Posts by Drakon

  • Nobel Prize for Peace to ... Barack Obama

    I am not sure of any names either. It is hard to learn about people like those who win these prizes without digging deep for information oneself. After all, bad news sells better than good news and this is clearly reflected in what gets reported. Theres nobody to blame for it, really, but it makes it hard I imagine for people to raise awareness of those who do the most good in the world behind the scenes.


    As for Ron Paul, I do know about him. He was very popular in the county where I live, and his supporters were astoundingly vocal and energetic in campaigning for him. He is a Congressman from Texas 14th district who ran in 1988 for President as the Libertarians candidate, and again during the last election as a Republican. His platform featured an interesting blend of conservative and liberal ideals, which uniquely set him apart from other GOP contenders. I agree with him that combating terrorism with full-scale wars is probably not the best option; habeas corpus must be preserved; torture is unacceptable; the Patriot Act and domestic surveillance are outrageous; and that it is important that our military always be volunteer rather than conscripted. I also am amiable towards some of his positions on election reform and (opposing) the militarys dont ask, dont tell policy. Establishing a balanced budget is also important. Overall though, I have had bad first-hand experiences with his campaign supporters and do not support his ideology as it applies to federal government, economics, religion, and foreign affairs. His views on the 2nd Amendment, healthcare, education, marriage, and the death penalty also concern me. I think that Congressman Paul is a good man with an honest cause - libertarian agendas have pros and cons like any other - but would not vote for him in an election.


    The matter of race that was brought up is also somewhat complicated. While racism certainly persists amongst people of many backgrounds, there is cultural precedence leftover from the past for someone of mixed race to be considered a member of the minority race in the U.S. There was a one drop rule in place under Jim Crow law that stated that a person with any African lineage is African-American (even if he or she physically appears Caucasian). This policy reflected a bigoted attitude that interracial relationships were unacceptable. Any impurity of ancestry automatically made a person part of the inferior group. There are rather strong, deeply-entrenched reasons for why race-related issues persist in the U.S. These are culturally embedded and, to some extent, perpetuated by socioeconomic conditions. Some of the prejudices that linger in our society today will take many generations to fade away.

  • Nobel Prize for Peace to ... Barack Obama

    Diablo: If he should be cut some slack it's because he's been in office less than a year and high expectations mean that everyone is going to feel disappointed regardless of how much gets done. Gender and race are irrelevant when it comes to the Presidency. They have no bearing on the person's ability to do their job. It is the ideas that should matter, and whether or not the public supports them.



    @I am D: Neither of us are lost. We've just got different ways of looking at the world. I agree that police states are bad, but do not think the U.S. is one right now or is on the path to becoming one. This opinion could be rationalized and reinforced with evidence, but you could just as easily do the same for your view. This is because political convictions are forged by life experiences into subtle biases. These encourage pre-drawn conclusions and skepticism towards new ideas. My own experiences have fostered values of interdependence and tolerance, while at the same time undermining my trust of businesses and tradition. Other experiences in college brought me to see most of the government as being like the rest of our society: well-intentioned, but often slightly corrupt and flawed in its thinking. There are very few villains I think - just a lot of good folks who sometimes make bad calls or get their priorities messed up. That includes me. I'm probably wrong about many things, but simply don't realize it.


    If it is any reassurance, by the way, I realize in retrospect that my brief overview of paleoconservatism had spin and made broad generalizations. All the same, it's a perpetual back-and-forth. Radicals label the President as a fascist, secret Muslim, witchdoctor, Stalinist, or puppet of an alleged international conspiracy of Jewish bankers that rule the world (wtf meter -> 8.9). These claims are promoted frequently by my town's newspaper. News programs on television do the same sometimes. Other sources tilt the opposite way and treat conservatives just as unfairly. Therefore, when I see a video like the one posted I cannot trust it without first verifying its credibility as a source of neutral, factual information. What I found on the homepage and during the first few minutes of the documentary justified my suspicions. So I rejected and discredited it as bogus rather than focusing on some of the issues that we strongly agree on (like opposition to domestic espionage).


    Hopefully this helps explain my thinking somewhat, D. I am fine with your beliefs and think its important that millions of people have them. The same applies for my own views. Every ideal and disagreement between groups has a role to play in shaping the future of our society. It would be unhealthy if the People stopped doubting and questioning each others ideas, or the actions of their government.



    @At all: Perhaps an interesting question to see answered would be this: Who do you think should win the next Nobel Peace Prize? There are a lot of amazing people out there whose passions, achievements, and potential go unnoticed by society. If there are any names that come to mind, please post them. :)

  • Nobel Prize for Peace to ... Barack Obama



    @I am D: The documentary was produced by Alex Jones' infowars.com. Alex Jones is a self-proclaimed paleoconservative and talk radio host from Texas who is considered by mainstream media outlets to be a conspiracy theorist. He has released at least a dozen videos since the late 1990s that (more or less) all relate to his negative perception of federal government and international affairs.


    According to Stephine Dubois, paleoconservatism refers to an "Old Right" faction in the U.S. that sees itself as being in keeping with the Founding Fathers' original ideals. People with this ideology reject modern culture and strongly oppose welfare, federal government, free trade, immigration, and U.S. dealings with other countries. Paleoconservatives are to the right-wing as progressives are to the left. In other words, the documentary is roughly as unbiased as a Michael Moore film (who certainly has a flair of his own for documentaries). :P


    As for the paradigm, I keep it because there are major differences between the competing political theories and ideologies. In the U.S. this namely comes down to differing moral standpoints on social issues, the role of religion in our society, and human nature. At present the two "sides" tend to mostly agree on the size of government but differ slightly on which economic models should be embraced.



    @OP: That's a good point. Didn't they award the prize to Premier Gorbachev with similar potential in mind back in the early 90s?



    burro: Yes, I would like to see that kind of progress on the front on energy - especially when it comes to solar, wind, tide, and the replacement of baseload coal-fired plants with Gen. III (and later, Gen. IV) nuclear reactors. A bit more investment in fusion would certainly not be a waste of money, either. Lowered demand for oil will lower prices and may encourage development of poorer parts of the world. It could be a bit of a win-win.

  • Nobel Prize for Peace to ... Barack Obama

    Quote

    Originally posted by burro
    The award shows that Obama is nothing but a sock puppet for the left wing.


    Maybe, but I see the President as moving towards the centre with policy (yet losing it to the reorganizing right-wing). What ever happened to no more wars in the Middle East? He won't even set a time-table for withdraw in Afghanistan while considering to send more troops. Maybe he'd back single-payer health insurance like the rest of the developed world has? Nah - he immediately leapt to a compromise, and when the GOP balked he let Baucus have a swing at it (whose proposal was so conservative and lobbied by insurance companies that I might not vote for re-electing him to the Senate next time). I don't see gays' civil rights being advanced. Or a hard enough turnaround on U.S. environmental policy. Expansion of welfare? Abolishing the death penalty? What about labor unions? Hell - he hasn't even done anything yet to restore proper regulation to the economy (not that he's had a whole lot of time yet). That isn't to say he isn't a very "liberal" individual, but he's certainly no social democrat of the flavor found in Canada or overseas. The President is trying to play things smart. He needs the support of Independents and conservative Democrats more than his left flank, and he knows it. That's how it should be, too - otherwise not a whole lot will get accomplished.


    I still am very fond of him and quite optimistic about the upcoming years though, and seriously doubt that there is some kind of political conspiracy behind the awarding of this prize. :O

  • Nobel Prize for Peace to ... Barack Obama

    I was confused by this choice at first as well... On the record, it is said that President Obama received the prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." For my part, I can think of a few things the American President has done in terms of foreign affairs that may merit this.


    For starters, in the words of the New Zealand Herald, "Not being George Bush was a good start. For Bush represented an arrogant, belligerent, unilateralist style of American foreign policy which served the world ill. Obama arrived with a heart for peace and an openness of mind to other nations which was in itself a huge transformation." President Obama has shifted U.S. diplomatic efforts in a more multilateral direction and is not so dismissive of the UN.


    Talks with Russia regarding nuclear disarmament are to continue after years of rebuilding Cold War tension. The President backed away from prior plans to build an ABM system in Eastern Europe (which had been prompting Russia to deploy mobile launchers on its borders). Relations have been lackluster, especially following efforts to incorporate former Soviet republics into NATO and condemnation of its actions in Georgia (which remains a conflict more complex than it appears). The new and more amiable approach may even get Moscow to become more cooperative with American efforts to put pressure on Iran over its nuclear program.


    The President has also been addressing anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East to some extent. While a speech about Islam and recent diplomatic efforts don't seem to amount to much, he has been inspiring a lot of people around the world. It could be argued that he is more popular abroad than he is here in the United States. While this is certainly no clean break with outmoded, 20th century realpolitik, President Obama does in a way take a step away from it. The Noble Peace Prize is about promoting good relations between nations, pursuit of peaceful resolutions to conflicts, and the reduction of armed forces. Perhaps he didn't deserve it - in his speech today the President himself suggested this - but to be honest I cannot think of someone else who has had a greater impact in the past year.


    Other American recipients going back to 1950 include: Al Gore; Jimmy Carter; Jody Williams; Elie Wiesel; Henry Kissinger; Norman Borlaug; Martin Luther King, Jr.; Linus Pauling; George Marshall; Albert Schweitzer; and Ralph Bunche. The other candidates for this year's prize will not be disclosed until 2059, so if anyone wants to know who else was being considered they'll have to wait. :P



    Edit:


    Quote

    Originally posted by Spiky-
    ......................... giving the Nobel Prize for Peace to an American President....
    I thought I've seen everything


    It was also given to Presidents Jimmy Carter, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson.



    Quote

    Originally posted by SMG_Diablo
    Interesting how most of the Nobel prizes given so far have gone to the people we have never heard of before the prizes and never heard of after the prizes were given (there are a few exceptions) - not just with the Nobel Peace Prizes


    Ya I almost never recognize the names of Nobel prize recipients.



    Quote

    Originally posted by HALDIR
    He got it because he wasnt a republican right wing manic and europe needs to have closer ties with the usa. What has he done well not a lot,he's stopped the us army attacking more soverign countries without un securty council permission i suppose thats a step forward since its their fav pass time,but hey iran better get worried !


    I agree at least with what you say about the U.S. needing to be closer to Europe. In the coming century the world is going to be increasingly interdependent. Isolation and fierce nationalism are no longer in peoples interests. Good relations and free trade make war between nations less likely. While globalization remains controversial, globalism itself may not be such a sticky goal for the world to be eyeing in the long-run. After all, the U.S. cannot remain the worlds superpower forever. The pre-Cold War, multipolar arrangement will eventually return and promote stability and balance between nations. In the meanwhile, it would be nice if my country would resist its occasional urge to behave like a rogue state (and I say that with all due fondness and respect ^^).



    Quote

    Originally posted by I am D
    I will just for now say I think this is BS, since I do not believe he has done anything at all too deserve it. Now if he somehow got everyone too get rid off their nuclear arsenals then I would be impressed. If anyone can have an opinion then mine stands too.. I think he is tricking everyone (along with his admin being in on it) into believing that he is this peace lover or some sort of great guy. Well I don't know where you all get your news, but the USA's war efforts are not very diminished at all and it is not planned for them too be. We WILL stay in Iraq, we will occupy Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we will backup Israel when they attack Iran. All it takes apparently is more then 2 layers of digging and you find out that a lot of lies float too the top and the truth sinks down in this media sinkhole filled with toxic fluids.


    You raise a good point, but I think what has happened here is naïveté. The President believed that he could come into office his first week and easily find a way to end both wars. I imagine he has gotten acquainted with the hard truths and has decided to be pragmatic rather than stick to his campaigns idealism on the matter. I, too, have very mixed feelings about that decision. As for Israel and Iran... they are both nice countries but the world would be a safer place is neither had nuclear capability. Irans government has suggested it may use nuclear weapons against Israel. Israel, meanwhile, has a nuclear arsenal in storage and the West turns a blind eye as it behaves just as immorally (albeit in different ways).



    Quote

    Originally posted by I am D
    I know most of you don't live in the USA so I will forgive you, but what exactly does the UN in any form have anything AT ALL too do with how the USA is operating? IT IS A FOREIGN BODY, it has NO reach onto the USA... Now for some reason SOME people believe that the USA is up for grabs. I as a citizen of it, do not believe so. I as a citizen, think that the USA will be forced into agreeing too end its constitution or radically alter it, in order too join with the NAU.. (similar too EU) Now I do not understand why it is so hard too understand 2 parties being controlled by same group? Another topic for that ofc but just wanted too finish it off with that.


    The UN is flawed and in many ways undemocratic. That having been said, nationalism is a plague set upon humanity by itself. When it comes to matters of global interest, some decisions are a lot more important than national sovereignty. As for the North American Union, that was more than anything a popular conspiracy theory during the Clinton administration. It was intended to scare voters about international trade (especially NAFTA). That having been said, I would welcome such an arrangement. For a variety of reasons Mexico would not fit into such a union anywhere nearly as well as Canada, but still why would a NAU be a bad thing? Why are so many convinced that international dealings are a zero-sum game? I might be mislead, D, but its an interesting subject though either way.



    Quote

    Originally posted by I am D
    The congress has the say of war m8s.[/i]


    And yet Congress hasnt exactly been approving all the wars, has it? It could technically withdraw funding, but itd be political suicide (on roughly the same scale of campaigning on I pledge here today that I shall, if elected, raise your taxes while rolling back retirement benefits for seniors!).



    Just a few thoughts. Hehehe ^^

  • Modding concept ideas

    Expanding upon Blade's idea of strategic playing, perhaps an explosive device a fighter can use as a weapon to self-destruct and kill all targets within a certain area of effect. This would be a clever tool in mass PvP or ambushes.

  • Modding concept ideas

    Multiple ship ownership by one character - ability to toggle between craft provided they are docked at the same station and are owned by the same player. This feature might come alongside the limitation of MP player accounts to one character. This would enhance realism and solve the problem of people using F1 to unfairly leap into or avoid RP situations.


    Pilotable capital ships that can be docked with by players flying freighters or fighters, player battleships capable of spawning NPC fighters, capship cruise engines with superior performance to standard ones, and AI-controlled turrets mounted onto player-flown capships that automatically fire upon hostile contacts that are within range. For the last of these, accuracy could hinge upon the quality of a purchased, mountable piece of equipment - like some kind of computer. Not owning one of these computers would disable the feature and force players to direct and fire their turrets manually. Perhaps a player could also opt to toggle between the two by being granted manual control over turrets whenever he or she switches to Turret View. The idea may also be useful for and applicable to freighters, transports, and fighters that have turrets.


    Dynamic changes to NPC faction patrol routes and their frequency to reflect their interactions with players - because when thousands of NPCs die on the server the factions hit hardest shouldn't be able to simply shrug off their losses. Perhaps this could even expand to changing of certain bases' ownership.


    In multiplayer, a character selection prompt to choose one of the established RPs on the server. This could automatically adjust the player's rep and lock their standings with a handful of the factions to prevent abandonment of role (on CF, for instance, this manifests as everyone either being neutral or having a pro-police rep to minimize the number of NPC attacks on them and maximize the number of conveniently-placed stations to dock with). Matching player RP with NPC faction standings would add realism.


    A starting character editor built-in to the game for OpenSP for those who would like to customize their singleplayer experience with FL. Modified fields may include: Faction - to determine character appearance, starter location, and rep hack to reflect that affiliation; Starter Ship - a choice limited to vanilla Light Fighters, Heavy Fighters, and Freighters; Starting Credits - an amount of the player's choice; Explored Universe - yes or no, a choice that toggles between standard blank map and a complete set of maps with all objects found and all stations listed as docked; and perhaps a number of other more trivial (also modded) game settings.


    Space stations and docking rings that "remember" being shot by a player... and will deny them access to dock (even if his or her rep checks out) until a fine/bribe is paid.

  • Not every mod feature is good for the community

    Correct. If every feature was good for players, we would all have SP rights and capabilities... each player could have the power to ban others and access unbalanced aspects of the mod that were intentionally introduced to give a rule-enforcing minority supremacy over normal players. While a perfect community could manage these powers responsibly and not exploit them, we are not perfect (1).


    There are other features that pose a potential threat to gameplay. One example is cloak capability. It should be taken into account how it will affect player interactions with NPCs, how PvP is conducted, and RP. Perhaps it will encourage strategic thinking... or it might lead to complaints that it ruins some aspect of the game. The same can be said for CF 1.8's proposed singularity weapon. Will this tool be used sparingly and enhance gameplay... or will it induce massive amounts of BMG trade by all RP groups and the rapid, wanton destruction of most of the game's strategic systems? A third example is destructible solars. Will players destroy objects sparingly and for good reasons, or will a small handful of people think it's funny to destroy everything they set eyes on and ruin it for everyone?


    New features of these kinds are gambits. The potential for gain is huge, but also the risk for unforeseen and catastrophic side-effects. What it all comes down to is this: how much power can your trust the worst player on the server with? It is a matter of personal responsibility. Since honor alone is not enough to compel all players to act responsibly, safeguards and restrictions on powerful features should exist to prevent their abuse (2). When implementing a new feature, the modder should address these potential abuses. As much as many of us love new features, they need to have the proper limitations so that things don't get thrown out of balance.


    ________________________________________________


    [size=1](1) Though, for the sake of humoring egos, let us say hypothetically for a moment that are those here who are "quasi-perfect." :P


    (2) In my experience most players are good people... it's just that this amounts to little if there are a few corrupted individuals in the mix.[/size]

  • What is required to build a good mod?

    ...also novelty, "replayability," and seamless integration of new features. Aspects of the mod should seem entirely new and surprising to the player. The whole package must have the right balance of challenge and gratification, so that a person continues to feel satisfied the second time they experience the mod. And the third. And the fourth. There cannot always be something new to discover, but what added content there is should not start to feel stale after a month or two. For the latter of the things I listed, just about any modder can slip in new systems, stations, weapons, and ships. That's a given. And yet... I have seen things on many mods that my gut recognizes immediately as out of place - as wannabe Freelancer content masquerading in disguise. New features should be noticeable, but also subtle enough not to spoil the spirit of the game or represent a negative shift in quality (i.e. it bothers me when added tradelanes don't line up at junctions like the ones in vanilla, when difficulty of gameplay spikes unexpectedly upon jumping into a mod-added system, if added content leads to unbalanced combat... or when I dock at a station to discover, for example, that the Liberty Police that own the base are actually Junkers and Xenos in the bar). The little differences like that set a "cool" mod apart from an excellent one.

  • The recent downtime

    I noticed too - the forums would load as a blank white page and eventually the browser would give up. If this starts up again, would you like us to shoot you a message on MSN to make sure you've been made aware?

  • CF1.8 - How sick are we?

    Firefox crashed when I submitted the post. I had forgotten to add something but could not access it until the forums stopped timing out on me. I do a lot of writing - there's usually nothing I can say that can't be revisited and phrased better.


    Why the hell do you spam these threads and care what I do with my posts? :P

  • CF1.8 - How sick are we?

    Quote

    Originally posted by SMG_Diablo
    Who cares about storyline when there's multiplayer?


    Any amateur mod can give you addictive PvP, rudimentary multiplayer RP, and a handful of eyecandy features. CF is not an amateur mod, however. It brings together staggering numbers of new features and sets itself apart from most by providing them in a smooth, bug-free environment. To make the mod better though it needs to have a soul. That soul comes from having a strong, richly-detailed background story. Fine details like the info cards, voiced station communications, and singleplayer improvements are part of that too. Crossfire cannot simply be "another mod," it should have (at least some of) the play and feel of a professionally designed game. Features being worked on by OP and the rest of the development team strive for a level of excellence beyond what the game already exhibits.

  • CF Grand Melee Event

    Thanks for hosting, Lucy! That having been said, and not to poke fun at your math again, but do check your total for Team 1. ^^


    (edit: I was not contesting the winner, merely that the 43/2 score should be 43/72 - hehehe)