RZ1029
-
Posts
375 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by RZ1029
-
-
Ban LordFrostcraig for not enjoying the story.
-
Snark, a slitherly little creature with a massive fin on its back that often sticks up through the sand as it travels.
-
Good luck to 'em. 'Nuff said. It works out, great. If not, sorry to hear it. I just hope the US doesn't end up getting involved.
-
Ban pagan for not understanding poptarts.
I'd also like to suggest we retrieve the poptarts immediately. I shall be organizing a raid on the poptart compound tonight. All willing participants, please sign up on my comments page.
-
Star Wars was cool, but it's just kind of repetitive after the 6th movie. I think the prequel series is 'cooler' but the original trilogy is better story-wise.
I could watch Star Trek for the better part of forever and still find it interesting. Between the two, Star Trek wins in the long term, but if I could only watch it once, I'd chose Star Wars.
-
See, around here, if you're at a firing range, chances are you've got one in your waistband and probably another in your truck and probably another one by your bed. But this sure ain't ner Southern Californ-i-a. All joking aside, around here it's really that way, in a lot of ways. It's not uncommon for me to notice other people carrying a pistol just about everywhere.
But the range master is right, even if you're carrying, it's (sometimes/often) considered courtesy to tell someone you've got it or if you're pulling it out. I carry pretty much everywhere and will never mention it unless I'm 1) At someones house, and I'll ask their permission to bring it in. They say no, it stays in the truck. 2) Bank or school grounds, for obvious reasons. 3) Firing range, then I inform the range master and usually unload and store it while I'm shooting. 4) Oh, and hospitals, mostly because I just don't see the need for it, and I guess you could call it respect.
I'm not very familiar with California's carry laws, and I'm thinking they aren't reciprocal with North Carolina, for some reason.
-
I'm not even sure that's the Chinese, but whoever it is clearly doesn't understand the phrase 'combat effective'. 5 miles an hour and never tipping over isn't very helpful in combat.
-
Probably.
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/1/4/128755428622246662.jpg
Be afraid.
-
Forget country A, B, and C, look at M A D.
Mutually
Assured
Destruction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
It's what keeps the world from going to war, at the moment. They invade us, we nuke them, they nuke us, we're all up a creek without a paddle and glowing with radioactivity.
The US, Russia, the UK, France, and China are all known to have nuclear weapons. India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel are suspected/have claimed to have nuclear weapons. The US also 'supplies' nuclear weapons to Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. We supply the nukes, the pilots, the outfitted planes and such. However, those guys aren't really the ones to worry about, since it's still our people in 'charge'.
However, the one to worry about is North Korea. Not the big five, even though they have many more. North Korea has the disadvantage of being solely ran by a man of questionable sanity and a nation of loyal (either in earnest or in fear) people who would die for him. In a way, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain. What better way to try and prove yourself then take on the (arguably) strongest nation in the world?
He decides his ticket to recognition and power is to push the big red button. And who better to shoot than the guys who keep calling for sanctions against them? He nukes us, we return fire, we call in the UK and France to back us up. China might side with North Korea, but I get a feeling they'd stay out of it, unless they think we're going to lose. Russia's probably going to just tell everyone to go bug off. I assume the North Koreans are intelligent enough to shoot it at DC, which disrupts the better part of the continuity of government. Chances are, someone takes it into their own hands and fires at least one. Hopefully they've figured out it's North Korea, or they could 'accidently' hit China, who would respond in kind. The UK and France would probably return fire, in addition to all the littler nations we 'loaned' nukes.
China and the US is turned into a radioactive pit of death and then Russia decides to be opportunistic and go ahead and finish off the now-unarmed Brits/French. MAD in a minute, with a few 'if's thrown in there, which I personally mark up as likely due to the nature of humans. Panic takes over and logic goes out the window.
EDIT: Oh, and of course, not everyone in those nations would die. Once they put everything back together, you've got the problem of pretty much every major corporation having been the better part of annihilated. The world economy would come crashing down and the survivors had better get their Edwin 'Bear' Grylls on, or they're knee-deep in it.
-
No need, there are National Guard Armories all over in most states with more than sufficient firepower. They're usually undermanned and would be an easy source of military hardware from armored vehicles to assault weapons.
-
Oh, as a (duh-huh) afterthought, just thought I'd mention best of luck to you, with whatever you decide. And remember, guns don't kill people, people with good aim kill people with bad aim.
-
Ban Calliton for not having enough color contrast to the word METAL in his signature, which makes the L look out of place. Oh, and for having good taste in music. I'm the only one allowed to do that.
-
Hey guys, sorry for the double post, but for some reason I can't edit my old one. Just wonder how it goes, I figure you've taken some time off for the holidays, in which case Merry Christmas/Happy New Year/Happy Hanukkah and have a joyous Kwanzaa.
Also, would like to mention I probably do some voicing now, when you guys need it. Got me a shiny new headset for Christmas that's got killer sound quality on it, if I can find a decent recording program.
-
Carry? In some states, with licensing and in designated areas, sure.
Use against enemies? If it ever came to war on the home front, my bet is the rules of war and gun control go right out the window.
The desire for self-preservation out-weighs 80% of our natural instincts, I'd say. The other 20% is protecting others who're important, in most cases. (IE: family, loved ones, significant other, et cetera)
You're also right about our rather war-filled history. For a nation that's not even 250 year old yet, we've had our fair share of wars. Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm/Iraq, and a few miscellaneous military actions around the world that never really classified as war. However, one big difference between Switzerland, Finland and the US is the population. The US probably has about a million and a half soldiers on 'active duty' with about as many in the reserves. That's 3,000,000 total, which accounts for more than half of Finland's population. Assuming 40% of their population is female, that's means the US active military outnumbers the number they deem 'fit for service'.
Compare that to the fact that, according to the Selective Service Agency, should everyone who is considered 'able-bodied' be called up, we would have a standing army of about 65 million strong, and that's JUST males. Assuming one in every 20 females enlist, that's another 3 million. The sheer numbers makes that logistically impossible/improbable.
-
I'm not that worried about a French revolution, things never go well for them when it comes to war. /end bad/nationalistic joke
But you're right, I've seen quite a few examples like that one, as they're often mentioned in the NRA magazine. Usually right below their stories about homeowners across the country defending themselves because they had weapons. Obviously, though, that's biased material. The NRA's not about to say much anti-gun, it would probably spell their doom if they did.
Another big difference in Switzerland, and Finland is the society though. I noticed in the Wikipedia article (which I take with a grain of salt regarding the culture, due to the nature of the website) that in Finland, there was a big family history with armed service as well. I think another thing that makes it more... ok? Popular? Whatever you want to call it, is that the family history is much more emphasized.
I'm also tempted to ask why you crossed out Socialist, but I think I already know the answer.
-
Depends on the setting. Modern-style civilization, those names would be sufficient, but you need to make sure the name suits the environment. You aren't about to have Carl the mighty Mage of Naerthelon. Or Bob of the Crystalline Order. But Carl in Accounting and Bob up in HR works just fine.
-
I actually mentioned MAD in an earlier post, I believe. Except it was in the form of a quote from War Games, an movie from the... 90s?
But you're right in a lot of ways. I'd also like to mention that Switzerland gives its citizens assault weapons as part of their militia program, and they have little issues. They also have required training and proficiency, but have a different society.
-
I'd also just like to mention that the Mossad's female agents/assassins/whatever you want to call them were some of the most effective agents when hunting down Nazi war criminals after WWII. Even though they weren't allowed to serve on the front lines, they were more than busy in other departments.
As for the US Military, while some of the reasoning has already been mentioned, especially regarding the psychological study, there's the simple fact that the American culture has grown up on the 'damsel in distress' theme. From our movies, to our books, to society in general, it was only fairly recently that you began to see the acceptance of female leaders. It was only last year (AKA: 10? months ago, or so) when the Navy began to allow women to serve on submarines. (Please note, I do realize there are some exceptions and there are a few genres in particular that have broken that much earlier than others, but look at it as a generalistic whole.)
I'd also like to note, it's not JUST Americans. Only about a dozen nations allow women to serve in active combat roles, Canada and Israel included. The UK also lets them serve in artillery divisions, but not a dedicated infantry role. Then the US and a few other nations allow them as combat pilots.
There are also some issues with female soldiers when it comes to combating nations where females are seen as inferior. Case in point, the Middle-East. It's fairly well-known that, in the culture of Iraq and neighboring areas, females are generally considered inferior. (Generally being the key word.) With that, they're less likely to surrender or retreat because they are fighting individuals they see as inferior. That could, in effect, result in larger casualties where they might have retreated when they saw a dozen guys come charging after them with their rifles.
Could they be effective in combat? I say yes. Should we let them serve in combat roles? I also say yes. Should they be segregated? Maybe. It would solve some of the issues that have been brought up regarding the male 'instinct' to protect the females. I can't say for sure, but I'd imagine they would get along a little better than an integrated unit, at first. Integration would probably be the eventual goal, but it's usually better to approach things like this slowly, or you can have some disastrous consequences.
-
Up until about 3 AM. I slept for all of two hours. I'm as good as among the walking dead at the moment.
I'll think of something a little more coherent in a minute.
-
And that's labordays, not actual 24 hour days. So essentially what that is saying is that it would take ten men one day to move the stone. Assuming your 100,000 men, that's 10,000 stones that could be moved in a single day. And then that would mean that the 2.3 million stones would only take about 230 days to move. That's less than a year.
Assuming our 20 year timetable, that leaves them more than 19 years just for quarrying, cutting, and placing. Of those, Bben's already mentioned a few methods that would make placing a fast process, and I'd imagine that the Pharaohs Royal Engineer Corps or whatever had the quarry going all day, from dusk to dawn. That means that the majority of the build time would probably be devoted to quarrying and cutting. I'm no mining expert, but I'd say that's probably pretty doable. Especially since precise cutting would only have to be done on the outermost 'walls' and the inner tunnels for aesthetics, just in case the dead guy got bored.
-
Thief-turned assassin in a medieval-esque setting would probably be equipped with several daggers which are no more than glorified kitchen knives, a shortsword, maybe two if he was good at what he did. A crossbow is unlikely, unless he's incredibly good at what he does and makes a lot of money. A longbow is more likely, and makes more sense. You get more range, and it was used for hunting, which would give reason for his skill. However, the bow isn't going to be some beautiful weapon of death, chances are it's little more than a maple sapling with a string on it. Poisons are possible, though I wouldn't see them carrying it around, perhaps a small vial of some sort of snake/scorpion venom or a custom brew poison and such. Most of the larger bottle supplies and such would probably be left at his base of operation.
As for the history, the 'I don't know who I am' thing is kind of over-done. Just make him a farmers son who used to hunt and decided to pave his path to riches via theft, murder, and other sorts of unsavory things. Then he could decide to either make a turn for the better because his dad died and it was a dying wish, he met someone who changed his mind, he gets a job to retrieve the artifact, and instead decides to keep it for himself or something. Remember, your main character doesn't have to be a 'good' guy. You could also use that theft as an introduction of the lover that everyone seems to be set on.
As for the artifact, I vote something of a non-weapon nature. A shield, perhaps some form of armor? The guisarme is pretty cool, but magical weapons are generally overdone and tend to be a little bit overpowered. (Balancing of weapon stats... in a story?!) Maybe a gauntlet that has magic imbued in it, granting its use to the wearer. That makes it usable all the time, allowing the thief/assassin to use his weapons of choice still. Of course, the magic has to have some sort of 'tax' on it, that draws on the user, or they could just keep blasting away with magical lightning bolts 24/7.
Just suggestions, though.
-
Read the post above yours, it explains how a pulley system with rope and stone would not work.
Uhm... I'm not seeing it, if it's there.
Log rollers which could have actually been used like wheels, because they had Chariots at the time. I'm sure an engineer would be smart enough to think to apply the same technology to building the pyramids. Then all you would need to do is push the stone. And since you've just massively reduced the amount of friction, pushing it suddenly becomes much easier. Using the sheer number of slaves they (reportedly) had, it could probably be done fairly easily. I'd hesitate to guess how long it takes to push a massive stone on wheels because I've never been there, but I could see a dozen or two people (who have worked almost their entire lives and would probably be fairly strong) being able to move it with little trouble to the pyramid.
Then at that point, I'm leaning towards Bben's information that was suggested by the engineer, though I'm also convinced that the rope and pulley system I read about is doable, and has been used in at least one pyramid.
-
Well, the Iraq War began in 2003, it's now almost 2011, that's nearly 8 years. 6000/8 = 750/365 = 2. That averages two civilian deaths per day. Now, if I understand what you're saying, then you agreed that included the civilians who died as a result of IEDs as well as accidental casualties from friendly fire and such. I don't know how often IEDs are encountered, if we've got anyone with experience over in Iraq/Afghanistan and the such, I'd appreciate you chiming in on this one. However, I have read numerous reports of IEDs where civilians have been caught in them, along with US troops. Unfortunately, civilians don't often have Kevlar vests or armored vehicles.
That being said, in combination with Marharth's guestimations regarding the loyalty of the military, I'm curious to see what you think would happen if they took all rights to own any sort of gun from American citizens and went around confiscating guns.
-
Firstly, and most obviously, there have supposedly been physical encounters, UFO sightings and crop circles. This isn't the most compelling evidence to me.
Secondly, there are buildings, for example the great pyramid(s), which are built with near impossible precision for people of that time.
The Great Pyramid of Giza stands 450 feet tall (137 meters) and consists of two million blocks of stone, weighing from 2.5 tons up to 50 tons. How would they move and stack these stones?
The three pyramids there are also is similar positions to 'Orion's belt'.
The Great Pyramid is also located at the centre of the Earth's landmass - from what I've heard.
Thirdly, there are similar buildings and structures around the world which have the same high quality of work on them which date back to the ancient era. Builders at the time couldn't have constructed anything with the precision shown.
These buildings also have references to positions of things in space, such as significant planets and constellations.
And lastly, do you think that governments are trying to hide the facts? That they are covering up evidence for these things?
First point:
I'll definitely agree with you there, while interesting and sometimes amusing, I discredit 98% of all UFO sightings as being alien craft of any sort. Many of them resemble things used by the military today, and just aren't very well known.
Second point:
Here, I'm going to have to argue a lot. They could be built, with time, using multi-tiered ramps and a series of pulley systems and counter-weights. I watched something the other day where a guy went through a pyramid and showed his theory and the markings and evidence behind it where a complex system of pulleys was set on a pulley that was shifted further up the pyramid as it was built, allowing them to build these massive constructs. Moving them is, logistically, a bit nuts. Impossible? No. A feat of epic proportions for pencil pushers everywhere? Indeed.
The location I can explain every easily. Astrology. Not astronomy, astrology. The ancient Egyptians had a massive part of their belief/superstition in the stars and their signs. So, logically, they would choose something of significance. Perhaps Orions belt was of great religious importance during that time. Center of the landmass... uhm... well, if that's true... I've got no explanation. Coincidence, possibly, or perhaps they knew/believed/understood something we have lost through the ages.
Third point:
Like I said, astrology was a massive part of almost any religion at that point because we as a race didn't know much about space. The precision is possible, because despite the fact that we've got much more technology now, much of it is still the same basic concept, just digitized and such.
Fourth/Final point:
Covering up something? Probably. Alien visitation? Unlikely. More probably some sort of new prototype aircraft/spacecraft.
As a note, I doubt humans are interesting enough to study. We're petty squabblers who don't live all that long, and assuming there is a sentient life out there somewhere that is more advanced than us, I'm pretty sure they're not interested.
That being said, I believe there is life out there. Perhaps not something as 'intelligent' as a human, but life nonetheless.
Ban for Fun
in Forum Games
Posted