This is slashdot, the mecca of Sysadmins and computer consultants. If we want to protect our jobs and our future we have to all come together. Outsourcing is very bad in many ways. One of which is, these people dont' pay taxes. In the long run outsourcing is bad for both The United states in general and for us. I say we boycott outsourced programs. If your incharge of selecting products dump any that have been made in india. Buy hoem grown or near home grown (European, Canadian, American). No matter how idealistic you are you have to admit this flow of jobs is more than disconcerting. Do you want america to be th land of oppertunity of the land of the service industry.
Lets choose home grown software. We are the largest market, our decisions matter. Every other country is very protective of it's markets, why not us. China has a chinese software quota lets have a american software quota. Write your congressman, write the president, vote for anyone but bush. Make it happen. We dont' have to take this sittign down. We can change it.
We can do somethign about it. Political will to change must be created. The US has a highly protective policy on steel, they didn't just route around it, they had enough pull to do somethign about it. Thats whats we shoudl do.
This is slashdot, the mecca of Sysadmins and computer consultants. If we want to protect our jobs and our future we have to all come together. Outsourcing is very bad in many ways. One of which is, these people dont' pay taxes. In the long run outsourcing is bad for both The United states in general and for us. I say we boycott outsourced programs. If your incharge of selecting products dump any that have been made in india. Buy hoem grown or near home grown (European, Canadian, American). No matter how idealistic you are you have to admit this flow of jobs is more than disconcerting. Do you want america to be th land of oppertunity of the land of the service industry.
Lets choose home grown software. We are the largest market, our decisions matter. Every other country is very protective of it's markets, why not us. China has a chinese software quota lets have a american software quota. Write your congressman, write the president, vote for anyone but bush. Make it happen. We dont' have to take this sittign down. We can change it.
Moderators, you shoudl mod parent down. He's nto syaign anythign significant. Only his opinion that soem system is biased because his favorite is underrepresented. +4 insightful is most definetly not deserved.
Traits occur randomly. Their continued presence in the gene pool is not wholey dependant on the traits survival/reproductive value.
In the absence of selection at the level of individual reproduction, the frequency of a trait will exhibit a random walk around an approach to steady state determined by the rates at which it arises and is eliminated by mutation.
If a trait does not effect either, or does affetc them in a small way but has the attribute that is incrases it's own spread ie. a triat that causes individuals to mate farther away from it's own line, then it will spread.
A trait that causes individuals to mate away from their own line will increase in frequency over the entire population only if individuals that possess that trait reproduce more than those that don't.
One of the great misconceptions is that natural selection improves things. It's the result of statistics.
It is the result of statistics, but it is still an optimizing mechanism. Natural selection works to optimize reproductive success by altering gene frequency. Whether that constitutes an "improvement" depends upon your value system; it is not necessarily to the benefit of any individual or even to the species as a whole. Moreover, it does not follow that the existence of a trait means that it is the product of natural selection. Many traits are probably selectively neutral, and therefore invisible to natural selection.
didn't you just re-iterate evrything I just said. BTW, I said spread not increase percentage. It's percentage of the population that hold this gene won't change only it's "spread".
Traits occur randomly. Their continued presence in the gene pool is not wholey dependant on the traits survival/reproductive value. If the trait does not affect either, then it's presence in the populace will stay at a fixed percentage if this is above a certain maintainable threshhold in the populace. When there is a selective force applied to the population for or against this trait then it's percentage increase or decreases accordingly. If a trait does not effect either, or does affetc them in a small way but has the attribute that is incrases it's own spread ie. a triat that causes individuals to mate farther away from it's own line, then it will spread. It's all statistics. Natural selection doesn't favor anything. It's not anything. It's the result of statistics. It's a attibute of a complex system, not a system itself. Many traits have no value what so ever but exsist because a point mutation caused it and it did not adversly affect the individual. Things like differential hair color and eye color for humans. They don't nessacarily have to exsist because they confer a advantage, only that they do not provide a disatvantage or onyl a slight one.
One of the great misconceptions is that natural selection improves things. It's the result of statistics.
Natural selection is simply the by product of survival/non-survival in a population. A diverse gene pool means that there are more combinations of genetic traits in the populace. It's statistical. so something that influences the statistics of genetic traits can be favored.
Natural selection isn't a thing in itself it's the byproduct of a system. A emergent property of complexity. Any enviromental/socialogical/genetic ect.. variable can affect it. The avoidance of consanguinity may help your progeny avoid reccesive defects but I'm just stating that this benifit has been largly over stated for socialogical reasons.
The whole incest issue is not as clear cut. The concentration of genetic defects only occurs if the deffects are already in the genetic pool. Procreation in two healthy but closly related individuals will nto "magically" create defects. Instead, it a selective trait that most people find it distateful to have children with close family because this preferences ensures a more diverse geentic pool. Those that did not have this repulsion suffered from havign a more specialized and homogenous bloodline and were more susceptabel to beign eliminated form the genetic pool when conditions changed. Many species do nto have this trait and do fine without large amouts of genetic defects. But somewhere in our history it became favorable to have this repulsion.
A "super sonic" torpedo? You mean a torpedo that can travel faster than the speed of sound? Riiiight.
this is implicit. 'the SR-23 is super sonic'. Is a statement that it can go faster then the speed of sound. No ammendments need eb made....is a competitor to the F-15 and F-14, not the F-22
my info on this was incorrect. The f-22 and the su-35 were counter parts. in mid 90's the su-35 was further along in developement then the f-22.
Hind pilots in Afghanistan would probably disagree with you
Possibly, but helicopters in general are fairly fragile things. But the Hind was much more dependable then the Apache. The Commanche project was an attempt to develope a similiarly robust plane.
Torpedo technology: Their torpedos are super sonic. the US torpedos are sub sonic.
Planes: The Russian counter part (Su-27) to the F-22 has been in production longer than the F-22.
Helicopters: The Apache helicopters are much less robust then the Hind. The apache is expensive and requires a lot of maintainence and can be shot down by co-ordinated rifle fire or unguided rpgs. The hind is more durable.
Generally: The US tries a lot of advanced technology but a lot of tiems a lower tech solutions is better. For instance the A10 warthog is a flying ofrtress that is very successful at it'a goals. IT's effective, cheap, druable, and low maintainence. The Army wants to scrap it in favor of a higher tech solution. The Colt carbides the army uses are expensive to make and not much mroe effective than the Ak lines that the russians make. The AK's are cheaper, more durable and essentially provide the same performance.
Right now, the russian military has been sinking into decay, but before the end of the cold war, their war machine was more cost-effective and more effective.
Actually, The Russians have more than twice the number of nukes as the USA. They also are better at intellegence and have more advanced planes and submarines. The reason they lost was lack of economic manuverbility due to their centralized government. They could nto adapt fast enough to economicall overtake or spend dollar for dollar witht he US. In all other areas they kicked your asses. Most FBI/CIA/NSA initiatives against the russians, the russians were aware and fed the US false information. The Us mostly was behind int he arms race.
strict punishments are good no matter the way you catche them. If it bans the cd-key. still a cd-key is only worth $20 USd so it's a relativly tame punishment.
Corn isn't exactly the best plant to use? maybe something with higher sugar content and easier extraction? maybe a grass? Ethanol only needs sugar, there are some pretty high sugar content grasses (umm.. sugar cane but there are others) or even somethign like left over canola biomass?
Or how about a genetically modifie solutions. Take a very simple and robust grass and add a snippit of DNA for fructose/glucose with a super promoter in front, copy it a few dozen tiems and you'll have soem pretty sweet weed. ahh weed.
Think of cd key banning as 1) punishing cheaters 2) a evolutionary force to weed out dumb people who don't secure their computers 3) a way to ensures that people smarten up and don't give important info online to random people 4) it forces cheaters to get more cd-keys. makign it harder for them to play.
All around, it's a huge bennifit. As long as there are few false positives then it's good. The people who get scammed should know better. And even when they do it's not my problem.
I think this technology will be more readily useful in the telecommunicatiosn industry rather than the Computer industry. For computers, their still a decade or more away from using this in any practical way because of issues with light sources, head and miniturization or complex "light" circuits. It'd be infinitly more applicable to fibre transmission. Using this, they can boost signal throught he fibre at a low latency cost because it's solid state and nothign mechnical is needed, also this will allow direct light rerouting instead of a clumsy light->electron signlal->light like they do now. It might make switching faster because all the logical operatiosn are done with light, and you could use it to boost light signals at less cost. This means networks that use fibre with this type of circuit as endpoitns can do so at higher frequencies and thus have higher bandwidth. This would mean Distance would mean even less to computers, maybe making better distributed computing solutions.
RAID has stop meaning Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks since 30s after the invention of the acronym. it's Redundant Array of Independant Disks or random acronym of inept design.
There have always beens some jobs that cannot be outsourced. Even if a telecoms help desk is all foreign they can't outsource service crew off shore. It make sense that with a slow recovery of the US economy (no thanks to bush) that there will be more jobs.
Jobs like DB admin need to be close to the DB and to where the info is coming from to properly administer it. System Analysts and Network analysts must be on site to do their job. Service technicians can't do it from over seas. Web developers can be outsorced but it's almost artistic and cutural gulfs make workign with foreign firms difficult. (Our Firm tried, the indian firm kept trying to use Lime green in their color schemes, no matter hwo often we told them we don't like lime green that).
The outsourcing only spells the end to abundant positions as low level code monkeys. We'll just have to move on and try to adapt like workers did durign the 80's when many manufacturign firms went over seas. There are still a large amount of blue colalr workers despite this, and We'll still have jobs even though an indian firm might be competign with us.
PS: I don't like bush but I'm not a democrat, in fact I'm Canadian. We have more than a vested interest in your prosperity, because it spills oevr here. It does seem liek he's responsible for you current economic slump, by spending so much on defence and offering Tax cuts that the budget won't support. Think more debt. Real soon.
To back up my arguements: TA did not sell well. Thus for the vast majority of players and RTs players it was a blip in their radar. A game they heard of and never played or one that was played but did not sustain a market for either a sequel (kindoms) or their expansions (all 3 of them).
TA units were more or less made by a 8 year old. They looked like what an 8 year old would do with grey metallic looking lego blocks. Very bland. Very amatuer even for it's time.
TA has very strong defence. Defence was cheap and witht he dragons teeth, very hard to avoid. IT did become an immense arms race because you can not assault a base early. A quick rush would use from 50-75 untis or the cammander in a often suicidal rush with your own commander.
The AI also had soem problems. The unit AI would fire blindly into the ground. The patrol commands and some interface features were nice. But the amss attack feature is what makes it less then other RTS. Just like C&C is derided for it's tank rushes, TA has the same problem. Mass them, then send.
TA is not a RTS for RTS players. Even in the replies it's people who did not like *craft or C&C or AGE that like TA. It's the ones who could not multi-task well enough for the *craft games. Who did not like the direction that C&C went (I can't blame them) and who not handle the Complexity of the newer RTS or Age. Which is a small part of thos einterested in RTS's, basically the non-RTS gamers.
Where are the real RTS players. TA barly was a blink in RTS's players minds. The only ones who remember it fondly are the non-RTS players. Read all the comments and you will find comments like "TA was the only RTS I liked". As a true RTs player I'd have to say Ta was mediochre. Not greta. Not horrible. Good but short of the goal. Compared to it's compatriots, C&C: Red alert, Startcraft, Age of empires; TA had no personality. It was bland, the games were longs (3h battles due to the insane power of Defence). It sold about as well as C&C:95 the updated version of C&C made a year or two after. IT was a minor blip. Not some legendary game. Tell me Starcraft is havign a sequel and real RTS gamer will rejoice. Tell us Age of Empires III is coming and REal RTS gamers will rejoice,Tell us Dune III is coming and has nothign to do with EA and we'll rejoiceit, Tell us C&C: Red Alert 3 is comign and we'll hoep to god EA has nothignt o do with it. Tell us TA 2 is coming and you'll get a collective "Meh" from all of us.
Teh burrows should be supported by yours and his armies coming to help. Their a delay tactic. You must go to defend you allie. That kind of rush is pretty weak. The defence is basically, stick the peons int he burrows to delay them form killing anythign, then get yoru amry in to drive them away for to kill them all outright. You also have to remember that the average skill level on Bnet is much greater than the avrage skill level with your friends or on gamespy 100%. The reason why you must optimize in Sc/War3 is because your opponents are better. Against new players, any strat can work as long as you have micro. But fr advanced players you have to be both suprising and efficient.
lol, orcs are on of the best defensive races around. I think he need sot build with betetr structure. I build so that if they attack my workers they must commit themselves because leaving my base takes time. Also if I arrive to defend my base, they cannot leave. My buildings get in their way. In this way I turn aside soem rushes physchologically because they have to commit and literally because the attack cost them. Also bases are easy to defend 1 tower plus my units and a little micro gives me the edge. So 2 or 3 burrows full of peans will make short work f invaders. I think your friend needs to elarn how to build. Put everythign next to each other and do a semi-circle surounding yoru mine. Go for ths instead of the structured and organized way a lot of people try to build.I did this in Sc too. I can hold of 3 players rushign with zealots (4 each, 12 in total) with 1 sunken and my workers. If their new I can decimate their army with 1 sunken and my workers. Even moderate players an find me a pain in the ass. I try as hard as possibly to be the target of the rush in 3v3 game sbecause I can defend them... althoguh terrans give me trouble...
IT's all about how you build and about manipulating the AI in yru favor.
If their rushing with footmen and water elems, then use the wisps to take out the water elems. 2 wisps will both drain the mages and kill the elems. And the rushes are common but often don't work. You have to make sur eyou have soem sort of counter but nto nessacarily another rush.
For rush prevention with NE, start building Hunts/archer asap. For orcs just get 2 burrows and your normal troop compliment of trolls or grunts. Make sure you have a good hero that fits yrou style. When they come have your Dh tank with imolliation and have you FS chain lightning. You can really mash their footmen with this. Predictability leads to death at anothing more than newbie lv l1-6 games. I haven't been successfully rushed since the second month I had war 3.
Slashdot Mirror
They modded me down so I'll post it again:
This is slashdot, the mecca of Sysadmins and computer consultants. If we want to protect our jobs and our future we have to all come together. Outsourcing is very bad in many ways. One of which is, these people dont' pay taxes. In the long run outsourcing is bad for both The United states in general and for us. I say we boycott outsourced programs. If your incharge of selecting products dump any that have been made in india. Buy hoem grown or near home grown (European, Canadian, American). No matter how idealistic you are you have to admit this flow of jobs is more than disconcerting. Do you want america to be th land of oppertunity of the land of the service industry.
Lets choose home grown software. We are the largest market, our decisions matter. Every other country is very protective of it's markets, why not us. China has a chinese software quota lets have a american software quota. Write your congressman, write the president, vote for anyone but bush. Make it happen. We dont' have to take this sittign down. We can change it.
We can do somethign about it. Political will to change must be created. The US has a highly protective policy on steel, they didn't just route around it, they had enough pull to do somethign about it. Thats whats we shoudl do.
This is slashdot, the mecca of Sysadmins and computer consultants. If we want to protect our jobs and our future we have to all come together. Outsourcing is very bad in many ways. One of which is, these people dont' pay taxes. In the long run outsourcing is bad for both The United states in general and for us. I say we boycott outsourced programs. If your incharge of selecting products dump any that have been made in india. Buy hoem grown or near home grown (European, Canadian, American). No matter how idealistic you are you have to admit this flow of jobs is more than disconcerting. Do you want america to be th land of oppertunity of the land of the service industry.
Lets choose home grown software. We are the largest market, our decisions matter. Every other country is very protective of it's markets, why not us. China has a chinese software quota lets have a american software quota. Write your congressman, write the president, vote for anyone but bush. Make it happen. We dont' have to take this sittign down. We can change it.
Moderators, you shoudl mod parent down. He's nto syaign anythign significant. Only his opinion that soem system is biased because his favorite is underrepresented. +4 insightful is most definetly not deserved.
Don't watch what the fanboys love. Don't watch dragon ball Z or GITS. instead watch grave of fireflies.
Traits occur randomly. Their continued presence in the gene pool is not wholey dependant on the traits survival/reproductive value.
In the absence of selection at the level of individual reproduction, the frequency of a trait will exhibit a random walk around an approach to steady state determined by the rates at which it arises and is eliminated by mutation.
If a trait does not effect either, or does affetc them in a small way but has the attribute that is incrases it's own spread ie. a triat that causes individuals to mate farther away from it's own line, then it will spread.
A trait that causes individuals to mate away from their own line will increase in frequency over the entire population only if individuals that possess that trait reproduce more than those that don't.
One of the great misconceptions is that natural selection improves things. It's the result of statistics.
It is the result of statistics, but it is still an optimizing mechanism. Natural selection works to optimize reproductive success by altering gene frequency. Whether that constitutes an "improvement" depends upon your value system; it is not necessarily to the benefit of any individual or even to the species as a whole. Moreover, it does not follow that the existence of a trait means that it is the product of natural selection. Many traits are probably selectively neutral, and therefore invisible to natural selection.
didn't you just re-iterate evrything I just said.
BTW, I said spread not increase percentage. It's percentage of the population that hold this gene won't change only it's "spread".
Traits occur randomly. Their continued presence in the gene pool is not wholey dependant on the traits survival/reproductive value. If the trait does not affect either, then it's presence in the populace will stay at a fixed percentage if this is above a certain maintainable threshhold in the populace. When there is a selective force applied to the population for or against this trait then it's percentage increase or decreases accordingly. If a trait does not effect either, or does affetc them in a small way but has the attribute that is incrases it's own spread ie. a triat that causes individuals to mate farther away from it's own line, then it will spread. It's all statistics. Natural selection doesn't favor anything. It's not anything. It's the result of statistics. It's a attibute of a complex system, not a system itself. Many traits have no value what so ever but exsist because a point mutation caused it and it did not adversly affect the individual. Things like differential hair color and eye color for humans. They don't nessacarily have to exsist because they confer a advantage, only that they do not provide a disatvantage or onyl a slight one.
One of the great misconceptions is that natural selection improves things. It's the result of statistics.
Natural selection is simply the by product of survival/non-survival in a population. A diverse gene pool means that there are more combinations of genetic traits in the populace. It's statistical. so something that influences the statistics of genetic traits can be favored.
Natural selection isn't a thing in itself it's the byproduct of a system. A emergent property of complexity. Any enviromental/socialogical/genetic ect.. variable can affect it. The avoidance of consanguinity may help your progeny avoid reccesive defects but I'm just stating that this benifit has been largly over stated for socialogical reasons.
The whole incest issue is not as clear cut. The concentration of genetic defects only occurs if the deffects are already in the genetic pool. Procreation in two healthy but closly related individuals will nto "magically" create defects. Instead, it a selective trait that most people find it distateful to have children with close family because this preferences ensures a more diverse geentic pool. Those that did not have this repulsion suffered from havign a more specialized and homogenous bloodline and were more susceptabel to beign eliminated form the genetic pool when conditions changed. Many species do nto have this trait and do fine without large amouts of genetic defects. But somewhere in our history it became favorable to have this repulsion.
The whole Janet's boob thing is just ridicoulous. The whole world is laghing at the united states reaction to it. The whole world!
A "super sonic" torpedo? You mean a torpedo that can travel faster than the speed of sound? Riiiight.
...is a competitor to the F-15 and F-14, not the F-22
this is implicit. 'the SR-23 is super sonic'. Is a statement that it can go faster then the speed of sound. No ammendments need eb made.
my info on this was incorrect. The f-22 and the su-35 were counter parts. in mid 90's the su-35 was further along in developement then the f-22.
Hind pilots in Afghanistan would probably disagree with you
Possibly, but helicopters in general are fairly fragile things. But the Hind was much more dependable then the Apache. The Commanche project was an attempt to develope a similiarly robust plane.
Torpedo technology: Their torpedos are super sonic. the US torpedos are sub sonic.
Planes: The Russian counter part (Su-27) to the F-22 has been in production longer than the F-22.
Helicopters: The Apache helicopters are much less robust then the Hind. The apache is expensive and requires a lot of maintainence and can be shot down by co-ordinated rifle fire or unguided rpgs. The hind is more durable.
Generally: The US tries a lot of advanced technology but a lot of tiems a lower tech solutions is better. For instance the A10 warthog is a flying ofrtress that is very successful at it'a goals. IT's effective, cheap, druable, and low maintainence. The Army wants to scrap it in favor of a higher tech solution. The Colt carbides the army uses are expensive to make and not much mroe effective than the Ak lines that the russians make. The AK's are cheaper, more durable and essentially provide the same performance.
Right now, the russian military has been sinking into decay, but before the end of the cold war, their war machine was more cost-effective and more effective.
Actually, The Russians have more than twice the number of nukes as the USA. They also are better at intellegence and have more advanced planes and submarines. The reason they lost was lack of economic manuverbility due to their centralized government. They could nto adapt fast enough to economicall overtake or spend dollar for dollar witht he US. In all other areas they kicked your asses. Most FBI/CIA/NSA initiatives against the russians, the russians were aware and fed the US false information. The Us mostly was behind int he arms race.
strict punishments are good no matter the way you catche them. If it bans the cd-key. still a cd-key is only worth $20 USd so it's a relativly tame punishment.
Corn isn't exactly the best plant to use? maybe something with higher sugar content and easier extraction? maybe a grass? Ethanol only needs sugar, there are some pretty high sugar content grasses (umm.. sugar cane but there are others) or even somethign like left over canola biomass?
Or how about a genetically modifie solutions. Take a very simple and robust grass and add a snippit of DNA for fructose/glucose with a super promoter in front, copy it a few dozen tiems and you'll have soem pretty sweet weed. ahh weed.
Think of cd key banning as
1) punishing cheaters
2) a evolutionary force to weed out dumb people who don't secure their computers
3) a way to ensures that people smarten up and don't give important info online to random people
4) it forces cheaters to get more cd-keys. makign it harder for them to play.
All around, it's a huge bennifit. As long as there are few false positives then it's good. The people who get scammed should know better. And even when they do it's not my problem.
I think this technology will be more readily useful in the telecommunicatiosn industry rather than the Computer industry. For computers, their still a decade or more away from using this in any practical way because of issues with light sources, head and miniturization or complex "light" circuits. It'd be infinitly more applicable to fibre transmission. Using this, they can boost signal throught he fibre at a low latency cost because it's solid state and nothign mechnical is needed, also this will allow direct light rerouting instead of a clumsy light->electron signlal->light like they do now. It might make switching faster because all the logical operatiosn are done with light, and you could use it to boost light signals at less cost. This means networks that use fibre with this type of circuit as endpoitns can do so at higher frequencies and thus have higher bandwidth. This would mean Distance would mean even less to computers, maybe making better distributed computing solutions.
RAID has stop meaning Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks since 30s after the invention of the acronym. it's Redundant Array of Independant Disks or random acronym of inept design.
I currently work for one of those. Adn I'm leaving with 10 mmonths experience, numerous conenction ,and in disgust.
There have always beens some jobs that cannot be outsourced. Even if a telecoms help desk is all foreign they can't outsource service crew off shore. It make sense that with a slow recovery of the US economy (no thanks to bush) that there will be more jobs.
Jobs like DB admin need to be close to the DB and to where the info is coming from to properly administer it. System Analysts and Network analysts must be on site to do their job. Service technicians can't do it from over seas. Web developers can be outsorced but it's almost artistic and cutural gulfs make workign with foreign firms difficult. (Our Firm tried, the indian firm kept trying to use Lime green in their color schemes, no matter hwo often we told them we don't like lime green that).
The outsourcing only spells the end to abundant positions as low level code monkeys. We'll just have to move on and try to adapt like workers did durign the 80's when many manufacturign firms went over seas. There are still a large amount of blue colalr workers despite this, and We'll still have jobs even though an indian firm might be competign with us.
PS: I don't like bush but I'm not a democrat, in fact I'm Canadian. We have more than a vested interest in your prosperity, because it spills oevr here. It does seem liek he's responsible for you current economic slump, by spending so much on defence and offering Tax cuts that the budget won't support. Think more debt. Real soon.
To back up my arguements:
TA did not sell well. Thus for the vast majority of players and RTs players it was a blip in their radar. A game they heard of and never played or one that was played but did not sustain a market for either a sequel (kindoms) or their expansions (all 3 of them).
TA units were more or less made by a 8 year old. They looked like what an 8 year old would do with grey metallic looking lego blocks. Very bland. Very amatuer even for it's time.
TA has very strong defence. Defence was cheap and witht he dragons teeth, very hard to avoid. IT did become an immense arms race because you can not assault a base early. A quick rush would use from 50-75 untis or the cammander in a often suicidal rush with your own commander.
The AI also had soem problems. The unit AI would fire blindly into the ground. The patrol commands and some interface features were nice. But the amss attack feature is what makes it less then other RTS. Just like C&C is derided for it's tank rushes, TA has the same problem. Mass them, then send.
TA is not a RTS for RTS players. Even in the replies it's people who did not like *craft or C&C or AGE that like TA. It's the ones who could not multi-task well enough for the *craft games. Who did not like the direction that C&C went (I can't blame them) and who not handle the Complexity of the newer RTS or Age. Which is a small part of thos einterested in RTS's, basically the non-RTS gamers.
Where are the real RTS players. TA barly was a blink in RTS's players minds. The only ones who remember it fondly are the non-RTS players. Read all the comments and you will find comments like "TA was the only RTS I liked". As a true RTs player I'd have to say Ta was mediochre. Not greta. Not horrible. Good but short of the goal. Compared to it's compatriots, C&C: Red alert, Startcraft, Age of empires; TA had no personality. It was bland, the games were longs (3h battles due to the insane power of Defence). It sold about as well as C&C:95 the updated version of C&C made a year or two after. IT was a minor blip. Not some legendary game. Tell me Starcraft is havign a sequel and real RTS gamer will rejoice. Tell us Age of Empires III is coming and REal RTS gamers will rejoice,Tell us Dune III is coming and has nothign to do with EA and we'll rejoiceit, Tell us C&C: Red Alert 3 is comign and we'll hoep to god EA has nothignt o do with it. Tell us TA 2 is coming and you'll get a collective "Meh" from all of us.
Teh burrows should be supported by yours and his armies coming to help. Their a delay tactic. You must go to defend you allie. That kind of rush is pretty weak. The defence is basically, stick the peons int he burrows to delay them form killing anythign, then get yoru amry in to drive them away for to kill them all outright. You also have to remember that the average skill level on Bnet is much greater than the avrage skill level with your friends or on gamespy 100%. The reason why you must optimize in Sc/War3 is because your opponents are better. Against new players, any strat can work as long as you have micro. But fr advanced players you have to be both suprising and efficient.
lol, orcs are on of the best defensive races around. I think he need sot build with betetr structure. I build so that if they attack my workers they must commit themselves because leaving my base takes time. Also if I arrive to defend my base, they cannot leave. My buildings get in their way. In this way I turn aside soem rushes physchologically because they have to commit and literally because the attack cost them. Also bases are easy to defend 1 tower plus my units and a little micro gives me the edge. So 2 or 3 burrows full of peans will make short work f invaders. I think your friend needs to elarn how to build. Put everythign next to each other and do a semi-circle surounding yoru mine. Go for ths instead of the structured and organized way a lot of people try to build.I did this in Sc too. I can hold of 3 players rushign with zealots (4 each, 12 in total) with 1 sunken and my workers. If their new I can decimate their army with 1 sunken and my workers. Even moderate players an find me a pain in the ass. I try as hard as possibly to be the target of the rush in 3v3 game sbecause I can defend them ... althoguh terrans give me trouble...
IT's all about how you build and about manipulating the AI in yru favor.
If their rushing with footmen and water elems, then use the wisps to take out the water elems. 2 wisps will both drain the mages and kill the elems. And the rushes are common but often don't work. You have to make sur eyou have soem sort of counter but nto nessacarily another rush.
For rush prevention with NE, start building Hunts/archer asap. For orcs just get 2 burrows and your normal troop compliment of trolls or grunts. Make sure you have a good hero that fits yrou style. When they come have your Dh tank with imolliation and have you FS chain lightning. You can really mash their footmen with this. Predictability leads to death at anothing more than newbie lv l1-6 games. I haven't been successfully rushed since the second month I had war 3.