Steve Schacher

Tell her you'll keep your eyes wide shut.

What this is talking about is encryption/decryption devices to protect copyrights. What it implies is something much more sinister. On the surface, this is the swatter for the Napster fly. They are talking about either some kind of dongle or a built-in device that has firmware on it to decode legal copies of digital copyrighted materials (MP3, CD-ROM, etc.) You would probably have to provide a key to unlock the content, but without the device you can't unscramble anything that you download (if the device is a PC -- it can be a CD-player in your car, at home, etc). No more dubbing machines. Imagine having to buy separate copies of CDs for your car and home because of different "security devices" in them. On the more sinister level, they are talking about requiring a device in a computer that would be illegal to remove on your own. All inbound and outbound traffic will funnel through this device. If you can't remove it, and you can't build a device that doesn't have it, then the government (who will control the keys) will be able to monitor all traffic to and from your computers, and ultimately, control the internet. Eventually, it will become the V-Chip for the PC, with the government controlling the switch. They will be able to shut down any site by disconnecting the keys at your computer. The clause about older devices not subject to the act is irrelevant -- machines will become obsolete so quickly that people will be turning over the old equipment without giving it a second thought. In 3 to 5 years after enactment, you'll want a new PC anyway with the latest stuff. It's a brave new world out there.

This is like asking an author if they enjoy reading their own books. They know how it is going to turn out.

quote:For ME (and I don't give a toss about anyone else's opinion), I would much rather see review space spent discussing the game in question and what the gamer NEEDS TO KNOW rather than on material that is a given. With review space so valuable, do you ever think the day will come when the first paragraph or two does NOT mention your history with TAKE2?

There was an old SNL skit from the '70s where Gilda Ratner and Bill Murray played lounge singers who sang "Feelings" after it was translated into French and re-translated back into English. Hilarious!

So, what will this do to the arrival distance of hyperspacing ships? I know that you replied in another post that the arrival distance is related to the size of the ship, but with the several second delay that it takes for a ship to re-enter normal space, a ship can be blasted to smithereens before it can do anything, right? Okay, so now I'm agitating ( ), but I would think that an attacking ship would materialize at a safe distance and then evasively maneuver into attack position. Remember, I personally like to capture stations, not blow them up. But I like a universe that makes fictional sense -- I think that a civilization would build a fortress in space before venturing out further, therefore I like the concept of a strong home station (hey, there's an idea -- make home stations strong but "expansion stations" (outposts by race) a little weaker). At the same time, I don't think aggressor races would hyperspace into the range of enemy weapons, they would hyperspace out of range and approach. What do you think (other than that I'm spouting nonense)?

quote:huh?I thought you were facetiously trying to stir up trouble with the remark about weaker ODS's.

Agitator!!!

quote:You CANNOT make assumptions about multi-player WITHOUT having played it. Now can you?Of course I can. I don't have to be right, though... But, at the end of the day, I know you'll come up with the right answer. [ 02-13-2002, 01:21: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

I'm not *****ing, and I agree with the SC regarding gameplay. I also see it as an issue of single-player vs. multi-player. In multi-player, what's the point in coordinating attacks if a single ship can do the job? Of course, the answer is for the other side to deploy defenses. But the other side is defending an inherently weak object. If a space-faring race must keep its ships close to home to defend its weak station, then who will go exploring and conquering? On the other hand, what's the point in single-player for aspiring to Fleet C&C if a single ship can do the job? I understand that the casual player may just want to blow stuff up, but I got the impression that this game wasn't targeted to the casual player. If the space-simmer wants the ultimate space experience, why not make it harder for a single ship to destroy the station? Wouldn't this be incentive to acquire fleet control before you can throw an armada at a station? Like I said earlier, I was only coming from the fictional aspect of it all. I'm not disparaging anyone's POV or efforts. And yeah, it is easy for me to say. I don't have to do it (and neither do you, BTW).

quote:Ok, we are assuming that making them hard to beat is a good idea. What exactly is the benefit of making it so that you need FC&C to beat a station...For me, it's the backstory. If a station was so fragile that a single fighter could destroy, that station would never have gotten built in the first place -- and if it did, it would have been destroyed soon after. BC:M is a simulation of a universe (albeit a game), but what kind of universe is it where space stations are like boxers with glass jaws who never got KO'd until I showed up?

Maybe some combination of beefing up the shields or recharge rates, while increasing the integrity level that it surrenders. I find that after wearing a station down to almost nothing, I have to save the game before trying to get it to surrender. If I don't hit it *just* right, it blows. So, make it harder to wear down, but once wore down make it easier to SOS. Maybe it's just me.

From a fictional standpoint, what civilization would devote the resources to building a huge space station that can be taken out by a single fighter at will? It seems like a boondoggle project that only our Congress would endorse.

Three qwatloos for the newcomers!

Maybe Derek should just add camouflage paint to the list of miscellaneous items available for sale at star stations, and if you buy it you can assume that you are more stealthy than before. Yeah. That's it. That's the ticket.

quote:when I reached near the ODS (about 15 km) I was visible and not able to cloak yet (transition to Hyperspace to normal). It was a mess. My firestorm was distroyed in seconds by blue laser shots. I've seen this before. Just asking, mind you, but is this a playbalance issue? I've seen ships get destroyed before they can do anything because they are coming out of hyperspace and are immobile for a few seconds. Should they come out of hyperspace slightly out of range of the stations/ODS's to give them a fighting chance?

Stealth? Somebody remind me again, what is the purpose of cloaking if not for stealth?

I think my Chief Medical Officer and Tactical Officer are having an affair! My crew fatigue is at 2%, but those two are at 55% and the CMO is asking to be relieved. I sent them to their room(s?). We'll get to the bottom of it once I get the Chief Engineer to install one of those X10 cameras in the Officers Quarters.

Okay, so like, I installed the RC4 patch and, duh, I should have saved my game because my commander was gone, but like, okay, I can deal with that. So, I started a new game, and whoa... I made, like, one jump to Jupiter and all of a sudden a friendly jumped right into the middle of Jupiter! And not only that, but a hostile followed. So, like, they are now dogfighting in the center of Jupiter! After reading the exchange with Geldonyetich, I saved the game. Will it, like, help in any way?

quote:First off, the 2nd amendment of the constitution was for the people to have the SAME weaponry as the government, PERIOD. That is what it is there for. If the government has better and more powerful weaponry then the citizenry, then therefore the government can overpower the people and Tyranny results. Therefore, a citizen of the United States is allowed ANY weapon that the US military has. This includes Tanks, Jet Aircraft, ships, etc, ad nauseum. Hmmm... I'll have to ponder this one. I believe that there are two different purposes for two different arms. The government was supposed to field armies for the external projection of power. The people were supposed to provide some civil defense (militias) and to protect against tyranny. It was recognized that civilian militias would not have the training and regimen that standing armies would have, so it is reasonable to infer that they would not have access to all the weaponry that standing armies would have. What civilians do have in their favor is the public outcry that would erupt if the military were to overwhelm a sufficiently large armed civilian revolt in opposition to the government (one would hope). Waco was probably not large enough of a slaughter and the people involved were fringe, but if an everyman revolt in opposition to the government (a la Tiannenman Square) were put down (a la Tiannenman Square) with thousands dead or missing, how could the government continue to maintain legitimacy with the people? Therefore, to me, it's not the actual rebellion but the threat of delegitimacy that would result if a madman would do something like this to his own armed people, that is the strength behind the Second Amendment check on a tyrannical government.

Mine's the same as last year... ...resolve to stop posting after midnight! I'm sure that Derek would agree with that.

Another question: After watching other ships (via F10) jump into a region and head for the ODS, I noticed that that platform seems to sweep its laser beam in a horizontal fashion only, often grazing the attacker along its shorter width, instead of down its longer length, or to track it along its direction of motion for a longer hit. It's almost as if the turrets are fixed on a lazy Susan, sweeping but not adjusting for height. Is this just because of the ODS? Do the PTA's "track" an object in two dimensions or just sweep along only one dimension? Or am I totally off-base without enough empiracle evidence to back up my observation (it wouldn't be the first time, huh?)?

You know you've been playing too much when... The SC says "Yes... that's exactly how it works."

quote:And so giving easy access to everyone, including those who will potentially not obey the law, is a better choice? I'll only use this quote as a springboard. What we can't have is tyranny of the minority. You don't shut the whole thing down because a few might abuse it (whatever "it" is). You put measures in place to punish the abusers and allow the rest to do "it" responsibly. Otherwise, you are treating everyone like children who can't be trusted, and the one's doing the "treating" are somehow more superior in that they can decide who gets to do what. That's not what this society is all about. I sense that this thread was meant to focus on guns as a self-defense/crime deterrent, not as a Constitutional defense against a tyrannical government, so I'll limit my comments to that. I believe that there are other underlying causes for the spate of school shootings and other workplace shootings. It's interesting that nobody has discussed the effect of Ritalyn (sp?) on our children. The media never reported on whether the children shooters were on this drug or not. I suspect that they were. These drugs are supposed to address Attention Defecit Disorder in children, but I believe that they are being used by schools to subdue fidgety children and make them more docile in the classroom so that teachers can control larger and larger classes. Kids are just being kids. They like to run around. They are going through great growing spurts and have lots of energy that need outlets that are being denied. Schools are cutting back on extra-curricular activies that would normally be outlets for exhuberant children. Look at other young in nature (watch the nature shows on TV) and see how they behave: puppies, ponies, birds, bears. They are all running around expending energy while their bodies grow. Human children are the same but they are being denied their outlets, so they get fidgety in class and then labeled ADD and drugged until they are 13 or 14 years old. So now what happens when they come off these drugs? First, the drug puts them in an emotional stupor so they never learn how to deal with their emotions. Second, at puberty (when they stop taking the drugs), two things happen: 1) their body chemistry changes, and 2) their emotions heighten. The drugs have already messed up their chemistry -- who knows what residual effects they have on kids after their bodies start changing? Also, they are uprepared to deal with the stronger emotions that they are beginning to feel, like attraction to the opposite sex and sexual arousal. When children start to date, or just try to form lasting social bonds, they are bound to experience serious rejection for the first times in their lives, especially when the rejection comes from the opposite sex. It is my belief that the children today are unprepared to deal with this. They have been raised in a coddled environment that teaches that self-esteem and just trying is more important that accomplishment and achievement. That's why we have all these alternative schools where grades don't count, kids are socially promoted, and sports leagues don't keep score. We don't want our children's feelings to be hurt when they don't win or don't pass. Life isn't so simple, and when these kids grow up a little more and get rejected "big time," they lash out in ways that the drugs prevented them from doing before. It's an all or nothing world for them -- if I can't have it then nobody can. If the girl says no, or the girl breaks up for another boy, or the bully humiliates them, they go for the guns to settle things because there is no middle ground. There is no concept of working through the pain and anquish and understanding that it will pass with time. There is no passing with time when you are raised to expect instant gratification, so the kids lash out. With guns. I think a lot of this, if it doesn't come out in the schoolyard, eventually comes out in the workforce, but it comes out sooner or later when they aren't taught how to deal with it when they are young. Is the answer to take away the guns? No. The answer is to raise our children properly. Let them feel a little pain so they can learn how to overcome adversity. There will always be the criminal. There will always be crimes of passion. Eliminating the guns may reduce some of the deaths, but eliminating cars will probably eliminate more deaths than by guns, but we don't talk about eliminating cars. Knives? Ropes? Where do we stop?

Brain Implants.