Posts made by Jermofoot

Just curious about the varying tastes around here, as far as drinks go.

I prefer Bourbon, any beer that’s not a major US brand (from time to time I brew my own), Merlot, and sake.  I’ll drink/try just about anything else as long as it’s atleast decent quality (no plastic bottles, box wine, etc.), and have gone far enough to make my own Absinthe - quite an experience.  :-D

By no means am I a habitual drinker (a six pack of beer can last me a week), but I’m curious to see what other people recommend for my next outing.

Switch - I already know you drink Newcastle, so if I’m ever in the area, I got the next round.  :-)

@Zooey72:

A few months back a girl at my work was flirting with me a lot.  I told my GF about it and she was a bit annoyed.  At any rate, the girl ended up quitting and I told my GF about it.

“Oh I am sure you are REAAALLLY heartbroken!  Connie was young, and skinny, and pretty!”

I told her “oh baby, I don’t want a young, skinny, pretty girl… I want you!”

It WAS funny….the first time you told it… :evil:  Don’t worry, I’ve been in the same situation.

Used to get spanked with wooden spoon when I did bad things.  Then one day it broke over my ass, and my Mom and I couldn’t help but die laughing ( I think cause it broke the tension).  Needless to say, she upgraded to a ping pong paddle.

<bump>Oh, wait, wrong forum…

:-D

I was going to suggest getting a life, switch, but I think CC beat me to it (even though I really enjoy chatting with everyone)…    :-) :-) :-)</bump>

Ok, it’s not a scam.

I still need to revisit this, but what I know from the past:

Anything can be recycled, but for cost effectiveness (cheaper to recycle than make new), the items that are best to recycle are aluminum and glass.  Although it’s not necessarily always cheaper for places to use new pulp rather than recycled pulp when dealing with paper.  There is no pulp shortage as paper companies are required to replant trees when they’ve harvested some, which make nice & neat pulp nurseries.  Mind you that these aren’t exactly ecosystem friendly, but it’s a renewable resource that once we set up is regenerated.  Also, I have a problem with logging old-growth forests as we don’t need to, but most of that was done in the first 150 years of America’s existence (the country was once covered in these forests but now you mainly only find them in national parks).

Recycling is usually done by an independent company that contracts with the city or local government to sponsor their pickups.  The depth and scale of the recycling program is determined by the company’s capacity.  That is why some of Lexington has recycling, and some don’t (where the rest have to depend on drop off sites such as my work - sorry shameless plug  :-D ), and the method of recycling varies from place to place.  In Lexington, we used to have to separate everything, but now we only separate glass from everything else (but can only recycle 1 & 2 plastics).  I don’t think it’s ever inforced (you could always put your recycling in the trash), unless maybe it’s mandated?  I’ve not run into that, but it doesn’t mean it exists.  Overall, this is good, because you have new jobs, less going to landfills, but it will only work if companies that produce goods use recycled material purchased from the recycling center.

As far as cardboard, here is what the reality is with my work:  We have loads of leftover cardboard.  We throw our trash in the trash bin, which costs money to pick up.  We throw our recycling in the bins we host for the community - no cost to us to carry away this waste, only have to give up a few parking spots to plant the bins.  Our cardboard goes into a cardboard compactor that we have leased (for next to nothing), and we get PAID for every full bin we supply (it gets picked up).  So, instead of throwing it in the trash and paying for pickup (which would more than double what we currently pay if we went this way) or in the recycling bins to reduce our cost, we actually GENERATE money with our trash.  So, recycling is not only good for the environment, it’s good for our company too.

By the way, we supposedly aren’t running out of landfill space (all of the landfills in the United States amount to very little land relatively), but in some urbanized areas that have a problem logistically with trash.  So recycling can still benefit in this instance.  The main trash to worry about is hazardous/radioactive materials.  Also, the hybrid cars DO save money, but only if you live in the city and drive stop & go most of the time.  Otherwise, you get little benefit for constant driving (it generates electricity when you stop).  If you are thinking of fuel cell cars or other potential models, then I don’t know if they are cost effective as I’ve not really looked into it.

Need some specifics here to help you out.

What game?  You may have better luck if you contact tech support for the software…

That’s awesome!!!  :lol:

Actually, you will find some gems from the badly translated documentation (maybe try engrish.com?).  I’ve run into some (can’t remember specifics), but those tend to be hilarious.

Of course there’s the classic:

Careful, contents are hot.  (thanks to the moron who thinks you drink coffee from your crotch and not from your mouth - and is McD’s coffee even coffee?).

@DarthMaximus:

It is treated the same way as it is treated with ADS.

Yep, the ftr gets one shot, then the sub can retreat.  A ftr still needs a 3 or lower for the hit.

Thanks, DM.

So it’s only with multiple units that LL actually comes into play?  I hoped so.  I’ll come back to this debate soon, just not enough time at the moment (and I see everyone is occupied with games anyway…).

Ok, I’ve got a lot of things to say, but not much time at the moment (will come back with those ?'s and points later).

However, I’ve got a simple concern that one of you can clear up.

Please explain how combat would be resolved involving a fighter attacking a sub using LL.  Now, my rules are a bit rusty, and I’m going from 2nd edition (don’t have revised), but I believe the fighter gets one shot before the sub is allowed to submerge.  If that’s not the case and the combat is invalid, then obviously just say so.  :-D  If it is valid then my suspicion can be rooted out by a simple explanation.  Also, I didn’t read all of the specific rules for LL at the bottom - mostly skimmed through - so there may already be something that addresses this.

Thanks, and hope to pick this back up ASAP.

@Bashir:

Switch how much fun is it when you play the axis, in an ADS game, and you lose 2 fig’s at UKZS, 1 fig at ECsz and you lose to much in AES… Then the game is over after 1 turn… Simply because you can’t win anymore… Like AS pointed out several times the Axis have at least 5-6 fights they have to fight. All with a lot of risk implied, but they have too commit them. As the Allies you can lose some battles in the beginning and still easily win…  Too often I see people get wasted on their G1 turn, either because of bad purchasing, bad dice or tactical errors… LL just makes the game fairer, just like bids…

If you want to play the game as it was intended, I will play you with the Allies, ADS, no bids and no RR…

I’ve been thinking about trying LL, as I feel more inclined to choose ADS but would like to see how it flows.  So far, I think this best explains why LL is the choice by many.  However, here are some of my concerns, which are hopefully not repeated from elsewhere.

First, and probably the least of my points, is that ADS reflects many factors of battle that don’t occur elsewhere in the game.  In this I mean that superiority in numbers wouldn’t necessarily mean an automatic win, and a bad roll could reflect a failed assault.  A good roll could reflect favorable weather, cracked codes, determination & increased morale, etc.  The “random element” to me is a generalized function to support & reflect the unknown consequences of any action, and is simple so that it doesn’t bog down the gameplay.

Second, I don’t agree with using averages.  When reviewing averages and statistics you often find that the average is imaginary and does not occur in any instance realistically.  This is why I favor a randomization of results.  This kind of goes along with my first point, and that the average outcome is not necessarily the most likely result.

Third, the criticism that ADS is too unpredictable to be trusted seems a bit exaggerated to me.  In fact, it IS balanced because you are just as likely to receive good rolls as bad ones, and your opponent is just as likely to receive those positives and negatives as you are.  Not to mention, the possibility of having terrible or fantastic rolls consistently is very, very low.

Fourth, another minor critique, is that it’s additional “rules” to get used to if you are new to the game.  I like to try and keep things streamlined, but if you already know how to employ LL, then it’s obviously not a problem.

I completely understand wanting to use LL to try get down to the core strategy employed by the Axis and Allies, but I agree with Switch that if superior strategy is the main concern, then ADS goes a longer way to prove the better strategist (because of unclear outcomes, you may have to adjust your strat) - I don’t think anyone DEPENDS on a good die rolls unless they are taking risks (which is fine because risks are taken in this game much like anywhere else), and LL couldn’t support that possibility.  However, you don’t see those gambles very often because, simply, they are a gamble.

To me, LL would be akin to removing the river card in Texas Hold 'Em.  You may have a pretty clear winner by the turn, but that doesn’t mean that they WILL win.  Yet, it would be perfectly fine to remove the river card, it just wouldn’t be Texas Hold 'Em anymore…and as long as all parties agree to those changes, then no concern.

I need to reread through the LL explanation posted here and, more importantly, play a few games with it before I can confirm a preference.  A question though: do LL games generally take less time?  I could see that as a major benefit…

Give him a dinghy  :mrgreen:

Definitely one movie, not two.  Chalk that one up to: greed? overambition? trying to do too much at once?  The style/feeling of the movies are different as well; not necessarily a bad thing, but the second segment felt rushed or unpolished and a major letdown.

Enough with the cheese as far as dialogue goes.  This is one of my Tarantino peeves - his dialogue is nauseating, or at least has been developing that way.

I think the major flaw was that it was a parody of low-budget kung-fu flicks on a high-budget.  Maybe not that reason exactly, but something about it just didn’t “feel” right.  A wolf in sheep’s clothing, so to speak.  It’s so hard to pinpoint this, but his emulation of those bad-but-good films just doesn’t amount to a good movie, and I can’t explain why.  A bastardization of some sort…

The story and premise was laughable - even for a parody - and the ending was disappointing.  I apparently went to the bathroom at the exact time she used the Five Point Exploding Heart technique (or whatever it was called) and felt like I missed nothing.

Now, knowing Tarantino, there was probably lots of little things that I missed.  I’m sure they’re fun and interesting, but I don’t think it would change my opinion about the movie.

So, there’s more I’d add to my critique, but let me note some things I did like.  Music is always a good selection from QT.  I liked the animé sequence - from the first movie, I think.  I enjoyed the choreography of the fights from the first movie, but the second was all dirt & grit (more realistic?) and was a harsh contrast to the first - more on it’s lack of continuity.

Plenty to get this thread rolling.  On a side note, I recommend Lady Snowblood, the main inspiration for this movie.  There’s comedic value, but it’s not intended, and everything else is pure story and action.  A true kung fu flick.  :-D
It’s also pretty crazy if you are under the right conditions…  :wink:

@Janus1:

Meh…Kill Bill sucked and I think most critics new better than to praise it - too many obvious flaws.  Don’t need to go into that.

WHAT? kill bill was an amazing movie, as entertainment, and as artful cinema

Not saying it was completely devoid of entertainment value, but definitely overhyped.  I just feel that for every thing that Kill Bill had going for it, 2 or 3 things could be brought against it.  Care to make a thread?

@Mistelten:

I’m serious, I really didn’t think the Passion was that violent.  Maybe it was longer than most deaths in movies, but it still wasn’t especially violent.

Ok, maybe we disagree on the definition of violence.  Torture is inherently violent, and I think most people would agree stripping the flesh off of someone is violent.  So, in this case, I would consider this movie to be violent, not for quantity , but for quality (or something on those lines).  Sure, Kill Bill had a volume of violence, but it was also an entirely different delivery - generally not realistic and over the top.  Passion had a more precise depiction of violence and its effect, but I think that those images go a long way compared to the general presentation of violence by other movies - again I point out the absence of graphic torture except in one movie that was geared as a horror flick.  Now if you are like me, you can take it just as a movie and realize that the actor wasn’t actually tortured, but some people respond to these things pretty heavily.  So, I wasn’t trying to make it seem you are insensitive, but I think that’s why plenty of people voiced a strong opinion on the graphic images in this movie.

Meh…Kill Bill sucked and I think most critics new better than to praise it - too many obvious flaws.  Don’t need to go into that.

You must admit though that the Passion WAS overly violent, whether some critics are hypocritical or not, and I think the main people to criticize this violence were the people most interested in the movie and who already denounce violent films.

I’m sorry, I don’t know of any plays that would be more violent than the torture scenes in the Passion.  In fact, the only other recently released (since the Passion) movie I can think of that has torture in it was supposed to be a “horror” flick.  Couple that disturbing image with our views on torture and you could easily understand why so many people would object to the mistreatment of their idol.

You don’t understand.  During March Madness, we are all winners.  Chalk that one up for counterterrorism.

@El:

It’s hard for an actor to do a great movie sequel 20 years after the first one.

However, if in LW 5 Roger Murtaugh is kidnapped by envirowackos and killed by Muslim terrorists(at a distance with closeups from the back so’s Danny Glover don’t get one penny for his liberalizations), then great!.

Martin Riggs has to come out of retirement and a wheel chair to solve the crime with the help of his long unknown daughter(played by _________  _________?) and Leo Getz.  As the movie progresses so does Riggsie’s terrminal cancer, but we learn that he has been using his medical leave to finish a J.D.(law degree.).  In the final scene Leo explains how the case was made in court nailing both groups(e’s and t’s) as Leo kicks out the plug to the oxygen machine.

Leo gets the girl in the end.(Pesci’s gotta win one.)

---

Hey, you know they’re making another Rocky, doncha?
I think The Carol Burnett Show had a spoof on that…Rocky XLVII…
staring Tim Conway as Rocky and Sammy Davis, Jr. as Apollo Creed!

---

I’m just hoping Ahnold doesn’t make a T4!

At least Mel and Clint Eastwood have shown that they can do more than…should I call it acting?

LJ

Choose any movie from the “Man With No Name Trilogy” and you will see that Clint and those movies have more class than Mel and his attempts, on a fraction of the budget.  But why aspire for a decent movie when you could  resort to a Jesus torture scene to catch everyone’s attention….oh, wait…it’s been done.

Also, don’t forget about Rocky 5,000 as indicated in Spaceballs.

Haven’t watched South Park in a while, but I heard about this.  I wonder what the response will be.

Makes me pity Isaac Hayes - what the hell is he thinking?

Haven’t read anything on anti-matter in a while, but I still consider its potential for application to be a pipe dream - maybe new research and developments have changed that.  It still brings to mind the idea of a nuclear breeder reactor - sounds wonderful but no one has had any luck with a working model.  I have to agree that the name is a bit confusing, yet, as humans, we must have a name for everything.  Otherwise it doesn’t exist, right?

Market Garden.  3 players, 4 for Polish player, but that’s stretching it.

Yeah, there’s  a steep learning curve, and it was almost overwhelming.  Take the tutorial a few times, play through the game on easy with someone like Canada, and you get the gist of the game.  All the little elements you learn each time are starting to come together, and I see this perfect balance in managing a country.  It sure is a burden, but it’s nice to have your hand in everything concerning you country.  I’m wondering if even 30 hours is enough to finish a global game…sheesh…

Picked up Hearts of Iron 2 (PC) for cheap the other day.  It blows me away!  Anyone else had a chance to check it out?
For those that haven’t, it’s basically A&A to the nth degree.  You can play any nation during WW2 (if it historically existed) and you must control everything from your economy, development, combat production, diplomacy, relations, etc.  The game is well balanced so it would take many years to develop Germany into a democracy and Ally with the Western powers, but it is technically possible.  When you factor in 2,700 land and sea areas, it makes for a LONG game.