Jump to content
  • Advertisement

senelebe

Member
  • Content Count

    151
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

100 Neutral

About senelebe

  • Rank
    Member
  1. senelebe

    I need a game....

    You might take a look at Total Annihilation/Core Contingency. While it does have the gather/build staple of most RTS's it's plays a very small role (negated almost completely depending on map type). It's the fastest paced RTS that I can think of making other games feel like they play in mud. Homeworld/Homeworld2 come to mind also especially if you're looking for the space theme.
  2. senelebe

    PS3: Official UK pricing announced

    Quote:Original post by haro Blu-ray is still far from being the successor to DVD. The DVD forum, which is an organization of hundreds of companies whom are responsible for standardization and development of DVD technology have already named HD DVD as the 'official' successor to DVD. Ironically, Sony is actually a member of the DVD Forum. Of course, the forum's decision really just shows a majority favoring HD DVD by vote. The individual companies are still actively endorsing whichever successor they happen to prefer. Blu-ray is very expensive compared to HD DVD, so its success ( or failure ) will likely be extremely contigent on the success ( or failure ) of the PS3. It's no big suprise. Sony has historically been on the wrong side of every major format change. From Betamax to it's more recent failures with the UMD. With that said, there is little doubt Sony will sell out it's intitial shipments with ease. Want to make a few bucks this christmas? Buy every PS3 you can pre-order and watch them go for a grand (personally I think we'll see them top out at well over $1500) on e-bay. It's easy to see who the real winner is at them moment. Microsoft and Sony are so busy battling one another Nintendo has managed to slide in the backdoor. They are the only manufacturer that will actually make a profit on their hardware. Nintendo has even convinced both parties to do PR and marketing for them, it's amazing. The Wii reminds me alot of the N64. While it might not have been the most popular of systems I think in retrospect it produced the highest quality games and innovation of it's era.
  3. senelebe

    Big Brother Caught Red Handed

    Quote:Original post by Mithrandir Different story. 6 months ago it was wiretapping calls from US to any other country. This story is a crapload bigger, since it's been revealed that they are keeping detailed logs of every phone call ever placed by every single US citizen who has a phone. Of course, if you actually payed attention you would know that. It's a different spin of the same story, my point remains. Democrats decided they couldn't stir enough controversy with their international to US tracking that they pull this one out. You seemed to skip the part that this entire debacle is nothing more than an agenda to discredit John Hayden and make Democrats look better, at the cost of our national security I might add. How you deem this one as "a crapload bigger" is beyond me. This collection is nothing more than phone numbers. If you recall I pointed out Echelon here. This isn't fanboy day at the Whitehouse, I definetely don't agree with everything our administration does. However a better title for this topic would have been "Liberals Expose National Security For Self-Interest". Quote: I care. I'm not a person? At least 57,525 other people care as well. I guess they're not people either. It's funny, that's the sixth time I've come across that link, the five previous were on leftwing sites promoting censure and or impeachment. While I'd never suggest that the liberal minds out there would encourage their participants to skew a poll... Quote: "Unlinked". Oh God what a joke. And how hard do you think it would be for the government to link that number to a person? Whitepages.com does a reverse phone number lookup for free. But hey, why would they even bother with that, when they can easily force the phone company to tell them who owns the phone number? Oops. Oh, and privacy? Fourth Amendment. This has already been through our Supreme Court, we consumers do not own our phone numbers hence they are not protected under the 4th amendment. Don't you see your own propaganda at work here? You either A) Are directly lying to people to further your cause, or B) Follow the lipservice of your leaders blinding going wherever the sheperd dictates. Either way you should open your eyes. What the NSA does with these records once they've acquired them is not the current topic. If you'd like to show me where they are using them in an unscrupulous manor perhaps we converse on that topic then. Quote: The government needs a warrant based on probable cause to gather such information. IE: ILLEGAL. Please show me where this is stated? Misinformation at work once again. The nsa is not wiretapping, it's not listening in. It's data mining which is completely legal and can be done by anyone! If I so choose I could purchase every shred of data that the NSA has collected. Quote: Then don't read it, and go on living your happy little spied-on life. lol, I hope I'm not being spied on, though that probably is the case! However on this particular subject my privacy rights aren't being invaded at all. Quote: Hmmm, what else would you call: * Spying on domestic citizens of the USA, and * Breaking the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ? Oh, right * Liberal Lies and * Liberal Propoganda YAY!!!! (idiot) Yes...well, idiot hmmm. For someone that seems extremely unfamiliar with their own arguments you might restrain yourself from name-calling. Yeah, I do sum this particular case up to propaganda through and through. Quote: Are you daft? This is not just a Democratic issue here, there's a ton of Republicans who are outraged at this too. The only people who claim that it's a 'hateful democratic slur' are retards like yourself, who can't open your damned eyes and stop toeing the party line. Hey, here's a question for you: Do ya hate commies? Them damned soviet reds were evil, right? Remember when we said they were evil for spying on their citizens and collecting massive amounts of personal information, and saying "THANK GOD WE'RE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE OUR FREEDOMS! WE'RE FIGHTING THE COMMIES TO PREVENT THAT CRAP HERE!"? How come that crap has now come here? How can you possibly rationalize it? Where is the "massive amounts of personal data"? Shoot, I disable cookies in my browser so I don't give out minute amounts of personal data. I use proxy servers when I browse porn to protect a minute amount a personal data. You're inflating this into something it isn't. Your leaders are doing it for political gain, what's your excuse? Quote: Good god, did someone replace your brain with Sean Hannity's? You're like a robot. DEMOCRATS, BAD. BUSH, GOOD. BUSH BREAKING CONSTITUTION = VALIANT TERRORIST FIGHTING. DEMOCRATS PROTECTING CONSTITUTION = EVIL HATEFUL TERRORIST LOVERS. END PROGRAM. BEEP. BEEP. I hear this line over and over and over again. Please point out specifically where our president has violated our constitution. If that is the case then why hasn't our Bush-hating liberal left gotten that bum out of office! I use common sense something that is sorely lacking in a majority of these posts. Again, you fail to defend breaching our national security for the sake of political gain. Quote: Good advice, maybe you should take it. lol, maybe that should be the democrats party line come November, We think so far outside the box we don't think at all! Show me where the Democratic party has proposed solutions and perhaps I'll side with them, until that point they rely on fear mongering and propaganda to paint a picture of black. It's the only technique the Democrats have had for 50 years. John "Mr. I don't have a single plan" Kerry. Nancy "If I shout loud enough it doesn't matter what I say" Palosi. Hillary "I can swing both sides of the fence and still never propose anything" Clinton. The list goes on and on, it's a joke, a farse. If there is a single bright spot in the democratic party I've failed to see it. Quote: Here's an example of me thinking for myself: The government has a known terrorists phone number, and knows who he has called. The terrorist also leads a double "regular" life in order to avoid suspicion. Therefore, he comes in contact with many people every day who know nothing about his terrorist connections. The government now suspect all of those regular people who have never done a thing wrong of terrorism. There will be investigations, arrests, detainments, embarassment, loss of money, loss of dignity, etc. Gee. Or wait, how about if the terrorist calls a wrong number once! Oh look! That person is now a terrorism suspect! Here's me thinking for myself again (wow, twice in one day!): The 9/11 terrorism plot suceeded largely because the terrorists avoided using easily-tappable communications methods (ie: phones, internet). This shit doesn't solve anything. Wow, that's a pretty bleak picture you paint. Show me a single instance of that occurring, show me a mass scale of it occurring. Spread your fear, sow your intimidation. Quote: Wait a minute, isn't that the same excuse that you Bush lovers use to bash the Democrats? "Yeah, they try to help people with social welfare, but it's evil because the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and it will cause more problems than it solves!" Wow 50 years ago the democrats had an idea, I'm proud for your party. What have the dems done for me lately other than force my gasoline prices through the roof via their whackjob enviornmental restraints, corrupted our country with pro-government regulations and destroyed the low end economy through excessive welfare and immigrant pandering? Show me a single bill proposed by a democrat that has actually solved a problem instead of creating new ones. Show me the path that democrats have laid out for our future. Show me how the democrats plan on dealing with the very real threat of terror today. Don't bother wasting your time searching, they don't exist. This entire topic is political. Instead of proposing ways to improve our way of life all the democrats can do is try to discredit. It's one thing when they are doing it on their own time, this time they've done it by breaching one of our security protocols. How you can support a party that sells it's country out just to make itself look a smidgeon better is beyond me. Go ahead and twist and distort, spread your fear and propaganda, I've made my point. At this juncture all you can do is continue your misinformation and spreading of lies to help your argument.
  4. senelebe

    Big Brother Caught Red Handed

    Gee, I guess the timing of this leak wouldn't have anything at all to do with John Hayden or the November elections. This story originally broke 6 months ago and people didn't care then. People still don't care. If you really want to get yourselves worked up over something then perhaps you should investigate Echelon. The collection of phone numbers unlinked to their owners does not violate our privacy, or the law! This thread is so propaganda riddled it almost made me puke reading through it. Hey I've got a great idea, how about we compare two completely different polls asking completely different questions and use that to make a point! Hey how about we throw around words like 'domestic spying' and 'unconstitional' because that'll rile the troops! Lets marginalize what Newt says so it seems he's against the GOP and this activity! Oh better yet we can jump on the 'hate Bush' bandwagon because we all know that everything wrong with the world today is HIS fault. The funny thing is this is just another slur campaign that's going to blow up in the Democrats faces. A party that brings nothing other than rhetoric and seething hatred to the table is destined to fail. It's evil and wrong for our country to protect it's citizens through legal means , yet it's perfectly fine for the Democrats to expose our security measures through leaks and make a platform out of it for political curry. You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. At this point in history it's clearly evident which side of that equation people are falling under. Stop getting caught up in the passionate yet disillusional conversation and think for yourself people. While our government is no doubt corrupt and filled to the brim with self-serving egotistical power mongers, at least on the right side of the fence people are trying to solve problems instead of introducing non-existent ones.
  5. senelebe

    Raise money??

    If your parents will let you, borrow the ole lawnmower and weedeater and go door to door in your neighborhood. I was about your age and did this for 3 or 4 summers in a row. Back then I was doing 1 acre plots (pushmower arggg) for 40 bucks a pop. If I started early I could usually do two a day. Most yards are much smaller than this and you could probably get 20-30 bucks for 1/8 acre today. If your parents have a problem with letting you use their things (understandable) you can pick up a used mower for 25-50 bucks at a garage sale or local small engine mechanic shop. After you've done a few yards pick up a weedeater, blower, edger, ant killer (if you have fire ants) maybe some fertilizer and offer different levels of service. People eat this up especially from a young guy trying to make a buck.
  6. senelebe

    Fear Mongering

    Quote:Original post by LessBread Yes. Mistakes. That's being nice about it. It's not fast words and misdirections, it's just holding your description to account. It stands to reason that if you're wrong about those facts, you'll be wrong about others and wrong in the conclusions you reach. Instead of issuing the same old empty stock rebuttals, why don't you try to actually come up with a counter argument? Counter Argument to what!? I make a generalized statement and come rebuke it with "YEAH BUT THERE WAS ONE PRIVATE ROAD ONCE!", Sorry that doesn't qualify for mistakes. This is all you do, you regurgitate one wikipedia statement after another in order to deflect the actual point! Quote: I think what I wrote was clear. Why do you seek to obfuscate it? If NISN is just about NASA's wan, why does it need to be a member of MAE East? Why can't it just purchase bandwidth like private businesses or piggyback on milinet or some other government network? I didn't say that DARPA created the internet, I said it funded the research. And you say that I twist facts to fit my agenda! I looked up CERTA on google and what comes back is completely irrelevant to this discussion: Civilian Experimental Rocketry Test Area? Coalition of Entertainment Retail Trade Association? And nothing comes back from a wikipedia search either. If you're gonna throw out names, you ought to back up your references, especially if you're going to complain about liberal spin and so on. Without a doubt liberal spin, you bitch that I don't do my homework concerning some 'nobody gives a ratsass about thread' then you take misinformation and spit it back out. NISN Ask Nasa. It states in clear non-spin english exactly what they use NISN for. Quote: You throw out a weak and malformed remark about "cradle to the grave society" *, a kind of ideological short hand that others are supposed to unthinkingly salute, and when I defend the idea that a safety net is compatible with responsibility you whine about socialism? Ha! God save us from Sweden!!! You say you want a country of freedom and liberty as you rally for the very forces that would take it away from you! It seems that you have embraced an ideology of self-flagellation in which you must suffer constantly as if it's your duty and the duty of everyone else except for the oligarchs at the top. These days - with the massive concentrations of wealth and the absurd concentration of power in the executive branch - our fore fathers are spinning in their graves double time! * To clarify this - people are born into society and they die in society and whether there is a safety net or not is irrelevant to the fact that society is "cradle to the grave". lol and when I defend the idea that a safety net is compatible with responsibility...the duty of everyone else except for the oligarchs at the top. These days - with the massive concentrations of wealth and the absurd concentration of power in the executive branch I don't think Carl Marx could have stated it better himself. I'm done by the way. Another argument; another flurry of misdirection, spin, and counter-productivity. Time will tell which opinion was the correct (assuming the bill is passed, personally I won't hold my breath, $$ talks in Washington and from the looks of it the Telecom industry is throwing alot around)
  7. senelebe

    Fear Mongering

    Quote: I find it ironic that you have been using telephone deregulation as a positive example while essentially arguing in favor of establishig a Ma Bell for the internet. Take a look at the evolution of the RBOC's geneology. The businesses that want to take over the internet are the products of mergers of the "Baby Bells - Verizon, AT&T - joined with Comcast and Time Warner (ie AOL). The telephone monopoly didn't arise over night but happened slowly over many years [1]. This is the start of the same thing with the internet. As for the FCC's involvement, it's likely because the Communications Act of 1934 "... transferred regulation of interstate telephone services from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the FCC." The agenda isn't entirely left wing, unless you think that Brent Bozell of the Parents Television Council is a left winger. And the fact is that free speech rights on the internet are under attack - from the government as well as from private enterprise [2], [3]. That's not spin. Note the efforts of AOL to censor their chat rooms and also note that Time Warner still owns AOL and is one of the companies seeking control of the internet. I agree that we shouldn't fix what isn't broken, that's why the efforts of Verizon et al. to take over the internet should be opposed. That carriers haven't yet acted like portal guards yet, doesn't mean that will always be the case. It would be naive to trust them in that regard. And lastly, who said that everything the left promotes is good sense? I'm no where near in support of a telecommunication monopoly. Again we have the Telecom Act to thank for that. Government regulations that forced corporations to merge assest in order to stay viable. This bill will do the same thing. The Internet today is just as thriving as it's ever been, yet this bill wants to implement a fix for a problem that just doesn't exist. I think there is a pretty big difference between the ISP AOL wanting to censor their proprietary chat rooms and global carriers using censorship to control what their customers are doing. This is a scare tactic. It just hasn't been an issue. If AOL members dislike this (which I strongly doubt the majority do, hell I'd be in favor of it too after browsing their chat rooms a few times) the beauty is they can select a different ISP. Under this proposed government regulation, local ISPs and locally owned wi-fi (eg San Francisco) could quite possibly dissapear. If anything this bill supports the monopoly not vice versa. You claim these companies are trying to 'take-over' the internet, yet they're just defending their right to have an open market. Is there a problem with offering customers different levels of service? Do you want to be locked into a "non-discriminatory" rate that costs you three times as much as your current service does? Nobody, not I, not you, not the government, not the corporations have a crystal ball. We have no idea how regulations will affect our access to the internet. What we do know is previous regulations have caused major issues with small business, the major corporations, with accessible technologies, with technology growth. Meanwhile our current system has been working (well I might add) for going on 15 years. Had the Telecom Act not have gone into play there is little doubt we'd have Video on Demand (and not some gimped out HBO version), True fiber connections to the majority of major cities, a diverse and open ended availability to broad band, hell I still cannot get broadband where I live. Yet here we go again thinking that the government knows what's best. They've proved time after time that they don't. There are many things I disagree with when we're talking about big business. It's been our government that has turned a blind eye to merges instead of lifting restrictions and or subsidizing. You cannot fault these corporations for coming together in self defense. That being said, I don't agree with all of their tactics or some of their lobby positions. I do however think they have a right to operate without government inteference, especially when you consider it was the government regulations that put them in the position to begin with, and the fact that they aren't violating consumer rights(as if we had any to begin with in privately owned enterprises). You have your views, it's ok I don't agree with them but I do respect them as your views. I've done what I can to change your perspective as have you done with me. I agree to disagree at this point. We share many points of views on a few different things, we clash heavily in other areas. That's the beauty of it, we can have different opinions and shout them as loudly as we'd like. Hopefully that right will be ours for a long time.
  8. senelebe

    Fear Mongering

    Quote:Original post by Mithrandir Quote:Original post by senelebe Quote:Original post by Mithrandir Anyone who can't figure out that the internet, which is full of people, some of whom are pedophiles (much like in every other aspect of life), is a place where your child may potentially meet pedophiles (much like in every other aspect of life), probably shouldn't be having kids. I mean seriously; how does it go? "OH MY GOD! THERE ARE PEDOPHILES ON THE INTERNET?!!!!!". Here's how it should go: "There are people on the internet. Therefore, there are pedophiles on the internet. Dur.". Anyone who can't figure that one out is seriously tripping in lala land. Aren't you the same person that claimed they wouldn't want a warning that clearly marked the minefield? Nope. Quote: Quote: The internet, as a common carrier, should be regulated. Can you imagine the hell that would break loose if the government suddenly deregulated the roadways of the USA? All of a sudden the entire road system would become a worthless cesspool of tar. Think about the internet in the same way. Sometimes, regulation is GOOD. Not everything should be run as a greed-obsessed corporation. Wow, that's about the most flawed analogy I've ever seen. Our roadways weren't created by private companies. The internet isn't supported via tax-payer dollars (yet, in this plan it'd easily become a reality). Government regulations are NEVER a good thing. Look at what happened when the government finally deregulated the phone companies, long distance charges bottomed out, we had competition for the first time in years. Local service can now be provided by anyone. When you ask the government to step in and babysit you as a consumer they will more than willingly do so, and in the process they'll take your freedom of choice along with it. Quote: You're so wrong it's ridiculous. First off: The internet was over 90% created by taxpayer dollars. ALL of the cable companies and phone companies get their lines subsidised by the US Government. To claim that they should be able to do what they want with them because "it's their lines" is fucking ridiculous. Secondly: Government regulations are never a good thing? What planet are you from? How do you like the fact that you can go to the grocery store and buy food that doesn't have dead rats and feces in it? Thirdish: Deregulating the phone companies was good for maybe a year or two. Then they all merged into each other and there's no competition anymore. What good does it do us that Local service can be provided by anyone when there's only one company anyways! My phone bill is higher now than it ever was when they were regulated! There are 70% less phone companies now than there were when they were regulated. Prices are higher, service is shittier, there's no competition... how the FUCK did deregulation actually help anything? I'll assume you were ranting away while I was explaining that regulation was the direct result of why we have megla mergers in the telecommunications industry. Don't confuse the two. You set here and beg for regulation once again and yet all it's going to do is have the same exact effect. You're arguing against yourself here.
  9. senelebe

    Fear Mongering

    Quote:Original post by LessBread I'm just correcting your mistaken historical understanding. You said that government created the roadways. I said that they didn't create them all and later provided a reference. Today private companies do maintain many roadways - as government contractors. Perhaps some of them do save the government money, I'll bet a large number of them seriously overcharge the government - ala Halliburton and Bechtel. Mistaken Historical Understanding? LOL Let me paraphrase since we're going to nitpick the government created 99.98pct of every paved road in this country and to this day still maintains them through tax payer dollars even if that is via private companies that take bid free contracts. Is that Historically Correct enough for you? Fast words and misdirection, sleight of hand. I get so sick of arguing with liberals. Quote: You claimed that the government doesn't fund the internet. It certainly funded the research and development of it - ever heard of DARPA? National Science Foundation? I also provided a link to MAE East - which if you don't know what that is, it's the group that operates the Internet Exchange Point for the East coast of the USA. It's an internet backbone. One of it's members is NASA - which is part of the government. So clearly, tax dollars do go to support the internet - just not in it's entirety. I hope that's not too nuanced for you. You make it out to sound that NISN is providing public infrastructure! This is used soley for nasas wan. They aren't providing funding for the public internet. DARPA didn't create the internet, they invested money into technology that the sole intention was government use in times of communication breakdowns. Take a look at CERTA sometime if you'd really like to nitpick on the origins of the net. Why do you twist facts to fit your own arguments and agendas? The only nuances that are too much for me are your liberal spins! Quote: Where do I come up with this stuff? Why do you point to one instance of successful deregulation and conclude that all others will be equally successful? It worked once in one case so it should work always in every case? Faith in miracles indeed! Personal freedom and responsiblity are perfectly compatible with cradle to the grave safety net. Expand your horizons! Oh yeah, and society is always and will always be cradle to the grave. Doh! Yes, expand them to socialism that's the idea? Thanks but I'd much prefer the concepts of our fore fathers. Take your welfare, take your 40pct tax rates, take your over bearing government, take your reforms and political corruption. I'll take a country of freedom and liberty.
  10. senelebe

    Fear Mongering

    Quote: I don't think you know what the facts of the matter are. I think you saw my "left heavy" remarks and that scared you from actually reading and learning about the situation for yourself. It seems that you think there is a consumer group calling for new legislation to regulate the internet or something. The reality is that big businesses are spending millions lobbying Congress to give them a monopoly and a coalition of various consumer groups are fighting that legislation. Not giving away a monopoly is in the interest of the conumser. Net neutrality is in the interest of the consumer. Not having to pay for sending email is in the interest of the consumer. You are right that this is the first step in signing away any freedom concerning the net - it's about signing away those freedoms to big business - psychopathic entities that by definition are not concerned with anyone elses freedom but theirs. Are you really willing to sacrifice your children on the alter of market competition? What about other people's children? Are you really that bloodthirsty? What I see is a problem the FTC should be dealing with not the FCC. Telecom looked great on paper just like this does. In reality all it did was force new business ventures to go south do to fear of the new regulations. There's one reason we have SBC/ATT/AOL/Verizon/Sprint/Bell mergers today, Telecom Act. You're correct Left Wing agendas scare the hell out of me. I don't want to sell our country out to big business and big government. You see this as a corporations fighting to make an extra buck, the reality is they're just trying to keep their investments intact. If your carrier wants to sell you a premium service, and you would like that premium service shouldn't you have that right? Not under this bill. The politcal agenda uses scare tactics like violation of freedom of speech and carriers acting like portal guards to prevent users from accessing certain sites, yet this has NEVER happened (in America anyways). What makes you think a corporation is going to risk you as a customer by telling you what you can and cannot do with their product? That's our governments job! Why is everything that the left promotes good sense while anything else is propaganda. I'll let you in on a little secret, when people start using violation of rights that have never been violated as a scare tactic, it's a pretty good bet they're selling spin! Don't fix what isn't broken...
  11. senelebe

    Fear Mongering

    Quote:Original post by LessBread If you examine the history of roadways in the USA, you'll find that many of them were indeed first created by private companies - that ultimately failed to adequately maintain them creating the need for governments to step in. So too with dam building and water storage. The internet is indeed still supported by taxpayer dollars. NASA is a member of MAE East [1]. And only a fool would claim that government regulations are never a good thing. One example of successful deregulation doesn't mean that deregulation is a good thing across the board. Electricity regulation in California turned out to be a really bad move. The state is still suffering from the debts incurred by that experiment. In fact, in other states that have experimented with electricity deregulation, rates are rapidly rising [2]. And then there are safety regulations and automobiles. We don't want airbags decapitating children do we? Are you insinuating that in todays market roadways could not be maintained by private companies? Not only could they, it could be done at the fraction of the cost that our Government does it at. Sorry, but government websites aren't exactly synonomous with tax-payer supported internet. Energy costs are rising across the board regardless of regulation or deregulation. I fail to see how this has anything to do with competition and much more to do with increased energy costs. Where do you come up with some of this stuff? Yay! We get a mandatory sticker on our sun visors and the Auto Industry gets to charge us 70 bucks for it. WTG big government! You do realize how ludicrous this entire argument is, In one hand you fight for personal freedom and responsibilty while in the other you beg for a cradle to the grave society.
  12. senelebe

    Fear Mongering

    Quote:Original post by LessBread My cherry picking skills are nothing like those of the people in the Whitehouse - but that's another issue. What you've written here is all well and good, but I don't see the thrust of all these stories being to tell parents to get hip to the ins and outs of the internet so that they can better protect their chidren from cybercreeps and the like. The underlying message is less about safety and more about fear. I've only see one of the "To Catch a Predator" segments and it didn't include any lessons for parents about how to protect their children. The focus was more on what sorry sacks of shit the pedophiles were. Maybe subsequent episodes (there have been 4 from what I can tell) included tips for parents, but that doesn't seem to be the selling point for the show. I didn't realize this debate was concerning a show. It felt much more like people attacking a point of view that stated that parents should be informed of the dangers of the internet. This is the first time the show has been mentioned since the original post. Quote: I'm not at all amazed at your quiescence. You've likely been bred that way. There's a difference between anger at the incompetence with which the government is operated and anger with the government operating for the benefit of the wealthiest minority and opposition to all government - a huge difference. Government regulation is stipulated right there in the Constitution along with taxes, and while both of those can be bad things, they aren't necessarily bad things and to say that they are is, in effect, to disparage the Constitution. It's better for access to the net to stay as it is at present. If that's big government, then so be it. When you put it into the hands of the free market, your choices will fly out the window as those companies that then own it will seek to transform the net into what will amount to television - centralized programming that they control. The first amendment applies much more directly to the government than it would to a private business. If a private business controlled the internet, free speech would exist there only in as much as that private business allowed it - just as in a shopping mall and just as on television. The case for government regulating wireless is even stronger given the long standing precedent that the airwaves belong to the public. The risk is that, just as with radio waves, the government will require broadcasters to get a license - with the FCC in the middle of it all. If you don't want MaBell riding herd on wireless, it's better to maintain network neutrality and let competition do the rest. I'm surprised that as a parent you would bad mouth regulation. When you buy clothes for your kids do you first research the manufacturers to verify that the clothes your buying from them aren't flammable? Or do you just assume that they've already been checked out by the government? What about medicines? And as a parent, are you going to applaud the FCC for cracking down on web pornography and the like? On making it easier for parents to protect their children from the internet? It seems to me that you would - without a thought about the regulations. Are you really that naive to believe there is no political agenda behind this fear mongering? Are you naive enough to believe that Internet Regulation is in the consumers best interest? Since '96 the Government has been trying to dip it's fingers into the fastest growing source of revenue in history. This is the first step in signing away any freedom we have concerning the net. Does 1996 Telcom act not ring a bell? This was the governments first attemt at regulating the net, it was a DISASTER. Only through litagation was that horrendous act overturned. As far as your other examples go, no I don't agree with them. Anything that slows competition between markets is a bad thing. You're asking the government to control the market and in return you're giving away your freedom. We as consumers should be the deciding factor in business, not Uncle Sam.
  13. senelebe

    Fear Mongering

    Quote:Original post by Mithrandir Anyone who can't figure out that the internet, which is full of people, some of whom are pedophiles (much like in every other aspect of life), is a place where your child may potentially meet pedophiles (much like in every other aspect of life), probably shouldn't be having kids. I mean seriously; how does it go? "OH MY GOD! THERE ARE PEDOPHILES ON THE INTERNET?!!!!!". Here's how it should go: "There are people on the internet. Therefore, there are pedophiles on the internet. Dur.". Anyone who can't figure that one out is seriously tripping in lala land. Aren't you the same person that claimed they wouldn't want a warning that clearly marked the minefield? Personal freedom is one thing, exposing people to unneeded risk is something completely different. While I'm by no means suggesting we adopt a rating system for the net, there is a valid reason why we have the ESRB and the MPAA. You take for granted your knowledge of the internet. There are many many people out there that see the internet as just another TV or Radio. They don't grasp the very real dangers that are applied to the dynamic nature of the web. Quote: The internet, as a common carrier, should be regulated. Can you imagine the hell that would break loose if the government suddenly deregulated the roadways of the USA? All of a sudden the entire road system would become a worthless cesspool of tar. Think about the internet in the same way. Sometimes, regulation is GOOD. Not everything should be run as a greed-obsessed corporation. Wow, that's about the most flawed analogy I've ever seen. Our roadways weren't created by private companies. The internet isn't supported via tax-payer dollars (yet, in this plan it'd easily become a reality). Government regulations are NEVER a good thing. Look at what happened when the government finally deregulated the phone companies, long distance charges bottomed out, we had competition for the first time in years. Local service can now be provided by anyone. When you ask the government to step in and babysit you as a consumer they will more than willingly do so, and in the process they'll take your freedom of choice along with it.
  14. senelebe

    Growing Russia, China and US, EU3 split

    Quote:Original post by LessBread Quote:Original post by senelebe Before you assume that others fail to do research perhaps you should do your own. There is no doubt that Clinton most definetly provided China with it's current armament and considering we're discussing the military prowess of China it's just a touch relevant to know exactly how China came to be a powerhouse. There was no political agenda there, just the facts. Did Clinton do the actual providing or did he allow private companies to do it? Did he order the Federal Government to give technology to China or is it that the transfers happened on his watch? Making it sound as if he took active steps to make it happen could be construed as a political agenda. What exactly are the facts that you would like put into the record? Are we going to argue semantics now? While Charlie Chan was sleeping in the White House, Clinton had his paws out taking one political contribution after another from Red China. You let Bush share the blame, when the ONLY correlation Bush has to this entire thing is his lack of spine when it comes to vetoing. I don't see our current president lobbying foreign countries (with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia I'll grant you that) for "campaign funds". While there are plenty of sheep here in these boards you and I both know exactly what played out. Why is it that people want to make this a political debate, let this one die, there is no leg to stand on. Edited : wording...you didn't blame Bush.
  15. senelebe

    Growing Russia, China and US, EU3 split

    Quote:Original post by Mithrandir Besides, the dumbass "But Clinton" argument was brought up first anyways. There was no "But Clinton" in the first place. Reading comprehension is a great thing. You assume I was making a comparison statement when the reality is I was stating a fact that had nothing to do with comparison. I later go on to state that I have less faith in Bush but people seem to skim over that gem. Less's statement about Bush was the only "But" statement made, weither it was a dumbass statement or not depends on your political view, I personally didn't have a problem with it. Before you assume that others fail to do research perhaps you should do your own. There is no doubt that Clinton most definetly provided China with it's current armament and considering we're discussing the military prowess of China it's just a touch relevant to know exactly how China came to be a powerhouse. There was no political agenda there, just the facts.
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!