Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Quick little loop thing made for use in adventure games.
Gumshoe

Theoretically, I suppose that job would fall to the ESA, but they tend to spend more time focusing on people pirating the whole program, not on people pirating just a portion of it. Of course this assumes that the music for the game was created in house, rather than licensed from a record company (in which case the protection would probably fall to the RIAA). And this is just for the US, I have no idea if organizations like the ESA exist in other countries.

At 6/15/08 06:17 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: The 9mm and .45 ACP that are fired by the MP5 and UMP are not effective in war, especially for infantry. Those are mostly used by law enforcement, not military; they aren't even rifles, they are submachine guns. They fire pistol ammunition that completely lack the range and power needed in military weapons.

War, yes. If the U.S. was currently involved in a war like World War II, or Korea, or the first Gulf War, I would recommend a very different weapon. But this is not such a war. The situations faced by soldiers in Iraq today have far more in common with situations faced by police and SWAT units. In these situations, rounds designed to be armor-piercing (such as the 5.56 NATO) are actually counterproductive, since they do not stop the target immediately, and tend to over-penetrate, causing potential damage to unintended targets. In comparison, the much heavier 9mm round or .45 caliber round delivers all of it's energy to the target, disabling them immediately with no risk of over-penetration.

The MP5 is already in use by U.S. Special Forces and Marine FORECON teams. However, given the conditions currently experienced in Iraq, I feel that the regular infantry could benefit from it's use.

(Again, as I mentioned, I have no hands-on experience with the UMP, but on paper it looks like a worthy successor to the MP5)

For anti-terrorist operations, I've always been a big fan of HK's MP5 series. HK's UMP looks also good, on paper, but I haven't actually seen or tried one.

I never really liked the M4 (or the M16, for that matter). Reliability issues aside, 5.56 NATO just isn't that effective in the types of situations faced by the modern soldier.

At 6/8/08 10:45 AM, thedo12 wrote: actualy canada has over 60,000 military personal, we have an airforce and a navy

the thing is we need a military to be participants on the world stage, for things such as peace operations.

alo heres a pic of canadian special ops

Is that a FN MAG I spot? The Canadian military must be in sorry shape if they're issuing their special forces 50-year-old Belgian surplus rifles.

It's good for the economy, in the sense that a red bull is good for your body. Or maybe a better analogy would be to a powerful laxative. It lets the economy move all its old crap at the end of the year, to make room for the new, exciting crap of next year.

Analogies aside, christmas provides temporary stimulation for the retail sector of the economy. However, if we held too many holidays eventually people would just run out of money for economic stimulation.

At 6/5/08 03:05 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Are you surprised it hasn't already?

after all, it's not like israel has any kind of moral high ground over iran.

I always liked Jackie Mason's response:

"That bomb cost fifty million dollars, and you think they're going to waste it on a bunch of arabs?!"

But by Aquinas' definition of God's omnipotence, if the question of "can God do x" is ever raised, the answer must always be "yes".

(Source here, if you want to confirm)

Aquinas' writings are considered by the Roman Catholic church to be only one step below Biblical cannon (tied with the Pope, in fact, since they are based on the teachings of Socrates). This would seem to imply that, at least according to Catholic doctrine, God could create a three-sided square (or a square circle, if you'd prefer).

At 6/4/08 07:55 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: i don't know how difficult it is to tell between the two kinds of uranium used in nuclear fission for energy and nuclear fusion / fission for mass destruction.

Both nuclear power plants and low-tech nuclear weapons use Uranium-235. More advanced nukes use plutonium, a completely different element.

All the countries of the world, except a small few (India, Israel, and Pakistan), have signed a treaty called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This treaty forbids countries that do not currently possess nuclear weapons from obtaining or attempting to obtain them. Countries that already have them are permitted to keep them, but are supposed to cut back...eventually.

I was thinking about theodicy the other day, and I came up with a question that I don't think has been raised before.

If God is omnipotent, couldn't he, if he wanted to, create humans that have free will and don't do evil? I mean, if God is omnipotent he can do anything, and could therefore cause two mutually exclusive things to exist simultaneously (like a square with three sides).

If the U.S. is acting towards Iran like it did towards the Soviet Union, America is in serious trouble.

"It may be said with rough accuracy that there are three stages in the life of a strong people. First, it is a small power, and fights small powers. Then it is a great power, and fights great powers. Then it is a great power, and fights small powers, but pretends that they are great powers, in order to rekindle the ashes of its ancient emotion and vanity. After that, the next step is to become a small power itself." -G. K. Chesterson

To a certain extent, the government does require cable companies to broadcast their viewers opinions. It's this legislation that leads to terribly-produced recordings of church ceremonies being broadcast on public access. So long as what you want to say is of some relevance to the people of the area you're broadcasting to (a very broad definition), there is enough unclaimed time on the channel (there almost always is), and you don't violate FCC decency regulations, the cable company cannot under the 1984 Cable Franchise Policy and Communications Act deny you public access time.

Of course, no one but especially insane street preachers and hip-hop artist ever seem to take advantage of this (at least in my area).

At 6/2/08 04:48 PM, pizza4ever wrote: russa vs the UD... who would win that war?

Nuclear or non-nuclear?

Non-nuclear:
Tie...ish. The U.S. would kick the shit out of the Russian army, but no country has enough soldiers to actually occupy the entirety of Russia. The Americans would end up forced to either sign a peace treaty or waste the next hundred years trying to bring the Russian populace under control.

Nuclear:
The cockroaches. And maybe some bacteria.

At 5/29/08 12:14 PM, apple32 wrote: welll this bush topic should die out soon

He'll be gone soon, and we've heard all the rants before.

It is now time for overused memes:

At 6/1/08 07:35 PM, RedCoin wrote: Good, point. However, as I've said twice, the the individual is always at the whim of the collective.
And evolution is no longer genetic. There are so many people in the world now that the gene mutation of one person would hardly affect the population as a whole.

The stage we are currently is the technologic stage, where it affects society as a whole. It is no longer passed through the genes of the proprietor but becomes common knowlage.
A thousand years ago people thought the world was flat, now even a 5 years old knows that it's round. This is the first sign of the mutual support that I was talking about in my original post.

My apologies, I overlooked your original point to nit-pick on specifics. Though it's my opinion that genetic evolution is still continuing, I realize that wasn't what you were talking about.

The problem I see with accelerating ideological evolution is one of hardware. Ideas are becoming more and more complex at an accelerating rate, but the physical ability of humans to cope with them is not increasing at anywhere near the same speed. As this occurs, we begin to see a greater and greater specialization of ability in the human race, and a greater inclination to build on past achievements without truly understanding how they function.

For example, sixty years ago a single man could design a computer. Today, it takes an entire team of people to build a small improvement onto existing computer technology.

For a better (if fictional) explanation of what I mean, I would recommend the short story "No Moving Parts" by Murray Yaco, available here from Project Gutenberg.

At 6/1/08 07:23 PM, alternativesolution wrote:

At 6/1/08 06:53 PM, Malachy wrote:

At 6/1/08 06:48 PM, Extremewookie wrote: Ignorant stooge

Illiterate fool

Ludicrous oaf

Unread dullard

At 6/1/08 07:13 PM, RedCoin wrote: If the reason of evolution is indeed survival then war would be abolished with the amount of lives lost.

That would be so, if it was the people who start the wars that die in them. Those that start wars and those that fight them are two different groups of people.

In fact, this makes starting war a survival benefit. By killing large numbers of people who are not you and your progeny, you reduce competition for resources, thus increasing the probability that your genes will be the ones passed on to future generations.

At 6/1/08 05:00 PM, LordJaric wrote: He has been on the news for a long time, since the begining.

Thanks to the Primary of Doom the democrats are running, media coverage of the McCain campaign has been comparatively nil. I wouldn't be surprised if many casual political watchers no little if any about him.

'Hillary Clinton and the Primary of Doom' would be a great movie.

At 6/1/08 10:52 AM, DeniablyCorrect wrote: The Americans are notoriously the most hated country in the world and of all time. And for some reason, some people wonder why. In my opinion, it is their idiot army.

America has a dumbarse leader, a thick-skulled Army General and a quite frankly moronic Foreign Secretary. A terrorist attack on the 11th of September. Forget diplomacy, charge boys! Charge! Afghanistan was flooded with Yanks. A decade old conspiracy about WMDs in Iraq. Bush wants to win the election. Let's have a think through and do what the UN says, and settle it non violently. What, Mr. Bush? Oh, yes, sorry, charge! And now Iran! I giggle at my home in Britain at George Dubya as he sends hundreds of innocent, poor young men to their deaths. I really feel sorry for them, because they are fighting a false war and the healthcare when they get home will be abysmal.

Any more examples, Newgrounds community?

I've looked over your list three times, and can't find a single thing in it you can blame on the army.

The army has made the mistake of using weapons that are ineffective against unarmored targets against poorly-funded insurgents who probably couldn't tell kevlar from a sheep. And of trying to use bombers against a rebellion (I had thought that they would have learned that doesn't work after they tried it in 'Nam).

At 5/31/08 09:11 PM, Imperator wrote: So tell me good people of heathenry:
Do you care about religion?
What makes you care?
WHY does religion even matter?
How's it affect you?
How do you affect it?

My answer will have to be divided between my actions towards my own religious beliefs, and my actions as they relate to the religious beliefs other people.

My personal beliefs:
I base my everyday actions on my religious beliefs. Though many would not consider my beliefs 'religion' per se, because they are missing the factor of worship, I consider them to be so.

Other people's beliefs:
For starters, knowing the beliefs of the people I'm dealing with provides hints of where to find leverage for successful negotiation.

Additionally, discussing religion is entertaining. I sometimes enjoy pointing out the flaws in the beliefs of others, not because it will help change their beliefs (it probably wont), but to watch their reaction. Religious beliefs are prime targets for this activity, and the more religious the person, the more entertaining their reaction is likely to be.

If, for some reason, I actually want to change someone's belief, I use the socratic method rather than direct debate. It's much more likely to be successful.

Lastly, I enjoy other peoples religions for the amount of art they have inspired over the years (and hate them, for the amount of art they have destroyed over the years). Can't have "Ride of the Valkyries" without Odinism, now can you?

And finally, are humans logical, or are humans rational (for a change of pace and different discussion)?

Here's my theory of why they're not:

The next sentence is true.
The last sentence is false.

What does logical reasoning say about that?

Humans are rational, but not logical (just as computers are logical, but not rational). Pure logic leads to some real crazy shit.

At 6/1/08 03:33 PM, RedCoin wrote: It's not about brainwashing or genetic modification.
This would occur naturally.
Evolution gets rid of that which causes problems, and the negativities of the human psyche are probably
the worst of all, apart from maybe disease.

That would be nice. However, the 'goal' of evolution is survival, not improvement. Such changes would only come about through evolutionary means if eliminating said negative traits increased the survivability of the individual organism. This is not the case in the real world, where being an asshole is a definite survival benefit, while altruism is often actively harmful to individual survival.

A bit of research shows that I was wrong. Apparently buddhism also has an exclusivity policy as well:

"This is the way, there is no other that leads to the purifying of intelligence. Go on this way! Everything else is the deceit of Mâra (the tempter)." Dhammapada 274

I'm not sure how strictly this policy is held to in modern buddhism, though, since many non-monastic buddhists today (or at least the ones I've encountered) don't actually read the original scriptures, but instead follow abridged versions (understandable, since the original is wordy, long, and at times obtusely phrased).

Poxpower, if I may ask, what do you think about the idea of God as primum movens?

At 5/31/08 05:53 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: A big difference is that it only works within a state. If you're married to someone and move to another state or even country, it's nearly always recognized. If two women in Canada gets married, I think their marriage has legal status even here in Sweden, though we have no gay marriage here. If two women are in a civil union, it won't apply even in other states which also has civil unions.

I don't know how things work internationally, but here in the U.S. a state is obligated by the constitution to honor contracts made in other states. That would include civil unions.

At 5/31/08 06:28 AM, GeorgeAllen wrote: It's just that on a lot of websites I've seen people say that they've already broken up.

All the colleges have broken up. Private schools that don't get public funding may have, since they can do whatever they want. But the number of school days in public schools is mandated, so they're all still in session.

At 5/31/08 02:37 AM, Imperator wrote: BTW: I believe the actual number of witches burned was a grand total of 35. Not 25 hundred or thousand, just THIRTY FIVE.

That's correct. The famous inquisitions were mostly Christians killing Christians, largely for reasons having nothing to do with religion, using church sanction only as an excuse.

I'm seriously beginning to suspect Hillary will NEVER give up. Not even after she loses the primary. Her goal seems to be to completely trash Obama, so she'll have a chance again in 2012.

At 5/31/08 12:19 AM, Imperator wrote: good points. I have a problem with talking about Jews though, because I find it hard to distinguish where stereotypes and persecutions stem from the ethnic identity rather than the religious identity.

I mean, most people cite the Holocaust as a religious persecution, but Hitler cited things like economics as a reason, and persecuted other ethnic groups, so I'm not convinced it was entirely religious based, if any.

It also makes it hard to pin down anything concrete for me because I again don't know where to distinguish from the religious and ethnic identity.

I was referring to religion and religious persecution, but the point holds for racial discrimination as well. Since Judaism has a pretty strict no conversion rule, most people who are jews religiously speaking are also jews ethnically speaking (though the reverse is not true, naturally).

Someone needs to create a specific term to refer to jewishness as a religion as opposed to jewishness as an ethnicity. I propose 'iysh etzel el', hebrew for "person at the house of god", IEE for short.

But yeah, good points.....I don't know why Christians are so loud about this shit, although we've been doing it pretty much since Christianity became the leading ideology under the Romans......

Christianity and Islam are, as far as I know, the only two major religions with "it's my way or the highway" policies.

I wonder if he was a more on the fundamentalist side of the orthodox faith, or if that's a mainstream view. Have to agree that if there are people who think people actually lived for 100s of years when the life expectancy in the Roman Empire was like 35 then yeah, the 7 days thing would be a given......

I'll have to ask some of my reform jew friends the next time I see them.

At 5/30/08 11:43 PM, Imperator wrote: My guess is no, because I've never heard them make a point about it like Creationists have.

Jews tend not to raise as big a stink about religious issues as Christian creationists do. While due in large part to the extensive oppression jews have suffered, there's also the belief in Judaism that non-jews shouldn't convert, and are only required to obey the seven Noahide laws.

As to whether modern jews believe in the seven-day creation story, my guess would be that the belief varies, like in all religions. However, I do remember one occasion, where I casually made mention of people living shorter lives in the distant past, and an orthodox jew who was part of the conversation said "no, people in the past lived for hundreds of years." I would imagine that if this much more minor part of the torah is still considered valid in the orthodox jewish community, the seven-day creation would still be considered valid as well.