taks

that statement is utter rubbish. capitalism is not "an idea on paper" at all. at least, not like communism. communism is an ideal that was specifically invented whereas capitalism was an observation of free market trade. big fish eating little fish is not a bad thing, either, and i dare you to provide proof it is. furthermore, once all the little fish are eaten up in a capitalist economy, opportunity for new players (called competition) arise decreasing the big fishes market. again, i dare you to find proof of any monopoly that was not created by the government. the odds are even lower in a communist society. plus, communism lies about its intention... at least a purely socialist economy admits the fact that a tyrannical government is required forever. not true at all. if we were all capitalist in nature, this wouldn't happen, ever. but, for whatever reason, silly eastern european, latin american and asian countries seem to think the strong arm of communism/socialism is the ticket... all of this in spite of the fact that every socialist based economy has either failed or is failing. actually, no... prices will plummet. exactly what mechanism is it that you think will force a rise? efficiency increases with increased competition, as a direct result, prices drop. that's the beauty and guess what it has been proven to work in reality time and time again. it is not a coincidence that the lowest poverty rates (actual, not perceived) and highest standards of living have always been associated with a capitalist economy. ahhh yes, now we see the root of the problem. it's actually a greed based motive. you're just pissed because your town's labor rates were higher than market value and the result was a company that couldn't compete. maybe if the people in your town would actually accept a reasonable wage for the work they were doing the same could have been said. government cannot place a value on labor as it has no intrinsic value. it is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. once you get past the labor based notion, things work a little better. taks

it's a perfect excuse... lemme see, the artwork is better in BG from what i can see so far. the controls are better in BG from what i can see so far (FO is very choppy and the hex thing is killing me). combat in FO is horrid (sorry TB fans, but it sucks. toee was the first to do it right). in other words, BG is a more advanced game, and i played it first. it would be like playing HL2 first, then firing up Doom and trying to compare (not that extreme, but the analogy holds). it gets worse when you consider 1) i'm a fantasy fan and 2) i like magic, a direct result of 1). taks

that statement is untrue. capitalism is based on free market trade(capitalism is actually more of a description of what happens in a free market). how the wealth and resources distribute themselves is not the basis. a capitalist china is a good thing, particularly since its current non-capitalist practices actually hurt our economy. as do europe's socialist practices... that's what causes trade deficits (foreigners can't afford to buy our goods...) taks

i am now playing FO, FO2 and torment... i'll report my preference then. well, i haven't started FO2 yet. but it's on my drive. i don't like FO so far though i haven't really made it far, yet. torment seems OK, but slow. i expect that at least. i'm jaded, however, since BG was my first ISO game. i probably won't ever find a game i can compare to it (BG2 notwithstanding). mark

you are correct. besides, there were several questions that i did not agree with the answers... i mean, there were some that i either had no opinion on (not an option) or felt the answer had a "well, it depends upon circumstances" portion that need to be addressed. not everything is black and white, even though i may preach as much. taks

unfortunately, the game i wish had more time was toee, and it needed more than just bug fixing. it needed content. story. something. anything. bugs were almost a side issue once the boredom of the underlying game set in (i did like the combat, however). TAKS

hmmm... Economic Left/Right: 4.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69 taks

i know for a fact this is true... that's why i don't think he'll get mad at me for calling him a dork! taks

there was a really good one we linked to through misstresslair a while back, though that was before her boards started crashing causing a loss of old data. it tested 8 or so different areas and each had 50 or so questions. extremely detailed and actually pretty correct. not just right/left, but it would associate a number based on your individualism, collectivism, nationalism, etc. not surprisingly enough, all of my scores were over 90% in one direction or the other, and most were 98% or greater (a 50% in any area indicated neutral opinion on the matter). i.e. my views are extreme (hmm, die-hard is a better term) and quite consistent. the outcome, actually, put me squarely in the middle, politically speaking and referred me to the libertarian boards (they have a dozen or so forums for each of the "classifications" that crop up)... taks

they are called Carl's Jr. out here and no, i haven't had one yet. i eat CJ at least once a month so maybe today is my "thickburger" experience? they do not disappoint me. however, speaking of fast food derailments, why don't we (colorado springs) have a jack in the box or a white castle. that disappoints me. taks Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor, Temple of Elemental Evil and NWN were all major disappointments for me (my on-topic bit).

you are truly a dork, deganawida taks

first of all, the troops aren't suffering from a lack of supplies. there are certainly isolated cases of problems, but no general lack of anything. you mobilize that many people in the middle of terrorist bombings and tell me things won't be in short supply from time to time. second of all, $40M is 1) a drop in the bucket compared to the billion we're spending every day, griping about it is just as ridiculous 2) not going to outfit our troops with body armor... what's so funny about this is that nobody seems to care when other presidents spend this kind of money (they all do, the numbers increase because of inflation, duh). but bush, nooooo, suddenly it's called a "lavish party." give it a rest. whining is so easy to pick apart. taks

he really has been fired... "stepping down" is just the network's way of doing it without really admitting they screwed up... kind of like when executives leave some coporation, they're always listed as "moving on to other interests." his ratings have been floundering lately anyway, and this was a perfect excuse to replace him. taks

yes i can. MS only owns 85% of the OS market and that number is shrinking. if we get into the workstation browser market, SUN actually has the majority (Solaris) with about a half dozen other players in the market. study up on capitalism before making such erroneous claims. once a company begins to approach "monopoly" status, they become lethargic and inefficient. as soon as they begin "charging what they want," they draw competition into the market and oila! monopoly is gone. this happened with MS, which allowed Apple back into the fray as well as all the Linux offerings. MS is struggling to keep up and their share is dwindling along with their profit margin (this is easy to check). done... taks

no you didn't. that much is obvious. and if you did, you'd have to go back more than just 10 years. you just don't get it. look up the term commodity and study how it works. the gas companies themselves don't damage anything. taks

again, gas does NOT follow the standard inflation curve. if you were old enough to buy it in the late 70s you'd know that it was $1.30 a gallon then (there were actually mile-long lines to buy gas). the same price as it was 10 years ago, the same price as it was 3 years ago. oil is a commodity that's traded on the open market, and as such, its price varies accordingly. also, btw, if you actually did the math, gas is cheaper now than it has ever been. that's because it doesn't track standard inflation. this concept is pretty well known by most of us... it's pretty obvious you don't follow history nor understand how commodities markets work. there are dozens of sources, too. do you not follow what's going on in the world? the US only gets 13% of its oil from the middle east. russia has oil, the US has its own oil, we also get it from venezuela and several other latin-american countries. have you been sleeping? bingo! you said he "doesn't have a clue about the topic." first of all, that is an insult. second of all, your arguments indicate he knows more about the subject than you do. hardly a position for you to be making clueless claims. taks

that statement is BS, phosphor... there's nothing dis-honorable in the idea. newspapers and tv outlets regularly try to find ways to "spice up" their reporting. also, realistically, if anybody here actually watched the news that fox reports, they'd see it's not that much different than CNN or HNN. fox just happens to have much more commentary and analysts than the other networks. the hypocrisy is that those most critical of fox 1) never watch fox's news and 2) base most of their complaints on what others say about it. those that do manage to watch something see o'reilly, however, and then label the entire network based on his analysis. absolutely ridiculous. taks

which would be a valid point if murdoch actually had anything to do with running fox news. all of fox's news is scrutinized by a panel of liberal and conservative journalists - an equal split, btw. they determine what content fox reports, not rupert. if you actually did any investigation, you'd know this... but you don't care, you've got your bias to rest on. the hypocritical part about this is that you're accusing them of the very failure in your own argument. taks btw: ted turner is a wide supporter of the democratic party and their agenda... does this mean you think CNN is biased liberally because of that fact? hmmmm, seems we have a double standard here.

do you have any clue what the term news analyst means? o'reilly is supposed to put in his opinion! that's his freaking job... for freak's sake, how hard a concept is this to understand? taks

though chiding you about flame warnings is rather funny... you tend to be level-headed enough to not need warning taks

don't really care about your wl over at atari. i was mostly just pointing out that rhomal need not explain the history of BG to you, as you've been around as long as i can remember. and i've been posting since BG1 (different handle then...mendolf) taks

insulting volourn isn't going to get you anywhere, neverwinterknight. particularly since you are misunderstanding the concept of capitalism in the first place. taks

uh, excuse me? gas prices have less than doubled in 20 years... this equates to a MUCH lower rate of increase than inflation (typical goods have risen almost 3X). gas prices are based (loosely) on a commodity trade of oil on, well, the commodities market. plus, gas has been dropping again. i'd say an increase that's less than inflation is quite good for the consumer... bad example dude. futhermore, exactly where is the monopoly in the "gas industry?" there are literally dozens of companies selling gasoline. taks

no, i didn't "crush" any theory of mine at all. the entire point is that the monopoly really never exists... it's kind of like a limiting function. as a company gets closer to monopoly status, it self extinguishes. no, that's not my argument at all. you're taking one line out of the context of the whole argument. a company acheives monopoly status by providing a better mousetrap (not a bad thing), but attracts competition in doing so. in the end, the concept of a monopoly is only a theoretical tool used to explain the entire mechanism. where do you get the 10 to 20 years thing? two points... 1) if EA does a good job, that's inherently good for the consumer 2) if EA does a bad job, the NFL or ESPN will drop them like a hot potato and allow competition to take the helm. that's good for the consumer. the concept of capitalism is simple... taks