EVE can be a pretty casual game as well, if your not running a corp. I play it maybe 2-3 hours a week, I'm in a reasonable sized Corp and I have fun. It allows me to level up outside of the game so I don't get punished for not playing it 24x7.
As for lag in certain systems. They tended to happen in main bridge systems (single point systems to outer areas). I haven't had an issue with it in 6 months and they now even give you a traffic report on the overhead system map so you can intentionally avoid congested systems.
Its one of the few MMO that are really casual to play.
Your somewhat correct. Eve is a pure-social game if you want to get anywhere or have any real fun. There is only so much you can do as single player.
However you are incorrect on the grouping. There are a large number of missions where you are required to group, and as I said playing solo in the game isn't going to get you anywhere fast.
They licensed the core code from SpyGlass after Netscape told them to get lost (when they tried to buy Netscape).
The contract went something like paying a minimal royality fee and a percentage of profit of every IE sold.
Then MS sold it for free which meant that spyglass got 0% profit from each IE and all thier other customers dumped them because they found they could just use MSIE which had the same codebase but they didn't have to pay.
It almost put spyglass out of business. They later sued microsoft and won $8 million. Small victory.
yea that was what I was thinking too. What goes on in China in regards to the Internet is terrible, but appears to have no real effect on the rest of the world.
> If these people were talking in the park about > a plan to rob a bank, and a policeman > overheard this, wouldn't you expect them > to be arrested?
Pretty sure the answer would be no. They can't be arrested. They may draw attention for an investigation but you can't pull people off the streets for saying stuff. Least not in a free society.
I don't think the FBI is doing a bad job. It is thier job after all to find internal threats to the US. Its just that Bush is flagging horribly behind so I am sure your going to hear loads of these "wins" in the run up to the elections. Considering certain members of the administration was happy to commit treason to help the administration I'll put even money on that they will release details of an investigation as a huge win which will totally screw up that investigation.
> Witches? Hello? Could you join us in the 21st century?
Wiccians are reconised by the US military (1,800 registered). Well up until the point when they die then they refuse to allow them to place thier symbol on the headstones.
Its not completly a thing of the past, about 65 years or there abouts (I'm not wiccan, so someone feel free to correct me).
Also cited as the fastest growing religon in the USA.
Although why they got lumped with nutjobs who do cause damage is beyond me, as it is a peaceful religon (do no harm, and whatnot). Although I am sure we will have a Satan worshipper on explaining they are peaceful too?:) I don't know enough about that religon to comment.
Thanks for the link. I was aware of Halliburton working in Iran despite the embargo but never knew how they did it.
On a somewhat related topic I saw recently that Cheney is now dumping all his money in areas which will protect his earnings from any potencial economy crash in the US?
thought I'd add to this. Clinton did implement some law (I forget which) but there was a law passed after 9/11 that made the transfer of money a bit more restrictive (in regards to what triggers HLS).
Actually it came in around just after 9/11. Because prior to 9/11 I had routinely moved money from my US bank to my bank in Ireland. After 9/11 my bank were reluctant to wire money as they said they would have to go through a whole range of procedures that would delay them. At that time me turning up and getting a cheque wouldn't (but I was in no mood to fly back to the US to get the cash, and don't trust postal service).
>Heh. So THAT's what you're talking about. >Yep, in 3 months in a country the size of Iraq, >a small team of UN inspectors couldn't find any >wapons of mass destruction.
Yes its a shame that when Bush and Rumsfeld went on national TV and in front of the UN saying "We know exactly where the WMD are" that they didn't tell the UN inspectors, might of made your claim a bit more plausible and sped things up.
btw, it was about 5 months. But you haven't let facts get in the way so far.
>Doubtless you're now going to suggest more time should >have been given to the UN to send more inspectors,
No need to. Hans Blix had said that already in his final report. That the deadline wasn't a real one if they were expected to complete thier job fully.
Even when this was going on we had Bush claiming that he could launch an attack on the US or neighbouring countries, or linked to AQ. When in fact sanctions had crippled the country and even his forces were no longer strong (and had tried to surrender before hostilities started) and AQ were sworn enemies of Saddam.
> have them be blocked by Saddam at > every turn the way he had in the past,
Actually the final two reports from Hans Blix said that while they were still investigating Saddam had been complying fully with the investigations.
> and then have him throw them > out of the country again.
They were thrown out of the country before because of the US and England. The UN inspectors were sent into to do a job. That was to disarm any WMD and audit all weapons. If they had been allowed to do thier job instead of the US and England planting spies into the inspector teams Saddam wouldn't of had an valid excuse to kick them out.
> I said the FIREWALL won't let me access it numbnuts.
Oh right, dismissing it because your incapable of watching it.
> The resolution was ratified in November of 2002. What the hell is wrong with you? > Inspectors had been in and out of Iraq since the early 90's.
I am not lying about the order of events at all. Inspectors were in after the first gulf war that is true. They destroyed or accounted for pretty much everything that was destroyed.
After resolution 1441 the inspectors were sent in again, which again Saddam agreed to November 13th 2002.
Feb 15th 2003 Hans Blix gives a report stating that no WMD have been found and that Powells case to the UN didn't add up with the facts.
Most of his reports up to March 2003 were much the same. The best they could find were rockets which exceeded the allowed flight distance per the disarmenent treaty (they were destroyed) and a drone.
No WMD, no biological agents, no chemical agents found that were not already accounted for and destroryed/inert at that point.
Despite reports that there were no WMD Bush still claimed at his famous "Moment of Truth" Speech. After the war when it was realised there were no WMD he changed it from having WMD to "Plans to build WMD", when they couldn't find that it was "He was a bad man".
All of Powells proof to the UN in the documentry is debunked. The Yellow Cake claims (which were quickly retracted) was so fake it was laughable.
>Also, the fact that the director of your "documentary" seems to >make his living creating anti-US-government propaganda p
Ahh I see attack the director rather then refute the claims in the documentry. Because that is so much easier to do. Watch the first 10 minutes and come back let us know which of the numerous people who list thier jobs and qualifications are anti-US-Government (considering a large number worked in the US government).
Like I said, all you spout is half-truths or something you would get from Fox-News. You can continue to believe them, but keep your ignorance to yourself.
Feel free to call me names if you want, won't change the fact you are wrong.
I doubt anyone could convince you to be honest, but I'd prefer people actually saw the facts then actually believed some of the stuff you were spouting.
>Like I said, if you have any relevant info which backs up > your statements, please feel free to link to it. > Preferably not in video format.
I have already posted a link to an hour long documentry which has a large number of famous people in various government/Military departments of various countries that were directly related with dealing with Iraq and details documents that you so much crave.
Just because your unable to actually watch it is not my problem. I suggest you get a better machine or rent the documentry.
> important bit to the topic at hand is that resolution 1441 clearly > shows that the UN was of the beleif that Iraq still had biological and chemical weapons.
and what you fail to point out that is that this was prior to weapons inspectors going in, who guess what didn't find anything.
Heck even Saddam ratified the treaty during that time.
> Sure sounds to me like they thought Iraq had WMD's.
You do know that UN resolution was written by USA and England. You also know that the US couldn't get the resolution through until they removed the part that detailed they could go to war if the resolution failed.
> If you have any evidence at all to back your assertions, please, feel free to post it.
I guess you didn't even watch the documentry? How about you watch that and refute what actual EXPERTS IN THAT FIELD said at that time.
UN inspectors = Could not find WMD that were not already accounted for and not deactivated. Demanded more time to inspect.
As for the intelligence community most of them said that there no weapons of mass Destruction in Iraq, including the CIA who gave bush a report detailing it.
There is a very good free documentry called "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About The Iraq War". Contains a whole range of famous and professionals in the area who detail that Bush was full of crap in regards to WMD (and absolutly no micheal moore in it thank god).
You can watch it here. Everything mentioned in it you can research for yourself.
> - The internet was developed with US Government money
At one point maybe but we are far beyond that now.
> - We allow foriegn interests access but as long as they play by our rules
lol. ICANN just manage the addresses. The rest of the world could just as a easily create thier own version of ICANN and continue on without the US. The US could become like China then.
> I get to scale down my nightmares when > a) they are gone, or > b) someone else is chosen to have them.
Then your going to lead a frightning life.
The fact of the matter is there are numerous ways terrorists can act, yet please feel free to find me one instance of any kind of nuclear attack by terrorists. Good luck with that.
Meanwhile sales in Duct Tape are up everytime the US government goes "Boo!".
Terrorists are made out to be the bug-a-boo of the US by the current government when truth be told the actual amount of people killed by terrorists is absolutly tiny in comparison to almost everything else.
You are more likely to die due to obesity (Heart Disease). Heck more people died of aids in 2001 then due to a terrorist attack
Yet if we were to listen to Bush there would be AQ hiding in your soup with nuclear launchers and dirty bombs. I guess you can't invade a country on the premise of combatting heart disease.
So next time before engaging your mouth off, try looking at realistic fears and dealing with them.
>That's just to let you know about what OUR nightmares are
I always wondered what the fascination was about the "Most extreme way to go" senarios people are thrown at them.
Nuclear... tosh. Could it happen? Yes it could. It is a likely senario for AQ? Probably to absolutly not. You are more likely to be hit by a metorite.
Take a look at 9/11. The planes were taken with box cutter knives. A very low tech solution.
Without listing (cause tbh I don't want a trip to gitmo) but I can easily think off 20 or so ways to incite terror which requires absolutly no access to nuclear material using normal household goods. If the person being alive afterwards wasn't an issue, then numerous more.
Heck the CIA back during the Iran/Contra even created Pamplets on how to incite terror/overthrow a government and dumped them in other countries. Its not like they had to give them nukes then either.
I think you need to scale down on your nightmares and just get on with your life.
Basically people who had nothing to do with terrorism were rounded up (intentionally or due to clerical errors/mistaken identities) and put into a camp where they were tortured and held without any rights. The actions of the 1970's did nothing but increase the number of people joining the IRA which in turn led to more pointless killings.
The only way to fight terrorism is to combat the cause they stand behind. Again the IRA is a good example, had little to no support in Ireland until the Civil rights issues in the 60s-70s. Once the civil rights issues were addressed they have more of less faded away in relation to the support they get.
Until you address the issues of what the people in the Middle East are upset about your going to continue this circle for violence for a long time (Ireland went on for over 40 years). Despite what some people think it is not a case of "they hate our freedoms".
Slashdot Mirror
EVE can be a pretty casual game as well, if your not running a corp. I play it maybe 2-3 hours a week, I'm in a reasonable sized Corp and I have fun. It allows me to level up outside of the game so I don't get punished for not playing it 24x7.
As for lag in certain systems. They tended to happen in main bridge systems (single point systems to outer areas). I haven't had an issue with it in 6 months and they now even give you a traffic report on the overhead system map so you can intentionally avoid congested systems.
Its one of the few MMO that are really casual to play.
>I found the opposite.. it was as boring as hell.
Your somewhat correct. Eve is a pure-social game if you want to get anywhere or have any real fun. There is only so much you can do as single player.
However you are incorrect on the grouping. There are a large number of missions where you are required to group, and as I said playing solo in the game isn't going to get you anywhere fast.
Guess it would depend on how all thier other contracts where or how much they expected to make when they signed the deal with Microsoft.
Microsoft didn't build IE to begin with.
They licensed the core code from SpyGlass after Netscape told them to get lost (when they tried to buy Netscape).
The contract went something like paying a minimal royality fee and a percentage of profit of every IE sold.
Then MS sold it for free which meant that spyglass got 0% profit from each IE and all thier other customers dumped them because they found they could just use MSIE which had the same codebase but they didn't have to pay.
It almost put spyglass out of business. They later sued microsoft and won $8 million. Small victory.
Technically thats all the US is too. Except you call them States.
Would be interested to see how each state ranks up in GDP vs other countries.
yea that was what I was thinking too. What goes on in China in regards to the Internet is terrible, but appears to have no real effect on the rest of the world.
> If these people were talking in the park about
> a plan to rob a bank, and a policeman
> overheard this, wouldn't you expect them
> to be arrested?
Pretty sure the answer would be no. They can't be arrested. They may draw attention for an investigation but you can't pull people off the streets for saying stuff. Least not in a free society.
I don't think the FBI is doing a bad job. It is thier job after all to find internal threats to the US. Its just that Bush is flagging horribly behind so I am sure your going to hear loads of these "wins" in the run up to the elections. Considering certain members of the administration was happy to commit treason to help the administration I'll put even money on that they will release details of an investigation as a huge win which will totally screw up that investigation.
Call me cynical if you must but I am sure we will be getting more of the "Our system works!" in the run up to November.
Especially since the last announcement by the administration which turned out to not be AQ related, had no real plan or ability to carry it out.
Considering they found the guys on IRC its more likely they found a shower of idiots then actual terrorists.
Just under 2 million (average estimate). Hardly call that a handful.
> Witches? Hello? Could you join us in the 21st century?
:) I don't know enough about that religon to comment.
Wiccians are reconised by the US military (1,800 registered). Well up until the point when they die then they refuse to allow them to place thier symbol on the headstones.
Its not completly a thing of the past, about 65 years or there abouts (I'm not wiccan, so someone feel free to correct me).
Also cited as the fastest growing religon in the USA.
Although why they got lumped with nutjobs who do cause damage is beyond me, as it is a peaceful religon (do no harm, and whatnot). Although I am sure we will have a Satan worshipper on explaining they are peaceful too?
Thanks for the link. I was aware of Halliburton working in Iran despite the embargo but never knew how they did it.
i on/epaper/2006/06/18/m10a_blackburncol_0619.html
On a somewhat related topic I saw recently that Cheney is now dumping all his money in areas which will protect his earnings from any potencial economy crash in the US?
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opin
I haven't seen the magazine in question but the information (that I Could find) seemed to tie up.
thought I'd add to this. Clinton did implement some law (I forget which) but there was a law passed after 9/11 that made the transfer of money a bit more restrictive (in regards to what triggers HLS).
Actually it came in around just after 9/11. Because prior to 9/11 I had routinely moved money from my US bank to my bank in Ireland. After 9/11 my bank were reluctant to wire money as they said they would have to go through a whole range of procedures that would delay them. At that time me turning up and getting a cheque wouldn't (but I was in no mood to fly back to the US to get the cash, and don't trust postal service).
>Heh. So THAT's what you're talking about.
>Yep, in 3 months in a country the size of Iraq,
>a small team of UN inspectors couldn't find any
>wapons of mass destruction.
Yes its a shame that when Bush and Rumsfeld went on national TV and in front of the UN saying "We know exactly where the WMD are" that they didn't tell the UN inspectors, might of made your claim a bit more plausible and sped things up.
btw, it was about 5 months. But you haven't let facts get in the way so far.
>Doubtless you're now going to suggest more time should
>have been given to the UN to send more inspectors,
No need to. Hans Blix had said that already in his final report. That the deadline wasn't a real one if they were expected to complete thier job fully.
Even when this was going on we had Bush claiming that he could launch an attack on the US or neighbouring countries, or linked to AQ. When in fact sanctions had crippled the country and even his forces were no longer strong (and had tried to surrender before hostilities started) and AQ were sworn enemies of Saddam.
> have them be blocked by Saddam at
> every turn the way he had in the past,
Actually the final two reports from Hans Blix said that while they were still investigating Saddam had been complying fully with the investigations.
> and then have him throw them
> out of the country again.
They were thrown out of the country before because of the US and England. The UN inspectors were sent into to do a job. That was to disarm any WMD and audit all weapons. If they had been allowed to do thier job instead of the US and England planting spies into the inspector teams Saddam wouldn't of had an valid excuse to kick them out.
> I said the FIREWALL won't let me access it numbnuts.
Oh right, dismissing it because your incapable of watching it.
> The resolution was ratified in November of 2002. What the hell is wrong with you?
> Inspectors had been in and out of Iraq since the early 90's.
I am not lying about the order of events at all. Inspectors were in after the first gulf war that is true. They destroyed or accounted for pretty much everything that was destroyed.
After resolution 1441 the inspectors were sent in again, which again Saddam agreed to November 13th 2002.
Feb 15th 2003 Hans Blix gives a report stating that no WMD have been found and that Powells case to the UN didn't add up with the facts.
Most of his reports up to March 2003 were much the same. The best they could find were rockets which exceeded the allowed flight distance per the disarmenent treaty (they were destroyed) and a drone.
No WMD, no biological agents, no chemical agents found that were not already accounted for and destroryed/inert at that point.
Despite reports that there were no WMD Bush still claimed at his famous "Moment of Truth" Speech. After the war when it was realised there were no WMD he changed it from having WMD to "Plans to build WMD", when they couldn't find that it was "He was a bad man".
All of Powells proof to the UN in the documentry is debunked. The Yellow Cake claims (which were quickly retracted) was so fake it was laughable.
>Also, the fact that the director of your "documentary" seems to
>make his living creating anti-US-government propaganda p
Ahh I see attack the director rather then refute the claims in the documentry. Because that is so much easier to do. Watch the first 10 minutes and come back let us know which of the numerous people who list thier jobs and qualifications are anti-US-Government (considering a large number worked in the US government).
Like I said, all you spout is half-truths or something you would get from Fox-News. You can continue to believe them, but keep your ignorance to yourself.
Feel free to call me names if you want, won't change the fact you are wrong.
>You've deffinitely convinced me!
I doubt anyone could convince you to be honest, but I'd prefer people actually saw the facts then actually believed some of the stuff you were spouting.
>Like I said, if you have any relevant info which backs up
> your statements, please feel free to link to it.
> Preferably not in video format.
I have already posted a link to an hour long documentry which has a large number of famous people in various government/Military departments of various countries that were directly related with dealing with Iraq and details documents that you so much crave.
Just because your unable to actually watch it is not my problem. I suggest you get a better machine or rent the documentry.
> important bit to the topic at hand is that resolution 1441 clearly
> shows that the UN was of the beleif that Iraq still had biological and chemical weapons.
and what you fail to point out that is that this was prior to weapons inspectors going in, who guess what didn't find anything.
Heck even Saddam ratified the treaty during that time.
> Sure sounds to me like they thought Iraq had WMD's.
You do know that UN resolution was written by USA and England. You also know that the US couldn't get the resolution through until they removed the part that detailed they could go to war if the resolution failed.
> If you have any evidence at all to back your assertions, please, feel free to post it.
I guess you didn't even watch the documentry? How about you watch that and refute what actual EXPERTS IN THAT FIELD said at that time.
k.thx.bye.
Sorry but your horribly wrong.
4 23.htm
UN inspectors = Could not find WMD that were not already accounted for and not deactivated. Demanded more time to inspect.
As for the intelligence community most of them said that there no weapons of mass Destruction in Iraq, including the CIA who gave bush a report detailing it.
There is a very good free documentry called "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About The Iraq War". Contains a whole range of famous and professionals in the area who detail that Bush was full of crap in regards to WMD (and absolutly no micheal moore in it thank god).
You can watch it here. Everything mentioned in it you can research for yourself.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6
> Cluster bomb bomblets, basically small touch-sensitive
> tactical mines, are even worse with an estimated
> failure-to-explode rate around 25%-30%.
They also had the same colour and similar size to US ration packs or at least they did back in 2001-2002 in Afganistan). http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/foodorbomb.jpg
The ration packs were changed to Salmon colour after that screw up.
Sorry this doesn't make sense at all.
> - The internet was developed with US Government money
At one point maybe but we are far beyond that now.
> - We allow foriegn interests access but as long as they play by our rules
lol. ICANN just manage the addresses. The rest of the world could just as a easily create thier own version of ICANN and continue on without the US. The US could become like China then.
Would be the same thing. You just record them beforehand.
Seti found some interesting signals. Not proof of intelligent life but enough to start pointing in those general directions.
Anyone else recall this or have more details?
> I get to scale down my nightmares when
> a) they are gone, or
> b) someone else is chosen to have them.
Then your going to lead a frightning life.
The fact of the matter is there are numerous ways terrorists can act, yet please feel free to find me one instance of any kind of nuclear attack by terrorists. Good luck with that.
Meanwhile sales in Duct Tape are up everytime the US government goes "Boo!".
Terrorists are made out to be the bug-a-boo of the US by the current government when truth be told the actual amount of people killed by terrorists is absolutly tiny in comparison to almost everything else.
You are more likely to die due to obesity (Heart Disease). Heck more people died of aids in 2001 then due to a terrorist attack
Yet if we were to listen to Bush there would be AQ hiding in your soup with nuclear launchers and dirty bombs. I guess you can't invade a country on the premise of combatting heart disease.
So next time before engaging your mouth off, try looking at realistic fears and dealing with them.
>That's just to let you know about what OUR nightmares are
I always wondered what the fascination was about the "Most extreme way to go" senarios people are thrown at them.
Nuclear... tosh. Could it happen? Yes it could. It is a likely senario for AQ? Probably to absolutly not. You are more likely to be hit by a metorite.
Take a look at 9/11. The planes were taken with box cutter knives. A very low tech solution.
Without listing (cause tbh I don't want a trip to gitmo) but I can easily think off 20 or so ways to incite terror which requires absolutly no access to nuclear material using normal household goods. If the person being alive afterwards wasn't an issue, then numerous more.
Heck the CIA back during the Iran/Contra even created Pamplets on how to incite terror/overthrow a government and dumped them in other countries. Its not like they had to give them nukes then either.
I think you need to scale down on your nightmares and just get on with your life.
I wish I could mod you up as the parallels between Northern Irelands Internment and Gitmo are frightning.
There is some good reading on Internment here..
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/intern/index.html
Basically people who had nothing to do with terrorism were rounded up (intentionally or due to clerical errors/mistaken identities) and put into a camp where they were tortured and held without any rights. The actions of the 1970's did nothing but increase the number of people joining the IRA which in turn led to more pointless killings.
The only way to fight terrorism is to combat the cause they stand behind. Again the IRA is a good example, had little to no support in Ireland until the Civil rights issues in the 60s-70s. Once the civil rights issues were addressed they have more of less faded away in relation to the support they get.
Until you address the issues of what the people in the Middle East are upset about your going to continue this circle for violence for a long time (Ireland went on for over 40 years). Despite what some people think it is not a case of "they hate our freedoms".