Jump to content
3000AD Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by aramike

  1. Greenhouse gases are, SAVING US? Call Al Gore. http://www.physorg.com/news145725882.html
  2. I can't really go along with this. The same anecdotal evidence that suggests that we are not alone in the universe (it's sheer size) would also suggest that it would be next to impossible for any intelligent lifeform to find us. And pressuring a government to release evidence which we have no evidence of its very existence seems futile. If someone can prove that there is evidence of alien life then there is no need for further proof as that would, in-and-of-itself be evidence of alien life. Kinda like the Pink Unicorn. Prove it does NOT exist.
  3. aramike

    A crumbling tower

    I guess I really don't count the Wii in this, because that system targets a whole different demographic.
  4. You know, I've been thinking about my old space games: BC3K, Wing Commander, Freelancer, etc, and I've noticed that there just isn't much in the way of new ideas for the old staple-genre space game. Nor are there any substantial number of new, promising titles on the horizon. So, what the hell killed my favorite genre? Here are my thoughts: Space itself is WAY TOO BIG of a concept for publishers. Okay, what I mean by that is simple. Pretty much all traditional ideas of a "space game" has been done, exhaustively. And, to be honest, the sequels and derivatives of those ideas haven't been much to write home about. Space sim? Check. Space shooter? Check. Space RPG? Check. And check. And check. Pretty much any thing that can be categorized in a sort of "sub-genre" has been done ad nauseam. But see, here's the thing. Space is BIG. No, really. HUGE. Gi-normous. The SCI FI setting of space is looking for something new and refreshing; something big and BOLD. People, quite frankly, are simply tired at looking out of a cockpit at a star background and shooting random "bad" shit. Can we make the explosions bigger and prettier? Yup. Done that. Can we make the scale more impressively massive? Ditto that. How about throwing in some Newtonian physics? Hmm, enter frustrations, boredom, or a dizzying combination of both. Sci-fi and therefore, space games, should depart somewhat from realism, hence the "-fi" part. Also, I think the consumer is somewhat worn out of the idea in general. Sure, games such as Mass Effect have an appeal, but they don't really explore the full potential of the genre. Space can't just be a backdrop to a story. Likewise, space can't just be a setting for one to blow stuff up. The one thing about the "space game" that sets it apart from most other genres is that it simply hasn't evolved. In many cases, space is simply a backdrop; an excuse for some developer to not have to implement any kind of ground collision or avoidance mechanism. In other cases, it gives designers a chance to radically alter scenery and characters as the player moves from planet to planet. Think back: what drew you to Wing Commander? For me, it was the ability to fall into another existance, and go to places I could never go, and blow shit up. What about a game such as BC3K? Same thing, except I could explore those places in more detail, and blow bigger shit up. Remember Starflight? I loved solving that mystery, all the while exploring new worlds seeking out clues, and, of course, blowing shit up. So the space game is right where it always has been. We've been there and we've blown shit up. A lot of shit. Hell, I could even argue that it's regressed some (remember Starflight?). Back then, space games worked because we simply didn't have the technology to make the real world as rich of a setting for gaming as we do today. By using space, we were able to unleash our imaginations. It's far easier to "let go" in an environment consisting of black, stars, and ships than it is to try to immerse ourselves in a world of choppy, pixelated trees and off-green grass which serve as constant reminders of the artificial place we're playing in. This is where I fall back on the publishers. It's just too damned easy to design and polish a new First-Person Shooter these days. The scale is just so limited, but the environment is so ... real. However, no matter how intense and visceral the experience is made to be, what real freedom is there in a FPS? What real WORLD awaits you? Where is your IMAGINATION challenged? Alright, so where is the space game's salvation? What about this: many worlds, some populated with interactive NPCs. Ships that can be explored, inside and out. Create an economy in relation to the universe. Let the player exist as an alter-ego, in a world as rich as its potential allows for. Let that character interact, fight, and get bloodied with others. Let him explore the unexplored, blaze new trails and solve mysteries. Publishers, open up your wallets. Don't assign 150-man teams to the next World War II shooter. Find one man with a vision, and assign him a 300-man team to bring it to light. Take us to places where rendering individual blades of grass is irrelevent ... a place where blowing shit up is as fun as exploring our environment just for the hell of it. A place where action, adventure, thrills, mystery, and intrigue all happen at once. Make the "Space Game" as big as its name implies. Because, the sad fact is, we simply don't need space to make games real for us anymore.
  5. aramike

    A crumbling tower

    Actually, I do think that falling to #2 is possible, but not in the near future in this economy. I just don't see consumers (especially parents) shelling out the dough this holiday season for much in the way of new hardware at all. And the ones that do I think will lean toward the more attractive price point of a 360.
  6. aramike

    Zack and Miri Make a Porno

    I've always found Kevin Smith films to be funnier the second time around, watched while drinking with buddies who have also seen it. Would this be similar?
  7. aramike

    A crumbling tower

    Personally, I think the 360 is simply too saturated in the market to fail, at this point. The fact is that gaming has become akin to CSI and Law and Order spinoffs - people will still go after the next Grand Theft Auto incarnation. And, the fact is, more people own Xbox 360s due to Microsoft's market penetration. Besides, that article was written with such an apparent bias. The author clearly sees Metal Gear and Killzone as system-defining series' all the while dismissing Gears of War and Halo. He even said, "Gears of War 2 looks great, but Resistance 2 and Killzone 2 look just as good in terms of scale, graphics, and online play.". Okay, so it is JUST AS GOOD OF A GAME. And, THAT GAME IS ON THE SYSTEM THAT IS LEADING THE MARKET. WHY would you present that as an UNDERDOG situation when, clearly, that game stands to make WAY MORE MONEY? And his assertion that "the fact remains that most gamers think the hardware is untrustworthy" is ANECDOTAL AT BEST. It's funny how his "FACT" statement is linked to a discussion forum, and not something that actually proves this "fact". While I agree that most people are wary of the 360s hardware issues, I also believe that most people are aware that Microsoft has extended its warranty to cover such issues. Futhermore, I believe that the PS3 is NATURALLY going to sell better than the XBOX as this point in time due to the simple fact that there are more people to sell a PS3 to than there is an XBOX to. Such is a common phenomenon when two competing products vie for sales and one is ALREADY in the households of more potential customers. Heh, its not even that im a shill for Microsoft ... I'm not even a 360 owner. Not interested. I just hate it when people write articles presented as semi-factual even though they have a clear axe to grind.
  8. aramike

    Under Attack

    Word. I'll keep checking in. Kinda miss hangin' around here...
  9. aramike

    Under Attack

    What kind of spam attacks now? I've gotta say it - what happened here, guys? I've been AFK for awhile and this place seems more dead than normal. Back in the day, this place was jumping (not with spammers, but with morons). Was aggravating yet fun at the same time. I've tried perusing the most recent post but find that they're few and far between. Where's the BC3K crowd gone? And, how the F**K did we let spammers shut this place down???
  10. aramike

    Final Crash

    The duration in which a commodity is valuable has no use in deterimining it's value. The fact is that gold became a commodity when most nations were, more or less, self-sufficient and therefore needed something to trade. Gold, then, became a de-facto fiat currency. Exporting grain wasn't quite as possible, in those days. Backing a currency with something of no real value (gold) is as useless as backing it with a promise. Why? Consider... Nation runs out of money due to paying in it's entire gold reserve. Nation has less money ... HOW??? ...especially considering that said nation exports oil, grain, etc, et al... In the modern market, gold would only be a figurehead backing of an essential fiat currency. Gold is essentially the bank note IN ANY CASE anyway ... and bank notes are far easier to carry around than gold.
  11. aramike

    Final Crash

    That's the thing ... even a fiat currency will eventually catch up to the Enrons of the world. The problem is that, even including oil, there truly isn't an international commodity. The world has become so internationalized that one could almost categorize county by resource. A fiat currency allows each nation (and therefore, individual) to represent their share of demand assets and use such representation for trade. The idea that a currency is "backed" by, say, gold, is as worthless as it is absurd in that gold as no more intrinsic value than, say, bread. Such standards fail as a currency standard as they are no more than a stockpile upon which to base a fiat currency in the first place. To put it simply, we SAY gold is worth this therefore it is. How is that different than SAYING a ten dollar bank note is worth this therefore THAT is?
  12. aramike

    Final Crash

    I doubt that there will be a major crash, and I certainly wouldn't invest in precious metals as they are next to worthless as a true commodity (ie, if you actually own them). The devaluation of the dollar can be primarily attributed to the Chinese diversifying their reserves. However, the fact that we are on a fiat currency allows us to value actual exports at market worth, and being the world's bread basket will help assure a recovery of the dollar. Going to a system similar to the Gold Standard would be useless, as gold is a practically meaningless commodity. Oil would be a better standard, but in the era of international dependency a fiat currency seems unfortunately neccessary.
  13. Considering that Fox News is a NEWS network, and therefore is in the business of reporting NEWS, and Ron Paul is CLEARLY not making NEWS in any way, shape, or form, it is not odd that a NEWS network such as Fox doesn't spend a lot of time on Paul. Look, I initially thought that Ron Paul was, shall we say, a TAD out of touch. But I was willing to think that perhaps I was mistaken. However, the reaction of his supporters to his lack of news coverage, EVEN THOUGH he's not even a SECOND tier candidate, tends to lend credibility to any assertion that he, AND his supporters, are out of touch. News is NEWS. A PRIVATE NEWS NETWORK, no matter WHAT network it is, is NOT OBLIGATED to give equal coverage to all candidates. Instead, due to them having to make MONEY because they are PRIVATE, they will give coverage to FRONT - RUNNERS. Ron Paul and his supporters have no one to blame but themselves. Unless, of course, we'd prefer Stalinism.
  14. Forget Fox News. Did anyone else notice that MOST of the people to appear on that clip against Obama were GUESTS of Fox News? I guess Fox News should be sure to censor freedom of speech and their guests so that liberals won't have to feel so "threatened". Freedom of speech evidently only REALLY means, "freedom of speech we agree with".
  15. aramike

    Read a book

    Found this one on ebaums a few weeks ago. My new favorite vid.
  16. aramike

    where to leave CC?

    quote: Originally posted by Wolferz: quote:Originally posted by BC_Vet: hehe ROFL!! More proof that these "vets" of this game, prolly don't ever freakin PLAY this game. Obviously my reply was self-evident, so either you didn't read it, or u ain't never been there. The beauty of this game is that u can play forever and never see what I've seen or did what I've done. There r no vets in BC...only people that have played this game forever. Shirly you're not talking to me. Remember... "Nobody can hear you scream when the outer door opens on the airlock." Yeah ... and he's getting crazy close to that airlock... No need to be a jerk, Vet.
  17. aramike

    Ok..I'll bite.

    quote: Originally posted by BC_Vet: Thank u.. aramike. I agree whole-heartedly. However.. the topic at hand remains. Truthfully, if the community cannot tolerate inquiry then something needs to be re-evaluated. OK, who didn't tolerate the inquiry? They just wanted it in the right place. What do you find wrong with that?
  18. aramike

    Ok..I'll bite.

    Remo made a lot of, say, interesting decisions around here awhile back. Notice how Jaguar is still here and Remo is not. 'nuff said.
  19. aramike

    Website re-design

    Holy crap. That old site's been around since I got here nearly 8 years ago. I never thought it would change, but it looks good.
  20. aramike

    Voice Recognition

    Follow Ben's link and continue on...
  21. aramike

    E3 '07

    quote: Originally posted by Cruis.In: I thought they did away with e3 Yeah, I was wondering about that too. The fact that some of us didn't even know it existed any longer shows how small the convention has gotten from its hay-day, I think.
  22. quote: The fourth amendment is not an express protection of privacy. It is a protection against unreasonable searches and seizures of self and property during the course of an investigation and is the reason we have search warrantsI agree. That was my point all along. It is an essential right to privacy, however, it is NOT an absolute right to privacy (hence Roe V Wade in which activist judges extrapolated one meaning to mean something entirely different). quote: In any event - I was illustrating myself that the Constitution doesn't tell us everything. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits beating your wife. There was nothing in the Constitution that apparently prevented you from owning slaves. Are you freakin' KIDDING me? Umm, the XIII Ammendment states, CLEARLY: "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Also try the XV Ammendment if that wasn't clear enough. As for beating your wife, the Constition is NOT a legal document - it is a GUIDELINE by which legal documents must follow. Beating ones wife would fall under law, not rights. quote: Trying to find justification in what it doesn't expressly forbid is a losing argument.Not in this case - read on... quote: What it does expressly state is that the legislature has the power to declare war. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Executive should hold this power.No where in it does it say that the legislature cannot grant the power to make conditional judgements to the executive. Furthermore, when it was written, the legislature power to declare war was in reference to the capturing of lands and assets (which is why such is stated in the very same sentence). Just because the Constitution doesn't provide and express guideline for EVERY SINGLE CIRCUMSTANCE does NOT mean that we do nothing when those circumstances are encountered (the Constitution provides for this). See, your examples to this oddly only take one side of the argument - beating wife being bad thing. There are many GOOD things that the Constitution doesn't expressly permit or forbid that one could use as an example as well. The Constitution doesn't expressly state, for example, that one has a right to, say, build hospitals. Your argument rests solely upon the Iraq War being considered "bad". That particular point, I can see both sides of (although I do agree with the war). The Constitutionality of it, however, is, at best, a very LOOSE argument. But, ULTIMATELY, your argument fails to recognize the 10th Ammendment which CLEARLY answers this entire discussion. It states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. This would be a case of "power not delegated" as there is no guideline allowing or prohibiting a congressional action authorizing use of force. And since Congress represents the states... quote: You are on a slippery slope pretending that if something isn't listed we can add it. Make way for Socialized medicine - courtesy of the General Welfare clause. Make way for 70% of your paycheck and cradle to grave welfare - courtesy of the General Welfare clause.I agree that it is a slippery slope and I also agree that the welfare state we are fast becoming is dangerous. But, unfortunately for your argument, the Constitution also EXPRESSLY allows such taxation. However, I'm not a nut about taxation too much, because I see the larger picture. Cutting or raising taxes only a little makes FAR more impact than doing so a lot. Cost-of-living has far more of an impact on income than taxes do, and to completely cut out or even dramtically reduce taxes would cause inflation on a level that general incomes would have to compensate for. Therefore the net value of an individual would residually remain constant do to their contribution potential. Small increases or decreases, however, have very little impact on inflation therefore causing no real income impacts. If you want to talk about healthcare in particular, though, what bothers me about the socialized system the most is that it doesn't allow for competition and therefore the cost-control of the free-market. Socialism always causes costs to skyrocket. Under capitalism institutions compete for limited resources causing costs to drop. Under socialism institutions have a free reign in simply agreeing to raise costs as there is no benefit to having lower prices. It's only a partial to the long explanation of why I don't mind taxation as much as most pretend to do, but if you extrapolate from it you'll get where I'm going. quote: Give me a break. If we followed the Constitution - we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.You're kidding, right? If we simply followed the Constitution without interpreting it or making calls based upon what it doesn't cover, we wouldn't have evolved past the 1920s.
  23. quote: Originally posted by $iLk: Guess you are right. The people who wrote the Constitution don't know what they are talking about. Neither does the executive branch since Nixon. Neither does the Congressional researchers into the War Powers Act. I'll just point them to Milwaukee, WI for all the information. There is no 'right to privacy' in the Constitution so we should go ahead and expect the government to screen our emails and phone calls. The Constitution doesn't cover radio so the government should have the unfettered authority to regulate it. The Constitution is a very flexible document which is why it has not been amended that much over 250+ years. The founders vested the authority of declaring/commencing war with the Legislature. Anything not in accordance with the Constitution is by definition unConstitutional. The reason the Democrats aren't using it is because they love the ability to pass the buck and blame Bush. No, no - YOU'RE right! The people who wrote it DID know EVERY POSSIBLE contingency that would arrise. Look, if you want to talk about the Constitution, you should REFERENCE the actual TEXT of the Constitution instead of quotes of people INTERPRETING IT. You notice how I quote ACTUAL TEXT from it? Would it be THAT HARD? Oh yeah, the courts MUST be the authority, along with people who have a biased and vested interest in the Constitution meaning what they WANT it to mean. I mean, have you READ Roe v Wade? Constitutional, right? But know, you're right for sure - the framers who wrote the Constitution must have been WAY too stupid to clearly state what they meant. Gee, I mean, it pretty clearly spells out the electoral processes ... they must have forgotten to clearly spell out the processes to take a nation to war... ...or wait, maybe they left it somewhat open to interpretation because... hmmm... Oh yeah, in case you were wondering about that "right to privacy" that isn't in the Constitution, maybe you should try reading the Fourth Ammendment. Here, I'll even quote it for you (because I prefer to quote the Constitution itself): quote: Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. That would be the right to privacy granted by the Constitution. But I'm sure you knew that... ...or maybe you need to find someone to explain it for you in a manner acceptable and in line with what you believe. I mean, I GUESS it is pretty difficult and unclear...
  24. quote: While it is not specified what form a declaration should take - the Constitution is pretty clear that it is the legislature that is vested power to commence hostilities....and it is not in any way, shape, or form, forbidden for Congress to "pass the buck". It is merely granted to Congress the ability to declare war. There is nothing regarding commencement of hostilities without a Congressional war declaration. Article I Section 8 also provides: quote: To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;The fact is that the Constitution doesn't really cover the Iraq conflict. Constitutionality really isn't the issue which is why not even the Democrats are accusing it. quote: A single man should not be able to take us to war. I reject that idea as strongly as I reject the ideas of nationalized healthcare and social security. The very idea that the body of the Republic can be called to war at the whim of the head of state reeks of the Caesars.Congress voting on a VERY SPECIFIC resolution regarding Iraq can HARDLY be categorized as a "whim" and is certainly nothing similar to the Caesars. [ 06-29-2007, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: aramike ]
  25. Here we go again, trying to defend the indefensible: quote: 2. The Constitution clearly vests the power of commencing war with Congress - though it does not specify a legal declaration form, a declaration is consistent with a commencement of hostilities - i.e. Congress should decide in my (and others listed below) view. Each branch has its part to play - the President as Commander in Chief of the armed forces wields too much power if he can commence and manage hostilities.And they did. Just because you don't like the form in which they did it or the language they used, doesn't make it unconstitutional. There's a reason that only you and Ron Paul are arguing this silly point. Not even most on the left find it unconstitutional (and they're the ones that find that holding FOREIGNERS in Gitmo is unconstitutional so its not as if they are afraid of crying Constitutional "foul"). Look - you can quote whoever you want (oddly avoiding quoting the Constitution, however), but at the end of the day the Constitution says what it says and it doesn't say what YOU want it to say. quote: Perhaps you should read some books or studies outside of Newsmax.com and I wouldn't have to stop and explain basics when you get frustrated?Yeah, funny. Sure buddy.