There was a new show, either on Discovery Channel or the History Channel, where they recreated the shot. The bullet pretty much did what the "magic bullet" did. Check it out.
Yeah. Though I think the History Channel or Discovery had another NEW JFK thing. They recreated the shot, and it seems like it is totally possible to have one bullet do what it did.
What is wrong with it? I see re-creations all the time on the History Channel, Discovery, etc, etc, etc. Why not create a game that lets you do it? It is something that happened. Where is the upcry when you have WWII games happening??
It will be interesting to see how Stargate fares against Battlestar Galactica. StarOne has been airing episodes, and I must say this is the best SciFi ever. I think it will slam-dunk Stargate.
And what happened to Farscape? The Peace Keeper Wars was awesome. What about more Farscape????
Hell, the other day we had a aviation fuel pipe blow up in an area where I usually drive through. Looked like something out of the Road Warrior or something. Huge flames, thick black smoke. And I hear the pipe runs along or underneath a trail I bike on frequently. Nice.
I'd say that a Hydrogen tank is no more likely to explode than gas one. Leaking might be a little more likely, but it is just......hydrogen......
Wouldn't a ICBM that is in space be more effective? I mean, I think all the fuel of an ICBM is used to break Earth's gravity. If you want to redirect a meteor, wouldn't you want it to have a lot of fuel to get there? And get there fast?
I'd really like to see a meteor defense started. That is the single most likely thing that could wipe out the whole planet. And lately, we've had a lot of close calls......
However some one in a different state does have the ability so tell you what to do. They can vote at a national level and the national government that is elected can impose laws on all states. So some one in North Carolina has a say on what is legal in California. This isn't me telling you how I think it should be, I'm telling you how it is.
Name an example of this? At a national level, these things appear on a National ballot, and get voted on Nationally. I can't think of anything like what you have just suggested happening.
Step back a bit, what is so special about a nation? I mean, why should democracy stop at the level of a country. Why shouldn't some one in China, or Spain, or Nigeria, or for that matter outer Mongolia have some say with what happens in the US. Maybe not a big say, but its their world to. After all, what does democracy mean to you?
Because it's not vice-versa. That would be like you making a decision to wear something, and everyone else making modifications (sometimes drastic) to it.
Democracy is the will of the people. What you are suggesting might maybe work on a global scale, but I doubt it. Look at the attempts so far. The League of Nations, and then the current dismal result, the United Nations.
An effective way to make the United Nations more global would be to have elections in each member country. And the Sec. General would have to campaign in all the member countries, etc, etc. I for one would feel more "connected" to the United Nations then. Feel like I was a part of it. Right now it seems an aloof, corrupt thing.
You can use that arguement with Drugs. Fact is that they can smuggle things in, and it would be a lot easier to do that than find the stuff domestically.
Not least because Saddam had nothing, nil, nada to do with 9/11 at all, and yet we know that within hours Bush was asking people to look into whether Saddam was behind the attacks.
Again, you look BACK at the events. We didn't know who attacked us. So, logically, Saddam is a person who we would suspect.
Climb down out of your ass and recognise that the great US of A isn't quite as omnipotent as you seem to think.
Never said we were Omnipotent. Yet a lot of people think we should have known about the 9/11 attacks beforehand, and that we should have taken Osama more seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
I see it more of a historical recreation game, where you are trying to see if it could actually be done.
There was a new show, either on Discovery Channel or the History Channel, where they recreated the shot. The bullet pretty much did what the "magic bullet" did. Check it out.
Yeah. Though I think the History Channel or Discovery had another NEW JFK thing. They recreated the shot, and it seems like it is totally possible to have one bullet do what it did.
What is wrong with it? I see re-creations all the time on the History Channel, Discovery, etc, etc, etc. Why not create a game that lets you do it? It is something that happened. Where is the upcry when you have WWII games happening??
Oh, yes, the Meta-Moderators.....poor souls. Right down there with the dung herders...
Those sound like bad jobs to me ;-)
Um, yeah it is. Hence my huge library of like 60+ DVDs of it. Of course, I have friends who have even more....and they are married. Go figure.....
Technically, Battlestar hasn't aired on Scifi yet. When it does, it will be a hit. It has all the elements there to knock everything else out.
And what happened to Farscape? The Peace Keeper Wars was awesome. What about more Farscape????
I'd say that a Hydrogen tank is no more likely to explode than gas one. Leaking might be a little more likely, but it is just......hydrogen......
What? From where?
Ok, agreed. We need at least a better tracking/identification system. Then we could look into some sort of defense system.
At the very least, we need a better tracking/monitoring system.
Erg. I mean a Meteor is the single most likely thing to wipe out the planet. Not the defense system. Duh!
Psh, ok. I think that if you look at the statistics, we are due to get hit by one. Wouldn't it suck if it was in your home town?
Wouldn't a ICBM that is in space be more effective? I mean, I think all the fuel of an ICBM is used to break Earth's gravity. If you want to redirect a meteor, wouldn't you want it to have a lot of fuel to get there? And get there fast?
I'd really like to see a meteor defense started. That is the single most likely thing that could wipe out the whole planet. And lately, we've had a lot of close calls......
A robot with a Crowbar. Seriously. That is the best weapon ever.....
Name an example of this? At a national level, these things appear on a National ballot, and get voted on Nationally. I can't think of anything like what you have just suggested happening.
Step back a bit, what is so special about a nation? I mean, why should democracy stop at the level of a country. Why shouldn't some one in China, or Spain, or Nigeria, or for that matter outer Mongolia have some say with what happens in the US. Maybe not a big say, but its their world to. After all, what does democracy mean to you?
Because it's not vice-versa. That would be like you making a decision to wear something, and everyone else making modifications (sometimes drastic) to it.
Democracy is the will of the people. What you are suggesting might maybe work on a global scale, but I doubt it. Look at the attempts so far. The League of Nations, and then the current dismal result, the United Nations.
An effective way to make the United Nations more global would be to have elections in each member country. And the Sec. General would have to campaign in all the member countries, etc, etc. I for one would feel more "connected" to the United Nations then. Feel like I was a part of it. Right now it seems an aloof, corrupt thing.
In the next 4 years, Bush will show you.
You can use that arguement with Drugs. Fact is that they can smuggle things in, and it would be a lot easier to do that than find the stuff domestically.
I know, seriously. I think that guy had a PhD in Spinology.
No freaking way. Absolutely not. No no no no. Even if hell froze over.
Again, you look BACK at the events. We didn't know who attacked us. So, logically, Saddam is a person who we would suspect.
Climb down out of your ass and recognise that the great US of A isn't quite as omnipotent as you seem to think.
Never said we were Omnipotent. Yet a lot of people think we should have known about the 9/11 attacks beforehand, and that we should have taken Osama more seriously.
And you presented NO evidence. So, am I to just take your word then?