logo Sign In

JediSage

User Group
Members
Join date
22-Mar-2005
Last activity
10-Jan-2011
Posts
2,109

Post History

Post
#261040
Topic
Video Games - a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261040/action/topic#261040
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Hm... I don't know what to tell you, Sage. I've enjoyed PC gaming, but anymore it's so hard to keep up with the technology curve that I really can't get into PC gaming anymore.


That's part of the problem with an open hard-ware system. Nothing stops the developers from constantly jacking up the requirements to play their games. People can always toss in more RAM or a new video card. Whereas with the consoles they have a fixed limit on what they can do.

Post
#261034
Topic
Do you have a gun?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261034/action/topic#261034
Time
I think it's definitely a matter of culture. When I was 12 I was expected to strip and clean my own shotgun, then reassemble it. I was also taken shooting on numerous occasions when I was young, and plan to take my children. There are many areas in this country that have open carry laws, meaning you can carry a pistol or revolver on your hip, exposed. There are also some areas in which owning a gun is mandatory.
Post
#261033
Topic
Video Games - a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261033/action/topic#261033
Time
Does anyone know the name of the song that's being used in the Gears of War commercial? It's very nice, and I think it's called Endless Sorrow or No Tomorrow.

I'm not sure what I want from my gaming these days. I'm definitely much more of a pc gamer vs console, and have been for years. I play Halo on pc whenever I can, and I'm also playing Guild Wars and GTA: Vice City (old, but I'm enjoying playing it again). The problem is that the pc as a gaming platform is dying. There are many games only available in console that I can't get on pc, like God of War and Bully, and it irks me. However, I'd rather spend the $$ on the Wii than on one of the other consoles, so I'm stuck with the same problem.
Post
#261020
Topic
Do you have a gun?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261020/action/topic#261020
Time
Originally posted by: bad_karma24
Well, in Europe it depends on the country. Obviously Switzerland will have different laws then say, Germany.

And machine guns aren't illegal in the US, as long as you have a Class III Licence. I know plenty of people who own .30 calibar machine guns (Browning M1919s) that they use for both reenacting as well as just target shooting.

EDIT: Most people use the term machine gun very broadly. It's usually defined as a squad type defense weapon, such as the M1919, M-60 or a SAW. M-16s are classified as assault rifles or automatic weapons.


The context in which I was speaking was any weapon that is fully automatic.

Yes, modifying a semi-auto can easily turn it into an auto, but that is illegal and people without the legal permission should be arrested for it.
Post
#261014
Topic
Video Games - a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261014/action/topic#261014
Time
I think Sony is in trouble this time...until they can get a good knock-off of the Wii controller. Then I'm sure they'll work on a library of all their games, downloadable to the console. They're not copying Nintendo, though.

Was watching X-Play last week, and they were covering the PS3 launch, and I think it was Grand Tourismo PS3 Morgan Webb was saying that to unlock everything that's "unlockable" in it that it would take like another $400. Unbelievable.
Post
#261001
Topic
Do you have a gun?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261001/action/topic#261001
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
About the responses to my post, it is hard to explain the level of weirdness of it. For cultural shock, I mean the difference between the image we have of a weapon. Over here only criminals and police officers brand guns (even though one can obtain one if proves a need for it), and if someone claimed he wanted to get this or that gun, one would get stares and/or be avoided at a social situation. I remember this girl from Ohio who spent a couple of weeks working with us here, and she owned a freaking machine gun and two shotguns. I asked her if she ever had to shoot anyone, she said no. Then I asked why did she need two shotguns, if it was in case that she ran out of ammo in one of the shotguns, she could grab another and keep shooting at the giant ant or zombie army invading her home...

Anyone from Europe sharing this feelings of shock with this thread?


People here own multiple firearms for many reasons. Some are more appropriate to hunting while others for target practice, still others are better for personal protection. I own two small-caliber rifles that I use to plink away at paper targets. I want to purchase a shotgun for shooting trap (skeet) and also hunting. I'd like to get a pistol for personal carry as well. I'm dubious about the machine gun comment though Ric. It's been illegal to own a fully-automatic firearm in the U.S. since the 1930's.
Post
#260787
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260787/action/topic#260787
Time
From "Criticism of Noam Chomsky's Politics" wiki:

"In The End of Faith, Sam Harris criticizes the ethical propositions that lead Chomsky to direct his rhetoric towards the United States foreign policy (as opposed to the tenets of radical Islam):

Nothing in Chomsky's account acknowledges the difference between intending to kill a child, because of the effect you hope to produce on its parents (we call this "terrorism"), and inadvertently killing a child in an attempt to capture or kill an avowed child murderer (we call this "collateral damage"). In both cases a child has died, and in both cases it is a tragedy. But the ethical status of the perpetrators, be they individuals or states, cold not be more distinct... For [Chomsky], intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all."

Yeah, I see the resemblence.
Post
#260664
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260664/action/topic#260664
Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
What a difference 60 years makes. Now it is the United States that is the unprovoked aggressor.

Though we did not "sneak" attack Iraq, we were nevertheless completely unprovoked. (Unless, of course, you count violation of U.N. resolutions as a provocation for invasion and occupation ... in which case, where is our invastion of Israel???).


I am ASHAMED to be an American.



But hardly ashamed to be me. So you can stop all the self-hater bullsh!t before you start. I do not have to identify as an American, and I do not. I am an individual human being, and I will not be identified with any of the myriad dastardly deeds of the U.S. Empire. It may not be as bad as the Japanese Empire was in 1941 .... but a rapist may not be as bad as a murderer, and yet both are bad-to-the-bone.


LMAO!!...I wish I could embed a sound file of Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the U.S.A." in my reply, but rest assured I'm playing it on my iPod in salute to your reply. The 65 years doesn't really make that much of a difference. If modern day leftists had been around back then they'd have blamed F.D.R. for cutting off Japan's oil supply (if only they'd use wind power maybe it could have been avoided!) and provoking an attack; then again maybe not. Stalin had to be saved, after all.
Post
#260660
Topic
A Date Which Will Live...in Infamy
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260660/action/topic#260660
Time
Where's F.D.R. when you need him?

To the Congress of the United States:

Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with the government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleagues delivered to the Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.

This morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.

Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces - with the unbounding determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, Dec. 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.
Post
#260609
Topic
Do you have a gun?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260609/action/topic#260609
Time
Originally posted by: bad_karma24
Being a WWII reenactor, I currently own an M1 Garand, which IMO is one of the best rifles on the market as far as durability, shooting power, etc go. Very good one rifle all around. Here's a picture of it (and me as well):

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y267/badkarma24/4b4ed2dc.jpg


My father served in Korea after most of the fighting was over, but he still carried an M-1. He is of the opinion it's the greatest weapon ever made for individual soldiers, and scorns the M-16 as a plastic toy. Myself, I'd like to get a Mauser.
Post
#260537
Topic
Do you have a gun?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260537/action/topic#260537
Time
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
Originally posted by: JediSage
I own a couple. I've hunted in the past but also a lot of target shooting. Miss those days...

Why don't you do it anymore?


Lost my taste for it, I guess. I'm not against hunting as long as the animals are killed humanely, but it's just not for me any more.

Post
#260482
Topic
Video Games - a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260482/action/topic#260482
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Luke: only played Zelda and WiiSports so far, so Zelda is it. Gonna pick WarioWare Smooth Moves as soon as it's released here (January).

Chaltab: I've set my Wii at my living room, with the sensor bar right below the TV screen. The TV is set at almost my own height. The console is on the floor to the left (no chance of it falling down).

JediSage: Gah! Someone was quicker then... Well think about it this way: what if the website didn't check for the stock before concluding the order, and they contacted you AFTER you paid to tell you there were no products in stock? Also, is the Wii absolutely sold out in the US?


Yes, I thought about it along this line as well. Buy it then "We will ship it to you when we get more". Not good either way.

No word on a total U.S. sell out. I've talked face-to-face with many local retailers and they all feel they'll get more prior to the Christmas holiday but they don't know when. Very frustrating.
Post
#260464
Topic
The $$$ spent on the war on terror
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260464/action/topic#260464
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Originally posted by: JediSage
Originally posted by: ricarleite
What I'm saying is, if the justification for the action IS to liberate people, them yes it IS justifiable. But the reason for most wars is plainly to PROFIT from them, and use the action porpouse as an excuse for it. That is why no country ever wanted to remove militaristic dictators from Africa, for instance, and that is why the US has funded and backed up evil dictatorships around the world - heck, even Saddam himself!! So spending on war should be the consequence, NOT the real reason for fighting the wars...


But military intervention regardless of the reason is not very....Ghandi-esque, is it?


It isn't, but just to be able to answer your question I oversimplified these terms. To be completely honest to what I belive, no war is ever justifiable because we should be able to prevent them to take place, by providing education, by providing assistance in other areas, by political acts, by the action from it's own people.

BUT people try to mine this way of thinking saying that military actions are the only way to handle these situations, only violence can solve these sort of things and yet... that is not the real reason why countries go to war.

There's no samaritan, altruistic reason for going to war, it's all for the money it generates, and hidden behind this scheme there's a brainwashing on who pays for those wars to take place - we are all paying while we consume - and that brainwashing hides the scheme by using peer preassuer build patriotism, fear, and a sense of doing the right thing, by getting rid of "evil-doers".

But not all of them, eh? Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, all these places never appear on TV. And giving money and WEAPONS to Saddam, well that never happened. Sshh.


You forgot Rwanda...it seems you want to have it both ways. If violence breaks out in an area of the world that we "don't care about" will education in Cuba solve the problem? Aren't more immediate solutions needed in the face of crises? Educating and feeding the world are great ideas, but they are long term ones that can easily be abbrogated when the "educating" country's rulers decide to annex Poland, or most of Eastern Europe, or wipe Israel off the map, for example.

Post
#260442
Topic
The $$$ spent on the war on terror
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260442/action/topic#260442
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
What I'm saying is, if the justification for the action IS to liberate people, them yes it IS justifiable. But the reason for most wars is plainly to PROFIT from them, and use the action porpouse as an excuse for it. That is why no country ever wanted to remove militaristic dictators from Africa, for instance, and that is why the US has funded and backed up evil dictatorships around the world - heck, even Saddam himself!! So spending on war should be the consequence, NOT the real reason for fighting the wars...


But military intervention regardless of the reason is not very....Ghandi-esque, is it?
Post
#260415
Topic
The $$$ spent on the war on terror
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260415/action/topic#260415
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
It is always justified if done the proper way by the proper reasons. A military action IS justifiable to remove Omar al-Bashir. Will it be done? No. Why? No economical profit from it. There's a military action taking place in Haiti lead by the UN, a country teared apart by war, hunger and poverty. Several nations are sending in soldiers (including Brazil). American soldiers in Haiti? None. No profit from it.

So, answering your question, military actions are justified when they are done with the porpouse of saving people's lifes and making them better. WW2 for instance was justifiable. Vietnan was not.


Hmm. So, the companies making the equipment for the U.N. (that noble of most noble organizations, hopefully nobody will be sexually assaulted on their watch) are donating it to them? The workers in the companies making the equipment work for free?

You realize the U.N. is in Haiti because the U.S. urged them to go in during the Clinton administration, and also because the U.S. played a large role in getting Cedras out.

I'm sure the South Vietnamese who were slaughtered after the fall of Saigon would tell you it wasn't a good thing that the U.S. left...
Post
#260393
Topic
The $$$ spent on the war on terror
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/260393/action/topic#260393
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Chaltab what if profiting from war is the only reason behind the war? I mean, so many dictators in the world through the last decades, what made Saddam so special, for example? The no found weapons?


If profiting off the war was the only reason behind it, then I'd agree. But Saddam was a murdering dictator who destabilized the region. We weren't alloud to fly over Iraq, and there was a huge obstacle between Kuwait and Iran should, God forbid, we have to invade that country.

To suggest that profit was the only motive is to suggest that the President is completely and totally controlled by the companies that arm our military, and with an accusation that unlikely, the burden of proof is on the accuser.


So why did the US back up and fund dictatorships in Iran, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, that did pretty much what Saddam did? Why didn't the United States remove Idi Amin Dada, who as a dictator in Uganda mass murdered his people for a period of 10 years? You know who removed him from power? Tanzania. And he lived freely on South Arabia until his death a couple of years ago. Why dosen't the US remove Omar al-Bashir from Sudan - he has killed and tortured hundreds of thousand! Wy not remove Mugabe? Maaaybe because there would be NO profit from doing it?

The only reason for creating wars is economical.


So, military intervention is never justified?