Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

D'kian

Regulars
  • Posts

    2721
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by D'kian

  1. It's one thing to build a nuke, it is another to build an ICBM. It seems the only way to deliver a nuke to America would be through smuggling by ship or plane. If this is the only option, even with a nuke and a desire to use it against the US, is it really realistic that they would ever succeed?

    Easily. Think of private planes and yachts. But even if customs people discovered one at a port in, say, New York, the terrorist merely need to detonate it there. Even a tiny 5 kiloton nuke would be devastating. A big one in the megaton range would be disastrous.

  2. I've read just about all of Asimov's fiction.

    Philosophical issues aside, They are indeed good reads. Although it would have been better if Golan Trevize, one of Asimov's best characters BTW, had found a reason to reverse his decision in the last book. And I didn't particularly like "Forward The Foundation."

    Have you read "The End of Eternity" and "The Gods Themselves"? They're a lot better than Foundation.

  3. Lulz. I have, for many years, thought that soccer and FIFA was one of the most uninteresting sporting events of TV. I racked this up to being a non-European, but even viewing from an opened mind, I don't understand why people will watch a game that scores an average of 2 points per game, and offers nothing more than mild enjoyment when a player is 'fouled'.

    In the meantime, I agree that we've got an incredibly interesting NFL season shaping up.

    I bet you don't get people ganging up on you to get into soccer.

    The problem isn't so much the low scoring, but the fact that much of the game consists of people running up and down the field chasing a ball.

    Anyway, the paper I read, Reforma, has a tabloid-shaped "sports" section. On a good day, for me, soccer makes up only 60% of it. Football often rates no more than three pages, usually two. tennis never gets more than two, even when major tourneys are on.

    As to this year's NFL season, I've found it frustrating. Interesting, yes, but I can't make out trends, besides the fact that the Colts and Lions seem to have traded places.

  4. I can't believe the Lions this year :blink: .

    Thank you. Had I not heard more poeple say this, I'd worry I'd dropped into a parallel universe :)

    D'kian, I have to ask: is NFL very big in Mexico City? Or are you an expat?

    Between small and medium. It used to be bigger. Two local networks used to run two games each Sunday, plus SNF and MNF. Today they show just one each, plus SNF and MNF. On cable you still get two games each Sunday, and the night games, too. If you get NFL Network (I do) you can watch the odd Thursday night game.

    But it's a distant, poor relation to sucker (I mean soccer.... I mean sucker). In the interests of truth, the newspaper ought to rename the sports section "Soccer plus real sports).

  5. I hate to say it, but this is normally how important stars, voice actors or otherwise, normally negotiate their pay. Tell me, does anyone think that the voices of Homer, Bart, etc., are important to the SIMPSONS?

    Actors make the characters, even f they don't contribute a single line or thought to the writing of any episode. Fact is we identify the characters with the actors who play them. This leads to type-casting, to be sure, but it also means the success of a character depends on both the actor and the writing.

    That said, the Simpsons were very popular for a very long time and made lots of money, not only through selling ads and re-run and foreign rights, but also through merchandising. For the early days of the show, the actors were likely underpaid. It's logical they'd want more money now, when they see the piles of cash made by Fox.

    You see this same phenomenon, sometimes, with talented athletes in pro sports. Sometimes a rookie drafted late proves to be a star, but has a salary for a second stringer and a five year contract.

  6. D'kian, I'd advise you to check your premises re this sort of apologetic: if the end is wrong, then the means is too. Just so, integrity in pursuing wrong goals is more dangerous than its lack, if the goal is inimical to freedom.

    I pre-check my premises before reading the forum. It saves time.

    I prefer consistency in my enemies. It makes them predictable and therefore easier to defeat, or to protect agaisnt. The religious right has integrity in spades. The left doesn't.

  7. You should have seen how into this the newswoman was. It was like she was being personally offended by this news and as if there was an all-consuming, critical battle about to be waged.

    From the point of view of the religious right, it is a critical battle. It's one thing not to harras or prosecute gays, quite another to recognize them as equals. So I can respect their integrity if not the principles they apply it to.

×
×
  • Create New...