Menchise

I know where they're supposed to be, but when I raided an alien base, stunning every alien that wasn't an officer, I couldn't find any commanders, not even in the command centre. I guess it could have been blown to bits accidently by one of those alien maniacs with Fusion Launchers.

Sorry, $iLk. My "debate thoughts" are focused on the Microsoft issue at the moment, and I'm constantly distracted by the desire to completely unwind after a long semester (maybe I'll finish my AW structure once and for all). Could be a while before I post here again.

quote:You mean like calling an elevator a turbo shaft? Or telling my son to delete the letter he just wrote with a pencil because there is a “g” and an “h” before the “t” in “night”? My brain hurts! quote:Maybe I've been playing too much X-Com. You can never play too much X-COM. *sigh* I haven't played X-COM in a while. Never finished it actually (couldn't find an Alien Commander).

Few "peeps" (?) may not have the plug-in, but many do not have Flash. GIF animators are cheap (many are free). Flash is expensive. Besides, I don't want to go through the nightmare of listening to a dozen clashing sound effects from a dozen little Flash movies (you know it would happen eventually).

quote: What do you think will happen if say, a small company from Alabama made an OS that is vastly better than Windows, managing memory and all pc stuff 5X better than windows, doesnt crash, super secure vs hackers,stable, etc.... but it is not compatible with windows and windows-based programs (drivers, games, app. software, etc)? Probably the same thing that happened to OS/2.

My turn! As most of you know, I am anti-Microsoft. That's why I'm learning Linux and boycotting XP (I've had enough bad Microsoft eXPeriences, thank you very much ). I also believe that Microsoft should be broken up. More on that later. First, the OS definition issue. A real Operating System does two things: it bridges the hardware level to the software level, and builds a data system (or file system) through which applications can function. A real Operating System may or may not have a simple kernel-based glass teletype interface (one is usually provided for convenience) since it doesn't really need one to function, let alone a fancy GUI. Everything else runs as an application above the system level except for applications that configure the OS. A real Operating System has significant advantages over bloatware. The biggest advantage is stability. Remember when DOS didn't crash (much) under Windows 3.1? What's the big difference between 3.1 and 4.x (Windows 95/98/ME)? Win3.1 is a desktop environment running on top of the DOS kernel with many apps running above the system level. Win4.x is a desktop environment that's been fully integrated with the DOS 7 kernel. Any bugs that exist in an integrated desktop environment can and do affect the kernel as well, leading to a more unstable system. That's the same reason why, unlike Netscape, when IE crashes on a Windows machine, the whole system goes down with it. Therefore, Microsoft's vision of an "evolutionary" or "innovative" Operating System is actually a big step backwards for OS architects. Second, the browser competition issue. This is the most visible of the issues that surround the anti-trust ruling against Microsoft. It's also a highly debated issue. Kush wrote what many others (not necessarily on this forum) have written about the browser issue: quote:There is nothing stopping anyone from having two or three browsers at the same time on their computer. (Like me) What's dumb is the average consumer who will just click on any old icon that connects them to the internet. They probably don't know they have the choice. They do, they just probably don't know it. What's dumber is spending millions of dollars arguing whether a browser should be bundled with an operating system. IT'S JUST A FREAKING BROWSER! You want to make a better browser, go right ahead. No one is stopping you. Not even Microsoft. Actually, Microsoft is stopping you in the way that only it knows how. There are two reasons why Microsoft decided to fully integrate Internet Explorer with Windows: 1. To make it hard as hell to remove. 2. To make it faster than other web browsers. Unless you have full access to the Windows source code, you're going to have a very hard time developing a web browser for Windows that can outpace IE while still retaining the same quantity of features. Consumers notice the speed difference and extensive feature set, which is why many pick IE. Finally, why Microsoft should be broken up. The answer is very simple. They abused their power through criminal acts, so they should lose their power. Ever wondered why murderers are sent to prison? To make sure that they can't kill anyone out on the streets again. Ever wondered why Microsoft's monopoly should be split up? To make sure that they can't bully the industry again. It worked with AT&T/Bell Laboratories, so why not Microsoft?

I've been running into this problem for several weeks (I even sent an email to CAT about one of the threads misbehaving). In Netscape, it would load about 80% of the page and then it would suddenly stop and the "Document: Done" message would appear, but none of the posts appeared. In IE it loads to the same point, then it stops and displays whatever it managed to download. Same for the Macs. [ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:I wonder if whoever wrote that episode saw the article. I thought Parker and Stone wrote all of them.

Shingen! Long time, no read. Welcome back.

After reading some posts in the BCM and VCF threads, I found myself thinking about how complex the implementation of BC must be. With the hype surrounding other games that boast of "living worlds" and all the other buzz words that infest the industry today, I began to wonder: How big and sophisticated can computer games become before the software reaches "critical mass"? For those who are not familiar with this term in the context of computer programming, it refers to a state or condition that a highly complex program reaches where fixing one bug in one part of the code invariably creates another bug somewhere else. When this happens, any attempt to make the software bigger or more sophisticated makes the entire program very unstable, like a giant house of cards where the first level cannot support any more weight. In a time when the gaming industry is producing software that is bigger (in terms of disk space) and could eventually become (if it hasn't already) more complex than the most bloated operating system, how far can it go?

I'll post some stuff here on Tuesday after my last exam of the year. In the meantime, I'm starting a new thread that will invite opinions on a completely different topic. It'll be a non-political issue (haven't had one of those in a while). Later.

Before I continue with this debate, I would like to go off topic for a bit to settle a minor issue that's annoying me. Basically, I'm sick of being called a liberal. Socialists are anti-liberal and liberals are anti-socialist. I can understand that Americans have different definitions of what a liberal is, though I can't imagine why (probably because Classical Liberalism has become a conservative movement against the Modern Liberals). Here are the definitions that I follow (Heywood, 1997, "Politics"). Note that I do not follow them absolutely, but mostly. Liberalism: Any account of political ideologies must start with liberalism. This is because liberalism is, in effect, the ideology of the industrialised West, and is sometimes portrayed as a meta-ideology that is capable of embracing a broad range of rival values and beliefs. Although liberalism did not emerge as a developed political creed until the early nineteenth century, distinctively liberal theories and principles had gradually been developed during the previous 300 years. Liberalism was the product of the breakdown of feudalism and the growth, in its place, of a market or capitalist society. Early liberalism certainly reflected the aspirations of a rising industrial middle class, and liberalism and capitalism have been closely linked (some have argued intrinsically linked) ever since. In its earliest form, liberalism was a political doctrine. It attacked absolutism and feudal privilege, instead advocating constitutional and, later, representative government. By the early nineteenth century, a distinctively liberal economic creed had developed that extolled the virtues of laissez-faire capitalism and condemned all forms of government intervention. This became the centrepiece of classical, or nineteenth-century, liberalism. From the late nineteenth century onwards, however, a form of social liberalism emerged which looked more favourably on welfare reform and economic intervention. Such an emphasis became the characteristic theme of modern, or twentieth-century, liberalism. The Republican Party is classical liberal while the Democratic Party is a mixture of classical and modern liberals. Here are the definitions of each (Heywood, 1997, "Politics", pp 43-44): Classical liberalism: The central theme of classical liberalism is a commitment to an extreme form of individualism. Human beings are seen as egoistical, self-seeking and largely self-reliant creatures. In what C.B. Macpherson (1962) termed 'possessive individualism', they are taken to be the proprietors of their own persons and capacities, owing nothing to society or to other individuals. This view is underpinned by a belief in 'negative' liberty, meaning noninterference, or the absence of external constraints upon the individual. This implies a deeply unsympathetic attitude towards the state and all forms of government intervention. In Tom Paine's words, the state is a 'necessary evil'. It is 'necessary' in that, at the very least, it establishes order and security and ensures that contracts are enforced. However, it is 'evil' in that it imposes a collective will upon society, thus limiting the freedom and responsibilities of the individual. The classical liberal ideal is therefore the establishment of a minimal or 'nightwatchman' state, with a role that is limited to the protection of citizens from the encroachments of fellow citizens. In the form of economic liberalism, this position is underpinned by a deep faith in the mechanisms of the free market and the belief that the economy works best when left alone by government. Laissez-faire capitalism is thus seen as guaranteeing prosperity, upholding individual liberty, and, as this allows individuals to rise and fall according to merit, ensuring social justice. Modern liberalism: Modern liberalism is characterised by a more sympathetic attitude towards state intervention. Indeed, in the USA, the term 'liberal' is invariably taken to imply support for big government rather than 'minimal' government. This shift was born out of the recognition that industrial capitalism had merely generated new forms of injustice and left the mass of the population subject to the vagaries of the market. Influenced by the work of J.S. Mill, the so-called New Liberals (figures such as T.H. Green (1836-82), L.T. Hobhouse (1864-1929) and J.A. Hobson (1858-1940)) championed a broader, 'positive' view of freedom. From this perspective, freedom does not just mean being left alone, which might imply nothing more than the freedom to starve. Rather, it is linked to personal development and the flourishing of the individual, that is, the ability of the individual to gain fulfillment and achieve self-realisation. This view provided the basis for social or welfare liberalism. This is characterised by the recognition that state intervention, particularly in the form of social welfare, can enlarge liberty by safeguarding individuals from the social evils that blight individual existence. These evils were identified in the UK by the 1942 Beveridge Report as the 'five giants': want, ignorance, idleness, squalor, and disease. In the same way, modern liberals abandoned their belief in laissez-faire capitalism, largely as a result of J.M. Keynes' insight that growth and prosperity could only be maintained through a system of managed or regulated capitalism, with key economic responsibilities being placed in the hands of the state. Nevertheless, modern liberals' support for collective provision and government intervention has always been conditional. Their concern has been with the plight of the weak and vulnerable, those who are literally not able to help themselves. Their goal is to raise individuals to the point where they are able, once again, to take responsibility for their own circumstances and make their own moral choices. I am neither of these things. Here is a "brief" introduction to Conservatism (Heywood, 1997, "Politics", p44): Conservatism: Conservative ideas and doctrines first emerged in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century. They arose as a reaction against the growing pace of economic and political change, which was in many ways symbolised by the French Revolution. In this sense, conservatism harked back to the ancien regime. In trying to resist the pressures unleashed by the growth of liberalism, socialism and nationalism, conservatism stood in defence of an increasingly embattled traditional social order. However, from the outset, divisions in conservative thought were apparent. In continental Europe, a form of conservatism emerged that was characterised by the work of thinkers such as Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821). This conservatism was starkly autocratic and reactionary, rejecting out of hand any idea of reform. A more cautious, more flexible, and ultimately more successful form of conservatism nevertheless developed in the UK and the USA that was characterised by Edmund Burke's belief in 'change in order to conserve'. This stance enabled conservatives in the nineteenth century to embrace the cause of social reform under the paternalistic banner of 'One Nation'. The high point of this tradition in the UK came in the 1950s as the Conservative Party came to accept the postwar settlement and espouse its own version of Keynesian social democracy. However, such ideas increasingly came under pressure from the 1970s onwards as a result of the emergence of the New Right. The New Right's radically antistatist and antipaternalist brand of conservatism draws heavily on classical liberal themes and values. In the USA, the New Right was characterised by Reagan and the Republican candidates that followed.

quote: Here Menchise, I'm quoting this from an essay I read earlier That essay is full of assumptions, including the assumption that everyone who is raised to work hard will always succeed and/or live well, and the assumption that the long term unemployed were poorly raised by their parents. It's liberal BS (I'm using the non-American definition of liberal, which is the same as the American definition of conservative, I think). quote:It describes your ideas to a T Menchise - as a statist. I am not a statist! [ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:Menchise the reason I believe your argument is based on emotion is because you, and now denoyB use the "poor disadvantaged" as an emotional tie to why your economic plan would be helping them. In reality we showed that in effect it would help no one only hurt the majority in the long run. I would rather be able to get ahead and rest and actually enjoy life rather than bust my ass my entire life to feed some social parasite. I was referring to my latest arguments about democracy in that thread, which are yet to be rebutted. quote: Anyway we can take this argument there if you wish I'm on my way.

quote:As I recall we soundly showed your arguments to be based on emotion and having no basis in reality and you withdrew from the thread without a credible answer to many of our points against your argument. Glad you won't repeat yourself though, we've had plenty of that in the past. As I recall, you made a blanket statement that everything I said was emotional and ignored my latest rebuttals about democracy. I haven't withdrawn from the debate either. I've been pre-occupied with other debate threads. dnoyeB!, your latest post was off topic. I recommend the "Continuing the Debate" thread.

quote:It has no place in this country and should be booted out on its little collective socialist behind. Jaguar, in case you didn't notice, socialists are anti-UN.

quote: Why should the UN be able to supercede boundaries and administer law in a country? Aren't you aware of what the UN was meant to be? A forum for peace, not a governmental body. What's to keep the UN from saying that guns are illegal, the US Constitution doesn't matter because the UN Charter says so and we have to give our guns over to the UN? International laws are not imposed, they're agreed upon by a majority of members. In order for any UN proposal to become international law, it needs to be ratified by at least two thirds of the General Assembly. Secondly, the UN was always meant to be much more than just a peace forum.

*sigh* Here I go again. quote:Yet the UN defined him as a "political prisoner". I think I'll take a look at the Oslo Agreement before replying to this. Anyone have a URL? quote:The same UN that promotes state sponsors of terrorism to the Security council. Syria was elected to the Security Council for a two year term by the General Assembly. How the member states vote is not the fault of the UN. quote:The same UN that feeds off American dollars while slinging pro-Arab, anti-US, anti-Israel rhetoric back at us. You say that as if the US is funding the entire organization, which it is not (the US provides 25 percent of total UN funding). UN funding is determined by proportionate wealth in its membership. The USA holds the largest proportion of wealth among the member states, thus it is the biggest provider of UN funding (25 percent). This is done so that states with less wealth can still become members of the organization while providing as much funding as they can afford instead of a flat rate that they can't afford. All member states are allowed to resign, so if you're not happy, I suggest you find out why the US is still a member. quote:The same UN that wants to form a global court that supercedes any national laws You mean an international court that has the power to enforce international law. quote:a separate military force to pacify any non-globalist countries,and a one-world government under a socialist leader (like the USSR). Show me a link to a UN proposal for world government, then I may not find it so hard to believe. BTW, Socialists are also anti-UN, but for different reasons. [ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Hehe. Countdown to broken fingers?

He didn't change the system of government, he changed the economic terrain, which was necessary in order to fulfill his campaign promises. He made the big changes through the 'proper channels' with the support of the Chilean Congress. What more could you ask for?

The Directory has been updated (about time, too). I did some more building at the Insurgent base. The subterranean Engineering bay is complete (it's located where ComTrack used to be). Logistix is also complete. Hey Ep5, what's going to be in the glass building next to Bastion Park? [ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Sorry Jaguar, three debate threads is more than enough for me.

LOL!