aramike

quote: Aramike you keep making point that tank has a low profile, compare to what mech, soldier has smaller profile compare to tank and yet we still make tanks.Bad comparison. Tanks can carry weaponry that a soldier never could, INCLUDING *ANYTHING* that a mech could conceivably carry. So, yet again, the mech needlessly presents a larger target. quote: Mech is not a walking tank its should have more armor and weapons so that tank will do little or no damage agains it.And HOW are you going to put that much armor on something that focuses ALL of its weight on a small area on the ground? quote: Low porfile of a tank will not help it 'couse mech locks on to a tanks power sig. miles away, behind buildings and obsticles where profle makes no difference, becouse its red dot on a radar and it tells u there is a powersourse there with a gun aiming at you. Thats why in the game when u see red dot on the radar u dont care if its a small truck or a mech, what u want to know is how much damage it will take before going down.That's gaming, not real life. As Soback stated, in real life, you don't get a "red dot". You get a radar signal, period. Then command decides if that signal is friend or foe, and orders the weapons accordingly. quote: Mechs are a since fiction, so is everything else in our lifes. Long time ago there were those who said 'One day people will fly', and those without open mind said 'You are crazy, it cant be done becouse it can not be done'.*Sigh*. I'm NOT saying that it CAN'T be done, I'm saying that doing so is WORTHLESS. Happens to be the same thing that ANY military strategist would tell you. quote: then there were people who said 'One day we will go to the stars' and close minded people branded them crazy. becouse it couldnt be done then. Everything we have now was since fiction 50, 100, 1000 yeas ago, and what we call since fiction now will later take physical form for some one to live with. Rubbish. Certain acheivements, perhaps. But not creating stuff that doesn't actually DO anything. We don't create technology that doesn't advance the cause -- mechs would not advance the military. quote: Plus this topic has gone off track a bit. the point of it was 'It would be nice to have mechs in afgan.' not 'Why military doesnt make mechs'My point: It wouldn't be nice to have mechs ANYWHERE.

Here's the problem with this idea of "mech" infantry that can take small arms fire -- wouldn't matter too much. Sure, they may be able to take current small arms fire but history shows that when weapons become obsolete, new ones are created. Frankly, in a combat situation, I'd rather be stuck with my own two hands and feet and my wit than have to worry about some lumbering piece of metal attached to me. When small arms become useless, larger ones simply used to replace them. Oh, and Jaguar -- the T-72 wasn't the latest and greatest Soviet tank. The T-80 was. T-80s were never given to anyone outside of the USSR, and they are leaps and bounds beyond the '72s. In fact, they're comparable to the M1A1s, only with a bigger gun. It would be interesting to see how the M1A1's classified armor would be able to handle the best in Soviet technology. [ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

quote: However, I think what we need to win is those human-guided missiles they did. Nothing better than that. Pinpoint accuracy.Called a "TOW".

OK, let's say that mechs were even a plausible idea for the sake of argument. What, exactly, would be the advantage over tanks? If we're going to deploy ground forces, why would we use something like a mech as opposed to an actual tank? Futhermore, what has the Dept of Defense never really looked into creating mechs? Answer: Because their science FICTION. First of all, we'll look at the mechanics of it. If a mech is to have comparable armor to a tank, it's engine would have to be MUCH more powerful than a tank's. To move, a mech supposedly "walks". Just think -- to lift a leg that has to support literally TONS of armor above it not to mention its own armor, you'd need probably about 50 times the power of a tank. There *IS* a reason humanity invented the wheel, you know. The wheel transmits and distributes power over a larger surface, thus allowing it to move with less over energy. It's surface is also uninterrupted therefore there is no waste of energy. Now we'll look at the tactical reasons: For one, a mech is WAY too high-profile. If I'm in a combat zone I'd much rather have the low-riding M1A1 than a ten-foot-tall machine. The tank presents much less of a target for both the ground and the air. Being too "tall", in fact, is one of the reasons the Sherman tanks led to the development of the M1A1s. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to defilade a mech on a battlefield. And what would it be armed with? Again, science fiction comes into play. When designing a mobile weapons platform of any kind, you must decide what weaponry it should use. Tactically, one big ass gun is all an armored ground vehicle really needs. Missiles are not necessary because any target you'd be fighting that's truly ranged to require a missile could be MUCH more easily hit from the air due to line-of-sight necessities. If the mech was going to be outfitted with missiles capable of overcoming line-of-sight problems, then the missile's guidance system and the fire control system on the vehicle itself would be more costly than an aircraft. A more costly system in a machine much more easily located and killed. Not good. So, the mech would more likely need to be outfitted with a large caliber rifle like today's tanks. Again, what's the point? First, that would even MORE greatly increase the profile with a long gun jutting out of the front. No, it can't be a short gun --there's a reason tanks have such long barrels. And where would the ammunition be stored? Perhaps the buttocks? OK, fine -- not long rifle, just some rocket launchers and machine guns like in the fiction. Again, a testimony to the fiction of it all. First of all, the rockets would have to be guided to be of any effect long range. That would mean another costly fire control system. For short range purposes (assuming that something so obvious could even approach short range) the effect would be a little too much bang. Today's tanks can engage short range because the weapons don't "blow up" enemy tanks and other targets. They penetrate and destroy from the inside. So the rockets are rather useless. Mechs are not battlefield weapons and most likely will NEVER be battlefiend weapons. Too large, too power-hungry, too limited in deployment and arsenal. One of the things that such fiction skewers is the role of ground armor on the modern battlefield. They do NOT typically fight in a skirmish type of melee as depicted in fiction and games. Armor typically fights a more controlled, LONG range battle because it can be supported by air, and due to the fact that armor is much more limited in close-combat instances. Also, the reason we don't use rockets or missiles on our tanks is due to terrain purposes. You WANT to keep your hardware low, bear in mind. Now, if you're firing a rocket it would have to avoid the ground and be able to travel TOTALLY straight to target. That's impossible in most cases from the ground. Hills, peaks, valleys, that sort of thing. Rifles, on the other hand, can arch the rounds to the target. Mechs are just glamorous war fiction, I think.

quote: You can get a wireless keyboard/mouse combo and a video card with TV-Out and play games on the TV. I've plugged in my computer to a pretty big TV and played the BCM Beta with it and BCM looked more impressive than usual!Not a bad idea. May look into this, thanks. --Wait, still a problem. I'd need a good place to put the mouse as I sit on the couch. Hmmmm.... quote: Consoles are a waste of space as far as I am concerned.It all depends upon what kind of games you play. If you're a big sports fan (like me), a console is a MUST for sports gaming. The PC doesn't cut it there.

Here's my advantages/disadvantages rundown: PC Advantages: +Extended control layout +Systems can be upgraded +Addons for games possible +Games are scalable as new capabilities are introduced +Better hardware +Computer monitor has *MUCH* higher resolution than an NTSB television screen +Games can be MUCH more sophisticated +Internet multiplayer PC Disadvantages: -Internet multiplayer -LAN required for home-based MP for most titles -Gaming companies feel at liberty to release buggy games because patches are possible -Must ... sit ... at ... computer ... desk -Games are at times incompatible with some systems for no apparent reason -So many different hardware configurations -- what do you develop for? -Results may vary, testing can not cover all configs -The expense of upgrading Console Advantages: +Game companies are not at liberty to release buggy games +Testing and quality assurance is much easier -- only one system to test +Can be played on big screen TVs +Can be played while sitting on sofa (or anywhere) +Extra hardware is not needed for home MP +System is designed specifically and solely for gaming Console Disadvantages: -System is designed specifically and solely for gaming -1 piece of hardware doesn't go very far with today's advances -Controller and hardware limitations mean limited games -Games cannot be patched for new features -TV screen is lower res than computer monitor IMO, each has its place.

My take: I'm not a HUGE gamer. I would say that I'm more of a passing one. Which means that games have to be something special for me to play them. PC games are typically better games because there are so many options when it comes to controlling them. Try to layout BCM on a console controller. Or most other PC games. In fact, when PC games are ported they are gutted in order to accomodate the interface. They are also gutted because consoles don't have the RAM required for truly large areas. For instance, Deus Ex is going to be released for the PS2 -- the area sizes will be HALVED. Part of the reason I like that game so much is due to the massive area sizes. Oh, and can you imagine trying to play an FPS on a console? Not good. I've played Medal of Honor for the PSX for over an hour before I got somewhat aquainted with the controls, an even then it was difficult to aim on a 3-D plane. Could you imagine them trying to port a game like OpFlashpoint over to a console. What a disaster that would be.... That said, there is some room for console games out there. I don't own a PS2 and probably won't until the price falls to something reasonable. I still play some PSX games -- Madden 2002, NBA Live 2002, NHL 2002, Triple Play, Gran Turismo ... see a pattern forming here (yes, I'm a HUGE sports fan -- go Bucks, Packers, Brewers)? Consoles are AWESOME for sports gaming. There's nothing like laying on my sofa and running my 2 minute offense. And the multiplayer can't be duplicated on the PC. Me and 7 of my friends can fire up a game of Madden or Live -- from within the same room, sharing the same twelve pack. Without having to have a TON of separate hardware. So, I think there's a place for both. There are a few good console games that don't fall into the sports category as well. The Resident Evil series kicks some, for example. Colony Wars was a cool shooter. Metal Gear Solid was an innovative action/RPG-type of game. And, of course, the Final Fantasy series (I'm a sucker for RPGs). The computer can do more, and it effectively does more. But I won't abandon the console just yet -- there are some cool games out there worth playing. And any time that a game is on the PC but is equally impressive on a console (usually games that are made for consoles than are ported to the PC), I'll get it for my console. I'd rather sit on the sofa than at my computer desk to play games.

That Spectre page is down because Homestead started charging for their service. There is no way in hell I'm paying them a dime for the crap they offer. Going to set up an Insurgency.com site at some point, or something of the sort. When I have time.

OK, upon my return from my weekend romp with the family in the north, I bear no serious inclination to break down the arguments one by one. However, I will respond to the point that's being IGNORED. Yes, in the US system many candidates DO get less than 50% of the vote. HOWEVER, when they reach the presidency they are NOT changing the very system of government. THAT is what is undemocratic.

quote: There's nothing grey about it.It's a HUGE gray area. Persuance of interests based upon conditions. Without precise conditions layed out, the area is HUGELY gray. That should be obvious. quote: I brought up the Kurds because I was questioning the level of active support that the US gave to overthrowing Saddam after the Gulf War. If you want to question whether the Kurds would have been any better than Saddam, then go ahead. In the case of fighting communism, it is wrong when the people are not being oppressed, and they chose a communist leader (guess who I'm referring to).The majority did NOT vote for him. I'll cover that more when I get there. quote: I said similar actions, like hiring other groups to do the dirty work for them.Who's being hired to do WHAT? And the US isn't hiring groups to take over nations nor is it hiring groups to employ weapons of mass destruction. Hardly similar. quote: I don't condemn America for that.No, just for everything that puts us in a position to do that. You also don't credit the US for that. quote: I tell the one half of the story that everybody else ignores. I don't bother telling the other half because everyone already knows the other half. Besides, you tell the other half so much better than I could.I know both halves of the story. I know that the US has done some crappy things in the past. Doesn't mean that I condemn them for EVERY ONE of their activities TODAY. quote: The US has evolved past such indiscretions on its own people, but if you look at how American multinationals treat non-Americans in their pursuit of private interests (like some of the gold mining operations of Central and South America), you'll find slavery of a kind that would have appalled even the Confederates.That's liberal propaganda. The US purchases, fine. But the US does not OPERATE. Are you running Windows, by chance? If so, you're PURCHASING from Microsoft, so should I blame YOU for Microsoft's indiscretions? Sure, why not? quote: Fine. I'll re-examine El Salvador too, and a few others now that I have the time.Knock yourself out. And see if you can find something recent. Otherwise, you have NO argument. You can't blame the current generation and leadership for the errs of the previous one. quote: Notice the words "all Men are created equal", instead of "all American Men are created equal", that all are endowed with unalienable rights, not just Americans. The USA has a history of being destructive to the unalienable rights of non-Americans for the sake of securing its own power.Before you start, I am NOT referring to Iraq, the Taliban, or any terrorists! Irrelevant to the question. I said, "how *IS* the US breaking its own rules?" Again, condemning the US for past transgressions is a flawed stance, especially considering that all of the supposed "transgressions" are debatable. That would be like punishing me because my father *MAY* have driven while intoxicated. No dice. quote: Shall we continue?Yes. quote: Allende became the President of Chile with his 36% vote in addition to the votes received from other left wing candidates with which he formed a coalition. Therefore, his government did have the support of the Chilean majority, because while the majority did not vote for Allende specifically, they did vote for similar candidates who became supporters of Allende.Still not justified. That would be like me voting for Bush, him winning the election then falling ill, and the government deciding that Trent Lott should be president. Still not democratic. quote: ME: Allende's government was taking from people who were using property for individual profit instead of serving the needs of everyone. If the complaints of those people were valid, they could have lobbied to have Allende removed at the next election. Pinochet took away the Chileans' right to lobby for anything.So the Chileans would have to wait for a later election while their government was being TOTALLY redone by people they didn't vote for? Still not democratic. At any rate, let's take an encyclopedic look at how wonderfully Allende's reforms worked... Quoting from here: quote: Opposition to his program, however, was strong from the beginning, and by 1972 the result was seen in severe economic problems and a sharply polarized citizenry. The situation grew still more critical in 1973, when skyrocketing prices, food shortages (caused by the reduction of foreign credits), strikes, and political violence brought Chile to the brink of chaos.OK, class, what does all that mean? Polarized citizenry: This means that the people were extremely divided on what Allende was doing. If there is *THAT* much division, is it ETHICAL to completely change a government? Nationalization: Because of privatization (and Allende's ILLEGAL seizure of foreign assets), there were food shortages and industrial striking. Not to mention skyrocketing prices. WOW, Nick, those Chileans were a LOT better off! More history: While Pinochet WAS violently militaristic, the Chileans DID prosper under him which stabalized the nation. I don't support the guy but I feel it was an unfortunate side-effect of a necessary displacement of Allende. At any rate, in 1988 civilian government was restored. Now, Chile is a rather prosperous nation with good education and affordable living necessities (things that actually WORSENED under Allende). Now, in 2000 a socialist BARELY won the presidency, but he isn't hardly trying to do what Allende did. The conclusion is simple: Allende attempted to change the entire FACE of a nation with heavy national dissent and just over a THIRD of the vote. That's not democratic. His proposals and changes divided (read: polarized) the nation and made food and other living necessities difficult to come by. And now, the Chileans are relatively prosperous. Obviously the way things were handled worked out for the best in the long run.

quote: No. It would be like aid to Hitler (Taliban) to attack Stalin (NA) while the Jews (Afghans) are armed and trained in secrecy.Not quite. It'd actually be more like giving them aid to attack someone while they kill the jews. In any case, even if your analogy was correct, it'd be a TERRIBLE idea.

quote: It wasn't tried with much conviction. Explain to me how the US actively supported the Kurds and the Shiites in their fight against Saddam, apart from the "No Fly Zones".I dunno, perhaps TRAINING and ARMING them? quote: What kind of an analogy is that?! Comparing Allende to Saddam is totally ridiculous! Allende was democratically elected, he didn't oppress the people, and he didn't have chemical weapons!Doesn't matter. You just went and tried to draw a HUGE grey line. quote: Pinochet, on the other hand, killed off his political opponents (including Allende) and oppressed the people. He is/was on Amnesty International's wanted list for human rights violations. Pinochet was a mass murderer defended by US military aid!...not quite. quote: You say that Saddam is hopelessly unpeaceful? Fine, you've convinced me. But DO NOT try to convince me that Pinochet was not. That is a direct contradiction.I'm not trying to. The analogy had, in fact, NOTHING to do with the people involved. It had to do with the US persuing its interests, a point which you've missed. We persue our interests in the middle east (including Iraq), we're condemned. We don't, we're condemned. We persue our interests ANYWHERE, we are condemned. We don't, we are. Just a little too much anti-US rhetoric this time?

Menchise, that's a TERRIBLE idea! That would be like giving aid to Hitler killing Jews in order to stop him from invading Poland.

quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: Whats your definition of bloody vs gory? Starship troopers is a 3 on the gory scale. I can watch that. e.g. The first scene in House On Haunted Hill, grossed me out and I left right there and then. Starship Troopers "gore" was so comical, I couldn't help but to laugh. Saving Private Ryan's gore, on the other hand, was hauntingly realistic. I guess that's why some people have to cover their eyes. Personally, I'm not too much of a horror movie guy. It always seems to be the same tired formula worked around a "new" plot. I'll pass. Any movies out right now featuring scantily-clad women? Preferably with no men...

I like a lot of the features in ICQ that aren't present on Yahoo (I use Yahoo on a limited basis). I just ignore the "bloat" features in ICQ.

quote: Chemicals DO NOT want to survive. Chemicals are inert,non living.That's why, at the end of the sentence, I said "in the state of life". quote: YUP, It just does, we should just enjoy the ride!!There's the problem. Saying that something "just does" lends it no more credibility than someone saying that "God-did-it". Although that statement reminds me of a LIVE song called "The Ride".

My thoughts exactly, doc. Again, the minority is trying to rule a nation that is SUPPOSED to be ruled by the majority. The vast minority being terrorists and the peaceniks here on the homefront. They want *US* to surrender *OUR* interests because a *FEW* people desperately want us to. That last I checked, a democratic republic is not ruled by a *FEW* people, not to mention those that aren't even CITIZENS of that republic. Frankly, it is my belief that those who believe that peace is the answer to EVERYTHING have no grasp of history nor have the courage to realize that sacrifice must be made for any gain. They also don't have the knowledge of economics and supply to realize that gain is essential for any nation to survive. Another point of interest is that they *ARE* knowledgable of the First Ammendment which allows them to speak freely, but they seem to have stopped reading there, because the Second Ammendment, which allows them to bear arms, is apparently wrong.

quote: The foundations of life are biochemical, or more simply put - chemical. Chemistry, I think you will agree requires no input of will or desire, merely the requisite conditions and reactants.Evolution begins when certain chemical reactions become favoured over other types and thus proliferate. THIS is the most fundamental basis for evolution.Yes, sure -- but still, what causes those chemicals to want to survive in the state of life? quote: Life is NOT dependant on environment, it is sculpted by its environment. The organisms alive in today's environment are here BECAUSE they can survive in this current environment. Should it change, only those lifeforms able to adapt and survive would remain.There is also evidence that life in fact transorms the environment in a feedback mechanism, giving rise to further evolution (See Gaia theory - James Lovelock)...and such life is dependant upon that environment. quote: Evolution requires NO involvement of will whatsoever.Succesful life endures because its ancesters endured. Simple premise: Succesful reproduction leads to increased offspring. All other aspects of evolution are simply consequences of this action.Untrue. The very basis of evolution is dependant upon species surviving. Otherwise you're saying that "life just reproduces" without answering WHY. And WHY is the question. quote: Adaptive speciation is species oriented since adaptation involves changes in DNA which can only be passed on via offspring. Thus,inherited DNA mutations do NOT affect the individual in which they occur. Mutations which did affect the individual have no consequence for the species.So why are evolutionary changes species-wide? What guides the need for changes? The answer to the latter is SURVIVAL. Then, you again miss the main question: WHY does life want to survive? That's the question that needs to be answered and has NOT been answer by science. What you're saying is "it just does".

quote: Originally posted by MrkGrismer: I fully agree. If he was offended the only reasonable recourse he really had was to tell his co-workers that the poster offended him, and explain why. That, or keep it to himself. Exactly. People don't have a right to be free from offensive thoughts or actions, so long as they don't affect them. That's free speech. quote: WE'RE VICTIMS!! WE'RE VICTIMS!!!The liberals have really brainwashed a lot of people, and it is not only unfair, it puts these people at a decided disadvantage when it comes to working. The world now owes them because we have not apologized for something that was illegal over 130 years ago. It was 130 years ago, GET OVER IT!!! No kidding. I agree 100%. The idea that WE are responsible for something our ANCESTORS may or may not have done is LUDICROUS. And besides, you'd think that the Civil War was a bloody apology. In any case, the US isn't the same as it was then, so no apology is necessary. Seriously, the next time people make that foolish claim, we should research their ancestry. If *ANY* member of their ancestors committed ANY crime, the person asking for the apology should be apologized to, then PROSECUTED.