aramike

quote: Originally posted by ShoHashi: Welcome to the Insurgency, Evan!Also, on a similar note, is it possible to get some more recruits transferred over here to Bishamon? I'm gettin' kinda low on personnel! Nah, Sho. The only reason that Spectre is seemingly "fat" is due to our main leaders being housed on the fleet for DB purposes. They will come... Evan - Welcome aboard. Until we get assignments more panned out, you can hang around Spectre station for awhile. Now get me some coffee, recruit.

quote: Originally posted by Tac: forget it. they screwed X-COM with X-COM 2 and everything after it. The first one is still a MUCH better game than its predecessors. Heck, I still get a kick of playing the whole game with human weapons..not lasers. Them Muton bastiges HATE my autocannon! No argument here.

Nah, not a side-effect. Only admins can delete full topics. I'll delete it. I usually just close the topic for awhile so people can know that it was simply moved rather than deleted. [ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

Heh, I dunno Silk. A lot of it is just spur of the moment stuff. But if you guys want to start something here, knock yourselves out. Mike Walters Nuke 'em all

Come on now, Nova -- took me 3 months to figure that one out. Be nice to the newbies. Topic moved.

quote: Originally posted by Menchise: There is a fifth X-COM game in development (assuming that it wasn't cancelled): X-COM Alliance. The tactical missions are 3D and I think you can take control of a trooper in first person.It's a pity that the Gollops' other project was cancelled (Dreamland Chronicles: Freedom Ridge). From what I've read, it had a lot of promise. That does sound pretty cool. I hope the environments are as (hehe) destructable as the original XCOM. And I hope they don't fool with the formula too much. The best part of the original is that you're essentially fighting a war under your own direction. You create and pick your missions, etc, et al. You manage everything. Great game.

quote: there's another good point. but do the afgans have any more planes?and so what if they do, i could kill a mech with a bazoka. why would you need a bomb? ...in any case, it would be a colossal waste to build weaponry that would only be applicable in theatres with no aircraft.

XCOM fans -- awesome. Haven't played in awhile either, but I always go back. Got it for Playstation. There is a bug though -- when your own bases get attacked, if you have too many items in your stores you may end up with guns without ammo or vice-versa. Irritating.

quote: Originally posted by Melcar: Yes, they do have some nice toys they are playing with, the Rail Gun, and X-Ray Laser started Development with the Star Wars SDI project I believe.Even the New Infantry Rifle they are working on is pretty Damn impressive. Read an Article on it a couple years ago, in Popular Science(I think). 5.56mm Rifle, with 20mm HE Gernade launcher, the weapon is supposed to be accurate out to 1000 Yards(using the computerized scope/Rangefinder). It was supposed to have some type of helmet hook-up, so the Infantrymen could use it to Fire around corners. Heh, you're talking about the new OICW rifle. That thing can even be disassembled to be used like a submachinegun.

quote: Well if u can waist mechs with planes and chopers easy then u can waist tanks with planes as well and low profile is not gonna help.Wrong. What do you think is easier to spot: a tall mech casting a huge shadow or a low tank with camo? Oh, and a tank can hide below radar cover. A mech could not. quote: And why did planes get into picture. We were talking about tanks vs. mechsNo, we're talking about whether or not there's a point to building mechs. What do you think, if we build mechs every other nation will just get rid of their aircraft? quote: if we are talking about killing fast why not start droping nukes from satellites and such, everyone is gonna die. Uh, don't need to use satallites -- that's what ballistic missiles are for.

quote: I never said i know much about tanks i got into this topic couse i like idea of mechs and i like challenging ppl and what they belive in and i picked mech side couse its difficult to defend mechs possition without facts. I enjoyed this. And learned about tanks a bit. I should become a spy, finding ppl like u who will be proud of their technology so much that they will talk a lot more then they should Uh, yeah ... or just buy a little book called "Janes" in your local bookstore. quote: Mech vs a tank?.. hmm... They both have their ups and downs... Lets take this for an example.. err from MW3 lets pull out a.. oh MadCat.. And now lets pull out todays m1a1... Now the mech is ALOT bigger than the tank... (BTW were taking out energy weapons ) So all the mech would have to do is lock on and shoot ... Or so you think.. First you would have to find the tank THEN you can lock on THEN you can shoot.. Now the tank should be destroyed with that shot (huge weapons) But in the process of finding the tank.. The tank knows its outgunned so they fire on one of your legs and disable it... now your a sitting duck... Yes the mech would last longer as a pile of metal .. Since there hasnt been a 'real mech' invented yet.. I wouldnt know... But I would go with tanks since there cost effective anyway Or... Spot massive mech. Airplane or Chopper dispatched. Takes out mech from miles away. Or... Spot massive mech. Send coordinates to navy. Ship takes out mech from miles away. Or... Wait for massive mech to take a step at which point all of the HUGE amount of tonnage is focused onto one area of dirt and mech sinks into ground. Mother Nature takes out mech from below. We built combat airplanes because we knew what they would do for us. They'd be mobile and speedy and would deliver firepower over a greater range. We built tanks because we knew what they would do for us. They'd be heavily armored, mobile, and would deliver large amounts of firepower. They were also difficult targets and could carry ANY weapon conceivable to man. What exactly would mechs do for us that tanks can't do? Present a larger target?

OK, I have NO idea what the original sig was, but apparantly it was deemed inappropriate. But you're just friggin' strange with this kind of crap: quote: What is so wrong with me simply not posting? I'm not hurting anyone by not posting, and my quote is not only changed, but no one will even see a sig from me... Why can't I just not post?What the HELL is wrong with you? If you don't want to post, just DON'T POST. Simple, right? There's NO NEED to argue about you not wanting to post. Get it? Good. Thread closed.

quote: Yes it did. Offering something for free that others charge is predatory pricing is it not?No, it's not. Something that is free, by definition, is not "priced". quote: Nope. Just cause everyone wants it does not make it necessary. The Browser is not crucial to the function of the computer itself. The Operating system is.That depends upon the function of the computer from the consumer's standpoint. If I want a computer solely for Internet purposes (as many people do today), then the browser *IS* paramount to the function of the PC. If the function of the PC is to use the Web, then the browser is crucial. quote: You can argue that but I don't agree with it. The internet is not essential to the operation of the computer itself.You're trying to definte what the operation of a computer is from the user's standpoint. For MOST users today, the Internet IS essential to the computer's operation. What you're saying is like saying that roads aren't essential to the operation of motor vehicles. quote: And it does. To go back to your operating system definition that is all it should do. It hsould operate the peripherals and store stuff. I.E. keep a file system. The OS itself should not have Internet capability not should it have multimedia capability. Those functions are not essential to the operation of the computer itself and therefore fall outside the realm of OS. That's how I see it and what I beleive the suit is about.I disagree. The Operating System should be able to OPERATE any of the functions necessary to the end-user. quote: No thoughts there other than back to my point that it should be an antitrust suit because all the other stuff they are building into Windows falls outside a strict definiton of OS.There's the problem -- there was NO pre-existing "strict definition" of an OS. How can you blame a company for breaking rules that are not established?

quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: Yep, there's something fishy with the 6.1.02 upgrade. In fact, there is a 6.1.03 upgrade in the works, according to UBB. I figured. This is what that ICQ message I sent you the other day was about.

As for the Insurgency.com being taken, I've noticed that. That's why I said "something of the sort". Seriously, when I get some time we'll work out something really classy.

OK, so it isn't just me or my computer. There's definitely something wrong with the board upgrade. I'll look into it, thanks everyone.

quote: Before I continue with this debate, I would like to go off topic for a bit to settle a minor issue that's annoying me. Basically, I'm sick of being called a liberal. Socialists are anti-liberal and liberals are anti-socialist. I can understand that Americans have different definitions of what a liberal is, though I can't imagine why (probably because Classical Liberalism has become a conservative movement against the Modern Liberals). Here are the definitions that I follow (Heywood, 1997, "Politics"). Note that I do not follow them absolutely, but mostly.Relax on this issue, man. The term "liberal" is relative. If you're for major social change, by definition you're beliefs are liberal in nature.

Just curious -- is anyone else having difficulties with pages on this BB not loading completely? If so, please reply.

quote: Originally posted by LordDavid: Two possible solutions. 1. A wireless OPTICAL mouse. You can use it on any surface even the couch itself. Logitech has some of these. 2. Trackball mouse (except for these get my thumb sore after a lot of use) Hmmm, now one final problem -- justifying my stealing the TV from my wife to play PC games. Women and their Lifetime...

quote: Originally posted by Razor_87FIS: I'm sure a similar debate ensued in the 1950s when people dreamed of putting a man on the moon. Doubt it. Space travel and exploration were for scientific advancement possibilities which cannot be denied. Mechs do NOT advance the battlefield in any way, shape, or form. Not much different than the old British army marching near Potomac with bright red uniforms on, standing in line, waiting to be shot. We evolved PAST that, why would we regress? Here's the problem: a lot of you see mechs as some kind of advancement on the battlefield. The question you haven't answered is WHY they'd be an advancement. Sure, you've answered as to HOW they'd be POSSIBLE, but just because something is possible doesn't mean that it needs to be done. Fiction is fiction. Sometimes it coincides with reality. Sometimes it doesn't. But it's naive to think that reality will ALWAYS catch up to science fiction -- it's even MORE naive to think that reality is not more ADVANCED than science fiction in some cases.