@Anti-Matter Cleaning won't help, unless the scratch is not really a scratch but some dirt stripe that has somehow attached itself to the surface of the disc. If it's an actual scratch, the disc needs to be polished.
@HobbitGamer Thanks. I kinda feel like I made it too long, but of course, when you tell it to someone face to face, it always seems much shorter than actually putting it in writing.
'The console wars are like boobs: Sony and Microsoft fight over which ones look the nicest and Nintendo's are the most fun to play with.'
@NEStalgia You say they aren't exactly hiding it? I take it you refer to their military buildup. But America has been building up their military basically nonstop for decades. It has a military budget that eclipses anyone else by a landslide! That doesn't mean America is seeking WW3 any more than China is. It just means that China is building up the strength to behave however it want, just like America. That could well lead to a conflict, but both countries have nuclear capability and the base understanding that a nuclear war is a war no one wins. I do not think WW3 is inevitable, but it does depend on a new balance of power being established. America has not seriously been challenged since the fall of the USSR and I think the rise of another super power to check American Imperialism would be a good thing if the two powers can find a balance.
But I concede that that is a big IF and honestly armed conflict is more likely. If that happens, I'd prefer they wait another 50 years. I selfishly want to live most of my life before the world burns in nuclear fire. Preferably I'd rather die dreaming of a future where that doesn't happen. If the bombs start falling, I'd prefer to be in the first blast, right in the epicenter, and never see it coming. Jesus is lord and I'll trust in him. Or if I'm wrong and the atheists are right? Well I've got nothing to lose then either! First bomb please.
But the longer we can wait, the better.
Nintendo Switch FC: 4867-2891-2493
Switch username: Em
Discord: Heavyarms55#1475
Pokemon Go FC: 3838 2595 7596
PSN: Heavyarms55zx
@NintendoByNature Yeah finishing the season kind of fleshed out some more lore for me. Are you having trouble getting oils and such? I’ve still not met any black smiths or alchemists, so maybe I’m just a bit ahead of myself.
Somewhat related, any of y’all seen the new Dracula on Netflix? I just finished the first part, and it’s pretty cool.
#MudStrongs
Switch Friend Code: SW-7842-2075-5515 | My Nintendo: HobbitGamr
@HobbitGamer I've only made 1 oil I think, Maybe 2. I've kinda given up on crafting stuff. I have so many Ingredients yet never enough to make anything. I don't even know where i found an alchemist( maybe regular merchants can make oils?) I've found plenty of black smiths but never have enough items or coin to do anything. So basically I just play thru the story, slash away at enemies, burn stuff, and buy foods and repair armor/weapons to survive.
@NEStalgia - You may be on to something there. If that’s true, it’s a good thing our leaders and decision makers have humble roots. Wait...
@Tyranexx - Ah, I see I misunderstood your initial reply. You meant actually playing Smash as opposed to having my proposed fighting tournament take place on perilous, floating platforms in space live on pay per view. Your Smash proposal would also be very entertaining, with the added bonus that nobody has to die or even get hurt. I’m in. Smash for politics. Loser gives up the stick.
@HobbitGamer - I only saw a still ad for it, but it caught my attention for a second. Is it a comedy?
@Heavyarms55 speaking of living longer, I can't help wonder what commonly used or consumed tech, product, or food, will be discovered to be hazardous & shorten lives. (that we don't know of already). Like sugar, lead, mercury, radiation, cfc's, green house gas etc. All of these were thought of as innocuous, until excessive or longterm use & data discovered otherwise.
@Woomy_NNYes Just imagine if it were discovered that WiFi signals were giving us all cancer. WiFi is basically everywhere these days. Every major city nearly 100%. Pretty much every major city around the world, even in the poorest nations there's still a lot of it around the government districts and such.
But go back just 30 years and it was completely different. No where near the amounts we have today. We have no idea what long term constant exposure could do because that simply hasn't happened yet.
Just an idea.
Less so than health, I am afraid of the direction we are going where everything is a "smart device". You know there are now toothbrushes, shoe insoles, and shaving razors that are all connected to the network now? Even if we set aside the "big brother" conspiracies, the risk of over-reliance on internet connected systems is very concerning. We're getting to a point where cyber terrorists could potentially do far more damage than conventional terrorism and at no immediate risk to themselves.
Nintendo Switch FC: 4867-2891-2493
Switch username: Em
Discord: Heavyarms55#1475
Pokemon Go FC: 3838 2595 7596
PSN: Heavyarms55zx
@Heavyarms55 I'm with you on cyber & increasingly pervasive smart connectivity. I just wanted a phone with a good camera, I didn't want more internet & a laundry list of 50 apps with strange names, questionable relevance... always running in the background. I keep hoping an anti-connectivity, or privacy-respectful tech brand will catch on in the market.
@bimmy-lee In my campaign I promise better governance. We're tired of leaders who are out of touch and disconnected from the struggles of the ordinary middle class American! We're tired of the wealthy 1% who have always lived a life of privilege steering us in the wrong direction! I promise to do something for the middle class! I say we need millionaires, NOT billionaires running our country!! WHO'S WITH ME?!?!
(I'm NEStalgia, and I really couldn't be bothered to GAF about this message because I'm yachting at my time share that may or may not be in Cuba all month, but my friend in the State Department from my time as global sales manager at Lockheed got it approved for me, so I told my campaign manager to just approve everything. Remember: your vote COUNTS this November!)
@Heavyarms55 "Building up strength to behave however it wants" is kind of the key word, especially in context of history. The US's military development occurred partially due to participating in WWI, but mostly as part of joining into WWII as a participant of last resort, and the essential military buildup, echoing that of Europe that was necessary to do so. After the fact it rolled right into the Cold War and that perpetual buildup was essential. After the USSR ended, it was just...."there", and thus has perpetuated partially due to commercial interest in perpetuating it, and partially out of fear of "well we have this barrier now, what happens if we were to lose that advantage? Let's just keep it..." Which isn't entirely wrong. Similarly, Russia's only real asset is it's military capability, and it's oil industry. That's the only thing that keeps them relatively powerful on the world stage, without it they'd be another cheap labor stink hole in the world. Would the same happen to us? Who knows...but we have that...usually we choose to keep it, even if it's just in case. But the point is we didn't build it for the purpose of antagonizing. We built it in response to necessity and then MAINTAINED it, I suppose you could argue for the purpose of antagonizing - not just that, but also because we still promised (over-promised) to use our money and military to protect Europe, Japan, Korea, and a smattering of other special cases.
China on the other hand is building out, not to participate as a last resort in a wold war that's been raging for a decade, nor to balance power in a Cold War. They're building it out, as you say, to behave however they want. That right there is the powder keg for inevitable war. Of course people say that China historically is not war-faring, which is true. But China has historically not been so...."western" and a power player on the world stage. Moreover there's no such thing as "another superpower to balance imperialism" etc. There can only be one superpower. If there are two, then you have cold war at best until one is destroyed. US and USSR were the first two modern superpowers (WWII Germany wasn't technically a superpower) - one had to be destroyed. Not the total extermination of the society, but the country itself doesn't exist now. It was politically and economically destroyed. Before that was the British Empire, arguably replaced by the US. Before that we'd have to go back to Rome. Again, unchallenged until challenge inevitably meant destruction. There's no such thing as a balance of superpowers. "Balance" is cold war. And "Cold War" tends not to be very cold....it's generally a bunch of proxy hot wars so both countries can pretend their not at war. So fine, there's no sea landings in Beijing and LA. Instead they'll fight it out in Iran and Malaysia as "police actions of local uprisings." There's your balance of superpowers. Of course, officially, China is not nuclear capable and can't produce semiconductors. Officially Huawei is an independent company. Lots of things are official.
Ultimately the desire for permanent peace, regardless of the time or the countries, is unrealistic. Conflict is human. And war is a natural part of that competition and conflict on a large scale. Lack of organized war will mean dense overpopulation, poverty, and disorganized anarchy. The whole world would look like India and the ME before long. And that in itself would lead to wars. If not organized militaries with purposes and goals, and terms of surrender once it cuts to the bone, then it will eventually be global misery, despair, anarchy, and endless violence in a disorganized, personal fashion. Too many people, overpopulated and without security will eventually start killing each other. Warfare keeps "referees" and rules on the conflict rather than endless "kill or be killed." Right now China's the inevitable participant They're creating economic pressure, choosing to militarize in preparation for backlash for their planned power and resource grabs.
Ultimately when it comes to war - real, big war, it's not usually "evil selfish governments." Usually we get war because the people want war. Not ALL the people, but by and large, people reach their breaking point with a present situation, and desire "someone should do something about that." WWI, half of Europe hated each other, and the nobles of each country hated each other....they were itching for any reason at all to start shooting at their neighbors. WWII, the German public wanted war. They were afraid of the USSR and angry about the depression and what WWI cost them, angry at humiliation...not each and every person, angry at the ethnic bogeyman that "must" be the cause of hoarding all their money... but the "mood" in the populace was a fighting mood, looking to fight back against that, and they supported the new party that promised to "do something about all of that." This time either China will get tired of being the economic power but getting none of the celebration (the Chinese public is proud to a fault), or the world will get tired of their expansion toying, plays for Taiwan, or currency manipulation (riiight about the next massive recession...) and someone on some side, the feel of the public, will be one wanting a fight.
When I say it's inevitable, I don't mean specifically do to circumstances or militarism. I say it in view of the present conditions contrasted against the very nature of the human experience, as informed by the entirety of history. It's inevitable. If it's not China then it'll be someone else. But China's the most likely one poised for that role.
Similarly with modern war & politics, what THEY know, isn't what WE know. Your fear of the situation with Iran isn't even anything to do with Iran and random antagonism. Step back and look at your own bigger picture you drew. What's Iran's value? Nothing on it's own. What DOES go through Iran? Russia's pipeline. Who benefits from Russia's pipeline? Europe. Why does it matter to the US? Because it cements a concentration of reliance, and potentially dependence of Europe on Russia, and therefore, China as opposed to us. Russia's relegated to middle-man status in the US-China "totally not a Cold War - pinky promise!". There's your "balance of superpowers" in play. It's that very balance that's leading to the Iran situation that has you worried. Popup conflicts in seemingly unimportant places will continue so long as we're "balancing" those powers until one is gone. They can smooth it over in the media all they want, but we've seen it all before.
I'm with you on wanting to be there in the middle of the bombs though!
Also with you on the IoT, WiFi, etc. etc. etc. This is the greatest experiment on the largest scale ever perpetrated on the human race. And then we can't figure out why there's so much "healthcare" (indentured treatment) consumption.
@ThanosReXXX Much as I'd love to take credit as some sort of political and social theorist genius, I must say I've invented nothing revolutionary here....it's all well written about and has been for quite some time.
@NEStalgia Well, maybe well written about over yonder, but in Europe, the experts on both the US and the USSR definitely see the latter as a super power, so your views, or the ones you're relaying still seem a bit too American. Make no mistake: while any other country is potentially laughable, Russia most definitely is not. How they practically reign supreme in Syria is already testament to that.
And besides, no one should ever want to go back to the cold war days, so let's just be glad that relations are what they are now, even if they are still far from perfect. And the view on people wanting war is definitely one that I cannot agree with, and neither the one stating how we Americans handle our army and the how and why of it still being here. We may have been a deciding factor and lauded heroes in WW2, but pretty much every other international operation has been one of meddling in things we had no business in, and being there for personal gains only, whether that be resources or political power/leverage.
So, " people wanting war" should therefore be replaced with "governments/countries want war", depending on what can be gained. Average Joe's like you and me definitely have nothing to gain by our armies fighting over some resource or a piece of land somewhere in Outthereistan...
And of course there' s a power balance. Only having one super power would literally be impossible, and would upset the world even more than it already has. There's ALWAYS a balance in everything, ultimately. That's just the way things work. For every left, there's a right and for every up, there's a down.
But that's where I'll stop, because I'd like to honor Eel's request of toning things down a bit, so it's not my intention to add to it, lest we get lost in a text wall exchange about topics I don't even care about.
But having said that, I did just want to express my thoughts on this, because some parts irked me, and seem highly subjective, so it felt like I just had to say something. Guess that's just in my nature...
@ThanosReXXX Errr, I think you're losing your edge in textwall processing. You're restating most of what I stated and declaring the same statements odd
I said the USSR was a superpower - and WWII Germany was not:
"US and USSR were the first two modern superpowers (WWII Germany wasn't technically a superpower)"
I said that Russia's military and oil industry were the only things keeping them significant on the world stage.
" Similarly, Russia's only real asset is it's military capability, and it's oil industry. That's the only thing that keeps them relatively powerful on the world stage"
And not wanting a cold war was the reason I said to not desire a "second superpower for balance".
(No quick quotable quote to paste for that, it's in the larger text.)
So we're agreeing on much of those details.
The meddling we can somewhat agree on, though I do believe there's more going on behind the scenes in some of that in terms of "proxy" situations than we're led to believe.
A public wanting a war, such as the events starting WWII, is obviously less objective to assess, but there has been plenty of writing about such situations regarding the public mood in Italy, Gemrany, other countries not directly allied etc, in terms of the public thoughts of the period. It's less a matter of the public issuing a referendum on "should we go to war" so much as a mood that supports it with a tacit public approval if not excitement over the idea. Not with any one situation or country in particular, but more of a social consciousness that supports one, in general, in all time periods where major wars emerge. Nobody wants to be IN the war of course... they want someone else to do it for them and they'll cheer them on, naturally.
And I did say the real, big wars with that. I don't mean "military actions in Outtheristan." I mean the wars of the "lets conquer all the neighboring countries for our national honor and to increase our buffer/safety net" variety and the "we want revenge against country x for what they did to us" variety. By that I mean the world war sized variety and other much larger contexts like the cold war. Not even the "public support" say, post 9/11 conflicts had. I meant the larger scale "commit everything to it" level wars. At least historically. It's of course been since the 60's that that sort of thinking has really been relevant anywhere, so it's a bit untested if public mindsets work today as they did then on the large scale. Today might involve checking Facebook to think if your friend's friends think it's a good idea and encouraging others to retweet inflammatory statements. If we're relying on that, I think we can definitely say the public, everywhere, demands a war, always. I just don't know how effective keyboard warriors will be against napalm.... But I enthusiastically support trying to find out!
Forums
Topic: The Chit-Chat Thread
Posts 37,661 to 37,680 of 97,846
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic