>> ^Drax:

To run something like you're describing we're going to have to wait till bandwidth is far higher and cpu's are far more powerful. That's a lot of little variables that would need to be sent to each client. Part of the reason things are so simple in MMO's is there's less information that needs to be sent to each person's client, therefor you can have more people in your world and more things happening at the same time.
WoW is pretty much Where Something Is, and What is That Guy Wearing. Every time you add some new complexity that needs to be reported to the client, you up the amount bandwidth and processing involved.
WoW's simplicity is what allows for massive raids on cities, etc. Not to mention Blizz has always been one for keeping game play simple, but hard to master. Holds true for each of their games (granted, WoW's become over time their easy game 'to master', but that's a whole other issue (retaining subs)).


I specifacaly said it would probably take 15 or so years before a Decent MMO RPG could be made ,

as it is wow is grinding + pore combat + big chat room + glitched to fuck .
If you took out the Grinding vast majorty of people would leve wow , however evan though grinding is the central and core reasoin most people r playing + paying a huge monthly fee , people think wow is all about story and adventure.

my issue with MD is that it can taste ok but it leves you feeling hungry 5 min after and you feel as if you have eaten something artificial.

I worked at Mds when I was younger and it was generally ok but i realy think Md's is a cancer with all there advertising asocaiting them with sport and stuff.

I dont mind a place selling unhelthy food but they shudnt protend its helthy.

for me burger king is FAR FAR FAR better , gneraly costs 50p more and u end up with something so much better.


(in uk anny way ) in use is Mds cheeper than BK by much ?

I tell you the problem fundimentl issue

if this cost £45 and had 10 - 15 hours battery life it would be perfect

but this will cost 200-500 knowing apple.


I bet when pads get to the 15-25 pound price piont everyone and his dog will be using them , as they would be like pcs that you would just levee lying around the house , for when u want to check something quicly , watch tv , order stuff what have you . they will allso be the kind of things that shops will have loads of like argoss books but they will just be pads all over the place.

the problem is its only good if its cheep when a produc costs a large chunk of mony the user requires it to do certain things or have deep functoinality inorder to justify the cost.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'eddie, james, son, house, levee, camp, delta, blues' to 'eddie james, son house, levee, camp, delta, blues' - edited by EndAll

All I've seen is you defending Bush, mostly by just saying it's all Nagin and Blanco's fault

You exaggerate and misstate. You cannot say I'm 'defending' Bush and ignore the following clearly worded statements to the contrary...
...the initial federal response should have been much stronger
Bush's fault ... that initial relief efforts were tepid, and that sufficient relief effort didn't arrive for a few days
Bush's fault that the first initial relief was too small
I never implied that Brown didn't screw up badly
Bush's praise of Brown ... feckless and self-serving

Neither can you justly use the absolute "all Nagin/Blanco's fault" when I said...
There's plenty of blame to go around on Katrina.

So I would respectfully suggest that your casting of my position is neither accurate, nor fair - and that you thoughtfully reconsider. What you incorrectly percieve to be a 'defense of Bush' is - in fact - round condemnation of ALL involved parties and an attempt to correct misplaced responsibility. My position is that all levels of government be held responsible for their mistakes. With Katrina, the errors were myriad, widespread, and went all the way from the top (Bush) to the middle (Brown, Blanco, Nagin) and - yes - even to the absolute rock bottom for every stupid citizen that wouldn't leave an impending disaster.

You on the other hand want to say that liberal environmentalists sabotaged the levees with their silly concerns about wildlife.

That again is an exaggeration and misstatement. I said that environmentalists have PREVENTED the necessary actions that would have reduced/prevented the problems in New Orleans and California. That is NOT the same thing as saying they 'sabatoged' the levees. That phrasing implies that I hinted they acted with active malice. Stupid? Yes. Short-sighted? Yes. Malicious? Unlikely.

your argument that we should hold Bush entirely blameless for any aspect of the disaster

See above. I never said Bush was 'blameless'. You mischaracterize me. What I say is to ascribe to Bush the PROPER blame what what he has actual responsiblity for... An inadequate initial response. That's all you can really blame him for. Everything else is on Brown, Nagin, Blanco, and citizens.

The problem I have is in the overloaded, biased, and clearly misleading hate in the language of the Sifters. The following are just a few examples of Sifters who are blaming Bush as if it was all his fault that the Katrina was a class-A snafu.

You know, of all the ***ups George W. Bush is responsible for, his Hurricane Katrina response is the one that hits me the most viscerally, even to this day.
I felt like Bush had in effect turned the richest country on earth into a third world nation, in a matter of just a few short days
Bush should have not just been impeached but executed for being to stupid to do his job!
a Cat 5 Hurricane should NEVER be blown off (no pun intended) like the president did.

All I'm saying is that it is rather silly to act like this was 'all Bush's fault' when there are TONS of other sources where significant blame belongs long before you reach Bush.

It was a nasty snowball effect. Environmentalists wouldn't let the ACOE repair the levees, so they were inadequate. People wouldn't leave the city, so there were way too many people still to evacuate. Nagin didn't force the evacuation until after the hurricane made landfall, so evacuation efforts were slowed by adverse weather. Blanco told Brown "We can handle it" as late as the 29th of August - so federal rescues didn't start until the 30th. Brown's first rollout was too small, resulting in less than adequate care. People in the city started acting like @$$holes, further complicating relief efforts. All you can really say about Bush is that - like a lot of people - his actions were too little and too late. But he's not alone in that boat.

^ I don't think I've seen anyone defend Nagin or Blanco here. All I've seen is you defending Bush, mostly by just saying it's all Nagin and Blanco's fault.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that there was plenty of blame to go around, but the President could have put someone competent in charge of FEMA from the get go, he could have made it his #1 priority to make what happened in the aftermath go well (and made a difference), and he could have taken some responsibility at some point for the mistakes people he hired made at some point in the years that came later.

Don't act like anyone who thinks Bush bears some responsibility out of the disaster is suffering from some sort of partisan blindness. We don't think he's responsible for the damage in the first place.

You on the other hand want to say that liberal environmentalists sabotaged the levees with their silly concerns about wildlife. That's fine, but don't act like it's not a horrifically awful load of partisan horseshit, especially when taken together with your argument that we should hold Bush entirely blameless for any aspect of the disaster.

it was the human erosion of the wetlands that allowed Katrina to hit so forcefully in the first place.

The reason that Katrina became a category 5 hurricane while it was still in the Gulf of Mexico was because of wetland erosion? This is a fascinating posit, and I look forward to seeing your supporting evidence.

It is not logical to be so blindly and religiously convicted to ones political beliefs you defend a given party regardless of how indefensible and reprehensible their actions are.

I concur. People should stop blindly and religiously defending Democrats like Nagin & Blanco for thier role in the Katrina mess. Their incompetence and mismanagement of the city of New Orleans, its allocated funding, and its flood control system created a precarious situation. Additionally, their reluctance to evacuate in a timely fashion cost hundreds of people their lives. The Bush administration's inadequate initial response exacerbated the problems that these democrats created. Also, environmentalist lobby groups that prevented the Army Corps of Engineers from repairing the levees share a large amount of the blame for the deaths of so many people. Incidentally, environmentalists also share a large amount of responsibility for the size and intensity of the current fires in Los Angeles.

WP, while you're busy blaming the liberals for preventing levee repairs with their silly love for the wetlands, recall that it was the human erosion of the wetlands that allowed Katrina to hit so forcefully in the first place.

http://levees.org/

Actually, I agree with people saying this is beating a dead horse. My honest thought was "why would this shock or surprise anyone" when I saw it being passed around.

W_P, my recollection wasn't that the critics of the Bush response was that he should have somehow prevented the levee failure through some last minute personal intervention, but that he personally failed to engage the issue in any kind of practical or symbolic way, and that his FEMA director (who had no prior experience in Emergency Management) seemed to screw up every possible aspect of the logistics of support during the aftermath.

Bush then wounded himself further by declaring total confidence in said director with the whole "Heckuva job, Brownie" thing.

But I've been reminded that part of the post-incident spin work was another Bush staple, the "No one could have predicted" defense, in which case I understand why people are angered anew.

Me, I'm not really able to summon much outrage over this particular aspect of the controversy. Apparently I'm in the minority.

Winstonfield, when you're the head of an organization, any disaster is ultimately your fault.

Bush wasn't President of New Orleans. Local disaster preparedness is not the responsibility of the federal government. That falls primarily at the state and local level, with the federal government doing 'advise and consent' stuff (when requested).

But let's use your logic for a second. California. According to your logic, the current wildfires taking place are Obama's fault. All the property damage is Obama's fault... Any people that die were personally killed by Obama... Blah blah blah - it's a ridiculous way of thinking and I don't ascribe to it. The fact that New Orleans wasn't prepared for a hurricane of Katrina's scope wasn't Bush's 'fault' - and it isn't Obama's 'fault' that Los Angeles isn't prepared for a wildfire of the current scope.

The repair and maintainance of the levees was the responsibility Ray Nagin. It was also his job to evacuate the thousands and thousands who were still there when the storm hit (he was too busy commandeering rescue vehicles to clear out his personal belongings). The requests for federal relief and administration of said relief was the responsibility of governor Blanco. The only thing FEMA does is roll in with a big pile of trucks full of supplies and materiel. It was Bush's fault that the first initial relief was too small, but it was Nagin and Blanco who set the table and created the dynamic which made the initial supplies insufficient.

No other FEMA effort in a long time needed even a tenth of what New Orleans needed. How could FEMA have possibly projected the scope of the need until it was already happening? The relief order was signed on the 28th. Katrina hit on the 29th. The damage and scope of the need wasn't apparent until August 30 and the beginning of September. As I said... There's a lot of blame to go around, but to pretend this was all "Bush's" fault is nothing more than neolib quackery.

There is lots of blame to go around, and the only criticism one can throw at Bush is over the response to the disaster AFTER it occurred.

Very true - and I hope what I said isn't misconstrued as a defense of Bush. Knowing what they knew - the initial federal response should have been much stronger. Instead it took them 2 or 3 days to really get going, and by then the damage was already done. But be realisitc folks. It wasn't Bush's fault the levees broke. It wasn't Bush's fault that the evacuation was slow, unorganized, and ineffective - leaving thousands stranded. What was Bush's fault was that initial relief efforts were tepid, and that sufficient relief effort didn't arrive for a few days.

But even so, federal efforts were already rolling even before the 26th. The Coast Guard, the National Guard, and a whole host of agencies Federal, State, local, and private were already moving. Bush signed the disaster aid request from the governor on the 28th. Katrina didn't even make landfall until the 29th. The levees didn't start failing en masse until late on the 29th and afterwards. Government doesn't send in tens of thousands of national guardsmen right into a hurricane that is still in progress.

And finally, no one really expected things to get that bad. It just seems to me that neolib apologists are pretending to be Wizards of Hindsight on this topic. They pretend everything was all Bush's fault when realistically speaking, the blame spreads around in a lot of neolib corners before it ever gets to Bush.

Dead horse

Amen to that. Not THIS again...

There's plenty of blame to go around on Katrina. The Army Corps of Engineers had people who knew the levies were bad for years and years. This is something that goes much further back than Bush. The ACoE wanted to conduct extensive building projects on the levees, floodgates, and all kinds of stuff as far back as 1997.

But they weren't allowed to do anything. Why not? A combination of local and national politics. In the 1990s, Clinton's administration gave strong weight to environmentalist lobby groups like the Sierra Club, Audobon society, and American Rivers. These organization strongly opposed any and all levee repairs or upgrades because they were concerned about the Sockeye salmon, the wetlands, and the standard array of enviro-nut agendas. They sued, stonewalled, and delayed levee repairs well into the 2000s. Then Katrina hit. Boom. Levees broke.

Bush had no power to just roll in and repair the levees by fiat. Various lobbies both national and local (New Orleans unions) would not allow the ACoE to so much as spackle a levee wall. If Bush had just gone in anyway then the environut lobbies and other liberal activist groups would have screamed bloody murder like they do every time someone wants to drill in ANWR. Federal funds were given to New Orleans year after year specifically for the purpose of the city fixing the levies. But year after year the New Orleans political system (run by Democrats) frittered the money away and nothing got done.

Then - surprise surprise - the levies broke and then everyone is like "Wah wah wah - Bush didn't do enough..." Whatever. The stage was set for that particular mess long before Bush so much as printed his first campaign sign.

"I don't think anyone anticipated the breech of the levees."

This just further proves my theory that Bush travels backwards through time. Poor guy.

No wonder he needed all that vacation time just before (after) his first election, he was pooped.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'george bush, katrina, new orleans' to 'george bush, hurricane, katrina, disaster, new orleans, 2005, fema, levees' - edited by kronosposeidon