.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
roshan
-
Posts
2234 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by roshan
-
-
I agree they looked awesome. Unfortunately they were basically just cartoon characters rather than a menacing threat.
-
I thought the first one was entertaining enough.
Coincidentally I have just finished watching the second, and it has been absolute crap. One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Theres no plot, just random stupidity that can only entertain children with low IQ.
-
Damn those last two episodes were a wonderful end to Rome. Loved every minute of it. This is the way awesome television shows should go, in a blaze of glory!
Not descending deeper and deeper into a giant pile of crap like BSG.
-
There is no such thing as a clearly defined frontline to terror. The USA must find it and destroy it wherever it exists.
-
I have problems with that as well.
I dont think its because of not having the right codecs, I think its because of having a wrong one installed.
-
I have some problems with my codecs as well. Often, when I play movie files, I get a lot of skipping, and it often freezes. This happens no matter what player I use, whether VLC or WMP.
I think Ive got some sort of codec that is screwing things up. The following are the codecs I have:
cinepak codec by radius inc
ffdshow.ax
indeo codec by intel
indeo video 5.10
ir41_32.ax
iyuv_32.dll
microsoft mpeg-4 video codec
microsoft rle codec
microsoft video 1
msh261
msh263
msyuv.dll
tsbuv.dll
Can anyone who has VLC media player and windows media player tell me which of these codecs they do not have on their codec lists, so I can uninstall them?
This problem is really making my life hell..... Im thinking of just uninstalling all the ones with names that dont make sense.
-
Confirmed: Ron Moore is retarded and BSG season 4 is going to suck - a lot.
So is that what you're aiming for with your fourth season?It will be a serialized show to an extent. I think what we talked about with the network — because their concern is the drop-off in viewers and giving too many hurdles for new viewers to overcome to watch the show — we're always going to try to provide at least an episodic quality to each show. Even though there are plotlines that are ongoing over the course of the whole season, we'll try to give you something in each episode that you can hold on to that starts and stops within that episode.
These idiots dont get that BSGs viewers have dropped because the show dropped the ball as it progressed towards episodism.
Reading Ron Moores interviews makes it quite obvious that he has no idea in which direction hes taking the show. Hes just putting in random things for the heck of it.
-
Great episode.
I was wondering, where are all the children and the other abductees? Are they still in the other island?
Lost still hasnt explained what in the world the others are up to, who they are and why they abducted those people.
-
Neither of you (Sand or Roshan) seems to have any grasp of what you are actually talking about - or maybe you just choose to be narrowminded to force an argument through?
Maybe you would like to point out where I have gone wrong instead of making pointless blanket statements.
Both Socialism and Capitalism have the same goal - to make life better for as many people as possible. They just disagree (to a point) on where to start and how to proceed from there.Socialism tries to make people equal while on the other hand capitalism attempts to make people wealthy. Socialism starts off with the wrong goal in mind and thats why it doesnt work.
Socialism regards property as a common right, while Capitalism views it as a private right.Thats a gross oversimplification. There is a wide range of issues on which socialism and capitalism differ and property is not one of them - at least not anymore. The right to property is now almost universally acknowledged among both capitalists and socialists.
S argues that humans need to agree and come together to make decisions to further the common good, while traditional Capitalism (like Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations) sought to end mercantalism and trade restrictions by removing the responsiblity from the state (to a degree the people) and put it in the hands of private merchants, which would make sure prices were fair and equal due to natural competition. And this is of course where the trouble starts.Capitalism doesnt put responsibility on merchants but on the market because it is the demand of the market that regulates the prices the suppliers can charge and how much they produce. On the other hand socialism is based on the government(not "people coming together") making decisions regarding supply and pricing.
-
What is ****ty about capitalism? Do you simply hate it because you do not understand it?
-
Capitalism also increases waste and pollution. In fact if you chart the growth of capitalism and the industrial revolution, and compare it to the level of pollution and waste produced you will see it go up hand and hand.
Waste has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. Consider India VS China. India is socialist, and you will find garbage strewn all over the place, major cities are like sewers. Why? India is a democracy, and democracy means giving into the demands of the mob, and the mob wants to throw their trash wherever it feels like it. This is also true, but to a MUCH lesser extent with Philippines, a capitalist country. But look at China and Singapore - cities are very clean due to strict laws. Indias major cities are filled with slums, while China doesnt have any due to strict laws regarding where you can and cant live. In some parts of the Philippines, the local governments have been able to clean up the city by imposing harsh fines on those who litter, or on those who do not segregate their garbage. Singapore, in order to prevent chewing gum stains on sidewalks banned it completely. India is now trying to make its cities clean and sanitary by demolishing illegal slum areas. So cleanliness and proper waste disposal depends on governments taking an authoritarian stance - but you are against authoritarianism!
Air pollution(if thats what you are referring to by pollution) has to do with industrialization. But development can also provide countries with the money needed to clean up the environment, or to afford more environmentally friendly technology. For example, 10 years ago in the Philippines, you could see cars in the city spouting out black smoke. Today driving a car that belches out smoke is illegal. Thanks due to capitalist technology/money + authoritarianism. On the other hand, without industrialization, unskilled/poor people havent got any job alternatives so the economy of the country focuses instead on exploiting resources. The result? Irreplacable Brazilian rainforests being chopped down, which is basically environmental destruction on a global scale, as that means less oxygen for all of us.
Of course you counter my proposal for balance with capitalism and socialism with extreme socialism. I am not advocating that at all.But the point is, in a globalized world, the more capitalist system will always have the edge over ones which are less capitalist. Thats why China currently has the edge over India, and thats why China will lose this edge to countries like Pakistan and Thailand if it adopts socialist measures.
Think on this... As wages go up so does the cost of living and thusly the poverty line increases. So the wages increases again, the cost of living then also increases, and the poverty line gets even higher. All the while the environment is getting worse and worse as waste and pollution is accumulated, till the point which the entire area becomes unfit for human living, but since the cost of living is so high by this point no one has the funds and resources to move. That is the extreme capitalism that you are advocating, Roshan.I rather be poor, free, and living in a clean evironment than making just enough over the poverty line to live, while wallowing in filth under a yellow sky.
Cost of living will go up, but not at the same rate as the increase in wages. If you got a significant increase in wages, would you still consume the exact same things you do now and in the same quantities? Obviously not, as your demand patterns will change. If demand for a product increases, then price will increase. But as price increases, then supply will also increase as people will recognize that there is money to be made in that area(again, more jobs/opportunities being created). As supply increases, price decreases because the suppliers then have to compete with each other, and those offering the lowest prices will sell the most and thus make the most profit. When price decreases, demand increases as people can afford more. And this continues on. In the end, demand, supply and price will reach an equilibrium where they are all balanced against each other. The idea that capitalism is going to lead to a point where everyone is screwed is silly - it is nothing more than paranoia, it is as absurd as believing in UFOs and alien abductions. In reality, capitalism is based on the natural ability of the market to REGULATE ITSELF and come up with the ideal supply and price of products on its own.
On the other hand, socialism leads to higher costs of living, as businesses react to socialist labour laws and taxation by charging the consumers more. Not only that, higher taxes created by socialism discourages entrepreneurship and investment, which means decreased supply and increased prices, as well as less competition for labour - and thus lower wages and higher unemployment. Basically, socialism just screws up everything.
-
Freedom? Freedom to do what? Rot in poverty? Die of starvation? Poor people in socialist countries havent got any job opportunities, they have no choice except to do whatever below poverty level job they are born to do. They is no capitalist system to create a job market and therefore no better jobs that they can get that will provide them with more money and thus the freedom to do nice things such as travelling or actually filling up their stomach.
Since capitalism brings jobs, that means that people can get a better job if their current job cant put food on their plate. When there are lots of jobs competing for the same pool of people, wages go up, and people are lifted out of poverty. Thats the only way to do it.
-
Not when it comes to building up an economy. More capitalism and less socialism always guarantees faster growth, and therefore the quicker reduction of poverty. Just look at economic growth in China vs India, for example. China simply has no alternatives except to embrace capitalism.
For building up economies, authoritarian one party governments are also better than democratic systems, as the examples of China and Singapore have shown, which is another reason why India lags far behind China.
-
Unfortunately there simply arent any alternatives to capitalism for creating economic growth.
-
Would you rther see your youth go all at once or whitted away bit by bit til you are nothing but an empty shell?
I know Id rather have more money in my pocket.
-
I think an invasion of Iran would be more succesful at establishing a friendly democracy than one of Iraq. Most Iranians I have met have told me that most Iranians are quite unhappy with their theocracy. In fact they made it sound like a good portion of Irans population is just waiting to be invaded by the US.
However I dont get what the US troops are still doing in Iraq. What exactly do they hope to acheive over there that they havent already? If the people are still resistant to democracy and absolutely refuse to get along, then how in the world is the continued occupation of the country going to accomplish anything that hasnt already?
-
Why is he selling it all in bulk? Hed probably get a lot more selling them off individually.
-
Where do you guys get all the cool desktop skins from?
-
I think the way the death was done made it pretty obvious that Starbuck was coming back. The only questions were when, how and what higher purpose her obviously false death would achieve.
-
If Kara ejected she would probably have been crushed into a pulp by the planets pressure....
-
Maybe Kara = Helos/Athenas daughter.
-
They know the others didnt do it. In the final scene, Hurley says "it seems you killed each other over diamonds", or something similar.
-
I enjoyed the last episode.
-
You are ignoring the fact that, now that the Coalition has removed Iraq (as a power) from the region, Iran is THE regional h
LOST
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
I suspected from the beginning that Juliet was an infiltrator. This suspicion increased a lot when that specially hidden stash under the marked tree was revealed. When Jack told her that he knew she wanted to get off the island more than anything else, that confirmed it. I didnt think they would actually reveal the conversation between Juliet and Ben though. Its better this way as theres more suspense.
Lost has pretty much redeemed itself with the last episodes.