mikeszekely

I'm not super-familiar with the pen and paper stuff, since most of my RPG exploits have been either console or PC. However, some of the guys at work are really into D&D and Star Wars, and they started up a Star Wars game that I joined, with the d20 system. Mostly, it's fun. Sure, sometimes we gripe about things in the rules, but any system that isn't A.) really doing it, or B.) running totally off your imagination isn't going to be perfect. You need rules, and dice just happen to be a way to simulate probability. Of course, we make stuff up as we go along, and bend the rules whenever it suits us.

Pitch Black and T3 are on your top 10 dumbest movies of all time? Are you from the Bizzaro World? LoL I guess... if Bizarro World is a place where story and substance matter more than cheesy special effects and mindless violence. If it gives you a better idea of my tastes, movies that make my top 10 best movies list include The Ring, The Last Samurai, Fight Club, Swordfish, and Spider-Man. Movies that I've been known to enjoy, but wouldn't considered top 10 anything, include Mr. Deeds, Happy Gilmore, Robocop, Galaxy Quest, True Lies, Pirates of the Carribean, Transformers: the Movie, and the like. Oh, and anything with Jet Li. Finally, as opposed to Chronicles of Riddick, the next two movies I'm looking forward to are The Village and Spider-Man 2.

Except that Time Cop and Universal Soldier sucked. Come to think of it, Van Damme in general just sucks. A1, I expected better from an Arnold Fan...

I got nothing against Vin Diesel per se, but I'm suprised how many of you are claiming to have liked Pitch Black. Pitch Black is definately in my list of top 10 dumbest movies of all time. Which is why, even though the previews for Chronicles of Riddick look decent, I won't dare see it in the theater. Then again, Oihan, I thought Van Helsing was fine Not spectacular, but mindlessly entertaining. Meanwhile, I thought Terminator 3 was a mockery of a film that ignored... nay, spit on... the message in the first two Terminators... thus earning another spot on my top 10 dumbest movies ever list.

Seems quite a few of the characters in SDF Macross were taller than expected. Well, our generation is supposed to be taller than the WWII generation, right? Maybe they figured by 2009, people over 6' would be kinda average.

Starland

I'm kinda new into the import scene, but I try to stay away from eBay. I know a lot of people love it... and I know that a lot of people set up their e-businesses through eBay... but I've never really liked buying stuff from other people. I like to do my business with a real store, so I buy my imports from Starland. They have a bunch of stuff, and if you live around DC, they actually have three stores. I'm thinking about buying Macross and Z-Gundam from them sometime this week or next. I've heard of people having problems with slide cards and boot discs... not that they don't work, but that it's the fastest way to kill your PS2s DVD drive. Besides, I used to do disc-swapping with my old PSX, and it's really kind of a hassle after awhile. So, I decided to order a brand new PS2 online pack pre-modded with a DMS3 v9, so supposedly, I should be able to drop any US or Japanese (or backup) PSX or PS2 game in with no hassle. I think the price I got was just fair, nothing special, but the shipping was very reasonable, and the site was reviewed very highly. I'll let you guys know.

Pics are out there of Bail Organa and Mon Mothma, plus what's-his-name decked out as Vader. I would definately expect the Rebel Alliance to be up and running by the end of the film. As far as I know, Lucas' original Star Wars novel was published in '74. I don't know a whole heck of a lot about the EU stuff. I've read five of the six novels written by Zahn, and they were pretty good, but I have been told that most of the other EU novels boil down to "Luke, Leia, Han, and Chewie fight the villian of the week and his/her ridiculously over-powered superweapon." It's a damn shame that they couldn't come up with new ideas and new characters. At least Zahn managed to avoid superweapons, and come up with Karrde, Mara, Thrawn, Pellaeon, and Bel Iblis. And let's not even get into the New Jedi Order crap. The only Jedi Knight game I played was Jedi Outcast. I've only played the first level or so, and I thought it was so-so (although, in fairness to the series, I heard that the first few levels of Outcast are the worst, and that I should stick to it). While I'm at it, the Rogue Squadron games are kinda overrated. I think that Starfighter and Jedi Starfighter had a much better engine (and you can actually lock on a target! Now you try it, Factor 5...). Too bad Starfighter and Jedi Starfighter had a limited ammount of lame ships, lame characters, and lame story. But hands down, the best Star Wars game has got to be Knights of the Old Republic. Many props also go to TIE Fighter.

How 'bout those big Sith ships in Knights of the Old Republic? I think, aside from that, the Sith starfighter, and the TIE's, the Star Destroyers were the only ships I liked from Star Wars... I do like the Archangel from Gundam SEED. Kinda like the White Base, but all slick and curvy...

Okay, new engines, thrust vectoring, new avionics... then to improve RCS, change the intakes, replace the wings with clipped deltas, change the shape of the tail, cant the tail, and carry the weapons internally... ...what d'ya know? It's the F/A-22!

No, I really don't agree. I am perfectly willing to admit that I could be wrong, and that I haven't seen let alone digested all the facts. On the other hand, I really don't think the case has been made that we need the F/A-22 now, or that if we build it, it will actually be useful "eventually". Much of the professional pro-F-22 argument comes from vested interests like Lockheed or people in the Air Force whose careers are tied to the program, so it is worthwhile, in my opinion, to regard their claims of emerging vulnerabilities with a healthy dose of skepticism. I think Bush was on the right track during the Presidential campaign when he called for the US military to "skip a generation" of weapons systems that weren't currently needed so we could better focus on stuff that would help us in 10-20 years. The F-22 was clearly one of the targets of that bremark. It's also well-known that Andrew Marshall, whom Rumsfeld entrusted with an overview of the military in 2001, was quite skeptical about the F-22, as is Pentagon insider Chuck Spinney. (For a collection of various articles at his web site, look here.) Now, I realize that is dangerious to engage in argumentum ab auctoritate, but if you are making an executive decision, it strikes one as interesting where the arguments for and against the F-22 are coming from. (Many of the critics are concerned not only about a vague issue of "is the F-22 worth it" but also whether the costs of the F-22 are going to have a severe negative effect on readiness in other areas of the military.) Gotta run. This has been interesting. So, you're not actually arguing that the F-15 is good enough, you're actually arguing that the F/A-22 isn't good enough either, and that we should eliminate the Raptor program and begin development of a new, even more advanced fighter? I think that'd be fine, except that the F/A-22 is already almost 20 years in the works. If we drop the F/A-22 and spend another 20 years developing something else, are you expecting upgraded F-15s to last that long? That'd be 50 years for the Eagle... that'd almost be like if we were still flying upgraded P-51s now.

That's an interesting question. My first reaction was, "That's like asking, with modern technology, could we build another one of those giant room-filling mainframe computers from the 70's!" But then I got to thinking about the Crays and whatnot... and I think that there are room-filling modern super-computers... So now, I'm willing to bet that we could in fact build a much better prop plane that what they used during WWII...

(Just chewing the fat.) Personally, I think if it comes to the US, it will likely have a dub. After all, a lot of good dubs are being done these days (much of the stuff that makes it onto the late hours Cartoon Network slots for example). Not that I will watch the dub, except out of curiosity. Rumor is the VF-0 is called the Phoenix but I don't know how that got started. Yes, Edgar does simply call it a "Zero" at one point. Well, sure, if it comes out in the US, it'll have a dub. I think the question, though, is will it ever come out in the US? "Phoenix" was the nickname given to it during the early development. In fact, I think it was spelled out on some of Kawamori's original sketches, but I might have been mistaken. For whatever reason, the name "Phoenix" was declared unofficial.

It's very likely that the VT-1 was used as a basic trainer, while the VF-1D could have been used for more advanced training. I think we can all agree that VF-1Ds were used for training. The debate seems to be if training was the VF-1Ds main role. Personally, I don't think so. I think that the VF-1D was intended for combat. I mean, for one thing, episodes where the VF-1D have been used in combat have already been pointed out. Second, remember that Misa was ordering Hikaru into battle. She didn't know who was piloting, but she obviously expected that particular VF-1D to participate in the battle. But finally, remember that in Macross we only got to see Spacy forces, but we know that the UN maitains other branches. In the real world, the USAF tends to fly single-seaters, while the Navy prefers dual-seaters. It's a possibility that the Spacy prefers single seaters (maybe so they don't lose two pilots if something goes wrong with the fighter), while another group prefers dual-seaters. In fact, I'd say it's likely... Shin and Edgar look like they were Navy, and they fly a dual-seat VF-0D.

You like to argue against China as being a reason for the US needing the F/A-22, because you don't see them as "immenent" enough, yet you're arguing we dump the program in favor of upgrading a fighter pushing 30 years. If the F/A-22 lasts as long as the F-15, I think it's extremely short-sighted to assume the only enemies the US will face during the Raptor's life will be Arab air forces comprised of planes even older than the Eagle. Eliminating the Raptor program will not recoup the development costs sunk into the fighter. And as David and others have pointed out, upgrading our F-15s doesn't cost much less and doesn't give us anything close to the F/A-22's performance. I really don't get why people pick on the F/A-22 so much in the first place. Unlike the F-35, the F/A-22 really does appear to be the most capable fighter on the block, and the government wastes a lot more money than what's been spent or will be spent on the Raptor. I mean, cut your local senator's salary in half, and chances are he's still making more than you. Instead of cutting the Raptor, how about not voting themselves another pay raise?

The conclusion I draw is that a war isn't over simply because one side declares victory. Or if you prefer to see the present unpleasantness as a new war entirely as compared to Gulf Wars I & II, then I would say this war's outcome is very much in doubt, the F-22 wouldn't make a bit of difference, and in an age of limited budgets McCain is quite correct to present this as a question of paying for Iraq or buying military systems which definitely will not be needed for at least a decade. Furthermore, as I wrote in the other thread, by the time China, Russia, or whoever may achieve not only technological parity with our present frontline fighters but the numbers, training, and infrastructure to challenge our command of the sky in a conventional war, there may well be entirely new and better technologies which we will want to apply to the tactical problems of achieving and using air supremacy. The more debt we build up now--by whatever policies, but let's focus on currently unneeded weapons systems--the less able we will be to develop and exploit those future technologies. It wasn't simply one side declaring a victory. The victory was pretty obvious. Sticking around long enough to make sure another despot doesn't step into the power vacuum left by the old regime and having soldiers killed by civillians who don't want us there isn't the same as fighting a war with that country's military, and in fact, I don't see it at a war at all. Russia may not have achieved technological parity with the F/A-22, but with fighters like the Su-37 they've clearly surpassed our current crop of active fighters. Russia also happens to need money badly, and are likely to be less discerning about who they sell military equipment too. As for China, we've already seen that they've bought Flankers, and it's not a good idea to take China lightly. With the economic reforms they've set up over the last 15-20 years, they've gotten to a point where they have one of the highest percent increases of GDP from year to year. If that growth keeps up, they will eventually become a superpower. The Rafale too, is a concern. Not because I'm particularly worried about an air war with France, but because (like Russia), France has a history of selling fighters to whoever has the money. And like the Flanker, the Rafale is more than a match for the F-15. Saying that it's unlikely that the US would fight a conflict where the Raptor would really be necessary is like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. World War I began because of a single assasination. No matter how stable the political climate seems, anything could happen. Weapon systems like the Raptor are planning for the future, and the notion that a fleet of upgraded F-15 can do the Raptor's job is just wishful thinking. I think you're correct in saying that air superiority alone can't win a war. You need a dedicated effort on the ground. But a dedicated ground effort can't win either. Air superiority is necessary to make sure the guys on the ground are free to do their job. You're also correct in saying that the war in Iraq must be paid for. I simply disagree that the Raptor is uncessary and that funding for the war should come from the Raptor program. There are plenty of other places where the government is pissing away money that could help pay for the war. I believe I've already mentioned the ridiculous salaries being paid to the people in Washington. Need more money? Back out of the ISS... hell, almost everyone else has. Eliminate NASA altogether and privatize our space industry. If the government had a monopoly on computers the way it does on space, we'd still be using mainframes that filled an entire room. Private industry will find ways to do it faster, cheaper, and more efficiently. If that's still not enough, do a little research on your local senator, and seen how many stupid pet projects he's wasting federal money on. You'll find a lot more there that's uncessary than the Raptor.

But as David pointed out, the cost per plane includes the original development costs, so the fewer F/A-22s we buy, the more each one costs. Today, we're only supposed to buy just under 300, but the original order was for nearly 800.

"One of those time-tested lessons is the concept of “air superiority.” To the uninitiated, it is the concept of controlling the airspace over the battlefield so that air, land and sea forces can conduct operations without interference from enemy forces." We had a stalemate in Korea and a loss in Vietnam due ineptitude with which we fought on the ground in both conflicts. As for the Iraq war, neither were "dicey." Both wars were decisive victories, militarily. The second war in Iraq really has been over since the president declared major combat to be over. Now, it is true that more US troops have been killed since the end of the war than during the war, and you can draw whatever conclusions you wish about that. In any case, the simple fact is that just because the F-15 has had a spotless record for the last 30 years does not mean that its record can hold up for another 30 years. Besides, cutting the Raptor program doesn't recover the money that's already been spent on it, which is part of the cost per plane. As you cut the number of Raptors to be built, you might save some money, but the cost per plane goes up. So I say build more Raptors, and if the government needs extra money to pay for the war in Iraq, cut the ridiculous salaries of the Washington fat cats.

You guys know you can get season 1 on DVD, right? I like the one where the guy gets on the back of the warthog and starts making sounds like he's riding it.

Hey, I actually like McDonald's. Sometimes I get a craving for Wendy's or Burger King, but I'll go for McDonald's nine times out of ten.

Yeah, I'm gonna wait for the inevitable official DVD release.

I've always been kind of a "more the merrier" person, and I've owned a PS2, Gamecube, and an Xbox more or less since each console launched. And I have to say that, whatever your personal biases are against Microsoft in general, you have to give the Xbox team their dues. I mean, from the get go, they had the hard drive with the features that go along with it, and they set out to make their console the best console hardware on the block. Even though they took a loss on each one, they matched prices with Sony, marketed the Box fairly well, and stayed competetive. Almost every third-party game developed by a non-Japanese developer usually winds up with an Xbox version, and they've had some decent exclusive games, too. True, you do have to pay for Xbox Live... a whopping $50 a YEAR (no monthly cost)... but with the ability to download new content to the hard drive instead of merely playing with/against other players, plus a much more organized set up, I think $50 a year is a fair price. And, the Xbox is the only console that really supports Dolby Digital and progressive scan in-game. I think the only snags Xbox has really hit so far are the original controller (but the Controller S is very sweet), and lack of support in Japan. But lack of Japanese support has always been a problem for American consoles, so for a first-time entry, I think Microsoft did pretty good in getting Tecmo and Sega on board. And in America, where almost half the world's gamers reside, the Xbox is safely number two. From working in retail, Xbox has built up a pretty good reputation with the average consumer (by average, I mean the Madden crowd) and the Sega fans. If Xbox can get more Japanese support (especially in the form of RPGs) and hopefully get EA sports titles on Xbox live, future Microsoft consoles have the potential to stand up to Sony, which is something Nintendo will continue to fail at until they rework their business model. So no, any rumors about the Xbox being done and no new Microsoft console is definately false. While I'll be the first to admit that I have probably more PS2 games than Xbox games and Cube games combined, Xbox is definately my second console of choice. I haven't cared much for Nintendo's first and second party, so I can see how a Nintendo fan may still go with Cube for second, though. Anyway, I tend to buy games that come out on multiple platforms on the Xbox, for the Dolby Digital and the hard drive, mostly. Also, I think Halo and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic have both been better than anything on the PS2 so far.

I've never been to a Quizno's... I don't even know where one is in my area. But between the fact that I actually prefer my subs untoasted, and the fact that those spokes-rat thingies are just disturbing, I don't imagine I'd go even if there was one in my back yard. Subway's not great or anything, but my local Subway has a special where you can get any two foot-long subs for $7.99 on Sundays, plus you still get the stamps. But if you REALLY want a good sub (well, meatball anyway... they're so good I've never tried any of their other subs...) see if you have a Blimpie in your area.

According to what I read, the USAF brass in charge didn't believe that stealth would really work, so they insisted that the Nighthawk be painted black so as to force it to be used only for night ops.

It takes more than a few polygons to make a 3D game. R-Type Final and Gradius V are still 2D games. Has it ever occured to anyone that the new Metal Slug might just suck? Personally, I never cared for the series. To use your argument, the Dreamcast should have been on top, because it beat the PS2 out of the box by over a year... and the DC had a kick-ass launch to boot. And yet, the DC burned out rather quickly. No, trust me on this one... the PS2 won this round of the console wars due to the tremendous success of the PSX, and the PS3 is likely to stay on top for the same reason. As long as Sony's console carries Madden and Grand Theft Auto, expect everyone and their mother to end up with a PS3. I wouldn't worry too much about the Blu-Ray thing. When the PS2 was being developed, DVDs were a new technology, and the games are still $50. If at some point Sony decides to use Blu-Ray in addition to DVD as a format for the PS3 (just as they used both CD and DVD for PS2), expect the games to still be around $50. Nintendo certainly won't beat Sony. Although Nintendo still carries a lot of respect with the hardcore gamers and the Japanese, the Madden crowd still has the notion that Nintendo is for kids. Combine that with the way they've alienated third party developers, and you can start to understand why there are rumors of Nintendo pulling a Sega (It won't happen, though, as long as Nintendo is raking in the green with the Gameboy). Microsoft, I feel, would be Sony's closest competition. In America, the third party lineup for the PS2 and the Xbox is becoming awfully similar, right down the the Madden and (eventually) the Grand Theft Auto. Microsoft just needs to get more bigger exclusive games than just Halo, and they need to work harder to break into the Japanese market. A few RPGs wouldn't hurt either (although I do think that Knights of the Old Republic was probably the best RPG of the current console generation). And as for the PSP, I feel it will probably fail too. Remember, I said they're aiming at a different market than Nintendo is with the GBA... the same market that Nokia was shooting for with the N-Gage. And yes, that does involve marketing it as more than a game player, just as Nokia did (and just as they successfully did with the PS2... it was due to the PS2 that DVDs caught on in Japan). But it's my thought that this market really isn't interested in a high-tech portable game player/multimedia device. They've already got their mp3 players, their portable DVD players, their cell phones, their digital cameras, their PDAs, etc. If they need a portable game to play on the crapper, they're more likely to play a GBA, in my opinion. And no, the design everyone's seen on the net and in the magazines is NOT the final design for the PSP. They haven't even settled on the specs, yet.