You do know that there are gold dealers in this country, right? Eliminate the personnel cost, and the premiums will come down.
I guess filling consumer demand while reducing consumer costs and making a profit is evil in your world. Might I suggest you move to North Korea? I guarantee no-one is making any evil profits there.
I used to use one of these to keep my well pump from freezing in the deep of winter. It was nice because I could see the light on from my window, so there was no need to go trudging out through the snow to see if there was a problem with the well. Now I have to use a heater. Though it uses less electricity, it has more moving parts and is liable to break or cause a fire.
Thanks for nannying me, federal government. I switched to all fluorescent lighting in my house without you forcing me to. I don't see why you had to outlaw something that people obviously want.
I was talking about real life. Yours is the exact point, those people would have gotten to shore SOMEHOW, even if they had tie a dozen sea turtles together.
Ooooo, they conquered...TWO CITIES! That's what, maybe one square on a huge Civ 4 map? Maybe two? In an area known for the many great empires that ran through it over the centuries.
That might have passed muster if the Hebrews had lived in, say, Australia, or Brazil. Pretty much anywhere else, and their "empire" was never more than the place they lived.
Re:The game is a pretty huge disappointment.
on
Review: Civilization V
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There was never a need for naval transport units. Even from ancient times, troops moved using boats they made themselves, even constructing a bridge across the sea when they had to.
What I WOULD like to see is army units that can do certain types of terrain modification. It would be nice to be able to, say, burn down a forest that has enemy units in it, or build roads or fortresses (Roman Legions could do this in Civ 3), or even build cities when fortified in one area for a long enough time period. One thing that always bothered me about sending out units to he far corners of the globe in the ancient era was that they could sit in a given square for THOUSANDS of years, and never build a city. What are these guys, immortals? They have to get married and have kids at some point, and there is no way for them to do that when they are isolated from your territory by a hostile enemy. There are plenty of instances where cities formed around military encampments. That's how half the West was settled.
The Hebrews never had an Empire. Sorry, that's just the way it is (this is a credit to them, in my opinion--they affected change through ideas rather than brute force, even if I disagree with many of the ideas). Venice had a bigger empire than the Hebrews ever had, as did Crete, but you never see the former, and I don't think I've ever seen the latter outside of scenarios. Today they are a city state (in the game's mechanics) at best.
If you don't like it, make your own mod, scenario, or your own game.
So advocating for maximizing tax receipts is suddenly the province of Objectivists? Must be some kind of topsy turvy world you're living in, mate.
Also note that when the top tax bracket was 90+%, most of the "rich" fled the country. You are gambling on all or nothing by reintroducing ultra high tax rates on top earners, with a high bias toward nothing.
Did you actually read the report? He has evidence that there was no firefight nearby.
But whatever. If you want to have an opaque government that thinks its ok to murder people on the streets, that's your business. Just don't be too surprised when they start doing the same thing here. Eventually, someone is going to label YOU as a domestic terrorist, because you aren't in the political party du jour.
So, people in the Iron Age didn't have steel because they didn't know what an iron atom was? I guess we don't have nuclear reactors because we don't fully understand the composition of matter, either.
Hell, Alexander Fleming didn't discover penicillin because he didn't know the atomic structure.
Uhhh, they're releasing primary sources. It's up to the public to interpret the data. But hitting random people in the streets with a gatling gun from a helicopter seems like a war crime to me. But then, it was whites flying the copter, so I guess that can't be the case.
So saying the "data is too obscure" is enough for you? I guess you have your social security number tattooed on your forehead. I mean, it's just an obscure number, right?
You don't seem to be able to wrap your mind around that fact that governments are not the same as the people. The people produce the government in a democratic society, but that does not mean that the government is the same as the society that created it. Indeed, what tends to happen is the worst elements of society gather in the government in order to seek wealth and power for themselves. Even though the people have elected their king, the king does not care for the people, and will crush them all with an iron fist, or destroy them entirely if it suits him (and if he can get away with it).
Slashdot Mirror
You do know that there are gold dealers in this country, right? Eliminate the personnel cost, and the premiums will come down.
I guess filling consumer demand while reducing consumer costs and making a profit is evil in your world. Might I suggest you move to North Korea? I guarantee no-one is making any evil profits there.
I used to use one of these to keep my well pump from freezing in the deep of winter. It was nice because I could see the light on from my window, so there was no need to go trudging out through the snow to see if there was a problem with the well. Now I have to use a heater. Though it uses less electricity, it has more moving parts and is liable to break or cause a fire.
Thanks for nannying me, federal government. I switched to all fluorescent lighting in my house without you forcing me to. I don't see why you had to outlaw something that people obviously want.
I was talking about real life. Yours is the exact point, those people would have gotten to shore SOMEHOW, even if they had tie a dozen sea turtles together.
Ooooo, they conquered...TWO CITIES! That's what, maybe one square on a huge Civ 4 map? Maybe two? In an area known for the many great empires that ran through it over the centuries.
That might have passed muster if the Hebrews had lived in, say, Australia, or Brazil. Pretty much anywhere else, and their "empire" was never more than the place they lived.
There was never a need for naval transport units. Even from ancient times, troops moved using boats they made themselves, even constructing a bridge across the sea when they had to.
What I WOULD like to see is army units that can do certain types of terrain modification. It would be nice to be able to, say, burn down a forest that has enemy units in it, or build roads or fortresses (Roman Legions could do this in Civ 3), or even build cities when fortified in one area for a long enough time period. One thing that always bothered me about sending out units to he far corners of the globe in the ancient era was that they could sit in a given square for THOUSANDS of years, and never build a city. What are these guys, immortals? They have to get married and have kids at some point, and there is no way for them to do that when they are isolated from your territory by a hostile enemy. There are plenty of instances where cities formed around military encampments. That's how half the West was settled.
The Hebrews never had an Empire. Sorry, that's just the way it is (this is a credit to them, in my opinion--they affected change through ideas rather than brute force, even if I disagree with many of the ideas). Venice had a bigger empire than the Hebrews ever had, as did Crete, but you never see the former, and I don't think I've ever seen the latter outside of scenarios. Today they are a city state (in the game's mechanics) at best.
If you don't like it, make your own mod, scenario, or your own game.
What are you going to do when your internet goes down, or when you move somewhere without good internet options? Stop playing games?
I, for one, would like games that don't come with counterparty risk. That's what the stock market is for.
You got some numbers to back that up? I didn't think so.
You know you're in trouble when competitors have a strong selling point that they are not you.
Sure you can, you just have to have it mounted next to a compressed air cylinder.
I'm sure these people people would disagree with you.
But good job making a blanket assertion without doing even one iota of fact checking beforehand. You should be a journalist.
So advocating for maximizing tax receipts is suddenly the province of Objectivists? Must be some kind of topsy turvy world you're living in, mate.
Also note that when the top tax bracket was 90+%, most of the "rich" fled the country. You are gambling on all or nothing by reintroducing ultra high tax rates on top earners, with a high bias toward nothing.
Wow. Just wow.
Enjoy your 1984, you evil bastard.
Did you actually read the report? He has evidence that there was no firefight nearby.
But whatever. If you want to have an opaque government that thinks its ok to murder people on the streets, that's your business. Just don't be too surprised when they start doing the same thing here. Eventually, someone is going to label YOU as a domestic terrorist, because you aren't in the political party du jour.
So, people in the Iron Age didn't have steel because they didn't know what an iron atom was? I guess we don't have nuclear reactors because we don't fully understand the composition of matter, either.
Hell, Alexander Fleming didn't discover penicillin because he didn't know the atomic structure.
Geez.
Yeah, actually, it is. But Al Qaeda doesn't do that. They attack civilians. Wikileaks never set off a bomb.
In the land of lies, truth is treason.
You are asking someone to prove a negative, which is impossible (and asinine to boot).
If someone had died because of Wikileaks, the Pentagon PR department would be all over it.
Uhhh, they're releasing primary sources. It's up to the public to interpret the data. But hitting random people in the streets with a gatling gun from a helicopter seems like a war crime to me. But then, it was whites flying the copter, so I guess that can't be the case.
Obviously, the only real use for this is to play frisbee using giant robots.
Now someone make me a giant robot already.
You're right. How dare they believe in what they are doing? Don't they know this is POLITICS!?
So saying the "data is too obscure" is enough for you? I guess you have your social security number tattooed on your forehead. I mean, it's just an obscure number, right?
How the hell is that offtopic, anyways?
Yeah, let's rely on security through obscurity. That has always worked for us.
Sir, your sun has been arrested for arson.
The worst part was that he did it during a coronal mass ejection. That makes it a sex crime.
We WOULD do that, but we're too busy watching tranny porn.
-Your Friends at the SEC
That's CANNIBALISM!
You don't seem to be able to wrap your mind around that fact that governments are not the same as the people. The people produce the government in a democratic society, but that does not mean that the government is the same as the society that created it. Indeed, what tends to happen is the worst elements of society gather in the government in order to seek wealth and power for themselves. Even though the people have elected their king, the king does not care for the people, and will crush them all with an iron fist, or destroy them entirely if it suits him (and if he can get away with it).
Get it now, or is it another picture of a duck?