Steve Schacher

Rattler, Go the the CHEATS, UTILITIES, MISSIONS & ENHANCEMENTS section and check the link for the Windows version. It's broken.

Cruis.In may be mistaking the "free speech" movement with the "free love" movement of the sixies. The sixties is a difficult decade to judge the USA by. On the one hand, you had normal generational rebellion, except that this time they were rebeling against the America of Ozzie and Harriet Nelson and Father Knows Best. Free Speech simply meant that things that used to stay behind closed (bedroom) doors was now out in the open for discussion. If the fifties was the embarrassment of puberty, then the sixties was the emancipation of twenty-somethings (remember the phrase "Don't trust anyone over thirty?"). Juxtaposed with this, you had the Viet Nam War and the unrest that came with a divided nation. The youth of the country was experiencing unprecedented freedom of expression (a more accurate phrase than "free speech" and closer to what you meant) at the same time that they were being drafted to fight a war that the government was refusing to call a war. All of the cynicism that you (and we) cite today stems directly from this period. I was only 10 years old in 1969, but I respect the people who served their country regardless of the reasons they were called to serve. The blame lies with the politicians. If you saw any of the Presidential Debate on Wednesday, when Bush said he wouldn't use the military for nation-building and Gore said that what was done post-WWII was exactly nation-building, he was referring to the Korean Conflict (another war that the government refused to call a war) and Viet Nam. To bring this discussion back on topic, when you look at what Clinton was trying to do in the Middle East, you see the same kind of disdain for allowing the occupants of a region decide for themselves how the will live and relate to each other. Clinton was trying to secure a legacy for himself by rushing opposing sides into an agreement that neither wanted for reasons that had nothing to do with either party. If you want a musical reference to listen to (instead of Marley), try the musical "Hair." Oh, and one more thing -- "Free Speech" actually means that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." Individuals have no legal protection of free speech from each other or businesses, only from the Federal government. For example, when John Rocker was sent to a psychiatrist for his comments and people claimed that it violated his right of free speech, it was Major League Baseball that sent him, not Government. It was not a First Amendment issue. I better stop now, before I sound preachy and arrogant like Gore... [This message has been edited by Steve Schacher (edited 10-15-2000).]

quote:hey, you are the same s.schacher on alt.fan.bc3000ad? Yes, but only if new recruits are being tempted by the Dark Side. I will not participate in any other threads over there.

Try this: 1. Move the cursor over the BC entry on the TLM (on the right of the screen). 2. Right-click to bring up the BC menu 3. Click on JUMP AT 4. Select TO-MOON If your A/P is on, then off you go.

quote:tweeked with my cache setting with the program cacheman SpacePhish, Have you seen Memturbo ( http://www.memturbo.com/ )? This software is supposed to defrag memory as well as manage your vcache. Opinions are split 50-50 on the usefulness of this program. I have also been using Cacheman, but I'm trying Memturbo now. After I boot to a fresh session, I close everything down and scrub my memory before starting BC3K. I don't know how the program wants memory, but I wonder if having a large (120+ mb) chunk of memory is better for BC3K than getting fragmented memory. There is a free 30-day trial version of the program without the vcache optimization, so you could use it along with Cacheman.

quote:You'd eliminate the part of the world that has been the root of more violence than anywhere else. Unfortunately, you'd eliminate the cradle of Western civilization as well. Now, wouldn't THAT be a legacy...

In the US, elections are organized around the two houses of Congress and the Presidency. The President serves a four year term. Congress is organized into the House of Representatives (the lower house) and the Senate (the upper house). Each Representative has a two year term. Each Senator has a six year term. The House is considered to be the "People's House," since the Representatives are elected so frequently and come from small districts. The Senate is considered to be the more deliberative body, since they have six year terms (the longest of all elected officials) and are elected State-wide. Each State receives two Senators. The number of Representatives that each State receives is based on population, so the Census is very important -- every 10 years, the congressional districts are redrawn and each State's electoral votes are redistributed. On every even year, the entire House is up for re-election. Also, one-third of the Senate us up for re-election. The President is elected on every other even year (coincidentally on leap-years). This creates a series of overlapping terms so that at no one time is the entire government turned over. Tim: Can you elaborate on the Parliamentary government used in England? As I understand it (weakly), the people vote for the House of Commons (the lower house), and the House of Commons votes for the House of Lords (upper house). The House of Lords selects the Prime Minister. An election is called anytime the government collapses due to votes of no-confidence. How much of this did I get wrong?

The reason that it wasn't always like the way it is now is that, prior to WWII, Washington DC was a sleepy little swamp town that nobody wanted to go to. In fact, Washington DC was built on land that no other states wanted -- swampland on the mouth of the Potomac River. The city had to grow in order to support the war effort. As the US became more dominant in the war, the bureaucracy had to grow with it. War Department offices were being built in huts on the Mall between the Capitol and the Washington Monument. After the war, Washington DC was too big a bureaucracy for the demands of the government, so they expanded the role of the Federal government. It was also fortunate that the war ended the Great Depression that was underway at the time. So, great works projects were undertaken, like building a national highway system. Inter-State transportation is something that should fall under the jurisdiction of a Federal government. You don't want little city-states forming that taxes people to enter or leave, right? (except that most cities have toll roads in and out) The new roads expanded inter-state commerce, and lo and behold, the Constitution happens to have a "Commerce Clause:" (Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes). This is the only mention of the word "Commerce" in the Constitution, but we have an entire Department of Commerce because of it. Theodore Roosevelt was the first president to have a Secretary of Commerce in 1902. Anyway, since WWII, the Federal government has been expanding its power at the expense of the States. With that expansion comes the temptation to profit from it. The more we allow politicians to get away with it, the more brazen they will become. The first "modern" executive-level scandal that I can think of is the Teapot Dome scandal of 1922 under the Harding administration. There are stunning parallels between this and Whitewater ( http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0848032.html ), and between Harding and Clinton ( http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0822703.html ). So, to summarize, yes it was done before, and yes it was scrutinized by the public, but not to the extent that it is today and not with the arrogance and brazenness that it is done today. I put adherence to the Constitution and the rules of government above the short-term "achievements" of Clinton and his cohorts. p.s. What is the "free speech movement" that you are refering to? We've had free speech back to the days of Thomas Payne and his pamphlet "Common Sense," which turned public opinion against the British in 1776. [This message has been edited by Steve Schacher (edited 10-15-2000).]

As Clinton heads west to raise money, thoughts center on Mideast http://www.boston.com/dailynews/289/nation...to_raise:.shtml Excerpts: DENVER (AP) President Clinton took a brief break from intense Middle East problems Saturday to head for the Rockies and on to the West Coast, campaigning for Vice President Al Gore and raising dollars for Democrats at political events in Denver and Seattle. [snip] ''I'm leaving tomorrow afternoon to go to the Middle East,'' the president said. ''We're going to try to find a way to get the parties to agree to end the violence and get back to the hard business of making peace.'' The president started the weekend at the White House where he announced plans to go to the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh for the emergency summit Monday between Palestinians and Israelis. [snip] Then he headed to Colorado, where Texas Gov. George W. Bush has a slight edge over Gore in the polls, and to Washington, still a toss-up state in the race for electoral votes. [snip] The president made a second stop in Denver, a fund-raiser that raised $300,000 for Colorado Democrats and get-out-the-vote campaigns. [snip] Later in the day, Clinton flew to Seattle for political events for four candidates: Washington Senate candidate Maria Cantwell; the president's wife, New York Senate candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton; and Washington Gov. Gary Locke and Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., who are running for re-election. [end excerpt] Isn't he supposed to be hunkered down in some situation room somewhere? [This message has been edited by Steve Schacher (edited 10-15-2000).]

Oh, so much to respond to... Let me start by stating that our form of democracy is not a democracy -- it is a republic. In a democracy, you have one person = one vote. In a republic, you elect representatives who supposedly support your viewpoints, and these representatives meet and vote on the issues. Our one person = one vote is used to elect the representatives. quote:I don't think that President Clinton is such a bad president Cruis.In, I'm only quoting you because you said it first, not to attack your point of view. Many people in this country feel this way, so please don't take offense at my use of your quotes. They just make good segues into my points. The problem that I have the Clinton is that he has totally ignored the US Constitution. I know that over the years, all branches of government have deteriorated the intent of the Constitution, but as with all things that he does, Clinton has been the most aggregious at it. The very first thing that Clinton did when taking office was to fire all the US Attorneys around the country and replace them with his cronies. Then he systematically politicized EVERY branch of government. We now find ourselves living in a land where the rule of law is trumped by the rule of politics. Serious crimes are being shrugged off as "just politics," as if the actual crimes themselves don't matter any more, as long as they were in the realm of politics. quote:I don't think that he should have to have served time in an army to qualify for the position of president. The liberal media is starting to notice that the military is supporting Bush, and they are complaining: http://www.mrc.org/news/cyberalert/2000/cyb20000926.html#2 Some quotes from the article: quote:The New York Times says, In recent years, people in uniform, particularly in the officer corps, have tilted increasingly toward the Republican party. The tradition of American military leaders, especially generals and admirals considering themselves independent, is weakening, a trend that has raised concerns about the increasing politicization of the military. Serving in the military is not a requirement to be President. We have had many presidents who never served. I'd like to point out the military background of the following Presidents who did serve: George Washington - Commander-In-Chief of the Continental Army Andrew Jackson - Major General Zachary Taylor - Brigadier General Franklin Pierce - Brigadier General Ulysses Grant - Brigadier General, Commander of All Union Armies Rutherford Hayes - Major General James Garfield - Major General (of Volunteers) Benjamin Harrison - Brigadier General William McKinley - Major Theodore Roosevelt - Assistant Secretary of the Navy William Taft - Secretary of War Harry Truman - Captain Dwight Eisenhower - Supreme Allied Commander - Europe Richard Nixon - Lt. Commander Gerald Ford - Lt. Commander Again, from the article above: quote:There's no law against it, but the sight of so many former admirals and generals throwing their prestige behind a candidate causes concern among other retired officers. So, the politicians are complaining that the military is throwing their prestige behind the candidates? Remember when the generals WERE the candidates? Have we forgotten what leadership looks like? quote:No doubt, Cruisin, however, he selects his advisors, and that's based upon purely political motivations. This is exactly right. Clinton's cabinet is politically correct, but incompetent. Here's a short rundown: 1. Federico Pena (Transportation) - Remember the ValueJet crash? His first comment was to swear on the safety of ValueJet. He's supposed to oversee the airlines, not coddle to them. Switched to Energy after O'Leary resigned. 2. Hazel O'Leary (Energy) - She eliminated security ID badges at the National Labs (Los Alamos, anyone?) because they were discriminatory. Her thinking was, since many of the workers at the labs are foreign exchange scientists, wearing ID badges that visibly identified them as low-security people was demeaning to them. Then she cut the security staff in half, allowing the security contractor to pocket the payroll savings as profit. She now sits on the board of directors of that security company. 3. Janet Reno (Justice) - Do I really need to say anything here? 4. Ron Brown (Commerce) - Selling seats on trade missions to Democratic donors. As Congress was closing in on him, his plane crashed into the mountains. 5. Alexis Herman (Labor) - She can't account for millions of dollars spent on trade junkets. 6. Bruce Babbitt (Interior) - Indictments for Indian Casino bribes. 7. Bill Richardson (Energy) - His first task was to drive Monica Lewinsky to New York for a job interview. Then he had to explain that the Wen Ho Lee spy case was an isolated incident, but that we have a plan to correct it. Then the Los Alamos case erupted and he had to explain that we have a plan to correct it. 8. Madeleine Albright (State) - Did you notice that bombs go off whenever she leaves someplace? 9. Mike Espy (Agriculture) - Indicted for accepting gifts from Tyson Foods of Arkansas. Acquitted. After eight years, they are all just now putting plans to correct things together. Nobody takes responsibility. Nobody is accountable. quote:I don't think you use the best system available. The system was developed over 200 years ago. Distances were great between the cities and towns. When we vote, we actually vote for members of the Electoral College (another representation). The College then meets and votes for the President (this happens about one month after the general election). You can almost imagine people on horseback traveling from their towns to the meeting place to cast the votes for their state. Each State has electoral votes equal to the total number of representatives and senators. That's why we have "battleground" states -- some are worth more electoral votes than others. Is it a good system? Probably good enough. Is it the best system? Who can say? What gets lost in all this is the fact that we have three CO-EQUAL branches of government. Since Clinton became President, Congress has failed to execute its oversight authority (can you say 900 FBI files?). I've become a strict Constitutionalist in the last eight years. I'd like to see us get back to the basic principles of the Constitution and scale back the Federal government into something more managable, and let the States take back most of the burden. They were quite capable before the Federal government usurped their taxes and then only doled them back if they followed Federal guidelines (but that's another thread). Oh, my... Now I've done it...

Again from the radio today: Did you notice that Clinton is sending the FBI to the Cole to investigate? Why the FBI? How about the CIA? What about Naval Intelligence? The FBI is supposed to be for domestic investigation. What are they doing on a warship in the Middle East? Answer: Their are too many loyal Americans in the other investigative branches that I mentioned. Janet Reno controls the FBI, which means that Clinton can control the "spin" that results from the FBI investigation. I've become quite the conspiracy theorist in the last eight years. I hate it!

I heard some speculation on the radio yesterday that the reason that the Cole was in port was that the Clinton Pentagon has eliminated all the refueling ships, so the big ships have to come into port now instead of refueling out at sea. Is this true? As for the larger issue, I've learned in the last eight years not to trust the initial statements from the White House (or anyone else). I have to wait a few days/weeks for the actual facts to emerge. The crisis began when the PLO accused Sharon of inciting the Palestinians by showing up at the Temple Mount. Initially, people were echoing this line, but then the facts emerged: 1. The Temple Mount is the third holiest Muslim site, but it is THE holiest Jewish site. 2. Sharon had the consent of his government and the PLO Security Chief to go. Nobody anticipated the riots. 3. The Temple Mount is in Israeli territory and Sharon had a right to go. Sometimes, having the right to do something is reason enough to do it. You know the saying, If you don't use it, you lose it. 4. Israel made incredible concessions to the PLO that were unthinkable even one year ago. Instead of holding items in their back pockets and using them as bargaining chips, Barak dropped the whole wad on the table and said take it. 5. Arafat, being offered everything he wanted, still refused. This boggled the minds of everyone. What more could they possibly want? It turns out to be the Temple Mount. The question is why? 6. Public opinion turns against Arafat because he turned down a sweet deal. 7. In response, Arafat declares a general strike and closes all the businesses and schools. This forces all the people out into the streets with nothing to do. 8. He then replays riots from eight years ago on the state-controlled television and plays military music on the radio. This incites the people. 9. People start throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers who fire rubber bullets back. Riots start. Israeli defense stiffens. People are killed. Emotions flare. Violence escalates and spreads. 10. ??? [This message has been edited by Steve Schacher (edited 10-13-2000).]

The biggest insult to the Middle East is that, even as the fighting was flaring up, Clinton was lobbying for the Nobel Peace Prize for his "efforts". Let's see what those efforts included: 1. Sending Carville to Israel to oust Netenyahu and install Barak. 2. Using sleep deprivation tactics at the Wye Plantation to force Israel into making huge concessions to Arafat. 3. Dragging King Hussein (sp?) from Jordan off of his deathbed to try to salvage Clinton's photo-op at Wye. 4. Bringing Chelsea to the inner-most policy negotiations so she can see what daddy does. Clintons peace efforts ultimately failed because neither side trusted his motives. They suspected he was legacy-building instead of doing what was best for the Middle East. Even now, the USA's position on the issue is more influenced by Hillary's New York Senate campaign than by what's best for the region.

Tyrn, I've seen similar things, too. For me, it seemed as if cargosweeping with a shuttle when the BC is also in the debris field works okay. But, if the BC is somewhere else (maybe even in another region) and the shuttle is what activates the debris field, then the game crashes on cargosweep. Like you said, if it hurts, stop doing it.

Just out of curiosity -- what is the exact name of the folder you are installing the game into?

My PC game buying habit had been greatly reduced during the years that I went without a Pentium, and since my first Pentium-PC purchase was BC3K, it's basically the only game I play. However, I might buy Elite for sentimental reasons (and for the fact that you actually fly your ships into the stations -- I always liked that aspect of the game).

quote:There he goes teasing us AGAIN! Vindication

Have a good trip! Remember, by the time you get back, BCM will have been released, and you will have been spared the pending torture that is in store for the rest of us!

Hey, is this what beta testers do?

OK, because I'm a glutton for punishment, here is what I did. I re-installed BC3K from scratch and started a new game. Even before leaving Galcom, I checked the prices for Miscellaneous items. Everything up to Craft Parts1 is correct according to the the appendix. However, Craft Parts1, Craft Parts2, and Craft Parts3 are wrong. From Fertilizers on, the numbers are back to matching the appendix. Specifically, I'm seeing: Craft Parts1 Base Price 25000 (instead of 500000) Displacement 500 (instead of 850) Craft Parts2 Base Price 50000 (instead of 750000) Displacement 750 (instead of 1000) Craft Parts3 Base Price 100000 (instead of 850000) Displacement 1000 (instead of 2500) However, none of this was the original problem. This was discovered because I used Craft Parts1 in my example of the problem of truncating the tech class and not applying the discount. At Galcom (which is a class AD station), Craft Parts1 is discounted by 10%. Cotton, which is an AG item, is increased by 10%. Inflation is 0%. On the stations where the tech class is truncated, no preferred discounts are being given. Those are my findings. Can anyone replicate or refute the base prices of Craft Parts?

Yes, I did capture it. It is from a game that I've been playing for several real-time months (I have to wait until I get home to tell you the game-date). I am starting a new game, but it will be a short while before I make it all the way back there. I see what you mean regarding the price for CRAFT PARTS1 vs. the appendix. I got my price by moving the cursor over the BUY and SELL buttons in TRADCOM and writing down what I saw in the information at the bottom right of the screen. What I wrote down is way off from what is in the appendix. Curious...

Hey, Rico: Help me out here! I'm trying to corroborate your initial finding, but I feel the SC bearing down on me quote:I should have reported this sooner but I was too much of a chicken. But technology classes not showing up. Or in case of Majoris spacestation, it showed up with class "D" on the infopage, HT when comparing prices, and it should have been AD according to the appendix. The info page he referred to is in TRADCOM when docked at a station. Here is what I found from my savegame: Station: Exin @ Kruger Class Level from TRADCOM/INFO: D Trade Class from appendix: AD Current Inflation: 25% Sampling of items Craft Parts1 (Class AD) Base Price: 25,000 Station Price: 33,750 % increase: 35% Should be: 25,000 less 10% for AD (2,500) = 22,500 + 25% for inflation (6,250) = 28,750 Cotton (Class AG) Base Price: 650 Station Price: 877 % increase: 35% Should be: 650 + 10% for not AD (65) = 715 + 25% for inflation (162.5) = 877 which is correct Copperware (no class) Base Price: 100 Station Price: 135 % increase: 35% which is correct Audio Disks (Class HT) Base Price: 25,000 Station Price: 33,750 % increase: 35% which is correct So, clearly something is happening to the item of the same class as the station. It should be reduced in price, but it isn't. Is it related to the fact that the TRADCOM/INFO screen isn't displaying the tech class properly in some cases? Or is my save game (and Rico's) corrupted somehow?

I ran my test last night by restoring a savegame and traveling back to Galcom. The info page at Galcom shows the tech class as AD. With the station in Gammulan space showing as T instead of HT, I'm not seeing the 10% reduction in price. Every product has the same increase over base price, regardless of tech class.

I know what he's talking about -- I noticed it too and chalked it up to a corrupted savegame. I was playing a game that was several game weeks old -- I was in the Gammulan Quadrant by then with Supreme Commander rank. After this original thread came up, I started paying attention to the trade values again (I had enough money that I started ignoring the economy). I saw that the stations had tech classes of D instead of AD, T instead of HT, O instead of RO, etc. Furthermore, the technology discounts weren't adding up properly, probably because it was looking for HT and only finding T, and so on. Just to convince myself that it was a corrupted save game, I started a brand new game and saw that station tech classes were back to AD, HT, etc (at least at Galcom, Gazer and ISS). Actually, what I did not do yet was go back to a save game, travel back to Galcom and verify that those stations are still AD, HT, etc. If they are, then something in the far-away stations is not aligning properly. If, on the other hand, Galcom is now D instead of AD, then something corrupted my savegame and the economy model is no longer working as designed. I will verify this and report back.

quote:I goto start then programes then click on bc3k Don't start the game from the start menu. You have to configure an icon with the proper memory and other options. Check the trouble-shooting FAQ.