Facebook is going to come crashing down. Way overpriced for way too little real value. Completely expected that Facebook is struggling to stay around $38/share. I expect it will fall today, and if not today then the next day or next after that.

We never attacked how much nurses were paid. Matter of fact, I stayed purely on their topic of taxes. Dibs merely made the point of what that would mean if applied to nurses. In fact, in a twisted way, you comment actually supports us in not wanting to pursue additional taxes right now.

As I have stated above, the only legitimate jurisdiction in which to try Bush/Cheney would be US jurisdiction. Any other trial, anywhere else, would be purely academic. Prove Bush/Cheney guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury of Americans and I'll stand by the verdict, but anything less than that is simply politics. Granted, the drive to get the evidence to convict them in a US court would be political too, but then you at least have a lot of hurdles to overcome to actually convict them.

Twain is wise to stay out of the conspiracy theory portion. As for me, I'm out on Aponic's self-defeating argument.

aponic, yeah I do. Do you realize how damn expensive it is to keep warplanes in the air? Way too expensive to keep them in the air around the Pentagon and D.C. when the nearest possibly entity that would have been thought to have a shot at doing something would have been a billion times more likely to shoot down a threat themselves for us then to actually attack us.

Prior to 9/11, the understanding was that terrorism was simply heightened criminal activity, not a quasi-war. Sure we'd bombed a few buildings and pounded the sand with our military, but it wasn't a war.

Prior to 9/11 the expectation was to have time to mobilize around the nations sensitive and critical defense infrastructure. Prior to 9/11, the defense of these places was largely to prevent spying and warn lost or curious civilians off.

Prior to 9/11, various intelligences were not compiled together to create a clearer picture of what was going on; a significant part of this was meant to keep a firewall between criminal investigations and intelligence investigations.

9/11 fits perfectly into the history of the English-speaking peoples since and before 1900. English-speaking peoples rarely win the first battle of a war, but also rarely lose the subsequent war (especially not when united in common cause).

We had the information to point toward 9/11. We just didn't have it put together in a useable form. This is a major problem of not just governments, but of business too. Governments and businesses must make sure that people get the information that they need to know (even if they don't know they need to know it) to create revelations and innovations that save millions (of people or dollars). The problem only becomes worse when government regulations impede the spread of informations (again, this applies to both government and business).

Do I really believe that a commercial airplane was able to violate the Pentagon's airspace on 9/11? YES! They're expecation was to have a conversation like this:

Pentagon: Your violating our airspace, get out!

Plane: What do you mean I'm violating your airspace, I'm 5 miles from your airspace?

Pentagon: No, you're in Pentagon airspace.

Plane: Well this is embarrassing, I'm leaving Pentagon airspace bearing...



They did not expect:

Pentagon: You're violating Penta

*boom*



Even just getting orders out to get planes fueled, armed, and launched takes some time...time that on 9/11 did not exist. Until 9/11 truthers can show me something better than the idea that the reported events don't make sense, I have to believe the very reasonable explanations to their objections.

Admittedly, challenging the idea that a commercial airplance was able to crash into the Pentagon is one of the more reasonable challenges, but I think it's been answered. Hindsight is 20/20; take yourself back to the time before 9/11 and try to picture what the DoD would be seeing in the future from that point before 9/11 going forward. I can believe that they would think it the better use of money to advance other research than to keeping armed warplanes in the air all the time (even if just on the East coast or East & West coasts. Not to mention that if that got out, it would probably have been a little concerning to at least a good part of the American citizenry.

Don't you just love the catch 22 that the regularly constituted courts would have to toss the vast majority of those cases out. Sorry, that argument simply flies in the face of intelligence. Not very intelligent to try people who want to kill your citizens in courts that by the laws they operate under are incapable of trying most terrorists. Since the regularly constituted courts don't allow for prosecutions of this nature, then for all intents and purposes, there are no regularly constituted courts where it concerns terrorists. Pragmatism says that you have to find another way.

Have we tried terrorists in regularly constituted courts? Yes, but only when they could be treated as regular criminals, only when the evidence against them has been collected in a manner consistent with typical police investigations and when the trial would not reveal damaging information about ongoing operations. To argue for all terrorists to be treated as regular criminals flies in the face of reality. They are closer to prisoners of wara...and the conditions at Guantanamo Bay are consistent with the Geneva Convention for Prisoners of War.

Honestly, I suspect the president decided to abandon plans to close Guantanamo Bay when a few governors threatened to have the terrorists shot dead on sight if he brought them into their states; I know if I were a governor, that's exactly what I would have told President Obama.

Say, anyone else want to decrease the deadweight loss of taxation before imposing new taxes?

Just a thought.

I once read somewhere that in terms of manpower, the IRS alone was second only to the entire US Department of Defense (the entire Department of the Treasury remains smalled than the DoD). If this is true, that's kind of scary.

Just another thought.

I imagine if the tax code were to hit you in the stomach, it would probably hurt pretty badly.

Yet another thought.

I imagine companies wouldn't spend millions of dollars taking advantage of tax loopholes if they didn't have too...if the taxcode wasn't so burdensome as to make the tax lawyers pay for themselves.

Roll on thoughts, roll on.

I imagine the US government wouldn't have to spend so much money collecting taxes if it were easier to catch people evading taxes because it was easy for people to pay their taxes in the first place.

Do all these thoughts qualify me as a philosopher?

I imagine that between the cost savings to companies and the efficiency gains, the government could even increase the tax rate while lowering the effective tax rate if they simiplified the tax code.

Isn't thinking nice?

When the US really decided to pursue a war on terror under the Bush administration, they realized a very serious problem: Terrorists do not fall under either prisoner of war or criminal categories. They're not simply prisoners of war as they don't represent a nation. They're not simply criminals as many (most) are captured by the military on the battlefield. They are simply unlawful enemy combatants. Neiher international nor domestic law covers unlawful enemy combatants.

Sure, those terrorists who have been caught using traditional police work are tried in civilian courts, but that's not because they are criminals but because in certain unique circumstances, terrorists are captured in a way consistent with the methods police would use to capture criminals. They can therefore be tried by the system that handles criminals. However, those terrorists captured on the battlefield can't simply be granted civilian trials as the methods leading to their capture are inconsistent with the methods used to capture simple criminals.

As stated above, the geneva convention applies to those individuals fighting on behalf of a nation. Terrorists don't fight for nations, they fight against nations as individuals and as organizations. International organized crime does not fight nations, it harms individuals, but it doesn't really seek (in most cases) to destabilize and destroy nations. On this note, the drug cartels in Mexico could arguably be called terrorist organizations (let's save that for a different, academic, thread). It might actually be easier for the US to call the terrorists "prisoners of war" as the war on terror will never end and thus the US could hold these people indefinately.

Nations are permitted to reevaluate their positions as situations change. Following the attacks on 9/11 and the capture of crucial Al Qaeda operatives lead to first conventional interrogation which only slowly ramped up to greater and greater degrees of interrogation. As an absolute last resort, and used on only a handful of prisoners, the CIA used a form of waterboarding. That any mention of the use of any form of waterboarding should give cause for questioning is a reflection of the increased decency of humanity in many cases, but political hypocracy in others. However, we can also not pretend that the waterboarding conducted by the CIA and the waterboarding conducted by WWII Japanese is the same thing.

CIA waterboarding was not a standard operating procedure.

It was conducted under medical supervision.

The time for each waterboarding was limited (not to say that the number of times a person was subjected to waterboarding was limited).


None of this really argues for the rightness or wrongness of the act per se, but it does argue that a more detailed understanding should exist of exactly what went on and how far it went.

If you condemn equally on the word "waterboarding", then would you call dumping 1 US Cup (~257ml) of water on a prisoner's head to be "waterboarding" and condemn it equally as to filling prisoners' stomachs with water and then beating them until they vomitted up the water?* Condemnation and the depth of condemnation should be based on the exact actions and not what those actions are called (the act, not the word "waterboarding").

*granted, you may not call the first "waterboarding", but then where is the line drawn?

Yes, we have an international obligation not to torture. That does not convey the jurisdiction to try Americans for torture or other such crimes. Even the ICC acknowledges that they don't have jurisdiction when a nation's own laws and courts allow for the prosecution of such crimes. The world's pre-eminent court for trying war crimes itself acknowledges that a nation's own courts have jurisdiction where a legal ability to try such charges exists.

When it comes to trials, it is only a matter between the US, the nation(s) where the crimes occurred, the accuser, and the accused. As to the efforts to ensure that the US is not torturing people, that is a matter for the world at large, but not for individual trials. Don't confuse trials for the commitment at large to not torture; upholding our obligations and trials when Americans fail to do so are not the same thing.

The US is not party to the International Criminal Court, as we have refused to ratify that treaty. The US not having surrendered that part of our sovereignty (aside from questions over whether that level of sovereignty can be surrendered by mere treaty), there is not international court or organization that can try Americans for war crimes. There are only US courts and US remedies. Don't try to pull the universal jurisdiction card, I reject it outright. Univeral jurisdiction is a political tool which the US has cooperated with when it has suited our purposes, but which we rightly refuse to allow against our citizens, leaders, and other representatives. We have also cooperatated with the ICC when it has suited our purposes because the ICC too is a political tool at times. This doesn't deny the ability of political tools to reach just conclusions.

Before you go and point out about Manuel Noriega. He was tried in the US for crimes committed in the US. He was then extradited to France (after completing his sentence) on condition of retrial (having been convicted in absentia). France agreed to these conditions and he was convicted in France for crimes committed in France and then sent to Panama to face charges for crimes committed in Panama.

The only places that Americans can be tried for crimes are either the place the crimes were committed or in the US. Because the US has not ratified any treaty granting judicial power over Americans to anyone else, that power resides only with the people where the crimes were committed or with the United States. Furthermore, where US service personnel are concerned, additional aggreements usually mean that even the location where crimes allegedly took place cannot try them. You want Bush/Cheny prosecuted, then prove enough to get them prosecuted in the US. That's you're only real recourse.

Grelk and I aren't allowed within 200' of each other.

2004-2005

I demand $177,136.15 in reparations or I'll petition to join this class-action war!

It's funny that the world points fingers at the US for these sort of incidents...because the US actively seeks to bring these kind of abuses to light in the first place. The US could be like so many other countries and seek to bury these sorts of accusations, but instead we choose to actively pursue them and to bring those responsible to justice. The accusations in that story are the actions of individuals and those individuals would be prosecuted if sufficient evidence could be found.

Honestly, what a disgusting waste of time. It's not that there are not things that the world and the US can/should debate about the actions of the Bush administration and where the lines should be drawn, but these aren't those actions. These are actions that Malaysia is trying to make themselves look big on by taking on big bad America.

For the record, I think that any nation which comes into information concerning illegal behavior by Americans in any nation should turn that information over to all the relevant nations so that those nations can pursue appropriate legal remedies.

Didn't some group from Elysium form Zero Tolerance in Earth Council and then merge into SoF at some point?

I'm an American.

I'm a Republican.

I have better things to do with my time than fight gay marriage.

My solution: remove "marriage" from the law; replace with "civil unions"; allow people to get civil-unions regardless of the type of relationship they have between two people.

Now that this issue is behind us, let's tackle the exponentially growing national debt!

The Omega is Finland. Push came to shove with Finland and they dug in, did what they had to, and emerged the better for it. When push comes to shove, Omega digs down deep to find the will to move forward and fight on.

For the last question, all comments were posted here, not everyone answered the question.

Last of the results.

On a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is horrible and 7 is excellent, rate the following attributes.



Logging onto a specific country from the first mobile page:
1 - 2.1% (1)
2 - 8.3% (4)
3 - 0
4 - 16.7% (8)
5 - 8.3% (4)
6 - 22.9% (11)
7 - 39.6% (19)
N/A - 2.1% (1)
Avg - 5.53

Navigating between pages on a country:
1 - 6.3% (3)
2 - 2.1% (1)
3 - 10.4% (5)
4 - 12.5% (6)
5 - 20.8% (10)
6 - 18.8% (9)
7 - 29.2% (14)
N/A - 0
Avg - 5.13

Preparing military attacks:
1 - 4.3% (2)
2 - 2.1% (1)
3 - 12.8% (6)
4 - 8.5% (4)
5 - 25.5% (12)
6 - 10.6% (5)
7 - 19.1% (9)
N/A - 17% (8)
Avg - 4.9

Launching attacks:
1 - 6.5% (3)
2 - 2.2% (1)
3 - 10.9% (5)
4 - 15.2% (7)
5 - 21.7% (10)
6 - 10.9% (5)
7 - 17.4% (8)
N/A - 15.2% (7)
Avg - 4.72

Buying goods on the market:
1 - 2.2% (1)
2 - 4.3% (2)
3 - 13% (6)
4 - 4.3% (2)
5 - 23.9% (11)
6 - 23.9% (11)
7 - 28.3% (13)
N/A - 0
Avg - 5.28

Selling goods on the market:
1 - 2.1% (1)
2 - 4.2% (2)
3 - 12.5% (6)
4 - 6.3% (3)
5 - 27.1% (13)
6 - 18.8% (9)
7 - 27.1% (13)
N/A - 2.1%
Avg - 5.21

Buying tech on the market:
1 - 2.1% (1)
2 - 4.2% (2)
3 - 10.4% (5)
4 - 4.2% (2)
5 - 27.1% (13)
6 - 20.8% (10)
7 - 25.0% (12)
N/A - 6.3% (3)
Avg - 5.27

Selling tech on the market:
1 - 2.1% (1)
2 - 4.2% (2)
3 - 12.5% (6)
4 - 6.3% (3)
5 - 27.1% (13)
6 - 14.6% (7)
7 - 25.0% (12)
N/A - 8.3% (4)
Avg - 5.14

Placing orders on the market:
1 - 0
2 - 6.3% (3)
3 - 8.3% (4)
4 - 6.3% (3)
5 - 18.8% (9)
6 - 18.8% (9)
7 - 27.1% (13)
N/A - 14.6%
Avg - 5.37

Researching history on the market:
1 - 6.4% (3)
2 - 8.5% (4)
3 - 4.3% (2)
4 - 14.9% (7)
5 - 10.6% (5)
6 - 17.0% (8)
7 - 8.5% (4)
N/A - 29.8% (14)
Avg - 4.42

Exploring:
1 - 2.1% (1)
2 - 0
3 - 4.3% (2)
4 - 4.3% (2)
5 - 17.0% (8)
6 - 27.7% (13)
7 - 44.7% (21)
N/A - 0
Avg - 5.96

Cashing turns:
1 - 0
2 - 2.1% (1)
3 - 0
4 - 8.3% (4)
5 - 14.6% (7)
6 - 27.1% (13)
7 - 41.7% (20)
N/A - 6.3% (3)
Avg - 6.02

Changing preferences:
1 - 6.4% (3)
2 - 0
3 - 6.4% (3)
4 - 19.1% (9)
5 - 19.1% (9)
6 - 10.6% (5)
7 - 19.1% (9)
N/A - 19.1% (9)
Avg - 4.89

Managing your country:
1 - 2.1% (1)
2 - 2.1% (1)
3 - 6.3% (3)
4 - 12.5% (6)
5 - 20.8% (10)
6 - 27.1% (13)
7 - 18.8% (9)
N/A - 10.4% (5)
Avg - 5.28

Building:
1 - 0
2 - 6.3% (3)
3 - 6.3% (3)
4 - 8.3% (4)
5 - 27.1% (13)
6 - 20.8% (10)
7 - 31.3% (15)
N/A - 0
Avg - 5.44

Gaining bonuses:
1 - 27.1% (13)
2 - 6.3% (3)
3 - 8.3% (4)
4 - 4.2% (2)
5 - 16.7% (8)
6 - 10.4% (5)
7 - 20.8% (10)
N/A - 6.3% (3)
Avg - 3.98

Using bonuses:
1 - 6.4% (3)
2 - 2.1% (1)
3 - 2.1% (1)
4 - 12.8% (6)
5 - 23.4% (11)
6 - 17.0% (8)
7 - 31.9% (15)
N/A - 4.3% (2)
Avg - 5.33




What specifically can be done to improve Earth Empires Mobile?
1. Make an app!
2. Everything is more difficult to do on a mobile due to soft keyboard. It is not the game layout's fault.
3. Scrap the current EE mobile and launch a user friendly APP thats built base on standard phone screen size for easier viewing and navigating.
4. im happy with it
5. In some way make it easier to launch attacks from the mobile site especially in war.
6. check the ads on diff mobile devices before running them and make going to bonus sites easier
7. change the bloody navigation somehow, don't make it dropdown and somewhere off to the side.
8. Would like the sell all button to work when placing goods on the market.
9. Show weapons/mil strat % on war page Show (offensive) allies military on war page Show intel allies spies on spy page Save other spy ops Save attacks data Save (failed spy data) (can help to determine target spies level) Set bonus preference so that all bonuses earnes go toward specified bonus
10. Show reset start and finish dates on mobile portal. And ability to access your previous rankings and profile.
11. weapons tech % displayed on the war room screen as its difficult to tab on mobile
12. All of my dead countries show on the login on FFA. These need to be ordered better.
13. If possible, make the ALL buttons work for buying goods.
14. Add a switch somewhere to display the game in a regular browser window. While the mobile works, I'd MUCH rather play it in the regular browser window.
15. Make a repeat attack button
16. yo momma make it betta
17. Sometimes forgets my username, but not pass (which makes no sense!)
18. make the toggle from forum to play bigger
19. More naked girls
20. No more drop-down menus
21. Only thing I'd complain about is running several countries on FFA. Phones are, naturally, slower to play from than computers. It's ok for running one country, but I wouldn't even try to run more than 2 FFA countries simultaneously from a phone.
22. I think certain screens should link together as I tend to play on the non mobile site as find the menu time consuming I think captcha on mobile is horrid too
23. Remove banner picture at the top at login. Add tap to autofill but amount to mobile templates.
24. the captcha almost always gets you killed, i know devs say its disabled when being attacked, but its glitchy and doesnt always work that way. the lag time of a few seconds can get a country killed and through my personal experience HAS gotten several countries killed. disabling captcha from mobile devices would be preferable but they woudlnt do it i think maybe because of bots?
25. You aren't asking the right questions.
26. idk
27. Release all answers.
28. make an app.
29. i like it just fine the drop down menu gets the fluff hard
30. fix the fact that sometimes when exploring it will explore twice (with one click)
31. run my countries for me!!

I know these results are long overdue, but here you go anyway:


70 People Responded


Does Earth Empires Mobile work on your phone or other similar device? Answer Required.

Yes - 85.7%; 60 Responses
No - 2.9%; 2 Responses
Don't Know - 11.4%; 8 Responses




What type of phone do you have?
Android and iPhones are the most prevalent responses

If you want all the responses, I'll send them to you in very raw form; you have been warned.

62 people responded, 8 skipped the question. On reflection, with no way to connect this answer to the previous question, this was not a very valuable question.



Who is your carrier? (Answer not required)
Verizon seems to have the plurality win.

Again, I'll send you the results in raw form if you'd like them; also again, this question would be more valuable if it could be connected to the previous questions.

45 people responded, 25 skipped the question.



What, if any, error messages have you seen while trying to use Earth Empires Mobile?

Most answers were none, but a few listed having to delete cookies between switching betweens servers. All answers available on request.

43 answered, 27 skipped



More answers to come later. I want to get off here for a little bit.

I was not going to post this today as our leadership has not yet decided on exactly what we want to say about the cheating scandal with specific regard to LaF. I will not be addressing that on this forum until we (as an alliance) have decided on a course of action and the statement that we wish to make regardling LaF specifically.

However, an accusation has surfaced which I must address.


Let me say this unequivocally and with absolute honesty: The Omega NEVER had any thought that Hanlong or LaF was cheating or that the information that they gave to us was ill-gotten. The information that they gave us appeared to be conjecture or gained through discussions with other alliances. The information that we received was not detailed and gave absolutely no indication of its illreputable source.

Had any indication of the circumstances regarding Hanlong's sources, we would have challenged the information we received with MD or another trusted alliance. By the time any information got to us, it was not detailed. By the time it got to us, it appeared merely to conjectural reinforcement of what we already believed to be the case. The bottom line is that the Omega had no indication of wrong doing in this case.

I'm not saying that in hindsight we couldn't question some things said to us, but I am saying that without the light of recent revelations there was never any indication looking ahead to this point that we were receiving information from hacking, etc. This was well-played (in a completely dishonorable way) on Hanlong's part...until he got caught.

To Reckless specifically: Thank you for voicing a thought that many people might be having and giving me the chance to refute it for Omega's part.

See, now that's a perfectly reasonable response to all this. Telling people the way it is in Australia with regard to guns, but not judging the US for allowing guns as much as we do.

Also very reasonable laws protecting the most basic human right to self-defense. It's not about just killing burglars or other criminals, it's about using the force necessary to protect yourself and your family from unlawful assault. It's about holding the individual who initiated the unlawful conduct responsible for the consequences of that conduct. People have a right to life, but once they take criminal actions against another person, that other persons equal right to life takes precedence (hence self-defense being a human right).

Let's say a bank robber decides to run out of a stand off with police guns blazing, it's not murder when those police kill him (it's suicide by cop). Given the nature of that event, an individual citizen cannot just decide to take a shot at the robber without having been approved to help the police. In most cases, once the police arrive on the scene, individual citizens must stand down and allow the police to do their jobs (most, not all cases).

An individual must be able to take reasonable actions to end a threat against their persons or their family or even just a stranger in the street if the police are absent from the scene. This is up to and including killing the offender if necessary. Here in Tennessee, the rule is that you have the right to escalate a situation one level if you are the defender. For practical purposes this means that if they're using a club, you can use a bladed weapon; if they're using a bladed weapon, you can use a gun. Of course, this is for situations when you are just out in public. When you're in your own home, then all bets are off and you can use whatever force you need to.

For the most part, police do not prevent crime. Practically speaking, their are too many people and too few police for them to be everywhere and to prevent all crime. This is why individuals have a human right to defend themselves, their family, and even strangers. Police usually respond to crimes after the fact. Don't get me wrong, if the police know that their will be a specific threat at a specific place and at a specific time, then they usually take appropriate action to prevent the crime. However, foreknowledge of criminal activity or the possibility of criminal activity is relatively rare.

I was all of 7 years old at the time of that post. That's downright scary.

Locket, I don't pretend to know what will and will not or does and does not work in other countries. I expect that it would be relatively easy to ban guns if the government has kept a relatively short leash on who could own guns for a long time. I also expect that relatively confined nations could more easily remove guns from its populace than a relatively dispersed nation. I cannot speak for the guns laws of other countries, but self-defense is universal.

It is a human right, at the very least, to defend yourself and your family from harm. Any laws that outright ban this effort, are clearly contrary to humanity itself. It is only during the commission of a crime that people have the right to defend themselves against the crime. After the crime is committed, attacking the perpetrator becomes revenge. It is only in the moment when you must decide between your life and a criminal's life that you have the right to use force sufficient to end the threat. If during that moment, you stab a burglar in the leg and that ends the threat, then your defense is done; if it kills the burglar, then that's on the burglar's own head.

You're missing the point entirely. It's not crime-counter crime, it's crime-self defense. Actions that may be a crime in one circumstance may simply be self-defense in another. Self-defense is not a crime, it's a human right. We're not letting people do despite them having committed a crime, we're saying that there is no crime when you act in reasonable self defense.

As to beating your wife in your home, I am disgusted by that statement. The wife has a right to be in the home; a burglar does not. More on this when I get back from work.

And yet that issue was brought up to show Europe's skewed perspective on this issue.

Europeans would have us ban guns...in a nation where guns are pervasive and not easy to track down. You would have us leave the law-abiding populace unarmed against armed criminals. You would have us leave it to police to protect us when the police can (the vast majority of the time) only respond AFTER a crime has been committed. You would leave us at the mercy of criminals.

Let me give you our clear and unequivical answer: NO!

I do not begrudge those nations that have chosen to do away with guns. I may question the policy and why they chose to do it and the logic behind it, but I do not begrudge the nations for doing so. On that note, we'll go on having our gun rights enshrined in the 2nd Amendment.

We'll go on being able to answer the call of police and government officials when they need volunteers to seach wilderness areas filled with potentially dangerous wildlife. We'll go on being able to put a round in someone trying to harm us.

You seem to think that it anyone ends up dead, that's a bad thing. Not everyone holds that view. Once you decide to committ criminal acts such as assualt or burglary, then you take your life into your own hands; if you die for your actions, then that saves us the cost of a trial. Innocent person live, criminal dies; we all go home happy and healthy.

Your home is your castle; you should be able to defend it.

In the case of the homeowner jailed for stabbing a burglar, I daresay that even US state's requiring retreat would be hard-pressed to say that the home owner did not have the right to stab the burglar.

I don't like to disparage other countries' court systems (where we know that the rules are equal for everyone and they try to fairly apply the laws to everyone), but jail time for the home owner in that case? The man deserves an award for civic service (for teaching a person to not burglar), not a trip to jail.

After a burglar pepper sprays a homeowner in the eye, whatever comes next is solely the responsibility of that burglar. You do the crime, you pay the consequences (whatever they may be and whenever they may be). The homeowner did NOTHING wrong in this case. With regard to cases like this, grow up Europe...GROW UP!

Not trying to be offensive, just express how much I disagree with the homeowner being charged.

I think that's actually a very good video.

I'm all for environmental regulations and I'm all for national minimum standards...but that's they should be, minimum standards! The EPA needs to work more to develop and distribute scientific information to state regulators concerning negative environmental impacts or even (shock of all shocks) relatively positive environmental impacts. Let's see the EPA work with state regulators and industry to minimize environmental damage.

Let's take one environmental issue where a state raised an issue with an oil company...the Keystone Pipeline through Nebraska. Nebraskans raised a fuss over the proposed route through the state and TransCanada agreed to change the route (full disclosure, people have objected to the compromise as it does not fully address the issues of protecting Nebraska's water supply). A state was able to object and see a compromise. The EPA should be working with the relevant states to ensure that the pipeline has the best possible route. Maybe with the EPA working with and not against the states, the Nebraska issue would have been fully addressed.

I don't advocate for an unregulated free market. Unregulated free markets tend to not be free because of what businesses do. That being said, we need to regulate against uncompetitive markets; we should not be regulating into uncompetitive markets. Alongside government regulations, we should also include government taxation. Quite simply put, if the tax code feels like a brick when it hits your head, then it's probably not simply enough. The point is that we can squeeze more tax revenue out of businesses and people. By simplifying the code, we can squeeze more useable tax dollars out by becoming more efficient. Were to move this way, it's not inconceivable that the corporate tax rate could be raised while still lowering the corporate tax burden (the taxes and all other costs associated with taxation).

The problem with Democrats is that they just want to raise taxes without first making the taxcode more efficient (perhaps more correctly said as remaking the taxcode into a more efficient code). The problem with Republicans is that they offer staunch opposition to tax increases without explaining that their real purpose is to not increase the tax burden. Remake the taxcode to be efficient and then let's see where we stand.

As to patent laws, I'm all for investigating recent patents and how the patent laws have affected those patents. I'm willing to investigate whether all recent patents should have been granted. The Supreme Court has ruled recently to strike down several patents and I expect that any investigation would find several patents for this that should not (though they may legally be) be patentable. However, we cannot deny that government regulations stifle innovation. Can't we address both issues? Is that too much to ask for? Don't try to avoid talking about government regulation stifling innovation by changing the subject; we can discuss both.

Unfortunately, it does not appear that this survey will have as many responses as the previous survey did. It will remain open at least until tomorrow, but probably through the weekend as I have work.

Before anyone complains about me not releasing results, I will remind you that I said:



This was posted on April 22nd, the earliest that I could release results would be April 27th or when 100 responses were recorded. I do not specify an absolute end date, but I think it's reasonable for me to not be worried about the survey until after I'm done working this weekend as I work all day through Sunday.

Now you're just putting words into my mouth Hawkeyee. I have not said that, nor would I. If you intend to do nothing buy put words into my mouth, then I'm afraid our little debate is over.

Not that you would claim this, but I'm not withdrawing from this debate because I'm losing (quite the contrary from the people I've spoken to), but because you are now putting the words into my mouth which you want to hear.

At this point, you are simply fixated on a goal that is unattainable and, barring that, on harming my reputation (at least where surveys are concerned). The problem with the second thing is that my reputation with regard to surveys is as damaged as it's going to be and I'm okay with that. You have made your own survey and released those results, so this is really just beating a dead horse.

We are up to 45 responses, keep them coming Earthers.

The roles can be separate, Hawkeyee. My role as a leader of Omega is not influenced by the information that I have as the person that ran this survey.

Gmann03

mobile.earthempires.com

Not that anyone will necessarily believe me, but The Omega only knows those results that the relevant leaders have chosen to tell us.

I have not and will not spread the results of any other alliance to anyone but their leaders. If you don't trust me, then that's okay because it doesn't change the truth.

For the record, the following alliances have received their specific results to question 2:

SoF
Omega
ICN
Monsters
PDM
NeoFed

I will address the controversy on this thread once and only once.

I am yet to be convinced that those people protesting are doing so out of anything other than a self-serving interest to be able to demonize other alliances for results to a survey question whose practical impact can be seen from the results of that question already presented. The fact that people continue to hound me for additional, more detailed results, must mean that they want those results for something other than to see if there is any truth to the claim that some alliances are bad for the game. As has been pointed out, 85 of 1000 people is not significant. The results released show that those 85 people were not significantly unified on the results of any alliance. These are things that can already be seen. That being the case, then the push for specific alliance results must be for those alliances themselves and not for the results.

Honestly, it's like people see this big pile of mud and they just can't believe that someone would prevent them from getting to it and flinging it around at the people that they don't particularly like. I mean the shear audacity of me to not allow you to abuse results for your own selfish desires to humiliate your opponents is incredible. The shear audacity of me to stand up for basic decency is positively atrocious. I mean, I'm not even allowing alliances to see their own specific results...oh wait, I am doing that (alliance leaders, please contact me for your specific results). I am a criminally horrible person for respecting other alliances enough to keep their specific results confidential from everyone but their leaders.

For all that people have charged that my action is not ethical, I don't accept that. Is it ethical to add fuel to the fire of mud slinging and useless bickering? NO! That would be unethical in the extreme, especially over something that basically means nothing at all. Agree or disagree, I don't care. Ethics are rarely black and white.


Concerning this survey:

I have specifically stated that all results will be released above and taken steps to ensure that people will answer questions with that firmly in their mind so that they can choose to release certain information or not to. I cannot release who said what, as I don't even have that information. However, some people may not want to answer everything and I have told them not to answer if they don't want to because the results will all be released.

thank you.

BadFish's story starts in the dark days of the Alaskan king crab season when all GoodFish (at the time) wanted was some Alaskan king crab. Then he ran into Phil Harris who also wanted Alaskan king crab. After that day, GoodFish forever became BadFish, and no one will ever know why!

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YY2GGWC

All results will be posted after 100 people have responded or after at least 5 days have passed since this posting.

Only 1 question requires an answer (it is so indicated). All other questions (whether indicated or not) may be skipped.

Please answer honestly and only if you have used Earth Empires Mobile.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YY2GGWC

All results will be posted after 100 people have responded or after at least 5 days have passed since this posting.

Only 1 question requires an answer (it is so indicated). All other questions (whether indicated or not) may be skipped.

Please answer honestly and only if you have used Earth Empires Mobile.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YY2GGWC

All results will be posted after 100 people have responded or after at least 5 days have passed since this posting.

Only 1 question requires an answer (it is so indicated). All other questions (whether indicated or not) may be skipped.

Please answer honestly and only if you have used Earth Empires Mobile.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YY2GGWC

All results will be posted after 100 people have responded or after at least 5 days have passed since this posting.

Only 1 question requires an answer (it is so indicated). All other questions (whether indicated or not) may be skipped.

Please answer honestly and only if you have used Earth Empires Mobile.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YY2GGWC

All results will be posted after 100 people have responded or after at least 5 days have passed since this posting.

Only 1 question requires an answer (it is so indicated). All other questions (whether indicated or not) may be skipped.

Please answer honestly and only if you have used Earth Empires Mobile.

To have something to bicker about of course.

Alin, there is no link as the results are typed into the thread (hence why Question 5 has yet to be released at all, well that and the need to compile the results into something useful).

I have released the results of question 1 in it's entirety.

Question 2 results have be released in combined format.

Questions 3 and 4 have been released as to the trends shown, and if people wish the entirety of those questions to be released, then I'll have no issue doing that on Monday when I have more time.

Question 5 remains unreleased at all because it will take more time than I have before Monday to compile it. The way that people wrote out the wars they would like to see were not always the same I will have to go through it entirely by hand. I plan to release results to Question 5 in its entirety on Monday.

Surprised that no one is banging on my door for the results to question 5 before now.

Rest in Peace Fraz.

Prayers for comfort to all those grieving Fraz's passing.

Hawkeyee, I won't back down and I don't feel that there is any sort of conflict of interest. By refusing the make the results known in their entirety to everyone, I don't create the situation that can be leveraged. More to the point, what would be the point of releasing the results other than allowing people to continue in a perpetual blame game. Not that not releasing them is helping the situation any, but why should I add fuel to the fire of stupidity.

Only thing I'm going to back down from is that the question should have been asked. Honestly, with all the debate about question 2, all of the results have been lost in the storm. Petulent demands for release when I've made clear that I'm not going to release the information is incredible.

Hawkeyee, the level of concern for the matters may be different, but the pattern is the same.