What did they fire it from, a railgun?

I say it's a fluke. They've been shooting and blowing shit up there for years. I guess it missed the water barrels that were supposed to slow it down, and through the brick wall in the back, across the river, through a house, into a different neighborhood, struck a roof and slammed into a car.

I cant wait to see that episode!

I want to repeat first your original claim is the US outproduced the rest of the world many fold from 1700 to 1900, which as I stated is absurdly false.

Percentage of increases is NOT total GDP. Just because we grew more doesn't mean we outproduced another country. Higher GDP = higher production.

Right now, China's economy is growing faster than the US economy. Does that mean their GDP is higher? According to you, apparently, the answer is yes, but it's not. US GDP is higher than China.

Of course, this also doesn't take into account that population impacts GDP, as the larger your population, the more labor resources you have to produce goods and services. GDP per capita also comes into play in factoring relative productivity.

Using your own link, Great Britain's total GDP was higher than the US all the way up to 1913. Therefore, sometime between 1870 and 1913, the US GDP surpassed Britain and every other country on earth in raw amounts, but to claim we did from 1820 - 1913 is by your own data patently false. We outgrew everyone else, this is true, but we did not outproduce everyone else that entire time. In fact, for most of that time, we were outproduced by several Western European countries in raw amounts.

Then there's the question of GDP per capita.

In 1913, US population is estimated to be about 100,000,000. 517,000/100000000=0.00517

In 1913, the British population is estimated to be about 45,000,000. 225000/45000000 = 0.005.

IE, RIGHT ABOUT around 1913 the US began to be more productive per capita than Great Britain, but for most of 1870 to 1913 (and prior), Great Britain outproduced the US per capita. Therefore, your assertion the US outproduced every other country on earth per capita is wrong, and Great Britain outproduced the US in raw amount in 1870.

As I said, most historians do not consider the US an economic superpower until at least WWI. There's ample explanation for this. Great Britain industrialized before the US did. The US also suffered a massive interruption in economic production due to the US Civil War in the 1860s. This is plain as day fact, even with your own data you're providing.

And btw, what were the contributing factors to the US surge in production? Industrialization coupled with massive immigration. To discount the role of immigration into the US as a key contributor and say it was all about free market economics is ridiculous. Are you suggesting we need to allow Mexicans and anyone else to immigrate into the US again?! We also cashed in on imperialist gains at the expense of Mexico, gaining a massive amount of natural resources in the Mexican Cession. You don't honestly think the US Industrial Revolution would have been as wildly successful as it was without that massive resource of various metals, do you? So we're supposed to start taking land from other countries because it's god's will?

And now, to my absolute favorite part of your analysis. You attempted to show the US's slowing economic growth in the 20th century compared to the previous century, because that central banking and regulation we got post 1913 apparently really hurt us.

1820 - 1870 = 50 years
1870 - 1913 = 43 years
1913 - 1950 = 37 years
1950 - 1973 = 23 years
1973 - 1998 = 25 years

So how much did we grow comparing 1870-1913 vs 1950 - 1998, over a comparable time span?

526% vs. (7394598-1455916)/1455916 = 407%

Considering how unproductive humans were before and after industrialization, improving on top of that another 407% is EXTREMELY impressive. On top of that, US economic output was severely reduced because of the Civil War in the 1860s and had not recovered from it by any stretch of the imagination, so simply recovering from that would fuel a massive percentage increase. By 1950, we had already recovered from the Great Depression, and we STILL managed to grow the US economy 4x in the next 50 years.

Now, on top of that, keep in mind that with smaller numbers, percentage growth gets exaggerated compared to bigger numbers. IE, it's easier to double when you start with 1 than 1,000,000.

From 1820 to 1913, US GDP went from 12,548 to 517,383. From 1913 to 1998, we went from 517,383 to 7,394,598! That's less successful?! OH POOR US!

Compared to the rest of the world, we didn't grow as fast percentage wise from 1950-1998. We did however grow the most in raw amounts. By your analysis, Mexico has done a better job growing their economy from 1973 to 1998 than the US did because of percentage growth. Uhh, seriously?! growing 279,302 to 655,910 is more impressive than 3,536,622 to 7,394,598?! Then WHY ARE MEXICANS TRYING TO IMMIGRATE HERE!?

Why is Africa, Asia, etc. growing so much faster than we did? Because they are industrializing, which results in percentage gains greater than the switch to info tech because they're starting from a very low number. That doesn't mean they're outproducing us. It means they have more low hanging fruit to improve their productivity than we do. You're also cherrypicking another historically convenient time. Europe and Asia in 1950 were still recovering from the destruction of WWII, where entire cities were leveled. Simply rebuilding from that would give a massive boost. US industrial capacity was never threatened during WWII. Therefore, we won't start suddenly artificially lower in 1950 compared to a Japan, China, Germany, Britain, France, or Russia.

Your historical analysis is laughable. I have never seen anyone claim that the US economy was better off from 1800-1900 than they have been from 1900-2000. Kudos for attempting to provide statistics for your crackpot retelling of American history.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.
Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.
You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


Don't let facts get in the way of your clouded thinking.
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf
We were the most prosperous country in the world prior to income taxes and the federal reserve.
In 1820, US GDP was less than 2% of the world's GDP. By 1913, US GDP was more than double any other country and 1/5 of the world's. Funny thing about freedom, it works.
From 1820 to 1870, US GDP increased 784% while the world GDP had only increased 59%. From 1870 to 1913, US GDP increased 526% while the world GDP had only increased 246%.
Period, Increase in US GDP, Increase in World GDP
1820 to 1870, 784%, 59%
1870 to 1913, 526%, 246%
1913 to 1950, 281%, 197%
1950 to 1973, 243%, 300%
1973 to 1998, 209%, 210%
And if you do the math per capita, the numbers are even uglier for the US 20th century.
But not surprising one thinks that printing money to pay for bombs and tanks makes a country prosperous. How's that government stimulus working out present day? Funny we still haven't paid off that debt from WWII stimulus. We've being paying the interest on it though.
Did expanding the monetary base (i.e. inflation) make us richer? The father of the theory that government stimulus is the way to fight severe downturns, John Maynard Keynes, famously said about inflation:
By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


Slvry

>> ^heropsycho:

Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.
Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.
You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?



Don't let facts get in the way of your clouded thinking.
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf

We were the most prosperous country in the world prior to income taxes and the federal reserve.

In 1820, US GDP was less than 2% of the world's GDP. By 1913, US GDP was more than double any other country and 1/5 of the world's. Funny thing about freedom, it works.

From 1820 to 1870, US GDP increased 784% while the world GDP had only increased 59%. From 1870 to 1913, US GDP increased 526% while the world GDP had only increased 246%.

Period, Increase in US GDP, Increase in World GDP
1820 to 1870, 784%, 59%
1870 to 1913, 526%, 246%
1913 to 1950, 281%, 197%
1950 to 1973, 243%, 300%
1973 to 1998, 209%, 210%

And if you do the math per capita, the numbers are even uglier for the US 20th century.

But not surprising one thinks that printing money to pay for bombs and tanks makes a country prosperous. How's that government stimulus working out present day? Funny we still haven't paid off that debt from WWII stimulus. We've being paying the interest on it though.

Did expanding the monetary base (i.e. inflation) make us richer? The father of the theory that government stimulus is the way to fight severe downturns, John Maynard Keynes, famously said about inflation:
By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


the US didn't become a world power until WWII really, and it became a SUPERPOWER during the 50's... check the taxation rate then

Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.

Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.

You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?

>> ^raverman:

... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...

Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.

Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?

As far as Diakatana goes, that is why I think it was a good game, because I remember it and I remember enjoying a lot of parts. I played through at least twice, the second time using just the daikatana (for the most part) because if you remember, the more you used it the more powerful it became. It was fun smashing through hordes of enemies with a powerful sword. The other weapons were good and varied. You could also level up your attributes as you went along. The mythical greece and midieval norway levels were beautiful imo. It was like 4 smaller games rolled into one. Once the patch was out, your teammates didn't get in the way and sometimes helped out. The voice acting was more stereotypical versus actually racist and I think they were trying to inject some humor into it. There were a lot of secret areas to be found. I could go on, but thats enough about diakatana.

I found some positive reviews about Duke Nukem Forever so it's not all bad reviews: (these seem more like my experiences)

http://www.gamefront.com/duke-nukem-forever-review/
http://gamers-underground.com/content/978-review-duke-nukem-forever.html
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/06/10/duke-nukem-forever-review/

And I think I was grumpy because I had a reaction to a wasp sting on my wrist which swelled up my hand and wrist bad enough I had to go to the hospital that day. I also couldn't play any more Duke


>> ^ponceleon:

You know, I can tell you that the fundamental thing that comes to mind about Daikatana was that it was entirely forgettable. I've been an avid gamer since BEFORE the Commodore 64, I've played the greats and I think back to games which were contemporaries of Daikatana, say Deus Ex and I can tell you every last detail about that game. Now, if you ask me about Planescape: Torment, another game that predates Daikatana, I can go on and on about why that game was amazing. Despite having played through all of Daikatana, all I have in my mind is the vague impression of a horribly put together game, poor (and arguably racist) voice acting, terribly outdated graphics for when it was released, drab design, unimaginative writing and a lot of broken promises.
What I mean by that last part was that there was a LOT that was promised in the development of the game that never happened. What was it? I can't remember worth a damn and that's the point. It was a minor blip that didn't live up to 1/10th of what John Romero promised and it certainly didn't make me his bitch.
I get what you are trying to say about Duke though. Hell, I even agree that it is something we NEED to play. But after watching videos and reviews, I really don't think it is a fluke that it is coming in at 40/50% reviews (at best). Like I said in another post, that moment where they compare Duke to that annoying uncle you thought was hilarious when you were 8, but now just see as sad and really unimaginative.
Again, I'll stand by Gearbox as well. We all wanted to see this mess and they did the work to bring it to us.
As for feeling like Mr. Grumpypants, no worries, I think DNF has made us ALL Mr. Grumpypants this week.

You know, I can tell you that the fundamental thing that comes to mind about Daikatana was that it was entirely forgettable. I've been an avid gamer since BEFORE the Commodore 64, I've played the greats and I think back to games which were contemporaries of Daikatana, say Deus Ex and I can tell you every last detail about that game. Now, if you ask me about Planescape: Torment, another game that predates Daikatana, I can go on and on about why that game was amazing. Despite having played through all of Daikatana, all I have in my mind is the vague impression of a horribly put together game, poor (and arguably racist) voice acting, terribly outdated graphics for when it was released, drab design, unimaginative writing and a lot of broken promises.

What I mean by that last part was that there was a LOT that was promised in the development of the game that never happened. What was it? I can't remember worth a damn and that's the point. It was a minor blip that didn't live up to 1/10th of what John Romero promised and it certainly didn't make me his bitch.

I get what you are trying to say about Duke though. Hell, I even agree that it is something we NEED to play. But after watching videos and reviews, I really don't think it is a fluke that it is coming in at 40/50% reviews (at best). Like I said in another post, that moment where they compare Duke to that annoying uncle you thought was hilarious when you were 8, but now just see as sad and really unimaginative.

Again, I'll stand by Gearbox as well. We all wanted to see this mess and they did the work to bring it to us.

As for feeling like Mr. Grumpypants, no worries, I think DNF has made us ALL Mr. Grumpypants this week.

>> ^grahamslam:

>> ^ponceleon:
Sorry Graham, but you had me until you defended Daikatana... Daikatana was horrible horrible horrible. In every way possible. Patch or no patch it was an embarrassment.
I will play DNF on my PC, but I'm going to wait till the price comes down (which I would give 3-5 weeks). No way am I paying $50 for this, history or no...

Explain to me why Daikatana was horrible in your opinion?
Price for a game is a matter of economics, not a matter of how good the game is or is not which is why I hate when people rate it according to price. Sure price can be an indicator of value, but if duke was priced at 10 bucks, would it all of a sudden be a 10 out of 10 game? No, but you would be happier you got to play the game for less money. If you had millions in the bank, you would probably care less if you paid $50 or $20 for the game, you just want to know how damn good the game is.
I understand your intention was just to simply say the game doesn't interest you at full price. The rant was just directed at the idiots who score games low because they didn't like it being released at full price. I think I need some sleep, I'm being mr grumpy pants.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Calling your bluff is way too easy. >> ^blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
When has a cop ever threatened you with violence?

You're right. They're peaceful people always. This video is a fluke! It's all lies! Nothing to see!



Okay.

Calling your bluff is way too easy. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
When has a cop ever threatened you with violence?

You're right. They're peaceful people always. This video is a fluke! It's all lies! Nothing to see!

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

When has a cop ever threatened you with violence?


You're right. They're peaceful people always. This video is a fluke! It's all lies! Nothing to see!

No Worries, it was a fluke that I checked my email right after Ant "Deaded" the post - and I fixed it right after that (withinin 10-15 minutes). So all good - Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by moodonia:
Hey Sagemind,

Apology time... While looking at your video about the Irish blasphemy law I saw your warriors Vs Baseball Furies video, which I promoted before realising it was dead.... Anyway here is a link to a working clip from if its any help in resurrecting it...
http://youtu.be/wSvJdVg9ydM

Props to Jon for doing what he could with this segment, because this topic is about as unfunny as you can get.
I can only imagine what would happen if one of these folks was actually ON the watch list through some fluke.
(And it raises the question - what if one of these folks was on the list justifiably?)