If I was wandering down the street and happened upon a man or two walking with those fucking guns I would shit my pants! Are you serious? The idea that this is ok to do is fucking perverted. Insane.

What a couple of fucking douche-bags. Hoping upon hope for a confrontation, and then so woefully disappointed when "the man" didn't play into their plans.

Had they been carrying holstered, semi-automatic pistols then SURE, all that bullshit about semi vs. full auto might have been justified, but no, you're carrying FUCKING SUBMACHINE GUNS. Let's just wander around with grenade launchers on our backs and then act offended when the man stops us.

Thanks for wasting our tax dollars you fucking idiots.

Just noticed your postes wern't private, thought I'd post my reply.

LOL I concede I am an ape!

This is long but addresses many of your questions I think. Also your assumption on my thinking was correct...can't remember what it was but I agree.

now on to the LONG post.

A) Willpower while it has limitations, it is not Limited to a finite value. Just ask any smoker who has quit. Or, a recovering alcoholic.

B) Repeat criminals do not appear to have willpower issues, they make conscious decisions to defy the law, and ether justify it to themselves or simply have contempt for the law. Some may feel the law is wrong or simply does not apply to them.

C) If all it took for a human being to lose their humanity, self respect, morality and honor was to be at the losing end of life why have we not seen a violent uprising of the homeless and downtrodden. The addicts who HAVE lost everything and wander the streets trying to survive would therefore be the most justified to go on a rampage would they not?

D) As for American laws relating to firearms, I am a Canadian and therefore will not argue those laws, as I have little knowledge in that area.
As for Canada, the process of licensing requires a full background check, questioning of witnesses towards your character and ultimately is up to the discression of the license issuer, as I mentioned before.

Are there flaws? Yes. But that is a result of the system. Ideally the system would prevent or remove firearms from any individual before violence occurs. However in order for that system to function flawlessly one must live in a system similar to Communist Russia during Stalins reign. Where every action or spoken word is monitored and reported to the government, by agents, or even by family.

Canadian restrictions to licensing are as stringent as the LAW curently allows them to be without infringing ( too much) on an individual's rights.

E) A piece of plastic does not guarantee the holder to be law abiding. However, the process involved to acquire said item does involve scrutiny. And the desire to legally go through that process as opposed to acquiring firearms illegally and with much less effort does say something towards the individuals intentions.

F) Firearms training and safety cources do indeed instill responsibility, confidence in the use, and the safe possession of firearms. Personally I believe everyone eligible should be trained in the safe responsible use of firearms. Whether they choose to own or not. ( we have sex Ed in school, why not gun Ed )

G) As for F*** heads, they will always be F**** heads. One purpose of licensing is to prevent them from acquiring firearms legaly. Thankfully most of humanity does not fit into this category. ( however they do seem to be breeding at an alarming rate)

H) As for the Katana, not only was it a weapon, it was a symbol of honor for samurai and was passed down through generations with a reverence bordering on a relic. Spend time and look up the 7 virtues of the Bushido code.

Regarding Nukes, while their application is abhorrent to any rational human, think about how many were actually used for their intended purpose. TWO!, out of how many thousands. And both were released by human hands. Possession does not equate to application.

I) Yes firearms were designed for military use, but for us to cover everything we use in our lives that started out or were improved by the military (essentially to make it easier to kill the enemy) would require more effort and space than is practical in an Internet disscussion.

J) The legitimate use of firearms.
The big Taboo, Killing:
The military uses firearms, and other tools to kill the enemy. This enemy is defined by the state who are elected officials. I won't go into depth as to why, as that is best served by a political debate. Suffice it to say that guns could be perceived to actually combat evil.

Hunting: another form of killing, however for most, the game is hunted as a food source. The only distinction I make between wild game, and beef in the store is who does the killing ( and I could use a uphenism for the word kill, but let's call a a spade a spade )(also keep in mind hunters are the leaders in protecting the ecology, ducks unlimmited was and is a group of hunters)

Defense: when another human desires you harm what recourse do you have? You can try to run, try to hide, hope you don't get caught. Call the athorities (provided it is not them who desire you harm) and hope they arrive in time, or fight back. Should you fight back, hopefully you are more powerfull than your attacker, or that they do not have a weapon of some kind.

Simply the presence of a firearm in a potential victims hands, can dissuade an nefarious individual from attempting an attack. Should that fail, and you need to shoot, I would much rather the criminal be injured or killed than myself or a loved one.

Sporting use: primarily enjoyment, competitions, black powder heritage days and cowboy action shoots promote an awareness of history and promote thought on how life was in days gone by.

Bonding: the passing of knowledge between two individuals engaged in an activity both find enjoyable. In the case of parent/child, or mentor/student, the teaching of the responsibilities of firearm use and the skills involved is important. If more people knew how to safely handle/store firearms, accidental deaths would be greatly reduced.


In closing, while I applaud the idealistic and utopic view that any form of killing is wrong and can/should be prevented, this is simply not the way life works.

Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions

So if you read all that I thank you! I'm prepared to say we agree to dissagree and leave it at that but I'm open to more dialog if you wish.

I wish you lived in my area so I could take you to the range to see first hand what it's all about.

Big Ape signing off

You make some interesting points probie! Half-life is my top game of all time too and I'm a bigtime Valve fanboy of course.

I basically agree with everything you said, the games have become more broad, L4D2 and Portal 2, while both excellent, were a little underwhelming... but I guess comparing them to the greatest game of all time is bound to lead to disappointment too...

For the most part though, I think that Valve's overall approach; releasing software for free, bridging the gap between developers and gamers with Steam, and their system of game development in general, is a great approach and it's one that's given me a lot of joy and fulfilment as a consumer.

I'm using their Source Filmmaker software right now to create a short film and all along the way Valve employee's been answering questions on forums, blogging about their favorite videos so far, releasing new content every week etc...

Sure they're just a company and ultimately they want our money but when I look at Valve compared to most other developers/publishers, it's like night and day. Valve releases DLC all the time, for free. Every time I play TF2 (which is now free too) there's always new maps and new weapons. L4D1 and 2 both got new campaigns, in fact another one JUST came out for L4D2, for free! Compare that with almost every other game company and they're charging you for DLC before the game is even out. Or they split their game into 3 separate games! *cough* Blizzard *cough*

I just think there's something they 'get' about where gaming and software is going in general and I for one hope they continue on this ride!

Yes I know I'm a huge fanboy...

>> ^probie:

Still my #1 game of all time. I've always been a fan of the Twilight Zone, Amazing Stories, Weird Tales, etc., so the idea of an every man unleashing who-knows-what-upon-the-world was really appealing. Not to mention the variety of guns, the variety and originality of the monsters, the way each section felt like a real place. [spoiler]You race to the surface dependent on being rescued only to be driven back down underground, realizing as you wander through areas of the facility that no one normally goes that you're now entirely self-reliant. Top that off with other little psychological tricks they used: passage of time (when you first run into the military it's sunny, the next time you hit the surface it's night time), mortality (getting caught and thrown to your doom in the trash compactor, knowing you're about to become a footnote, only to escape again). I still get tingles when I remember dropping down off the roof into that pit of water, hoisting myself up into the pipe and starting to scurry down it when, at the other end, I see a soldier pop open the door and throw in a satchel charge. (Read: OH SHIT!!! backpedal backpedal ) Hell, I'm pretty sure I even held my breath in real life when I dropped back into the water; that's how engrossing the experience was. [/spoiler]

Unfortunately, I think Valve took the idea of spit and polish to absurd levels in every game they've made since, with it culminating in Portal 2. I'm not talking about the story; that was great. I'm talking about the "Here, let us spoon feed you each level by pointing out that this is the only wall that you can put a portal on, oh good, you did it, see? Aren't you having fun?"-type gameplay. The only way they could have been more direct is by putting a giant, flashing sign that says "DO THIS NEXT". [spoiler]To be fair, I felt a small tinge of it again in Half-Life 2, when you reach the bridge and have to make your way across the under-belly of it. I think this was do to the fact that there was nothing there (ie. a convenient arrow sign) to indicate that's what you needed to do. I remember looking around, seeing the path leading down behind the house, following it with my eye to the bridge and thinking "Are you serious??" Sure enough, 2 minutes later I'm grasping on the rusted metal and cursing under my breath at the developers. [/spoiler]
Regardless, something has gotten lost in the translation since Half-Life. Gone is the wonder and sense of freedom I felt; now I feel that I'm only playing the game the way they require me to, and not on my own. They may have been directing me where to go in Half-Life, but they did it with such slyness that it never felt forced, or blatant.
Sadly, I think their cabal process has become a double-edged sword, allowing them to create some of the most memorable video games, but tailoring it to the lowest common denominator. (A great read if you have a minute or two.)
And on that note, I'm off to hunt down some really, really good weed that will make me forget about everything I liked about Half-Life 1. Just so I can replay it again.

Still my #1 game of all time. I've always been a fan of the Twilight Zone, Amazing Stories, Weird Tales, etc., so the idea of an every man unleashing who-knows-what-upon-the-world was really appealing. Not to mention the variety of guns, the variety and originality of the monsters, the way each section felt like a real place. [spoiler]You race to the surface dependent on being rescued only to be driven back down underground, realizing as you wander through areas of the facility that no one normally goes that you're now entirely self-reliant. Top that off with other little psychological tricks they used: passage of time (when you first run into the military it's sunny, the next time you hit the surface it's night time), mortality (getting caught and thrown to your doom in the trash compactor, knowing you're about to become a footnote, only to escape again). I still get tingles when I remember dropping down off the roof into that pit of water, hoisting myself up into the pipe and starting to scurry down it when, at the other end, I see a soldier pop open the door and throw in a satchel charge. (Read: OH SHIT!!! *backpedal* *backpedal*) Hell, I'm pretty sure I even held my breath in real life when I dropped back into the water; that's how engrossing the experience was. [/spoiler]


Unfortunately, I think Valve took the idea of spit and polish to absurd levels in every game they've made since, with it culminating in Portal 2. I'm not talking about the story; that was great. I'm talking about the "Here, let us spoon feed you each level by pointing out that this is the only wall that you can put a portal on, oh good, you did it, see? Aren't you having fun?"-type gameplay. The only way they could have been more direct is by putting a giant, flashing sign that says "DO THIS NEXT". [spoiler]To be fair, I felt a small tinge of it again in Half-Life 2, when you reach the bridge and have to make your way across the under-belly of it. I think this was do to the fact that there was nothing there (ie. a convenient arrow sign) to indicate that's what you needed to do. I remember looking around, seeing the path leading down behind the house, following it with my eye to the bridge and thinking "Are you serious??" Sure enough, 2 minutes later I'm grasping on the rusted metal and cursing under my breath at the developers. [/spoiler]
Regardless, something has gotten lost in the translation since Half-Life. Gone is the wonder and sense of freedom I felt; now I feel that I'm only playing the game the way they require me to, and not on my own. They may have been directing me where to go in Half-Life, but they did it with such slyness that it never felt forced, or blatant.
Sadly, I think their cabal process has become a double-edged sword, allowing them to create some of the most memorable video games, but tailoring it to the lowest common denominator. (A great read if you have a minute or two.)

And on that note, I'm off to hunt down some really, really good weed that will make me forget about everything I liked about Half-Life 1. Just so I can replay it again.

There is nothing positive to be gained from religion that can't be realized without it. Yet, there is so much negative gained by the brainwashing that what positives are possible can't even be fully realized. You can examine yourself but your examination must always pass through the lens of indoctrination.

Jesus (the example with which I am most familiar) basically tells us not to be dicks. We already knew it was a good idea not to be a dick, even if we are dicks to people sometimes. Here's the thing to notice: the religion helps us forget how not to be a dick. Most of the people who hate on gays have been told by Jesus not to be dicks and not to hate, yet somehow they forgot. They forgot because they have a "moral code" that is "superior" to "sinners." Once you're "superior," it's easy to forget how not to be a dick.

A real follower of Jesus would not pass those judgements, would respect and love all people, and would be a homeless wanderer giving everything to lift up the downtrodden. Just remember that whenever a "Christian" is judging someone else... when what he really needs is to judge himself. I realize the last bit is a really high bar, but the rest of the teachings would improve the world if only they were understood with clarity instead of shoved aside for the sake of finger-wagging at people who are different.

@grinter the problem with your island retreat might not be zombies, but other survivors. Your primary concern would be brigands and marauders, so you'd better be armed and prepared to defend your stake. Even if you work out a way to welcome new "recruits", inevitably someone shows up who's been infected and either doesn't know it, or knows and won't tell (until it's too late.)

It's also quite possible that the zombies would simply wander across the bottom of the lake and emerge on your shores, or be carried across by winds or current.

>> ^kymbos:

For a second series that was just inching along prior, the final two episodes finally gained some momentum, IMO. I was stoked with the last two episodes.
But explain something to me (and forgive my lack of names - I'll try to describe them).
The red-head guy who took Winterfell - he made a speech, the guy from the Office clocked him on the head, and the next thing the whole place has burned down. How does that work? Why didn't the 500 Starks outside bust in and stop them? What happened to the red-head? They couldn't burn down Winterfell and then hand him over and just wander off, surely? They'd have them on spikes in no time.
Also, Sansa is told by the Dog that he'll take her to Winterfell at the end of ep.9 - then in the finale he's just gone and she's still around. What?
Apart from that, on the whole, my only criticism as a noob is general pace. Some story lines are left unprogressed for ages, while we watch Rob slowly fall in love with someone. There are so many people we're attached to on cliff-hangers, spending half an episode setting up a romance between Rob and his ladyfriend is just redundant.
Otherwise, it's no Breaking Bad but I like it.


That scene doesn't come off very well in the book either. I can't really tell you what happened in the book without spoiling it, suffice to say that a few more things happened between those two parts of the story. They handled it differently on the show than in the book, and I think they'll explain how it played out at the beginning of the next season. One note though: Robb did say in the show that any Ironborn except Theon could leave unharmed if they surrendered.

Sansa's story will also play out more, you're supposed to be confused.

As to the pace, that's just the way the books are written. It gets so bad that eventually, the two latest books take place simultaneously, with different characters. Book four: A Feast For Crows contains no Tyrion at all, you have to read through to the fifth book to find out what Tyrion was doing while the events of the fourth book were playing out. Weird huh? But I couldn't stop reading them.

For a second series that was just inching along prior, the final two episodes finally gained some momentum, IMO. I was stoked with the last two episodes.

But explain something to me (and forgive my lack of names - I'll try to describe them).

The red-head guy who took Winterfell - he made a speech, the guy from the Office clocked him on the head, and the next thing the whole place has burned down. How does that work? Why didn't the 500 Starks outside bust in and stop them? What happened to the red-head? They couldn't burn down Winterfell and then hand him over and just wander off, surely? They'd have them on spikes in no time.

Also, Sansa is told by the Dog that he'll take her to Winterfell at the end of ep.9 - then in the finale he's just gone and she's still around. What?

Apart from that, on the whole, my only criticism as a noob is general pace. Some story lines are left unprogressed for ages, while we watch Rob slowly fall in love with someone. There are so many people we're attached to on cliff-hangers, spending half an episode setting up a romance between Rob and his ladyfriend is just redundant.

Otherwise, it's no Breaking Bad but I like it.

That is a very nice building, it would be beyond my pleasure to be able to walk through it slowly--at my pace. As well as watching the cars being built themselves, it would be great. It's really a place were you might play a nice score on your iPod while sipping champagne--if they would let you...

Talking to the individual people sound as though it would bring the whole experience together, but none of us are so lucky as this interviewer, so I guess we get to take his tour as our only ever example. I wonder who gets to wander through those halls though...? Besides the obvious choices of course...

BTW, if anybody reads this before watching do yourself a favor and bump this up to 720p and throw it on your HDTV and watch it there, as it is the length of a documentary anyway--watch it in relaxation.

It was a more entertaining piece than I thought it would have been as it started slow, but the visuals kept you engaged.

//Which is a good thing to do for a great many videos here on the Sift BTW; just stick them in a playlist or find one of the many playlists that already keep track of them...

Well me and Kage are hungry
We're hungry for some fruit
We wander through the garden
It would be a hoot

To eat some low hanging fruit
We're on a freaky pursuit
Don't want no high class model in designer baby bathing suit
We want the low hanging fruit

Me and Kage are horny
Looking for a snack
Looking for a plump one
I want my baby back

We want some low hanging fruit
She wears a bee keeper suit
She got the sweet stanky fruit
We need the low hanging fruit

She got the flip flops on with hot red potatoes
And a butt floss thong with fried green tomatoes
And she loves the song we sing for the ladies c'mon! Oh my God!

[JB scat section}

Low hanging fruit
She wears a pink parachute
She got the fly tattoo and the honky tonkin' daisy dukes
We love the low hanging fruit

Because the high class fruit is not very funky
But the low class fruit is sweet chunky monkey
When you smoke that bood it smell like a skunky c'mon!

C'mon! C'mon! C'mon!

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/holycow/hinduism.html
>> ^TheJehosephat:

I think there's a distinction in semantics. The cows are not sacred because they are not worshipped as gods, but they are holy because they are protected by gods. Something like that.
>> ^Gallowflak:
But I thought cows were essentially "sacred" in Hinduism. I thought they were associated with prosperity and everyone basically leaves them the hell alone, resulting in all the cows wandering around various cities in India?

I think there's a distinction in semantics. The cows are not sacred because they are not worshipped as gods, but they are holy because they are protected by gods. Something like that.

>> ^Gallowflak:

But I thought cows were essentially "sacred" in Hinduism. I thought they were associated with prosperity and everyone basically leaves them the hell alone, resulting in all the cows wandering around various cities in India?