Valsuelm

Haven't seen Shoot 'em up, and I'm skeptical that a movie starring Clive Owen would be better than John Wick, as even though John Wick isn't the greatest movie ever (it is a better than good action flick) it's better than every movie I've ever seen with Clive Owen in it of any genre. And Taken really isn't just an action flick, though I'd rate John Wick higher as a movie overall even though it's lighter on plot. The last decade really hasn't had much good in the way of action flicks. Then again, the last decade hasn't had much good in the way of any genre of flicks. More good movies came out in almost any given year of probably from around 1930 to sometime in the late 1990s, than we've seen in the entire last decade.

Yeah, I checked and wages for cops are higher than the national average, and high in relative terms considering that there is no higher education requirement... but that's kind of the point. An increase in job requirements must entail an increase in wages. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000 That doesn't solve the demand for more black cops in black neighborhoods though. Are there programs to help police officers get through college? Like in the military? I really don't want to hijack this thread, but he's right. Formally the monarchy is powerless, but in reality the royal family is still very influential and their word carries a lot of weight, especially with business circles. A member of the family has been accused of money laundering and fiscal fraud in one of the many high-profile cases of corruption we have going on, and the whole process is a disgrace. The prosecutor acting as a defense attorney, pressure being applied on the judge by higher judiciary organs, etc. Consider that the previous king was appointed by Franco before his death and as such a lot of the social and political elite have seen a sort of continuity of power, that is evidenced by the fact that the party currently in power is the heir of Franco's single party, after some facelifting. We really are a much more backward country than it would seem (if that's even possible). But surely you'd agree that the primary power holders are generally the major capitalists in the country and if the crown is among them its because of its economic power more than anything else. And the US ambassador of course. Anyway, I've never heard of a parliamentary "democracy" that hasn't been steeped in corruption to the utmost degree. And completely divorced from the "people". And one in which elections matter or change anything substantial. Frankly after years of studies and a course in comparative politics I see political labels such as "democracy" "autocracy" etc. as ideological products. In my eyes there is little difference between Kim Jong Un's North Korea, Obama's USA or Spain or Sweden therefore I can't relate to Valsuelm's nostalgic stories of liberty and freedom in any way. Looking at USA's history, built on exterminating the natives, slave labor, aggressive expansion and wars of conquest I wonder where the the libery and freedom are... and for whom. People tend to think their country is the worst merely because all the **** is in their faces for the better part of their lives and the "grass must be greener" somewhere else. But as I've lived abroad, it has been my experience that the grass isn't greener and that things are pretty much the same everywhere. I almost replied in depth to this. But then Namu pretty much summed it up as the bolded and underlined could only be stated by someone lacking in cognitive ability or a very ignorant person. There are very large differences between all four nations you mention, politically and in other ways. If you only see 'little difference', arguing with you is akin to arguing what color something is with a blind person. Your 'years of studies' haven't yielded you much. You are right on one thing though. Parliamentary 'democracy' is usually a sham, more often than not (depending on the nation of course) set up by power brokers to give the serfs the illusion they have a say. It's no coincidence that this is generally the preferred form of government in most of the nations out there where their nobility/royalty/occupiers etc supposedly granted their subjects power and freedom out of the goodness of their hearts at some unspecified mythical time in the past. Of all the governments out there that advertise themselves to be for freedom and liberty it is the worst designed to accomplish government by and for the people, and best designed to be prone to corruption and manipulation from behind the scenes.

Ah.. for some reason I had the impression you lived a little further east where there are a couple of nations with at least some semblance and appreciation for freedom. I was actually aware of Spain's oppression and the second article you linked, but I was unaware of anything new in the last couple of weeks. It was a sad day when your nation allowed Juan back on the throne. That family is involved in many an evil thing, and worldwide too, not just Spain. I hold no illusions as to the state of things in the EU. The EU itself (not the nations within it) is an organization that is anathema to individual liberty. When you have a nation of people that accept a monarchy, one cannot expect much in the way of freedom, as it's populace has embraced serfdom. I feel for those there who actually truly appreciate liberty, and all those who sacrificed in order to try and achieve it for all Spaniards in the many struggles in the past. Unfortunately they didn't do what the French did and off some heads, so the local parasitic infection bloomed again. Beautiful country from all accounts I've ever heard though; one of these days I hope to make it there for a visit.

Illegal to record the police? Where was this abhorred law passed?

"This web page is on the list of websites with dubious reputation or websites with potentially unwanted content." is the ESET message. Hence ESET blocks it, like many other AVs will do to sites known to have sometimes contained bad things, or to contain things that the company behind the AV is contracted to block (ie: sites that contain pirated things). Though so far as I've ever seen ESET doesn't do the latter (which is one of the prime reasons I use it), unlike some of the more popular AVs. The site is probably perfectly safe so long as you wear your internet condoms, like all others.

Time for some The Beautiful South, a band with some of the best lyrics out there in my humble opinion. A somewhat explicit but great tune containing advice some men will one day have wished they took:

Falco is the shiz, and he'd likely win my award for coolest Austrian ever. Loved his music. Here's another great Austrian song:

I just played two games of DotA 2 with Kim Jong-un. I queued up for a solo run and lo and behold there was The Supreme Leader. I was just... 'Wow.. this is a pretty cool surprise'. He really seems like a good chap. Had a very good handle on English and is very friendly. He said had nothing to do with the recent fiasco but did find it all very amusing. Said he's too busy doing important things like pwning noobs to bother with the likes of Rogen, and was actually looking forward to the movie. (I don't understand his fascination with Rodman either, but to each their own, then again if two of Hollywood's biggest idiots made a bad movie about me I'd probably be interested in watching it too). He actually said he's not looking forward to the headache of trying to figure out what to do with his newly found controlling interest in SONY Pictures that someone has seen to give him. For the curious, he played Windrunner and Gyrocopter. And while the second game was a tough one that ran over 80 minutes as we were up against the best Techies I've seen in years, we were victorious both games.

That's actually not factual. What bad reporter wrote that article? And who links a .png for a source? The judge refused to fully dismiss (he did partially dismiss) the case stating that the decision of whether the theater is liable or not should be left up to a jury. The judge really isn't setting any precedent here. The jury however can. The case hasn't gone to trial yet, and even if a jury ultimately finds Cinemark liable, which is unlikely, it will only set precedent in Colorado. Other jurisdictions might look to that precedent but they will not be legally bound to adhere to it nor even consider it. It's likely going to take a monumental failure of a defense team and jury that puts their sympathy for the victims above reality and that of the company for Cinemark to be found liable. That said, there is one aspect of the case that could prove very interesting and where I can see a jury might find Cinemark liable, and that's if one or more of the plaintiffs makes the case that the 'gun free zone' policy of the theater contributed to the victims losing their rights and full ability to defend themselves versus the perpetrator. If that is brought up in court the case could set some very interesting precedent indeed, and the 'abolish the gun free zones' movement would gain a lot of traction. However, it's very possible that Cinemark and the plaintiffs would just settle the case before trial, in which case no legal precedent whatsoever will be set. And all of that said, the case really has no bearing on any rational theater owner's decision to not show the film. Unlike the Colorado shooting there is a clear threat made that something bad may happen. Ignoring that would make theaters liable in the eyes of many folks, no matter what the Colorado jury ultimately determines in the Aurora case. And regardless of liability I'm sure the owners of the various theaters aren't looking to have to rebuild them or have anyone get hurt either, employees or patrons.

Which case was that?

The last good Arnuuuulllld movie was over 20 years ago: Terminator 2. There's been a couple since that were mildly amusing, like True Lies, but they weren't good. There are many good ones prior to T2 though.

A legion of stoners did too.

Might be a publicity stunt, might be some kind of false flag, might be just some hackers screwing with Sony et al for fun or to get a little vengeance for the actions of the MPAA, RIAA, etc, might be corporate warfare, might be something else, but It's more than likely not actually the North Korean government doing this. Based on all the info out so far, I'm leaning towards the publicity stunt. If some folks actually start having 'accidents' maybe I'll change my mind.

It's not paranoia. It's calling a spade a spade. And like many who support the kind of system you do, you like the fact that things are magically paid for and that you don't have to deal with it, all the while ignoring the many problems inherent in your system. I'm glad you don't want to live here. We've got too many commies / useful idiots mucking things up here as it is.

Well, I certainly don't have time and never will to fully answer that one as it's an extremely complex situation. Some of what's wrong with it isn't even recognized as being wrong by many, and conversely some of what is perceived to be wrong with it isn't the problem but a symptom. Healthcare aside for a moment, a big problem often is that a large number of people out there want to address the symptom of a problem and not the problem itself. This is true on political as well as personal levels. Many of the problems with the 'healthcare industry' don't even stem from that industry directly itself, but manifest there as the result of other cultural or societal issues. One big issue that is a problem in discussing healthcare, but not healthcare itself, is the question: 'What is healthcare?'. Different people will give you different answers. While nearly everyone will agree that you need to see a doctor if you have a compound fracture or got shot with a gun, many people will disagree that you need to see a doctor if you feel sad, want different sex organs, want an abortion, or even have the common head cold to name a few. Most of the people who think this way generally will have no problem if you want to seek that service out for yourself, and pay for it yourself. Their problem comes in when you ask them to pay for it, either through taxes or by being regulated/mandated into the same insurance pool as those folks. Then there are the myths, of which there are many. One often stated on this forum is how the U.S. healthcare system is 'backwards', 'third world', 'inhumane', 'uncivilized', 'worst in the western world', etc. That's utter BS espoused by the ignorant. While no nation's healthcare system is perfect, the U.S.'s is easily one of the best out there. To dispel two myths with one stone, the other being that Canada's healthcare system is awesome and the U.S.'s isn't near as good... if that was true you wouldn't have oodles of people in Canada going to the U.S. for medical procedure X, nor would you have a necessity for out of pocket medical insurance. The truth is, many Canadian doctors flee Canada for better pay in the U.S., many Canadians cross the border for U.S. healthcare (there is a little of the reverse to, but not near as much), many Canadians absolutely hate the bureaucratic nightmare that is their healthcare system, and many Canadians need and buy medical insurance because the government plan doesn't cover them adequately. Will you hear this in the media? Not much. How do I know this? I live in a border state, I've worked in the insurance industry, I have traveled to Canada many many dozens of times, have worked in Canada, have numerous family members and friends who work in the medical and insurance industries, have numerous friends in Canada (most of whom hate their healthcare system), even once dated a Canadian girl (who was the first to enlighten me on just how @#($ed up the Canadian system is), and personally know numerous people who have suffered under the Canadian healthcare system. Now me saying this of course won't dispel the myth for those who cling to it, but those folks are generally ignorant and reality doesn't matter to them. And from what I've read, though not seen first hand like I have the Canadian system, is that other nations with systems like Canada's have similar nightmarish stories aplenty, namely the U.K. and Sweden for examples. Here's a Brit recently bitching about his healthcare system: For the record, in reference to the above, you generally won't see ambulance issues in most places in the U.S. In some large urban centers of socialism like NYC you might (only might), but in most of the nation the ambulance service is run by a relatively small and private local company that's more often than not, not associated directly with any hospital. Where I live, unless the weather is really bad, or you live in the outskirts you'll have an ambulance at your house within ten minutes tops of calling them. In my experience they are often quicker than the police. We have three ambulance companies in the county here, and they put the fourth city run one out of business a few years back. Why? Because they were far more efficiently run, quicker, and provided better service, so people stopped calling the city ambulance. We also have many local volunteer fire departments that back them up throughout the surrounding counties. Now, the utopian BS aside. How to fix the U.S. Healthcare system: First and foremost: Let the free market actually reign. Right now, and for a very very long time now it hasn't. While much of Europe and Canada have a fully or quasi communist healthcare system the U.S.'s system is actually fairly fascist. The regulating agencies, such as the FDA, as well as many prestigious medical associations with clout, such as the AMA, have long since been fully infiltrated and pretty much fully corrupted by various corporations. Namely 'Big Pharma'. To the end of institutionalizing some cartels (or arguably one big one) in the manner Mr. Magniloquent mentioned. The regulations in the healthcare industry, like many in other industries serve to squash competition, innovation, the free market, and many or all of those who would compete with the government protected cartels. The FDA itself is so corrupt that it really should just be abolished. From top to bottom it works by and large for the very industries it's supposed to be protecting the public from. Consequently It hurts far far more than it helps. (Healthcare aside this is also true of some other federal agencies, namely the EPA and SEC) Anyone familiar with the behind the scenes of the pharmaceutical industry or the food industry will tell you this. A few documentaries that will shed some light on the tip of that corruption iceberg off the top of my head are: Food Inc, We Feed the World, The Future of Food, and Generation X. I coincidentally was discussing some aspects of the corruption last night with a friend at a bar who works in the insurance industry who earlier in the evening was wined and dined by some billionaire insurance big wigs in town for business purposes. Much of the meat of the discussion wouldn't really fit here as lots of background knowledge of the industry would be required, and I don't have time to type all of this, but much of that conversation ended up focusing on how to solve the problems created by 'Obamacare' and the issues that are perceived in the medical/insurance/pharma industries by much of the public. To sum up the conclusion of that conversation as well as so many others: 'People need to become informed, because a lot of public perception is based on myth and BS.' There actually are very serious issues with these industries but many of them stem from corruption in government legislation and regulatory agencies. Now, will people become informed? Sadly, unlikely. It's a super rare thing. That said, Obamacare is a game changer. How that game will ultimately be changed is too early to tell. Some of those behind that legislation are hoping for the commie healthcare utopia they think Europe has, and there is a tide towards that end, especially in popular rhetoric. However, most of those folks have been fooled by the fascist cartel already in place, as Obamacare, if you actually read the bill, serves the very interests the folks who want that mythical commie health utopia seek to overthrow and replace with a state run system. And regardless of which bad direction 'obamacare' takes us in (because what we've got coming is much worse than what we've had) there's going to be some serious backlash to it, there already is. Anon. I just wrote far more than I intended and still only touched on a few aspects of the issues surrounding our healthcare system. But really, like so many other things, people getting informed would be the answer. That so many are uninformed is how the system (and other systems) got #@)$ed up in the first place, as evil people take advantage of Average Joe's ignorance and short attention span. I'll end this with a quote from an email rant a friend wrote me last year, to shed a little light on another aspect I've not yet touched on. Note that he sent this as part of a larger conversation, most of which took place outside of email. He worked in the medical industry at the time, but since got fed up and left: The above mentions an example of obfuscation among other things in the industry. And also briefly touches on who I'd say is at the top of the evil food chain and corruption in the U.S. (as well even as many of the commie health care nations), that being Big Pharma, and the entities who run it as well as a large segment of the global insurance market. Believe it or not, much of that industry is centered in the banking centers of Europe and not the U.S. if you follow the money trail high enough. And all this said, there is no easy painless fix. Some would definitely suffer if we went to a free market system tomorrow (which we of course won't), but in the long run more would and will suffer under the current system or a commie one. Corruption is the core of much of the problem in this issue as well as many others plaguing society, and it's corruption Average Joe is by and large ignorant of.

Fixed that for you. Part of the big lie of communism is that it's more civilized and enlightened. Of course you know better for others what's good for them though. Nevertheless your suggestion would create oodles of other problems, and certainly would not alleviate many of the problems in the U.S. healthcare system. Which in many ways isn't really a system, and for the most part that's one of the good things about it. Spoken like a true commie/useful idiot. So convinced that the 'civilized' and what's 'humane' is on your side, or just disingenuous and using these on high non-arguments to justify your utopiist BS. Tide indeed. Red tide... It's not a conservative vs. healthcare thing, that's one of the myths. Not everyone who is against commie health care is a 'conservative', any more than everyone who is for it is a 'liberal'.

You did: What regulations are you imagining that would not come from the government in regards to prices? Regulating prices across an industry can only come from one of two places: the government or a cartel. The former is generally unconstitutional (though I'm sure that wouldn't stop the Fed from doing it these days) though at the State level it might not be, the latter is illegal (though it still sometimes occurs under the radar of most), and neither are good for Average Joe consumer at the end of the day. The auto industry actually has oodles of regulation, though not so much as medicine, especially post Obamacare. There is also indeed oodles of variation in how much things cost to buy and repair within that industry. It's very much buyer beware from mechanics, as well as somewhat infamously for used cars and a lot of people get ripped off all the time. A great many of them not even aware they were. What the auto industry doesn't have much of (though there has been some) is massive subsidies coming from the government to the tune of hundreds of billions that creates price bubbles and all sorts of corruption. A lot of the 'basic checkups' and such people put themselves and their kids through are completely unnecessary for most people, and in some cases even detrimental. You should bear the full burden of those costs if you want them, not some insurance plan. That said, there are doctors out there with reasonable fees that practice family medicine, and that will tell you that you likely (if your family is all healthy) don't need checkup/procedure X, but if you actually need them, not rip you off. If you lived around here I could point you to some, but I don't know any in your area, though I've no doubt they exist. Like the dentist who will not use or recommend fluoride they aren't common, but they are out there. And I never said 'people with serious medical conditions are just brainwashed'. Don't Bruce it up here and put words in people's mouths they never said.

The government regulations already on the books are one of the very reasons the prices are insane in many segments. Very possibly the primary reason. Though now that 'Obamacare' is going to force people to buy certain insurance that 'possibly' is extremely likely to turn into 'definitely' within a couple of years. There is a good deal of variety in costs, depending on one's plan, if they even have one or not, where they live, how greedy the institution is that they're getting whatever done at, and other factors. And while I don't know your situation, a great many people out there are swimming in nonsensical medical bills because they're engaging in or purchasing nonsensical medicine they don't really need and/or that is actually detrimental to their health and well being. There is no small amount of quackery in western medicine, and no small amount of people out there brainwashed to believe in the BS, or just plain naive. Government regulation over prices, medical or any other is not the answer, and also is often generally pretty much evil. Oh yea.. and communist too.

By the very definition of the concept, the U.S. is first world. Cuba would be second world. And if you want their communist health care system please feel free to move there.

While I'm generally against the retarded stance the U.S. has had with Cuba over the last many decades, the President is very limited in what he can do in regards to U.S. - Cuban relations. There is a great deal of anti-Cuban legislation on the books here. That said, laws and limits on his power haven't concerned Obama too much on other issues... so....

Such a great movie.

Ya know. This is worth starting here: I've played a lot of great games, but the only game I've ever played on any platform that had a really great story that even game close to the quality of a good book of any genre was Planescape Torment. Really, nothing else came close, not even remotely. The idea that video games will replace books, let alone have, is laughable at best.

He's polarized. To most of the people who identify themselves as left/right or democrat/republican if you're not on their team you must be on the other. Also not very observant as you have the fact that you're a libertarian in your sig. But observation skills are one of the things those stuck in that polarized paradigm lack to a large degree. So par for the course here.

As a connoisseur of both games and books, a resounding no to answer the topic title. While some segments of society and culture may not read in favor of playing a game, there will always be people who will write and there will always be people to read their writings. The imagination and brain in general isn't flexed anywhere near as much by watching or participating in videos (be they games, TV, or movies) as by a good book. There are good reasons it's called the idiot box. Now, that fewer people are reading books and more are playing games is something I will not dispute. But that's a problem, a big one, and one that reflects society and transcends Sci-Fi. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't read enough good books that flexed their minds to the point they'd see this. Some of those books being of the Sci-Fi genre.