metadigital

Yes, but he's off being inducted into the ranks of planet-savers; he doesn't have time for playing games about saving the world: he's living IT!

You, and this dimmy52 person, seem to have a poor grip on the requirements of administration. You cannot go galavanting around Sith ruins AND be an effective administrator. You must CHOOSE. And not to choose means DEATH! APATHY IS DEATH!!

Did anyone actually watch the second film?

Just email it in. You'll even get writing credit. (Probably)

... The head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Michael Brown, said ... relief workers had opened a mortuary and were collecting corpses, many of which have been floating down flooded streets. And he warned looters and snipers in the city that they would soon be up against battle-hardened combat troops. "Idiots with a gun on a rooftop" would not be allowed to derail the rescue drive, he said. ... WTF? I thought Walter Simons was head of FEMA! :D

Submit it to the BBC, they turn such ideas into little talent exercises (that's talent exercises of small scale, not exercises of little talent) for budding media students-cum-tv-careerists.

Well, afaik, once the logical conclusions of Newton and his pesky theory of gravity had made the astrologers think quickly, they came up with the concept that (for reasons that may remain conveniently unknown) the "stars" are able to predict what happens to large sections of our communities in some sort of synchronity (i.e. some sort of galactic large-scale version of quantum entanglement). (Interestingly enough, Newton believe in astrology and alchemy. He was certainly "of his time". And a ****.)

Um, 85% of the city is underwater (apart from those sneaky French and their French Quarter, which seems to have survived! Those French!!! They KNEW this would happen!) ,including the water pumps to remove the flood water, once the lev

Thinks: Time to play Deus Ex again ... hmmm, I've nearly finished the Antarctic level ... wasn't there another Paris level in this sequel? What is the Illuminati Last?

What would we be advocating? Wearing of bowler hats on Wednesday? (I think this is already being done, but NOT-GODAMMIT-BY-ENOUGH-PEOPLE!)

I hope you aren't arguing for astrology. To think that an arbitrary group of stars (and in some cases whole galaxies), that aren't even within a close grouping of each other except if viewed from our neck of the woods, have some sort of effect or even correlatory existence, is just barmy. I always thought the modern astrologer apologists used the non-causal, correlatory excuse. So just smashing a probe into a planetiod wouldn't affect us, but it would throw off all the observations and subsequent predictions ...

I thought Hummers got <1 mile per litre. (1 gallon = 3.79 liters)

I couldn't agree more. I think (putting words into Ender's mouth and arguing the Free Speech side for a moment) that the counter position is that the airing of such a view should be accompanied by editorial comment to the effect of what the faults are and placing the alternative viewpoint simulataneously, with appropriate emphasis on the correctness (or otherwise) of the views.

Yeah, I would have thought so, too. I thought that was the point of the Patriot Act (what a silly name), too: to get all the bureaucracies talking to each other. Sounds like living in denial, or spinning out of trouble. I think this may be a turning point for Dubya; it's one thing to not expect calousness of human spirit to result in buildings being crashed into by 'planes, it's totally another to not prepare adequately for hurricanes in the Gulf states.

For the same reason it isn't fair that they argue with you. (Women have an inbuilt inferiority w.r.t. physical power attributes.)

So why did he have a problem with Walsingham saying that people who advocate removing people's rights and killing a race of people should be arrested for saying these things? Surely that logic applies there also? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's a semantic debate, because now (if I understand correctly) Ender is arguing that free speech is an absolute right (guaranteed under the US Constitution's First Amendment) that is inalienable. But, after making a free speech, the person can be called to task in the usual civil way (sue) but they have not committed an unlawful act in esse. I also note that the benefit of this meathod is that it can be (and is) enshrined in a lexa scripta, so there can be no misapprehension. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The problem there is that according to those articles I posted, merely threatening to bomb someone's property is a felony, and therefore something for criminal prosecution, instead of civil law. Which would suggest to me, that even semantically, there is no difference between the US and UK's laws on free speech in this regard (other than the object of the threat, obviously). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> True. (I wonder if it is a federal or state crime?) It must be in breach of the First Amendment, unless the right isn't absolute, and there is small print.

Well the problem is: when do you start to call them a nutter organising and leading a band of terrorists? For my part, the reduction down to the individual being responsible for their own rights and defence seems to be the best method for reliability. It certainly doesn't scale well, but then a comprehensive disaster plan would probably be on a similar scale anyway, if it were effective, and it would necessarily involve a leap of faith into a trust model. (The UK is unique in Europe in not having had its instituions fail it, like in Germany with the Nazis, Mussolini's camicie nere, and the R

What's all this sharing nonsense? Don't you get dibs on whatever bit of the solar system you grab? Like Total Recall? (Wasn't Outland a great film?!) (That reminds me of the astrologer who recently file suit against NASA for crashing the probe into that comet; she complained that it affected all her predictions ... )

So why did he have a problem with Walsingham saying that people who advocate removing people's rights and killing a race of people should be arrested for saying these things? Surely that logic applies there also? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's a semantic debate, because now (if I understand correctly) Ender is arguing that free speech is an absolute right (guaranteed under the US Constitution's First Amendment) that is inalienable. But, after making a free speech, the person can be called to task in the usual civil way (sue) but they have not committed an unlawful act in esse. I also note that the benefit of this meathod is that it can be (and is) enshrined in a lexa scripta, so there can be no misapprehension. The difference in Britain, for example, is that the speech can be judiciously analyzed for motive and effect. In practice, I think this just gives the UK an extra level of line crossing, so that it is easier to catch a would-be seditionist before his followers run out and commit crimes of hatred, whereas the US laws are a reactionary "big hammer", after the effect. The US preserves absolute free speech at the risk of civil values and safety, whereas the UK preserves the peace at the risk of free speech. I think I've got that right ...

One of the dilemmas of a free society is knowing when to police the elements. It is a rich vein for philosophical study, and therefore there is no "right" answer. I personally believe that anyone who threatens the society they live in deserves to be controlled, whether that is by expulsion (preferable) or death (state-anctioned murder is another can of worms). (Normally the argument for the death penalty is centred on cost. Studies have shown that the cost of the USA death row inmates is roughly similar (and sometime more) than the cost of converted prison sentences.) I think the best solution (from a philosophical standpoint) is to expel those not obliged or fit enough to live in the society to a place where they can do no harm to others, like their own desert isle. Not very practical, though. Nice as this is, the biggest hurdle is deciding when free speech becomes sedition (as we have all been discussing).

... And he still didn't like being called a girl.

It's not Buddhist, its an offshoot of Hindu (which technically Bhuddism is too) They think that they can get good karma by never killing anything or giving anything a chance to die by their hand... And I may have been wrong it may be the Jainists. (I have to find my world religions book) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Dalai Lama does not swat mosquitoes, until the third bite, at which time he carefully shoos them away ...

He didn't like being called a girl ...

Mexico has cheaper petrol, doesn't it? I remember reading about the joggers of Mexico city who were doing the smog-clouded city a favour, by literally sponging up the polution in their lungs like mobile air filters. Something like 100% chance to catch lung cancer over five years.

I think it is borderng on rediculous to cite Afghanistan or Iraq as resource drains on the US. The US requires munitions sinks in which it tests new technology in situ, and "retires" old technology, in the best (for the US) manner possible. The US is committed to an aggressive Arms Race to keep its international military hegemony. They cannot do that without keeping their military current, so even if they didn't spend $87b for a quarter in Iraq, they'd be spending $30-40b in exercises. No, as Meshugger pointed out, the failing here is not military exercises. It is a failure of planning. Having conducted many ISO17799 Security Audits of government and corporate organisations in the last few years, I know that some organisations have plans to mitigate Disaster and others are forced to take an ostrich approach (usually due to a total overload of firefighting in their daily work). Disaster Recovery and Self-sufficiency of these States, and New Orleans in particular, seems to have failed the residents badly. There was a similar issue last Hurricane when most of a southern state lost power; don't forget the power loss of NY as well. A lot of serious questions need to be asked about who is responsible for disasters, probably focusing on different sclaes for each organisation (town, city, state, and larger). For example, I may choose to abnegate insurance on a personal level, but I must look after those for whom I am responsible, despite my personal feelings on the matter. So too, a government must look after all the citizens. As a priority. Just as defence is the first duty of government, so too this means the smallest government organisation must ensure that its charges are protected.