That's some funky elevator music they've got right there...

Edit: Also, regarding the laws that are put in place to prevent abuse of all the (meta-)data they collected: even if there was a properly functioning oversight -- and there isn't --, it would still be abused, extensively. Why? There are no (serious) repercussions to be feared.
Unless there's jail time looming on the horizon for the entire chain of command involved in the abuse in question, it'll be shrugged off. Hard time for the people who typed in the queries, for the people who gave the order, for the people who looked the other way.

Day of the Tentacle, Monkey Island, Full Throttle, The Dig, Loom, Dark Forces, Grim Fandango... Shit man. We have been missing LucasArts for a while. :~(

I remember being a little kid in 4th grade, I loved the Monkey Island soundtrack so much that I recorded the songs with my little boom box cassette recorder from the Tandy. That game was one of those magical sorts where as a little kid I fantasized about actually living in that game world.

Before Dark Forces came out I remember staring at previews in PC Gamer for months at a time. When it came out it was unbelievably AWESOME. Really special company, really special times. Will be forever in my mind with LOVE.

That said there is still hope. Telltale, which consists of former LucasArts employees has been doing a fantastic job of innovating upon adventure gaming; the future is still bright.

Hey argument mongers! YEAH YOUSE! This is a great video so why don't we respect it and resist the temptation to turn this into another gun rights flame war (incidentally, another war that cannot be "won"). There is a place for that discussion and it's not here. Move along. Theenks.

I love when retired police officers step forward and slowly rip apart the drug war with facts, experience and wisdom. Seems the sad truth is that the U.S. government, (which is currently in the habit of displaying a level of insanity fit for a corporate-emperor-giant-king via what it says to the public versus what it actually does in its slowly eroding privacy) clearly doesn't seem to actually want to end the drug war or the war on terror for that matter any time soon. i guess there is too much profit to be had from the institutions that are already in place at this point.

With luck, the Nixon/Reagan-esque dinosaurs of free will control, hiding behind the thin guise of morality, which they surely are not the paragons of, will soon be trapped within their sedimentary prison for all time and We the people will be able to choose what kind of substances we ingest without the looming shadow of silent oppression casting its all encompassing umbra upon us.

Always on DRM usually refers to requiring a constant (or near constant) connection.

Steam checks in when you boot, and when you try to load a game. If it does anything in between I've *never* been booted from a non-multiplayer game due to my internet connection once I'm in (some companies will throw on more DRM on top of Steam when you buy their game, but I've avoided most draconian DRM's). With steam if your internet's down you can play offline, up to a month I believe..?

That's the big difference - with true always on you're far more at the mercy of the server's status(es). You're good (to as much extent as you can be) with games like WoW that had huge production budgets, and now take on huge profit.

Smaller houses, releasing a game with what they believe is the minimum hardware to get by with (because they always expect their user base to begin to wane after the initial purchasing rush)... you get this ^

EA's got a habit of retiring servers the moment the profit from sales seems depleted, so you have that looming somewhere in the future if this is a game you end up cherishing.

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?" -Friedrich Nietzsche


^ We have murdered our God's because we (rightly) came to understand that by this very act were to become their superiors. The "Will to power" (the most fundamental force in the human psyche) always demanded that this must one day come to pass, we were always destined to outlive our fairy tales.
However given our God's now lie dead at our feet the same "Will to power" demands of us a stark choice...

We can stare forever into the abyss of meaninglessness we have created in their place.....
or
We can fill that void with the only meaningful entity that remains, ourselves!

We have killed the God's, now WE must take their place. The "Ubermenschen" are simply those Human's who have attained such a mastery of their own minds that the left hemisphere of the brain (where logic & rational thought occur) has complete assess and control of the right (where the God's & spirit/emotions/inspiration live).

This is why I would never call myself an Atheist but rather a post-modern Gnostic. The God's & spirits did exist to us in every sense that matters, all we changed was our relationship to them. Instead of being their slaves we are now their masters, and we can command them to do whatsoever we please.
Or to put it another way, we became masters of our own reality when we killed our tyrannical God's, now it's time for us to exercise this new found power. (Novus Ordo Mundi! ;-) )

☠
"In Hoc Signo Vinces"

It's not that Cenk is wrong about voting for McCain, that was just another Pandora's Box to be had at the table. I feel while John would "maybe" try to end this issue, as we've seen his past his stance changes from one way to the other when push comes to shove (gays in the military) he would still end up doing some if not most of the core Republican "threats". Which may mean that if it came down to the wire some sort of "law deal" would be made with house Republicans and they would force John to change his mind. I know John had a law on the books that got railroaded by this Citizens United fiasco--so he may have some actual flesh in the fight. I just need to see him commit/fight first before I believe the words.

But, anyway, you'd have to remember we'd have to deal with the pure drivel of his right hand...The Dumbass From Alaska: Sarah Palin! I'd like to say McCain was OK, he seemed fine circa 2000, but with the state of politics--no offense to Cenk as I think he's a smart guy--but I DON'T trust a damned word coming from ANY of their mouths. They say things TO GET PRESS COVERAGE for hells sake (but, this deserves press coverage)!!! So, yes, I think John is getting a hardy pass to "Go" here when he may not deserve it; John should have already made his move on the issue--if he has done more than introduce his old bill and disagree with the Citizens vs. United, that is all that I know he really did. He passed a law dealing with the subject so I'd assume he has a stake in it somewhere, it just hasn't been made all that clear--it's just talking for now (I'm going to go look for a bit myself as well, to see if I can find more direct maneuvers that he has done either against Citizens United or his bill that was ran over).

Obama talked a great talk, but we knew after two years we didn't get anything remotely close to a revolutionary or visionary president here--let alone progressive (the last progressive probably was Roosevelt to be truthful, I don't think Reagan or Clinton count at all, they just towed in the party lines and left partisanship, unchecked, to take a bigger hold in American politics and they both did a good job for THEIR parties), just a McPresident™ fully endorsed by: [list your 1000 companies here]. Obama is playing his cards close to the middle (not to the far left like oh so many think). I hate the Citizens United Decision and I'm astounded it hasn't been slapped down yet as it LITERALLY allows foreign interests to play with our politics--not funny. Just the business end of it is spooky enough. I hate Obama for a lot of issues, but just because one guy that diametrically opposes everything else he says has one VERY valid point I'm not going to take him on his offer until he commits to the point where his words cannot be swung 180 degrees. I'm betting that even now Sarah Palin thinks the Citizens United decision is either about people getting together to have a party or she thinks it's great; so really she likes it no matter what.

Imagine being in Iran right now, over having Citizens United resolved in the name of 'The People', instead we'd probably get a declaration of a third war instead--we could play this stupid game all day. I'd rather be disappointed in my president and wait for the courts to settle it, if they can--we can all thank Bush Junior for his absolute garbage taste in Justices...

I'm not a fan of John or Obama that much, but I WILL take Obama any-day over a Republican--right now in our current political climate; Republicans are toxic. Personally, I think John's main involvement does go back to the law he passed in 2002 for campaign finance reform. That of course was on the books when Citizens United came about and forced them to take that law into account and the prevailing Justices basically just sneered at it as they seemed to have a malicious view of the other side as their responses gave that away. They were snide and sarcastic in a matter which is neither, except to them--so did they get paid off? I'm thinking, somehow, YES, they did. I'm assuming someone cares at the level of government, it is getting harder to tell every year. Obama certainly doesn't help that issue. I really don't think John would have either, he may have saved us on finance reform for elections--electioneering--but, he would have enacted so many ridiculously TERRIBLE laws in place of the ONE bad law that we'd cry for our country. Plus, we might be in Iran considering the level of vitriolic talk from him and Sarah...

Rolling the dice with World War 3 looming...



That is the one thing that MAY keep John on your side throughout all of this as he did try the first time to try and sway their opinion and he also had an old law on the books that dealt with some of the issues presented.

He's got the right idea, but still there's this looming sense that it's all about him and not really about his subjects.

He talks about it all being organic, yet he's making the women pose in front of the camera which I thought it was bit unnatural as it makes things look staged. I think that's where the creep factor is kicking in, the highly staged, unnatural pose of his models.

The lad is trying, but he's no Bill Cunningham

>> ^Sarzy:

I like Ebert, but he is way off on this one. I have noticed that in recent years, his tolerance for movies with a lot of violence and death has gone down -- perhaps it's an unwelcome reminder of his own looming mortality. It's unfortunate, because this is a superlative martial arts film, and Ebert has shown a fondness for these types of movies in the past.
And shuac, I think comparing this film -- which has some of the most intricately choreographed, beautifully violent and skillfully shot/edited action that we've seen in years -- to "Ass" is, to put it bluntly, idiotic. It's also condescendingly dismissive of 50+ years of martial arts action cinema, in which this film is easily a milestone -- a culmination of the types of films made by stars like Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, and Donnie Yen. I can agree with Ebert that the characters are (intentionally) thin in this movie, but to imply that there is no artistry or craft at work here is, again, idiotic.
I am going to promote this, because it is awesome.


One question for you, Sarzy. You say this film is a milestone. I'm sure you're right. Can you tell me why this film is a milestone?

I like Ebert, but he is way off on this one. I have noticed that in recent years, his tolerance for movies with a lot of violence and death has gone down -- perhaps it's an unwelcome reminder of his own looming mortality. It's unfortunate, because this is a superlative martial arts film, and Ebert has shown a fondness for these types of movies in the past.

And shuac, I think comparing this film -- which has some of the most intricately choreographed, beautifully violent and skillfully shot/edited action that we've seen in years -- to "Ass" is, to put it bluntly, idiotic. It's also condescendingly dismissive of 50+ years of martial arts action cinema, in which this film is easily a milestone -- a culmination of the types of films made by stars like Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, and Donnie Yen. I can agree with Ebert that the characters are (intentionally) thin in this movie, but to imply that there is no artistry or craft at work here is, again, idiotic.

I am going to *promote this, because it is awesome.

The regions of which you speak belong to another era. Villages out there take days to walk to along mountain trails in some of the highest mountain ranges in the world. Is similiar to a lot of terrain in Afghanistan. Natural forts.

They've never really been conquered or been part of established empire. People are still organized along tribal lines, with the tribes engaged in continuous inter-tribe warfare. Every kid is handed a gun as soon as he's old enough to shoot and raised to abide by the honour code (pashtunwali, yes they even have a name for it). When the tribe is under attack, you don't question right or wrong, you defend the tribe. They're no electricity, television, newspapers, literacy, or any other medium that counters this message. I know it sounds racist but those boys are like klingons, the Pakistani government has never really dared to take them on.

Couple that with the decades of training provided in the arts of guerilla warfare; including drug running, weapons manufacture, crude bomb manufacture, etc. by the CIA and ISI during the cold war and the Soviet invasion, means they are a force to be reckoned with as the US is finding out in Afghanistan.

Despite all of that they've never really bothered us until the "war on terror". They've always bbeen kind of our crazy cousins. We don't wanna be around them but they're family. Most of the country is similarly undeveloped (as in people still live like 3000 years ago undeveloped) and backwards. Bringing them into the modern era is a long term project but there's a 150 million more people on that waiting list.

Since the war on terror Pakistan has taken a serious beating. This was supposed to be our decade of growth instead the economy is in shambles. We've been through yet another round of Western supported, foreign policy obsessed, military dictator leaving our civil institutions in shambles. We've lost around 4 thousand soldiers another 8.5 wounded. 40 thousand civilians killed and 3.5 million internal refugees (dirt poor and starving variety).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_North-West_Pakistan

Those are big numbers, people are angry. The Americans are unlikely to win in Afghanistan. They're putting tribe against tribe. All this talk of democracy vs. extremism/terrorism is not something the average Afghan understands. The average Afghan is illiterate and does not understand complex ideas. He understands this: foreigners, christian army, my tribe has chosen this side because we always hated those other fuckers anyways. Americans will leave, leaving Pakistan with a mess. They did it before and we've been screwed since. There's a huuuuge (as in a small city big) Afghan refugee camp near where I live that's some thirty years old, from the last time American boys were in the region playing their geopolitical monopoly game. It's horrible.

From the Pakistani perspective the War on Terror has been a disaster. It's solved nothing and created tenfold the problem it aimed to solve. The Afghans are a primitive bunch (made more so by warfare) and need to establish a government, after which they will slowly over time, maybe a century, join the civilized world. Pakistan wholeheartedly supported the Taliban (as did the US) when they took control of the country and brought peace to it. Warfare is the real bitch not how "extreme" they are. Saudi's are equally nuts and there's not a single American president who doesn't go pay a visit right away upon taking office. Best friends.

Now the government/military of Pakistan is in a tricky situation, we have to play both sides, thus the lack of trust. Either side has the ability to seriously take Pakistan on and bring it to it's knees. The government the American's have propped up in Kabul wouldn't last a month without them, is corrupt, and allied to the Indians, with whom we see ourselves as being in a state of justified war. What to do!? What to do!? (in a indian accent).

I guess my point being, we're actually not a bad bunch. Just in a shitty situation. Come sometime and I can show you around. Most of the country is safe. Safer than mexico anyways.

Sorry that was a long post





>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^FermitTheKrog:
Thanks for having a more nuanced understanding of the matter... thought I'd share a Pakistani perspective:
-Yes, no arabs here. Lots of Muslims though as in loads of other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population
-Pakistani's despise the drone strikes for the same reason we despised the Bin Laden assasination. It is a terrible loss of sovereignity to have foreign soldiers killing with impunity, racking up civilian casualties, within your borders. It makes the matter worse, Pakistan is radicalizing tremendously fast and every time the US flattens another village in Afghanistan or our border regions, everytime American troops accidentally kill ours, that pace accelerates.
-An analogy: If Mexico had drones over the US taking out gang leaders in LA, the US would flatten Mexico in response. All we do is get angry.
-Things are not that bad: Liberals are not dying off. We are in government by popular vote. The Pakistani military is not some tinpot force, it is very much in control of itself and thus of it's nukes. We will deal with the militancy problem over time; education, economic opputurnity, writ of law; not bombs. We are a third world country, Afghanistan has been a war zone forever now, these things take time, most of us still shit in fields, out people are hungry, we have bigger problems to deal with than car bombs.
-In Pakistan, conservatives want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Palestine is the example. Amongst the ultra right (3-4% of the population, I'm sure you have them too, wherever you are) the "we" is Muslims and the "them" is a collaboration of Zionists and American bible thumpers.
Liberals want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Saudi Arab is the example. If they go away we can educate our people out of the mental cesspit they seem to be headed into. American bombs make us look like traitors to our people and weaken our stance.
Thanks for listening. Open to discussion


>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaire2ube:
well the trick is eventually we dont tell the kids running the drones that its actually REALITY! Ahh! Ender's Game!
But by then the arabs formics will be gone.

The populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are primarily Muslim, not Arab. There are in fact more Arabs living in America than there are in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
I know, not your point at all, but if you try and hash out the real news by reading through middle eastern news outlets you won't be able to make head from tails wondering why a pro-Arab outlet like Al Jazeera would willingly say anything bad about Iran. It's not until realizing that Iran is largely Persian and not Arab that it makes any sense.
I rant about this because it's crazily important and the details matter. American drone attacks have killed hundreds within Pakistan, but even by Pakistan's most anti-American media those people were largely militants responsible for killing Pakistani civilians. The Pakistani Taliban have meanwhile killed thousands of civilians, including former PM Benazir Bhutto, and there is infinitely more outrage and hatred for America's drones than for the Pakistani Taliban. It's something important to think about. What's more, there is MORE hatred in Pakistan over America's raid that killed Bin Laden than there is for the unmanned drone attacks. That's even more important to think about.
The reality is that the moderates in Pakistan are fighting an uphill struggle in Pakistan. We need them to win but they are being killed off faster than we can defend them, and even attempting to defend them is hurting their cause to boot. It's easy to declare that a strategy is bad and has horrible consequences, it's a lot more important though to propose a better alternative. Stop the attacks and do nothing means a Pakistan where the Taliban where still best friends with the military and intelligence agencies. It means a nuclear armed state that was best friends with terrorist organizations eager to use those nuclear weapons in their jihad while we lacked any way of assessing just how close and willing their partnership was. Don't dismiss this assessment as doomsday fear mongering. One of the debates in Pakistan's national assemblies after Osama's death included elected representatives bemoaning Pakistan's failure to protect a great Muslim hero like Bin Laden. Pakistan is a battle ground between extremist and moderate populations and we have a very vested interest in who wins that struggle.


Thank you for adding so much to the discussion, very much appreciated.
Yes, I do understand the sovereignty issue looms huge in the opinion of American actions within Pakistan's borders. I can really understand how that would enrage anyone with any manner of national pride. America is in a tough spot though too. The mountainous tribal regions along the Pak-Afghan border are not under the control of the Pakistani central government. On paper the border may run there, but in practice militants can relatively safely travel back and forth between the two. What's more, there still remain places within Pakistan's proper borders that are controlled by the local tribal leaders, and NOT the central Pakistani government. Those local tribal leaders are allying themselves to the Pakistani Taliban and providing them safe haven within Pakistan to launch attacks in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Afghan part does make it America's business. The Pakistani part in my humble opinion, should be a source of greater public outrage than it is.
I guess I find it worrying that extremists can be in de-facto control of large swathes of land within Pakistan's proper borders. So much so that it is still unsafe for the Pakistani police and even military to patrol there. To me, that seems like it is already an enormous sovereignty issue. America's attacks against militants in that region I can understand being a source of outrage. I don't understand why there isn't equal or greater outrage that those regions on the ground are no longer under the control of the Pakistani government at all and being used as a base of operations for launching attacks on the rest of Pakistan.
I think America's problem is knowing whom they can trust within Pakistan's power structure to work against rather than with extremists like the Taliban. Hamid Gul, former leader of Pakistan's ISI, scares the crap out of me. How many of his friends are still in the ISI that think like him? The JUI-F party declared Osama a muslim hero in Pakistan's National Assemblies. How much support has that party been able to hold onto within Pakistan still after taking that stance? Political parties like the PPP seem to share alot of moderate values, but have historically been ridden out of office by the military every few years.
Do you have good reasons that those fears are unfounded? From what I see and read(largely from "The News International") the moderates like yourself have always been in an uphill struggle against extremists and the opportunists willing to work with them.

>> ^FermitTheKrog:

Thanks for having a more nuanced understanding of the matter... thought I'd share a Pakistani perspective:
-Yes, no arabs here. Lots of Muslims though as in loads of other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population
-Pakistani's despise the drone strikes for the same reason we despised the Bin Laden assasination. It is a terrible loss of sovereignity to have foreign soldiers killing with impunity, racking up civilian casualties, within your borders. It makes the matter worse, Pakistan is radicalizing tremendously fast and every time the US flattens another village in Afghanistan or our border regions, everytime American troops accidentally kill ours, that pace accelerates.
-An analogy: If Mexico had drones over the US taking out gang leaders in LA, the US would flatten Mexico in response. All we do is get angry.
-Things are not that bad: Liberals are not dying off. We are in government by popular vote. The Pakistani military is not some tinpot force, it is very much in control of itself and thus of it's nukes. We will deal with the militancy problem over time; education, economic opputurnity, writ of law; not bombs. We are a third world country, Afghanistan has been a war zone forever now, these things take time, most of us still shit in fields, out people are hungry, we have bigger problems to deal with than car bombs.
-In Pakistan, conservatives want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Palestine is the example. Amongst the ultra right (3-4% of the population, I'm sure you have them too, wherever you are) the "we" is Muslims and the "them" is a collaboration of Zionists and American bible thumpers.
Liberals want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Saudi Arab is the example. If they go away we can educate our people out of the mental cesspit they seem to be headed into. American bombs make us look like traitors to our people and weaken our stance.
Thanks for listening. Open to discussion


>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaire2ube:
well the trick is eventually we dont tell the kids running the drones that its actually REALITY! Ahh! Ender's Game!
But by then the arabs formics will be gone.

The populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are primarily Muslim, not Arab. There are in fact more Arabs living in America than there are in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
I know, not your point at all, but if you try and hash out the real news by reading through middle eastern news outlets you won't be able to make head from tails wondering why a pro-Arab outlet like Al Jazeera would willingly say anything bad about Iran. It's not until realizing that Iran is largely Persian and not Arab that it makes any sense.
I rant about this because it's crazily important and the details matter. American drone attacks have killed hundreds within Pakistan, but even by Pakistan's most anti-American media those people were largely militants responsible for killing Pakistani civilians. The Pakistani Taliban have meanwhile killed thousands of civilians, including former PM Benazir Bhutto, and there is infinitely more outrage and hatred for America's drones than for the Pakistani Taliban. It's something important to think about. What's more, there is MORE hatred in Pakistan over America's raid that killed Bin Laden than there is for the unmanned drone attacks. That's even more important to think about.
The reality is that the moderates in Pakistan are fighting an uphill struggle in Pakistan. We need them to win but they are being killed off faster than we can defend them, and even attempting to defend them is hurting their cause to boot. It's easy to declare that a strategy is bad and has horrible consequences, it's a lot more important though to propose a better alternative. Stop the attacks and do nothing means a Pakistan where the Taliban where still best friends with the military and intelligence agencies. It means a nuclear armed state that was best friends with terrorist organizations eager to use those nuclear weapons in their jihad while we lacked any way of assessing just how close and willing their partnership was. Don't dismiss this assessment as doomsday fear mongering. One of the debates in Pakistan's national assemblies after Osama's death included elected representatives bemoaning Pakistan's failure to protect a great Muslim hero like Bin Laden. Pakistan is a battle ground between extremist and moderate populations and we have a very vested interest in who wins that struggle.



Thank you for adding so much to the discussion, very much appreciated.

Yes, I do understand the sovereignty issue looms huge in the opinion of American actions within Pakistan's borders. I can really understand how that would enrage anyone with any manner of national pride. America is in a tough spot though too. The mountainous tribal regions along the Pak-Afghan border are not under the control of the Pakistani central government. On paper the border may run there, but in practice militants can relatively safely travel back and forth between the two. What's more, there still remain places within Pakistan's proper borders that are controlled by the local tribal leaders, and NOT the central Pakistani government. Those local tribal leaders are allying themselves to the Pakistani Taliban and providing them safe haven within Pakistan to launch attacks in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Afghan part does make it America's business. The Pakistani part in my humble opinion, should be a source of greater public outrage than it is.

I guess I find it worrying that extremists can be in de-facto control of large swathes of land within Pakistan's proper borders. So much so that it is still unsafe for the Pakistani police and even military to patrol there. To me, that seems like it is already an enormous sovereignty issue. America's attacks against militants in that region I can understand being a source of outrage. I don't understand why there isn't equal or greater outrage that those regions on the ground are no longer under the control of the Pakistani government at all and being used as a base of operations for launching attacks on the rest of Pakistan.

I think America's problem is knowing whom they can trust within Pakistan's power structure to work against rather than with extremists like the Taliban. Hamid Gul, former leader of Pakistan's ISI, scares the crap out of me. How many of his friends are still in the ISI that think like him? The JUI-F party declared Osama a muslim hero in Pakistan's National Assemblies. How much support has that party been able to hold onto within Pakistan still after taking that stance? Political parties like the PPP seem to share alot of moderate values, but have historically been ridden out of office by the military every few years.

Do you have good reasons that those fears are unfounded? From what I see and read(largely from "The News International") the moderates like yourself have always been in an uphill struggle against extremists and the opportunists willing to work with them.

I think he's got a disarmingly harmless look but he's sharp and got some good lines. That woman who was looming over him - clearly trying to intimidate...

I dunno, I kinda feel bad that people are making fun of them. Sure, it may be obvious to listen for cars, look for telephone poles etc but I dont know the lay of the land and just how obvious it could have been from their perspective. She was obviously panicking and once a person begins panicking well a person can lose all sense including common sense as the situation feels to them like it spirals out of control. She could be claustrophobic, she might have a severe anxiety disorder... plus add in a youngin and looming darkness for extra concern.

Of course I LOVE feeling lost, especially in a maze, especially peaking on mushrooms.... and boy, even if I dont take mushrooms in a maze or on a crazy hike... I get lost all of the time. Its like my mind is always trying to enable me to get lost by forgetting landmarks, directions, distance on purpose; which is usually pretty AOK by me.

Sometimes it sucks if youre hiking with someone and they get too far ahead and you start thinking to yourself that they took the wrong path... and then you think youre taking the wrong path and then the only way to find out is just to keep on going and you just hope that other person is OK... and then you meet up and you both were on the right trail, and its all good.

@dystopianfuturetoday

1a. Social stratification is increasing in every country around the world. It's due to globalization and automation, not to domestic policy. People who work smart and hard doing 21st century work are contributing more to society every year, and people who prefer work that can easily be automated are contributing less to society each year. Resistance to that is just the luddites burning down loom machines all over again.

1b. My lazy collectivist friends who grew up with more advantages than I did all contribute hardly anything to society, whereas large numbers of consumers enjoy the results of my labor. Economics is multi-sum by definition because unless both parties benefit, no trade can be completed. Trade creates value all around.

Some regulation is reasonable.

2. Problems in the US are generally due to (1) inevitable globalization (only 21st century labor is valuable now) and (2) to population replacement. (We're in the process of replacing a high education white/jewish/asian society with a low education non-Asian minority society. That's why California went from being one of the most well-off states in the country to being literally #50 out of #50 on some measures, despite having very liberal policies on education spending, teacher salaries, etc.)

3. Read the NYT article that was linked, and then wonder why virtually all liberal academics will lie about that article and about HBD (human bio-diversity) in general if you ask them about it. Reading Pinker's Blank Slate is a good start.

4. A free society means you don't have to cover the costs of your stupid neighbors who are exercising their right to be stupid and to reject your sound advice. Arguments counter to that are just an excuse for liberals to avoid pursuing their human potential and working smart and hard. My productivity already subsidizes my lazy friends that I grew up with... it's weird to try to increase subsidies for stupid ideas.


It appears to be the case that even if we assume voting liberal is best for society, holding liberal beliefs in your private life greatly reduces your ability to contribute to society, because liberalism makes its adherents think of smart hard work and careerism as slavery rather than contribution and personal development.

So tell me why it is so important to punish by killing? I just don't understand. When we know that innocent people are executed, and that wealthy people can buy their way out of it, why this burning need to execute?

I am truly curious. I honestly can't understand this focus on this extreme of a punishment. Can you articulate it for me?

I've had this conversation with a conservative relative. His big thing was fear that a murderer would break out of prison and kill again. That fear loomed larger for him than the fear of executing an innocent person.


>> ^Sagemind:

What the hell - that makes no sense.
Instead of removing the death penalty, try an investigation into who is receiving all the money and why. There is no reason whats so ever that it should cost more than a few bucks.
This smells of corruption....
Edit: What a crock, "It costs too much money, the death penalty should be abolished." More like, fix the problem.
Why is this not being offered as a solution? Why are the only two options, "should we replace the system with Life-without-parole" or "Oppose the costly, ineffective death penalty" ? Why is there no option to investigate the system and fix the problem?
This is just like political motivated operations, Make only choices available which support the one view.