New efforts!

[Twisted Toon]

is there a topic you don't have a thesaurus-filtered opinion on?  good lord

The nutritional value of Pink Algae, maybe?

[Fireheart]

is there a topic you don't have a thesaurus-filtered opinion on?  good lord

Arcana is an educated person with curiosity.  She has a demonstrated interest in learning and in sharing that learning.
I'm not sure where the 'thesaurus' is coming from, in your question.  Perhaps you mean 'encyclopedic'?

Be Well!
Fireheart

[Arcana]

It kind of is an oxymoron.

Hmm.  You may end up having a very interesting, and possibly short, academic lifespan in political science.

PS Rule of law is critical to both a democracy and a republic.

In modern democracies, yes.  But in pure democracies, it isn't.  Athens is universally considered the first true democracy, and rule of law as we know it didn't exist.  Yes, they had laws and yes, they had to obey them, but "The People" were not bound to them when exercising their democratic power.  "The People" could vote for anything, and in effect the law was whatever they decided.  In constitutional democracies the people cannot even by referendum override constitutional law (they can change the constitution, but it takes more than just a majority of the people to want to do that).  In Athens, a majority of the people could change or negate *any* law.  That's what is meant by rule of law operating on a democracy.

PSS. kind of a side point. Our Constitution is fairly unique in it tells the GOVERNMENT what it can and cannot do not the other way around.

Err.  To the extent that I'm aware of foreign constitutions, most western democracies are governed by constitutions that both specify and limit governmental power.  The US constitution was novel at the time it was drafted, but most of its concepts have been adopted by many other countries since then.

I have heard it said in some circles that the US Constitution is unique in that it vests power in the people and limits the government, whereas other western constitutions vest power in the government itself.  But that's not true.  It is the Declaration of Independence that claims to vest ultimate political power in the people - which was a necessity because the document was intended to justify the breakaway with England which would otherwise be treason.  The US Constitution itself makes no such declaration.  It does say "We the People ... do ordain and establish this Constitution" but it is worth noting historically that the US Constitution was declared to be the law of the land after only nine of the original thirteen states ratified it.  And the Constitution was ratified by state legislatures, not by referendum of the people.

In fact, interesting historical note:  Rhode Island was the last of the original thirteen colonies to ratify the US Constitution.  It did so in May 1790.  This was almost two years after the US Constitution became formally the law of the land in the United States (June 1788) and over a year after George Washington is elected President (February 1789).  But most importantly, Rhode Island put the US Constitution to citizen referendum and its citizens overwhelmingly rejected the Constitution.**  The people of Rhode Island did not want to adopt the Constitution, but the Rhode Island legislature (after a lot of debate and a lot of arm twisting) eventually ratified the Constitution by a very close vote (34 to 32).


** Apparently Rhode Island citizens voted to reject the US Constitution 2708 to 237.  That is over eleven to one against.

[Arcana]

I'm not sure where the 'thesaurus' is coming from, in your question.  Perhaps you mean 'encyclopedic'?

Well, I just checked and thesaurus.com does not have an entry for "democratic republic" or "people's republic."  So a thesaurus would, in all likelihood, have not been useful here.

Is there a topic for which I have no opinion?  Hmm.  I don't know.  Perhaps that is a topic for which I have no opinion.

[HorseManDemon]

Is there a topic for which I have no opinion?  Hmm.  I don't know.  Perhaps that is a topic for which I have no opinion.

In much the same way that not making a choice IS a choice, I'd say not having an opinion on a matter IS an opinion, in that you've deemed a topic of so little import to you, that it's not even worth forming an opinion.

[Tubbius]

Good night, Titan.

It's like "Good night Moon" but with less Moon and more Titan.

[Arcana]

In much the same way that not making a choice IS a choice, I'd say not having an opinion on a matter IS an opinion, in that you've deemed a topic of so little import to you, that it's not even worth forming an opinion.

It is also possible to not have an opinion because you're still in the middle of formulating one.  Even in that state, you might still have a preliminary opinion, but there are times when you have no opinion, because the facts don't lend themselves to formulating one.  At the moment I'm unaware of a topic like that for me, but being unaware is not the same thing as it not existing.

For example, the Nintendo Switch is something for which I did not have an opinion.  Until I decided to use it as an example in this post, whereupon I formulated an opinion before finishing this sentence.

[Dev7on]

[Abraxus]

Given the time involved so far with this particular negotiation, that information squares pretty well.  However, it still confuses me how a tactic like this works, when the item in this particular case is basically a property whose market value diminishes almost daily.  Add to that, the number of projects at various stages of development intended to fill the gap, and there is a time limit to how long it will hold any value at all.  One would have thought that by this point, they would have come to the conclusion that making some money (though perhaps not as much as they initially wanted) is better than making none by the time all of this plays out.

I foolishly still hold out hope that it will happen, but I do not understand this from a business perspective.  It feels like cutting off ones nose, to spite the other guys face.

[LaughingAlex]

I kind of feel as though they really have no reason to be on the demand "we couldn't find anyone who could match up to the standards of CoX's customers" when today it's pretty clear the talent does exist in the CoX community.  Heck, someone made a full detailed map modification to Pocket D today, and so far from what I am seeing for CoX it's quality content.  It's pretty clear that if we do get the game back this year new content would not be out of the question, it'd be a possibility at this point.

[Arcana]

One cannot make a diamond out of river mud; be happy with a brick.

[Tubbius]

One cannot make a diamond out of river mud; be happy with a brick.

Ooooooo.

So philosophical.

[LateNights]

I foolishly still hold out hope that it will happen, but I do not understand this from a business perspective.  It feels like cutting off ones nose, to spite the other guys face.

Pretty sure it's the I.P itself, rather than the old game that has value for NC.

[Nyx Nought Nothing]

One cannot make a diamond out of river mud; be happy with a brick.

Depending on the composition of the mud with enough heat and pressure it may be possible. Just wait a billion years or so.
The fact that it's a far better use of resources to make the brick with the mud and go look for an already formed diamond is entirely beside the point.

[Harpospoke]

[kaaduu1280]

[Balince]

That actually is helpful because at least it explains what appears to be odd business behavior to a westerner.

It doesn't make it less odd since it is more logical to be flexible in business practice if you intend to do business globally.   ...Because...it makes you more money.   ...But it does shed some light on the delay and gives some reason to remain hopeful.

 If a westerner can look up something like that, one would think a business person from Korea could do the same in reverse and discover how to do business with the world in a more efficient manner.   Expecting the world to conform to you is going to put your business at a big disadvantage to businesses who do not have that expectation.

I think part of the style they employ is to make you anxious. Doing business the American way is pretty cut and dry compared to that. They probably are trying to make you over compensate. They don't care about efficiency if you're interested enough you'll negotiate yourself into giving them what they want.

[Power Gamer]

Pretty sure it's the I.P itself, rather than the old game that has value for NC.

Correct.

Even if you sell the brand, whatever happens to it reflect on your company. You must take great care when relinquishing control.

[Brigadine]

Hmm.  You may end up having a very interesting, and possibly short, academic lifespan in political science.

In modern democracies, yes.  But in pure democracies, it isn't.  Athens is universally considered the first true democracy, and rule of law as we know it didn't exist.  Yes, they had laws and yes, they had to obey them, but "The People" were not bound to them when exercising their democratic power.  "The People" could vote for anything, and in effect the law was whatever they decided.  In constitutional democracies the people cannot even by referendum override constitutional law (they can change the constitution, but it takes more than just a majority of the people to want to do that).  In Athens, a majority of the people could change or negate *any* law.  That's what is meant by rule of law operating on a democracy.

Err.  To the extent that I'm aware of foreign constitutions, most western democracies are governed by constitutions that both specify and limit governmental power.  The US constitution was novel at the time it was drafted, but most of its concepts have been adopted by many other countries since then.

I have heard it said in some circles that the US Constitution is unique in that it vests power in the people and limits the government, whereas other western constitutions vest power in the government itself.  But that's not true.  It is the Declaration of Independence that claims to vest ultimate political power in the people - which was a necessity because the document was intended to justify the breakaway with England which would otherwise be treason.  The US Constitution itself makes no such declaration.  It does say "We the People ... do ordain and establish this Constitution" but it is worth noting historically that the US Constitution was declared to be the law of the land after only nine of the original thirteen states ratified it.  And the Constitution was ratified by state legislatures, not by referendum of the people.

In fact, interesting historical note:  Rhode Island was the last of the original thirteen colonies to ratify the US Constitution.  It did so in May 1790.  This was almost two years after the US Constitution became formally the law of the land in the United States (June 1788) and over a year after George Washington is elected President (February 1789).  But most importantly, Rhode Island put the US Constitution to citizen referendum and its citizens overwhelmingly rejected the Constitution.**  The people of Rhode Island did not want to adopt the Constitution, but the Rhode Island legislature (after a lot of debate and a lot of arm twisting) eventually ratified the Constitution by a very close vote (34 to 32).


** Apparently Rhode Island citizens voted to reject the US Constitution 2708 to 237.  That is over eleven to one against.

Point 1. I hate academia and look to real world opportunities.

Point 3. As per your Rhode Island point. The State was actually under threat of port blockade and embargo by the other 11 colonies. http://historum.com/american-history/33215-rhode-island-threatened-invasion-us-print.html Both of those acts by the US could be viewed as an act of war. Had that not happened it is conceivable that they wouldn't have ratified it and they might have been invaded and annexed.

[Taceus Jiwede]

According to the Civ game I played recently none of what is being said is adding up  First of all you guys haven't even mentioned how Rome had conquered most of the known world by 1776.  Not sure where you guys are getting your facts but uh I witnessed the whole thing and clearly the world was always under Roman rule as a Monarchy.  I think at one point they were a Merchant Republic but that didn't last long.