Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/17/2018 in all areas

  1. 5 points
  2. 5 points
    Weekend was really busy but I chose to work an all nighter and finish the main body, this week I will work on gunpod and superparts to the final run on this project, should be done by Sunday
  3. 4 points
    Finally wrapped up my M+ shelf!!
  4. 3 points
    Looks great! If you can track down one of Xigfrids 1:60 Ghost X9 kits, it's totally worth it and rounds out the Mac Plus aircraft.
  5. 2 points
    so....slightly off topic, but I was at the pet store with my kids just looking around and turned the corner and saw these two birds just chilling in their cage and thought, "Hey, that looks like..." well, you know what I thought.
  6. 2 points
    Random extra pic.
  7. 1 point
    I see at least one pair of TV clown hands, so there's that.
  8. 1 point
  9. 1 point
    Okay that's the best comment I've read in awhile.
  10. 1 point
    Yeah, that's what she said
  11. 1 point
  12. 1 point
    You can purchase decal paper for inkjet or laser printers, then just print them out like you would anything else. After you print them out, you spray a later of Krylon acrylic over the sheet to seal in the decal prints. Once it's cured, they're exactly like waterslide decals. You can manipulate the images in Photoshop to have as many or as few of any particular decal you want before printing and to clean up any imperfections on the scan. I prefer to fill up an entire sheet before printing so as not to waste decal paper. Sometimes I'll test print on plain paper to see how the decals look and how big they are before committing them to the more expensive decal paper. There are limits to printing your own decals though. You can't print in white, and decal paper is transparent so they only look good on light surfaces. There is white-backed decal paper but that's only good for certain types of images, and you have to trim the image out exactly. Example of decal paper for inkjet printers: https://www.amazon.com/Premium-Waterslide-Decal-Paper-Inkjet/dp/B07CBJLNCT/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1544924123&sr=8-6&keywords=decal+paper+inkjet
  13. 1 point
    You keep using that word... and I'm torn between suspecting you simply don't know what it means, and being appalled by the implication that you think your morals are absolutes. Ah, no... it does not. Why? Morality is fundamentally subjective. "Good" and "Evil", "Right" and "Wrong"... these things depend on the views of the speaker. The cultural, societal, and legal norms they were raised in, their education, and their own experiences and feelings. They're subject to change over time based on changes in society and culture, personal views and experiences, health, and more. Sometimes they change rapidly, and other times it takes generations. The point is that they are not constant over time or between individuals. Case in point, there are cultures on this planet where various entries on this list are NOT considered evil. The view that human trafficking and slavery are "evil" is a relatively recent cultural development that's still a long way from universal acceptance. Until the mid-19th century, they were not only considered socially acceptable but necessary for the maintenance of society in even the most enlightened ancient cultures and modern nations like the US and UK. The last country to ban slavery (Mauritania) didn't ban it until 1981, and even then they didn't actually criminalize owning slaves until 2007. There are estimated to be somewhere between 12 and 30 million slaves in the world today. It's still widely practiced despite being illegal in much of central and southern Africa, India, Pakistan, most of Southeast Asia, Russia, and western South America. Human cannibalism likewise used to be widely practiced, socially acceptable, and even religiously significant in many cultures. There are religious and tribal groups like the Aghori and Korowai that still consider cannibalism socially acceptable and practice it. Same story with paedophilia. Standards for what ages are acceptable vary quite a bit between cultures and religions and have likewise changed over time as well. Fairly recently we had a former judge from down south who ran for office and was dogged by a scandal involving different attitudes towards acceptable ages in the same culture and country. He had been involved with girls in their young teens, which most of the country found abhorrent but which that region found more acceptable. I don't want to get into the religious side of this for obvious reasons. For drug dealers, it depends a great deal on what drug they're peddling. Until recently, selling marijuana was frowned upon. Now there's a growing number of states and countries legalizing the sale of marijuana. It no longer carries the stigma it used to. There were, likewise, times when things opium, cocaine, and heroin were socially acceptable to sell and to buy. The famous fictional detective Sherlock Holmes mirrors the attitudes of the time, in that he was a recreational user of cocaine and morphine and this is treated as being quite acceptable. It's not now, but it was back then. There are a number of countries where sexual assault is still considered, if not "acceptable" then "excusable" under various circumstances. Even in allegedly enlightened countries like the US we're still struggling with groups who feel there are categories or conditions under which rape is acceptable. Killing another person is one of the best examples. Whether or not this is "evil" is SO subjective that people can have multiple, conflicting opinions on the subject based on incredibly specific circumstances. You'll find people who, in the same breath, will suggest that abortion is evil because it ends a life and that those who practice it should be put to death for doing so. Opinions are incredibly divided over what constitutes acceptable circumstances to kill in self-defense or just cause for war. There really are no moral absolutes in this world. There aren't even moral absolutes within a single culture, nation, state, city, or large group of people. Morality is a flexible abstract that we bent, twist, fold, spindle, and mutilate to fit our circumstances, views, and beliefs. I'm honestly not sure even you know what point you're trying to make... There is no objective evil. People who do things others see as evil believe themselves to righteous, or justified, or that those things were necessary, or simply don't acknowledge that the things they're doing are wrong at all because they have different standards. There's that word again. To be objectively evil would mean that, regardless of an individual's views and beliefs, that something can be factually demonstrated to be wrong. Things can't be objectively evil because morality - the concept of good and evil itself - is fundamentally subjective. You yourself acknowledge with your very next sentence that the Nazis believed they were in the right doing what they did... which refutes your premise that they were "objectively" evil. If they were objectively evil, then their evil is a demonstrable and irrefutable fact. They would see themselves as evil precisely the same way their adversaries did. They didn't... which means it's subjective. There are, distressingly enough, groups of people out there today who argue that the Nazis did nothing wrong. Even if you want to argue that they're brainwashed, that still means the perception of morality is can be changed situationally. To be frank, the Nazis could've been swayed by reason easily enough. The whole reason their party came to power in the first place was the crushing weight of war reparations the German government was obliged to pay, the ensuing hyperinflation of their currency running their economy into the dirt, and led to fears of a communist uprising. The militarism was an economic stimulus. If both sides had sat down and talked before the shooting started, the entire war could've been avoided by taking remedial action to save the German economy. Because a technologically-advanced species is, by default, going to be a social animal. You can't pass down learned knowledge from one generation to another without a social framework through which to do it. One of the cornerstones of social species is empathy: the ability to understand and/or vicariously experience the thoughts, feelings, and attitudes of another. That means evolution literally neurologically hardwired them to respond to attempts to communicate. Those are not social animals, so that's kind of a BS attempt at an example case. A social species is going to have language of some kind. It may not be something intelligible to us initially, but it will exist as a quantifiable property that can be studied, analyzed, and eventually replicated to communicate. Bees communicate through dance and pheromones. Whales sing. Elephants vocalize in infrasonic ranges, and cats in the ultrasonic. Hell, cats are intelligent enough that they have a separate language in the audible range for speaking to humans. We learn easily enough to intuit what our dogs want from their behavior and vocalizations. It's not an insurmountable problem. It really does make all the difference. Macross, like Star Trek, acknowledges that a conflict with a hostile power will occur because both sides believe themselves to be in the right. That they are doing what's necessary for their people and nation. This does not make them evil in and of itself, it merely means they have a different perspective and that peace can potentially be achieved by finding common ground. Gundam is a pessimistic version of this, where peaceful resolution CAN be achieved (and humans are literally evolving psychic empathy to help it along) but the universe is run by crazy people who refuse to have a meaningful conversation with anyone who doesn't share their views 100%. The moral ambiguity is crucial, as is the point that most combatants are not bad people... just people in bad situations. Star Wars exists in a universe of moral absolutes. Fundamental drives are categorized by knowledgeable force users as explicitly and unambiguously good or evil. Dark side users seem to be quite aware they they are in fact evil, and rejoice in it with all the subtlety of a Saturday morning cartoon villain. They want to take over the galaxy just because. There's no way for the light side and dark side to reach an accord because destiny is an unavoidable actual thing enforced by a universal fundamental force and they are destined to try to destroy each other, and their users drag the rest of the galaxy into it. There's zero inlking that the dark siders have any actual goal besides despotic autocratic rule for cruelty's own sake and they're literally fueled by hate and fear. The moral ambiguity is superficial because the conflict and the people in it are explicitly divided into Light and Dark, Good and Evil, Right and Wrong.
  14. 1 point
    Ok, based on how it looks to me, I’m gonna go ahead and say it’s bigger than the 31 or 19 box but no one is winning anything for being right so whatever.
  15. 1 point
    Thanks! I scanned and scaled down some old Yamato sticker sheets and the sticker sheet that came with the ET VF-2SS before I got rid of it. I put them in the decals library so anyone can use them.
  16. 1 point
    I really wish I could up vote this more than once cause it perfectly sums up my thoughts and how I've seen things for years. It's also been one of the things that makes me a Star Trek fan and also something I've always liked about Macross as well. There was always a better answer, they just couldn't always see it at first and the urge to pick the tactical option for simplicity is very hard to resist. This is very relevant in any age including today. In my view the worst villains force conflict only because every other attempt failed or they thought it was easier (and ultimately wasn't). This doesn't mean the war was wrong to fight (usually) for the heroes, it just means it was the least ideal outcome since things were so bad it became necessary. I actually think Yang Wen-li from Legends of the Galactic Heroes says it best: "There are few wars between good and evil; most are between one good and another good."
  17. 1 point
    Yeah... really, any functioning adult with a decent science education would've spotted Zeon Zum Deikun's newtype theory for the unscientific BS it is, given that it depends on the totally unscientific notion of evolutionary predestination. ... are you really trying to argue that reality is unrealistic? Yes, armed conflict is avoidable. Nations spend huge sums of money and man-hours going to great and frankly tedious lengths to avoid armed conflict with each other. They maintain armies of diplomats and dozens of embassies to facilitate communication and smooth over incidents that could lead to conflict. They invest their time and energy in vast international diplomatic organizations to prevent and mitigate conflict and foster international cooperation and peace. They bend over backwards making (sometimes insincere) apologies for stuff they've done that might've antagonized someone. They go to frankly obscene lengths to avoid armed conflict. Why? Because war is a messy, confusing, expensive undertaking that's an enormous drain on a nation's economy and tends to wear out its welcome VERY quickly among voters. Rare are the occasions when armed conflict is genuinely unavoidable... and most of the time, what we see are eminently avoidable conflicts that occurred because people either stopped trying, or never tried, to communicate and find common ground. There is no absolute good or absolute evil in the real world. The kind of abject evil and (often literally) cackling villainy you see in Star Wars and other fairy tales just doesn't exist in the real world. There is no great and irredeemable cult of evil. No omnipresent force of darkness that rises up and must be opposed by force of arms. No armies of darkness that exist to kick puppies and gloat about how evil they are. Evil is, all too often, quite subjective. One man's villain is another man's hero. History's most vilified leaders, the men who oversaw Earth's most terrible atrocities, firmly believed that what they were doing was good, right, and justified for the sake of their nation and people... and so did their followers. That's the kind of dichotomy you see in Macross or Star Trek. There are no card-carrying villains gleefully chortling about how nasty they are. The antagonists are people who are doing what they believe is right for their nation or species.
  18. 1 point
    Maybe it’s because you’re so full of yourself? In so many of your stupid ass posts you make it sound like you are single handledly “supporting” the hobby, as if nobody else on this board puts money into this hobby. And look at the stupid ass thing you said above, you hoard these toys so you can sell them at an enormous profit. It’s thanks to jackasses like you that make it hard for other people to get into this hobby. In reality, you’re no better than a scalper, so congratulations for being a douche.
  19. -1 points
    Yup I went with it for my VE-1s at least, glad I did that. I have 10 of those, 2 unboxed.
  20. -1 points
    They haven’t delivered any orders you ever made there or just the 31A? Anyways, that sucks but yeah, I’m glad they are around.
  21. -1 points
    LOL @ all the thumbs down! after all, without people like me, Bandai would stop making your toys.
  22. -1 points
    Wow... If you're going to cut-down another member for how they exploit their particular life circumstance and freedom to enjoy this hobby however they wish... then I think most of the membership here would invite you to leave, and take your attitude elsewhere.
  23. -1 points
    I guess you forgot that you were just in he Hi-Metal R thread.
  24. -1 points
    Gotta do what u gotta do. Anyway, I don't control the prices of this stuff. I know for a fact, though, that a guy who works for Nordic Trac single handedly kept the price of the VE-1 and VT-1 1/55 scale valks at over $1500 each due to the fact that he outbid everyone that ever auctioned them on ebay for over a decade. AT LEAST I'm not doing that. That is pretty shady. And it goes to show, neither valk is "rare". You guys can thumb down and cuss 'stupid ass' and call names and break forum rules, etc. I just sit back and laugh at you. You don't make it so I can't buy what I want
  25. -1 points
    By the time Hitler and the Nazis came to power any hope of avoiding war was lost. Hitler would've gone to war against France and Russia no matter what reason or negotiation was used to avoid war. Heck, Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler and got the Munich Agreement. Hitler and Stalin also had a Non-Aggression Pact. None of that did good. The only way France or Russia could've avoided war was to completely capitulate to Germany prior to any fighting or at the onset of Germany's invasion.
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?

    Sign Up