Steve Schacher

Hey.

quote:From the Supreme Commander: IF you ladies are going to keep lifting stuff off other sites, POST THE FRIGGING LINK and give credit to the source.This brings up an interesting point of policy here. Some sites (most notoriously Free Republic) have been sued by the major newspapers for posting entire articles, thereby depriving the content owner the website hits. This site is trivial compared to news-oriented sites, but should copyright "fair use" laws be followed here? In other words, instead of posting entire article with links, "fair use" allows for posting short excerpts for news-worthy use, followed by links to the entire content. Otherwise, it's no different than piracy of intellectual content. What do you think?

Actually, Cruis.In, I think you have it backward. I have 20/10 vision, which is what you were thinking of as perfect vision -- not 10/20. Also, I should point out that shutter glasses don't work when playing in windowed mode, only full-screen mode.

True, they only work with CRTs. They depend on interlacing or page flipping. You can put the 3D glasses over your regular glasses. The 3D glasses are basically two LCD lenses that turn on and off to block the eye from seeing the screen, coordinated with what is displayed on the screen.

I have eDimensional E-D Glasses. BCM is great with them. Most effects are superb. There are a few 2D anomolies, mostly due to the game not being designed with 3D glasses in mind. I haven't tried the glasses in first person mode (I don't generally play the ground stuff -- yet). Great effects ------------- o Hyperspace effects o beam weapons have depth to them o using F10 views and zooming in close (especially some of the supply stations -- getting in close causes some of the parts to extend out of the screen) o space marines (again, zooming in close makes their guns come out of the screen) o planets o weather effects Poor effects ------------ o Tacops computer (I use keyboard toggles to disable 3D when using Tacops) o space debris (looks like rain on a windshield in 3D, especially in rear view when the dots bunch up at the center of the screen) o some menus have 3D aspects on 2D - meaning that the cursor doesn't track with the buttons. This is noticable on the main system dropdown in the upper right corner - when you go to switch displays, the menu drops down in the center of the screen, even though the cursor is in the upper right. Don't try to click the menu item in the center -- each item highlights as you move the cursor on the right -- just click. The one 2D effect that looks ok on the 3D screen is the lens effect. This should be glare on a window, which is what it looks like. I don't play the game without the glasses anymore.

quote:There is an old legal saying: "Burden of proof." There is another old legal saying: "Due process of law." If this whole issue was being played out in a courtroom, the case would have been thrown out and the prosecutors disbarred.The fact is that this isn't being played out in a courtroom, it will be played out on the battlefield. Platitudes (my own included) won't matter much. The fact is that you are supposing as much as I am. You are supposing that Bush doesn't have the proof, therefore he is demagoging and will attack anyway in order to save face. I am supposing that Bush does have the proof and is waiting for the opportune moment to provide it. Other "facts" to consider are that, initially, the world was against Bush, but slowly, they are signing on. I wonder what made the other countries change their minds. I doubt that Bush is so powerful that he forced the leaders of the other countries to change their tunes without "evidence" of some kind. Weegee: quote:I'm talking about after flashpoint and we retaliate. We already know that if we launch nukes, so will every other nuke power. Who? and Why? Of the nuclear powers who would respond, why would they? This isn't a MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario like in the cold war. Would Russia launch against us if we launched against Iraq (with Russia's knowledge and consent)? Britain? China? India? Pakistan (only if truly infiltrated)? Israel? France? Why would the planet "light up" if we used nukes in Iraq? Now, if Saddam launches against Israel if we attack, and then Israel retaliates, then in an odd way that proves Bush's hypothesis that Iraq had WMD all along, doesn't it?

quote:Despite the fact that the weapons inspectors have found nothing, the US military is prepared to invade within a fortnight.There is an old Archeology saying: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." Perhaps Bush is waiting until all the forces are in place before calling and playing his hand. Maybe he's lulling Hussein into complacency by letting him continue his shell games until we're ready to strike. Then Bush will lay it all out, the UN will move in, our inside assets will pull out, Saddam will obfuscate some more, the UN withdraws, then the US will strike before Hussein can use his PR machine to spin his way out. Hussein will be the next foe to misunderestimate Bush.

Happy Holidays!

I never did post my review after getting my e-dimensional glasses. They do make a difference, especially with the beam effects. I don't have any headache problems. I started off with a low setting (around 30%) and then worked all the way up to 100% over time. I still tweak the settings during play sometimes. I was getting strange lockups occasionally, which I attributed to my computer. I can't bring myself to play this game without the glasses anymore.

quote:Especially considering how many of those tapes my almost 3yr old daughter has around here. Wow. Has it been three years already? Where does the time go?

ARTICLE I: Section 8. Clause 10. quote:[The Congress shall have Power] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;Piracies and felonies on the high seas. Air travel wasn't conceivable to them, but in their vernacular the high seas would include in the air. Pirating airliners and crashing them into buildings would be a felonious act as well as being an offense against the Law of Nations. Section 8. Clause 11. quote:[The Congress shall have Power] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"Captures on land" means invasion of other countries. "Captures on water" means attacking hostile ships. Section 10. Clause 3. quote:No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.Does this mean that Congress could authorize the state of New York to engage in war with Iraq because New York is in imminent danger of a dirty/nuclear attack?

quote:nobody even seemed to think that july first was Canada's independence day... That's unfair. That's right! I think we should change all world-wide independence day celebrations into World Participation Day.

quote:I regard the social movement of PC as an important vehicle for encouraging mutual respect intercommunally by raising awareness of cultural taboos and such and suggesting equivalent alternative communication that avoids needless or reckless offense.Part of what is at the root of Political Correctness is this country's obsession with what divides us instead of what unites us. PC took a drastic turn for the worse (in my opinion) during the last decade of divide and conquer politics (triangulation), where groups of people were pitted against other groups of people and told that theire situation would be better if only THOSE other people weren't in the way. Multi-culture fits into this somewhat as well, since it focuses on things that separate us. People should equally focus on the things that we have in common. It is what we have in common that unites us in Humankind. An additional elaboration: There is enough commonality amongst people of the world that an entire vocabulary of human intercourse was able to develop for interaction. Political Correctness, to me, is an attempt to force commonality where none exists by altering the meaning of words to make people fit into groups to serve an agenda. [ 07-05-2002, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

quote:So if 2% of a 250 mil population is Native American you should be able to refere to those individual's anyway you want? Like I said, I don't go around insulting people for sport, and most people don't either. But if I wanted to, then yes I could because we have this thing called the First Amendment (another topic for another time). And, if 245,000,000 decided to call the other 5,000,000 names, who's going to stop them? quote:So in your mind Political Correctness is when people take the idea of trying to look out for the sensitivities of others too far?Yes. Today, it goes even further than that. As Soback and Tac were illustrating, Political Correctness is a one-way street. If you're a protected class belonging to the American Left then PC rules, but if you are on the Right, then the rules rule against you. [ 07-04-2002, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

quote:does anyone think that having the citizens of the world's only superpower become more international savvy and sensitive to the feelings of others a bad thing?I am not responsible for the feelings of others. They will feel what they choose to feel. That said, I am not a moron either. I do not go around insulting people for sport. On the other hand, people today are too quick to label others as hateful and mean-spirited simply because they express a dissenting viewpoint. People claim that their feelings are hurt or that they are offended only because others don't agree with them. It is that behavior that has to stop. quote:Is making sure that people do not feel alienated or threatened because of beliefs or skin color a bad thing? ...I believe that people have a right to fight labels that are stereotypical and racist….hmmm….stupid eh?There is a difference between stereotypical bigotry and political correctness. Political Correctness goes to extremes to prevent perceived slights before they occur. Take the recent flap over the New York State Regents exam where "educators" changed literary quotes because they didn't want to offend students. They changed words like "skinny" to "thin;" dropped phrases like "Jewish women" to "women." They think these words will offend students who are raised on MTV and rap music? The works on the test were literary for a reason -- they provoked thought. By changing the quotes they 1) may make it harder for students to recognize the original literary work, and 2) diminish the thought-provoking meaning that the author intended -- what made the work "literary" in the first place. I could go on, but I have to leave now. [ 07-04-2002, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Now, tell me how that tailor is being exploited? Or am I the one being exploited? I am the owner, in that I own the money and have a service that needs to be performed, namely the construction of specialty clothing for me. The tailor is a laborer who is hired to construct the clothing for me. I have the design of the clothing in my mind, the tailor has the experience to construct it. The clothing requires a few yards of cloth, some buttons, thread, needles, maybe some power for the sewing machine, maybe amortizing some of the cost of the sewing machine, so the tailor should be paid just the cost of producing the clothing, say $25? Maybe give him a $5 tip because I'm a moral capitalist and I'm nice? Or, the tailor is the owner of the apparel business, started out working out of his home with his mother's sewing machine, becomes successful, rents a storefront and gets a new sewing machine, buys a supply of material, hires an apprentice, and is now exploiting his apprentice? How much should the consumer (me with my special clothing) be charged? The tailor needs to cover his rent, electricity, inventory costs, labor costs, and still make a small profit. Say, $75? So who's being exploited?

quote:As a consumer, I develop a proposal for what I want, and because I am the only consumer who will be affected by the decision, I have all of the say, so I don't need to go to any consumer council (Parecon's alternative to private ownership is council democracy). However, the decision also affects the workers who have to produce the clothing, so I take this proposal to the appropriate worker council (there are several layers of worker and consumer councils for issues of different scales). Those workers develop a proposal of how much they're willing to work to produce the clothing (which, inevitably, doesn't match the consumer's proposal), then the two parties negotiate and reach a compromise. Because of the small scale of the issue, hence the small number of people involved in decision-making (the consumer and the team of workers who will produce the item), the entire procedure of councils and such would take a matter of minutes, and the decision is made in proportion by the people who are affected by it. It's called Participatory Planning (a new alternative to central planning and markets). Therefore, when I get out of the shower and decide what to wear, the options available are the results of decisions that I was able to take part in with a substantial say. That is genuine freedom of choice. Just hire a tailor.

I don't think you can do that with Access. It's all or nothing. If it's a cost issue, you might want to pursue MySql, which I believe is free. You can get it at www.mysql.org. [ 06-28-2002, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Are the computers network-connected? I'm assuming so, otherwise how will it access the database? If you just want to take an extract from the database and copy it locally on the non-Office (non-networked) computer, you can create a query in Access that has the data you want, run it, and then Save As/Export the data. The Save As/Export will open a window where you can select the Save As Type, which has many other formats available for saving the data. I'm not sure that this is heading where you want to go.

quote:Now who's making absurd analogies?I was graciously tossing you a softball... You're way too sweeping in your generalizations. You need to differentiate between private owners and public owners. For public owners (stock shareholders), the money made in profit does not come out of the laborers pay, it is factored into the costs of the product and is paid by the consumers. For private owners, it is a simple arrangement between the owner who requires services and the laborer who offers services. You're stuck in this "win-lose" mindset that any gain by the owners must therefore be a loss for the laborer. That is not so. [ 06-28-2002, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

You can create an Access ODBC link to the Access database, then use something like Excel to read the Access database and populate a worksheet. In Excel, you go to Data-->Get External Data-->Create New Query. This will invoke Microsoft Query, a SQL-based query interface. You pick the ODBC link for the Access database, then write the query from the Access tables. When you close MS Query, it sends the data back to Excel. You can set options in Excel to automatically refresh the spreadsheet on open. This way, the spreadsheet becomes a real-time report against your Access database.

quote:The choice of vocation occurs outside of the economy; The choice to work is solely for economic reasons, unless you're an altruist who volunteers his time because it makes you feel better. quote:the choice is not free because the set of tasks and the rewards for completing such tasks have been organized into job structures unilaterally by owners and/or managers. Are you saying that you can just choose to walk into my home, paint it, and then demand that I pay you for your effort? The job structure tasks are decided by the owners because it is the owners who need the work to be done. Once they define what tasks need to be completed, they go out on the open market and solicit laborers to perform those tasks. The only exception to this that I can recall is when I was a youngster in Manhattan, and "squeegee men" would come up to cars stopped at red lights, spray the windshields with water, squeegee them dry, and then ask for payment from the drivers. Other than that, it is the owners who decide what work is needed.

quote:Suppose it was written in the Bible that smaller people should be beaten up.That's two absurd analogies in 24 hours. You can do better than that. It's okay to use extreme positions to make a point, but those extremes still have to based in some kind of reality. You're losing it, Nick.

quote:The issue is not about how wide the range of options is; it's about who determines what the options are in the first place. My point is that workers have no substantial say in that regard.My point is that the options are unlimited until the worker makes the first choice for himself -- which vocation to pursue. Once THE WORKER makes that choice, he automatically reduces the number of options available to him to those that fall within his chosen vocation. If the worker does not have the option of vocation in the first place, then he is a slave (that word again). quote:Let's say I've had a shower...This is a ridiculous analogy. Unless you're living in Mao's China, this would never happen. If you want a serious debate on this, then pick a serious example. How about this: Suppose you just turned 18 and decide to enter the workforce. What occupation should you pursue? Do you want to be a doctor, a lawyer, a designer, a repairman, a postal worker, a nurse, a politician, a policeman, a soldier, and on and on and on. Your choices are limitless. Now you choose -- Doctor. You want to be a doctor. Do you have the grades? Do you have experience? Can you get into medical school? Yes? Great! No, then your choice of doctor was unrealistic -- try again. Repairman? High School grades weren't good enough for business jobs? Did you even graduate HS? Okay, society needs repairmen but you probably won't be making the $100k/year that doctors make. Whose fault is that? Choices. They are unlimited at first, but your downstream choices become more limited based on your earlier choices. Still, they are your choices, not choices imposed on you by others.

quote:The word "God" implies a religion.And therein lies the problem. Mentioning God does not imply a religion, just the concept of religion. The Declaration of Independence says "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..." The Preamble to the Constitution says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Endowed by their Creator? Secure the Blessings? This country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and the Founding Fathers did not intend that religion be banned from public discourse. In the 1700's, the Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, and Buddhist population was only a few percent of the total -- the Founders were mostly Protestant, Methodist, Quaker, and the like. When they wrote "religion" in what is referred to as "the Establishment clause," they were using language that, at the time, was commonly referring to what we call a "denomination." They were saying that the government would not prefer, say, Protestant over Methodist. They weren't banning religion altogether. References to God do not favor Jesus over Allah, Buddha, or Zeus. The ruling was decided by two out of three judges on a panel, not the entire 9th Circuit Court. Some say that the Supreme Court will overturn, others say that it won't get to the Supreme Court -- that the 9th Circuit will call a special session of the entire court and they will overturn it themselves.