i don't actually think china is as restrictive as the ussr and nazi germany were; i've never been there though. but it's at least hungrier than the US is, and the people there are less satisfied with their government.

and i agree that anarchy will not be possible until after resources are moot, which will probably occur around 2150 or so. i don't mean that there will be no more resources, just that molecular manufacturing and cheap energy will make wealth so abundant that there will be no need to share anything; basically anyone could have as much as they could possibly want of anything in the world. it's just that i think sophisticated governments who don't want to give up power will delay anarchy quite a bit -- instead of seeing it by 2150 (if ww2 had gone the other way) it may take until 2400 or something

I mostly agree.

I do go to China about once a year (haven't been in a while for various reasons) as my wife's mom lives there.  Urban people really aren't very rebellious.  It's mostly the rural poor who aren't getting all the money and gadgets that the city people get.  People are seeing more wealth than they have for decades and right now that makes them not mind putting civil rights on the backburner.  They are also in a really jingoistic phase that may or may not be turning down, that allowed the government to let them blame all their miseries on everyone else "pushing them around."  If they can't keep that and the material prosperity flowing, there's a chance people could bite back at the government as they did after the earthquakes.  The fact that most people don't know or care about Tiananmen doesn't leave me hopeful, though.

Not trying to knock Chinese people, as everyone I have met there seems great.  They just are experiencing a lot of material success and seeing political success abroad and I think most people would get caught up in that (gee, much like they do in the US).

well, not really easy, just easier. if you look at revolutions historically, typically they happen in the most repressive situations. when the people can't eat, they revolve, when they're fed and happy, and satisfied, they are less likely to care what their government does. often the voting turnout is directly proportional to how discontent a people are, for example. compare iran's ~80% turnout rate to the US's, what was it, 35%?

I don't disagree, but I don't think fascists always keep you from eating.  One of the ways the Chinese government (which isn't 100% fascist, but is very non-democratic and restrictive) stays relevant is by keeping everyone striving for material happiness.  Most urban people there right now are very happy to be making money and buying crap so they don't make a big stink about the very obvious corruption that surrounds them.  That one isn't working so well with rural poor, but the leaders are figuring things out.

The other point I was trying to make is that with any form of scarce resources that need to be created, transported, and distributed, there will be a power vacuum so that even if you take out the big, evil government, another more palatable one will take its place.  For the happy-go-lucky, everybody shares society that we all dream of to exist, resources need to be plentiful and easy to distribute to reduce that element of control that someone will grab.  It's people's fault, too.  A lot of them like to be spoon-fed and have someone else take at least some of the thinking and hard work away from them.

she's the most likely candidate for that party to win the nomination right now.

It's very likely that better candidates will pop up in the next four years.

@Valter's "By Axis, I meant Germany, Italy, and Japan (well, to some extent Russia), which quite nearly took over everything in the world" -- i actually think it would have been better if they had, there'd be more freedom than there is right now. hitler and stalin were very weak leaders who had to use crude methods to stay in power. the current power structure is much more sophisticated and uses more precise and subtle methods. world anarchy would have come far sooner if the ussr had won the cold war or if hitler had won ww2. so from the perspective of ultimately freeing the world from the bane of government, it's disappointing that the allied powers won ww2 rather than the axis powers. it would have meant more short-term death but far less long-term death. you have to realize that when you say that they nearly took over everything in the world, you're right, but guess who took over the world instead of them? who's ruling it right now? is a more psychologically sophisticated master really preferable to a more brutal master? or in other words, would you rather be ruled by the whip or by mind control? i'd prefer the whip.

I'm not sure I buy into your idea of mind control, even if I don't like everything my government does.  I definitely don't buy into your belief that it would be really easy to overthrow a fascist government, or that the people replacing the government wouldn't just form something less bad, but still worse than what we have now.  The guys who were plotting to kill Hitler that the movie Valkyrie is based on, for example, didn't really like Jews (some of them had problems with exterminating them, but they didn't love them or anything) and basically wanted Hitler out because he was botching the war, rather than because they were nice people who would have given everyone freedom.

There may be a day when there's enough resources and easy transport that we can all share and be nice without large, powerful entities to control the process, but it sure ain't yet.

Ah, that's my bad. I was more talking about the Monroe Doctrine. US stayed out of the East, the rest of the world stayed out of the West.

By Axis, I meant Germany, Italy, and Japan (well, to some extent Russia), which quite nearly took over everything in the world. If a weaker Prime Minister had been elected, Britain might have buckled under the Nazi threat, and Hitler would have been capable of bringing his full force to bear on Russia (the primary reason he failed was his "defeat in detail", having been split up between Britain and Russia, and all along Europe.

I'm not trying to justify anything that happened in South America, but I will say that it's pretty clearly better off than Africa, which was significantly colonized in the imperial age. I'd say keeping Europe off of the Americas had a fairly significant impact on South America's future.

Oh, I get it.  Don't call them the "Axis of Evil" if you could.  That's pretty confusing.  They are just the "Axis" which they actually used to describe themselves.  I don't think anybody objects to kicking their ass.

the way i see this basically is that there are two evil powers at work here: the US government and the iranian government (all governments being evil)

The US government has spent the last 200 years supporting progress and peace. It was just fine with being isolationist until the Axis of Evil threatened to take over the world (or, at least, most of Europe and Asia). American involvement with the Cold War was shameful, and yet I think it's worth considering what would have happened if the Soviet Union has been allowed unrestricted control over the rest of the world. Capitalism has allowed us to reach a level of comfort and happiness unavailable in most of the rest of the world.

While I strongly disagree with Paul's "government's are evil." thing, I have to say...What?

The US has been interventionist in South America in terrible ways starting long before the cold war.  The ways in which we acquired Texas/California/etc. and Hawaii are really hideous and awful.  The Axis of Evil isn't even a real thing, and so far has made no real threat of taking over anything whatsoever.  That whole paragraph is kind of ludicrous.

EDIT: Also, this specifically is why the US should never, ever mess around in Iran's internal politics.  It's nearly one of the worst things the US government ever did, and the US government has done plenty of lousy things.

(which to me is looking likely to happen)

By what standards?  Even if she's in the media a lot, and there are vocal voices that think she's great, she certainly sank McCain's ticket and I see no evidence that a substantial number of people genuinely want her to be president.

Rad.  Kickin' rad.

Dental plan

Is there anyway to win? I got to the top and the wind wasn't turned on, then he passed me and game over.

I think you have to kill him faster.  I haven't been able to do it yet.  I do plenty of damage, but then I get stuck on some of the jump booster parts and he's gone.

He seems to be in more video games than movies these days.  I thought he was good in a cheesy kind of way as the Russian Premier in Red Alert 3.

Red Alert and normal C&C just have the best casting.  I didn't get into 3 (of either) so much, but I need to get RA3 back so I can get the expansion and kill Ric Flair.

Oh yeah, I forgot.  I have an X-arcade.  But I don't use it with my normal PC setup.

Partially due to a partnership with EA, partially due to the inclusion of celebrities such as Jack Black and Ozzy Osbourne, and partially because Tim's still the critical darling. In related news, Tim "Frankenfurter" Curry is now playing a character in the game.

Timmy Curry makes everything better.  He may not make bad things good, but he makes them slightly less awful.

[tl;dr version: Paul your argument only holds up if psychology is bullshit.]

tl;dr version: Paul your argument only holds up if psychology is bullshit.

That's what Tom Cruise told me!

eBaum's Word stole a thing?  And we are surprised?

Rules, philosophy, and a SF/F author: where have I seen those combined before? Oh, yeah...

Don't you compare Pournelle to that psycho!  He's the only reason most of Larry Niven's work is readable!

Also, the double jump seems really small.

It's actually huge but the timing isn't super obvious.

Speaking of which, don't mind me, just posting the best D-Pad ever engineered

Agreed.

KOTOR is good, it just has a horrible, horrible opening part that can go on forever if you let it.  I will replay later it as I have a non-hammered copy, and playing more Bioware/Obsidian games has taught me a valuable lesson in turning off party AI.

And...now I can't think straight because damn that is fucking funny, Joe.

What can I say.  I just have a big old pile of games to play and other interests that reduce the amount of time I leave myself to play them.

I drove a few people nuts by hating Knights of the Old Republic.  And smashing it with a hammer.

not necessarily retrain, but at least widen one's field of enjoyment. i.e. when i first started reading i only enjoyed terrible fantasy and sci-fi novels; gradually as i read more i came to enjoy a wider variety of literature, and i think i'm better off for it, and more well-rounded than those who only read fantasy and sci-fi genre novels (or people who only read romance novels, or mystery, or whatever)

There's two problems with what you are saying here:

1) You are correct as far as restricting yourself by genre.  I couldn't agree more.  That's not what happened here.  I found a specific mix of stuff I just didn't like.  I tried it, didn't like it.  It's even pretty much in a genre I enjoy (platformer/exploration game), so that's not the problem.

2) Even so, sometimes there are genres people just don't like, and that's normal.  I like sci-fi and fantasy and historical stuff.  I don't like, say, Jane Austin.  It's not my thing.  I recognize that it's good, but I have no interest in it other than knowing the importance of it and themes contained in it, and knowing I've been exposed to enough of it to see the impact.  Stuff that's similar in genre and less important I will straight-up ignore.

I'm not sure I'm hurting myself in any way by trying something, finding I don't enjoy it, and moving on.