Walsingham

I'm playing the game through a second time, and taking my time. I've got something like 56 of 57 checkpoints and i can't find the last one. What happens when I do?

the Battlestar Galactica soundtracks, seasons 2 and 3. Very very good. I heartily recommend both.

I bet it's an awesome hole, too. Let me in.

The majority of Americans could not afford it. The last time I had health care, I paid $300 a month and that was with my employer sucking up about 60% of the bill. I doubt the price would be the same since, 1) Everybody has to have an insurance, and 2) There are laws on how much (in percentage) an healthcare insurance would be compared to the your disposable income. $300 a MONTH? That's about half my monthly tax bill in total. Holy crapola.

Indeed. If one does have the odd left wing tendency it's very important not to get suckered by the commies. Moderates really are the first against the wall. I should also have mentioned that one can have something very like to communes where there is a very clear task focus, and (as Dagon says) voluntary membership. Particularly, in my experience, elitist membership. It's a sort of pre-emptive system control. Such groups can be terrifyingly effective. But it's total balls to suggest everyone could belong to one. You have loafers, liars, ...erm... linguists (no).. well you get the idea.

Righto. paint.NET it is. The easy transition is what sealed it.

I've realised that for the last few years I've actually done a tonne of drawings, using just MS Paint. They have a certain rustic charm, but it's about time I got a good drawing package. Obviously I'd rather pay nothing, but I will be fine about paying to get something with neat features. Remember I'm new to sophisticated computer painting, so if it has good tutorials that's a bg bonus. Thanks in advance for helping. It's one of the best things about these fora that one can always ask tech queries and get top answers.

SAMWISE EAT ROPE

Wait, do you mean filthy watery lager? Or do you mean Guinness?

Been thinking on exactly how long five years is, and how much of my life has been pared away, like a nervous girl at fat camp.

Instant burst out laughing.

He only specifically mentions two industries- agriculture and woodworking- and the efficiency of woodworking increased too. That's certainly industrial (specifically he mentions the closing of lots of small workshops in favour of larger ones with more modern equipment). He also says that drops in industrial output were generally related to shortage of raw materials/ money, collapse of domestic demand, unofficial embargoes including by the Republican government itself (he cites the example of them giving uniform contracts overseas rather than to anarchist run textile factories), the Fascists gaining control of the Pyrenees' dams and thus most of Catalunya's electricity, and having a large proportion of workers fighting at the front or otherwise involved in war industries. OTOH Beevor does seem rather an Orwell fan, and he certainly had a strong admiration for the Anarchists- so there might be some bias at work. Overall though, he's fairly convincing. Kind of. More like a village than a family though (in the most 'advanced' forms there were far more people per group than we'd think of as 'family'). I'm not clear if you are clarifying, agreeing or disagreeing. My latter point was that any observed differences would be difficult to observe, and unlikely to be due solely to communist management, in either direction. There was disruption before the war, and a war during it. However, if i may be a little sly, you also highlight the way the bolshevists attempted to consolidate their control and monopolise the economy. This is consistent in spirit with what I am asserting. That you cannot be 'part commmunist' any more than you can be partly circumcised.

1 - Electing communists: I don't see your point. If they achieved a majority they would pass laws to make private property illegal etc etc. Maintaining those laws would require exertion of the mechanisms of control. the exertion of those organs would be inherently extreme. The communists would then either be subverted, voted out or would be forced to rely on dictatorship. 2 - Voting out failed leaders: I'm obviously not being clear. I'm not just saying it's unlikely you will find managerial characters. I'm saying that the managerially talented would automatically and naturally become isolated from their roots as they struggled to manage. It's a fantasy that management is something you can do in your spare time. It's equally nonsensical to suggest that managing technical issues such as those surrounding software development or military campaigns or healthcare can be handled by some randomly elected goon. The difference with what we have is that while such incompetence is tolerable in a student's union or local council it becomes much more serious when raised to a national level. The complexity of the system, and the 'energy' in the system are too great. Once again, its not good enough to simply say 'oh well' we'll just vote out idiots until someone better drops into the slot. The problem isn't idiocy it's lack of training and time. 3 - Zoraptor: I already covered both your points in my initial brief. I appreciate you citing Beevor because that's my primary source. yes, communal farms did raise production when allowed to run themselves. But these are the simple agrarian communities I was talking about. I don't recall Beevor saying manufacturing went up but i hardly think it would be wise to compare production figures when the pre-stage was riven with strikes and disruption of all kinds. Having said that it's a recognised fact in many circles that involving workers to a degree in the system they work for is a wise plan. It improves motivation, and feedback concerning operating practices. But there's a world of difference between involvement and control.

I'm sorry to hear you feel under attack, Gina. If I may be generous to our position I would suggest that we are merely pointing out that you chaps are been hooned royally, and you deserve better. I like America, and I'm pleased we're allies, but that doesn't mean I ignore your problems, I get stuck into them with gusto, as any friend should. I have two close friends who are in the NHS, one as a nurse, the other as a doctor. There are some reasons why I support it, even when I see people taking the mickey out of the system. 1. Emotionally - because I still feel compassion for halfwits. And I am proud that we as a nation have the capacity to absorb their needs 2. Selfishly - because all the evidence I see tells me it's cheaper for me personally even though I could choose to buy my own insurance 3. Selfishly - because I don't need to worry about what happens to me, I have 100% cover and no-one is trying to defraud me of it 4. Socially - You can't work if you are sick or injured. If people are to be expected to work it helps if they can count on this basic enabler I regard the current US system as the antithesis of this. Taxing the rich has nothing to do with it. It's common sense (at least until Aristes mounts his counter to these points). To answer your other point I know you people have this notion of right and social justice coming from hard work, but anyone who tells you luck doesn't play a big part is full of poop, IMO. ESPECIALLY if common injury plays a part. That is, after all, why they are called accidents.

River, taking one fethwit as an example doesn't help. My mother raised me on child support for my first six years and I'd have starved if we hadn't had it. I may well be biased but I'd say the State has had a return on its investment.

Come to Australia. The beer is better here, and the women have tans and teeth. The beer is NOT better there. British ale is the best in the world. full stop.

I wouldn't say they were convoluted.

So you don't think that freeing up 7% of your GDP would be kind of handy?

I can't fault you for outlining an actual plan for once, although I would ask why you couldn't have done so sooner. Wait... that was me faulting you. 1. You're saying these local democracies could just elect a communist then elect a non-communist? Sure, that could work... jumping from one economic system to another totally dissimilar one regularly... 2. I'm going to take an insulting guess and suggest you've never held any kind of managerial or leadership role. You seriously expect high level technical decisions to be taken and seen through by a non-specialist 'caste' of ordinary workers? I'm not for a moment saying people can't do sterling work having come from the shop floor. But they can't do both at the same time. There are specialist skills and connections, you get a grouping of such people if you want effective decisions seen through to fruition. Novices are popular, but hopelessly inept. They rely on commmon sense which is all too often incorrect. 3. In ansswer to your question, there's nothing odd or wrong about small local democracies. But expecting a collection of parochial local democracies to produce a leadership group who can and will effectively collaborate is total arse. Since you're probably a student, why not trot down to your local student's union and have a look at how things work there? I haven't been a student in a long while, but that's the point. It never changes, because the mechanics define the dynamic.

I hopped down to the public library, picked up some books on depression, and physiology, then went to my favourite restaurant. They treat me like family there (in the good sense),a nd I chatted and read for a couple of hours until a friend showed up and we had a huge array of food, beer, and finished with grappa and coffee. This obviously excellent mood was hugely spoiled when I came home and tried to play Company of Heroes. Relic have STILL NOT FIXED this problem despite it apparently affecting a huge number of people. This was directly annoying, and more widely depressing because it's an example of **** customer service. And why? What is it for? They've got staff. Bloody fix it, you ****holes! Am now in terrible mood.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news...ew-threads.html Seriously worth checking out. Very very funny.

As I have said before, Bolshevism is not an aberration of the communist system. Bolshevism is the ONLY WAY a communist state can come into being or maintain itself. In case you fell asleep suddenly last time: 1. Communism is a strongly unnatural state for human beings to adopt 2. Being unnatural it can only be maintained through imposition of control commensurate with the 'energy' present in the system 3. Thus, far from your frankly mad statement, ONLY simple agrarian communities are capable of achieving anything like communism, because they exist in a low energy state 4. Complex high energy societies can only exist in a communit state under massive degrees of control amounting to brutal dictatorship 5. Further, if those societies achieve seriously high energy states, then state control becomes insufficient, and they break down This is the meta-logic which underpins the point under discussion. The control system HAS to administer rewards in communism. But the notion that the people who apportion reward and who also hold the reins of control will be accountable is simply bizarre. How precisely do you suppose a communist government would work? You said you've read about the Spanish civil war, where a variety of non-bolshevist ideas were tried and the result was a failure.

Oh, please do. We promise we'll read them, don't we guys? But only if it's at least 10,000 words.

No problem, Aristes. You know you don't have to smack me down with weight of reason, you can come back with a half-formed idea. It's no fail. Actually, you just reminded me I was supposed to respond to someone else and I've forgotten who. Anyway, back on topic, a thought occurs regarding your high costs point: - Having high costs legitimises higher premiums. Since premiums necessarily work out more profitable than costs the industry as a whole actually siphons off more cash. - I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that the US healthcare industry had begun to vertically integrate. Meaning insurance companies were running hospitals using teh argument that their profit incentive helped keep costs down. As I say, I'm not 100% on the latter point, but I know several people work for Lloyds of London who told me the former. I had another point, but we've been pretty good at trying to keep things tidy so far.

I thought you did dancing to stop that sort of thing?