Has anyone ever had the experience, in any faucet of popular culture or fiction, of first seeing or hearing something (i.e. an iconic scene in a classic film) in parody form, and only finding out later the original context? I think it's been done enough to the point where any recent generation can relate, perhaps diluting the original intent.

I think it has also contributed to the phenomena trope Seinfeld Is Unfunny, where perhaps a piece of fiction is a little too good and/or iconic, to the point where everyone makes homages to and parodies of it. As a result, it seems stale or hard to take seriously after awhile.

That's what happens when you cut Nasa's budget...

inb4theISShasnothingtodowithNasa

BossPerson

I think enough people have died and enough **** has gotten blown up in NASA's various programs to prove that it isn't just about budget and resources. It's also simply an inherently new and risky field, no matter what organization.

Only for video game initial release dates. Or would that kind of observation be more like an anniversary?

Jamie Dimon, CEO of Chase http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Dimon

Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Blankfein

James P. Gorman, CEO of Morgan Stanley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_P._Gorman

Vikram Pandit, CEO of Citibank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram_Pandit

All of these guys had to go to college. A lot of people like this have M.B.A.'s. Do you think anyone they let get close to them would have anything less than what they have? Of course not. To get anywhere close to someone like that (in a working enviornment or wherever) you have to be on their level. No one that successful wants to hang out with fools. And these are just the CEO's. There are a whole lot of people that they depend on who also have similar degrees.

lo_Pine

Anyone who is ambivalent about going to college should definitely not seek out work in the corporate world, especially at these huge banks. Most of them do not hire anything less than top talent from top universities, and even then very long hours, stress, and burn-out are all extremely common.

I will only say that it will not be helpful to those who are not ready or willing to attend and do their work. Too many seem compelled or feel obligated to go to college without a sound plan or strategic goals.

My only concern is that the source engine is now quite old. Sure, it's a big step up from that utterly lazy attempt that was Half-life: Source, but based on the initial reaction I see thus far, it doesn't seem to be all that relevant anymore (or at least as much as it would have been if it came out even just 3 or 4 years prior). It also makes me wonder what is going to happen to the unfinished storyline in the Half-life 2 arc (new engine/focus or just indefinite suspension?).

Either way, I will definitely be playing, as soon as I can get my PC to actually boot into Windows again. In addition to the Xen chapters, I am really hoping that they streamlined "On a Rail" and "Residue Processing". Parts of those chapters were uninspiring and boring.

If you haven't seen it already.

Relevant anymore or not, they seemed to have taken their time with this. Let's hope it does not disappoint.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

From my observations, what Libya and Gaddafi suffered was a result of Gaddafi going against the "status quo", so to speak. Gaddafi refused to borrow money from the international banking cartels and instead nationalized Libya's own central bank as well as their oil company 'Libya's National Oil Coorporation', benefitting his people while being free from the clutches of Rothschild & friends with their sky high interest rates for unnecessary loans. Gaddafi's idea to introduce a Gold Dinar in Africa was a means for the people to leave the clutches of the sunken ship that is the Dollar and to share true wealth, not just with his Libyan people, but with all of Africa as well since he was planning on creating a United States of Africa since the African Union had been more or less considered a failure. Incidentally, as the "Rebels" were fighting Gaddafi, somehow they managed to put together at the same time a new oil company under US/UN control and a new central bank subservient to the very entities Gaddafi had sought to rid himself of.

Libyan Rebel Council Forms Oil Company to Replace Qaddafi's

Libyan Rebels Form Their Own Central Bank

I'll assume that you're pretty certain that there was no outside influence as to the funding these so called rebels were able to attain which obviously allowed them to accomplish so much in almost record breaking time...

_R34LiTY_

I love how you engage in complete nonsense hyperbole and simply ignore my assertions. First, the NOC and Libyan Central Bank still very much exist. Second, the only reason these organizations were formed was because Tripoli was still held by Gaddafi. Until the rebels were able to take it, they needed institutions that could perform basic government functions (whether or not they were effective is another story). And their oil company for most intents and purposes was actually the Benghazi based Agoco, which did little in way of any production until September. Third, it is very clear that, outside of his heartland (mainly his hometown Sirte, Bani Walid, and smaller associated towns), Gaddafi was neither popular nor interested in sharing his wealth in any meaningful sense. I understand that Libya was at one time the most developed country in Africa, with also the highest GDP per capita. But this is often the case with countries who make easy money from oil and other natural resources. It doesn't mean that Gaddafi was any economic wizard or "liberator". He certainly had no gripes about his family's often insanely excessive lifestyles. And even despite its oil wealth, unemployment continued to run high (15%+) and many parts of the country remain significantly underdeveloped (particularly the eastern regions, where most of the oil lies geographically).

Finally, these organizations you mention had little if any influence on the final outcome of the war. If you were paying attention to the conflict, you would have found that the groups most responsible for toppling Gaddafi and driving him from Tripoli came from the Tripolitania enclaves of Misarata and the Nafusa Mountains, which had only superficial connections to the rebel NTC to begin with and with little initial NATO air backup. This makes your assertions even more insane. How do two regions of no more than 600k people overpower a region of easily more than 2 million if the majority of those 2 million support the defending regime and in 3 weeks after breaking out? And why do they put up no meaningful or organized resistance afterward?

If Gaddafi wasn't adamant on changing himself and his country for the better, the UN wouldn't have proposed to recognize the man for all the greater good that he has done for his country and his people.

Libya's Late, Great Rights Record

United Nations Human Rights Council report on Libya Jan 4th, 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty

Here are links/sources of how the government helped Libyans by heavily subsidizing the costs of necessities like food staples, housing, oil, while providing free medicalcare, free education, and even profit sharing. Not a liberator, but a leader.

Library of Congress and it's Country Study of Libya...updated Study of Libya

Yes, Libya was subsequently suspended from the UN Human Rights Council, incidentally though that happened after Gaddafi opened his mouth about nationalizing the central bank and the oil company as I've already posted.

You ask... "How do two regions of no more than 600k people overpower a region of easily more than 2 million if the majority of those 2 million support the defending regime and in 3 weeks after breaking out?"

Simple, with US & NATO supporting and funding the "rebels".

However, as with Frame_Dragger, I'm sure this is all nonsense and hyperbole to someone that can't see past the story they've already swallowed at face value, but that's besides the point because initially we were discussing the many causes of 9/11 being used as the catalyst to push American hegemony across the face of the planet before I presented the example that Gaddafi suffered the same fate as Hussein.

1. Those poverty figures you link to in Wikipedia are almost certainly incorrect. Upon a trace to any of the source documents, it is either unmeasured or highly unfavorable (i.e. easily double digits).

2. Please quote sources that are newer than 25 years old.

3. How the hell do you nationalize institutions that are already "national" (i.e. NOC), or at least should have been at any rate (particularly during the sanction period)?

4. Easy money from oil does not make one a great leader. Any oil rich nation with a small population would subsidize costs and provide extra services. But believe me, that doesn't mean Gaddafi had any direct hand in it. And you still have not addressed his family's excesses, nepotism, and corruption.

5. You still know nothing about what actually happened. "U.S. & NATO supporting and funding the 'rebels'" does not mean the other side gives up without a fight (or melt away with pathetically little resistance), or that the rebels even had a guarantee of victory. Like I said, the only places where Gaddafi forces even put up a sustained resistance was Bani Walid (which has the high ground anyway) and Sirte (his hometown). And even after the rebels took over, if the majority still supported Gaddafi, they could have risen up in an attempt for a counter revolution. But they (Gaddafi supporters) didn't, or at least in any way that was serious.

And you should also note that Tripoli rose up BEFORE the main body of the rebel forces made it into the city.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

You're correct that Iraq's oil production back then wasn't anything spectacular, but then again neither was Libya's and it suffered the same adversed affect that struck Iraq. I highly doubt that switching the denomination of oil sales was the sole reason for the US & NATO to exemplify it's blatant military aggression on developing nations that only wanted to stand on their own feet without wearing the shackles of the US and it's handlers, but it certainly made the situations in those volatile areas that much more crucial into introducing "democracy" in a much more expedient fashion.

And what's wrong with RT ? Would you prefer that I cite news outlets that you trust only because those other outlets spin & spit out what you believe to be the more patriotic version of history?

_R34LiTY_

Please spare me your "adversed affect" about Libya. If Gaddafi was really that good and benevolent (if only economically), then he would have never been overthrown through an air war alone. I've seen plenty of examples of air support that led to nothing because the ground forces were unmotivated, incapable, or unsupported by sufficient portions of the population. Given how quickly Tripoli was blitzed (much of the city was taken unopposed or with little resistance), and how much fighting equipment was left unused by the defending regime, I'd say that there is little evidence that the air war alone led to his overthrow. Therefore, there were obviously plenty of economic and political problems to go around and that were left unresolved (and there usually are in oil rich nations), leading to an eventual revolt.

Further, regardless of what I think about RT, can you find something unrelated that even mentions Gaddafi's proposal for a gold dinar? Before or since? This idea is usually attributed to Malaysia's former prime minister,Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad in a somewhat different form. Yet, he seems to be doing alright and not under any active threat.

From my observations, what Libya and Gaddafi suffered was a result of Gaddafi going against the "status quo", so to speak. Gaddafi refused to borrow money from the international banking cartels and instead nationalized Libya's own central bank as well as their oil company 'Libya's National Oil Coorporation', benefitting his people while being free from the clutches of Rothschild & friends with their sky high interest rates for unnecessary loans. Gaddafi's idea to introduce a Gold Dinar in Africa was a means for the people to leave the clutches of the sunken ship that is the Dollar and to share true wealth, not just with his Libyan people, but with all of Africa as well since he was planning on creating a United States of Africa since the African Union had been more or less considered a failure. Incidentally, as the "Rebels" were fighting Gaddafi, somehow they managed to put together at the same time a new oil company under US/UN control and a new central bank subservient to the very entities Gaddafi had sought to rid himself of.

Libyan Rebel Council Forms Oil Company to Replace Qaddafi's

Libyan Rebels Form Their Own Central Bank

I'll assume that you're pretty certain that there was no outside influence as to the funding these so called rebels were able to attain which obviously allowed them to accomplish so much in almost record breaking time...

I love how you engage in complete nonsense hyperbole and simply ignore my assertions. First, the NOC and Libyan Central Bank still very much exist. Second, the only reason these organizations were formed was because Tripoli was still held by Gaddafi. Until the rebels were able to take it, they needed institutions that could perform basic government functions (whether or not they were effective is another story). And their oil company for most intents and purposes was actually the Benghazi based Agoco, which did little in way of any production until September. Third, it is very clear that, outside of his heartland (mainly his hometown Sirte, Bani Walid, and smaller associated towns), Gaddafi was neither popular nor interested in sharing his wealth in any meaningful sense. I understand that Libya was at one time the most developed country in Africa, with also the highest GDP per capita. But this is often the case with countries who make easy money from oil and other natural resources. It doesn't mean that Gaddafi was any economic wizard or "liberator". He certainly had no gripes about his family's often insanely excessive lifestyles. And even despite its oil wealth, unemployment continued to run high (15%+) and many parts of the country remain significantly underdeveloped (particularly the eastern regions, where most of the oil lies geographically).

Finally, these organizations you mention had little if any influence on the final outcome of the war. If you were paying attention to the conflict, you would have found that the groups most responsible for toppling Gaddafi and driving him from Tripoli came from the Tripolitania enclaves of Misarata and the Nafusa Mountains, which had only superficial connections to the rebel NTC to begin with and with little initial NATO air backup. This makes your assertions even more insane. How do two regions of no more than 600k people overpower a region of easily more than 2 million if the majority of those 2 million support the defending regime and in 3 weeks after breaking out? And why do they put up no meaningful or organized resistance afterward?

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

I take it then that you laugh at Time Magazine as well....

[quote="Time Magazine"]Europe's dream of promoting the euro as a competitor to the U.S. dollar may get a boost from SADDAM HUSSEIN. Iraq says that from now on, it wants payments for its oil in euros, despite the fact that the battered European currency unit, which used to be worth quite a bit more than $1, has dropped to about 82[cents]. Iraq says it will no longer accept dollars for oil because it does not want to deal "in the currency of the enemy."

The switch to euros would cost the U.N. a small fortune in accounting-paperwork changes. It would also reduce the interest earnings and reparations payments that Iraq is making for damage it caused during the Gulf War, a shortfall the Iraqis would have to make up.

The move hurts Iraq, the U.N. and the countries receiving reparations. So why is Saddam doing it? Diplomatic sources say switching to the euro will favor European suppliers over U.S. ones in competing for Iraqi contracts, and the p.r. boost that Baghdad would probably get in Europe would be another plus.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html#ixzz1yi63CDSD_R34LiTY_

Incidentally, Muammar Ghadafi suffered the same fate when he too ditched the Dollar in order to sell his oil in gold backed African Dinars, a currency Ghadafi was looking to introduce.

...

A country's wealth would depend on how much gold it had and not how many dollars it traded. And Libya has 144 tons of gold. The UK, for example, has twice as much, but ten times the population.

"If Gaddafi had an intent to try to re-price his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global market and accept something else as a currency or maybe launch a gold dinar currency, any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world's central banks,"says Anthony Wile, founder and chief editor of the Daily Bell.

"So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward from moving him from power."

And it has happened before.

In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars. Some say sanctions and an invasion followed because the Americans were desperate to prevent OPEC from transferring oil trading in all its member countries to the euro.

...

http://www.rt.com/news/economy-oil-gold-libya/RT

I'll take your laughter as part of your own lunacy.

Iraq can do what it wants. That doesn't mean that anyone else is going to play ball with them. As I said, Iraq's oil production alone is nothing special, and I certainly wouldn't risk empowering a man whose blatant military aggressions were well known (even if only politically).

And I'd cite something better than that sorry excuse for a news agency that is RT.

You're correct that Iraq's oil production back then wasn't anything spectacular, but then again neither was Libya's and it suffered the same adversed affect that struck Iraq. I highly doubt that switching the denomination of oil sales was the sole reason for the US & NATO to exemplify it's blatant military aggression on developing nations that only wanted to stand on their own feet without wearing the shackles of the US and it's handlers, but it certainly made the situations in those volatile areas that much more crucial into introducing "democracy" in a much more expedient fashion.

And what's wrong with RT ? Would you prefer that I cite news outlets that you trust only because those other outlets spin & spit out what you believe to be the more patriotic version of history?

Please spare me your "adversed affect" about Libya. If Gaddafi was really that good and benevolent (if only economically), then he would have never been overthrown through an air war alone. I've seen plenty of examples of air support that led to nothing because the ground forces were unmotivated, incapable, or unsupported by sufficient portions of the population. Given how quickly Tripoli was blitzed (much of the city was taken unopposed or with little resistance), and how much fighting equipment was left unused by the defending regime, I'd say that there is little evidence that the air war alone led to his overthrow. Therefore, there were obviously plenty of economic and political problems to go around and that were left unresolved (and there usually are in oil rich nations), leading to an eventual revolt.

Further, regardless of what I think about RT, can you find something unrelated that even mentions Gaddafi's proposal for a gold dinar? Before or since? This idea is usually attributed to Malaysia's former prime minister,Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad in a somewhat different form. Yet, he seems to be doing alright and not under any active threat.