Messages

Check this past post from forum member matzyboy in a Photoshop comp years ago:
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=17100.msg210575#msg210575

Now have a look at the recent flickr submission from P.J. Rush that's making the rounds on blogs...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/prom77/4605755892/in/pool-1012163@N22

I'm not alleging plagiarism; I'm sure Mr Rush came up with the idea on his own. But it just proves my theory that no matter how original you think your ideas are, someone on the internet has probably thought of them already.

DON'T YOU TOUCH TEH AWESOME DUELNAMES!!!

I PWN YOU! YOUR BOXXOR SUXXOR . I HAXXOR. 1337!!!

you left your caps lock on

Re: Something has been itching me..lately..a lot..

PERHAPS YOU SHOULD SEE A DOCTOR ABOUT THAT

BAAAMM VINTAGE DG

WHASSUP ANDAIL M'MAN LOL

Hi guys

Ah, that's better!

Some thread statistics...

21% of posts from this thread are from people generally happy Obama is now president and reckon things will change
23% of posts from this thread can be summed up with "pffft obama = bush and nothings gunna change""
15% of posts are from people who reckon things WILL change goddammit, and the previous 26% CAN SUCK IT!!
31% of posts are from non-committal people who are glad to see a black man as president and hope he does a good job but aren't solidifying any real support for him
9% of posts are of YouTube vids or image macros stolen from 4chan
1% of posts are from guys who masturbate over their statistical prowess

BRB

Hi guys,

Just wanted to interrupt all the political analysis to post a link to this site:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

It's one of the best sites I've seen this year.

It collects current and past tracking data from every state plus national polling data, makes adjustments for demographics and runs through 1000 scenarios to generate electoral college votes plus popular votes. Also does vote distributions, maps, and most recently the Senate Projections.

This tracking algorithm's creator, Nate Silver, also developed the same algorithm to track and project baseball stats (PECOTA system). Many are touting his FiveThrityEight site as the best projection tool for this election because of how in-depth it is and how well it tracked the primaries.

Anyway, long story short: The site says Obama's going to win and McCain is royally fucked.

Thank you and goodnight.

P.S. And yes, I've heard of the The Bradley Effect but Silver has already debunked it.

[hoping]

Also, what's with the random supernatural crap?  Max Payne had some surreal moments (when you're inside his memories) but I don't remember valkyrie-griffon things grabbing people and flying around in huge fire tornadoes.

Silly.

Actually I felt this way the first time I saw the Valkyries myself...but I've shifted slightly in my opinion of the issue based off this trailer. I'm hoping that they are intended as deranged hallucinations and not actual physical beings. For example in the scene in the trailer where the guy is pulled out of the window by the Valkyrie...IMO that could be interpreted that the drug (Valkyr) drove him to jump out of the window. If this is the case then I accept this aspect of the movie. If instead they are supposed to be actual physical beings that only the druggies can see...that might be enough (paired with Whailberg ) to destroy the cinematic end of this great franchise.

From what I've read of the film, the supernatural stuff and columns of fire are confirmed by Wahlberg as a side-effect/hallucination from the drug (and, yes, because they're Valkyries and the drug shares the same name).

http://www.gamesradar.com/f/max-payne-the-first-great-videogame-movie/a-20080804113823281022

He’s hell bent and â€" judging by the twisted nightmare-visions of winged gargoyle beasties â€" possibly hell bound...

“The hallucinations are a side-effect of this drug that’s been leaked onto the streets,” says Wahlberg.

Personally, I can't see how comments like "[All] churches are just trouble" are any different from "All gays are just trouble". You bigots are all the same...

Ok, let me rephrase. Christianity is just trouble.

How about you get to the root of it: people are just trouble.

People are people. Christians aren't any different from anyone else, really, much as they'd like to be.

Fanatics are trouble.

[must]

Holy shit it's DG!

I must say I agree with you about the decade apostrophization. Definitely the two digit versions, to be grammatically correct must start with an apostrophe, because digits are being left off; it is a contraction. As for the four digit versions, you aren't saying that the Ford "belongs to 1970". The "1970s" is an era consisting of 10 years starting with 1970 and ending with 1979. It is a set of "years", not "year's". Logically, I'd say you're correct. And welcome back from wherever you've been hiding.

Yes, that pretty much explains why I think the 1970's or 70's usage is wrong. I don't think a year can literally posses something, plus adjectives can't strictly possess something (the possessive adjectives aren't really adjectives, but more like genitive nouns that indicate ownership).

But if you were going to describe something with a singular year, you'd write: '71 Ford.

Thanks for the welcome back. I never really went anywhere. I've just been quietly watching.

There's a lot of debate about this but I'm very strict about using apostrophes correctly for decades. Case in point:

"I own a 1970's Ford."

I think this is wrong.

"I own a 1970s Ford."

DING! I think this is correct.

"I own a '70s Ford."

DING! Also correct.

I concede that constitutional rights are not the driving issue, but merely an excuse, for people too selfish to admit to themselves they just like to play with guns.

Yes, this is exactly the point I was trying get across.

I do take your point that criminals selectively target, but I was more comparing overall crime rate averages from countries with variable gun control as my evidence.

So now we get into the argument of "do legal guns supply the offenders as well as the defenders"?  Absolutely.    I don't argue that this country should be swimming in guns.    But the argument is simple on an individual basis.   This is what almost everybody I talk to says:   "I don't like that the criminals have guns, but here is what I DO know.   When they show up, I want MY gun."

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that criminals don't seem to care if you have your gun. They'll just keep on committing crimes, according to the evidence.

I'm sure gun control has been fantastic in other countries.  The USA is a country that has been oversaturated with guns since the old west.   Many families have their grandfather's gun from the war etc.     Antiques and what not.   The guns get stolen, bought legally, bought illegally and end up in the wrong hands.    How long do you think it would take for the current supply of guns in the U.S. to fade away.

Most people would just hide them away anyways.  To be stolen, sold illegally etc.     So that guy hiding in his basement won't feel any safer.  Not for years and years after the policy has been in place.   He's going to want his own gun.

But if guns are banned then the cost illegally traded weapons increases which also deters criminals, so that helps too.

Am I reading this wrong or did you forget a "not"?

Yes, I forgot a "not".

I'm not saying that you can solely rely on police. I said that they're one of the safeguards as a reason why guns aren't a necessity. And there are more safeguards that aren't the civilian right to bear arms.

Lets take one argument at a time.   Forget jujistsu.   I'm talking about the unreliability of law enforcement in times of peril.

You still haven't given me a concrete answer on this: if you can't rely on law enforcement in times of peril, do you think that validates the necessity of guns to deter criminals?

I don't think it's justified because Brazil has a very open gun market and large public support for guns and that doesn't seem to deter criminals at all because Brazil has four times the amount of gun-related murders the US has and the Brazilian crime rate is one of the highest in the world.

In Australia, we've enforced various gun restrictions over the last decade and the number of firearm homicides and overall crime rates have declined over the last decade.

I'm not saying that crime rates are dependent on banning guns, but I am saying criminals seem to be deterred from crime in very pro-gun countries.

So, you're saying law enforcement is inefficient and as a result people should enforce the law themselves? I can see why that should happen in some cases, but other countries are able to do this without a Constitutional right to bear arms.

Like I said, a constitutional amendment for gun rights isn't a necessity anymore, because owning a gun nowdays is more a choice than a necessity.

Also: if you were too young to call 911, what makes you think a minor can legally posses firearms to protect himself?

But if they weren't armed, a gun wasn't a necessity to feel safe when you could use, say, martial arts.

Why not change the Bill of Rights to say, "All Americans have the right to jujitsu or kung fu." (A joke of course, but you see my point, right?)

And if they were armed with guns, they may not have had the right to burgle, but they sure did have the right to bear arms while they burgled.

Were the robbers armed with guns?

[and]

Even, didn't mean to seem like we were arguing about it, nor to say you made a blanket statement about "hands off/hands on" for all rights. I brought up the issue of comparing governmental approach to two similar rights as a juxtaposition.

You make some good points, Even. But one in particular caught my attention:

However, there is no apathy toward gun rights, so public opinion would actively have to be changed.  I stand by my opinion that gun rights are an exception, caused by so many citizens serving as watchdogs to that one issue alone.

I think this is one of the reasons why I think protection of 2nd amendment rights as something cultural is less to do with defending freedoms and rights (because, as I've demonstrated, no one really gives as much notice about other rights).

So I can only determine that gun ownership is more a symbol of power than a representation of protecting rights.

And this leads to something ProgZmax said earlier that I didn't respond to (my apologies)...

It's an antiquated law and doesn't suit the 21st Century.

100% disagree.  There's nothing antiquated with a right to self-defensive measures that include gun ownership.  I also don't agree that the language needs re-working.  Most people in the US generally agree with what evenwolf has said, that the term 'militia' was used as a broad, non-federal military term to represent the people of the Republic, who should have the right to protect themselves from enemies both foreign and domestic.  Yes, this includes an out of control government no longer run by and for the people .
 

First of all, many countries don't have a Bill of Rights but still have provisions and laws for defense. You don't need a Right to Bear Arms in order to legally defend yourself (and nor do you need guns for self-defense either). So it's a false assumption that you need a right.

Secondly, these same countries without Bill of Rights also have provisions and laws for the Military and Federal Defense. My own country is an example.

Thirdly, the amendment came about as a hybrid of Bills of Right from other countries, most notably England. And the reason why was to assemble a ready reservist army. Plus the US faced a post-war period of lawlessness while they established their government. People needed guns back then because government, laws and democracy were new. But in this day and age you have so many safeguards: the US is the strongest military in the world, has powerful missle defense systems defending the state, have people monitoring international millitary action 25 hours a day. Then domestically, you have the laws, regulations, police, FBI, NSA, etc, etc  With all this fire power, do you think Americans actually really need a right to bear arms in order to feel they're safe and liberated?

Like I said, it's not a necessity anymore. A hundreds of years ago in the US, it was. Owning a gun isn't about liberty and rights anymore. It's about power and hegemony.

I disagree. The suspension of habeas corpus didn't have much to do with public opinion. It had to do with the House and Senate approving the Military Commissions Act in 2006 (and during a time when public opinion of the administration was as low as it is now) and now the executive and judicial branches are now fighting it out as to whether the Act is constitutional or not. It's not a case of the government slipping one by us and the public going along with it, it's a case of government intervention into something constitutionally granted and regardless of whether you're an American citizen or not.

What you're saying here is largely true, DG, but evenwolf is also right in that many of Americans were so damn piss-scared by 9/11 that they'd almost consent to a dictatorship (which is virtually what we have now) to keep them 'safe' from anthrax scares and people flying large objects into buildings.  The special-interest owned media helped fuel these fears and spin them way out of proportion -- far beyond what CIA specialists were saying -- to the point that rational thought was in the minority. 

Yes, but what you're saying implies that public opinion is what drove the suspension of habeas corpus, which isn't the case. The suspension happened in late 2006 (5 years after Sept 11, 2001) when support for the Republicans was at a low point (and a month before the 2006 congressional elections where the Democrats achieved a majority in the House of Reps and the Senate). Likewise, opinion polling for the Bush administration was pretty low at this time. If public opinion drove the suspension of habeas corpus, then logically wouldn't people see it at a right move by the Bush administration and raise the support for the Republican party? I checked Bush's polling numbers and he didn't receive and significant bump after signing the 2006 Military Commissions Act (which included the habeas corpus suspension). I mean, if that particular piece of legislation is proof of Bush and Co's commitment to the War on Terror, and if people were as scared in 2006 as you suggest, wouldn't the public support for Bush improve? Likewise, the Republicans lost seats in the 2006 election, and if you think a frightened public supported the Military Commissions Act, they'd support the Republicans.

I don't think you can say the government suspended habeas corpus because the public wanted it. In fact, I don't think the average American at the time knew what habeas corpus was, which is all the more frightening. I mean, which is scarier: the government suspending a right because people are afraid, or the government suspending a right that people won't notice is gone because they don't know what it is?

Just to elaborate a little further, what I'm talking about goes beyond fear of terrorism. What the suspension of habeas corpus means is if the Bush administration says "You are an enemy of the state", you can get locked away without the right to challenge why you're in Guantanamo Bay. It's like a king having a dungeon to lock dissenters. American democracy was created as a means of escaping oppressive monarchy. Habeas corpus a right that seems so much more fundamental to democracy than the right to bear arms. Here's a good video to demonstrate why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQcnJ5i0pxA

But just to go back to my original point, the main reason why gun owners are against a ban on guns is because they're a part of the foundation of the US, i.e. 2nd amendment right to bear arms. But if they're that concerned about protecting the foundation of the country, you'd think they'd do more to protect something like habeas corpus too. (And if they created a militia to storm the White House and uphold habeas corpus, the government can say, "You guys are enemies of the state!" and lock them up.)

That's part of the reason why I don't buy the arguments that people wanted a suspension of habeas corpus specifically. I think they just didn't know what is was, why it was important, or care less about it in any case. If they knew that it was as important as how much they felt about guns, I think the backlash would be bigger, similar to the NSA wiretap backlash. (And regardless, I think the government would have suspended habeas corpus anyway).

Just to blow your minds further consider this: if people from the US do consent to a dictatorship and the US government wants to protect them then, logically, if the US government suspends habaes corpus, shouldn't they also ban guns for fear terrorists will sneak into the country and form a secret army? And shouldn't the American public accept this too?