Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/26/08 08:29 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: People are an invaluable asset, no doubt, dredd.

No doubt. The 911 attack was significant because they were commercial airlines with passengers, and the authority to shoot down a passenger plane wasn't forthcoming. Somewhere in the chain of command there was a critical delay in making such a ghastly decision. This goes to show how much the value of people fluctuates greatly under very extreme circumstances.

Technology will always exist, if the argument you're trying to make is that I believe unmanned drones are the apex of technologically-inspired weapons of war.

Also, you believe the US military hasn't explored the possiblities of RC weapons?

Oh sure, a manned heli might even fly with a swarm of RC helis and function as a hive defending the "queen" once deployed, but they would still need complicated re-docking capability, or else have to be primed with relatively certain self-destuct mechanism. More simply, a jamming technology could stop an enemy's RC signal, and so on and so forth. So i don't doubt America will continue to lead in this field. I'm just saying that the continued trend in recent wars in particular is towards small remote unmanned devices (IEDs for example) or cheap opportunistic attacks (ok, suicide bombers are "manned" but it's still a "cheap" substitute smartbomb), and drones are just an example of this trend on the American side also.

But as always, geo-location, transportation, and supply-chain costs are more significant factors, compared to those of the poorer defending forces. The same is true in every war. But America's air superiority will be ultimately be un-done by a low-tech solution of some sort. Who knows, maybe something more like a laser weapon. Anyway price is a critical factor in unmanned warfare in particular. The smaller and cheaper the systems become, then the greater possiblility that the tech will able to be replicated or reused. A motor, a battery, a schematic off the net, a gyro. Simply put, it's not rocket science.

At 11/25/08 10:54 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Thing is I can not be doing more forum things. Like I really do want to start animating, working, not being lazy, etc. I don't see how taking another forum under my daily activities would be beneficial.

Funk's a muso. I'm a coder. Most of us have shared asperations of some form or other, such as writing, web production, etc. We could use an animator too yanno.

At 11/25/08 04:59 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 11/25/08 04:57 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/25/08 07:52 AM, marchohare wrote:

At 11/25/08 02:45 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: ...In my dreams I'm a viking :)

I'm Mr. Spock. :-D

In mine I'm Han Solo. :)

I'm Bobba Fett!

Any guesses who i am?!

ps. plz DONT lock this topic avie, or i'm LEVIENG!!!1 : )_*

At 11/25/08 01:16 PM, Malachy wrote: Japan is so fucking hardcore.

It's like some amazing 21st-century Kabuki.

At 11/25/08 02:03 PM, Earfetish wrote: The only thing that pissed me off entirely about you was that you were always like 'America is the best country in the entire world by a million million miles and your country looks like the third world in comparison'. It's nice to see you've changed your tune on this but I don't much like how you've reversed it so foreigners were to blame all the time and you were always just responding to offence or to attacks. You'd spend ages and ages in the same thread claiming that the UK never invented anything and everything important involving the English Language occurred exclusively on your side of the Pacific and involved only Americans. Like it was pretty obnoxious, bordering on the xenophobic quite a few times.

Fuck yeah! He like quote everything you say, pick holes, and runs off on some irritating "raa-raa"-land. Everything has to be quoted and dissected for any possible resentment. Then if you say something like "oh btw, i'm buliding and electric car in my garage" then it's like he goes totally blind, and skips to the next sentence looking for something to dissect into a million hatred feelings..

Fuck, he'll make a perfect toy soldier.

At 11/25/08 08:02 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: we feel so betrayed..

*boo-hoo*..

..it's the rest of the world that feels betrayed. Your joining the military to "defend" your country just confirms my suspicions. The world doesn't need more fucken American-led wars. Get over yourself already.

At 11/25/08 07:34 AM, Comdot wrote: yeah, that kinda stuff ;)

Since you're looking.. this *must read* is way less conspiratory, much more a systemic analysis. (btw, dated Dec 2006 ;O)

At 11/25/08 08:25 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 11/25/08 02:39 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

People are an invaluable asset, no doubt, dredd.

And drones suggest that in future wars, robots will fight robots, and the side with the cheapest tech will win.

What's cheaper tech than a bullet, dredd?

The rise of the machines you foresee is faulty to the point of uselessness: manpower will ALWAYS power war on this planet until we fuck ourselves over by ruining our habitat.

Why does America use drones again? Oh yes, it's cheaper politically (the media don't film another Stars & Stripes draped coffin returning home), and it's cheaper finanically, cos despite having the most sophisticated heli's on the planet, they still have a tendency to be brought down, (yes, sometimes even by a farmers bullet)

The "rise of the machines" exists. Why do you think that Yamaha were instructed by the Japanese government to stop manufacturing their remote controlled "toy" helicopters in China? Precisely because they had weaponizable features. Yes, American drone may have advanced optics, and expensive navigation, and cost a million bucks a piece, but they could be brought down by an existing toy made in China. I put my money on the toy. Or at least a toy with a gun on it.

Poverty only exists because there's too many people living where they shouldn't.

Lol. Are we talking about Wall St. or Afghanistan? (crazy times indeed)

Shit, our country has been taking in Afghan refugees for decades. That's really the 3rd choice isn't it. Get the fuck out of dodge! Problem is that there are simply too many refugees in the world already. It has a globally destabalizing effect. People eventually become "anti-immigrant", and then the cycle repeats itself...

At 11/25/08 02:53 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: You mean the Democrats might actually have a reason to cut that defense spending? Oh...this just opens this topic up to a whole other stream of nasty now...

..it's really a thinly disguised "what if McCain had won?" topic. *shrugs*

At 11/24/08 08:37 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: People are an invaluable asset, no doubt, dredd.

And drones suggest that in future wars, robots will fight robots, and the side with the cheapest tech will win.

You just nailed what war is on the head; a choice.

(...a low aerial confetti drop over a lone starving goat)

???

War is about defending your country. America will eventually back out, just like Russia did and call it a victory. The region will remain wartorn by poverty. I've been watching these same wars since the mid 70s so i don't see America's high-tech military solutions achieving anything but slowly bankrupting the American economy as we're now witnessing.

At 11/24/08 07:04 PM, marchohare wrote:

At 11/24/08 06:42 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: What make you suspicious of it?

From your rhetorical questions, Judge, I presume you are too.

Who, Me?

.

At 11/24/08 06:26 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

When they're on their home turf, if they aren't friendly, then yeah.. I guess pretty much everyone trying to kill you is fair game. You understand me well.

I think i understand. Bombing remote villages with PILOTLESS DRONES on the off-chance that the villagers are aiding and abetting an insurgant group, is like killing all first-born males of a city on the rumor that one boy called Jesus is destined to lead a revolt against you.

Yeah I suppose it is if you can't distinguish between prophecy and reality.

What can't a multi-optical drone do that a piloted bomber can?

Staying ON topic? Well it removes all guilt and potential "war-criminal" responsibility from the battlefield. It demonstrates "absolute air superiority" in no uncertain terms.

It shows the civilian populous of the country how remarkably callous the "evil enemy" is.. flying these robots around bombing innocent villagers. (like I'm sure that Afghan villagers are regular experts on American military optic systems and computer controlled satellite surveillence systems)

They would've been valid military targets if they were targetted militarily. Of course, you can't militarily attack America because then you'd die.

Bin Ladin and his ilk were trained by 1 super-power (America) how to defeat another super-power (Russia) without a formal militry machine. Pretty much that means taking pages out of Sun Tzu's book on the Art of War; "..use your enemies strength".. ie. absolute air superiority.

First lines on the book, the King's two favorite concubine's are beheaded, against the king's explicit orders, by Tzu, as an example of how war orders from the general carried weight even for a troop of whores. If his orders are clear and not obeyed, then it is the fault of the commanders.

The villagers forced to help the occupying VC were caught between a rock and a hard place, with no place to play both sides.

Just as the taliban warlords likely order villagers to feed and support them, or else face having their village become the next "anonymous tipoff" for the Americans aerial assault.

At 11/24/08 05:43 PM, Comdot wrote: i am very suspicious of it.

What make you suspicious of it?

Is it because the public has no idea how 4 TRILLION of their tax-payer dollars have just been "bailed" into the world's richest corporations?

Is it because it's happening under Bush's reign of terror?

Is it perhaps because debtors of America are running in droves to Texas because that state has the most lax bankrupsy enforcement laws.

Or is it actually because this crunch/bailout is only the first stage of an overall effort to assume absolute power of control over many future generations of citizens both in America and around the world?

At 11/24/08 07:53 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 11/23/08 09:07 PM, XaosLegend wrote: based on your logic here civilians are ALWAYS A LEGITIMATE TARGET in war because civilians ALWAYS SUPPORT THEIR TROOPS WITH THEIR ECONOMY AND MEDICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

When they're on their home turf, if they aren't friendly, then yeah.. I guess pretty much everyone trying to kill you is fair game. You understand me well.

I think i understand. Bombing remote villages with PILOTLESS DRONES on the off-chance that the villagers are aiding and abetting an insurgant group, is like killing all first-born males of a city on the rumor that one boy called Jesus is destined to lead a revolt against you.

Youre basically saying the twin towers in 9/11 were valid military targets because they are the civilians that support the military industrial complex in the US that targets middle east interests.

They would've been valid military targets if they were targetted militarily. Of course, you can't militarily attack America because then you'd die.

Bin Ladin and his ilk were trained by 1 super-power (America) how to defeat another super-power (Russia) without a formal militry machine. Pretty much that means taking pages out of Sun Tzu's book on the Art of War; "..use your enemies strength".. ie. absolute air superiority.

At 11/18/08 08:40 PM, Gwarfan wrote: ..what do you think will happen to not only Detroit, but the state of Michigan as a whole?

You mean in the case of a 'perfect storm'? Sounds like a job for FEMA! (Failing Economy Mismanagement Agency) .. a-la New Orleans; nighttime curfew, mandatory seizure of strategic assests, mass evac of citizens to neighbouring states, fedral assistance packages, national guard callout, lockdown and roadblocks..

Nuthin' to wurry 'bout.

I'm almost positive that the earthquake in Indonesia YESterday was somehow linked to this.

At 11/17/08 10:36 PM, MercatorMap wrote:

At 11/17/08 10:31 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: I'm surprised that brothels don't tape sex and sell it to the patron. It would be the perfect cover.

In porn, recorded parties are paid by the person producing the video.

So in essence, if you want legal prostitution, pay the girl to let you videotape you fucking her.

Instantly legal. If it hits court they really can't prove that it was for pleasure and not for distribution.

And with the price and availability of cameras (hidden or otherwise) this wouldn't even make it to court. You seek consent for distro from the girl, pay double and sell her a cheap copy for her personal collection all on camera. Deal done.

At 11/17/08 08:40 PM, Brick-top wrote: Prostitution is legal in some places. However they can easily set health and safety standards with selling pornography. It's very difficult with prostittuion.

As Conspiracy suggests, regulation for prostitution is easy, especially if it's in the form of licensed premises, like private brothels or massage parlors. It's a much more clean and safe environment for all concerned.

But let's get real. Paying for sex is fine as long as it's in the form of expensive drinks, an expensive restaurant meal, and the occasional expensive gift etc, and generally involves spending the odd night together (like if takes longer than 30 mins then it's almost classed as a one-night-stand).

This is no different for escort services, which is also borderline. I mean that's a paid service, and i'm guessing that in a fair few cases that sex is simply considered an optional extra, like tipping for excellent service.

Let's face it. Cleaning the streets by criminalizing prostitution is like cleaning the streets by outlawing public toilets.

Hey, but i'm sure there's a minority of clients who find illegal paid sex is 50% more satisfying than any form of legal paid sex. Maybe the law is just for them. ;O)

At 11/16/08 08:36 PM, Korriken wrote: However, I think in a few years people will grow bored with him. the novelty will wear off and he will be tossed aside for the first non black non Caucasian president...

..does that thought come with anti-depressants?

t 11/16/08 11:15 AM, marchohare wrote:

Here's the score:
Fatcats - 850,000,000,000
Taxpayers - 0

hmm.. your math seems a little off.

Fatcats; +11,300,000,000,000
Taxpayers; -11,300,000,000,000

At 11/16/08 12:09 PM, ReThink wrote: I think this comic very succinctly sums up the position Obama is in.

*jaw drops*

geez, who knew cartoonery could be so powerful..

*feels a career change coming on*

.

At 11/16/08 06:54 PM, Al6200 wrote: This is what I think we should do:

1. Have the US government buy a majority stake in all of the failing US automakers.

2. Create a US Department of Industrial and Commercial Planning..

you forgot;

3. Consign a government agency to make even stonger patriotic "Big-car is gawd-damn American" propaganda.

..I'm almost ready to break out in nationalistic song, comrade. Salut!

At 11/14/08 03:30 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Also... we have monster trucks.

awesome

Dammit, you've found my Achilles' heel.. my 2 y/o boy absolutely luvs those things!

reckon it looks remarkably like a Roman Coliseum, don't it.

At 11/13/08 05:47 AM, Imperator wrote: Can you ban em again for sending mass spam mail?

i don't think that would do much to dampen his point of concern.

Maybe I'll just use my "mod in the pocket" (new term for conspiracy that certain users have mods at their disposal).

Conspiracy... yes that's just a dirty conspiracy.. move along now..

At 11/13/08 12:09 AM, n64kid wrote: Who the fuck is XaosLegend..

can give him some credit for organizing a community protest on a politics forum, not that it's a got a snowballs chance in hell of getting anywhere with it. :P

join the DAG!

At 11/12/08 12:48 PM, Grim wrote: Bing, Bing
You are correct sir -

http://www.banking-business-review.com/a rticle_news.asp?guid=D2A3000E-8F65-4A5C-
8EA9-8B3AAEF98147%20target=

muchas gracias amigo!

I was typing it just as Paulson spoke. *winks* :-P

At 11/12/08 11:52 AM, Grim wrote:

At 11/10/08 07:16 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: We're aiming more for the "Cloud", viral.

Dude, I'm building it as fast as I can......

No rest for the wicked, back to work

Yo GRIM!

WE'RE SO Relying on JOO!!

ps. My Adobe Air frontend is looking sweet! More details at 9:00.

NOTE: The Treasury set a deadline of THIS FRIDAY for institutions to apply for capital investments under the Capital Purchase Program announced last month.

Cash infusions are available to "qualifying U.S. banks, savings associations, and certain bank and savings and loan holding companies, engaged ONLY in financial activities."

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley got rapid approval to became bank holding companies to tap into that fund. American Express just recieved approval to also transform itself into a bank holding company, making it also now eligible for direct infusion of capital.

It sounds like General Motors Finance will tap in "somehow" (directives to push out more cheap car loans from propped up banks perhaps..) but considering Friday's deadline, many troubled industries are taking this opportunity to apply for reclassification as a bank or savings and loan holding company.

So who's Next...?
.
.

At 11/12/08 12:09 AM, adrastos12 wrote: So the government keeps bailing out all these companies, but should they let some of them go under? I was thinking about this earlier today... 40 billion dollars would pay off a shit load of mortgages, so why is the government giving money to companies that finance so much? Think about it, they are giving billions of dollars to companies that are too loose with their money. Instead of giving tons of tax payers money to companies, only to see the same companies lend more money and get further down in the hole, why doesnt the government use tax payer's money to pay off a tax payer's mortgage? This way, it wipes out the debt owed so the bank doesnt have to foreclose, it puts more money in the banks hand so it can lend a much needed home loan, and the tax payers are getting money back instead of pouring it into a company that will probably tank anyway? This would increase consumer spending which would stimulate the economy, rather than make the problem worse.
What do you thing NGers?

40 billion? I think the total bailout is already about 40 times that amount. Of course it's hard nail down an exact figure because there's a lot of jugging going on. Anyway, it's not like it's a big pile of surplus cash laying around. It's taxpayers money from the future.

Here's the best description i've heard so far..
----------------------------------------
---------------

"Joe goes to the track and bets $2 on a horse.

Two guys standing nearby get into a discussion and Fred says to Sam, "I'll bet you $5 that Joe wins his bet."

Next to them are Bill and Bob. Bill says: "I'll bet you $10 that Fred welshes on his bet if he loses."

Next to them is Sally. Sally says: "For $3 I'll guarantee to Bill that if Bob fails to pay off, I'll make good on the bet."

Sally then goes to Mary and borrows the $7 needed in case she has to ever pay off and promises to pay back $8. She doesn't expect to ever have to pay since she believes Bob will always make good. So she expects to net $2 no matter what happens to Joe.

A quick calculation indicates that there is now 2+5+10+3+7 = $27 riding on the outcome of the horse race.

--
Question how much has been "invested" in the horse race?
Answer: $50,000 by the owner of the horse who is expecting to recoup his investment from the winnings of the horse and other future deals. Everyone else is gambling, not investing."

-------------
The bailout itself is really a double down on lost bets. And signs are the Fed is prepared to bankrupt America's future to double down again if that's not enough, as in the case of AIG.

At 11/10/08 07:27 PM, Cornbucket wrote: "His secret service codename is 'renegade'."

Cute, but why do they even publish this shit? I guess it's not a secret anymore.

That's not his real ident. It's just a "gotcha" tagword that the service can track when it's posted on the web.

*waves*

At 11/10/08 03:48 PM, Imperator wrote: I've still got the DAG "invite" from Dredd in my mailbox somewhere.

I remember it seeming like some sort of secret "movers and shakers" society that gathered afar and covertly pulled the strings on NG when I first heard talk of it. Like Freemasons, Skull and Bones or something.....

Got it in one!

Except those groups (especially devilish cult ones) were very much "underground", hidden.

We're aiming more for the "Cloud", viral.