foeofthelance
-
Posts
1,696 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
27
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by foeofthelance
-
-
They're all 100% shit and hot air.
Now quamp, what've I told you about exaggerating about me? I'm maybe, maybe 35% shit and 40% hot air. The rest is about 5% beef, 10% chicken, and 10% home brewed insanity.
This message brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Conservative Republican.
-
I agree for the most part. I once spent several weeks advocating infanticide as a tool of a Paladin. It essentially came down to which was the better option, sin as savior, or let the world suffer for your pride? The cost either way was the child's life.
So having done that, I prefer my shades of grey.
-
2 Gigabyte memory stick.
Or did you but the imroved model?
-
I am both pro choice and pro life. It really isn't that hard; I've been raised to take responsiblity for my actions, no matter what the cost, and if I were to get a woman pregnant, well then its my own damn fault. (Ok, her's as well, as it does take two to tango, but I'm most definitely a contributing factor.) But the thought of someone being able to tell me what to do with my own body scares the crap out of me, and is not something I would insist be done to another person. I object to abortion in all but the three cases (rape, incest, mother's life) but can understand how other people might reach the opposite decision, and I respect that. I myself do questionable things on a regular basis, such as crossing a major highway on foot. Yet if someone suddenly told me that I couldn't because they thought it was simply wrong, not illegal just wrong, then I would smack them upside the head continously until they saw the light of reason.
-
Actually, I think one can be physical with another person, and it still wouldn't qualify as cheating. To me, cheating is disrepespecting your partner's wishes. If you're partner doesn't want you to be physical with others, then yes it would be cheating. If they don't want you looking at others, then looking at others could be construed as cheating. Granted, this means that there can be some rather strict definitions for what cheating is in a relationship, but there can also be relationships with much more broad standards. In either case, if one finds themselves constricted, they can always vote with their feet and walk away.
-
Depends on if it had been feasible or not. I was reading a book where the character was pretty much doing that, going around the country looking at all the various offers people were making to the military. It was sort of described as looking for very sharp needles in a very large haystack, with the slight bonus that if a blunt needle could be found that it might be considered for sharpening.
Think about if something like that did work, just for a moment. Imagine trying to mentally come to terms with sexual desire for the guy in the next fox hole when you know you're straight. That could prove to be very distracting in the heat of battle, where such distractions are normally not tolerated very well. As the very least, hindering the ability of an enemy force to fight back is a great way to save friendly lives. So having to spend three hours on it (two for the pitch, one for the report) is really not that big a waste.
So what if it was on company time? It was proposed to a guy who would most likely be sitting in an office anyway, so he'd still have gotten paid. Does it matter if his time was spent listening to odd ball proposals in order to find useful ones, rather then sitting there counting the number of bullets stockpiled at various bases? Keeping an eye out for new ideas and strategies is never a waste of military time, because the ones that end up getting used make up for all the ones ignored.
-
Right now, two or three, depending.
Pack Amongst the Stars- Is on the Baen.com boards, under the slush pile. It's actually gotten worthwhile criticism there, so I'm happy.
AFFO-Throwing in the occasional chapter, if for no other reason then to keep up with things.
Yugioh/GX-Legacy of Shadows- Only have one chapter up at the moment, but I plan on changing that.
Stars of Glory- A Mechwarrior/Star Wars X-over that has sort of fallen to the wayside, like many others.
And of course, the occasional short story fart, of which I've posted two to the Baen site. Mostly I post the more serious works there, and the more fun stuff here.
-
Actually, reading the letter I got the impression that it wasn't the fanfiction so much as the picture that were being posted that offended, and in that I can agree. I know several people who draw Harry Potter themed erotica, but they are always careful to both not name the characters, at least as far as I can remember, as well as always aging them, so that a picture of Hermoine for example, no matter how petite, is always declared to be over 18. (I know, that's legalese of the worst sort, but they do it for safety purposes. They enjoy what they do, won't give it to anyone who doesn't request, and try to ensure that they don't have anything to worry about legally.) If the pictures being associated with the stories are implied to represent the characters as they are depicted in the books, I.E. legally minors, then there could be sufficient reason to file a C&D to prevent kids from stumbling on it.
The rest of it seems to imply that written material involving the characters is alright, so long as it is secured, at least in an active manner. I tried to access the sitem but it no longer exists apparently, so I could not verify what they had as preventive measures. My guess, however, is that there were either none, that they were requesting payment for access, or some composite of the two. For a site like AFF, this isn't much of a problem, as we do actively discourage children, even trying to remove them from the site when caught.
-
Change? Nah, they're already set, I just wished they would tell me the bloody choices they made! It is a bit of a pain in the ass when your female lead refuses to tell you who she ended up picking to fall in love with.
-
Actually, if I recall correctly the thread was started on a national issue, and then the topic of the Texan vote was raised as a corollary.
I think though that it has to be determined where the true source of the deciding factors are. While I don't doubt that religious leaders have some sort of impact on those they preach to, I do tend to reject that they are the sole basis for which these voters make their decisions, again based on my own experiences. I have dealt with many people who are devoutly religious as well as intelligent, and they can easily seperate politics from theology. They would attend church on a regular basis, but they're views on politicians, economics, etc., where as far as I could tell entirely their own. At the least, they never once cited the Bible/Torah/Koran to make their points, using instead information relevant to the argument.
I think that what ends up happening is that a society can hold a collective belief, and act upon it, without being a group of fanatics devoted to a cause or religion. If, however, the majority of the people being heard are fanatics, then it is easy for an outsider to equate the loud minority with the silent majority, simply because the majority is willing to tolerate the minority.
The way that I see it is thus, and feel free to correct me!
The point of view presented:
Data: There are many religious Texans.
Data: There are loud Texan religious leaders who can affect voting patterns.
Conclusion: If someone is a religious Texan, then their voting habits are being infuenced by religious leaders.
The way I see it:
Data: There are many religious Texans.
Data: There are loud Texan religious leaders who can affect voting patterns.
Conclusion: Because many Texans are religious, they are more willing to tolerate attempts by loud religious leaders, even if they themselves don't act on it.
This tends to occur because the majority is more willing to tolerate that the voicing of extreme opinion when it is line with their own beliefs, even if they choose not to act on it, much the way a loud child is tolerated by adults related to it. They might take action should the child become truly unruly, but so long as the child is relatively well behaved, then they do nothing. That does not mean that the child is determining it's relatives decisions for them, merely that it might be taken into consideration at some point.
-
Quamp, it was suggested, never pursued. Even then, a 7.5 million dollar budget is nothing, when you consider the cost for a single plane ranges to several billion. This is the result of a slow news day, and someone decided to go with some of the more odd ideas that have cropped up in the military. And why not? The goal of war isn't to blow everything up and shoot what's still moving, it is to stop the other guy from fighting back.
Though admittedly, it does give another meaning to 'Make love, not war...'
-
Search for the Combined Community Codec project, as it gives AVI support as well as support for most other major file types. I use it myself to run DVDs, as it comes with Media Player Classic.
-
No doubt, but how can it be determined which leader are they following? Are the masses being led by one of the 700 Club, or are they talking with the local preacher? Without knowing exactly who a voting base is listening to, what else can be determined to define their beliefs and social mores other then their voting patterns?
I do believe that follow the leader is a factor however because those who are less educated are more likely to turn to religious leaders for decisions. This can give religion a greater weight in politics than if situations were otherwise.Replace religious with loud and I can agree with you. Living in New York, the only 'religious' leader that seems to have any effect on the voting base is the Rev. Al Sharpton. Even then he isn't preaching from the bible, unless he's criticizing Romney for being a Mormon. From my own observations the leadable masses are more likely to guided by the nightly news, the NY Times or Wall Street Journal editorial pages, or some other form of mass media. I'm inclined to believe that 'follower' types are more likely to have just enough determination to determine which command figure they are likely to listen to, if for no other reason then to hear what they want to hear.
-
Honestly? I found most of the bosses to be a piece of cake. I think at point one of them was nothing more then a series of cut scenes. He did the intro scene, I hit him with a slew of special strikes, then went straight to the exit scene.
Granted, the espers are bit more difficult, but I tend to pilot the party healer, so I can skip a gambit if needed.
-
Actually, the characters are coming out more as:
Male Lead: Voice of experience. Years of gaming plus years of Scouting have given him an odd yet rich pool of history from which to draw ideas and suggestions.
Female Lead: Actually a bit smarter then the male lead, just not as willing to take control. Aliens and talking wolves and ray guns, oh my! But hey, as long as she knows what to shoot, she's good. (She's there as much to give him another person to talk to as she is there to provide a romantic entaglement later on.)
Alien Lead: Smart and political, but clueless in certain areas, but eager to learn to make up for it.
Wolves: The support squad
Alien Crew: Fluff, and a bit of sympathy at certain points.
-
However, ignorant people are more likely to take this perspective really...
That's kind of bigoted isn't it? I would think any person of a religious nature would be likely to support such a move, no matter how intellectual they might be. Granted, I don't know your personal experiences, and I am more then willing to agree that ignorant people stand a greater chance of playing a game of Follow the Leader when it comes to social issues, but wouldn't this be more a case of prevailing social mores?
Granted, Texas is a conservative state, as well as fairly religious one when it comes down to everything. So I would more then expect Texans to vote for representatives who would pass such a measure, just as I would expect the representatives of more liberal states, such as New York and California, to cringe at the idea of possibley excluding a group of people by inserting a few choice words into the state pledge or oath. This is because people vote for their either their beliefs or their party line, and those choices are generally determined by the type of society they would like to live in. In order to do this people who share common beliefs will congregate where they can enforce those beliefs, while those who don't share them and feel threatened by them generally head to where their own beliefs are prevalent. This works because there are a few common ideals that are almost universally held by everyone, and are willing to unify as a single front to defend them, even if they do then split into smaller groups at a later point.
-
I find it decidedly amusing that *this* situation makes us think about the separation of church and state, a thing that has never *actually* existed in this country. If it did, there would never have been any witch-trials or sodomy laws (non-consentual sex notwithstanding, and those are just examples).America was founded on concepts of religious and political freedom, but the practice has always been far from the projection.
I'm going to have to disagree with you there Yhizak. There is a very well defined seperation between church and state in America. The seperation clause exists to ensure that the government does not try to decree a state determined church for the masses, as was done in England. Just because those in power have religious beliefs does not mean that they are taking orders from the High Pontiff of their respective religion. They might ask a priest for advice every once in a while, but what religious person doesn't? As long as there are even semi-religious senators, representatives, judges, etc. then there will be references to religion in government affairs. Your examples of witch hunts and sodomy laws are false ones. Witch hunts for the most part took place before the American Revolution,and before the Constitutional Congresses. Those that have taken place since then, and the McCarthy Witch Hunts were in name only, have the product of local populations turning to hysterics for whatever reason. Sodomy laws are much the same. While there might be some amount of religion in their origins, they are as much anti-homosexual bias laws as they are religious controls.
As for the rest, I'm pretty much in agreement, though I am curious as to what you term a "rebel movement". The only open rebellious cause I can think of was the attempt at secession by the southern states in the Civil War. I am aware that the government will break up protests, but that is usually at the request of those being protested, so that they might get on with their work.
-
Skipping over the phrase kind of ruins the flow, doesn't it? How about using " under [deity]"? You can put in Christ, Allah, Deva, Mother Earth, Hecate, Satan, the president, no one... The options are limitless.If the phrase does have to stay 'God' should be allowed to be by substituted by whatever the person feels should go there. "One Nation Under Allah", "One Nation Under Vishnu", "One Nation Under The Invisible Pink Unicorn" and so on and so forth. Of course, this does present somewhat of a problem for atheist, but they should be allowed to have their fingers crossed.
This is the point of view I most agree with. If you don't want to say God, then feel free to sunstitute your own. Its not a problem for aethists at all, really. "One nation, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all," is just as good as "One nation, under god, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all." It is those last five words that are much more important then the two under debate.
I realise that. But seriously, when somebody comes up to you and asks "Would you like to talk about God?" do you really assume he or she could be talking about Islam or Judaism?There are probably many more Christians running around this planet then in any other religion, barring perhaps aethism, which doesn't count to begin with. Unfortunately, this means we also bear the largest number of loud mouth ignoramus' (ignorami?) then any other organized religion. Sorry about that. [Tongue in cheek]Hopefully the new controlled breeding programs will go into effect soon...[/Tongue in cheek]
Perhaps. But everybody knows that there is only deity who is named "God". No other deity in the world is called "God". They're all gods, yes, but not God. Even when they are Allah or YHWH, they are not God.That's because no other religion in the world has a clause in its holy book that says if you say a god's true name he/she'll strike you dead. God with a captial does generally signify one of the Book religions, but can pretty much mean anything or anyone you want it to, depending on your belief. Allah is the arabic term for god, IIRC, and YHWH is supposed to be God's true name without the vowel sounds. So yeah, they're still the same existant. The Hebrew God, the Islamic God, and the Christian God are all the same; the only difference is in who one acknowledges as prophets, and which rules you think it wants you to follow. Odin or Zeus/Jupiter can also be reffered to as God, because they are the reigning rulers of their respective pantheons, as can any other figurehead.
When the state begins telling us what to worship, I will believe the seperation no longer exists. Just because the people trying to run things think that asking for a bit divine intervention in dealing with something as large as a nation is a good idea doesn't mean anyone else has to. As far as aethists being screwed, well, yeah. Either they're right, which would suck for everyone, or they're wrong, which would suck just for them.Still. It still does kind of rather heavily imply that Church and State are, in fact, not seperated. Also, atheists are still screwed.Now, I'm not going to stand here and demand people say the pledge. I do request that they at least stand for it. The purpose of the pledge is not be indoctrinated into being the government's stoodge, but to show respect for the nation for which it stands. If you don't want to respect the nation you live, then as far as I'm concerned you might want to find one to live in that you can respect. (In regards to that, standing up debating things is part of the American heritage, as is peaceful protest. Being upset with the sitting government and disrespecting the country are not the same thing, at least as far as I'm concerned.) But when I'm standing for the seventh inning stretch I'm not looking at the flag and thinking "Gee, our country is spectacularly fucked up, isn't it?" No, I'm thinking about all the people who gave their lives to ensure that I can enjoy that ball game. (ok, I'm also thinking about how I want to smack the guy three seats in front of me who left his hat on, but still.) When I'm standing at attention for a flag raising or lowering ceremony, I'm not worrying about the next social action plan the government is going to try, I'm enjoying the way the sun is setting or rising behind the stars and stripes.
-
I do, however, have to politely disagree with you about 'baby steps,' and for one reason alone (and something you even pointed out): humans clearly can't deal with massive changes. Baby steps are going to have to be taken, because we're not ready and we're not capable of dealing with massive changes.
Honestly, I think taking baby steps is almost as bad as going for massive change. I think it makes us too timid to take the occasional mid range leap when we need to, because we've gotten used to shying away from anything that isn't easily handed to us.
Again, I'm going to use nuclear energy as source, though this time I'm going back to history. The Manhatten Project, the mass set of experiments that ended up creating Fat Man and Little Boy, was revolutionary in concept. They weren't just trying to get old chemicals to react in new and more explosive ways, they were literally exploring territory that had been previously left to theorists and SF writers. They didn't let the fact that they were dealing in mostly total unknowns daunt them though. They just took in one step at a time, and whenever one of them had a harebrained idea that just might accomplish something, they would look it over and then test it, even if it turned out to be a dud. Granted, they were a bit pressed for time, what with fighting WWII and all that, so they might have been more willing to take risks, but they had the right idea. If they had taken baby steps the problem would have been resolved one way or another with out their input. If we treat problems such as global warming by taking baby step measures to deal with it, then it is going to be over and done with leaving us to face a brave new world and we won't know what happened.
On the subject of nuclear waste, it is clean, at least in comparison to burning fossil fuels. Outside of the technologies that are still too far off (fuel cells, wind and solar power) the only thing cleaner then nuclear power are hydroelectric plants. Unfortunately we only have so many rivers that can be dammed up to provide it. Granted, left out nuclear waste can be just as damaging as the waste created by fossil fuels. Nuclear waste, however, is much easier to dispose of. First it gets sealed in multilayer drums, consisting of feet of concrete, steel, and lead. They then get shipped off to a place such as Yucata, where it gets buried deep under the mountain and the below the water table. There it gets sealed away in even more concrete, and then left alone for X thousands of years. (Knowing America, I am sure that there are companies who own the rights to eventual stable materials.) There it remains isolated from the environment. And let's face it, the bottom of a mountain isn't exactly prime real estate. The media likes to tell stories about crooked companies dropping toxic waste into the ocean to dispose of it cheaply, but anyone trying to deal with radioactive material would be soon found out by their sudden cases of male pattern baldness and skin cancer.
Fossil fuels on the other hand, produce nasty chemical compounds which directly affect the atmosphere that you and I breathe. The power plants that put out these chemicals are required to filter them out, but only a portion. The rest is released to damage the ozone, cause acid rain, etc. So in comparison, nuclear waste is cleaner, if only because it easier to deal with then the by products of burning fossil fuels.
(It really should be IIRC, which stands for If I Recall Correctly, but I'm smug bastard who has no need to doubt his memory, so I leave out the first I. Actually, I'm just lazy.
) -
Another thought just occured to me about new news regarding things like consumption of fuel and population (examples, but I mean *real* news): if none of the news is new, doesn't that mean that we're still dealing with the same problems we've always had? And, if that's the case, doesn't it also mean that we haven't addressed the problems at all? So maybe it's worn out and old, but does that mean it's no longer relevant? I guess repetition doesn't *always* work...
I think part of the problem is that we as people fear massive change. I'm going to use the example of oil for my purposes, so bear with me. The problem is that we are running out of oil. So what have we done? Well, we've tried to reduce usage as much as possible, and we have a few brains tinkering with fuel cell technology. But why did we end up having problems with oil in the first place? Because we haven't tried to get away from fossil fuels since the 1800s. We were burning coal for the better part of two centuries, up until we realized just how bad it was. So what did we do? We turned to coal's cousins, natural gas and oil. Now that we're finding they're running out, we're beginning to fret. We might, just might, get something from the new kid on the block, hydrogen fuel cells, but instead of focusing on that we're more concerned with extending the amount of time we have with oil. Its like ignoring a newborn infant to spend time with a dying great grandmother. Its extremely sentimental, but doesn't accomplish anything and costs the future.
But what major changes could we accomplish? Wind and solar power aren't quite ready to deliver us to Coruscant, and quite probably never will. So we need something else, something just as good. Well, why not go nuclear? Its clean, as the only by product is nuclear material, that once treated could be used again to fuel the reactors. (Sadly the act of re-enriching it is sort of expensive. IRC the only country that does so is France, and that is because of government subsidies.) Even if you don't recycle it you could bury it, so long as you are careful about it. If we can drill to the bottom of the ocean for oil surely we can dig underneath a few mountains to ensure we're below the water table when we dump waste. The real reason? Switching over would be both time and financially expensive. Its not that hard to switch from light sweet crude to dark crude when compared to constructing and supplying the new fleet of reactors it would take to supply todays power needs. Not to mention the fact that a large section of the work force would either be permanantely disbanded, or at the least removed for large stretches of time so that they could be retrained.
I think we are addressing these problems, but unfortunately we are adressing them with tiny, hesitant baby steps instead of leaping towards the future. I'm not saying we shouldn't be paying attention to new things, but I do think we need to start considering alternatives, not replacements.
-
Posted a new story today, set in the post GX world. First chapter, no smut yet, though a bit of angst. Covers most of the bases, as well as setting up the future plot. Expect plot, lots and lots of plot.
Synopsis. Five years after GX, the forces of Shadow move once more to conquer the Light. This time though, they don't want just the Earth, but the Afterworld and Spiritworld as well!
As always, comments welcome.
-
Honestly, just out and out announce its a flashback. Don't go, "HEY FOLKS, THIS IS A FLASHBACK!" but if you use something like "Jane flashed back to three days ago..." or "John remembered how this had all started..." then it should be rather clear. It's probably harder to do this with a third person narration then a first person narration, but its not all that difficult. Just remember that the reader needs every last things spelled out to them, because if they do try to reach a conclusion it will be the wrong one, unless all the wrong ones have been removed.
Example below.
Jane looked out the window of the jet, and thought back to how she had ended up there. It had all started three days ago...
***
(Fill in Flashback here)
***
She shook her head at the memory. Reminiscing about the past wasn't going to do her any good now...
-
Herris Sorrano- Trilogy of books about a Fleet captain who resigns to protect her crew, hooks up with a rich old lady, and then proceeds to cause a lot of headache for everyone from the Mafia to the King.
-
Actually Yhitzak, I agree with most of your points. What I was trying to point out is that there has been little of actual news in any of those areas, which is why they don't get as much coverage. Yes, the oil is running out, but that has been said many, many times already. People don't need to know about it, because they are already aware of it. There hasn't been any change in that situation though. No one has created a solution to the problem, nor has the rate at which it is being consumed drastically changed. We're still sucking it up at the same rate we always do. This isn't news, so the media ignores it. Agreed again that overpopulation isn't limited to China. I simply cited China as an example, because with some where close to a sixth of the world's population living there it is easily the most readily identified case. I do disagree that anyone with more then two children is adding to overpopulation though. The numbers I have seen indicate that we could probably sustain a few more billions on this planet. The only problem is that we haven't gotten around to properly devoloping the resources available to us. As for pollution, we pretty much said the same thing. Those of us who are willing to do something do, while those who don't refuse to unless forced.
But again, none of that is news. I've been hearing all of this since I was in elementary school and they were telling us the difference between the red recycling bin and the blue one. The media ignores these things because they've been done to death. We might get maybe a two minute report once a month about some new study on fossil fuels, but all it does is change the numbers slightly. I am in no way suggesting we ignore these problems, and I do believe that we should be supporting those who are looking for reasonable solutions as much as we can. But demanding constant reports when there is nothing to say is like the admiral who demands reports every five minutes. You keep hearing the same thing, but nothing is getting done on the ship.
I got a new Laptop!
in Aimless Babble
Posted
My new laptop finally arrived today! Ok, so its a stock Vista model ordered from Costco. Still, better to not have to deal with the randome error messages the older one has begun to pop out, let alone the 'missing' hardware issues. This one will be protected! No surifng naughty sites! No random file sharing! everything must first be vetted by the older one before being transferred!
Though since it has all the stories the old one will probably still be used as a digital notebook. But now that I have my new one I don't have to worry about the old one possibly getting wrecked if I bring it to work with me.