indy500fan

not supposed to talk about ap tests until two days after its done, just a reminder :D (as if they didnt remind us enough :twisted: :evil: ) but since the calc test was on tuesday we can talk about it. anyone else think it was really, really hard? :lol:

by my clock he posted it on may 1st may day was originated by communist russia, i dont know what for though.

KOTOR 2 was BAD. Really, it was worst than the first (which was awesome). I bought it and return it back to the store after a day because it wasnt that good. It proves that sequels most of the time stink. i didnt think it was worst, it was basically the same game. i liked it just as much, except the story line was lacking. i also dont like the final fantasy series, i thought they were quite boring. (FF7, FF8) all that random monsters every three seconds was quite annoying. i also didnt like planescape: torment. maybe it was good for its time, but i just played it the other day and really didnt like it. a game i forgot to say was kings field 2, i think it was just for the playstation. but i really liked that game, a lot.

didnt this happen over a week ago? she is still a performer though, she should have practiced enough to remember all the words. just because it is a national anthem doesnt make it any different than any other songs.

Morrowind, without a doubt

i could never get past around level 12. then i try it again years later, and its a lot easier. theres only been like 4 or 5 killer levels that took me a while to get past, but only being a little over halfway through the game i think there are going to be more to come.

sadly enough, i agree with this. for some reason i like this song. i dont think many pop artists today write their own music, but dont quote me on that.

Chips Challenge! i love this game, im only on level 82 right now though, and ive been playing it a week. i suck :lol:

that is a .000021433 probability, if you want the decimal value.

well the boxes are 1x4x9 (visibly for humans, continues up through higher dimensions) not 1x5x9. one isnt on a moon of jupiter, it is inbetween jupiter and the moon just chilling out in space only one person goes through the monument, and the colors arent just inverted, all kinds of crazy crap happens here. then he goes into a replication of a hotel. nobodies ship went into a sun that i can remember. the man was being protect by a higher being the whole time (after he entered the black box) classic book, i love it. the rest of the series is awesome also. and i cant beleive you didnt remember HAL, the artificial intelligence. "im afraid i cant do that dave"

thats right, i havent heard any of those songs yet though

Gods. i really like their stuff, i bought frances the mute the day it came out, and i bought de-loused in the comatorium sometime in december. i like it better than frances the mute, because track 6 (cant think of the name) is an awesomely great superior good uber song.

i thought i replied yesterday, guess i didnt :lol: i get high speed internet tonight (after school ill install it), so i will check it out then.

double sided isnt nearly as cool as dual wielding them, with a short lightsaber in the off hand, and a regular one in your main hand.

well, the big bang theory as i know it, and i always thought was the right way, not many people seem to know about, or just forget to tell.(or i am wrong about what everyone thinks, but this is my own theory if that is true) the big bang is just a begining, one of an infinite amount of big bangs. they are always followed by a big crunch, where the universe returns to a point of singularity and re-bang. this has happened an infinite amount of times, and will happen an infinite more amount of times. there is no real begining or end.

to put on others calculators to confuse them; take out the batteries.

yeah, i liked resevoir dogs better. length of the movie had something to do with it, i dont have as long as attention span as i used to. jackie brown was a good one of his too, along with kill bill of course. and true romance was a good movie, he either wrote that or directed it(cant remember which). i have his 4 movies, they were the first movies i bought

Now why would the game that spawned the majority of the millions of Final Fantasy fans be any good? Why would the single most innovative game visually for its time be any good? Why would a game that had cinematic scenes years ahead of its time be any good? Why would a game with one of the most innovative and enthralling soundtracks ever be any good? Why would a game with a plot good enough to make grown men cry over a characters death be any good? Why would a game good enough to have a feature length movie made out of it be any good? Why would a game with possibly the best re-play value of any RPG ever be any good? The real question is why on Earth trolls like you would say anything remotely bad about one of the best RPG's ever made? He didn't say the game sucked. He said it was just overrated. Keep your undies on plx. No he did not say "FF VII sucks" but it was implied. Saying a good game is over-rated implies that it is an average or bad game, neither of which in any way apply to FF VII. I guess he didn't know there was a fanboy in the house. It's his opinion, respect it. yep, its my opinion also. i hated the game, and FFVIII.

haha, that was a good laugh. but if everyone else is quiting, what am i to do?

yeah you did, sorry, the discussion got pushed a little off topic, and i didnt think about it.

you obviously didnt since you knew and just replied. i couldnt care less whether or not you did leave the post though, i wasnt looking for your reply. i quoted you to tell everyone why it wasnt right.

no matter how much brand loyalty you have, if someone offers the same product for half the cost that is twice as good, then the people will buy that instead. if a company advertises heavily, but their product is in fact great, and worth what they are selling it for, then people will buy it. you are never required to buy any good or service, and nobody can force you to. ethical problems are things of religion, there would be freedom of religion, and you couldnt force someone to accept your religion. if you want to hire a sex slave, and someone wants the job, then you would hire them. they both have the right to do what they want with their property, which includes their bodies. first of all, if you paid them to come onto your property but didnt say anything about killing them, then that would be a breach of contract. if you tell them that if they want the money, to come onto the property, where i will give you the money and then shoot you in the face, then it would be ok(yes, it sounds stupid, but you can do whatever you want with your property, as long as it doesnt infringe upon the rights of others) second of all, you saying this is my fault. i have been calling everything capitalism rather than anarchocapitalism (so far i havent had to discern between them, since the answer has been the same for both of them), and this situation has a better chance of happening in a anarchocapitalistic environment. in archocapitalism, there still could be a police force, they would just be hired by people. if you want police protection, you can pay for it. kind of like body guards today. but of course, not many could afford this. thats why a buisness man of a big company could hire an entire police force, and offer police protection as part of your salary. this is of course completely up to the buisness man, he doesnt have to offer protection. (but it would be a good incentive to get workers, and a companies not offering protection would lose good workers). under a capitalistic environment, there is a government, consisting of a military (protection from foreign invasion, if the whole world became capitalistic this would no longer be needed), police (for the protection of peoples rights), and judicial (for the resolving of disputes). HAHA, not born with freedom? who gives you freedom? are those people already free, or do they have to be given freedom to? as soon as you are born you are a slave? freedom to choose education? thats not a freedom, thats not a right. you have no right to force someone to teach you something. you have no right to make them your slave. freedom to choose education is saying freedom to enslave people who are smarter than you. contradict myself all the time? all i say is freedom. you have the freedom to do what you want with your property, and no one can take that right away. i cant see where i contradicted myself. i do see a contradiction in your post though: "people are equal" "people are free to choose education" so the people who are poor are allowed to enslave the people who are smart and make them give them education, but the people who are smart cant enslave the people who are poor? and waht does you volunteering have to do with anything? although it is a good lead into something i havent mentioned yet about a capitalistic enviroment. you are free to do what you want with your property INCLUDING giving it all away. if you want to equally distribute your whole paycheck to everyone poorer than you, you can (assuming they accept it, they are not required to accept it). you can also help people out if you want. hell, rich people could fund these schools for the poor people that dont charge any admission rates, but only if they want to do that. they have no legal obligation to do it. some rich people could be religious, and feel helping the poor is their duty. they choose to be that religion, and choose whether they want to follow it. philatrophy (that is a horrible version of the word i want, i cant remember it exactly and im already a horrible speller, so if someone could correct me that would be great :wink: ), or donating to a charity, could be fairly popular for the rich. bill gates has given millions of dollars away. but once again, i must stress its not an obligation to give money away, its a choice. me and death by pod are having a discussion, there arent really to many flames involved. and everything that explains more clearly what we are trying to get at (as each post does) adds something new to talk about. your post, however, added nothing to the conversation.

No, people do not own what they want to own if the government and society deems that they dont deserve it. if they decide that you have too much and "needy" people need it more than you do, then they will take it from you. the result of this is a downward spiral of welfare overall, people will be more worried about showing how needy they are than about working. smart, hardworking individuals wont be able to show their abilities, because they will have to work harder for the same amount as someone who gets their money by taking it from those smart people. but dont they have an equal right to that job under your society? so those people who arent as smart arent as equal as the smart people? thats going against everything you said so far. that was just an example, but look at it like labor jobs and other jobs. no one will want to do the labor jobs, everyone will want the easy sit down jobs.

you are taking ALL of the freedoms away, under your society people own NOTHING. at any given time the government could take away all of your wealth. tell me, what freedoms do you have? if you want to go into a buisness that 95% of the country also wants to go into, is the government going to let 95% of the country do that particular job? all that would happen under your government is complete government control, eventually the gov would designate people from birth what job they are going to get. everyone under a capitalistic society has an EQUAL right to live, and do what ever they want with their property. if someone has the ability to make it big, they have a good probablity of making it big, no matter how poor they are when they are young. the main concern of companies would be running at maximum efficiency, therefore hiring the best people for the job. if someone with great ability tries, then he can get a good job. yes, the common, average person will have less oportunities at getting a job that they are NOT qualified for. if someone cant do a job, i see no reason why a company should be required to hire them. yes, your socialism is a movement away from capitalism. taking away someones property and giving it to someone else is distinctly not capitalist. how do you think companies make these "gigantic profits"? people elect to buy these products, basically just voting on what company they want to succeed. capitalism gives you direct democracy. capitalism would in a sense, require businesses to make things cheaper and better, or else a different company will and put the first company out of business. there are still no incentives to invent anything new under your economics. the system isnt "fairer" for everyone, the smart, inventive, creative, and hard working are being oppressed by the "needy". BECAUSE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION RUINED THE ECONOMY AND THEY BLAMED IT ON CAPITALISM. STUPIDITY ON PART OF THE GOVERNMENT PREVENTS US FROM BEING FREE.

thats just the USAs psuedo capitalism economy. in an anarchocapitalist society there are no government jobs, so you wouldnt be defending capitalism, by agreeing with the current system, because there is no government. people would just hire the services they need, such as police protection. in a capitalist society there is a small government, military(only for defense from other countries), police(to protect peoples right to their property), and courts(to solve civil disputes over property). i have no idea how these are supposed to be funded with out taxes, and for the life of me cant find the answer anywhere (i admit i havent looked very hard, but i just started reading a capitalist book so im hoping she says it in there), and thats why i consider myself an anarchocapitalist rather than just a capitalist. although if a feasible answer to my problem exists that doesnt infringe upon peoples freedoms, like police and military being sent down by God, then id like to know, if anyone has studied capitalism and knows.