you can play games
I play players
Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by The Yell
you can play games
I play players
Spotted Dick Shark
o fishy fishy fishie fish
Sure. Nothing makes doing time in the camps easier than saying "I told you so" to the other scarecrows
anchor it at an even depth along the sea floor and run it from SF to Japan and its a winner
Paul McCartney
He had been droning along about "value", comparing the Marxist theory with the orthodox "use" theory. Mr. Dubois had said, "Of course, the Marxis definition of value is useless. All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero. By corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value; an untalented cook can turn wholesome dough and fresh green apples, valuable already, into an inedible mess, value zero. Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than a cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet.
"These kitchen illustrations demolish the Marxian theory of value-- the fallacy from which the entire magnificent fraud of communism derives -- and illustrate the truth of the common-sense definition as measured in terms of use."
Dubois had waved his stump at us. "Nevertheless-- wake up back there! -- nevertheless, the disheveled old mystic of Das Kapital, turgid, tortured, confused, and neurotic, unscientific, illogical, this pompous old fraud Karl Marx, nevertheless had a glimmering of a very important truth. If he had possessed an analytical mind, he might have formulated the first adequate definition of value... and this planet might have been saved endless grief.
"Or might not", he added. "You!"
I had sat up with a jerk.
"If you can't listen, perhaps you can tell the class whether 'value' is a relative, or an absolute?"
I had been listening; I just didn't see any reason not to listen with eyes closed and spine relaxed. But his question caught me out; I hadn't read that day's assignment. "An absolute," I answered, guessing.
"Wrong," he said coldly. "'Value' has no meaning other than in relation to living beings. The value of a thing is always relative to a particular person, is completely personal and different in quantity for each living human -- 'market value' is a fiction, merely a rough guess at the average of personal values, all of which must be quantitatively different or trade would be impossible." (I had wondered what Father would have said if he had heard "market value" called a "fiction"-- snort in disgust, probably.)
"This very personal relationship, 'value', has two factors for a human being: first, what can he do with a thing, its use to him...and second, what he must do to get it, its cost to him. There is an old song which asserts 'the best things in life are free'. Not true! Utterly false! This was the tragic fallacy which brought on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the twentieth century; those noble experiments failed because the people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted...and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears.
"Nothing of value is free. Even the breath of life is purchased at birth only through gasping effort and pain."
Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
I remembered how that started but not how it ended; I quoted it to be fair.
Maybe your barter bank should be reserved for veterans who have demonstrated their proper moral understanding of value!
/slumps off to count beans for the real citizens
+1 to The Yell for finding that cite with which to defeat The Yell
oh and when you hear the movie sucked compared to the book...now you have a glimmer
No, dude, I cannot claim the entire economy of New York City passes through my webstore because they COULD all use it. I am stuck with the few who actually do.
I think he's big on underwriting companies that back insurance companies.
And Warren Buffet, the billionaire investor what invests billions, won't touch tech stocks because he says this sort of crap is inevitable and impossible to predict.
As I said, the problem with your scenarios is that you presume the Bank is up and running when you ask us to participate in it, and my challenges were to discuss the impossibility, FROM INCEPTION, of granting that first generation of donors either a) real barter value within a reasonable timeframe or b) a growing equity share in the whole system. Neither are workable going forward, so, you will never arrive at your hypothetical GoodWeek where everything works smoothly.
sort of.
I think "conservative" is becoming a social term, like "Goth" or "surf bunny". The ancient Romans would have said "the people who call themselves 'conservatives'." It's a clique rather than a popular movement behind a policy agenda. As a popular movement organized around an agenda, it had opponents, which were people organized around liberal policies, or libertarian policies.
I say it is a social movement because it has regular outings like CPAC, it has heroes like Rand Paul and Paul Ryan, and I hear these guys go to CPAC and holler at "conservatives" to adopt liberal policies. If it were a political movement, adopting contrary positions would take you out of the movement. For instance, declaring the federal government is responsible to give everybody health care insurance, and the cheapest way to do it is to just give everybody $25,000 forever to buy it with. This is not a policy rooted in shrinking the federal government to its core responsibilities. It is growing the federal government to take a larger role in the economy and in everybody's household budget. It is a liberal idea with budgetary savings. But because Paul Ryan came up with it, we are told it is "conservative". We have "moved conservatism". No. You hopped out of the circle and joined the yahoos.
In the same way, Rand Paul's notions to cripple the wartime powers of the United States to support the kooky counterculture dizziness of the Warren Court, are not Conservative policy. By adopting contrary policies he ceases, to that degree, to participate in the political movement to achieve Conservative policy.
It may seem like splitting hairs, but in a federal republic the public can only make law by proxy. If the proxies declare they are not in favor of the agenda then the agenda fails during their tenure, as if their partisan opposites were elected.
I know Kemp left but in case he comes back, I hate Libertarians.
It's beyond the free drug use crap, or even "yeah abortion is murder but who am I to say we can't kill 900,000 people a year".
Through Rand freakin Paul we now have 4 of the most senseless, ignorant unAmerican themes that I as a right winger am supposed to salute. I'll take civil war instead as the lesser evil.
1. Surveillance
The libertarians got bizarre exegesis of the Constitution. to wit:
2nd amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." must be read literally: all laws infringing my right to buy machine guns is void as an infringement. I agree with that.
14th amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." must be read IN CONTEXT-- they didn't mean ALL, just MOST, and most probably not them anchor babies born to illegal aliens.
4th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." must be read LIBERALLY to mean the freedom from surveillance shall not be infringed!
which it doesn't say.
Personally whereever you fall on reading dead words written before your great-grandfather was born, you're pretty much stuck with picking one method and sticking to it. But not libertarians.
those statist freaks we call the Founders DID NOT create a barrier to surveillance. They put in the wishywashy word "unreasonable" meaning "lacking reasonableness" and what that means is informed by 225 years of history. Yeah they COULD have written "freedom from surveillance and snoopyness shall not be infringed" but they DIDN'T. SUCK IT UP loonytunes.
We're at war, meaning 3000 people got killed and Congress and the President keep authorizing military action against declared enemies of the United States. And yeah that counts regardless of what you like.
Constitutionally Obama has the same powers as FDR and J Edgar Hoover. don't like it, end the war. Don't like that fork in the road, you are INNOVATING, you are proposing NEW CHANGES. New changes are part of what this country is about. Quit being ashamed of it. Quit lying to us that you are "PRESERVING" the constitution when you are rewriting the constitution to be something it never has been.
I get why they do it. Things that are Unconstitutional are forbidden, end of argument - there is no argument! Things that are new changes are debatable all day long. Lying about it means you can pretend no true American would DARE disagree with you. The thing is, I once read a book, so, you're screwed.
2. Drone strikes against American citizens
Trivia question- when George Washington called out the militia to go shoot down the Whiskey Rebellion, what court issued the warrants he was enforcing? Trick question. George Washington was going to shoot American citizens on American soil without a trial.
I guess though it is eminently reasonable that Rand Paul knows the Constitution better than George Washington, or all the guys who lined up when he said, "Bugler sound the muster" or in fact all the guys in Congress at the time who didn't faint when they read what Washington was doing and failed somehow to impeach him for violating the 4th Amendment.
See back then in them olden days they had something called "Truth". It was respected because of the Bible. Guys like Pontius Pilate who told Jesus "what is truth" and then had him lynched, that was not respected. They divided the human race between truth-handlers and outright liars, who ought be horsewhipped out of town to lurk in the woods.
And part of that Truth was, if you could define a crime, then people who did the crime, were truly guilty. That's something libertarians don't believe in. They don't believe there's an al qaeda, really. They don't believe Americans are Al Qaeda. There has to be a basic denial of the Truth in government. Libertarians just don't accept that a President can say, "Hey I heard this guy out of his own mouth is an enemy of America, so, let's march out and let him have it." That's what Washington did when he heard people were saying they were rebels. The speech of rebellion defined a rebel. And rebels could be smashed.
Not just Washington, but Lincoln during the civil war, heck Lincoln during the Blackhawk war, and our government in two world wars. We just didn't interrupt military ops with a quest for American citizens so they got a trial. Ken Burns mentioned in his movie that we torpedoed a boat with a Japanese ballplayer on board. Sorry Charlie, down you go. In truth, people organized as the enemy ARE the enemy, and we don't need to pretend that Truth doesn't really exist. It's another way that Rand Paul is harrumphing not for 1787, but for the 1960s.
3. Drone surveillance against American citizens.
In 1955 the LAPD put cops in helicopters. I think they were first because of our weather and the amount of freeways. We've had MANNED surveillance for sixty years. Since that's legal, there's no point pretending a robot glider is somehow a sinister destruction of the Rights of Man. I mean I get that Obama is a liar and a crook and a hack. That's not in the Constitution though; it's just that he and his crew suck as government.
4. Militarized cops
This drives me up the wall. Every person who complains about this is guilty. Every one of them. He is guilty of something and hates to know he can get caught for it. You hear them talk about it long enough and it will smack you in the face.
Like, the grandpa whose fishing trip with the grandkids was ruined by "American Gestapo" from the DNR. They stopped him for a "safety check". They made him get out his ID (left it home) and his fishing license (don't need it, the kids are fishing not us -hahahah right). They asked to see his safety jackets (he pulled them out) and checked his horn and lights (nope and nope). Then they sailed away, by which time it was too late to teach the kids how to fish anymore (by not fishing, hahahah right). He got mad as hell, and wrote the paper about it.
The Founders answer to this was Bat Masterson. Yeah I don't know the name of the guy who had the job 100 years before Bat Masterson but that's cause of the media not being interested. Bat Masterson was appointed by most people to go around to some people and bitchslap sense into them. I dunno if Bat Masterson would have pistolwhipped this old man, but I do believe he would have sailed up to him and put a lantern on him. "Listen you g-d-n idiot" would he say, "you got a boat full of kids on a lake at night with no horn, no light and nobody's wearing their safety vest. You're a greenhorn s--- and for two bits I would whup sense into you. Maybe you're figuring I'd save your ass if your boat rolled over, which you being a g-d-n idiot is mighty probable. Well Hell! I won't, and I got this iron here to stop anybody else interfering with the destiny of a g-d-n idiot. Go home! Ya drunken coot, yer a villianous wretch for dragging these chillun down wit ye. Patooiee!"
Maybe the old coot would tolerate Bat Masterson cause he wasn't"militarized" by which they mean wearing body armor and a helmet and a tactical vest. Somehow a cop being impervious to knives and smallarms is sinister, it means he is not friendly like Andy Griffith in the Mayberry show, which is the icon I see quoted.
Waaaal, ol' Andy probably had a tommy gun in that jail, cause cops back then toted fully automatic weapons. In fact, that Sheriff who went after Bonnie and Clyde ditched his tommy guns, not because it was unAmerican to shoot Americans on American soil without due process, but because they couldn't punch through a windshield at 100 yards. That sheriff went with the BAR, a fully automatic full-size weapon that the USMC doled out 4 to a platoon in the Pacific. And shoot if he didn't welcome ol' Bonnie and Clyde straight to hell with a downhome countrystyle ambuscade. Cause the Truth was, they were guilty. At that he was quaint, cause big-city departments were using the Browning M1919 .30 caliber tripod mounted machine gun to shoot gangsters out of apartment buildings up into the 1940s. No foolin, if anybody shot ol Barney down like a dog, which happened back before they wore body armor and helmets, ol' Andy would probably have rung up the Colonel of the State Police and rustled up some old fashioned Army gear to hose that g-d-n sumbitch out of his hotel room with a shower of hot lead. Golly! That would be something!
Hmm. I think I got the pilot for the remake.
Anyhow Libertarians are ignorant, and I guess we got a 2nd amendment right to form a vigilance committee.
Patrick Troughton
Marty Feldman
If you have to ask...
blue swimmer crab
It's not any more criminal than the failure of Eastman Kodak.
RIM decided to avoid the fun smartphone market for almost 6 years. Blackberry was the business phone, for people who couldn't use cameras, who wanted a physical qwerty, who didn't need videos or games or streaming music.
Thing is, the price difference between buying a Blackberry, and buying the same trendy phone as your friends, and just not using all the non-Blackberry features of that trendy phone, weren't really that much. So sales sagged.
THEN, they got hacked and nobody got to use their Blackberries for 5 days straight. I think that happened twice.
So that loses everybody who had a Blackberry and didn't need to pay for daily email. Then there's everybody who had a Blackberry and prefers a phone that's never been hacked, and Apple is willing to lie about not needing security. Then federal courts that had banned cellphone cameras, just freaking gave up and allow them, so,why bother not getting a Droid?
this primo is publishing the images of the Kameraden
discourage him
thoroughly -.-
hey I got one for botticelli
It's hard to feel sorry for a man standing up for his right to dispose of buckets of poo in a suburban lot
our umanned drone warfare capability is unmatched! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogwjCgA-Rbw
http://www.history.com/images/media/sli … -moose.jpg
There is nowhere to hide
go open a competing guess who or what thread xeno, we'll see who does it better!
dpenguins and I are Americans. So we have that viewpoint.
You want to pack them in, get on FB and have people earn Farmville cash to sign up. Print CDs with the game guide and Faqs and IE explorer and hand those out at stores and concerts. Rent a boat for an ImperialConflict.com Fiesta and have a spectacular fire and rescue in the harbor of your capital city. Get Bono to make a donation to the rain forest if you get enough likes on Facebook. Get arrested for getting too close to Bono. Have Prince Harry get photographed naked in your hotel room.
You can pack them in like cattle.
You want them to stay here, the game has to be fairly bug-free.
It's a different game. I can't memorize combos. I can't stay up all night and score harder faster on my own. I have to join a team, almost certainly not as a leader, get chores assigned and trust other people. The pieces move while I'm away. I need social skills and XP is measured in real relationships not a number. That all means internal word of mouth is very important. That is how you win - people are happy about how well they interacted overnight and around the world to beat other teams of people. You can't let the game mechanics be the reason people lose. They will complain and it will lose the newbies.
You want to attract AND RETAIN new players, get out of beta.
Imperial Forum → Posts by The Yell
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.