Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Everything posted by salisbury

  1. You worry you'll be late for classes because you just got into the shower and you still have to take a shuttle craft down to the surface of the earth.
  2. A lot of the time with child actors, (as with adult actors some of the time) it isn't so much the actor, as the director that determines how the performance comes out. Chris Columbus has quite a bit of experience with child actors, and I think that is the reason that HP came out so good, and with relatively cheasy free acting, whilst SW1 was kinda sub par in that department.
  3. Try walking around on Saturn! Flying around any of the gas giants is cool lookin'. Back to game
  4. Great! I especially liked shooting my marines with an atv. And watching them try to run away when I came out after them! Unfortunately it keeps dumping me back to windows when i try to do anything involvling the moon. How strange is that? I'm pretty sure it is a problem with my system so I'm gonna defrag my hard drive. That takes about fifteen days so i'll just let it run over thanks giving break. Thanks SC
  5. I know that the song is in the movie because I read it on a CAKE page somewhere (and my roommate just confirmed it). Alas, I just talked to my roommate who saw Shallow Hal yesterday, and he said that the song was not played at the dance and was played more toward the end of the movie. Sorry. quote: I've never heard of CAKE Come on you have to have heard of: Short Skirt Long Jacket, Going the Distance, Sheep Go to Heaven... any ring a bell? [ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: salisbury ]
  6. Okay SC- I haven't seen the movie but... I know of one song that is in the movie that isn't on the soundtrack just because I am a big CAKE fan. It is COMFORT EAGLE by CAKE. Hope that is what you wanted and if it isn't please don't hurt me.
  7. WOW!!! I just read all the links on this page and frankly I'm pissed. I couldn't REALLY enjoy playing BC3K because I knew about how great, and how many more things you could do in BCM. Now when BCM gets here I'm just going to be thinking about how great BTC and GCO are going to be. It's like the SC is my dealer or something, getting you hooked with a free 2.09 only telling you about the juicier stuff later on. [ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: salisbury ]
  8. quote:originally by the SC- This time though, you do NOT have flight control. All such commands have to be given to your crew or the ship's autopilot. So, you could be on deck 2 doing something, then pull up a menu and order your FO to take the ship somewhere or do something. You never have to be on the bridge. That is awsome! Who ever heard of the commander actually piloting the ship, except for that cheesy seen in Insurection.
  9. See nova, I'm not the only "clueless" one.
  10. Commander's Log Harrison Salisbury Still Kickin
  11. Thank you aramike. It is strange, you must have been moving the topic just as i tried deleting it from the BCM general discussions board, because now it won't let me enter the edit mode. Is that just a side effect of having the topic closed?
  12. i can't thank you enough, TTFN has givin me so many problems, and i am usually so good with acronyms.
  13. salisbury


    WHAT DOES TTFN MEAN?!?!??!?????!???!?!?!?????
  14. quote:Originally posted by SC You can't. You can only jump to something you can target. Surely you know this? nope [ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: salisbury ]
  15. going back a little... How in the world do you hyperjump to a waypoint. I've been trying for the last half hour and can't get it to work. I've tried everything I can think of. Thanks
  16. Thanks but... I realize you advance in rank in the game. I ment can you advance in rank in the fleets, when multiplayer starts up.
  17. Is it possible to get promoted once MP starts up? I mean if your proformance is good, better lets say than those ahead of you in the fleet chain of command, will your rank reflect that? Also, is there a ship in BCM that is the same as the ship in BC3k? Is the Mark 1 for instance the same as the ship you commanded in 3k? Okay. THanks in advance.
  18. salisbury


    Hi- quote:-DeSylva You are welcome to join the fleet. I'm going to be busy for the next two days, so just go to the ISS forum on this website and post a message sdaying[sic] you'd like to join. Either Jerold or Nick Jamont will send you a copy of the form to fill in. We need it filled in, even if it's only basic answers! *grin*. Nick will allocate you to a Wing. You need to be registered on the Fleets Database, as well. That can be found at www.3000ad.com/fleets/db Welcome aboard! -GD I guess I'll be needing that form, thanks in advance.
  19. I just picked up BCM Limited Platinum edition complete with map pack, multiplayer support, completely modeled interior capital ships, and 1 months free trial period of GCO for $8.50 at Ted's Bargain Basement... oh wait, your still in september 2001... um.. errrr, never mind then.
  20. (it is late so i must appologize for the spelling in advance, I know it is going to be pretty rocky from here on out) By the By, I remember reading a paper about a year or two ago, I believe it was in Nature, where a group of astronomers and cosmologists in Australia, who looking at very distant objects, found data supporting a repeling force at large distances. I havn't heard anything about it since and was wondering if anyone else had. It would be a sort of anti-gravity at a distance I suppose, but not due to negative masses. Back to the subject: lets assume that there is some partical, somewhere in the cosmos with a negative mass. We have, what I like to call, Newton's BIG F*CKIN' EQUATION: Force = mass times acceleration F = m a => a = F/m Only for our partical m is negative, so a = F/-m ==> -a = F/m which meanse that you get an acceleration in the opposite direction of that in which the force is aplied. i.e. a<----[mass]---->F So now we look at what gravity would do to this "negative mass", if placed near some test mass. Well because it has "negative" mass the force would be repulsive (see last post), away from the test mass. But because of the BIG F*CKIN' EQUATION we know that it will accelerate in the opposite direction in which the force points, so the "negative mass particle" will react to gravitational forces from normal mass particles in EXACTLY the same way in which a positive mass particle reacts. It will accelerate toward the mass. But lets delve deeper shall we. How will the test mass react? It is going to accelerate away from the negative mass, due to the repulsive force, at the same rate in which the negative mass is accelerating toward the test mass (assuming the masses are the same in magnitude). i.e. [-mass]---->a [test mass]---->a HOLY SH*T, it looks like we've got the first perpetual motion machine! Screw the second law of thermodynamics, negative mass solves it all!!! Anyways, that's just what I was thinking about.
  21. Speaking as a physicist (at least almost a physicist, still a couple more years ) It saddens me to read this thread. I don't usually post, but i feel I must this time. By the way, aramike, you at least made some sense. Except that negative gravity isn't even a "mathematical equation," as I will attempt to show. First start off with a "guassian equation of gravity." (for those of you who haven't taken electro-magnetics, this is an equation that can be used for any vector field basically, though it is most useful with electric fields) 1/(4Gpi)[gravitational flux] = -m where G is the gravitational constant Using this basic equation we can derive the more familiar newton's law of gravitation, that will show us that -gravity is impossible. first we imagine a point mass and calculate the gravitational flux through a concentric sphere a distance r away from it. gravitational flux = integral[ g * dA ] where g is the gravitational field. because g is constant it can be taken outside the integral and integral[dA] is simply the surface area of the sphere, thus: gravitational flux = g * 4 * pi * r^2 plug this into the original equation: -m = (g * 4 * pi * r^2)/(4 * G * pi) simplify -m = g * r^2 * 1/G rearrange and we get the gravitational field g = G * -m/r^2 now we know the force associated with a gravitiational field is: g = F/m0 F = g * m0 where m0 is some point test mass plug this in and: F = G (-m * m0)/r^2 or Newton's Law of Gravitation. That negative sign (-m) shows that the force F must ALWAYS be attractive in nature. But SHOOT i just realized that this doesn't prove what i wanted it to prove because you could sub in a negative m, sh*t. Well it took to long to write for me to erase it now. Another neat thing to look at though is G, or the gravitational constant. THis is the physicists fudge factor. Basically we don't know what in the hell gravity is at the very heart of it, but this equation is a representation of observed phenomenon, G just makes the numbers come out right. As far as anti-matter having negative mass,, uh-uh. It has the same mass except in very infrequent examples of c/p violation which is where an anti-particle doesn't match exactly with its counterpart in areas including mass. Still they are never negative masses, just slightly different masses. I guess i did a bad job of expressing myself here, but hey, i'm a physicist, i didn't even have to TAKE english in college. -have a nice one
  • Create New...