CommanderJohnson

Woah, Warcraft 3 is good, I don't know what your talking about. If you play a straight up melee map against the computer, the computer will probably destroy you. The AI is harder than Starcraft or Warcraft 2. The graphics are a lot better than almost any other RTS game i've seen, and the camera angles and cinimatics are great. If you look at the map editor or play the UMS multiplayer map Warchasers, you'll see why the toolset that comes with it is so good. The scripting editor allows you to do almost ANYTHING with one of those maps, and mod value is huge. The single player, as far as i've gotten, is well scripted and well made. The game has a plot, like most blizzard games, and it's far from cookie cutter. If you liked Warcraft or Starcraft, you'll like Warcraft 3.

Businesses will make more profit if they give the people what they want, so people do have the choice. One person produces what they want, another doesn't. They buy what they want, the other guy will go out of business or produce what he wants. I fail to see the distinction, except your advocating a system where it's inefficient mob rule. P.S. You are still failing to respond to my last post which points out that your system requires everyone to buy into it, otherwise abuses of power will happen to a very high extent. [ 07-06-2002, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

quote:Originally posted by Kartoffel: Came across a oddity (bug?) the other day. I ordered a shuttle to tow me, and it got stuck. It was still leaving the movement trails, but it wasnt moving physically. It looked like it was pushing against empty space. A scrpited insurgent ship (warmonger, forgot it's name.) in the ACM also got simalarly stuck, except it was pushing on a jumpgate. (GalCom ACM TOD1 1/2, Treas) Has anyone else seen something like this happen?Yeah, the exact same thing happens to me. I look up at my shuttle and the movement trails are there but it's not going anywhere. Not sure if it's a bug or not though....SC?

Try playing a multiplayer game with dragons in it, it's almost impossible to click in a straight line ahead of you without clicking on "attack the dragon". Now, that wouldn't be a bad thing....if it wasn't for that fact I was a sorceror who is trying to run away....

*BEGIN RANT* Star Trek IV was BAD. I mean, sure, it has some humor, but they spent so little time in space or fighting that you could almost forget it was a Trek movie. They keep showing it over and over again on TV, and people for some reason keep watching it, but it can HARDLY BE CONSIDERED TREK. Look at Star Trek VI, it had a plot, it had fighting, and it took place IN SPACE. Look at just about EVERY OTHER Trek film, and it counts. It's not that I have them being on the ground, either, look at Star Trek II, I liked it. It had space, and ground, and was funny when Khan looked at the screen and got blown to hell. But Star Trek IV was BAD. It had an adventure to find a couple stupid WHALES. Who cares about a couple whales? That was the lamest plot device and lamest Star Trek movie in existance, and they KEEP SHOWING IT. They almost NEVER show Star Trek III, or VI on TV, and it's REALLY annoying..... *END RANT* [ 07-02-2002, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

Mercy? In multiplayer? Do you expect us to show you MERCY?

quote:Originally posted by LordDavid: Well, if there are only 3 active Gammulan members when the time comes, it wouldn't be a very difficult choice... Yeah! 3 of us vs 50 GALCOM Carriers ! That'd be great! SO MANY EASY TARGETS! HA HA HA HA!! BRING EM ON!

I don't see why we are getting into debates over who is exploited, and how a socialist system would work when you simply look at reality. TWO POINTS: FIRST, and Most Importantly, Socialism wont work, 1. Not everyone wants to work as hard as everyone else in a socailist system and be in a socialist system. They will want to have it easier than everyone else. 2. Those that don't will RISE ABOVE EVERYONE ELSE, exploit the system, and center power around themselves. (taking control of a council or leadership positions) 3. Those people will, at that point, be exploting those "under them", and thus the problems you CLAIM socialism solves for, remanifest. SECOND, 1. You fail to point out how there is any net disadvantage/exploitation to/in the capitalist system as used in the United States. 2. Who exactly thinks that the United States capitalist system is "exploting" other American citizens? Your arguments seem like they are from the Industrial Revolution in England. EDIT: Just a small 3rd point, you've failed to recognize: 1. A police force. 2. A military force. 3. Enforcement and punishment of laws. People in the police and military force aren't necesarrily "producing" anything, so how is their worth determined in a socialist system? Also, those groups have the easiest time to abuse power since they have guns. [ 07-02-2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

Hey, on the fleet servers, how are you going to decide on who gets to play?

Ok, I guess i'll see it then. Haha, have any of you seen the joke trailers for that movie? "See horse run"......"See Indian with horse"...."see horses run"...."see horses run some more"...."see horse jump"...etc...

I think there will eventually be a 7 8 and 9, but he'd have to make it follow all of the literature already out there that he approved.

First off, I totally agree with Jaguar. The view of capitalism being debated on this thread is that of the people being exploited in factories during the Industrial revolution in England by Capitalism, not the view of how it is currently enacted in first world countries today. Another thing that needs to be considered that isn't being argued is the value trade off in a socialist system. People have hinted at it concerning the "drive to succeed". If what is valued is the output of your labor, as Menchise keeps repeating over, and over, and over, and over again, what happens if *I*, come up with an idea of a product to help the world or make peoples lives easier. I didn't actually do any LABOR, I came up with an idea, it's in my head. Socialism says that I gain nothing from that idea except a good feeling that I helped the world. There is no reward for it at all. Capitalism says that good ideas and helping mankind is REWARDED. On a utilitarian level, socialism is stupid. It requires EVERYONE to be a good person and want to help society because it's the right thing to do. Capitalism, on the other hand, GIVES YOU SOMETHING. Look at little kids. Are they more likely to be good because it's the "right thing to do" or because they are rewarded for it? If you think that ALL people will do things because it's the "right thing to do", why don't more people work at homeless shelters and food kitchens instead of doing their jobs they get paid for? You can't argue with empirical evidence. Also, what happens with people who organize the labor (clump big wig coporation CEOs into this)? They arent DOING labor, they are telling the people under them what to do in order to maximize production. You say this is somehow "exploiting" the labor. In a capitalist system, they are rewarded for the increase in output which THEIR organization caused. Without the managers, and the CEOs, etc, organizing it, any sort of INCREASE in production never would have happened, because there would have been no one above them to notice their flaws and to change them. Sure, in an ideal world everyone will work together to do it, but if you havn't noticed, in the real world, a lot of people are dumb and lazy and aren't going to do anything and DONT want to do anything beyond following orders from their bosses. A socialist system requires EVERYONE to care and EVERYONE to think for the betterment of society, or for EVERYONE to give up freedom to an EXTREMELY powerful government, in which case it defeats the purpose of socialism. Either way, socialism doesn't work. You either lose all freedom or you need a perfect society of a bunch of caring people. Neither will happen, so how can you say socialism will work?

Jaguar puts things so elegantly. He's right too. "PC" is stupid, and the Supreme Court already said they are going to toss the liberal garbage out.

I just throw fireballs at the doors. That usually opens em.

SC, your kidding, right? I mean, I know i'm not supposed to judge a book by it's cover, but the previews looked.....lame.

It was a good movie, just not as action oriented as you'd expect. Like it if you just want to see a good, well made film with no huge frills or thrills. I think it should have ended with the bad guy winning though, when "you know who" was locked up. You'll know what I mean if you've seen the movie. [ 06-29-2002, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

Morality: Ok, morality is simply learned. In the United States, as widely varied as religious affiliations and lack of them are, it's tradition that prostitutes, murders, rapists, and other criminals and *marginalized* groups are frowned upon, as are their actions, and in addition, Christianity is upheld as the moral framework. Before people start arguing with that, immediately after the 9th Circut Court's ruling, almost ALL representatives and senators moved to pass a bill condemning the ruling, and they all recited the pledge including GOD in it. Christianity is popular, the laws of our country are based around Christianity, and actions that are counter to the moral code of Christianity are either frowned upon or CRIMINAL. Going back to previous analogies about atheists, the person isn't going to stop the guy in the bar from being beaten because he's afraid of God, or because the beater is some sick person. He's either NOT going to do it because he doesn't wanna get hurt, or he's gonna do it because he's afraid of being looking down upon by the girlfriend or wife or group of friends he's with for NOT doing anything. If there was no common norm about morality, people would act like animals and do whatever they want to get whatever they want. It's a learned behavior since people mold to fit society's expectations. Just like the holocaust was obviously immoral to everyone NOT in Germany, it was perfectly moral to them since they were living in a society, somewhat delusioned by the information they were getting from their government, that by wiping out Jews it was a GOOD THING. "Morality" as we think of it, did not exist there. The Court Decision: The declaration of independence, the preamble to the constitution, and a number of patriotic songs (GOD BLESS AMERICA, AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL) all have "God" in them. The constitution forbids the establishment of a specific religion as a STATE religion and the forcing of anyone to follow a particular religious belief. If you don't want to say "God" in the pledge, then DONT SAY IT. Also, just to end any debate over this, go on msnbc.com and read the fact that 3 justices on the Supreme Court stated that if it came to the court that it WOULD be overturned. (aka, the pledge would stay the way it is now). Do you all really think that having God in the pledge is somehow oppressing someone's right to worship a religious entity freely? They just need to keep thier mouth shut.

There needs to be an intelligent computer running all political and business decisions so all decisions made benefit the most people with the most good while doing the least harm over the status quo. That'd solve all of these problems. (since if the computer can't hurt any MORE people, quantitatively, than the current system, it couldn't really make any "immoral" decisions)

I strolled in the day it came out and bought it off the shelf at like 500 PM. They had like 3 non-pre ordered copies left.

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: quote:Originally posted by Unforgiven_Killer: Im an idiot.....thanks for the info.No, you're just a newbie. No idiots in this thread....yet Uhhh...what does BC stand for? *scratches his head like Homer Simpson*

I agree. Good movie.

Even if Canada did get a state of the art military, the political climate in Canada would not let them deploy many troops unless they were attacked like the US was on 9/11. Canada's military has probably deteroirated because they KNOW the United States will defend them, because they know that the United States will NOT have any sort of hostile military forces on the ground in North America. The last time enemies ever came near US soil was in Alaska, on Japanese ships, in World War II, while their fleet in Midway was getting blown to bits. I think Canada also knows that if there is a terrorist threat from their country, we won't hestitate to "help out" however we can.

It was REALLY FBI agents disguised as arabs that crashed the plane.

Is it because the industry is filled with idiots?

Ok, to put these suicide bombings in perspective, think about this: Arab terrorists start doing random suicide bombings around the United States. In malls, around national landmarks, anywhere there are many people. They claim that they want the US to become isolationist in regards to foreign policy in the Middle East. They tell us not to attack Iraq. Now, this scenario is MINOR compared to Israel since Israel has a LOT less people than the US, thus more of their population is killed with every bomb, but it's still bad. Now, what should/would the US do? 1. Agree totally and become isolationist. 2. Compromise. Agree to not attack Iraq, but will become isolationist in regards to foreign policy with the rest of the Middle East. 3. Immediately attack Iraq and any Middle Eastern country that is suspected of sending the terrorists over or supporting them. Increasing ties with "friendly" Middle Eastern countries. Doing the exact opposite of the demands. Now, I really don't think it'd be good for the US or its people to do #1 or #2, and there isn't really a #4 unless you wanna add on "nuke the middle east to hell". So, why exactly is it that some people in the US assume that the ISRAELIS need to be nice when people are blowing up bombs next to buses and in shopping centers in their country in order to "get their state". Talk about hypocrites...