Jahled

A double post, but this truely hilarious: Bless the little fella, just imagine his head the next morning

Care to scribble a tutorial Tex how you accomplished this bit of editing? I didn't really follow your previus explaination! I'm amazed the game simply didn't crash.

Uncomfortable questions: Was the death star attack an inside job http://www.websurdity.com/images/thepetbantha.jpg

Yes, I see what you mean, and your oppinion fits quite well in our humanistic, modern society, I rather ment the past of Europe. Rome was always like a stable point in history. Great rulers, kings really loved to get some linkage with the Roman Empire somehow, as it represented an idea of power, and total reign. Just think of the Holy Roman Empire. It was actually a german empire, still they named it "roman". "Before the Renaissance, Western Christians regarded the German kings who ruled the Holy Roman Empire as legitimate heirs of the ancient Roman Empire through a transfer of rule (translatio imperii) to Charlemagne. The Greek Byzantine Empire and Eastern Christians always rejected this claim. For centuries historians have treated the Holy Roman Empire as completely distinct from the Roman Empire of classical times." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire And so on... we could come up with lot of examples. That was my point. And it's legacy doesn't only come with grand buildings. Just think of the thingy we call "roman law" Actually, upon further investigation into the subject, I think I may have been wrong...

That is like quality Krytos!

My eyes hurt SOCL! One interesting conclusion in Gibbon's The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, is his astonishment that it lasted as long as it did. And having just said that, I now can't find my copy of the book.

It's C. Montgemery Burns. *freaks out* -ok, I don't really care that much, I stopped watching Simpsons regularly a few years ago. =o) http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e253/Jahled/eyes.jpg

To be proud of? The Romans were without doubt the most violent civilization of the classical era, and it's capacity for constant warfare matched only the Qin dynasty of ancient China. At one point a Roman couldn't hold public office until he had completed at least ten military campaigns. The Roman empire thrived on slavery. Caesar returned to Italy with a million slaves after his conquest of Gaul. As an Empire, it began to collapse when it's rich land owners refused to forward man-power to the Roman army, thus an over reliance on foreign Germanic or Hunnish troops. This more or less back fired during the great migrations of the fourth century, when Germanic migration overwhelmed what was left of any Roman Imperial military existence. Commerce had overwhelmed the Roman world, and it become complacent in it's internal affair. Sure Rome's legacy looks great with it's grand buildings and such, but it's nothing to be proud of in so far as human achievement goes. It was a civilization built and lulled by military conquest. In the Arena, it slaughtered anyone at first, then Christians, then pagans, before it collapsed, without doubt because it could no longer finance what it had become. Pride in that? Move on, nothing to see here...

Ford also found the dialogue difficult, saying "You can type this shit, George, but you sure can't say it." HarrisonFordWeb.com From A New Hope on Wikipedia

Hooray! Rob you are my new hero! Most worthy random post EVER PLUS: your dog even checked out to see if you were ok, which is ace BUTyour girl sounds like that girl from the Blair Witch Project..which spooks me.. *pretends to be a lampshade*

*fingers crossed he denies absolutely EVERYTHING*

Fair point mate, posting after some over-indulgence was never really a recipe to make make sense. HOWEVER.. whilst what you, and indeed SOCL, subsequently posted was thoroughly interesting, I think it missed the point I was attempting to make, however dreadfully on account of my stomach being full of rising bubbles... E managed to detect my point I think, because what I was referring to was how you guys your side of the pond deploy the word liberal, the more so in politics. But I think it may be a simple language issue. Whilst we do indeed have a Conservative party and a liberal party by name over here in the UK, it's almost unheard of to deploy the word liberal in reference to someone as part of a derogatory remark. This was my point. To me the days of the old left versus right axis of politics that were so crap and unfruitful for meaningful politics or dialogue for that matter, in the eighties are largely over given the end of the cold war. The principle of free enterprise prevailed over socialist nationalization, and the subsequent and inevitable squandering of initiative and talent, as simply proven in eastern Europe. This is to say, there may be aspects of policy that emerge from Republican politics that I completely find common ground with and agree on, and other points and may find completely wrong, from my own perspective. The same with the Democratic party. And it's the same song over here in the UK. Over here, the conservatives have been coming out with more environmentally-friendly policies thanthe Labour party, which is a complete turn around! I appreciate they are in opposition and can be slightly 'radical,' with their proposals, but it's completely alien to the Tory party under Thatcher my generation hated with such a venom in the eighties. Their new logo is tree for goodness sake!

Rob got it, John McCain. McCain is a retired Navy pilot with experience from the Vietnam War. Unfortunately I think he's a bit "touched" in the head. He's probably the most liberal Republican you can get without actually being called a ... Democrat Even Rudy has liberal tendencies . Maybe Newt will drop his hat in the ring; that would be more favorable to me. Oooww, even better ... Ollie North Hoozah!! just my two bits worth I rate you as a mate Tex fella from being around here and all, but have never understood how you Americans use of the term liberal, and seem to despise the concept if your personal politics more or less falls in the Republican side of things. It's not like a dirty word or anything, it simply means 'open-minded,' which by definition in a democratic society is better that being close-minded, and inflexible to circumstances that fall upon our plates when we least expect or are ready for them. To use the word to label the Democratic party from my perspective is just kind of wierd. I consider myself as a liberal type of guy, I work with a gay guy that hasn't proven to be a problem given I am not, am quite open to people living their own lives as they see fit, and yet don't feel threatened. I consider my own politics more or less centre of the road, given I despise socialism, but in equal amounts the concept of an unregulated capitalist economy. I'm an atheist who has dabbled in religious learning but have come to own open-ended conclusions, but don't have a problem with my mum being religious and going to church every Sunday, or anyone else that matter. But would you still classify me a 'liberal,' for me wishing doom and violence upon those who advocate the destruction of my liberal society where I am allowed to think so? I am one by the definition of the word. I despise the current anti-war mob, because in reality they obviously don't give a fuck about human life, rather than yelling their heads off about Bush and Blair. If they were so concerned about life they would be marching in the various capitals making large amounts of noise about the current slaughter in Defur that has recently moved to Chad. Death-toll close to million now, or is the fact the victims are all black and African not suitable to their otherwise anti-Bush agenda? Also, where are the Muslims protesting about this slaughter as well, it's occurring in Muslim countries for christ sake! Call me liberal but i'm also up to meating out Daisy-Cutters to foul and repugnant Islamic regimes like Sudan, and their populace, if they consider non-Muslim human life, as in Defur, expendable. liberal/blog

I trust you immediately head-butted this daft individual?

I actually thought it Deep Rising was thoroughly entertaining, the more so that it never once pretended to be anything other than a completely absurd B-movie; all cemented by it's hilarious ending when our survivers reach The isle of doom. It had everything: crap actors, crap direction, crap dialogue, but excellent special effects; and the occasional genuine laugh like when the mercenaries get carried away with their Chinese gattling machine guns, or one of them being eaten by the monster is denied a quick death because the hero ran out of bullets. Perfect viewing for after the pub

I think we get that journal, i'll have to check it out.. When French marine biologists opened the stomachs of 36 sleeper sharks accidentally killed by trawlers 36!!! 36!!! No wonder our seas are practically deserts these days. I mean what were they using to fish, depth charges?

Youtube is blocked by our glorious IT department here at work... Oh well, The Kraken awakes.. http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42569000/gif/_42569339_colossal_squid_203x229.gif

I was reading something about a Republican Presidential candidate who criticised Donald Rumsfeld on his military conduct today coming home from work, but can't even remember the fella's name. My dodgy memory even remembers he has previously had a go at some evangelical people, any association with is which is why I normally switch off to the Republican Party. Who is this guy? I know nothing from this side of the pond, but how does he figure in US politics?

Probably not from my European angle E fella! Whilst I work in, and am very concerned with conservation, and subsequently the environment, I wouldn't want David Attenborough to run the world's richest economy. It wouldn't work. Whilst I haven't actually seen the apparently very dramatic film Al Gore made, I can presumably sympathize with the environmental point he was no doubt trying to make. It needs to be said. Because in about a hundred years of rampant carbon burning we have trashed this lovely paradise onto the brink of what will be irreversible damage to earth's ecosystem. If for some reason the recent appearance of factories, common use of cars, air travel etc, all spewing out exhaust doesn't lend weight to this obvious reality around us and the effect it's had on the planet, then chuckle away at the Day after tomorrow, which was utterly ludicrous, with such denial further, in the shadows of quite frankly defunct arguments. The world's leading scientists recently agreed that humans have been reasponsible for all this, even NASA in a previous report to the US government. I work in a library where we recieve well in exess of a hundred journals a week, that include Nature, New Scientist, and Science that about every week feature some article concerning the effects of global warming and how we and our modern life style have and are shagging this place. I'll think i'll take the scientist's notes of caution, other than Exon's, or any neoconservative in the pay roll of's, word for it. Back to Al Gore, great guy for ramming what is obvious down a nation's throat, but I feel now so stated incompatible with modern life and industry. To find solutions you are going to have to work with industry, and if he ever came to power the I suspect film would haunt him, given it is unrealistic to uninvent the combustion engine overnight, taking in to accord travel distances in North America for that matter. Those who voted for him on the extreme edge would view him a failure when he quite obviously wouldn't be able to realistically achieve much to suit the drama of the film (apparently) Not entirely sure about Mrs Clinton, or Obama, given I don't know much about either, other than one is a black guy and the other was married to a President who did sod all about the Taliban when he was in charge of the watch during the nineties. That I believe, is two cents!

All Hail Empress Diane!

^This is how it is. When you've got larger fleets facing each over it's also a very good way of deploying fighter groups, especially when you got a mixed make up, and want to lash out some punishment on a retreating enemy fleet (once they've figured it's time to leave). Example: The AI always deploys it's fighters against the most hazardous you've got first, so if you've got TIE fighters, interceptors, and defenders, it will go for for Defenders first on account of the harm they can do to it's capital ships. It will attack your least threatening fighters last, with it's laser cannons as well. But not in passing. If you simply tell your basic TIE fighters to move to the other end of the screen they will generally run the gauntlet of laser fire whilst getting there, plotting their route at an arc to a fixed point at the opposite end of the tactical battle will mean they will get there out of the range of laser fire, from fighters or capital ships. This also means rather than let a battle swing by the outcome of how many fighters are present, Capital ships should get to engage one another because the AI will calculate it's chance of victory based upon the numbers of opposing fighters with actual hostile battle orders, not simple deployment. And when it's realized it's folly, remember those basic TIEs? Waiting to unleash some hell. Works for me anyhows!

Call me old fashioned, but isn't the point of work to do stuff at work, like some work?

Actually it was the Persian army (the Prussians come two thousand years later..finger error Rob? ) at Thermopylae, and the all the Spartans were killed along with their king standing steadfast against 400,000, fulfilling a Delphic prophecy that either a Spartan king would be killed or their homeland laid waste. Film looks entertaining

Cool name there Mad! In other news I spent about two and half hours working on the image above for NG again after they apparently now want to use it after all! Their image requirements were breathtaking: at least 20mb and 8 inches wide, which I think sounds like a full page... The source is a slide.