HasimirFenring

Maybe I'm just too stupid to figure this out, but I see an inconsistency between the prequels and the originals (I realize that there are tons of these, but this is a big one): spoilers from Legends books, I guess: [hide]The sorceresses later become the Bene Gesserit. But what happens to their powers? One of the sorceresses shoots lightning like Chancellor Palpatine, but the Revered Mothers never seem to have any significant psychic powers. Where did those abilities go?[/hide]

Not that it matters to a conspiracy theorist, but the Washington Post (and Woodward & Bernstien) confirm it. This is huge news; I've been wanting to know this secret since I saw All the President's Men with Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford. Great movie.

Really? Could you say a bit more about this, stem cell research interests me. I see no reason why we can't compromise on this issue in America, allow scientists to use embryos leftover at fertility clinics for research purposes which would otherwise be thrown out as medical waste; cloned embryos don't bother me, but I can accept their banning as a compromise.

Cheese sure is great. You've got a point. So few cheeses in America have much taste, they're generally like plastic...ew... Have to buy the imported stuff if I want any flavor at all. Say CHEESE

Minor point, in the defense of modern German voters, that's 9.2% in the province of Saxony, not nationally (from the wikipedia link you provided). Still too much.

I wish. Angry discussion about the obvious foreshadowning found in the prequels aside, can anyone explain to me why the Bene Gesserit (sorceresses) have magical powers in the Battle of Corrin, but they've magically lost them by the time of the original books? Is this a plot hole or something I missed because I was skim-reading BoC by the end?

I'd say the same of Blais Pascal, who spent the first half of his life as a productive mathematician and wasted the second producing christian dogma.

In fact, Bismarck died in 1898 (and certainly wasn't the F

There have been two such instances, but they had nothing to do with the electors being more politically savvy than the average voter. Electors are required to vote as their state does; becuase an individual voter in Montana, for example, represents a larger fraction of a single elector (due to a minimum of 3 electors, regardless of state size), the state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electors to candidates does not always jive with the national popular vote.

Hardly. They are, in almost all states, legally required to vote according to the will of the people. The only real result of the electoral college in practice is the disproportionate voting power of low-population states (regardless of population, a state has at least 3 electors).

Why deprive yourself of your most experienced jurists if they're still at the peak of their abilities? Supreme court justices should serve as long as they are able, willing and reputable.

I agree, proportional representation. Gore was the second time someone won the popular vote but lost the election anyway (I can't remember who the other guy was).

Wait... FED2k WITHOUT Mahdi on the staff? NEVER! [hide]10 points for me too[/hide] 9) HasimirFenring

I'd say India and China will become the next economic superpowers. Europe will fade because of a low birth rate (unless trends change, which they tend to do). The United States government won't be able to do anything except try to pay off the debt as soon as exponential growth starts to skyrocket.

I agree with everything you said except that terrorism warrants it. The way to defeat terrorism is not to build a Fortress America, but this is a subject for another thread.

They're popular, but they still suck (I mean, I wouldnt know :O)

No, but it does help to enforce existing law. That is being done much more seriously by the PATRIOT Act, focus your priorities. Disapproving of an industry's business model does not justify violating the law. There were no such lawsuits before P2P networks became so popular becuase they weren't necessary.

I said neither of those statements is true. The first is false because we have governments and legislatures. Sufficient public support for your position would induce lawmakers to change the laws, something which is not happening. The second is nonsense because capitalist societies (much as I dislike them) can earn money without secrets. I don't want to build my own car, so I pay someone to do so by buying a car from a factory. Seems obvious enough to me. It isn't becuase there is insufficient public support for your position (if most voters agreed, things would change; that's the point of a "democratic" system). Huh? That's been my point. That is sad. They have to resort to illegal actions to question law. Living in a democracy, we don't... Do that many people use the internet every day? I would have thought we hadn't reached multi-billion numbers yet, but I could be wrong. An example of when you have to go against the rules would be women's sufferage or the civil rights movements. Don't insult those movements by comparing P2P networks to them; these problems can be resolved by law. That wasn't by point. I meant to say it is very difficult for any service, no matter how cheap, to compete against a free alternative. Not necessarily; what do their motivations have to do with anything? As I said earlier, don't insult those movements by comparing them to copyright issues. If I create an intellectual work, be it a book, music, software or a painting, I have the right to control the product of my labor, whether it can be converted into a digital format or not. What if I photograph only her hair? She arranges it in a certain way with shampoo, combing, hair cuts, etc. If I then sell to photograph of her hair, the product of her labor, without her permission, one can't say she is "emotionally damaged," but does that make it alright? All women know they are being spied upon daily? No, and they don't need to. If people respected copyright law, this wouldn't be a problem. Sorry if I sounded dismissive, Edric. I just meant that my argument is based on ideas of profit and private property which don't particularly resonate with communists.

I agree; asking for way too much. Couldn't have waited another day. The game isn't perfect but it may as well be, since Clorox bottles are the imperfection. That and bloody Steam.

Well, my Halo disc has a playable demo of Oddworld: Munch's Odyssey. That was pretty bad. Nintendo keeps making Mario Party games...

House Harkonnen's actions are deemed evil by our current arbitrary moral standards, so David Lynch, BH&KJA and SciFi decided to run with it. Without a doubt, the Baron is ruthless; the fact that he is willing to do things which we consider "evil" to achieve his ends could make him "evil" (again, by our arbitrary standard; don't forget the allied bombing of Dresden). Feyd killed slaves for sport in the original, I recall? That sounds evil to most people.

I realize something exsts like this...but at a dollar a song, it's often more than twice as much as buying the CDs! The key part was being able to get it "at a discount". I'd certainly do it...for about a quarter a song. But when can the industry say, "alright, our online products are cheap enough so that people now prefer them to free?"

We have a political process... You elect legislators... So the legailty of this sort of thing is derived from its scale? I don't think anyone except Valve likes Steam. HL2 has taken a lot of bashing becuase of Steam. Neither statement above is true. The point of the rebuttal was that there are obvious and fundamental differences in the natures of information and air. They are not public goods necessarily, just like music. People have the natural right to see my christmas tree? I have every right to charge admission, but no one would pay it ::) When we play semantic games, everyone loses. You have every right to question it; we have a system for changing laws. It's called a democracy (democratic republic). If I took a picture of the woman I'm spying on (not really) and posted it on the internet, everyone who sees it is enjoying the benefit from a "public good" which the woman should be able to control (or whoever owns the copyright, admittedly no one in this example). Justifiable, yes. Just, no. But why do you elect politicians? Why do companies have CEOs? The same could be said in both cases (and both will be necessary until we reach pure communism). "most likely" = flimsy rationalization at best.

And what if a band is doing a tour, I attend the first concernt, record the music, and put it on the internet? Everyone can now enjoy the benefits of the music without compensating the artist.

Yes, but in the analogy the tree owner has the CHOICE of having an indoor exhibition; musicians can't stop their music from being pirated.