Aileron

Yes, Iran the sweet, humble, and innocent EFP and Suicide Vest manufacturer is always portrayed as evil by the big bad western hate machine. I mean come on! Obama is in charge now - you can't ask for someone to be more of a dove than him and he's still pushing for sanctions. Why? Because Iran is a threat even Obama can't ignore. Nothing wrong with a secret underground uranium enrichment facility? What part of 'secret' and 'underground' implies an open-book policy with the international community? Iran makes thinks that KILL the soldiers who secure YOUR right to write like an idiot and you think they are your MISUNDERSTOOD FRIENDS. I've reached the point where I can do nothing more than to offer you a glass of Kool-Aid.

All the date proves is that there is temporal correlation. That is correct. There *is* a reason that they are occurring at the same time. What I am talking about is causation. The US is trying to push Europe to place tougher sanctions on Iran causes Iran tries to get European support by switching to the Euro. Now, the switch in currency occurs two days before the enrichment facility is revealed publicly. But, keep in mind that there is a public world and a private world in politics. Most likely, all parties concerned knew that everyone else knew about this enrichment facility weeks before. The announcement merely brought the debate into the public theater. Iran used the switch to prep the public theater in their favor. In turn, while publicly this is about Iran's nuclear facilities, in reality Obama probably is trying to use it to get European troops for Afghanistan. I mean, the problem with your argument is that US relations with Iran have been sour for years and for many reasons. In the big scheme of things this is a drop in the bucket.

Nuclear Energy Article

Shift your paradigms a bit. It was Hussein's decision to change the currency. He probably made that decision in an effort to get European support. Also, there is a reality that in a very general sense most Middle Eastern oil goes to Europe, while the US gets most of our oil from the western hemisphere.

I do have an idea where Episodes 2 and 3 are going to go, and can produce them on demand. A few notes: -Part time voices: We'll probably need to have someone doing voices for the Turvas, a computer/translator, and possibly a newscaster (so I can incorporate the world into the episodes without making the audience read the 'introduction'). These roles won't happen every episode, so they will probably involve one of the full-time people changing the inflection in their voice. The Turvas are going to speak alien, ie gibberish. If they decide to turn their translators on (they'll leave them off half the time), then the computer will talk simultaneously in English as the Turvas talk in gibberish. (Kind of like what you hear when watching the UN on CSPAN.) -I'm going to try to incorporate two types of radios. One will be a 'long range' radio to talk to distant stations, another will be a 'short range' radio used to talk between ships in the same formation. You'll notice how Mac used proper radio etiquette when talking to the station, but switched to normal conversation for the short range. The short range is going to be cleaner, so the audio guy won't have to add any 'static'. He will only have to add static for 'longrange' radio. Hopefully this should decrease his workload. (Sidenote: Vinny won't ever be on the longrange...reason why will be explained in episode 2. This means the actor's voice for this character won't need static added.) -There are some problems with Chief. First off, the nickname doesn't work for sergeants. I'm thinking 'Boss' would be more appropriate. Secondly, there's no way in any military they would have a Master Sergeant run a 4 man OP, even if its in the middle of nowhere. He will probably end up being staff sergeant, but his rank will ultimately depend on the age of the actor who fills in the slot. -You might have noticed that for the first episode, all the animation guy has to do is three ships flying in space and two ships flying in a circle. I'm planning on keeping animation simple for that guy too, so don't expect major gunfights for a while and even then not too often. -Apparently, Mac's catchphrase is going to be 'Vinny, shut up'. I didn't even realize how often he used the line until editing. Applicants for that role should just use that line. -I wasn't 'inferior' at SSRPG. SSRPG was built off of a customizable 'Army Core' system built by someone else. That person put in a few features, we tried it, and then found that the customizable options were not customizable enough for admins to fix it for the players. The Army Core devs promised to improve the system, but didn't. So, us admins were left trying to jury-rig settings out of limited options. Short version: the devs failed, but I was left holding the bag. -Whal, if your voice is 'good with the ladies', I'd suggest Vinny for you. If and when women actually show up at Outremer 3B (ie when we get a female who's willing to do voices for us), he's going to be the most successful with them. Mac actually is going to be the worst with the ladies out of all of them. -Also, none of this is final. I can certainly rewrite the script based off of who we have and what our capabilities are. For example, if for some reason we get a female voice actress but only three males, we can replace one of the characters with a female one. If you want to do a role here but don't like the name, or want the character to go in a slightly different direction, by all means post your idea. -'Vorg' is probably not going into the final product. 'Vorg' is too close to 'Borg' and 'Zerg' to be original enough.

Yeah, I did think about the cussing a while after I posted it. Do you want *NO* cussing, or a small enough amount of cussing that the audio guy can bleep it out? I thought I was doing comedy! I guess it needs to be funnier.

Alright, here's a better script that Rootbear's five minute one. I would need four main roles as well as guest roles if we do a lot of episodes. Sorry, I probably don't have time to do the voices myself. I put a script for each role to show what would be required of the actor. I figure that its easier to know how to do this with a character with a little depth than trying to do a role as vague as a pilot named 'Bob'. If you want to voice act, take a line from the script, apply emotion and send it to jabjab. That is ofcourse assuming you guys prefer my script over Rootbears... Background: The story takes place in a cold war. The United Human Forces and the Turvas, an alien race, recently had made an alliance to annihilate another alien race, the Vorg, a genocidal race bent on total domination, in what is called ‘the Galactic War’. This was not an easy alliance however, as the Turvas are very different than humans. (By ‘different’, I mean they act goofy as all get out.) Relations broke down, and both sides are expecting an attack from the other at any moment. Station Outremer 3B (In conversation use ‘bravo’ rather than ‘be’) is an observation platform which supports fighter patrols along the border between the Turvas systems and the UHF systems. Their mission is to observe Turvas movement and provide early warning to the main forces at Outremer 6 in case of attack. Outremer 3B is staffed by four pilots, against an entire fleet if the Turvas ever decide to attack, so it is assumed that in that case they will either run away or die fighting. However, in reality neither side seems to be interested in attacking the other for real. Characters: Master Sergeant Bob Calhoun. ‘Chief’, Leviathan Pilot: MSG Calhoun is a veteran of the Galactic War. He is the only pilot on Outremer 3B with actual combat experience and has a lot of it. The downside is that he is old, crusty, and lazy, counting down the days until he can retire and collect a hefty pension. The Human Space Force has seen fit to give him an assignment in a backwater outpost until that day arrives. He has a penchant for telling war stories, many of which are exaggerated. While a competent pilot, he tends to spend most of his time on the station managing things from the control room. He gives excuses about needing to be in contact with headquarters, but the real reason is that he’s too lazy to go out on patrol that often. Lance Corporal Gary McBride. ‘Mac’, Warbird Pilot: ‘Mac’ is second in command of the outpost and the second most ‘normal’ soldier on Outremer 3B. He signed up on the closing end of the Galactic War but never saw any action and instead was assigned, alone, to a backwater station between the humans and the Turvas. Not an important job at the time, but someone had to do it. He has been on Outremer 3B ever since. Due to the months of boredom and solitude, he is negative, antisocial, and apathetic, but otherwise a normal soldier. ‘Mac’ also has more experience dealing with the Turvas’ antics than anyone. Spaceman First Class Jack Vincent. ‘Spartan Warrior’, Javelin Pilot: (Nobody actually calls him ‘Spartan Warrior’. It is the nickname he assigned to himself and keeps using as a call sign, but everyone else just responds with ‘Vinny’) Vinny is a ‘high speed’ soldier recently out of training who has only been assigned to the station for a few months. He is physically fit, highly motivated, schooled on every piece of doctrine the Space Force has to offer, and a fairly good pilot. His problem is that he is way too gung ho, glorifies all things related to war, and isn’t grounded in reality. During basic training, he brownnosed the instructors into giving him awards, and he got his pick of his first assignment. He requested to be sent ‘as close to the front lines as possible’. Thus, he got sent to Outremer 3B. He is unpopular on the base, and during the few times he is in contact with command at Outremer 6, they aren’t too accepting of him either. Spaceman Frank Potterson. ‘Newbie’, Spider Pilot: Potterson starts off recently arrived on Outremer 3B and fresh out of training. He’s the most normal and level-headed of the bunch, though definitely wet behind the ears. The Script: Mac, Vinny, and Potterson are flying their ships on patrol in the middle of space. Mac: Outremer 3B, this is Mac, our patrol has reached checkpoint 3, over. Chief: Roger Mac, this is Outremer 3B confirming checkpoint 3, out. Potterson: So, this is the border between the United Human Forces and the Turvas Zone. I must confess for a place with so much rising tensions, it seems pretty boring out here. Vinny: Newbie, this is Spartan Warrior. Keep your guard up here. You let it down for a moment, and they could ambush us. For all we know, they could be prepping to send an entire Squadron over the border at us as we speak, over. Mac: Vinny, shut the fuck up. Contrary to what you see on the news, the Turvas aren’t prepping to do much of anything. They aren’t going to ambush. They aren’t going to attack. They just do stupid shit that freaks the higher ups out. That’s it. Vinny: Mac, this is Spartan Warrior. Weren’t they just in violation of the border treaty last week? Over. Mac: They were grabbing a power ball that they were goofing off with which they dropped and had drifted over on our side! The minute they got the thing they were gone. Vinny: Mac, this is Spartan Warrior. Yeah, but they didn’t call over and request authorization from us to cross the border, over. Mac: Yeah, so who the fuck cares? Vinny: Mac, this is Spartan Warrior. Hey, regardless of the reason, they are in violation of the border treaty. I say, we should send the entire fleet over there and show them who’s boss, over. Potterson: Vinny, that seems a little overboard… Vinny: NEWBIE, THAT IS NOT THE WAY TO TALK TO A SUPERIOR OVER THE SHORTRANGE. YOU WILL ADDRESS ME AS SPARTAN WARRIOR!!! OVER. Mac: Vinny, shut the fuck up you have about 2 months seniority over him. Vinny: Mac, this is Spartan Warrior. I still outrank him, over. Mac: And as someone who outranks you, I say the newbie can call you anything he wants, because our patrol is embarrassing enough without more than one of us saying that gay ‘spartan warrior’ shit all the time. Vinny: MAC, THIS IS SPARTAN WARRIOR, I AM READING TWO POSSIBLE ENEMY CONTACTS IN OUR SECTOR AT ONE O’ CLOCK, 30 CLICKS AWAY, OVER. Mac: Vinny, what the fuck? Oh wait, I read them. Okay, form up and try not to do anything that will start a war, okay? Let’s see what those goofballs are up to this time. (The group approach two terriers flying in a circle in the middle of nowhere) Potterson: I looks to me like they are Turvas ships, and they are …. flying in a circle? (to be continued)

Look, I'd hate to undermine RootBear, but I can write a much better script myself. The problem is I have real life responsibilities, so I can't crank these things out often. Still, I probably can do it faster than it can be animated and voiced over, so I guess count me in for now.

As for the 'easy' button, usually in any sort of competitive event, if your opponent hits the 'easy' button and you don't, you'll probably lose. In the case of gunning, I'll admit that a team that can get two spiders with plasma cannons to "talk" to each other, it would be more lethal than two spiders with beam arrays both blasting constantly. Granted, at a steady stream of fire against an stationary unarmored target, two beam arrays crank out 1024 dps while one plasma cranks out 793 dps. However, in a base you are either shooting at a charging target or your bullet cloud is bouncing off of a wall after being repelled. Also, I for one and I would assume everyone who wants to get bullet armor without using a sig slot uses the exoskeleton. Given those things, I'd expect a plasma cloud to be more lethal than a beam cloud. So why don't I recommend the complicated method? Because things can go wrong. First off, taking turns shooting isn't as easy as it seems, as you have to intuitively know when your partner stops shooting for you to start. One of the two shooters could take damage which will mess up their rhythm. One shooter could get killed - what does the other do? One could get repelled out of position. The list of Murphy's Law possibilities is quite long. Those problems can certainly be adjusted for, GIVEN THAT THE GUNNERS PRACTICE THE TECHNIQUE TOGETHER, which doesn't happen with ad hoc teams in pub. If we were talking members of the same squad, and they actually spent the time to rehearse techniques together, then I would recommend it. So, this 'problem' will never be solved, because of the fundamental fact a team that was built five minutes ago can't execute complicated techniques. As for bombers, there are places where bombers work well, such as the corridor on the south side of base 7. Also, there are times when wall-bombing works. On the other hand, there are other times where the use of bombs is entirely inappropriate. Its hard to describe without a lengthy lesson in military tactics. In any operation, the commander has to determine which role is 'decisive' which is the one thing that absolutely has to get done for the mission to succeed. Then he has to choose the support roles which allow the decisive role to happen. In flag basing, that decisive role is the gunners up front shooting. This is decisive because the goal is not to kill the enemy (which is nice but not required...if the defense gets pushed back all the way to their FR they still lose), but to move forward in the base in a secure manner. The rushers support the gunners by clearing the way. Lancs support logistically. Bombers and weasels provide fire support. Leakers attempt what in military tactics is called a 'turning movement'. Another principle of tactics is 'economy of force', which states that minimum forces should be assigned to secondary efforts, and that maximum forces should be applied to the decisive effort. Thus, a team shouldn't have many bombers, for the exact reason that because they damage all enemy rather than just one, there doesn't need to be a lot of bombers to accomplish their role. Rushing and leaking are definitely two different strategies. Yes, sometimes the rush leads to the leak, but there are other pure leaker methods out there like cloaking and portaling. The rush warbird may accomplish the leak role once in a while, but the cloaking shark does NOT accomplish the rush role. Again, there shouldn't be more than one pure leaker on a team if that.

This is a guide to team based basing strategy. This is based off of both my background in various basing zones, as well as my background in military tactics. Obviously, in Continuum teams are formed ad hoc, so the use of any specific team plan is limited. Thus, this guide covers the core tactics which winning teams do naturally, so as to provide guidance as to how players can work in a team better and what ship builds they develop. 1: The roles While there is a large number of ship builds in HS, successful flagging designs typically fill one of the following roles: Lanc: These are the players who everyone else attaches to. It is sometimes expedient to have ship other than a lancaster to function as the team's lanc, but even a cheap lanc is preferable. Essential to a good lanc is summon and antideath, so in HS this role requires someone who has been around a while. Rushers: These ships are designed to charge at the enemy and push them back with repels, as well as clear the passage of fire for following units. One ship that is good for this is the lanc for its high energy levels. However, a quick ship like a warbird or some weasels perform this role very well too, provided they are built for speed and have 3 or 4 repels. When this variety is employed, it accomplishes both the rush role all the time and the leak role some of the time, so I put them in this category. Gunners: These ships are simple. They are designed to shoot bullets to fill a corridor with fire so as to kill or suppress the enemy. A good gunner needs to have bounce. Guns come in the high-damage low efficiency and low damage high efficiency varieties. Both can work in theory. With high efficiency, multiple gunners shoot simultaneously. With high damage, they have to take turns shooting. I recommend high efficiency because it is simpler in practice. Bombers: These ships are designed to kill the enemy with bombs. Bombs are hazardous at close range, so these ships need up-front protection. Weasels: I place this in a different category than bombers, because the weasels EMPs do not do much damage to teammates, bounce a lot, and don't really get the kill as much as screw with the enemy gunner's ability to shoot. Not all weasels fit into this category: I've seen some designed for rushing and leaking. Leakers: There are a variety of ways to leak: Cloak, portal, or repel through. The result is the same. A leaker is any ship that tries to bypass the enemy's lines in order to force them to abandon their position to chase the leaker or risk losing the flags or having the timer reset. How it fits together: Your typical flagging scenario looks like this: You have two teams about two obstacles away from each other putting a continuous volume of fire into the no-mans-land between them. To advance, a team must establish fire superiority over the enemy. Whichever team establishes the greatest volume of continuous, accurate fire will advance. So, the role which is critical to victory is the gunner. All other ships play a support role. The only exception is the bomber, which actually becomes the primary role IF AND ONLY IF THERE IS A LONG CORRIDOR WHICH YOU CAN'T RANGE WITH GUNS. Advancing in a base is a three step process: 1: Clear no-man's-land of enemy fire 2: Set up positions in no-man's-land 3: Establish fire superiority. Once step 3 is accomplished, the enemy team will either move back or be killed. The role critical to step 1 and 2 is the rusher. Additionally, for step 2, the gunners have to be right behind the rushers and start accurate fire as soon as possible. If fire superiority is not established, then the rush is in vain. For a rusher, it is beneficial if they take a second to make sure that there are gunning teammates already in base, otherwise the rush is wasted. Also, if there are two or more rushers, they should rush at the same time. Thus, your two 'grunts' are your rushers and you gunners. Every play should have at least one ship which can function in this role. Support roles: Bombers: They are useful when either bomb lanes or long ranges make the use of bombs more appropriate than the use of guns. When this happens, bombers are the primary role. Lacking this, a bomber doesn't even offer good support and should switch to a gunning ship, especially on offense. Another note I will add: Don't be that guy who is outside the base wall-bombing the enemy team. You'll only get a kill once in a while, which is good for your ratio but bad for your team as you are little more useful than a spectator. Weasels: They support step 3 by denying the enemy the ability to establish fires. You need an L3 bomb or bigger for this, so as to EMP the *whole* enemy team and not just the one gunner up front who is about to die anyway, and don't expect to actually get kills. Leakers: Face it, when a leak works, it kicks ass, but it rarely works. Cloak/Speed Leaks should be timed to coincide with heavy rushers. Numbers: There needs to be one lanc on a team. Two or three is better. There should be 2-4 rushers on a team. Any more than that, and your team probably isn't putting down enough fire to secure the area after the rush. There should never be more than one weasel on a team. That one weasel should be a really good shot. There should not be more than one pure leaker on a team. The rush/leak combo using repels fits into the 'rusher' category. Bombers should not be on the team unless the situation warrants it. Everyone else should be up front shooting!!!

Use gunners when you want to kill the enemy and win the flag match. Use bombers when you want to kill your teammates and lose the flag match.

Fundamentally, the cure for bricks is thors. A mass thor barrage is a legitimate tactic used to counter an overly camptastic defense. The only problem with thors in HS is that the fundamental cure for the thor, the repel, has a short radius which is just barely bigger than the prox on the thor, so you have to get it *just right*. I'll admit there are no easy answers. We could bring thors back and reduce their speed or prox, but that would affect all bombs, so that probably shouldn't be tried. We could also make repels stronger, but then they might be overpowered. Or we could nerf everything and the zone would suck. My suggestion: Bring thors back, and improve repels a little so that the thors aren't too strong. You could increase repel's radius without affecting typical gameplay too much, and then the thors would be countered by repels and the bricks countered by thors. As for fields, my two cents is that the only overpowered field was lightning. But, fields should be back as soon as possible, as long as they meet the following criteria: Neutrality: They should affect all ships that pass into them. Obviously one team will be hurt more than the other, but then its up the the user's skill in assessing the situation. Also, it eliminates the confusion of 'is it our field or theirs?'. Non lethality: Face it, getting killed by a bot always sucks. Pass-ability: You should always be able to fly through one and in fighting shape when you reach the other side. If a defense uses a field to disrupt an offense in order to kill them, that's one thing, but if a defense just collapsed and then the lone survivor lays a field which delays the offense until the defense can re-attach, then its overpowered. That isn't to say a field can't slow somebody down, but you shouldn't have to wait for it to go away if the defense isn't present. Generally, as long as a field possesses these three characteristics, you can make the purchasable in the center and they still can't be overpowered. My suggestions: The repel-field was good. Just make it repel both teams. A field that absorbs all weapons fire, but ships can fly through. A giant graphic which simply covers an area so you can't see what's underneath it. A field which creates decoys of every ship that enters. (The decoys would have a bots name, but it still could spam images) A field which warps entering players to the opposite side of it. (You'd have to have a check preventing ppl from using it to get into a flag room) Finally, an anti-field field

First off, the core program we ran ssrpg off of won't work with the new forum. Secondly, the people whom built said core haven't been developing it. If we brought it back it we would run into the same issue we did last time...the gameplay developed but the core didn't. Third, the reason I'm a "VIP" and not Moderator or Admin is because I joined the Army. Do I have time to run or even play the SSRPG? Heck no. But yeah, by Army doctrine, Tactics is on the ground, Operational is within a campaign, and Strategy is the big picture. To apply it to American Football terms: (because futbol is a lame sport.) Tactics is what a Quarterback uses when he chooses plays in order to win a game. Operations is what a couch uses when he selects players and builds a training regiment in order to win a season. Strategy is what an owner uses when he makes a business plan in order to build a successful franchise. So, in the 'real-time' aka tactical level, the strategic guy is a spectator just like everybody else. And 'role-playing' games. You never play a (team) role in a RPG. They should call them stats-building games.

OOOOOHHHH!!! SOAPBOX! HERE, LET ME STEP ON THIS A WHILE! I have a BS in Mathematics from Penn State. By the way, my GPA was pathetic. What I did with it was join the Army and become an officer in the Engineer Corps. And the thing is, I probably *do* have the kind of talent in math and physics that Einstein had. I share many of the same strengths and weaknesses. Right now to be honest I have a love-hate relationship with my country. I love how freedom gets handed to us on a silver platter, hate it when idiots don't know what to do with it. Education is something I'd say our country is screwing up in a major way, based on my life experience. Everything you need to know falls into two categories: knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge encompasses facts that are needed to complete tasks, while wisdom is what is needed to live life. Wisdom is the more important of the two. Knowledge can be learned or forgotten to suit the task at hand, but without wisdom one can't truly make life choices, and won't be free due to lack of understanding of decisions. At least in my life, I didn't learn an ounce of wisdom until I joined the Army, so its fair to say that my education truly began a year ago and the 18 years before that were a waste of time. I screwed up college royally by my opinion because I lacked wisdom. I didn't have the willpower and discipline to study as much as I should have. I didn't backwards plan from the career I wanted into my choice of major. I didn't plan my courses in way in which they could be managed. I didn't have the social skills necessary to bond with my peers in order to study, and frankly maintain my sanity. Above all, I didn't have any idea where the limits of my talents were nor had an idea of how much harder I could have been working. Now, obviously this didn't turn out all bad as I was able to drive on to graduate and start a respectable career. I don't have everything I want yet, but I've reached the point where I will be able to develop the things I am lacking and will be able to shape my career in the direction I want it to go, so all in all its a 'win'. The so-called 'education' I received prior to college did way too little to prepare me for it. My strengths and weaknesses were obvious to everyone around me, but aside from a small group of hard workers, few of the teachers and staff were willing to drive me. They just wanted to check the block, so when I excelled in general science and basic algebra, that was sufficient. I met the minimum requirements, and there was no need to push me to my maximum ability. A few years later when general science became quantum mechanics and algebra became complex analysis, the defecation hit the rotary oscillator and I first learned what 'pain' was. That four letter word is what is the problem. The p-word is one of the key components in building wisdom. Positive rewards do motivate some in a limited capacity, but in order to build someone's full drive and character, you need to administer both positive encouragement and some of the p-word. Our schools have banned it. We are loath to apply it to even the failing and the undisciplined, and we don't apply it at all to those who are performing successfully but have higher potential. Thus, when we have someone with talent, we don't develop that person properly. I'm not worried about our countries' education system though. I've spent the last year meeting the people who are going to fix this mess, as well as many of the other problems our country is facing right now. The spectators can just sit back and watch as they always do. As for college plans, if you know yourself, you should be fine. Just pick the career you want, research it, and what you need to do at college will become obvious. The problem is that young people are impatient and don't know themselves as well as they think they do. If you don't I do suggest you take a year off and work for a while. I know when I was 18 that was a ridiculous amount of time to waste. However, if you don't know what you are doing, you'll end up messing yourself up and it will take quite a bit longer than a year to fix. I'm not a recruiter, but I will advocate for the idea of joining the military. The disadvantages are that its a few years between yourself and you career, and you'll be served a heaping helping of that 'p-word' *. The advantages are that afterwords when you do go to college, I guarantee you will love your major, get straight As in every course you take, and will get prime pickings on the job market after college *. *Minor disadvantage - You will be less popular with your political science professor, protesters, hippies, all varieties of homosexuals/transvestites, and any of the varieties of the radical left found on college campuses. On the other hand, you won't care. *Minor advantages - You'll be more popular with the ladies/(gentlemen if you are actually one of the 1/100000 females on this forum). I'm not joking about this, as between the physical fitness, hero status, and the uniform, its pretty much a done deal. Every soldier I've seen had a partner I swear could be a model. Another minor advantage is that the military pays for college. I consider this minor, because I'll admit there are easier ways to get the money. What I wanted to impress upon the reader here is that the major benefit is the character/leadership/teamwork/discipline qualities that will pretty much give you the freedom to do whatever you want. Oh, as a sidebar - history. History is not taught in any school in the US. Yes, there are courses titled 'history', but the content of those courses is political correctness. The Army's main focus isn't teaching history, but when they teach it, they actually teach history. After I learned a little of it, I bought some books on it from private booksellers and I love it. Seriously, whoever you are, buy some history books. Go for anything that is prior to 1940 other than the Revolutionary War. Read them. You'll be astonished what you don't know. Alright, I'm getting off my soapbox now. Wow, come to think of it, I think this is a sign that 30 years from now I'll be old and crusty, hanging out at the VFW, and complaining about hippies. I mean, I don't even have PTSD to fuel my rants yet.

While I will agree with the overall assertion in this topic that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, I think this group actually covered it. 25% is less than 19, 50% is between 19 and 50, and 25% is 50 or older. As for addictive behaviors, what video games can do is make an existing mental illness worse, BUT because of the nature of the mental illness the victim/culprit will always find SOMETHING. They have the option of being addicted to video games, alcohol, cigarettes, drugs of many varieties, TV, fatty foods, pink styrofoam, etc. Addictions by definition are unhealthy, and it doesn't really matter what the fixation is. You can try to remove the fixation, but if you don't address the root of the problem, the subject will either find another fixation or cheat around and get it anyway. The root of the problem is socially isolated people. The solution, easier said than done, is for people to watch each other's backs and take care of each other. Frankly, the 35 year old in his mother's basement is pathetic, but so is that person's friends and family. And MM, don't get me started on the off-topic oxymoron that is 'real-time strategy'. Strategy is by definition such a long term process that it doesn't occur in real time.

Well, the original quote has been cut out of a larger conversation. Generally the topic was signature items which are a waste of a signature slot. For example, the Oracle System. Great item, but no one buys it when they could have, say, a Trap Laser, Mass Driver, or Tac Nuke. Those three should consume all sig slots, but the weaker items should consume less. Just an idea which might be worth throwing around. Certainly isn't a problem, so there's no rush here.

Three ideas, which relate to this topic: For ragequitters: Simply run a check of the number of players playing every 15 seconds or so. If its higher than the last value, keep it, if not, throw it away. Base the jackpot off of the number of players in the flag match when it had the most people playing rather than the population at the end. int players int newplayers (function to check players) if newplayers > players ( players = newplayers; ) end For the team evener: Before checking xp, even out the lanc pilots based upon the sell value of the lanc they own. Do this check regardless if the player is actually flying the lanc, and put a minimum on it to prevent ppl from messing up the system with a cheap lanc they don't actually use. Downside is that it may be harder for the experienced lanc pilots to be able to fly other ships For the ?lanc command: Do a location check of where the lanc is, and check if that sector has flags in it. Mark the lancs who are in a sector with flags in it with a #.

According to the copy of Webster's I have: 1. a set of beliefs concerning the nature and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency 2. an institutionalized system of religious beliefs and worship 3. something a person believes in devoutly Lynx, Here's how Atheism fits in: 1. The belief here is that the nature and purpose of the universe is that the universe' nature is one of random chance devoid of purpose. It also states the creation of the universe was due to a coincidence of random events, many of which mind you had low probabilities of actually happening, which makes those events superhuman do to their inability to be controlled or even predicted by mortals. 2. 'Institutionalized' I'll admit does not fit that well. However, many institutions exist that do not have formalized control measures, meeting places, and the like. What you need to have in an institution is a community of people with a self-defined set of boundaries. Atheists are a community, and they have their boundaries. Anyone who believes in a deity does not fit within the institution which atheists consider themselves to be within. 3. Atheists are group that like any other vary in how devout they are. They range from the near agnostic to the hardcore believers who are absolutely convinced that there is nothing superhuman. Agnosticism: 1. The nature and purpose of the universe is placed subordinate to worldy needs. Of the purposes the agnostic doesn't stick to a religion, whatever purpose is highest is the purpose of the universe. 2. Anyone who has a religion and sticks to it is outside the institution of agnosticism. 3. Devoution can vary here too. Some agnostics favor a religion. Some are dedicated to ensuring that they do not favor on religion over another. Hate to start another argument, but the people who start major fights over the Ten Commandments being posted in public places could qualify as a hardcore agnostic.

This forum has clearly gone off the deep end since I left. Can't say I'm suprised. Personally, I've learned much in the past few months. I've found out that the reason why my opinion appears to be the minority is that those who share it are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan right now mostly, and those who aren't have better things to do but than to argue anyway. You have to be careful regarding religion. Atheism is a religion too, and if you accept atheism as a religion, then it also follows that both the Nazi's Third Reich and the Soviets' aggressive expansion policies could be interpreted as an atheist version of a holy war of forced conversion. Anyone who really understands Christianity would know that Jesus' major adversary was the Pharisees. At that particular time and place, a Pharisee was a person with religious authority who was so caught up with his power and his doctrine that he was blind to everything going on around him. While these people clung to a doctrine of waiting for a messiah, they couldn't actually comprehend of one actually being in front of their face due to the very fact that they clung to their doctrine so much. Avoiding such attachment is a fundimental part of the Christian faith that has not always been followed successfully. The major point I'd like to drive home here is that all religions have their Pharisees. Every religion, including agnosticism and atheism, has doctrine that goes with it, and when you combine doctrine with humans, who make mistakes, you occassionally get people who become to attached to the word and not the meaning. The current variety of Islamic terrorism is one of these examples. In reality, there are probably only about a dozen or so hardcore Islamic Pharisees in the bunch with about a million or so getting dragged along for the ride by economic and social forces. The problem is that the economic and social climate has become toxic and that the Pharisees have power. One couldn't absolutely prove it without being there, but with monarchies in place, it is likely that such a toxic climate existed in time of the holy wars, so they were probably caused by the same reason. As for the article: He assumes religions don't get converts, contrary to evidence. No, believe it or not people actually do decide they want to change religions often enough. He has a large list of references which for the most part all were all written by the same three authors. A half a dozen people in agreement form a drinking party with too much free time on their hands, not a scientific community. The best one is the nice little part where they specifically choose politically vohement wording, wait for the response, get it, then claim the response as a result of 'defensive' behavior by the 'disease'. I'll play by their game just for the sake of putting the coup de grace on this one: Mass defensive behavior is not a behavior known to be utilized by any disease. Viruses, Bacteria, and Fungi do not defend themselves at all. Animal parisites such as ticks, leeches, and worms my show some defensive tendencies, but even then do so in an extremely limited fashion. How then can he use defensiveness as evidence of his theory when such behavior doesn't coincide with the behavior of a disease is merely evidence that his real aim is just to try to piss people off. To that I say: GET A LIFE AND QUIT TELLING THE REST OF US HOW TO LIVE OURS!!!

I can't go to Afghanistan until I'm out of TRADOC, and I won't be out of TRADOC for months. 1) That whole arguement is based upon the populace 'not knowing better'. Claiming ignorance isn't an excuse. The people really have no one to blame but themselves, because either they a: didn't bother to pick up a newspaper to find out what the world is like, or b: trusted the president and/or favored the war, but never came to understand what the consequences would be. Either way, anyone who supported the war intitially and doesn't now dropped the ball at some point. And there's the problem. As a whole we are too immature to admit we dropped the ball, so we find ways to pin it on our leadership. 2) I didn't claim FEMA wasn't a innefficient beuracratic mess. The Federal government always is. Ofcourse one can't expect a metropolis to up and move instantly either. The point is that all parties contributed and it is unfair to just blame FEMA. 3) That is such a crock. Pat Buchanon doesn't spend his free time sitting outside of car dealerships, telling consumers that they better buy a SUV. Also, there are ways to drill without 'destroying coastal fisheries'. My overall point isn't a matter of statistics, it is about a black and white concept of not working together. Oil companies and environmentalists could certainly get down at a table and come up with a solution, if both sides were open. That actually occurs in industry, but the government has a tendancy to want to make black and white regulations on things. 4) That is the nature of a group problem. Small numbers of buddy f____ers can screw everyone else up. The existance of BFs is not a fault of leadership. BFs are a fact of life, and nobody can go back in time to prevent a buddy f____er from being born, so its best to just get used to them. 5) Didn't I include the words 'and vice versa' in my statement? Oh, yes I did. Okay then, I acknowledged it existed from both sides then. Overall, people need to stop acting like they are perfect and don't cause problems. If even a world-wide problem occurs first ask yourself what *you* did to contribute to that problem. If you happen to be clear, then ask yourself what you could have done to contribute against the problem. If you are still clear, then assume it is both everybody and nobody unless you rule groups out or in.

Look, I hate to admit it, but the real problem is with the entire populace as a whole. One of the problems with civilians is by default civilians try to blame problems on a single person. In reality, problems are usually complicated with multiple contributors. Answer the following questions: Did the fact that invading Iraq had a % approval rating affect the President's decision? If you say he 'sold' the populace, then if the populace wasn't ignorant enough to be 'duped', would not the approval rating be lower? If the people of New Orleans had evacuated New Orleans, and if the local and state governments had stepped up, would not FEMA's job have been easier? If people didn't commute in 4x4s and environmentalists didn't pop a gasket every time someone wanted to drill, would gas prices have shot up so suddenly? If not as many low income people weren't trying to live in mansions, wouldn't the housing bubble have been smaller? If the UAW weren't robbing their companies blind, wouldn't the Big 3 be more able to do business? Would they have more money to do R&D if they didn't have to pay double salaries as their competitors? If the Democrats weren't opposing every Rebublican proposal as a matter of principle, and vice versa, would more things get done? Our problems right now are not the fault of a single person. This is a collective failure. Granted, the president is a big part of that collective, but he isn't solely responsible, not by a long shot. Frankly, we deserve these problems right now because too many people are too selfish. I fear that when President-Elect Obama takes over, the country will only give him a few months. Then something bad will happen, and like all humans he'll make a few mistakes, and then the country will sell him out like we did President Bush. A good movie I'd recommend to explain this is "The Caine Mutiny". It is a ficticious story about a destroyer in WWII. The ship has poor discipline, but then is assigned a new captain. The problem is that the captain is borderline paranoid. The captain tries to create discipline on his ship. His officers on the other hand notice his paranoid tendencies and then plot against him. The captain then correctly comes to the conclusion that his officers are plotting against him, and becomes increasingly paranoid. What ends up happening is that the Captain is so worried about his crew that he can't react to a hurricane, and then the officers stage the mutiny. In the trial afterwards, the officers win the case, but only because the defense attorney thought 'the wrong officers were on trail'. The truth of the matter was that while the captain had problems, if the officers had helped him rather than hinder his attempts to create discipline, and if they had supported him rather than plot against him, then their strengths would have offset his weaknesses and the ship would have functioned as a cohesive team. Our problems right now are not leadership. It is a lack of teamwork. We aren't working together to solve problems. The first step we can do is to at least show the Commander in Chief the respect he deserves for the office he held and the sacrifices he made on our behalf and put these childish and counterproductive notions of blame aside.

Mid-Right

4 day vacation here (Counting Saturday and Sunday). Our Captain thought it unwise to tick off the fifty or so prior service people in our company. In a more serious sense, two things come to my mind. The stuff I had to do so far: sucking tear gas, about 10,000+ pushups (in a literal sense), swimming in full combat gear, walking around in 90+ degree weather in broad sunlight in full combat gear, climbing up and down very tall objects with rope, pulling 250 lb people up along with me, letting a complete amateur give me an IV for practice, marching 15k with a full rucksack, and a bunch of other stuff. The other thing that comes to my mind is that frankly I haven't done crap next to these other guys.

It's Veteran's Day. I'm not technically a vet, but I'm currently training with them, so, in the style of one of my former drill sergeants: Show da respect or I'll go over there and Superman-punch your !@#$%^&*, 'cause I'm a BEAST!!!

I just graduated from Basic Training last Thursday and have internet access now. I still won't get on too often as I will be busy. However, the good news is that it will be high speed access so I might actually get on to Continuum rather than lurking around the forums.