Ben Zwycky

Found this when trying out some of the IA FP scenarios, and have reproduced this in roam: Problem: when your DIE is activated and you use a supply station, the menu appears but none of the buttons respond to mouse clicks. to reproduce: 1. Start new game as terran military mobile infantry marine using the default launch base and profile. 2. locate the nearest supply station and move over to it. 3. activate your DIE (using the 4 key) 4. use the supply station (using the U key) and confirm with the Y key The leave/medical/weapons/repair buttons appear as normal, but do not respond to mouse clicks. pressing any key clears them away and frees you to move again. This is the same no matter what DIE mode you are using. Using the supply station without your DIE activated works just fine. This problem also occurs in UC, but only if youÔÇÖre using a DIE mode other than tactical view mode. (the / key to access the supply station selects the nearest target in line of sight instead when your DIE is in TVM). This is the reason I didnÔÇÖt notice it until now (I only ever use tactical view mode with the DIE and the key change in AWA eliminated the key assignment conflict). Can someone else please confirm this?

in the SMD, everything listed under the weapons category, though I did pop a shot against the shields of the one carrying shield upgrades, just in case, but the real bad guy is a little sneaky, and I ended up disabling him to make sure.

So far, I like the stretching effect for hyperpace entry and exit, I like the units catching fire when they go below 50% integrity, I love the smooth new lighting as it reflects off the curved surfaces, and MI marines are now completely uber, that one way out IA scenario is a blast- mayhem city! Having fun trying out new stuff- like the EFP ACM and new FP weapons- took an insurgent LCAC out for a spin and got shot to pieces by the aircraft on the carrier it was escorting

check their cargo contents

OK, I'm back, got my copy the day before I went away. PM mailboxes fill up far too quickly, especially as you go up in rank in your fleet Which reminds me.... *deletes 28 PM's from box* ahh, that's better

Congrats! Here's to a united and fulfilling life together ,and a stress-free preparation (yeah, right )

It's a philosophical/ debating term, attacking the straw man= creating a weakened parody of what the other person is saying and critisising that instead of reponding to his actual points see here

The Gammulans are as hostile to the Insurgents as they are to Galcom, and the Insurgents' main beef with the UFN (the Earth Government, which runs Earthcom) is that they allocated too many resources to treaties with other races while ignoring Earth's problems, quote from history section of the UC appendix: quote: Meanwhile, the InsurgentsÔÇÖ conflicts with EARTHCOM and the UFN persisted. The alliances formed with alien nations, the allocation of Earth resources for the maintenance of the resident aliens, and the expenses associated with the space exploration program were all factors that perpetuated the rift. The Earth was still threatened by a depleting ozone layer and yet the UFN had failed to address the problem, instead choosing to continue allocation of resources to space research and the subsidizing of alien nations.so I don't think it's very realistic for the Insurgents to form an alliance with any alien race, especially not the Gammulans. Whad'ya think?

I just hope my copy doesn't arrive while I'm away next week (it probably will)

I'm sure you would be at an advantage, as you no doubt have access to a lot more material than me, my resources are extremely limited, both financially and timewise. I only know of Finklestein's work through citations in other articles, I am unable to go out and buy books (or order them)- the family budget is just far too tight at the moment, and will remain so in the foreseeable future. The only impression I have of his neutrality are as a result of reading this interview with him I'm not so sure he's neutral in his analysis, I'm sure he is an extremely gifted archaeologist, but he seems to be very dogmatic in some of his assertions, using words like "definitely didn't happen" and "no historic grounds" when presenting an argument from silence, and basing some of his arguments on small differences in dating (70 years), when archaeological evidence is very difficult to precisely date, by his own admission in his earlier work, and according to other respected scholars. Like I said, this is only as a result of reading the interview, I may be completely wrong. Perhaps neutral is the wrong word. No-one is truly neutral on issues like these, every scholar has their own favourite theory that they like to defend, I suppose balance is the more important virtue, being able to admit the strengths of other positions and the weaknesses of your own, and a whole lot more obtainable than neutrality We will see how it goes in September, but I make no grand promises.

I donÔÇÖt really have the energy to debate this topic in earnest, but I had this reply written a while ago after interest in this topic had died out (these things always take me a while at the best of times), and now the subject has been brought back up in another thread, so IÔÇÖm posting it now: LetÔÇÖs talk a little about translation and language, since that topic has been brought up in other threads, it is an area I work in, and forms part of the answer to some of the objections listed in the link nomad gave. There are many difficulties in translating documents, and many choices for the translator in how to deal with them. Among these include: When dealing with poetic language, double meanings, idioms or word play, do you translate the precise meaning, or aim for similar beauty and rhythm of language or use (hopefully not too) different idioms or word play in your target language? In these situations, word-for-word translations are often completely meaningless and confusing in the target language or miss the whole point of the passage. Which sub-culture within your target language are you aiming at? Highly educated? A local dialect? A particular community or age group? What to do with references to cultural ideas, events and systems that have no equivalent in the locations where your target language is spoken? What to do with ideas that are taboo in your target (sub-)culture, but not in the culture in which the original document was written? What to do with stories or analogies that were intentionally highly provocative in the culture in which the original document was written, but are not at all in your target (sub-)culture? What to do with very old language within the original document? Do you use similar archaic forms of your target language or use (hopefully) similar modern equivalents? If the document is an ancient one, what to do with references to nations, political situations and systems, landmarks and settlements that no longer exist and disappeared centuries ago? A good and scholarly translation will state their aims in translating the document and attempt to minimise such problems listed above through the use of footnotes and comments throughout the text, explaining alternate meanings, word play, cultural references and updating political and geographical references where possible. Also, extensive commentaries incorporating studies of the prevailing culture can help to shed light on otherwise confusing passages. Languages change over time, complex grammatical structures tend to be discarded, and local ÔÇÿshortcutsÔÇÖ, cultural or historical references and words and phrases borrowed from other (neighbouring) languages acquired and built on over time. The more contact two cultures have, the more linguistic exchange there is between them, and the more similarities appear in their languages (or the weaker culture learns the language of the more powerful culture and its own language slowly falls into disuse). If two sections of the same original community are geographically separated and have little contact with each other for an extended period (a number of generations), their languages naturally diverge. This means that a translation of a document into ÔÇÿmodernÔÇÖ English a hundred or two hundred years ago would look significantly different from the same document translated into modern English today, without any dishonesty or poor scholarship on the side of either translation team. Also translations into different European languages are also translations into those cultures, where different translation emphases were prioritised and employed, so finding different wording in German, English and French Mediaeval translations of the Bible is not necessarily suspicious. Even if it were, modern translations of the Bible are not translations of translations of translations. They are translations of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts, and we have far more than enough copies of those manuscripts to know very precisely what the originals said, the number of copyist errors in the new testament is proportionally less than the number of printing errors in a modern newspaper, and the vast majority of those differences between the copies have absolutely zero impact on the meaning of the sentence (different word order, which in Greek makes no difference to the meaning of the sentence, and variant spellings of the Greek word for ÔÇÿlightÔÇÖ) When youÔÇÖre writing your translation on a scroll, there are no side bars or headers or footers to put your explanatory comments in, so you put them in the text itself. While that site that nomad provided a link to is correct in saying that many of the political and geographical references were from the 5th Century BC, and were different in MosesÔÇÖ time, the ÔÇÿincorrectÔÇÖ references appear in the comments, asides, and geographical references, and many details, linguistic structures and political references in the actual narrative are supported by archaeological data and would have made no sense to readers in the 5th Century BC. The often-used phrase ÔÇÿwhich is still there to this dayÔÇÖ should be clue enough that the document that we have in the Bible is not the original that Moses wrote, but a translation/transliteration of what Moses wrote (since the Hebrew language and character set changed in the intervening period), probably by Ezra the scribe, hence the updated references from his day. It was most likely a transliteration because of the different grammatical structures and spellings found there. This is a good article for those interested in looking at the dating of the pentateuch (the first five books of the bible) in more detail, particularly the linguistic evidence. and this one (including multiple quotes from Finkelstein) is good for looking in detail at the archaeological evidence concerning the conquest of Palestine by Israel. I donÔÇÖt have the energy to summarize it myself (two kids under 3 and a recent plague of migraines will do that to you ), so IÔÇÖll just quote the summary given near the end: In summary, I consider the biblical model of the Conquest/Settlement to be a better predictor of the data we find, than competing theories (especially the 'gradualist' views): 1. It explains the large and sudden population explosions in the border communities of Israel. 2. It explains the large and sudden emergence of a 'new' (but mixed) material culture in the central areas. 3. It explains how 'Israel' got such significant and sudden attention from Egypt. 4. It explains how the mixed material culture came to be. 5. It explains the uncommon aspects of the 'destruction' phenomena--specifically the anti-cultic behavior. 6. It explains how most of Transjordan was 'spared' from the disruptions/warfare that occurred in Palestine. 7. It explains the emergence of the Hebrew language as a dialect of Canaan. 8. It has tons of supporting archeaological data for the details. 9. It has adequate explanations for (and generally, contrary data against) the alleged 'contradictions' in the archix record. 10. It is the only model that actually explains the 'stubborn persistence' of the Exodus story in the history of the Jewish people. IÔÇÖm not reliably online for the rest of the month (will be away and have some long-term visitors) so I wonÔÇÖt be able to discuss any responses to this any time soon (at least, not in any depth).

yes, Jag is right, babies will try all sorts of things until they find something that gets them what they want. e.g. if screaming their heads off gets you running over straight away to pick them up and cuddle them every time, they will do it constantly, even when nothing is wrong and they are perfectly capable of getting your attention in other ways, because you will be teaching them that screaming their heads off is the best way to get your attention. If you know the baby has been recently fed, changed and washed and is screaming in bed when it should be asleep, wait 5 to ten minutes. If it stops, then there was nothing wrong and it is on the way to learning that screaming and whining is not the way to get what it wants. If the screaming continues after 5 to ten minutes, then go and comfort/ see what's wrong, because screaming for 5 to ten minutes will not do them any harm, and they will fake it less and less when they see it doesn't work, saving your nerves a whole lot of grief. It will be difficult to ignore their screams to start with, but it gets easier, and as long as they get plenty of cuddles and attention in general, then they will know you love them and will grow up healthily (at least emotionally). Talk to other parents about their experiences, and decide between you well beforehand what sort of behaviour you want to encourage and what you want to discourage. Make sure you are united and stay united in your standards, because there's nothing more discouraging for a mother to hear than "But daddy said I could". Consistency is also very important. Some flexibility is necessary, of course, but remember that the more flexible you are in the rules you set, the less effective they will be and the more trouble you will be storing up for yourself.

Fearless? Sorta More money than sense? No

Sorry to hear that, Zane. OK guys, I'm off. Marc and Jack are in charge. See you all in AWA

Shadow, don't post at 5am- it does more harm than good

what's happened to primefleet.com ?

Car accidents through irresponsible or reckless driving very often are lethal to 3rd parties as well (or just to third parties (pedestrians, cyclists)), the likelihood of an accident occuring (your stopping distance) increasing with the square of your velocity, and the likelihood of serious injury or death also increasing with the square of your velocity, so setting a speed limit appropriate to the road conditions is entirely reasonable, and setting harsh penalties to discourage dangerous driving is also entirely reasonable considering the appalling numbers killed and injured every year in vehicle accidents. Getting behind the wheel is not a right, it is a privilege and a great responsibility. If you cannot use your vehicle responsibly then you should lose that privilege, and if you cause injury or death through your irresponsibility, you should face the consequences. While it is true that on German autobahns there is no speed limit, German car insurance companies refuse to insure against accidents involving vehicles travelling over 130km/h (last I heard, which was a while ago), so while the police won't stop you, the insurance companies are doing all they can to make drivers keep to a sensible speed. Personally, I think having a maximum speed on the freeway of 55mph is far too low, it should be around 70-80 like in Europe. Being so low leads to driver frustration and usually a large speed difference between those obeying the law and those breaking it, increasing the risk of a serious accident occurring. I know that many governments have a cynical approach to speed limits, and see them more as a means to earn money than reduce accidents, but that is not always the case. Many measures have a lot of scientific and statistical analysis behind them, or are put in place as a result of experience (changing road layouts/speed limits around accident blackspots). Of course speed is only one factor (sometimes overemphasised because it is measurable and easily enforced), road layout, obstructions, appropriate warning signs, driver education and the state of the road surface are other factors to consider as well when developing a road safety strategy. I don't know whether it works the same way in the US, but many major roads in England have dynamic speed limits which change according to the prevalent weather conditions (fog, ice, high wind , heavy rain etc.) and are updated on electronic roadside signs. In this country, they have static signs which say the speed limit on this road is ... when wet it is ... I'm much more in favour of community service instead of imprisonment or fines for all minor crimes (I know many people involved in creating alternative punishment schemes in this country, and others working on rehabilitating ex-convicts back into society) It's way cheaper to implement, value is added back to society and the offender might actually learn something useful and be less likely to reoffend. Fines or jail time very rarely solve anything, they are just way easier to sentence. They are useful and appropriate if someone refuses to comply with their alternative punishment, or they committed a serious / violent crime.

quote: Originally posted by almostpilot: I┬┤m just waiting for download sites !!!(with my credit card in hands...) join the club

That's what UCG is for.

I'll be away from the 6th to the 13th, and again from the 20th to the 27th, so Marc and Zane are in charge during that period, same arrangements as for my earlier time away.

OK, everyone, our fleet website has moved from iss.galcom.net to www.issfleet.com, so all links in your signatures (including image links) should be changed accordingly (they are all the same as before, only iss.galcom.net should be replaced with www.issfleet.com in each link and they will work fine). That is all. [ 07-30-2005, 04:57 AM: Message edited by: Ben Zwycky ]

I believe congratulations to NASA are in order.

generally from 5pm GMT with Marc or from 6pm GMT with me, I'm not sure about Jack's exact schedule.

He seemed to be doing a little more than running to a train. He came out of a house linked with the bombings the day before, dressed in a padded jacket on a hot and humid day, when told to stop by the police he instead ran into the tube station, ran onto a train full of people and grabbed onto one passenger, and according to a witness on the train itself, he appeared to be wearing "a bomb belt with wires coming out", so if he wasn't a suicide bomber he was doing a very convincing impersonation of one about to kill a whole lot of people and I don't blame the security services one bit. shooting report

It's not a problem, we'll be creating a new team pretty soon in all likelihood (fleet recruiting is still going well) and give it a fresh start. The team didn't meet the requirements for any month, so it's within the rules for it to be dissolved, without counting July.