213374U

Not really. If a significant amount of JSDs said that copyright infringement is theft, I'd be more inclined to agree. But that's not likely to happen, since they are in fact different legal types... as far as I know. IANAL If anything, being involved with the game industry makes him less reliable to make such judgements fairly since, well, it's his livelihood that's at stake. Well... time for me to come clean. I admit it. I downloaded Mass Effect. But only after I got a hard copy from the bargain bin, which I didn't even bother tearing the plastic cover from. And I did it only because, mad as it may seem, the scene release contained less malware than retail packages. Less hoops to jump through, less potential trouble to deal with, in short, less headaches for me. Also, I don't appreciate companies illegally curtailing my right to resell games. Is that "theft" or even "piracy"? Now that EA has seen it fit to drop that ridiculous "protection" scheme, chances are I'll happily pay full price for ME2. But yeah, I'm also weird as **** so...

Cool, thanks!

So you managed to get the broad drunk... and you're asking for advice on what to do next?! You're losing your touch, jags. Didn't think I'd see the day. The one thing I want to know about this game is, does it use the same limited-activation scheme of ME1? I may get it otherwise. I have a lv50 fascist pig philanthropist that's itching to rid the galaxy of some filthy alien scum threats to humanity.

Remind me again of the advantages of being a law-abiding citizen?

You know, this comment triggered some sort of knee-jerk reaction inside me. But after thinking about it for a while and considering the huge success of things like Big Whorehouse, America's Next Retard, and The Cutthroat Brown-noser, I can only point out that old CRPGs weren't especially unaccessible... they merely lacked a strong marketing drive supporting them. That and, um, I don't remember being raped in Shattered Lands. *dons monocle*

This is a recipe for disaster, unless you are talking about "world socialism" or some other fantastic scenario. It's also a straw man in the sense that non-socialist regimes aren't slaves to market forces as you seem to be implying. Case in point, the US manipulated the markets effectively enough to bring about the collapse of the Soviet economy. Didn't we go over this already?

He was usually in deep ****. Not the most conducive environment for development of his startling personality, and xenomorphs aren't exactly famous for their conversational skills. I liked him, though. Or at least the way he was integrated into the story to make him look like the guy with the worst luck in the whole USMC. I remember that one time he tries to hit on Dunya... As for the marine in this game... they are probably just continuing with the formula from the original AvP, where you're constantly referred to as "private". That game had NO story whatsoever, though, so I'm not expecting much from this one's plot.

So it doesn't work, but then you provide an example that shows that it does in fact work? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. It's a shame that Cold War era propaganda still has such a grasp of the collective mind that it prevents folks from examining facts with an impartial mentality. And when faced with evidence that contradicts one's preconceptions, it's cognitive dissonance time! "Anti-American surge of testosterone", lol. The thing is, Russia went from an eminently agrarian economy at the end of WWI to possessing an industrial base that rivalled or in some cases outstripped that of the world's major powers by the 1940's. Thanks to, or despite central planning, depends on who you ask. But the fact remains that Soviet industrialization policies achieved their intended goals, and this wasn't an accident.

What predefined jumping points? Looks to me like the player is simply aiming where he wants to jump and a 'jump target' appears when he holds a button (left trigger I think). It didn't seem there was much of a choice where you can place your marker to. Why not just doing it the good old fashioned way and jump to whereever you see fit. Yeah, there's a tooltip about "highlighting jump markers"; tree-hopping has been seemingly made semi-automatic, but you can still teleport-jump around freely with the marker being just for reference. Yeah, I guess people are too busy nowadays to learn the intricacies of action games, such as jumping. And obviously the frustration of missing a jump and falling to death is too much to handle for gamers today! Heeell-ooo, another perfectly good shooter bastardized to appeal to the control-impaired Halo crowd. And the huge ass wristblades look retarded as ****. Nice touch that they seem to have made them both bigger and less effective.

Among other things, that ideology is just a fa

Pro Evolution Soccer, I'm guessing. AKA Winning Eleven.

Again you have missed the point. It's getting ridiculous. Okay, nobody said capitalism is flawless, and I even point that out in my post. But we aren't discussing capitalism, as this is the "Ask me about Communism" thread. But even if we were, communism isn't more justified or less of an unattainable utopy because capitalism is flawed. Two wrongs don't make one right and stuff. "Attempting to solve world poverty"... that's a good one, only you weren't joking. Did you ask Santa for that too, or just world peace?

But such nice shoes they are.

@Zoraptor: fair enough. Less rhetoric and more arguments, if you please. Greed is not necessarily bad. From that premise, the rest of the discourse crumbles under its own weight. There's also a lot to be said for and against the "common good", even if we could agree on what that is. And let's not keep recycling the same guilt-inducing trite clich

Always one step behind, aren't you? I'm perfectly aware of your stance on human rights. What I was asking is how modern democracy, an institution grounded on those rights is compatible with a political "philosophy" that necessitates the abolition of said rights. Because, you see, unlike those "other worlds" and alternate historical scenarios you are so fond of, in the real world people don't want socialism. Otherwise, we would have it. Heh, I wish I had some "economic victories" to boast of. But the community has only done those things very indirectly. And so, we have taxes, to pay for things nobody can afford individually, like aircraft carriers and nuclear power plants. Another perspective from which socialism is superfluous...

I did explain how the failure of previous attempts at communism is simply the foreseeable result of mistaking a load of utter hogwash for solid political theory - but I did not imply it was proof that communism can't work. Obtaining proof of that is impossible, as "communism can work" is an unfalsifiable statement. A point that seems to have gone right over your head, possibly leaving you slack-jawed with a blank stare, and what feels like a headache. A piece of friendly advice: wipe the drool off the keyboard before you attempt to reply. Anyway, I'd like you to explain how exactly is the systematic abolition of basic individual rights (including, but not limited to those pertaining to property) compatible with democracy, and precisely how you will force those who aren't happy with it to comply... without a tyranny. You are right on something, though. The problems with communism aren't limited to that; but I'd also like to hear more on this idea that "true" communism hasn't been, because it sounds awfully like an ideologue's excuse when presented with the failure of social experiments based on his favorite theory. Yeah, I know that Lenin said Socialism hadn't truly come after they won, but I tend not to trust mass murderers. Call me paranoid. The point isn't about making sacrifices for the collective, but nice try at equivocation. We already have that covered by charity, volunteer groups, NGOs etc that are perfectly legal and don't step on anyone's toes. The point is about forcing everyone to make sacrifices because you (the Party, the People, whatever) say so, when more efficient alternatives exist. As for the bloody revolutions... as has been pointed out earlier, Hitler came to power legally, but his powers were limited by the President and the Constitution. The point I was making is that, for communist parties to attain the power necessary to credibly pursue their stated goals, violence is needed as they need to do away with the checks and balances present in the constitutions of modern democracies. You know, the safeguards intended ultimately to prevent situations where the populace may regard an invocation of the right to rebel as a viable possibility. I tied that to the contrast offered by the results of "Eurocommunism", to better illustrate the point. But unsurprisingly, that one went over your head too. Poor boy, such a hard day you're having!

Hahaha. How cute. Note how even lof has acknowledged and justified precisely that. Yes, just because I've never done a somersault, it doesn't mean I can't do somersaults. Yes, yes. Faulty logic. If I have an irreversible brain paralysis and as a consequence lack basic motor functions, I will never be able to do somersaults, and the fact that I've never done one is simply the foreseeable result of my lack of, and inability to attain, the necessary conditions. No, a communist regime *has* to be tyrannical and murderous, because otherwise, it cannot be communist. It cannot engage in wealth redistribution in the scale it's required for "communism" to be. And without violent revolution it cannot seize the power required to even think of engaging in said wealth redistribution (Marx himself didn't believe a peaceful revolution could take place in Germany - "The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism by weapons"). And that just from a theoretical standpoint, we're not even taking into consideration the record of communist regimes. It's not a "broad generalization" any more than "triangles cannot have any diagonals" is a generalization. More like a fundamental implication derived directly from the definition, really. This point is well illustrated by the failure of "Eurocommunism", and the fall into irrelevance of its adherents, or their adoption of other, less militant and radical, political outlooks. Communism cannot be anything but totalitarian. I've never said I consider myself to be particularly smart, by the way. But at least I've grown past the point where fairy tales hold any appeal for me. Sweet dreams.

Won't somebody please think of the children!?

Boo ****ing hoo. Aye, that brought a tear to me eye, it did. I think I'm starting to see a pattern in your posts. You simply cannot deal with the fact that the world is fundamentally harsh and unjust. Maybe that's why you get a boner when you go on about all those mad totalitarian state utopies? Sorry, I'm not buying whatever it is you're selling... your antics are pretty amusing, though. Of course the world is unjust. Does that mean that you should just act like a **** and piss on the poor? Based on this post, I have to assume that it does. Right, I see what you mean. Does that mean we should press for world revolution and the instauration of inefficient, murderous and culturally repressive communist regimes only good for self-perpetuation (and even so...)? Based on your posting history, I have to assume it does.

Boo ****ing hoo. Aye, that brought a tear to me eye, it did. I think I'm starting to see a pattern in your posts. You simply cannot deal with the fact that the world is fundamentally harsh and unjust. Maybe that's why you get a boner when you go on about all those mad totalitarian state utopies? Sorry, I'm not buying whatever it is you're selling... your antics are pretty amusing, though.

No, but it's difficult to quantify the proportion of people that are homeless due exclusively to circumstances outside their control. In many cases the much toted "unfairness of society" isn't to blame, but an inability/unwillingness to live otherwise, compounded by mental and drugs/alcoholism problems. With public education being freely available (and compulsory) and vocational training being easy to access, it's difficult to write off homelessness just as an unavoidable byproduct of society. And, ahem, the Army's always recruiting, I hear. It isn't the 1930's anymore, fortunately.

You're mixing a lot of things there. UHC doesn't share its raison d'

Hahaha. WIN!

Yeah, but you're a fan of Aquinas, so naturally you don't take non-cognitivism seriously. That doesn't mean I do either, but I think non-cognitivism shows (or at least hints) that human beings are emotional as well as rational, and so it follows that approaching the question from a purely rational perspective is bound to fail. The problem of universals is old, and opinions abound, anyway. Personally, I think that Kant's perspective is quite elegant, and avoids operating from direct definitions of good and evil. Conversely, it could be said that he simply sidestepped the issue. Again, opinions abound. Why can't we have mathematical demonstrations for everything?

Um, hello? This is the real world with real people we're talking about. Wake up and smell the coffee.