Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

Kotaku getting trolled by satirists, or are people really that stupid out there?

Seriously, some of those quotes make me wonder. Surely no one can be that idiotic.

_{^{Can't go a day without something about sexism, right?}}

[scriver]

Nope, as far as I know "men going their own way" is a real, non-satirist forum for misogynists. Pretty sure it has come up in this thread before (the forum, that is, not this thread).

[Luke_Prowler]

Kinda makes you question how an actual woman in the  military would react to someone saying that to their face. My money is on "break their nose".

And before anyone says "violence isn't the answer", not doing anything validates their opinion in their own mind, so this is one of the rare times where violence is the answer

[kaijyuu]

Beating them in an arm wrestle or something would suffice.

[Luke_Prowler]

Eh, I think some problems could be easily solved with a good old fashion brawl, rather than just two people yelling past each other. But then I play Warhammer, so what do I know?

In other news (pic unrelated) the Japanese decided that they were not going to be beaten by Austrailia in the crazy censorship race.

[kaijyuu]

@the quote in that article:

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh god. Is that dude really saying that women need to be submissive else they'll turn gay? The hell?

[Nadaka]

one thing i never understand: why can't states be considered as "persons" in an economic market?

i mean, they invest in it, they sell actions, or bonds, or whatever.

But they can't fail, which is why there's a lot of problems going on.

so why must a state enter the market? i mean. Wouldn't TAX be the only "cut" needed? why do they also need other stuff, like investing, borrowing money from banks and so on?

States need to borrow when they don't have enough money on hand to cover expenses, just like people. In an ideal world, it is because something unplanned and immediately necessary for came up, like a war or giant bridge needing to be built.

more than why the banks are allowed, why are states not treated as persons, who should friggin learn how to save money?

If a state taxes people enough to save money, people consider it to be taxing too much.
[quote
it's possible to end a year without being in debt. It's completely and utterly possible. It has already been done in the past too.

so why not start from there and start saving up money?
[/quote]
because it is very very hard to find the right balance between government services and taxes. No one likes taxes. Everyone likes government services that benefit them.

just cut off politics, chop down salaries of high-level state affairs, remove one or two zero's from politicians retirement funds.

The salaries of politicians are not the primary problem for most states. Its that taxes are too low, or the system is corrupt and wasteful, or to many social services are offered.

[Dutchling]

Kotaku getting trolled by satirists, or are people really that stupid out there?

Seriously, some of those quotes make me wonder. Surely no one can be that idiotic.

_{^{Can't go a day without something about sexism, right?}}

Every time you needed to reload your gun, instead of just pressing a button, you'd have to find a male character and go through some flirting dialogue options to persuade him to do it for you. One out of every four missions the game would tell you that you were sitting out this one due to 'women's issues

This made me laugh :P
Bunch of funny retards.

[Heron TSG]

"I recently bought an upgrade for the game the other day and guess what one of the strongest military units was?", he ponders. "Nuns. I shit you not.

Remember kids, when gaming, substitute history for overblown misogyny! 

For a new topic, does anyone have a better idea about medical/legalizing marijuana than Mitt Romney? Which is to say, anything other than ignoring the question.

[Dutchling]

I have an idea.

[Siquo]

I have an idea.

QFT.

[Truean]

Feh, it actually makes some sense doing what's called an interest spread. The bank takes your money in your savings account and gives you some interest. Then they loan that out to other people for more interest than they pay you, otherwise they'd be losing money. You do that enough, and you got an economy stew goin'. That's fine. The problem is they won't loan money out to anyone now unless you're bribing the credit agency or something for a high score, because they're going to lose so much money on their bad home loans. Banks should make money on the interest spread instead of being stupid with a million fees....

That of course goes to them having to make loans to people who have a reasonable chance of paying them the hell back. They gave everyone a loan (and somehow blamed the people borrowing it when it never should've been loaned in the first place). Think about how every store you shopped at tried to give you a freaking store credit card just for shopping there.... Yeah... problem.

So the problem was the banks would've tanked and taken the rest of us with them if they did. While we DID have to prop up the banks; we didn't have to prop up the stupid executives who let them get in trouble in the first place. If you're too big to fail without taking the whole damn society with you, then you're too fucking big to exist....

[MonkeyHead]

As I said to a colleauge who teaches buisness studies/accountancy/marketing - "Stuff this rat race crap. Physics is clearly for chumps. I am going to start a bank, cock it right royally up, get a bailout for billions then pay myself a bonus of millions from said bailout. Thats where the real cash is."

[shadenight123]

in italy we usually do not say "invest in the market" we say "giocare in borsa" "gamble in the market".

market is seen as a gamble, not an investment.
a gamble were few who know how to play blackjack earn milions, and pay for the double.
others who do not end up ruined.
the solution is simply "not to play".

[EveryZig]

so why not start from there and start saving up money?

Do you know just how hard it is to cut practically any given government spending? Most spending exists because someone can make a convincing argument that it should exist. Even when there is something you are completely sure should be cut, any spending cut has people somewhere it harms, and those people and their allies will fight you tooth and nail to stop your cut.
The Tea Party are a prime example of politicians who went into office thinking that 'cutting wasteful spending' was a straightforward task, and look how far they have gotten on that account (not very far at all). Of course, it doesn't help them that many of them are idiots and/or crazy, but the point stands that cutting expenses is much harder than it seems from the outside.

Also, about the thing you said a while back about making the trains run on time, I finally realized the specific reason why it is harder than you think.
The example you gave was about subways in a city, which are indeed plausible to organize and mechanize. The real problems with making trains run on time come when you are dealing with the entire rest of the country. A country-wide train system (unless you have a tiny country) means many miles of rail over many miles of country side. Such things don't work that well without an organized force to maintain and repair them from the inevitable wear and damage from being out in the open, and by that point you are managing a large web of infrastructure, workers, and bureaucracy, which is very difficult to do in the real world without inefficiency.