He *is* funny, but more because the protest is fragmented and they have a bunch of generic right-wing rhetoric than anything, it would be just as funny on the other side of the street if the left wing had four disconnected left wing signs that had no particular connection to the issue. As someone that *has* read a good portion of HR 3200 - it's a pretty good bill, hope the GOP doesn't manage to kill this. Jonnan
Heh - Wonder if you could set something like that up as a starbase templates - maybe an alternate kind of 'influence' starbase, inasmuich as it would have actual population on it. Jonnan
[quote who="danielost" reply="1268" id="2342017"]yes but you can't put the templates together[/quote] Agreed - I'd like to be able to save certain things together as a unit. Half the fun in this game is using the builder to create a coherent 'navy' - I get so stupid designing ships and 'backstories' for a ship class, but I have fun. You should also be able to save templates that use no 'specialized' components as a 'common' template that any race can use.  
I'd say the article is pretty well on target - I remember anticipating some of the issues when they first came out (What, *Six or Seven* versions? I can't remember all seven DWARVES! Whatever middle manager from marketing hell came up with that idea should have been shot just for suggesting it.) Some of it could've been anticipated but wasn't their *fault* as such, the "Vista Capable" stuff, WinFS (Which even *I* thought would be really cool) not making the grade, et al. A lot of it w
My problem with the jagged knife versus other mega-events is not that they're a game breaker, but that they'e an immersion breaker. It is *so* arbitrary, and obviously so that it reminds you you're in a game, not running an actual empire. Most of the other just aren't that kind of problem for me. Jonnan
Nice ships - very 'realistic' looking with minimal forward profiles and so on. Jonnan
More to the point, the only place I've *ever* heard the term 'save scumming' used before is Nethack. Now - if you want to apply for an 'Iron-man' option, that's a valid request, but unless someone has that toggled on and then cheats around it, it's not 'cheating' in any way explicit or implicit. This ain't Nethack (to be fair, most game ain't) - get over it. Jonnan
My own reaction is "Yes and No". I find the AI in GC II can provide a challenge and keeps you on you toes without cheating. To this extent it is head and shoulder above the AI I've seen in any other game, which can be unchallenging even *with* cheating; Compared to a human? Well, let's not pretend. I would *love* to have deep strategic game like this where I was both competent with the game, and had fear of the AI, without extra resources in it's favor. Not there yet.
Mmm - loaded Morrowind GOTY up recently, May try this after I finish killing Dagoth Ur. For some reason I never got into Oblivion as much as I wanted to. Jonnan
There is a favorites toggle for 'jewelry' in the ship design screen. I would like to see something similar for 'everything else'. At a minimum, something that toggles/autohides all but the best six parts in the weapons/defenses/engines listing for the ship class you have selected: 'cheapest', 'smallest', 'most powerful', 'most powerful'/price, 'most powerful'/'size', Once one has Ultrawarp hyper-subpace-jump-wormhole drives, does one really need to remind contractors that Ion
I concede, I wouldn't mind having tactical *options*, some kind of devisable order of battle kind of thing, but I'm not sure I actually want tactical *control* as such. It's a strategic/political game - I just have difficulty coming up with excuses why the President is ordering individual battles, et al. On the other hand, being able to say "Attack the escorts first" or "Concentrate your fire on that Super Star-Destroyer", well, I can get behind that - {G}. But if I want actua
My apologies people - I should've known he would bring up the *last* argument where he kept posting bs taken out of context and ignoring all factual info he didn't like. I screwed up. I'm sorry. Psychoak - I will maintain that the occasional statement that I have formed an opinion of you based on the fact that your posts are nothing but ongoing examples of fallacies, ad hominem attacks, and statements debunked simply by pasting your words into google and finding the actual con
Psychoak, get over yourself. The definitions, including those you used, show in plain simple to use words even you should be acquanted with that he's right and you're wrong. You're inability to deal with adult conversation and standard definitions is a problem with you, not the rest of the world, and no screaming fits about how some esoteric reference from somewhere can be vaguely used out of context to support your conclusion is going to change that. You're an idiot. We get i
Good Call Lieu- Jonnan
The only two FPS games that ever kept my attention all the way through them were "No One Lives Forever" I and II. Combine "Our Man Flint", "Matt Helm" and "Get Smart", Make agent 99 the protaganist, and you have "No One Lives Forever". Just sayin' - Jonnan
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="22" id="2213300"]Jonnan - You're arguing with me over positions I haven't taken. The discussion wasn't about what things have the strongest correlation with birth rates. Furthermore, there's no news in the notion that socio-economic factors influence birth rates. Even so, the post-WWII 'baby boom' wasn't exactly due to fear that those kids might not make it to 20. However, the birth rate of Muslims in western countries, where t
He ascribed, sarcastically, an aternate definition of working. That's not 'false dichotomy' - you challenged him to define what he meant by 'working' he gave it and he gave his reasons for it, what you want flowers or a hug too? As for the second, well, I won't claim bias as such - but it is indicative of sloppy thinking to my mind - Because there are a lot stronger correlations with birthrate than religion. (The CIA World Factbook is great for stuff like this): Popula
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="13" id="2212333"] [quote]So, if patient satisfaction is good, outcomes are good, and $$$ efficiency is good...that seems to define a lot of what "working" means to me. However, if you define "working" by meaning that drug and insurance companies make amazing profits at the expense of everyone else, I guess you are entitled to that.[/quote] False dichotomy, but says a lot about where you're coming from.[/quote] <a href="http://en.wikipedia
'Blow up' implies too much about how it happens. I concede, we need to get to an even or negative population growth - having a reasonable target of what we need to survive would be a good start - the problem with that is that we are evolutionarily wired to want to produce more with each generation. As a secondary problem, studies of evolution in genetic programming environments suggests that limited resources is itself a driver of evolutionary change, which in turn means doing the 'ma
[quote who="CobraA1" reply="20" id="2211343"]mmk, I think I got it all sorted out here . . . pure socialism under the "centrally planned economy and gov't controlls all means of production" I think is infeasible. But - very few nations today are 100% pure. I think that a mixed economy does work, and frankly seems to be working the best. There will always be arguments over where the lines should be exactly, so I guess I'm not gonna pursue this thread any longer. Nice talk
[quote who="psychoak" reply="17" id="2211213"] [quote]Psychoak, the syllogism has been the simplest, most easily defined logical argument for over 2,000 years, and the syllogism I spelled out is perfectly valid.[/quote] You really are a dumb shit. Why do I keep having to do grade school teaching for a guy that's obviously post college material? Socialism isn't a category, it's a concept. Syllogisms are only applicable where logical, hence the root of the word.
Through the Looking Glass; Chapter VI [quote]'And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!' 'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' 'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected. 'When I use a word,'
Meaning no disrespect - While I will cop to the fact that I've never gotten the knack for simply ignoring Psychoak when he blathers, I have in fact limited myself to correcting him on factual mis-statements - such as the definition of what infrastructure is, and in turn whether government control of Infrastructure is Socialism. If any discussion of this type is to have *any* use, it is vital that recognition of commonly defined terms be enforced, or at least any disagreement on what v
[quote who="psychoak" reply="12" id="2206519"]You're a dumb shit if you think that's logic. Where did you come up with this crap? It should have been the first thing a logic class taught you. The whole cannot be defined as a part, that is a logical fallacy. Socialism is not the public ownership of infrastructure, the public ownership of infrastructure is only a component of socialism. All apples are fruit, but all fruit are not apples? [/quote]
I went to a small hick highschool in the country in Indiana. We had to pass a class in logic to graduate. Was this that unusual?
GalCiv2 Forums