Jerrai

quote:Originally posted by Tac: Its supposed to be CUTE, not funny you insensitive clods. it was so cute i busted up laughing

quote:Originally posted by goaliejerry: Will I ever run across enemy cruisers that have upgraded there own armour and systems? If not, why not? Also, is there a way to upgrade the armour and sheilds of my fighter compliment, and if so how?most likey not, due to processors already computing other things, thats why NPC ships only have 4 systems. anyways enemies with high AI can give you a run for you money with lower stats nope, no fighter upgrades. increase ur pilots AI and you wont need fighter upgrades

quote:Originally posted by Paddy Gregory: Basically, you're letting a minority of people determine the result of a national vote.thats the way it works now in the US. about 50% of the population is of voteing age, and only about 50% of that even registers and votes. so the US is run by about 25% of the populace. besides the few always seem to control the many quote:Originally posted by Menchise: quote:if man wasnt so greedy, communisum could have worked how it was orignally writtenIt has never been tried the way it was originally written. exactly my point, cant even do the right things when they are done for us.

Intruder's Golden Rule - Steal everything that isn't tied down, and take a crowbar for the things that are. thought it fits for intruders, but we'd need a new alert for Resnig. and the crew would need a tiedown command in Tactical->Crew "Priority One Alert - We have intruders on board. Assigning marines to search detail. Update - They are armed with crowbars, attack with extreme prejudice."

HELL NO! the US is too corrupt, and it can happen real fast on a world level if man wasnt so greedy, communisum could have worked how it was orignally written [ 03-10-2002, 19:29: Message edited by: Enigma ]

ok, true but its still a nice idea, might have to get a PS2 sooner now

quote:Originally posted by Tac: you dont own your leased car. But you control it. yes but only limitedly, miss a paymnt and see if they dont exert thier control with the quickness

quote:Originally posted by Cmdr Nova: Even though it's expensive, it looks like a pretty cool idea, because it really hasn't been done before. (A PC OS being put onto a console.) actully there are OS in the PS2, the DC, the GC, and X-box i believe. i know for sure that the DC has Windows CE

quote:Originally posted by Tac: Control does not mean ownership. Gawd thats a huge pile of legalese. My head hurts. if u control u own it. thats the meaning of ownership, unless ur lending it, and waasnt lended to the UN

having alot of fun i see. hehe cool site btw

quote:Originally posted by Tac: "But what is UN? Is it a country, is it a government --> NO."actually it does own land, i read a report stateing that the US Senate gave them our national parks and most the worlds land too. iv posted the report, i had saved on my comp. link was old so i found the current one, has a new title from the looks of it, but this is the one i had saved US Senate Gives UN Control Over 70% Of World's Land Mass By Henry Lamb ┬® 2000 WorldNetDaily.com http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=18828 12-9-00 The U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification was ratified by the U.S. Senate on October 18, but few Senators yet know that it has been ratified. Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY) introduced a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote. Initially, Senator Thomas' office told callers that the Senator had nothing to do with the ratification. On December 8, his office called to explain that Senator Thomas just happened to be on the Senate Floor late in the afternoon of October 18 -- and was asked by the leadership to handle procedurally, the package of treaties. Senator Thomas has asked the Foreign Relations Committee to explain how, and why, the Desertification Treaty was included in the package. At the recent climate change talks in the Hague, Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) said the treaty had not been ratified, until corrected by one of his staff. Phone calls to Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN), and other Senators, caught staffers off guard: Nobody knew how their boss voted on the ratification. They could not know -- there was no recorded vote. This treaty was signed by the Clinton administration in 1994. It has been locked up in the Foreign Relations Committee since. Normally, treaties of such monumental importance are debated in committee and then forwarded to the Senate floor for further debate and disposition. Not this time. The treaty appeared in a package of 34 treaties -- most of which were single-issue treaties with single nations, dealing with stolen vehicles, criminals, and the like. The Desertification Treaty, however, is not a single-issue treaty with a single nation. This treaty is one of several environmental treaties that emerged from the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. One of those treaties, the Convention on Climate Change, was ratified in 1992. The Convention on Biological Diversity failed ratification in 1994. The Convention to Combat Desertification was skillfully maneuvered through the Senate to avoid the public reaction which killed the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Desertification Treaty claims jurisdiction over 70% of the earth's land area -- virtually all of the land that is not covered by the Convention on Biological Diversity. Moreover, this new treaty creates a structure through which all other environmental treaties are supposed to be integrated under a common United Nations implementation regime. A companion treaty is now being developed by the U.N. Commission on Water for the 21st Century. The United Nations is, in fact, creating the structure in international law and, through its extensive bureaucracies, to control the use of all natural resources on earth. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty on October 18, 2000 -- whether or not it knew what it was doing. On November 17, the Clinton administration delivered the ratification documents to the United Nations. The United States is now bound by the international law that claims the power to dictate land use in 70% of the earth's land. The name of the treaty implies that it is concerned about deserts -- in fact, it is concerned about all land use. To combat desertification, the treaty seeks to prevent land use that its enforcers think may lead to desertification. Converting forests to pasture, for example, or pasture to row crops, or crop land to subdivisions, are all uses that may lead to desertification, according to literature produced by the United Nations. There is no distinction between federal land and privately owned land when it comes to land use under the jurisdiction of the U.N. The U.N. sees its role to be the establishment of policy -- it is up to the participating nations to see that the policy is implemented. The recent rash of land acquisition measures promoted by the administration and Congress seeks to get more land under federal ownership. The vast expansion of regulatory control over land use by all federal agencies makes it easier for the United States to comply with its international obligations under a variety of international treaties. This new treaty extends even further the U.S. obligation to control land use. According to the treaty itself, no reservations can be included in its ratification (Article 37). The Resolution of Ratification adopted by the Senate contains several reservations -- all of which will be ignored by the United Nations. Withdrawal from the treaty cannot even begin until after three years of participation -- and then another year must pass before withdrawal is recognized by the U.N. -- assuming, of course, that there is some desire in the Senate to withdraw. Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International. sorry for the long post

quote:Originally posted by Tac: i agree a decillion times

laws are made to be broken, or were made cause someone doesnt like the fact someone else got away with it and they couldnt. the UN is funded mostly by the US, so that means the UN is a front for the US on getting into other countries and imposing thier will.

quote:Originally posted by Soback: In a 100 years it's going to be just like in one of those sci-fi movies. One world governmet with "ants" working for it and a couple of "terrorist" cells fighting for freedom. I am just glad I won't live to see that.100 yrs? id say sooner, like 2050 or less, cause the needs of the ppl arent getting met, i think civil war might ensue, and then with every nation america has f***ed over or beaten (pretty much the whole world), jumpin in tryin to get a peace Nova may only be 15, but the younger eyes might see what older ppl might not see, i myself am 19, been in the US Army basic combat training (ELSed to take care of mother) and still belive america isnt as good as is made up to be. we technically have no freedom, if more of an illuson of freedom (watch me have FBI at my door, damn Echelon) hellbinder, i feel what u said and XenoZohar the public isnt cattle, they are sheeple i think iv said enough in this post

ok what i get out of it is, no one can remove or alter security devices from servers used by ISPs or company intranets. also tampering with public computers that allow access to the net is also prohibited (i.e. schools and libraries) ->According to 47 U.S.C. 230(f), an "interactive computer service" means "any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions." ->The term "interactive digital device" means "any machine, device, product, software, or technology, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine, device, product, software, or technology, that is designed, marketed or used for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving, or copying information in digital form." with that the Sec. 101 means you cant use any interactive digital device that doesnt have security or alters security on a machine unless its upgrading it. also you wont be able to burn CDs, download mp3, or anything like that of course if this is set effect, and the ppl dont make the standard, it gives the govt control of the standard which doesnt always mean a good thing

does BCM support joystick profiles? i bought a joystick for BCM and tried to set up a profile for it, but i dont think i did it right. i have an InterAct Raider Advanced FX joystick. it works correctly and its properly setup. i just want to know if i can change the key options for it. if not ill, return it or something also it cycles to fast on a button press, like it has autofire on, but i know its off and it does it to all the buttons, makes it hard to select a missle or the next enemy

it seems if i upgrade the engine system its worse than what i had. i could be wrong, but to me it seems like speed is lost when u have the numega engine. or am i just seeing things, might be worth testing out

yeah, that blerm is quick, averaged about 185KB/sec. gonna love playin somemore BCM. this game has better support from its deveolper than most other games that have a bigger bank account behind them good work SC

I played the BC3k 2.09 free and though it was the best game out there, and I played the E2 demo, and thought BCM was off the hook, so I preordered it. Mad props to SC for his hard work. I was away till now, so I just now got to install it. Had no problems, but when I went to run the game, the SafeDisk splash screen came up and went away after a few seconds. Nothing else happend after that. The game never starts or asks for the CDKEY. I tried uninstalling and reinstalling a few times, even used the .msi to install, no problems there either. I patched the game with 1.0.03, and all I got was the BCM logo splash screen. No game start at all. iv read the VCF, FAQ, manual, and quite a few other threads, and followed what they said to fix my problem (with no luck), iv got the latest drivers for my video card, Windows Media Player 7.1 and DirectX 8.1 [ 12-25-2001: Message edited by: Enigma ]