>> ^Fade:

I guess you missed the memo from the 1500 architects and engineers who might have the qualifications to debate the 'evidence'.>> ^dannym3141:
@Skeeve don't forget, nothing you say would convince a conspiracy theorist off this idea. Because nothing can convince them off it - no authority is high enough because their nature makes them question authority. The only way they'll change is by letting them go and see for themselves and find the evidence glaring them in the face, but how the hell do you do that with a building that burned down years ago?
These people are so quick to shout "Hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire!" but honestly, what do you people know about that? What do any of you really know about the internal structure of a high rise or its construction, or exactly what a fire in a high rise can do? Do you even know what a fire in a normal room can do? Are you sure you're not guessing?



I suggest that those engineers and architects wouldn't simply be saying "hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire" and might not come under the scope of people i was referring to I would hope those people have a bit more to say.

I guess you missed the memo from the 1500 architects and engineers who might have the qualifications to debate the 'evidence'.>> ^dannym3141:

@Skeeve don't forget, nothing you say would convince a conspiracy theorist off this idea. Because nothing can convince them off it - no authority is high enough because their nature makes them question authority. The only way they'll change is by letting them go and see for themselves and find the evidence glaring them in the face, but how the hell do you do that with a building that burned down years ago?
These people are so quick to shout "Hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire!" but honestly, what do you people know about that? What do any of you really know about the internal structure of a high rise or its construction, or exactly what a fire in a high rise can do? Do you even know what a fire in a normal room can do? Are you sure you're not guessing?

@Skeeve don't forget, nothing you say would convince a conspiracy theorist off this idea. Because nothing can convince them off it - no authority is high enough because their nature makes them question authority. The only way they'll change is by letting them go and see for themselves and find the evidence glaring them in the face, but how the hell do you do that with a building that burned down years ago?

These people are so quick to shout "Hah, that building wouldn't fall down in a fire!" but honestly, what do you people know about that? What do any of you really know about the internal structure of a high rise or its construction, or exactly what a fire in a high rise can do? Do you even know what a fire in a normal room can do? Are you sure you're not guessing?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
@marbles
How does this system protect your rights from those who would infringe on it, perhaps indirectly? Who arbitrates in disputes?
For example, I have a property with trees on it. Every fall I gather up the leaves in a big pile and burn them. Leaving aside wider environmental concerns, my neighbour tells me the smoke from my leaf pile is blackening his house. There is no benefit to me in not burning the leaves, so I tell him to get stuffed.
Your system is hypothetically great, but it falls down in the real world.

It's not a system, it's a philosophy. Hopefully whatever system you subscribe to adheres to the protection of liberty.

This is what they don't get. That it's NOT a system. Wasting your breath. I've been spinning my wheels with the same people on here for nearly 4 years.


Why the hostility? I asked a legitimate question.

As to your response, a system is essentially the application of a philosophy. My philosophy shapes my actions, and those actions when repeated for a given situation constitute a system. Thought without action is meaningless.

My system (such as it is) involves compromising the common good and individual liberty. It is a constant trade off between the good of the many and the rights of the few. Each case is weighed on it's merits and I make a decision based on that. In some cases, I favour individual liberty (e.g. I don't believe the "threat of terrorism" warrants onerous security measures) and in some cases I favour the common good (e.g. where I live you cannot have an open fire as a home heating source for clean air regs). Democracy allows me to have a say in how these lines are drawn. A lot of the time I don't agree with the decisions and there are cases where I believe that even a democratic majority does not constitute a moral mandate (slavery in the 1800's, gay marriage in the 21st century and so on).

So I will rephrase my question: given a situation where two parties acting within their rights infringe on the rights over others, how do you apply your philosophy here?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
@marbles
How does this system protect your rights from those who would infringe on it, perhaps indirectly? Who arbitrates in disputes?
For example, I have a property with trees on it. Every fall I gather up the leaves in a big pile and burn them. Leaving aside wider environmental concerns, my neighbour tells me the smoke from my leaf pile is blackening his house. There is no benefit to me in not burning the leaves, so I tell him to get stuffed.
Your system is hypothetically great, but it falls down in the real world.

It's not a system, it's a philosophy. Hopefully whatever system you subscribe to adheres to the protection of liberty.


This is what they don't get. That it's NOT a system. Wasting your breath. I've been spinning my wheels with the same people on here for nearly 4 years.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

@marbles
How does this system protect your rights from those who would infringe on it, perhaps indirectly? Who arbitrates in disputes?
For example, I have a property with trees on it. Every fall I gather up the leaves in a big pile and burn them. Leaving aside wider environmental concerns, my neighbour tells me the smoke from my leaf pile is blackening his house. There is no benefit to me in not burning the leaves, so I tell him to get stuffed.
Your system is hypothetically great, but it falls down in the real world.


It's not a system, it's a philosophy. Hopefully whatever system you subscribe to adheres to the protection of liberty.

@marbles

How does this system protect your rights from those who would infringe on it, perhaps indirectly? Who arbitrates in disputes?

For example, I have a property with trees on it. Every fall I gather up the leaves in a big pile and burn them. Leaving aside wider environmental concerns, my neighbour tells me the smoke from my leaf pile is blackening his house. There is no benefit to me in not burning the leaves, so I tell him to get stuffed.

Your system is hypothetically great, but it falls down in the real world.

Individuality falls down once we want a society to work. We sacrifice something to make it work, some people want to be part of it without sacrificing - this is naive. You can check out of society and move somewhere else, or try to change it through politics to be more individually-centered. Taxes are not theft, it's a mutually consented agreement, but it was made by our forefathers, to make society work.

Now that sacrifice is not complete and total - we do have quite a lot of freedoms (liberty) within our societies, but these were agreed upon by our forefathers too. The constitution is just a piece of paper with some good ideas in it and some bad ones. This is what I mean, when I say natural rights don't exist. Rights don't exist in a vacuum. They are agreed upon. We may be comforted to say that our lives are our own, and within our society they are, because the society has agreed that this is a right.

Personally, I don't think guns are an important freedom. I even think there ought to be checks and balances to keep as many mentally unstable, criminals and other bad citizens from getting them. I'm not even comfortable with regular people having them - I don't want one myself, for certain. Just because it happened to be written down in the 1700s, doesn't mean it applies today. This is a right I think we should do away with, because it causes more grief than it solves.

Now mind you, if the american people were actually oppressed, then I would be all for them having something to defend themselves with - but like gun proponents like to say, then they would be able to get them anyway. I'm not talking about stopping guns 100%, I just want to stop 90 % of the nut balls, which a mandatory license would totally do. The other 10 % is another deal.
>> ^marbles:

>> ^gwiz665:
I must say that this seems naive to me.
Natural rights don't exist.

Naive like... individuals should'nt be allowed to have guns--that is unless they are paid by the state to have them.
Natural rights don't exist? 10 out of 10 tyrants agree. So where do rights come from?

Can someone that isn't an idiot about engineering explain to me why using a hydraulic hammer is a terrible idea?

I mean, I realize that standing in the shadow of anything that you're trying to make fall down is a stupid idea, but is it because you're guaranteed that its collapse will be larger than its own footprint?

>> ^burdturgler:

There's no comedy here. nochannel actionpack law fail
Not sure about the "crackhead" tag either. There's no context in this sift to suggest it.


To me the humor is in the irony--but I take your point burdturgler and completely accept it. Not comedy to others--i.e., what one finds funny may not be funny to everyone--so thanks burd.

Just the background on why I did place it in comedy. It's like someone's pants falling down unexpectedly--to me at least. I just think it humorous when someone attacks another person who weighs at least 3X his size; and the man isn't only stomach. If it is in response to a bully or some such, I can see picking a fight. But here?

Add that to where it was done. Definitely self-induced pants down moment. (I would have laughed the same if the midget cop had attacked a citizen the size of the big cop. In fact, I would have laughed harder.)

I'm playing the game and enjoying it. First off, these guys clearly are trying to bash the game. I mean, who starts the level by running off the edge of a cliff and then says "see, this sucks". Then picks the scene with the elevator falling, and doesn't even pull the handbrake until the end and wonders why they die. The one guy hasn't even seen the game until his buddy shows him parts and he says "boy this is boring". No shit, it doesnt matter what the game is, if i'm watching someone else play, its going to be boring as all hell.

So the game runs great on my computer. Looks good too. I can't tell you what it looks like on a console, nor do I give a shit about consoles. If you are playing a fps on a console, you're missing out. Anyway, my load times average 3 seconds. I have detected no bugs or buggy play so far. It feels solid to me. I heard people complain that it had no music, but it does. Not so much as to be annoying, kicks in when it should, it gives you clues about when a big fight is coming and ends when you're done. The pacing is a little slow in some areas, but not enough that i was ever bored. There is a lot to look at in the world. Its populated with items and posters and whatnot fairly well. I felt like there was a lot of attention paid to the details in the world. There are a lot of things you can interact with, but i wish there was a higher level of interactivity and a little more in the way of physics on items.

I don't like the fact that you can't go off and explore everywhere, and the "secret areas" I found were simple with maybe one or two hidden objects stashed there. But then I played the "strip club" level. I realized that besides just putting strippers and boobs back into the game, that level is actually a fun little exploration level with more than one way and more than one area to find all the items.

I heard complaints that there is no mighty boot, but there is, it's just automatic now, it's used when it needs to be and I kinda like that. It's not overused and it feels powerful. Speaking of which, all the weapons so far feel pretty good and sound nice and beefy.

Dukes animations are pretty good (and his jump animation in the mirror is a cool throw-back to the old duke). I like when he gets thrown or falls down and gets back up, it looks good and makes me feel more like I'm playing as duke. The enemy animations are good. The non player characters are what is lacking in both detail and animation

I thought his one liners would get annoying fast, but they aren't too bad, some made me laugh a little. Some of the encounters are truly funny. Some are not.

I also heard some people say there aren't enough enemies at once, but I had many encounters with a lot of enemies so I don't know what they are talking about.

Overall I feel like i'm playing in a real world with enough attention to detail to not be too bland. I don't know how far into the game I am. I am taking my time and not just rushing through and I probably have a good 7, maybe 8 hours with it so far and I'm glad I bought it. I have no regrets and am having fun with it.

So there is my opinion of the game so far. I'm tired of people bashing games just because they think it's cool to do so. How about for once an actual in depth review of all the games attributes by someone who wasn't purposely looking to find as much negative that they could and exaggerate it.

And just as a side note, I actually played Diakatana from start to finish and once the patch was released and you got past the misquitos and frogs in the very beginning, the game was actually quite good (for it's time of course). Yet most people wouldn't know it because reviewers were trying their best to steer people away from it. I see duke getting bad reviews because its not the best game ever, so instead of a 7 out of ten (that's what I would give it so far, and I played a lot of games over the years), they try to make a point by giving it a 3 or something stupidly low.

I simply can't see this video as evidence of the U.S. becoming a police state. There are literally cameras everywhere filming what is happening and no one is arresting the cameramen/women. The officer making the arrest lets the press get incredibly close and he is amazingly calm despite the people all shouting at him and getting in his face. He doesn't yell at the reporter who gets on the elevator with him, he just tells her to get out twice (in a calm but commanding manner) and tries to push her out firmly, but not violently.

All hell breaks loose at 1:42 because the reporter who wrote the post I linked to above grabs a camera away from the assistant who is being arrested and tries to walk away. The cop tries to stop the reporter, but doesn't want to let go of the assistant either, causing the assistant to fall down (looks like an accident to me).

It seems to me it was stupid of the reporter to try to take the camera from the assistant. If I were a cop making an arrest I would probably have the same reaction: I'd be concerned that the suspect just passed off something illegal (possibly drugs or a weapon) to a friend before I'd had a chance to do a proper search. The reporter walked briskly away after getting the camera too, and wouldn't give it back when the cop demanded it, making her behavior seem even more suspicious.

How was the cop supposed to know it was a camera that got passed off? He was busy trying to get the other woman out of the elevator when the hand-off got made and probably didn't even see what was passed. And then the reporter resisted handing over the camera, which is essentially the same as interfering with the arrest since that camera is potentially evidence (until the cop examines it, he doesn't know if it's a real camera or is stuffed with drugs).

So what can we conclude form all this? Mistakes were made all around. Not having credentials on you and visible would be the first mistake made. Not sure what the initial arrest was for, but it seems like that was probably a mistake too. Taking the camera and then trying to leave the scene? Yeah, that was a big mistake. All the reporters getting in the cops face about the arrest was a mistake too--you're there to report the news, not make it. This isn't Syria; these reporters are not going to be tortured for months and "disappeared" afterward. Lots of mistakes here, but I see very little evidence in this video of police overstepping their authority.

fixed - thanks!

>> ^Duckman33:

It's Shania Twain by the way.

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:
Falling Down parody?

Yep! You got it right. Nice movie; nice song

Tags for this video have been changed from 'foo fighters, walk, dave grohl, song, track, wasting light' to 'foo fighters, walk, dave grohl, song, track, wasting light, Falling Down' - edited by youdiejoe