Aileron

One at a time Monte. We have to start somewhere. Face it, most likely Saudi Arabia is going to recieve major diplomatic flak after things settle down in Iraq. As for what causes the violence in Islam, I think I know the answer. A long time ago in Baghdad, one of the Abbasid Caliphs tried to impose a more modern philosophy on his country. He forbade any other lines of thinking. Soon, a traditionalist backlash emerged. The struggle continued untill the caliph died, at which point his movement died with him. Basically, Islam is backwards today because a Peter the Great wannabe tried to modernize it and screwed up.

Look, at first glance the numbers look like an overreaction, but there really was no alternative. What was the US supposed to do, count casualties, and stop if we exceed the 9/11 numbers? That is ludicrous. A popular phrase used in another arguement is "violence begetts violence". Actually, that is true, provided that the violence does not serve some purpose. Basically, it would have been pointless for the US to just kill Taliban and Al Queda members. The goal was to dismember those organizations. While whether or not that goal has in fact been accomplished is debatable, we KNOW that it would not have been accomplished if we went to 3000 and quit. The only point of going into Afghanistan was to dismember these organizations. Any violence that is insufficient in degree to accomplish this purpose is pointless and therefor wrong. Thus, the only real decision was between completely destroying Al Queda and completely ignoring it. That is an easy decision, because forgiveness for the US is not an option after this, especially when you factor in other attacks. This situation would be similar to me punching Mike Tyson in the face, and him punching me back. If I wanted to avoid being punched, all I had to do was not hit him. However, Tyson does not have as many options. He either has the option to forgive and risk me punching him tomorrow or punch me back, and give me what I probably deserve anyway.

Not my exact opinion, but I'll agree with that.

First off, may I point out to Madhaha and Monte that you guys are a few thousand miles away from the US, so you really don't have an idea as to what is going on here except what you see on TV. Madhaha, I would like to attack that last point by you made. In order to make that follow logically you would have to make the !@#$%^&*umption "Americans are not rational beings". I would disprove this to you, but anyone who makes premises like that is a bigot, and thus not worth the time. ZiG, you shouldn't waste your time on him either.

I wouldn't go as far as say America lives in fear. You have a point though. Terrorists are publicized more than their strength warrants. We really should just kill all of them and the whole world will be happy.

Madhaha, that was the most bigoted and illogical arguement that I have ever seen that came to the correct conclusion. The US is not overpopulated, and you HAPPENED to be right. Abortion never was nor ever will be a means to control population. Face it, you could simply abstain from sex. It was a means to keep babies out of families who are not prepared for them. While it could theorhetically be used for overpopulation, it simply is not good for the purpose.

I dunno about number 2. As somebody with dial up, I think the worst settings for me was SVS. Slow settings with every shot counting in the energy bar. The easiest would be OF, where I could dodge the slower one shot bombs. So, it seems you are correct on this point. You are also correct in that zones should try to account for this. Many compensate by lowering lag limits, but that discourages people to play. The only difference between our opinions is what should be done. You say that slower acceleration is the key. I think it should be moderate. First off for the sake of laggers so that it doesn't ruin their gameplay. Secondly for sake of skill, because too little acceleration and it becomes a shooting match.

I was in favor to the war in Iraq. However, I don't automatically criticise nations who did not join the coalition. My standards: If a nation stayed out for the same reasons as Canada did, I have no problem with that. They recognized that standing by itself removing Hussein from power would be a good thing. They just fealt that their country could not afford to wage a war at the time. That is a legitimate concern and I cannot critcise it. The nations I hate though are the ones who did it for other reasons, such as France and Germany. Their motives for the most part stemmed from anti-US sentiment. If the US wanted the UN to stay out of Iraq, it would be likely that those two nations would be the ones trying to get us into it. Not only is this at!@#$%^&*ude rude, but it is dangerous. First off, it is causing the US to ignore the UN. Face it, the UN was never intended as a governing body as much as a forum for international discussion. It frankly is one nation's way of finding out what the other nations think. However, from the US perspective, the UN doesn't work anymore. We know that most nations will oppose us just for being on top, and that we cannot change their opinion. Thus, the UN has almost lost all purpose from the US perspective. Secondly, this philosophy doesn't recognize modern threats. The "Balance of Power" foreign policy which France has had for the past 300 years became outdated with WMDs. Previously, the big country was the one to fear. Now, the country to fear is the small crazy country with nothing to lose, provided they had a nuke. Basically, the US is the least dangerous country because it has the most to lose and thus the least desire to use a nuke. I know that was off topic. Sorry

yeah, gay ships should get gay colors: TW: levi = pink weasel = tourquis lanc = magenta Omega Fire: Jav = pink Terr = pearl weasel = tourquis Shark = purple 17th Parallel: Weasel = tourquis Shark = baby blue

I noticed several Matrix knockoffs in your idea.

I dunno, in subspace powerball games, it is almost better to be fast. I would go with the streaker.

Oh, I got a better idea. Maybe you could put a player's banner on the radar beside the dot. That way you could track specific players more easily.

I dunno, I think you would run out of colors before ships. There are nine basic colors on the color wheel, whereas: 8 ships x 2 nme/friendly x 2 flagged/unflagged x 2 target bounty = 64 colors Well, that isn't exact. Currently we don't grant a seperate color for all cases. However, we currently use six colors (yellow for friendly, red for nme flag carrier, light blue for above target bounty, dark blue for below traget bounty, and purple for KOTH, and orange for decoy.) Correcting for this, you would get 48 colors. Still you see my point, it would be impossible to get 40 truly distinct colors, and even if you did you wouldn't be able remember them all. Maybe you could make it practical if you sacrificed a few base colors, but some players base their game on them. What we should settle with is a few things given to key ships on a zone specifc basis-. For example, terriers in TW should be a large blue square. Or maybe you could make it situation dependant, and give a special color to those with anti-warp on. However, there are not enough colors to do this on a ship by ship basis.

Do you have a better suggestion on how to deal with this issue? Frankly the only way that we can find out what is right in this issue is the scientific way. Doing what "feels right" not only is subjective but can lead to terrible probelms. Yes, trying to solve this problem in a scientifc way does seem cold and without respect for life. However, it takes emotion out of it, and I for one do not want an issue of life and death to be decided by emotion. So you are saying that the FLO doesn't apply because we cannot predict future life. Suppose then, that I stabbed Akai in the chest so that I could get his mod position. By your reasoning, I could justify it by saying that it was okay because no one can predict Akai's future life. Heck, a piano could have fallen on his head a second later. However, the obvious flaw is that odds are that Akai would have been perfectly fine for several years. (Until Monte stabs him for his mod position. ) Thus, we could probably get away with making the !@#$%^&*umption that Akai has an FLO.

If we subscribe to the FLO philosophy, then why is there a 2 week limit, and why are there any exceptions at all? Every fetus potentially has a FLO? Does a baby conceived as a result of a rape have any less potential of a FLO than a re-*BAD WORD*-ed baby, or the baby of a 16yo girl, or a child destined to live in a single parent family, or a child whose parents are re-*BAD WORD*-ed? And.....Every soldier in a combat force has a FLO, but we deem it acceptable to kill soldiers in war? Many reformed prisoners on death row have a FLO. Sanctioned killing is a part of our society. And...Is it ok to kill people from different cultures because they dont have a FLO? They have a future life unlike ours. There are endless complicating factors. The FLO idea is full of holes. ...and so is every other 'rule of thumb' that anyone has ever applied to abortion. Where do you draw the line on any of this stuff. The answer will never be clear cut. Monte. One note I haven't pointed out yet is that the FLO arguement requires that there be a creature. A potenial creature's FLO does not count. The two week period is scientific. It results from the possibility that the fetus could split to form twins during this time. Basically, since it is not definitely a creature, it doesn't count. The exception to cases of rape was a result of Judith Thompson's work. Basically, Thompson proved the mother's right to her body outweighs the fetus' rights if she did not give consent. As for a re-*BAD WORD*-ed baby, the 16 Y mother, and people from other cultures, these are merely setbacks in the child's life. Not all of us have fortunate lives. No two people will have the exact same life. Basically, with possible exception to the re-*BAD WORD*-ed child, all of them have an FLO, just not as fortunate as one. Yes, you are correct in that this leads to a question as to what must somebody's future life hold so that it no longer is an FLO. This leads to conflicts over euthanasia for example. You are also right in that it has the potential to cause difficulty to this rule. However, judging morality is never easy, so this doesn't disprove the thesis. However, the family not being suited for a child's birth is not enough to overide an FLO. Many people who have been born under single parents, young parents, etc. have had enough of a normal life that they can survive in society. Thus, while the line between unforunate future and no FLO is thin, those examples simply do not even come close to it. War and Capital Punishment are wrong by default. Both of those require justification which OVERIDES the FLO of the individuals killed. Basically, the FLO rights still exists, they are just overuled by cir-*BAD WORD*-stance.

Actually, yes, as long as there is a being to be considered and it has an FLO, it qualifies as murder. This byp!@#$%^&*es the question of whether or not the being is currently alive and rational.

Morning or night?

I personally don't have a problem with that. That explains why infantcide is regarded worse than homicide by some. However, Marquis does answer it on your concerns as well. Murder at any age is grounds for the most severe punishment we give. Thus, no matter what, you are always giving the greatest punishment possible. Basically, murdering a 60 yr old is 100% wrong. Murder of a 40 yr old would be instinctively worse, but the value at 60 is already 100%. Since you cannot get higher than 100% wrong, murder us the worst crime possible at any age.

Well, I somewhat don't agree with the courts. It is the legislature's job to make laws and the court's job to interpret it. Yes, technically they are interpreting the cons!@#$%^&*uion in this case, but they are getting closer and closer to trying to power away from Congress. I will respond to the pro choicers with Don Marquis' arguement on the subject. In his artical, (which I cannot remember the name) he first asks the question: Why is murder under normal cir-*BAD WORD*-stances wrong? He then points out that a murderer does not take away his victim's life. That would be impossible. What the murderer DOES do is deny the victim the remaining portion of his/her life. Marquis came to the conclusion that murder is wrong because it denys a victim a Future Life like Ours (FLO). He then came to the conclusion that since fetus's have a FLO, that abortion is immoral under most cir-*BAD WORD*-stances. Exceptions include cases of rape, and less than two weeks from conception. If anyone is interested, I can find an exact name of the article an post it. It is kinda lengthy though.

Wait, hows this for starters: Ship 1) Dart thrower Advantages: Darts (EMP bombs) Disadvantages: Slightly lower speed and nrg Ship 2) Streaker Advantages: runs really fast high energy Disadvantages: kicking soccer ball while barefoot hurts (cannot pick up ball long or kick it far) Ship 3) Rioter Advantages: Throws beer bottles (L3 bombs) Disadvantages: Drunk (low nrg & speed) Ship 4) Security Advantages: pepper spray (multifire guns) high energy Disadvantages: can never catch a streaker(low speed) Ship 5) British Gentleman Advantages: high energy, moderate speed Disadvantages: doesn't throw things Ships 6, 7, & 8 are player, goalie, and referree respectively.

Here, I have a complete shipset for you. http://www.subspacedownloads.com/files/metalgear.zip Compliments of Broad-Band. Oh wait, I forogt to invert the colors.

Oh yes, I forgot to put my point in. It is okay, but it must be kept under control. Most players who like that sort of thing play Everquest or something like that. If Continuum did this, we might move out of our niche and get hurt badly.

I can't tell you because I don't rightly know myself. Omega Fire and 17th Parallel are some good bets. However, that is likely to change in a few months anyways.

You want to get a few kills off of me while I am distracted, don't you?

i agree with this. it will allow 'better' players to have a better ship to use. it will further seperate the noobs and the 1337s Actually, Armada !@#$%^&*ail used to have this. I tell you what, that zone was REALLY addicting. The bot gave all players a "rank" by the number of points they had. Higher ranks would first open up more ships, and then offer free upgrades such as multi, xradar, etc. The ultimate prize was free prox, and since the L3 and L4 bombs were one-shot kill, it was VERY valueble. The goal of getting this kept me playing for weeks. Ofcourse you could get all these upgrade by greens, so a new player had the possiblity of getting a l33t ship. The obvious problem with this is that it discourages new players from playing, and discourages even more people from going to different zones. Another problem is that good players with good ship will grow lazy, less skillful, and more egotistical.