl :D
You're a moron.
That would be a first post fail if it said anything vaguely similar to "first post". Accusation fail?
Maybe in practice, but in theory it'd be trivial to make a unhackable computer connected to the Internet. If the only thing running on your computer is an OS which only knows how to turn raw data from the Ethernet cable into coloured pixels, I'd say that's pretty unhackable.
We have built 135 F-22s as of now, don't you think that's enough for the time being? Besides, this "Cold War" is/will be even colder than the one with Russia : whereas the previous Cold War was ICBM rain vs ICBM rain, this one with China is ICBM rain vs ICBM rain + we depend on them because we owe them trillions + they depend on us since their economy is mainly export-based, and now more than ever they need to maintain a certain pace in their economic growth, failing that, civil unrest might get out of hand and sign the current Chinese regime's death warrant.
So keep your F-22 money, they're not likely to take on the Chinese air force anytime soon. Although I suppose wars of proxy would be doable, but right now I don't see the interest that China would have in creating a new Korea or Vietnam war.
*How does she destroy it
What does she destroy it? By the way iirc that's not Keynes' idea but Napoleon Bonaparte's, and Keynesian economics are making a huge comeback since deregulation has proven to be madness.
Spending doesn't stimulate, really? So what if everybody stops spending? The whole economy dies. Money is economy's blood, and spending is the heart that pumps it. The only way you can say that "spending doesn't stimulate" is if you take spending entirely as granted.
Actually it really became popular with Ronald Reagan and his Cadillac-driving welfare queens
And where does that money go? Pays people's salary.
Vice-President Biden : the game, you just lost it. rofl
Anything can have "wiki" in its name, here that's different, Wikipedia only refers to one possible very specific thing. It's like the difference between "Encyclopaedia" and "Encyclopaedia Britannica"
Oh wait till you hear this, I heard that RMS would be singing during half-time.