CommanderJohnson

Bump

quote:Originally posted by Cruis.In: remember space above and beyond? i actually liked it. Especially the first Pilot episode. Was a little younger then so it may have appealed to me more so than adults. Probably why it was cancelled.[/QB]That was the BEST series. I don't know why no one else liked it.

Too bad Tyrian's link on that site is dead. No place to get it.

But it's all about the freedom and command abilities. Without support craft, it's just a big FPS with a ship instead of a person. Maybe when SC says support craft, he means that we cant deploy ATVs, etc.... [ 09-22-2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

quote:Originally posted by Epsilon 5: Anyone ever played Tyrian? Yeah, is it still under copyright? I'm trying to find a version that will work under XP so I can play it and beat it. Only ever beat the shareware. That game rocked.

Only thing I disagree with Jag on is that *RADICAL* Islam (the Islam that is fed to the people of the totalitarian Arab countries) wants to kill us all, not ALL of Islam. quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: This is about oil control. We know that if he acquires radiological weapons he can effectively deny us those resources and big oil is pissing in its pants.... As is the rest of a county who been told its entire well being is based on oil control. And Dredd please stop...they set the oil on fire before but it doesn't work.....and nukes would work too. Well, finally someone makes an argument how a war would benefit US oil, and now I realize that the argument is worse than i'd ever have imagined. Saddam getting nukes would let him say "we are sending out no more oil"? Highly doubtful. It would cause the other Arab nations to hate him, the international community would come down on him for violating the NPT and other treaties, the United States would immediately attack him before he had a chance to get MORE weapons and sell them to terrorists to use against the United States. There's no way Saddam would EVER be allowed to keep WMDs, and your position seems to be that stopping Saddam from getting nukes is based on OIL? Sure, whatever, it doesn't matter, but it's obvious to just about anyone that even *IF* oil is a factor, it's down the list after the fact they would use them to attack the United States and threaten their neighbors. Not to mention Saddam getting nukes wouldn't stop the other Arab nations or Africa or Russia from exporting oil. Arrggh, your argument doesn't make any logical sense in terms of international relations or security, and your virtually changing your position from "Saddam isn't getting nukes and isn't a danger" into "Saddam is getting nukes and should be allowed to get nukes since he'd only be using them to stop oil exports to the US, stopping him would only be for oil". Arrggh, make up your mind. quote: Why can't people see through the manipulation and BS? The only reason I can think of is because we don't want too. To admit that Aristocracy is alive and well and in control in this country would be too hard in the land of the free.....it would be like everyone in the country really having to take a look at themselves.... If your really into all of the conspiracy theories, why don't you look at the BIGGEST one? The one that the UN is the basis for a one-world government (that may or may not exist now), which is ruled by the richest people in the world and is used to manipulate every aspect of government in the entire world. Then you say we should turn to the UN for help? Yeah, right, sure. quote: I dont know but lets get real.there are a number of other sources that are more of a threat to us then Iraq Please, name a nation and provide some newspaper articles, other evidence, or just some analytical arguments or logic. Also, you contradict yourself! You say we are stopping Iraq from getting WMDs because it'd mess up our oil flow (which makes no sense, especially since war HURTS oil prices and HURTS the economy, you still fail to recognize that oil prices go up from attacking the Middle East), and then you say that Saddam isn't a threat. Ok, so Saddam getting WMDs is OK? *HE MASSACRES HIS OWN PEOPLE, AND HE'D ATTACK ISRAEL* *HE HATES THE US AND WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM SELLING WMDS TO TERRORISTS* *HES EXPANSIONIST AND WOULD PROBABLY USE WMDS TO GAIN POWER IN THE MIDDLE EAST* HOW IS HE NOT A THREAT?!?!??!?!?

I really hope it isn't true...it'd be REALLY stupid to have carriers without support craft, since then they are essentially oversized and slow cruisers.

quote:Originally posted by Menchise: quote:And perhaps what Rumsfeld knows is best not known by the public. They want support, not a bunch of crazies screaming for Saddams head on a platter, and trying to tell them how to do the job.Excuse me? Is that supposed to be a point or a neo-fascist platitude? If Rumsfeld is going to be responsible for risking 200,000 American lives in war, he had better convince them and their families that HE is not crazy. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a totally lame excuse for death and destruction. If he is not burdened with a public demand for evidence then he can avoid accountability at his leisure. So much for the republic. Hello to US fascism. There's already enough reason to attack Saddam without evidence proving he HAS WMDs (read the 8-10 points I posted a looong time ago). Even IF Rumsfeld has no strong evidence, there's still enough reason to attack. No facist state there. Although I don't buy it, it is POSSIBLE that Saddam is such a threat that they don't want us all to panic. Sorta like the "Alien conspiracy theory".

Ok, that movie was horrible. So no one else sees it, here is a total critique: The movie attempts to combine an action movie with a chick flick, which ends up making it fail horribly. It adds an entire emotional subplot designed to tug at the heartstrings of viewers (im guessing females since I was just laughing during most of it). It has two family/children plots which could easily have been taken out. Music that seems suited for love stories is played between battles, even though the time between battles has nothing to do with a love plot (any love story isn't even developed past "she's a woman, he's a man") and it doesn't fit the "we're about to get attacked again" mood. Beautiful scenery is thrown in at the same time for absolutely no reason, ruining the mood that should be "what's going to happen next" with "wow, look at the pretty sunset...wait...isn't this supposed to be an action movie? Why the hell is that there?!?". The plot of the movie isn't much better, there is no character development of the villians, almost none of Sever, and very little of Ecks. The "world is going to end" urgency of most actions movies is non-existant, instead replaced with an emotional urgency that makes almost no sense. The only thing keeping viewers watching is trying to figure out why people are shooting at each other, since the plot changes so many times with no order or chronological connectivity that it's almost impossible to follow, and then once you do figure it all out, you realize that the movie sucks. On the plus side, the explosions were nice, and the pseudo-techno music was cool. Oh yeah, and the fighting scenes sucked too, it was a pitiful attempt to live up to the Matrix's martial arts action, but it left you thinking "I really wish I watched the Matrix instead, at least that was an action movie." Now, I think i'm going to go watch The Matrix. That was a good movie. EDIT: Oh yeah, -1/10. I can get good music from the and fighting Matrix. I can get good music and explosions from Star Wars. I can get all of em from The Rock. Talk about a load of... [ 09-21-2002, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

quote:Cable is cheaper. Same price. (at least for me) quote:Cable can download faster. Unless congested, which WILL happen if it's cheaper as you say. DSL doesn't have that problem. quote: No dial up with Cable. ...or DSL. quote: People I know who had DSL (before switching to cable) say that they got disconnected from DSL every 2 hours and had to reconnect.DSL doesn't disconnect every two hours, I can stay connected 24/7 if I want to. (p.s. be sure to use a firewall. Zonealarm is good, or get a hardware one...)

How does it compare to the original?

I'm going to go see it in about 30 minutes, will post on it when I get back. I hope it isn't THAT bad. Good explosions should at least rate a 3/10...

quote:Originally posted by $iLk:

So, since we can't tractor in cargo-pods in a Stormcarrier, we're going to be reduced to having to TRADE to make money to buy ship upgrades?!?!?!?

Side-scrollers never get dated, but in-flight games and space games look so much more dated over time. I used to think WC3's space combat looked great, but now the only thing I like about it is the FMV (which also looks sorta dated). I miss the older games though...they were fun...

quote: quote:Originally posted by Charles Lindsey: quote:AGAIN, HOW DOES A WAR WITH IRAQ BENEFIT OUR OIL SUPPLY? Not the supply in and of itself but who gets to profit from it. I read a (probably very obscure by now) article on Yahoo news. It was wither AP or Reuters. American oil companies are already petitioning the white house for the chance to deal with Iraq. It's still more likely to hurt oil than help it since all the other oil producing nations are going to cut their supplies if we invade, and just about everyone agrees on that. Oil and big business obviously isn't the intent of the invasion since the economy is probably going to suffer and the oil production, and thus the oil companies, will lose money. quote: quote:I would agree, but But the argument is whether the US should act with unilateral abandon. No, the argument is whether the US should invade Iraq. Either: 1. Attacking Iraq and removing Saddam, a threat, from power is right and should be done (regardless of what everyone else thinks). OR 2. Attacking Iraq is somehow wrong or immoral, as is removing Saddam. There is an objective truth, so which is it? That's what the argument is over. What the UN thinks is irrelevent to the need for the United States to act. quote: Umm if I remember right the british lined up according to the prim and proper rules of war and Americans invented guerilla tactics. Yes, and the prim and proper rules of war were totally stupid and illogical and resulted in a huge loss of life, and they also seemed to occur during the Civil War. You don't line up to get shot, you take COVER. The concept of war is not to "be nice", it's to kill the other guy without killing civilians and to win. Assassinating every leader we don't like is a lot better than bombing their entire country to rubble. quote: quote:We are international lawWe are NOT. How arrogant. Well, we are. Think about it. We enforce it, and if anyone doesn't like what we do...tough luck. No one can invade us (they know they'd be glowing green), and we are critical to the global economy (people don't like embargos against Iraq, just think of how mad people in other countries would be with embargos against the US.) We do what we want, and what we do is typically right. quote: quote:just like we are the UNWe are NOT. We might be a charter and permanent member but we are NOT the entire UN. UN means United Nations. Or did you forget that? I know what UN stands for, but without the US, the UN means nothing. Jag covered that well. quote: You'll probably have a conniption over this. I think we ought to leave him alone. Let him get whatever he wants. Let him become the biggest threat to the region. Then wait till those little sandboxes ask for our help. I'd agree with that, except for two personal objections. 1. I live near a major city. If he gets a nuke, I don't want to be one of the ones killed by it. 2. If he gets WMDs and/or uses one, we'd possibly just lower our ICBM count by getting rid of him with one. That would kill a lot of innocent life, and it'd be because we waited to act until he was a threat.

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: quote:Originally posted by Dredd: I want my super ship! Ohh, ohh, and I want all my crew to start with 100 AI! Yeah! Anyone wanna mod it for me? You can use Playmod to have all your crew AI at 100. Check the GBS forum for the Playmod thread. C'mon SC, I wouldn't want to CHEAT to get my AI high, although a modded super-ship that has the crew automatically there wouldn't be cheating, just good military training...

quote:Originally posted by kiloton: Am I reading the multiplayer features right or did the Stormcarrier get a little less scary since support craft deployment will not be a part of multiplayer for BCM or BCM Gold (and may not be a part of BCG MP either)? Anybody rethinking their ship choices based on those listed features or am I not reading them right? KenAHH! I really hope you aren't reading them right...someone, please tell me he isn't reading them right...I remember reading that, but I don't remember making the connection...the SC wouldn't NOT let us deploy FIGHTERS, would he? Would he?!? Someone, please, tell me it isn't so! TELL ME!!!!! *screams*

DSL all the way! You don't want to be stuck with cable when it gets congested.

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Told you..all about the oil..I didnt think you would miss that one.our standard of living should never be threatened by a mad manerthat we put into power because we could predict what he would do.er.uh.duh.AGAIN, HOW DOES A WAR WITH IRAQ BENEFIT OUR OIL SUPPLY? Most likely the wells would be set fire to, most likely other arab nations would cut their oil production due to a US war with Iraq, oil prices would go UP. Also, even if they don't go up, we're currently trying to get new sources of oil so we don't even need the Middle East, so why would we risk destroying our economy and going farther into debt by invading Iraq when we have OTHER SOURCES FOR OIL?!? Your liberal BS rants make no sense. You keep repeating the catch phrases but keep ignoring my requests for some sort of logic how business and oil benefits from a war. *IT DOESNT* quote:Just heard that ol' Rummy actually met with Saddam back in the dayto give him weapons....imagine that...this guy loves playing master of the universe....I wonder how many American deaths Rummy is indirectly responsible for.....If I didnt laugh I think Id have to cry Yeah, we kept him in power then because it was the lesser of two evils. Now we get rid of him since he *IS* the evil. Your point? Fears based on history don't prove anything unless you can spell out a likely scenario for the future. quote: I agree Sadam is 'evil' and must be put out of power. However, I do not believe that it is the United State's responsibility to directly oust him and set up a puppet government. We should support the revolutionaries that are there (same as in Afghanistan). I would agree, but there are too many problems with that, such as causing uprisings and revolts in Turkey, which would cause the entire Middle East to go to hell. Sure, I don't really care since the people would probably have a good case for uprising, but of course the US would be blamed for those uprisings, and we'd have a lot more problems than we signed up for. At least if we do it ourselves, we have some degree of "control" so we can set up a government that isn't going to fracture into 2-3 seperate nations... quote: We could at least be secretive about it and have him assassainated. Just a thought. Not a bad thought. I always thought it was stupid how in the Civil and Revolutionary Wars and prior to that the British and American Armies (or whatever nation), all lined up then attacked each other. It was stupid and ended up with a lot more bloodshed than needed. Sending in troops is stupid compared to just getting the end result (death of Saddam) with less risk of life. quote:I thought assassination is what a rogue nation would do? I thought assassination was considered an act of terrorism and violated international law....but you think stuff like that doesn't need to apply to us...? We are international law, just like we are the UN. I didn't think it was considered an act of terrorism (since it isn't against a civilian population), but even if it is, it shouldn't be since he's effectively the leader of the armed forces. quote: How would we feel if Kofi Annan decided Bush was a new Hitler and had to be ousted and sent 'baby blue' troops to invade the US to "topple a dictator". Now imagine how happy the families of the Iraqi dead are going to be that we 'liberated' them from their leader, at the cost of dead husbands, sons, and fathers. Look at Afghanistan. We killed some of their families in the bombing, but they were extremely glad to be free from the Taliban and out of oppression. They are always going to prefer freedom to oppression, and no one can say that they aren't oppressed, or present any evidence to that fact, since if they claim to be oppressed, they immediately and oddly "disappear".

I want my super ship! Ohh, ohh, and I want all my crew to start with 100 AI! Yeah! Anyone wanna mod it for me? [ 09-20-2002, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]