community archive

1531 posts / 0 new
Last post
narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Intro movie impressions?

Well... I know some people have seen it, some haven't, and some don't want to spoil the surprise.

But I was rather impressed by the movies, especially the in-engine cinematics.

In some of the earlier movies, where we only heard Cortana's disembodied voice giving advice, I wondered if she might get a little annoying.

After seeing the intro movie, I don't wonder about that at all. I thought the performance was good, the voice was more than appropriate, and the holographic representation looked great.

Some of the later gameplay movies looked a little odd to me, though, and I couldn't figure out why until I thought again about that huge mouse vs. gamepad thread over at HBO.

When the player's perspective pans left or right, or up or down.. it seems to do so in a straight line, and at a constant speed-- as if it were being controlled digitally rather than by an analog control, whether mouse or thumbstick. It looks... eerie.

Also, it moves so quickly, jerking from side to side, that I was often frustrated by what the player wasn't seeing-- I had the urge to yell "no-- back the other way! look over there!" more than a few times.

I was unable to avail myself of any of the opportunities to date to try Halo on the Xbox's controller-- can anybody who has comment on why it looks this way? Is it possible to move or look sideways and up and down at the same time, or at a variable speed? Is the player doing something special to restrict movement along only a single axis?

Aside from that, what did everyone else think who've seen the movies?

Is this going to make anybody buy an Xbox who wasn't already?


Rampant for over se7en years.



Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Re: Intro movie impressions?

narcogen wrote on Friday, 10/19/2001 - 02:52:

: Well... I know some people have seen it, some haven't, and
: some don't want to spoil the surprise.

I've only seen the opening cinematic, up to the defrosting of the Cyborg.
:
: But I was rather impressed by the movies, especially the
: in-engine cinematics.

Hell yeah. I'm blown away that those are in-engine...especially the little details. I loved the captain...the closeups of his face especially. Love the eye squint :).
:
: In some of the earlier movies, where we only heard
: Cortana's disembodied voice giving advice, I wondered if she
: might get a little annoying.
:
: After seeing the intro movie, I don't wonder about that at
: all. I thought the performance was good, the voice was more
: than appropriate, and the holographic representation looked
: great.
:

I agree.

: Some of the later gameplay movies looked a little odd to
: me, though, and I couldn't figure out why until I thought
: again about that huge mouse vs. gamepad thread over at
: HBO.
:
: When the player's perspective pans left or right, or up or
: down.. it seems to do so in a straight line, and at a
: constant speed-- as if it were being controlled digitally
: rather than by an analog control, whether mouse or
: thumbstick. It looks... eerie.
:

I haven't watched the gameplay movies, so I can't say I know what you mean. But I kind of understand; do you think this is because of the controller? You think this how the game plays normally?

: Also, it moves so quickly, jerking from side to side, that
: I was often frustrated by what the player wasn't seeing-- I
: had the urge to yell "no-- back the other way! look over
: there!" more than a few times.

Heh. The essential problem with watching someone else play instead of doin it yourself. All the more reason to go get it yerself and explore :). This thought is similar to a line in the book Neuromancer, where the main character is sharing vision with another and gets pissed that she doesn't look where he wants to...

:
: I was unable to avail myself of any of the opportunities
: to date to try Halo on the Xbox's controller-- can anybody
: who has comment on why it looks this way? Is it possible to
: move or look sideways and up and down at the same time, or
: at a variable speed? Is the player doing something special
: to restrict movement along only a single axis?
:
: Aside from that, what did everyone else think who've seen
: the movies?
:

It's all about the details. The glow of the marine's aircraft control sticks...the size of the hangar, where you can see stuff going on in the background that's almost too small to see...the marine sergeant rocked...I liked Cortana's text message to the engineers. Reminiscent of Marathon. As were the the BoBs....er, crewmen ;). They are so Bob-like it isn't even funny...actually it will be when the Halo Vidmaster's challenge comes around :D.

Something I've thought about. Compare the Cortana of the cutscene to the Cortana of the old letters. She certaintly doesn't seem that rampant, does she? There doesn't seem to be a BW Class 3 AI on the ship...so have things been changed, or is there something going on here we don't know about? I'm thinking that Cortana is either schizophrenic (one side is the one we see in the film, one is the rampant one), or that the whole flight-to-Halo idea has ulterior motives behind it and she's currently hiding her condition, as it were. Any thoughts?

Theocracity

: Is this going to make anybody buy an Xbox who wasn't
: already?

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
No way to vid without a film feature... :-(( [NT]
kalis
kalis's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: Intro movie impressions?

I didn't like the gameplay ones so much, but overall, it just gave me the desire to see/play it more. Quite effective in that regard, and if the next official trailer ups the ante even more (as I'm sure it wall), waiting for the PC/Mac version might be too much...

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Re: Intro movie impressions?

Love the detailed animation in the lips when characters are speaking. Oh wait, there isn't any... Reminds me of the nutcracker I have.

-Iso

vector40
vector40's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 11 months ago
Joined: 10/11/2001 - 21:07
Re: Intro movie impressions?

Isolder wrote on Friday, 10/19/2001 - 19:27:

: Love the detailed animation in the lips when characters
: are speaking. Oh wait, there isn't any... Reminds me of
: the nutcracker I have.
:
: -Iso

Huh? They move.

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Re: Intro movie impressions?

: Huh? They move.

Like a nutcracker yeah. I thought I noticed a slight amount of cheek movement but the lips/chin practically just goes up and down like a nutcracker looks when it chomps.. not cool..

-Iso

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Can someone put me in context?

Has anyone implemented the detailed facial movements we've seen in different tech demos in a shipping game yet?

Just curious. If they have, then Halo's behind. If they haven't, then it sucks that they don't beat people coming out in the next six months in that area, but it can be forgiven since they're shipping in three weeks.

Darks

narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: Can someone put me in context?

Darksbane =PN= wrote on Sunday, 10/21/2001 - 08:22:

: Has anyone implemented the detailed facial movements we've
: seen in different tech demos in a shipping game yet?
:
: Just curious. If they have, then Halo's behind. If they
: haven't, then it sucks that they don't beat people coming
: out in the next six months in that area, but it can be
: forgiven since they're shipping in three weeks.
:
: Darks

Ho darks!

Anyway... I don't know the answer to your question.

But it does occur to me that the movements you're talking about will really only be visible in cutscenes, anyway. And although it is impressive that the cutscenes are rendered in-engine, I'm guessing that precise lip articulation wasn't really so critical that they needed to worry too much about it.



Narcogen


Rampant for over se7en years.



ferrex
ferrex's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Camera Motion

: When the player's perspective pans left or right, or up or
: down.. it seems to do so in a straight line, and at a
: constant speed-- as if it were being controlled digitally
: rather than by an analog control, whether mouse or
: thumbstick. It looks... eerie.

The analog move and look sticks make it easy to have smooth motion like that. At first, almost everyone just mashes those sticks, and they behave like 360° digital buttons. But a softer touch develops after a while, and you'll find that it's very easy to smoothly look and move at pretty much any speed you desire. It's a rather handy skill to have when you're sniping a moving target...

There are also scripted camera sequences, which is what Joe uses to great effect in many of the cinematics. Some of those are smooth, interpolated movement between points, which might be responsible for the eerily smooth motion you noticed.

: Also, it moves so quickly, jerking from side to side, that
: I was often frustrated by what the player wasn't seeing-- I
: had the urge to yell "no-- back the other way! look over
: there!" more than a few times.

Contrary to popular belief, you CAN snap your view around fairly fast with the analog stick. It's frustrating when it results in you not seeing what you need to see, but rather handy when you need to turn, and fast.

Cheers,
rex

--
Ferrex (Dead)
Coffee Engineer, Vehicle Logistics
Bungie Studios

narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: Camera Motion

ferrex wrote on Sunday, 10/21/2001 - 19:16:

: : When the player's perspective pans left or right, or up
: or
: : down.. it seems to do so in a straight line, and at a
: : constant speed-- as if it were being controlled
: digitally
: : rather than by an analog control, whether mouse or
: : thumbstick. It looks... eerie.

[snip]

: There are also scripted camera sequences, which is what
: Joe uses to great effect in many of the cinematics. Some of
: those are smooth, interpolated movement between points,
: which might be responsible for the eerily smooth motion you
: noticed.

Actually, I just meant the gameplay videos, where the player navigates down a hallway like it's on rails-- when turning left or right, there's no movement at all along the Y axis, and the rate of movement is constant, like a Disneyland ride turning around a corner.

:
: : Also, it moves so quickly, jerking from side to side,
: that
: : I was often frustrated by what the player wasn't
: seeing-- I
: : had the urge to yell "no-- back the other way! look
: over
: : there!" more than a few times.
:
: Contrary to popular belief, you CAN snap your view around
: fairly fast with the analog stick. It's frustrating when it
: results in you not seeing what you need to see, but rather
: handy when you need to turn, and fast.

Actually, I'd assume that would probably be one of it's few advantages. Having a smaller range of motion means flicking the stick from one side to the other is probably pretty fast, maybe faster than a mouse-- just like doing so with a mouse was faster than turning around using the keyboard in Marathon or Doom. But that speed, I'd warrant, probably comes at the expense of accuracy, at least at first... looks that way in the movies, as the player struggles to line up targets, often getting mauled from the side in the process.



Narcogen


Rampant for over se7en years.



noctavis
noctavis's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 10 months ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Stupid decisions like the use of anthrax...

First of all, a resource: The CDC page on Anthrax! (Pay special attention to their PDF doc)

Anyhoo... Seems to me that tossing anthrax at our national leaders was a bad, baaad idea. Not to mention news anchors who Americans are used to seeing every day. This is not going to scare Americans into submission; it is going to make us very, very pissed.

The World Trade Center and Pentagon are in New York and Washington DC, respectively. Now, people are afraid to open junk mail in their own homes. (even though everything we're aware of at present has been targeted at a company or government office)

Someone assassinates an Israeli minister... equal to someone plugging Colin Powel over here. We want Arab/Muslim nations in our coalition, but this is not going to help their case, and I hope they know it. Arafat might as well put a big red dot on his chest, because either he and his cause will be eaten alive for being unable to control his people or he'll be assassinated by some of his own. Ah well... just proof that the Palestinians really don't deserve a nation of their own yet. They have no leadership and no consistent policies. They're just a people to be occupied and policed.

The political opposition is waning... even some of the lefties who have been speaking out against the war in previous weeks are shutting up now.

[Bill Cosby Voice:] "We are goiiing... to kick... their assss"

There's a good chance we'll put our boot on their neck and a gun to their head, and then that is when we'll begin negotiations in earnest. It's what we did in World War 2, and it worked well. We'll drop food and provide other assistance along the way, but that point is where we'll be able to help the people of Afghanistan and other nations much better.

The troops are moving in now. For them I'll pray, and for the Afghan people. (as well as our own, who are under a more cowardly attack)

- Noctavis
Bunbu Itchi - "The pen and sword in accord"


Noctavis
noctavis
noctavis's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 10 months ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Grr... now that was annoying.

Anonymous B.orger wrote on Friday, 10/19/2001 - 05:39:

"Anonymous B.orger"???


Noctavis
narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: Grr... now that was annoying.

noctavis wrote on Friday, 10/19/2001 - 07:40:

: Anonymous B.orger wrote on Friday, 10/19/2001 - 05:39:
:
: "Anonymous B.orger"???

You emptied the "name to display" field. Not sure how.

But I know your cookie is OK, since you show up as the author of that post in the DB, as well as the following one.


Rampant for over se7en years.



narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
false anonymous message fixed [NT]


Rampant for over se7en years.



nimrod
nimrod's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 10/14/2001 - 06:19
Re: GETTING DRUNK?!?!

Anonymous B.orger wrote on Friday, 10/19/2001 - 12:39:

: Anyhoo... Seems to me that tossing anthrax at our national
: leaders was a bad, baaad idea. Not to mention news anchors
: who Americans are used to seeing every day. This is not
: going to scare Americans into submission; it is going to
: make us very, very pissed.

Why are you all getting drunk?

Sorry, it's just that pissed = drunk on this side of the Atlantic, so I find it pretty funny when people say that instead of 'pissed off'.

Gastropod
Gastropod's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 10/17/2001 - 22:22
Re: Stupid decisions like the use of anthrax...

One thing that caught my attention.... one fellow speculated that the Anthrax may have come from Iraq. Specifically, created in Iraq and given to Bin Laden's boys. Of course there is no evidence implicating anything yet.....

So now I wonder if Iraq was involved does that mean we invade Iraq next after we are finished with the Taliban?

noctavis
noctavis's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 10 months ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Ayup

Gastropod wrote on Friday, 10/19/2001 - 14:26:

: One thing that caught my attention.... one fellow
: speculated that the Anthrax may have come from Iraq.
: Specifically, created in Iraq and given to Bin Laden's boys.
: Of course there is no evidence implicating anything
: yet.....
:
: So now I wonder if Iraq was involved does that mean we
: invade Iraq next after we are finished with the Taliban?

Well, we can't very well sit by while our citizens are being attacked within our own nation can we?

Those who think war is not the way to handle things need to compare the options: stopping everything attempting to come into our country, OR stopping it at its source.

If Saddam is providing anthrax to bin Laden & co., well... I guess we'll be making more changes. We've been in Iraq before. They were much less of a challenge than Afghanistan will be.

- Noctavis


Noctavis
Jackolantern
Jackolantern's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: Stupid decisions like the use of anthrax...

Anonymous B.orger wrote on Friday, 10/19/2001 - 04:39:

: Anyhoo... Seems to me that tossing anthrax at our national
: leaders was a bad, baaad idea. Not to mention news anchors
: who Americans are used to seeing every day. This is not
: going to scare Americans into submission; it is going to
: make us very, very pissed.
:

That may be true but until we find the persons responsible we are just going to continue to crap in our collective pants. There are already runs on the anthrax antibiotic and the NYC health system is being stretched by people who think that they have been exposed. Remember that in times of trouble Americans pull together, but in times of uncertainty we run around like chickens with our heads chopped off.

: The World Trade Center and Pentagon are in New York and
: Washington DC, respectively. Now, people are afraid to open
: junk mail in their own homes. (even though everything
: we're aware of at present has been targeted at a
: company or government office)
:
: Someone assassinates an Israeli minister... equal to
: someone plugging Colin Powel over here. We want Arab/Muslim
: nations in our coalition, but this is not going to help
: their case, and I hope they know it. Arafat might as well
: put a big red dot on his chest, because either he and his
: cause will be eaten alive for being unable to control his
: people or he'll be assassinated by some of his own. Ah
: well... just proof that the Palestinians really don't
: deserve a nation of their own yet. They have no leadership
: and no consistent policies. They're just a people to be
: occupied and policed.
:

On the whole assassination thing, while I think that it was terrible it will probably help the peace process in the area. The Israeli guy that died was on the far right and was keeping one of the far right parties in the government. With that party leaving their PM will have to pony up to the center more then previously, something that should help the situation.

: The political opposition is waning... even some of the
: lefties who have been speaking out against the war in
: previous weeks are shutting up now.
:

You should come to UC Santa Cruz the anti-war forces have not even begun to fight :). While I find some of their tactics more then a little stupid(Spray painting "no war" everywhere, public vandalism never garnered much support) they are the same groups that protested the WTO in Seattle and really know how to make nuisances of themselves. There flyers already cause me to become quite disturbed. I saw one while sitting at a bus stop last week and had to tear it down(before you get all legal on me know that besides being offensive[to me] it was posted illegally). It basically blamed the attack on our leaders and foreign policy. If you want to say our policy contributed that is one thing but to basically call Ben Laden a hero is going way to far.

: [Bill Cosby Voice:] "We are goiiing... to kick... their
: assss"
:
: There's a good chance we'll put our boot on their neck and
: a gun to their head, and then that is when we'll
: begin negotiations in earnest. It's what we did in World War
: 2, and it worked well. We'll drop food and provide other
: assistance along the way, but that point is where we'll be
: able to help the people of Afghanistan and other nations
: much better.
:
: The troops are moving in now. For them I'll pray, and for
: the Afghan people. (as well as our own, who are under a more
: cowardly attack)

agreed

:
: - Noctavis
: Bunbu Itchi - "The pen and sword in accord"

-Jackolantern

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Re: Stupid decisions like the use of anthrax...

First, while there seems to be some classified evidence (not known to the public) that Bin Laden was responsible for the WTC attack, there is none whatsoever to suggest that the anthrax outbreak is anything more than a domestic terrorist. In fact, there's evidence to support that it is only domestic: there are more facilities capable of culturing and distributing anthrax right here in the good old U.S. of A.

Furthermore, making us pissed at Arabs seems to be EXACTLY Mr. Bin Laden's cause. By sending us into a land-war with him, he's hoping to polarize the world into Islam and USA. Given the numbers on both sides, he could very easily win such a land war. Making us pissed at Arabs causes us to do silly things like bomb Afghanistan and accidently level a hospital (that's happened, by the way), thus generating another several hundred angry, angry Arabs with nothing to lose.

Bin Laden comes closer and closer to accomplishing his goals every day, whereas the United States remains on a wild, misguided goose-chase in Afghan.

-Datax

Earendil
Earendil's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 10/16/2001 - 13:22
but

Anonymous B.orger wrote on Wednesday, 10/24/2001 - 05:56:

: First, while there seems to be some classified evidence
: (not known to the public) that Bin Laden was responsible for
: the WTC attack, there is none whatsoever to suggest that the
: anthrax outbreak is anything more than a domestic terrorist.

well the letter and what is said within is "evidence" that points to, or shares the same beliefs as Bin laden. whether this is just someone that is hiding behind him for there own safety, is up to the FBI to figure out.

: In fact, there's evidence to support that it is only
: domestic: there are more facilities capable of culturing and
: distributing anthrax right here in the good old U.S. of A.
:
: Furthermore, making us pissed at Arabs seems to be EXACTLY
: Mr. Bin Laden's cause. By sending us into a land-war with
: him, he's hoping to polarize the world into Islam and USA.
: Given the numbers on both sides, he could very easily win
: such a land war.

and they don't all have guns nor do they have many boats, so I'm sitting pretty here in the US :-)
but really, in order for that to happen they'd have to take on countries that don't play as nice as we do ::coughrussiachinacough:: and many others. it's a big world, you can't take it all with soldiers.

: Making us pissed at Arabs causes us to do
: silly things like bomb Afghanistan and accidentally level a
: hospital (that's happened, by the way), thus generating
: another several hundred angry, angry Arabs with nothing to
: lose.

shit happens. I'm only 16(17 Soon™) and I don't hate or dislike arabs or Islamic people. I feel sorry for the poor citizens that have to deal with there dumbass leaders, while at the same time cheering when another "die bin laden" song comes on the radio :-)
:
: Bin Laden comes closer and closer to accomplishing his
: goals every day, whereas the United States remains on a
: wild, misguided goose-chase in Afghan.
:

except that atm we are winning. and if we level afgan and/or get bin laden (which ever happens first) then it'll all be over, we'll leave peacefully (unless we need to take out some other tali folk).

(the following not from experience)
living in a country where the government rules all, the citizens have no rights, no food, and where they also know little or nothing about there government, CAN'T be THAT happy with them, or believe everything they say (this does change when religion is thrown in).

Bin Laden may be a hero to many Islamic people, but there are probably many more that hate him atm. he's no god figure nor a leader of the country(no mater how much influence he has). if we can get him within a year, and we let things settle down a bit before moving on to the next country, I think things will more or less return to normal. it's if terrorists start playing real mean that they'll get screwed(whether we get screwed too is yet to be seen).

the US has these guys that have been trained there whole life to lead and win a war. they love this kind of stuff. I wouldn't want one hunting me down :-)

Earendil

Oh! They have the internet on computers now! - Homer J Simpson

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Re: but

: well the letter and what is said within is "evidence" that
: points to, or shares the same beliefs as Bin laden. whether
: this is just someone that is hiding behind him for there own
: safety, is up to the FBI to figure out.

Frequently, someone will commit a crime and frame someone else. Do you really think that just because an anthrax-coated letter says "Holiday greetings from Bin Laden" means it's from him?

: and they don't all have guns nor do they have many boats,
: so I'm sitting pretty here in the US :-)
: but really, in order for that to happen they'd have to
: take on countries that don't play as nice as we do
: ::coughrussiachinacough:: and many others. it's a big world,
: you can't take it all with soldiers.

If Bin Laden and George W. Bush succeed in their apparent quest to place the USA and Islam at military odds, there would be more people on their side with guns than there would on ours. At the very least, a land war would be a horrible, bloody, protracted massacre that wouldn't solve anything or even have a definite end. Do you remember Vietnam? We may have more tanks, boats, and guns than the Viet Cong, but that wasn't a pleasant war. Nor, for that matter, was it all that obvious that we won at all.

: : Making us pissed at Arabs causes us to do
: : silly things like bomb Afghanistan and accidentally
: level a
: : hospital (that's happened, by the way), thus
: generating
: : another several hundred angry, angry Arabs with nothing
: to
: : lose.
:
: shit happens. I'm only 16(17 Soon?) and I don't hate or
: dislike arabs or Islamic people. I feel sorry for the poor
: citizens that have to deal with there dumbass leaders, while
: at the same time cheering when another "die bin laden" song
: comes on the radio :-)

Shit happens? You could say the same about the WTC attack. 6,000 people dead? Shit happens. An Afghan hospital needlessly levelled along with all the humanity contained therein? Shit happens. You mother was raped and tortured to death because survivors of the Afghan hospital bombing, enraged at the US, cornered her in an alley with knives and killed her? Shit happens. I think I've made my point.

: : Bin Laden comes closer and closer to accomplishing his
: : goals every day, whereas the United States remains on
: a
: : wild, misguided goose-chase in Afghan.
: :
:
: except that atm we are winning. and if we level afgan
: and/or get bin laden (which ever happens first) then it'll
: all be over, we'll leave peacefully (unless we need to take
: out some other tali folk).

Now there's an interesting sentiment: we are winning, it's ok. How are we winning? Did you miss my point entirely? Bin Laden's GOAL is to make Arabs angry at the United States. We are ACCOMPLISHING HIS GOAL FOR HIM. There were at least one hundred survivors of this hospital I keep mentioning; many of them swore vengeance on the United States. By bombing Afghanistan, MORE natives are now in FAVOR of the Taliban government. They already viewed Osama Bin Laden as a freedom fighter; even if we kill him, he'll be a martyr, too. Maybe we can kill more people overall with our bombs and planes and tanks and nukes, but does that matter? Is it OK if our own people die as long as we can kill more of them? We're doing nothing but precipitating a cycle of violence, and thus serving Bin Laden's cause better than he himself ever could alone.

: (the following not from experience)
: living in a country where the government rules all, the
: citizens have no rights, no food, and where they also know
: little or nothing about there government, CAN'T be THAT
: happy with them, or believe everything they say (this does
: change when religion is thrown in).

You're right. But, they can be less happy with us. And, as it turns out, this is increasingly the result. And by the way, it is entirely possible for people who hate a government to believe everything they say. Remember, the Afghan people do not necessarily have access to CNN.com. They don't get the New York Times. They didn't tune into the broadcast of the NYC benefit concert. All they hear is what their government tells them. And you'd better believe the Taliban is not telling the Afghans the whole story. Fact is, people believe what they hear.

: Bin Laden may be a hero to many Islamic people, but there
: are probably many more that hate him atm. he's no god figure
: nor a leader of the country(no mater how much influence he
: has). if we can get him within a year, and we let things
: settle down a bit before moving on to the next country, I
: think things will more or less return to normal. it's if
: terrorists start playing real mean that they'll get
: screwed(whether we get screwed too is yet to be seen).

They already viewed Osama Bin Laden as a freedom fighter; even if we kill him, he'll be a martyr, too. He had a lot of influence, and it wasn't all about his money. Much of his influence is in the people; they view him as a leader, a role model, and a freedom fighter.

: the US has these guys that have been trained there whole
: life to lead and win a war. they love this kind of stuff. I
: wouldn't want one hunting me down :-)

The United States has people trained to kill other people. What we seem to lack seriously is people to consider whether or not a war will help. We can certainly kill a lot of people. Maybe one of them will be Bin Laden. Maybe we can level most or all of Afghanistan. Hell, let's blow up all the islamic countries. Moral considerations aside (and that's a WHOLE different can of worms), is this going to decrease terrorist activity in the United States? You tell me.

No.

-Datax

Earendil
Earendil's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 10/16/2001 - 13:22
Re: but

Datax wrote on Wednesday, 10/24/2001 - 13:04:

: : well the letter and what is said within is "evidence"
: that
: : points to, or shares the same beliefs as Bin laden.
: whether
: : this is just someone that is hiding behind him for there
: own
: : safety, is up to the FBI to figure out.
:
: Frequently, someone will commit a crime and frame someone
: else. Do you really think that just because an
: anthrax-coated letter says "Holiday greetings from Bin
: Laden" means it's from him?

hell no, that was my point, and yours I believe, but like I said, it's for the FBI to figure out, after all if it WAS bid ladens men that's probably what it'd say. and it's always been Bin Ladens thing to follow up one terrorist attack with another.

:
: : and they don't all have guns nor do they have many
: boats,
: : so I'm sitting pretty here in the US :-)
: : but really, in order for that to happen they'd have to
: : take on countries that don't play as nice as we do
: : ::coughrussiachinacough:: and many others. it's a big
: world,
: : you can't take it all with soldiers.
:
: If Bin Laden and George W. Bush succeed in their apparent
: quest to place the USA and Islam at military odds, there
: would be more people on their side with guns than there
: would on ours. At the very least, a land war would be a
: horrible, bloody, protracted massacre that wouldn't solve
: anything or even have a definite end. Do you remember
: Vietnam? We may have more tanks, boats, and guns than the
: Viet Cong, but that wasn't a pleasant war. Nor, for that
: matter, was it all that obvious that we won at all.

we didn't win. least I know that much :-)
course a land war would be a horrible thing, and not something I wish to happen. but Vietnam was a SPECIAL case, it was there land, and a jungle where our tech was not useful. but in order for them to do what I suggested they'd have to attack other countries on there own land. and I don't think Islamic people out number the rest of us. china alone comes close to equaling them.
:
: : : Making us pissed at Arabs causes us to do
: : : silly things like bomb Afghanistan and accidentally
: : level a
: : : hospital (that's happened, by the way), thus
: : generating
: : : another several hundred angry, angry Arabs with
: nothing
: : to
: : : lose.
: :
: : shit happens. I'm only 16(17 Soon?) and I don't hate
: or
: : dislike arabs or Islamic people. I feel sorry for the
: poor
: : citizens that have to deal with there dumbass leaders,
: while
: : at the same time cheering when another "die bin laden"
: song
: : comes on the radio :-)
:
: Shit happens? You could say the same about the WTC attack.
: 6,000 people dead? Shit happens. An Afghan hospital
: needlessly leveled along with all the humanity contained
: therein? Shit happens. You mother was raped and tortured to
: death because survivors of the Afghan hospital bombing,
: enraged at the US, cornered her in an alley with knives and
: killed her? Shit happens. I think I've made my point.

I mean it's war. that doesn't make it right. but that doesn't make it as big a deal as say leveling two sky scrapers with 6K people in them. besides I don't think we *know* the hospital was bombed. last I heard that is just what the taliban was saying. nothing we new for a fact.
:
: : : Bin Laden comes closer and closer to accomplishing
: his
: : : goals every day, whereas the United States remains
: on
: : a
: : : wild, misguided goose-chase in Afghan.
: : :

so you presume to know more about where Bin Laden is then the US government? or what Bin Ladens goals are?

: :
: : except that atm we are winning. and if we level afgan
: : and/or get bin laden (which ever happens first) then
: it'll
: : all be over, we'll leave peacefully (unless we need to
: take
: : out some other tali folk).
:
: Now there's an interesting sentiment: we are winning, it's
: ok. How are we winning? Did you miss my point entirely? Bin
: Laden's GOAL is to make Arabs angry at the United States. We
: are ACCOMPLISHING HIS GOAL FOR HIM.

why yes of course that's his goal... could I hear that from someone other then you? and what are we to do? this isn't one of those "leave them alone they live us alone" the killed 6K when we didn't set foot in afgan, they already hate the US, so what makes you think everything will be hunky dory? you shoot down the idea of a war, and getting bin laden, but give no other alternatives

:There were at least one
: hundred survivors of this hospital I keep mentioning; many
: of them swore vengeance on the United States. By bombing
: Afghanistan, MORE natives are now in FAVOR of the Taliban
: government. They already viewed Osama Bin Laden as a freedom
: fighter; even if we kill him, he'll be a martyr, too.

who says we kill him? I'm all for putting him in prison forever and trying to reform him. martyr that.

: Maybe
: we can kill more people overall with our bombs and planes
: and tanks and nukes, but does that matter? Is it OK if our
: own people die as long as we can kill more of them? We're
: doing nothing but precipitating a cycle of violence, and
: thus serving Bin Laden's cause better than he himself ever
: could alone.

as long as people are willing to die to keep more from dieing I'll feel *OK* about it. not great, but ok. the people, as far as I know, would rather everyone in the US *DEAD*.
:
: : (the following not from experience)
: : living in a country where the government rules all,
: the
: : citizens have no rights, no food, and where they also
: know
: : little or nothing about there government, CAN'T be
: THAT
: : happy with them, or believe everything they say (this
: does
: : change when religion is thrown in).
:
: You're right.

so you can agree with me on something :-)

: But,

knew there had to be one :-)

: they can be less happy with us. And, as
: it turns out, this is increasingly the result. And by the
: way, it is entirely possible for people who hate a
: government to believe everything they say. Remember, the
: Afghan people do not necessarily have access to CNN.com.
: They don't get the New York Times. They didn't tune into the
: broadcast of the NYC benefit concert. All they hear is what
: their government tells them. And you'd better believe the
: Taliban is not telling the Afghans the whole story. Fact is,
: people believe what they hear.

I don't believe everything CNN says.
but you have a point. the US is dropping leaflets, and there is word of mouth. but as we aren't hurting the people of afgan(in fact we are dropping food and medical supplies), least not on purpose.

while on the other hand Bin Laden is hurting our government AND or people. on purpose. without us doing anything first(least nothing worth 6K lives).

: : Bin Laden may be a hero to many Islamic people, but
: there
: : are probably many more that hate him atm. he's no god
: figure
: : nor a leader of the country(no mater how much influence
: he
: : has). if we can get him within a year, and we let
: things
: : settle down a bit before moving on to the next country,
: I
: : think things will more or less return to normal. it's
: if
: : terrorists start playing real mean that they'll get
: : screwed(whether we get screwed too is yet to be seen).
:
: They already viewed Osama Bin Laden as a freedom fighter;
: even if we kill him, he'll be a martyr, too. He had a lot of
: influence, and it wasn't all about his money. Much of his
: influence is in the people; they view him as a leader, a
: role model, and a freedom fighter.

so we get him and his money, and anyone that follows him and has committed a terrorist act. because terrorists don't stop just cause we stop.
:
: : the US has these guys that have been trained there
: whole
: : life to lead and win a war. they love this kind of
: stuff. I
: : wouldn't want one hunting me down :-)
:
: The United States has people trained to kill other people.

no we haven't, we haven't been though that many wars in the history of the US. unless you mean UT :-)

: What we seem to lack seriously is people to consider whether
: or not a war will help.

that we do have. and lots of them.

: We can certainly kill a lot of
: people. Maybe one of them will be Bin Laden. Maybe we can
: level most or all of Afghanistan. Hell, let's blow up all
: the Islamic countries. Moral considerations aside (and
: that's a WHOLE different can of worms), is this going to
: decrease terrorist activity in the United States? You tell
: me.

yes. as Bin Laden has been behind most of the major terrorist attacks against the US, and has now got the guts to do something big, he's not going to stop at that. if we get him, not only can he not do it again, others will know not to mess with us. and the POINT of this is to keep countries from harboring terrorists. don't say we didn't give them fair warning.
:
: No.
:

everyone has an opinion :-)

Earendil

Oh! They have the internet on computers now! - Homer J Simpson

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Re: but

Earendil wrote on Wednesday, 10/24/2001 - 21:39:

: Datax wrote on Wednesday, 10/24/2001 - 13:04:
:
: : : well the letter and what is said within is
: "evidence"
: : that
: : : points to, or shares the same beliefs as Bin laden.
: : whether
: : : this is just someone that is hiding behind him for
: there
: : own
: : : safety, is up to the FBI to figure out.
: :
: : Frequently, someone will commit a crime and frame
: someone
: : else. Do you really think that just because an
: : anthrax-coated letter says "Holiday greetings from Bin
: : Laden" means it's from him?
:
: hell no, that was my point, and yours I believe, but like
: I said, it's for the FBI to figure out, after all if it WAS
: bid ladens men that's probably what it'd say. and it's
: always been Bin Ladens thing to follow up one terrorist
: attack with another.

OK. I concede that, given proof that the WTC attacks were definitely Bin Laden (which isn't available to the public or Taliban), that another attack is imminent. I also want to remind you that the FBI has publicly said that at this point, there is no evidence whatsoever that the anthrax letters were anything other than common, faceless, domestic terrorism.

: : If Bin Laden and George W. Bush succeed in their
: apparent
: : quest to place the USA and Islam at military odds,
: there
: : would be more people on their side with guns than
: there
: : would on ours. At the very least, a land war would be
: a
: : horrible, bloody, protracted massacre that wouldn't
: solve
: : anything or even have a definite end. Do you remember
: : Vietnam? We may have more tanks, boats, and guns than
: the
: : Viet Cong, but that wasn't a pleasant war. Nor, for
: that
: : matter, was it all that obvious that we won at all.
:
: we didn't win. least I know that much :-)
: course a land war would be a horrible thing, and not
: something I wish to happen. but Vietnam was a SPECIAL case,
: it was there land, and a jungle where our tech was not
: useful. but in order for them to do what I suggested they'd
: have to attack other countries on there own land.

No, they wouldn't. They would blow up some more buildings and Bush would charge in, leading the Forces of Good, flailing both arms blindly. They do not have the resources to lead a successful trans-continental land-war, but they certainly have the potential to bait us into attacking them on their own turf. And Bush currently seems to be headed in that direction.

: and I
: don't think Islamic people out number the rest of us. china
: alone comes close to equaling them.

Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world. The United States has a greater population than Afghanistan, granted. But every time we make a mistake and bomb a hospital, we create literally hundreds of angry people with nothing to lose, and thousands across their country who are filled with hatred of the evil foreign power killing their countrymen. These are people who are going to enlist in the Afghan army, or, God forbid, attempt the same sort of faceless terrorism we saw on the eleventh of September. Yes, the population of the United States outstrips that, but the number of people in the United States Armed forces whom we can equip and train for ground combat does not compare as favorably. Even if we won such a nighmarish war, it would come at an incredible cost.

: : Shit happens? You could say the same about the WTC
: attack.
: : 6,000 people dead? Shit happens. An Afghan hospital
: : needlessly leveled along with all the humanity
: contained
: : therein? Shit happens. You mother was raped and tortured
: to
: : death because survivors of the Afghan hospital
: bombing,
: : enraged at the US, cornered her in an alley with knives
: and
: : killed her? Shit happens. I think I've made my point.
:
: I mean it's war.

My point is exactly this: it's not war, and it doesn't have to and shouldn't become war. Right now, it's yet another United States "police action" led by Mr. Commander-In-Chief George W. Bush; the United States hasn't declared war since WW2. By allowing the situation to progress into something that fits the common definition of war, our government would be precipitating even more bloodshed, terror, and death than I've outline above. And, as I've been arguing, it wouldn't even serve to staunch the current outbreak of terrorism.

: that doesn't make it right. but that
: doesn't make it as big a deal as say leveling two sky
: scrapers with 6K people in them.

Believe me, I'm not arguing that killing 6,000 American civilians was in any way acceptable. I spent well over an hour on 9/11 battling jammed Manhatten phone circuits trying to find out whether two members of my immediate family were alive.

: besides I don't think we
: *know* the hospital was bombed. last I heard that is just
: what the taliban was saying. nothing we new for a fact.

I have heard interviews on the radio of Arabs whose families were killed in this hospital incident, and I have heard that the Pentagon has publicly stated that they "don't know how it happened." That sounds clear and convincing to me, but I admit to the slight possibility that it might be a Taliban conspiracy. Even if it is, the prospect is good that at some point, a similar incident will occur.

: : : : Bin Laden comes closer and closer to accomplishing
: : his
: : : : goals every day, whereas the United States remains
: : on
: : : a
: : : : wild, misguided goose-chase in Afghan.
: : : :
:
: so you presume to know more about where Bin Laden is then
: the US government? or what Bin Ladens goals are?

...and...

: why yes of course that's his goal... could I hear that
: from someone other then you?

Certainly. Hear it from the multitudes of Ivy League professors whose lectures I've attended over the past week. I'll tell you from whom you should not take advice: Bush's administration. Bush was in the interesting position of a first-term President with probably the lowest possible amount of support from his nation (as he was elected by 49% of the voters). Suddenly, after this incident, his support has skyrocketed. Given that his political career is at stake and there's a conflict of interest for him to treat this as a full-blown on-going national crisis, or even, as he puts it, war, he and his administration are quite biased. Leadership gains support during crises; he sees the support JFK gained through the Cuban Missle Crisis (which was, admittedly, a true crisis), and we can watch Wag the Dog and see the phenomenon presented quite artfully. It benefits him to behave as a self-appointed Champion of Truth, Justice, and the American Way; he even goes so far as to refer to Bin Laden as "The Evil One" in public speeches, which is something that should be a complete embarrassment for any rational person.

: and what are we to do? this
: isn't one of those "leave them alone they live us alone" the
: killed 6K when we didn't set foot in afgan, they already
: hate the US, so what makes you think everything will be
: hunky dory? you shoot down the idea of a war, and getting
: bin laden, but give no other alternatives

Well, allow me to try. I propose that we divert much of the funding being spent on blowing things up into an information campaign. Unlock the roads into Afghanistan. Fill airplanes with fliers and scatter them over population densities. Import crank-powered radios and fill the air with a more holistic view than the Taliban is offering. Turn the tide of the people against the government and Bin Laden. Then, when we've obtained their support, consider more direct action against the parties responsible. Right now, as strange as it sounds, I believe the bigger threat is from the polarization which I maintain is Bin Laden's goal. Restrain him to the best of our abilities by such actions as freezing his accounts, monitoring his contacts, and keeping him out of sight and on the run while we attempt to enlighten the people. People will not welcome life under a government once they've realized that it is oppressive; our primary goal must be to allow that realization.

: :There were at least one
: : hundred survivors of this hospital I keep mentioning;
: many
: : of them swore vengeance on the United States. By
: bombing
: : Afghanistan, MORE natives are now in FAVOR of the
: Taliban
: : government. They already viewed Osama Bin Laden as a
: freedom
: : fighter; even if we kill him, he'll be a martyr, too.
:
: who says we kill him? I'm all for putting him in prison
: forever and trying to reform him. martyr that.

Bombs don't capture people; they break them into little bloody pieces. We are bombing to destroy the Taliban, and we're also bombing to kill Bin Laden. The CIA is considering using glorified assassins to kill him if capture is not a possibility, as they have with other members of the Taliban government. Such would be a disaster; through so doing, we would spawn countless more similar threats among his admirers.

: : Maybe
: : we can kill more people overall with our bombs and
: planes
: : and tanks and nukes, but does that matter? Is it OK if
: our
: : own people die as long as we can kill more of them?
: We're
: : doing nothing but precipitating a cycle of violence,
: and
: : thus serving Bin Laden's cause better than he himself
: ever
: : could alone.
:
: as long as people are willing to die to keep more from
: dieing I'll feel *OK* about it. not great, but ok. the
: people, as far as I know, would rather everyone in the US
: *DEAD*.

You feel OK that someone should have to die to defend your safety? Wow. I personally feel it is a tragedy, especially considering that it isn't at all clear that it's necessary. Do you also feel it's OK that our bombs go astray and kill hundreds of civilians in a hospital? And how do you feel about the possible hundreds more of United States citizens killed in isolated terrorist attacks perpetrated by survivors of the blast?

: : You're right.
:
: so you can agree with me on something :-)

Of course. I agree that the situation is truly rotten, and that a great deal was compromised on 9/11. I agree that the terrorism must stop, and I agree that something should be done to stop it. What I do not agree with is our methods.

: I don't believe everything CNN says.
: but you have a point. the US is dropping leaflets, and
: there is word of mouth. but as we aren't hurting the people
: of afgan(in fact we are dropping food and medical supplies),
: least not on purpose.

This is a bit of a tangent, but the food and leaflets we are dropping are more to pacify American protestors than anything else. Members of the CIA have stated that the costs associated with airdrops of food and medical supplies necessitate that the amount dropped is negligible compared to the need. They also concede that it is possible that the Taliban can and does simply confiscate much of it, and they admit that it, in fact, causes incredible risk to Afghan civilians due to mine fields. The Taliban has made it extremely clear that the US is bombing Afghanistan; knowing that, watching an American fighter plane drop an object to the earth does not do a great deal to raise the confidences of the hundreds who watch it even if it does satisfy the handful who reap the rewards contained therein. Word of mouth doesn't help when one mouth doesn't know the truth to begin with, and even if it did, it would face horrible punishment at the hands of the Taliban should it choose to share that truth. The Taliban use secret police and hosts of other Orwellian methods to make sure that word of mouth is not as effective as you suggest.

: while on the other hand Bin Laden is hurting our
: government AND or people. on purpose. without us doing
: anything first(least nothing worth 6K lives).

We are in agreement. The events of 9/11 were inexcusable and tragic. There is no mitigating that fact.

: : They already viewed Osama Bin Laden as a freedom
: fighter;
: : even if we kill him, he'll be a martyr, too. He had a
: lot of
: : influence, and it wasn't all about his money. Much of
: his
: : influence is in the people; they view him as a leader,
: a
: : role model, and a freedom fighter.
:
: so we get him and his money, and anyone that follows him
: and has committed a terrorist act. because terrorists don't
: stop just cause we stop.

The two words it takes to express "getting him" don't accurately convey the difficulties involved therein. The chance of "getting" every terrorist we thus spawn in the campaign before a single one is able to inflict more terror is infinitesimal.

: : : the US has these guys that have been trained there
: : whole
: : : life to lead and win a war. they love this kind of
: : stuff. I
: : : wouldn't want one hunting me down :-)
: :
: : The United States has people trained to kill other
: people.
:
: no we haven't, we haven't been though that many wars in
: the history of the US. unless you mean UT :-)

You said yourself that "the US has these guys that have been trained there whole life to lead and win a war." I was agreeing. Wars are about killing people; in that profession, we are well-stocked. Of course, despite Bush's protests, terrorism is not fought in the same methods as another government. Colin Powell, for all his military genius, could not be expected to stop the planes converging on the World Trade Center; such is the nature of Bush's "war on terrorism."

: : What we seem to lack seriously is people to consider
: whether
: : or not a war will help.
:
: that we do have. and lots of them.

You're correct; allow me to amend my statement. What we seem to lack seriously is people to consider whether or not a war will help in positions such that they can and will make a difference. The fact that Bush tells the American people repeatedly that we are "at war" is a testement to this sentiment.

: : We can certainly kill a lot of
: : people. Maybe one of them will be Bin Laden. Maybe we
: can
: : level most or all of Afghanistan. Hell, let's blow up
: all
: : the Islamic countries. Moral considerations aside (and
: : that's a WHOLE different can of worms), is this going
: to
: : decrease terrorist activity in the United States? You
: tell
: : me.
:
: yes. as Bin Laden has been behind most of the major
: terrorist attacks against the US

Patently untrue. Oklahoma City bombing was Timothy McVeigh. Columbine was a handful of students. The '95 plane explosion is still a complete enigma. He is BELIEVED responsible for SOME terrorist attacks, but he is hardly behind most of them, let alone the recent major ones I've reacapitulated above.

: and has now got the guts
: to do something big, he's not going to stop at that. if we
: get him, not only can he not do it again, others will know
: not to mess with us. and the POINT of this is to keep
: countries from harboring terrorists. don't say we didn't
: give them fair warning.

We did NOT give the civilian in the hospital fair warning. We did NOT give the man who lost three sons in the hospital fair warning. And you can bet that he's not going to give us fair warning if he decides to become a suicidal terrorist. Killing civilians makes people angry. Angry people with nothing to lose often become terrorists. We are creating more terrorists in our current campaign than we are eliminating existing ones; I challenge you to name one terrorist whom we've killed in the same campaign that leveled that hospital.

: everyone has an opinion :-)

Indeed. I hope you don't feel I've been rude in defending mine. If I have, I apologize; such was not my intent.

-Datax

vector40
vector40's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 11 months ago
Joined: 10/11/2001 - 21:07
I think...

... that something's wrong with the "new post" doohickey. There's always new posts that aren't tagged.

narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: I think...

vector40 wrote on Friday, 10/19/2001 - 22:49:

: ... that something's wrong with the "new post" doohickey.
: There's always new posts that aren't tagged.

Hmm. Does the post you just made show up "new"? It does for me, perhaps not for everybody.

Also, I haven't even put that code at all into the list-max and thread-max modes, since they show all posts-- but perhaps I should, just for consistency.

Also, the "recent comments" link, for some reason, seems to have completely forgotten about the community forum. Not sure why.


Rampant for over se7en years.



vector40
vector40's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 11 months ago
Joined: 10/11/2001 - 21:07
Re: I think...

Okay, I'm certain of it now. It's almost never listing new posts as new.

acrappa
acrappa's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
I Need A Quote

I need a good quote to sit aside my senior picture in the yearbook, so throw me some ideas will ya!

narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: I Need A Quote

Acrappa wrote on Sat, 10/20/2001 - 02:12:

: I need a good quote to sit aside my senior picture in the
: yearbook, so throw me some ideas will ya!

FROG BLAST THE VENT CORE!

:-)

Hi crappa.

Or maybe "THEY"RE EVERYWHERE!"

or GHERITT WHITE LIVES.


Rampant for over se7en years.



narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Anyone having problems with classic?

nfin8zero posted this in the story queue-- I moved it here so everyone could see it:

----

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but the classic looks all funky as hell to me... image is large.. 280K

-----

Anybody else seeing this? It looks OK (the three boxes are of equal size) in the two Classic themes in IE 5 on the Mac and Windows 98, Opera 5 for the Mac, and iCab 2.5 on the Mac and NS 4.7 on the Mac.

Which browser are you using, nfin8zero? It looks like IE 5.5 on Windows ME?


Narcogen


Rampant for over se7en years.



nfin8zero
nfin8zero's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 10/20/2001 - 06:01
Re: Anyone having problems with classic?

narcogen wrote on Saturday, 10/20/2001 - 02:49:

: Which browser are you using, nfin8zero? It looks like IE
: 5.5 on Windows ME?

IE6 on Win2K Sp2... My roommate gets the same thing on ie5.5 sp2 on Win2K Sp2

-nfin

-nfin

nfin8zero
nfin8zero's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 10/20/2001 - 06:01
addendum to ^

Additionally, the links (at least on my view) for hotline clients are broken. both are dead

-nfin

-nfin

narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: addendum to ^

nfin8zero wrote on Saturday, 10/20/2001 - 16:35:

:
: Additionally, the links (at least on my view) for hotline
: clients are broken. both are dead
:
:

: -nfin

Yeah, those files are still on the old box, where we can't get at them. When we can, we'll bring them here.



Narcogen


Rampant for over se7en years.



nfin8zero
nfin8zero's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 10/20/2001 - 06:01
Re: Anyone having problems with classic?

narcogen wrote on Saturday, 10/20/2001 - 02:49:

: nfin8zero posted this in the story queue-- I moved it here
: so everyone could see it:
:
: ----
:
: I don't know about the rest of you guys, but the : href="http://216.254.16.210/classic.jpg">classic looks all
: funky as hell to me... image is large.. 280K
:
: -----
:
: Anybody else seeing this? It looks OK (the three boxes are
: of equal size) in the two Classic themes in IE 5 on the Mac
: and Windows 98, Opera 5 for the Mac, and iCab 2.5 on the Mac
: and NS 4.7 on the Mac.
:
: Which browser are you using, nfin8zero? It looks like IE
: 5.5 on Windows ME?
:
:
Narcogen

woohoo! looks great now.. thx narco

-nfin

-nfin

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Re: Anyone having problems with classic?

My problem is that I get "ghost" images to the right of the right sidebar links. They appear to be those images one gets as place holders before images are downloaded. They also act as links to to lin kthey boarder. Also on netscape there are aesthetically unappealing message icons that do not appear on IE 5. Email me if you would like a screenshot.

-Rob

Anonymous (not verified)
Anonymous's picture
Re: Anyone having problems with classic?

Oops: email is robert@viesca.org. Darn the quick-to-rot cookies.

-Rob

narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: Anyone having problems with classic?

Rob wrote on Saturday, 10/20/2001 - 20:41:

: Oops: email is robert@viesca.org. Darn the quick-to-rot
: cookies.
:
: -Rob

Actually, I notice from the above link to your nickname in the post that you're not logged in-- if you aren't logged in to an account, there is no cookie to rot :)

If you could send a screenshot of what you describe to dmjossel@synfibers.com, that'd be great.



Narcogen


Rampant for over se7en years.



narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
just testing something [NT]


Rampant for over se7en years.



narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: Anyone having problems with classic?

Anonymous B.orger wrote on Saturday, 10/20/2001 - 20:11:

: My problem is that I get "ghost" images to the right of
: the right sidebar links. They appear to be those images one
: gets as place holders before images are downloaded. They
: also act as links to to lin kthey boarder. Also on netscape
: there are aesthetically unappealing message icons that do
: not appear on IE 5. Email me if you would like a
: screenshot.

The message icons are for adding an item to your weblog; they're functional rather than aesthetic, and are (eventually) going to be changed to something more appropriate for the Rampancy theme.

If you see them in NS and not IE it means that you're logged into your account in NS and browsing anonymously in IE; they don't appear when you're not logged in since the system doesn't allow anonymous users to have a weblog.

The "ghost" icons are because NS is putting a border around the spacer gifs; none of the other browsers do. I'm working on it.
:
: -Rob



Narcogen


Rampant for over se7en years.



narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
ghost images, pushpin icons

Anonymous B.orger wrote on Saturday, 10/20/2001 - 20:11:

: My problem is that I get "ghost" images to the right of
: the right sidebar links. They appear to be those images one
: gets as place holders before images are downloaded. They
: also act as links to to lin kthey boarder. Also on netscape
: there are aesthetically unappealing message icons that do
: not appear on IE 5. Email me if you would like a
: screenshot.

The ghost images should be gone; I don't see them any more in NS 4.7.

Also, as an interim fixed I've changed the color palette of the newspost icon to be a little more consistent with the page until I've got a replacement.



Narcogen


Rampant for over se7en years.



Johnny Law
Johnny Law's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 10/14/2001 - 23:29
Re: ghost images, pushpin icons

Wouldn't it be more productive to spend your time writing a virus that destroys any Netscape browser prior to NS6?

narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Netscape

Johnny Law wrote on Sunday, 10/21/2001 - 03:04:

: Wouldn't it be more productive to spend your time writing
: a virus that destroys any Netscape browser prior to NS6?

Heh. Actually, up until very recently, I was still using NS 4.7 myself. Opera and iCab were faster, but not stable enough. iCab's CSS support is still very incomplete.

But IE 5 under OS 9 is an absolute pig-- especially if you have a slow network connection, like I do. When it waits for data, it hogs the machine until it gets what it's waiting for. NS, Opera, and iCab don't.

I tried NS 6 for awhile... and my initial reaction was "eww".



Narcogen


Rampant for over se7en years.



nfin8zero
nfin8zero's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 10/20/2001 - 06:01
Re: Netscape

narcogen wrote on Saturday, 10/20/2001 - 23:23:

: I tried NS 6 for awhile... and my initial reaction was
: "eww".
:
:


Narcogen

I agree on that "eww" narc.. ;P

-nfin

-nfin

nfin8zero
nfin8zero's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 10/20/2001 - 06:01
Re: Anyone having problems with classic?

narcogen wrote on Saturday, 10/20/2001 - 02:49:

: Anybody else seeing this? It looks OK (the three boxes are
: of equal size) in the two Classic themes in IE 5 on the Mac
: and Windows 98, Opera 5 for the Mac, and iCab 2.5 on the Mac
: and NS 4.7 on the Mac.

Well I get the same problem I had from home at work now, but I found what the problem was:

    line 34 of the generated main page has three tables. Which, in turn, have a couple tables containing the forum title and headlines. The top level tables are contained in three data cells. It is these cells which are the error. They are all set to 50% widths... which makes IE look weird.

-nfin

-nfin

narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: Anyone having problems with classic?

nfin8zero wrote on Sunday, 10/21/2001 - 17:58:

: narcogen wrote on Saturday, 10/20/2001 - 02:49:
:
: : Anybody else seeing this? It looks OK (the three boxes
: are
: : of equal size) in the two Classic themes in IE 5 on the
: Mac
: : and Windows 98, Opera 5 for the Mac, and iCab 2.5 on the
: Mac
: : and NS 4.7 on the Mac.
:
: Well I get the same problem I had from home at work now,
: but I found what the problem was:
:

    line 34 of the generated main page has three tables.
    : Which, in turn, have a couple tables containing the forum
    : title and headlines. The top level tables are contained in
    : three data cells. It is these cells which are the error.
    : They are all set to 50% widths... which makes IE look
    : weird.

-nfin

Thanks-- with that I tracked it down. I had altered the 72DPI Classic theme to include 33% width boxes when I added the spam forum box, but I had forgotten to do it in the standard Classic theme; should be OK now.



Narcogen


Rampant for over se7en years.



nfin8zero
nfin8zero's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 10/20/2001 - 06:01
Re: Anyone having problems with classic?

narcogen wrote on Sunday, 10/21/2001 - 19:28:

: Thanks-- with that I tracked it down. I had altered the
: 72DPI Classic theme to include 33% width boxes when I added
: the spam forum box, but I had forgotten to do it in the
: standard Classic theme; should be OK now.

Glad to help.

-nfin

-nfin

Dispatcher
Dispatcher's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Cole Protocol, UV Ceti & Marathon "maiden" voyage.

For the Marathoners here. My post is a little lengthy, but might be fun until Hamish gets back.

http://forums.bungie.org/story/?read=4576

narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: Cole Protocol, UV Ceti & Marathon "maiden" voyage.

Dispatcher wrote on Mon, 10/22/2001 - 00:26:

: For the Marathoners here. My post is a little lengthy, but
: might be fun until Hamish gets back.
:
: http://forums.bungie.org/story/?read=4576

Wow. Thanks 'spatch. 'Sup?


Rampant for over se7en years.



narcogen
narcogen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Halo Story Questions (spoilers!)

OK, if you haven't viewed and don't want to view the recently released cinematics (like Marty told you you shouldn't) then don't read any further.

OK. Just a few questions and conjectures.

Cortana's Personality

Oh so long ago we were introduced to Cortana in the infamous Letters. Now we've actually heard-- and seen her.

From the letters she sounded bitter, almost evil; somewhere between Durandal and Tycho.

Now she seems a lot more like Leela, with perhaps a dash of Durandal thrown in.

Is this just a change in Halo's thematic direction? Or is the personality she displayed in the Letters something that occurs later in the game?

The expansion of an AI's systems that leads to Rampancy wouldn't seem to be available to her stuck on that little credit card... so perhaps she doesn't spend the entire game there...

2) The Cyborg

During the intro movie we see the Captain ordering Cortana to have "everybody" at their station. Cortana's incredulous reaction and the subsequent "thawing" of the player seem to indicate that this is an unusual circumstance.

(Incidentally, the console message "unseal the hushed casket" is vaguely reminiscent of the Cortana Letter line, "I was there at the tomb"-- indicating that this perhaps is the scene being referred to in that part of the letter, the inference of course being that the player is a messianic figure being "raised from the dead" so to speak.)

This scene raises all kinds of questions, though.

First of all, the size of the room the "casket" is in, the fact that there is only one in that room, and the player's unique position on the ship, all seem to suggest that this is the only such facility.

But why freeze a cyborg? Well, if he was purely mechanical, then he could just be switched off. Apparently he isn't (hence the term "cyborg" rather than "robot"), requiring that long periods of dormancy be accompanied by hibernation of some kind.

But if the ship has the technology to do this, why freeze this particular individual? Why not have the capability to freeze all organic crewmembers if needed?

Perhaps the use of the machine consumes too much resources to freeze all the crew; perhaps the Master Chief himself consumes too many resources to leave running at idle.

As a foot soldier, perhaps there's no need of him under most circumstances on a ship designed to do battle in space. But yet there are lots of other foot soldiers on board, and no indication that they were frozen at any time.

Perhaps a ship capable of FTL travel doesn't need hibernation for the crew-- but again, that doesn't explain why the Master Chief was frozen.

Perhaps, like the Battleroids from the Marathon backstory, he's just too dangerous to have hanging around except when he's needed...

3) AIs and the Cole Protocol

The Captain orders Cortana to leave the ship with the Master Chief, and orders the MC to protect her from the Covenant. The reason he gives is that the Cole Protocol doesn't allow the shipboard AI to be captured OR DESTROYED by the enemy.

I had to play that bit over a few times to make sure I'd heard it right; I was expecting it him say that destruction of the shipboard AI was preferable to capture.

They explain quite well why capture is unacceptable; Cortana has information about human capabilities and tactics, as well as the position of Earth. Her capture would likely mean victory for the Covenant.

But why not destruction? Other than the loss of a valuable asset, this seems puzzling except as a symbolic device for giving the player a reason to have a voice in his head throughout the game.

Surely, it would make sense given what's known so far that Cortana be destroyed if she was about the fall into enemy hands. But the Cole Protocol doesn't seem to allow that, at least not as phrased here; destruction and capture seem equally unacceptable.

For that to make sense, there's got to be something about the importance of a shipboard AI-- or Cortana in particular-- that we don't know yet.


Rampant for over se7en years.



kalis
kalis's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: 05/26/1999 - 02:00
Re: Halo Story Questions (spoilers!)

With regards to the destruction of the AI/Cortana, the way I'd see it is that she would be destroyed if absolutely necessary, to prevent vital information from falling into enemy hands, just as the humans who know Earth's location and/or other vital details would kill themselves before being captured.

Cortana, after all, is a fully sentient being. What this implies to me at least is that the human military/gov't has decided and agreed upon the idea that she/AIs of that level are living, and therefore worthy of greater consideration than just a machine would be.

Pages

Topic locked