locket:

While IMO your last post was pretty worthless, I'm glad you're here anyway. I had a question for you in another thread, which I notice went unanswered. Maybe you'll see it here. [edit: I see now it was actually in this very thread, just a few posts up]

You've ridiculed those who see the need to be vigilant against tyranny as stupid and crazy. Can you please explain to us how tyranny is impossible in the modern world?

If you won't at least try to answer, then I'll have to assume CKHustler is right, and you have no interest in making worthwhile contributions to the discussion.

First off.. Strawman? Seriously? You do know what a straw man argument is, don't you? And that just declaring someone else's point of view to be a strawman argument does not automatically make it invalid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

What you are calling an obnoxious strawman argument - the desire to create as many barriers to tyranny as possible - was a driving force behind the creation of The Constitution.

So, since the military has terrible weapons that could overwhelm me, or vaporize entire cities in the blink of an eye, my 2nd amendment right to own whatever weapon you deem unneccessary no longer applies? You're right that if I had an assault rifle (I don't) I wouldn't be of much use with it if I were alone. But the first few words of the 2nd amendment clearly reveal that the founders didn't expect a single person to thwart tyranny alone: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state".. etc etc (I hope you know the rest already). From those words it seems clear to me that the founders were thinking in broader terms than just one guy trying to protect his personal interests from tyranny.

Now, I have a question for you. If 10,000 people stood together against tyranny, facing an army of 1000 opponents with tanks and rockets, do you think the 10,000 would have a better chance of succeess with semi automatic rifles, or with muzzle loaders?

"Do you really think the National Guard, etc, would just stand by?"..

Well, has it happened before? I would argue that it has. And you don't have to look to foreign shores for an example. Throughout our history, the Federal Government HAS committed tyrannical acts, and I can't think of an example where the military stood up to and stopped them. Genocide of Native Americans, sending Japanese Americans to concentration camps, the immoral seizing of private property by a local government in order to give that property to another private citizen... Did the military step in and stop any of these things?

And finally, you ask for an explanation of how assault rifles are required for self defense.. The answer here seems incredibly obvious, but I'll go ahead and type it out anyway. I think this one is best answered by requesting that you answer the following question for yourself: Are "assault" rifles more dangerous than "regular" rifles? If so, then it would seem to follow logically that someone trying to do me or my loved ones harm would be worse off if I did have an "assault" rifle. And if "assault" rifles are not more dangerous, then why do we need to ban them?

locket, can you give any evidence to support your claim that tyranny is impossible in today's world? Specifically, what makes it impossible, aside from just "it isn't 200 years ago any more".

If you have spent any time at all studying history, you know that tyranny has been the rule, rather than the exception. Time and time again, humans have proved that when they are placed in positions of great power, they tend to become corrupted to the point of being what most of us would consider evil. The founders of the US did study history, and it is precisely because of their studies that they created a system under which the Federal Government was designed to be virtually powerless in most matters.

We've seen the constitutional barriers to tyranny removed almost entirely in the last decade. The Patriot Act, the 2012 NDAA and Obamacare are the most noteworthy. The three together greatly increase the power of the Federal Government to force its will on the citizens, and greatly reduce the protections we have FROM governmental abuse. I believe that tyranny, far from being impossible, is much more likely to raise its ugly head today than it was pre-2000.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground" - Thomas Jefferson

False. The argument, which the founders made, and some of us continue to make today, is that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against tyranny. Nobody is arguing that a lack of guns guarantees tyranny. Rather, when every other barrier to tyranny has failed, and the people need to protect their own liberty, they must be armed in order to do so.

I won't claim to speak for all 2nd amendment defenders, but I for one don't think it is impossible that we could see a tyrant rise to power in the US in my lifetime. I'm sure the people of 1920's Germany didn't think they would be ruled by a tyrant in less than a decade, but it happened. The only things necessary for tyranny to rise, are conditions bad enough for the people to clamor for the government to do something about it, and a lack of barriers to tyranny.

The Constitution, which originally prohibited the Federal Government from doing almost anything, now has been creatively reinterpreted to mean that the Federal Government is virtually all-powerful. Our Supreme Court has demonstrated an unwillingness to hold the Federal Government in check. What barriers are left? The stage is set, now all we need is the tyrant. And once (s)he's there, if we're disarmed, we have no way to resist. That, to me, is the most important reason to take the 2nd amendment seriously and to defend it vigorously.

As far as "American Exceptionalism" goes, what made the US exceptional was our Constitution. It guaranteed liberty, in stronger terms, than any other governing document that I know of. As we continue to shred it, we continue to become less exceptional.

Weird.. First time I tried to post this, as soon as I hit enter, it posted.

Anyway, Oct 1, 1997. Luke Woodham went to his school with a rifle (after stabbing his mother to death) and began shooting classmates. He killed two and wounded seven, before assistant principal Joel Myrick went to his truck, retrieved his .45 caliber pistol, and stopped and detained Woodham until police arrived.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...earl_High_School_shooting

Oh come on now, Cerberus. Don't you think you're overplaying the paranoid of the govt thing just a little too much?

I mean, EVERYBODY KNOWS, tyranny could never happen here. It's impossible. Since our government is a democracy, that means it is as pure as the driven snow.

For example, the Federal Government would NEVER make it a crime to speak publically against the government...

http://www.ushistory.org/us/19e.asp - Oh..well yeah, that. But the alien and sedition acts are practically ancient history. If you look at more modern history, you'd never find an example of Federal tyranny.. I mean, like they'd never commit genocide in order to steal land...

What? Oh, yeah.. well, the Native Americans.. I suppose you've got me there, but hey.. at least once the Federal Government signed treaties with those sovereign nations, they lived up to their promises. I mean, it's not like we shredded our treaties with them every time we discovered something valuable on their lands..

Oh.. yeah I guess we did that too.. But those people were savages, not US citizens. As a US citizen, you NEVER have to fear that the government will seize your home and give it to another private party, in order to gain more taxes from said property..

http://en.wikipedia.org/...elo_v._City_of_New_London - Oh yeah. I forgot about that one. Well so what? The government SHOULD be able to take your property on a whim. It's just stuff. Stuff doesn't matter. What matters is your freedom. And the Federal Government would NEVER round up and hold in concentration camps, over a hundred thousand US citizens just because of their race.. I mean, that's crazy Nazi stuff, and EVERYBODY KNOWS that if you start talking about what the Nazi's did, you're just grasping at straws...

http://www.historyonthenet.com/...apan_internment_camps.htm - Um.. So? Big deal! Hardly anybody is still alive from when that happened.

In MODERN America, things like indefinite detention without trial are impossible..
http://en.wikipedia.org/..._Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

And the Supreme Court would NEVER rule that the Federal Government has the power to force you to do anything they want, by fining you if you refuse to kneel, and then calling the fine a tax. (I don't really need to post a link on that one, do I?)

Does anyone hear a train coming? It sounds long.

Oh, and regarding your second question of what might be suggested to be "much more rigorous", there are a myriad of possibilities, right up to and including the banning of all guns.

Much more rigorous and achieving the desired goal though? None. Unless the desired goal is a population mostly made up of defenseless law abiding citizens, and a few well armed criminals.

braden, it varies by state. In my state (Washington) the things that will stop you from getting a concealed carry permit (pistols) are as follows:

Under 21 years of age

Non-US citizen without a green card

Outstanding warrants

Having ever been judged "mentally defective", or incompetent to manage your own affairs

Having ever been committed to a mental hospital.

Any felony conviction

Having been an unlawful user of, or addicted to, within the last year, marijuana, stimulants, depressants or narcotics (this will most likely change, as we've just recently decriminalized pot)

Dishonorable discharge from the US armed forces

Currently under a restraining order

If you've ever renounced your US citizenship

Convictions for domestic (family) crimes involving Assault IV, coercion, stalking, reckless endangerment, 1st degree criminal trespass or violation of a no-contact or restraining order.

Those are the rules for handguns. For rifles, they're much more lax. I don't know about semi-auto rifles, but for some (like my muzzle loader, or a shotgun) there is no background check of any kind. Go to the sporting goods store, plop down a few hundred, and you've got one.

You come into a thread where people are expressing their shock, dismay, sadness and anger about this, and you post a glib one-liner... one that happens to appear to be rubbing the noses of people who believe in the importance of the 2nd amendment in this terrible tragedy...

And I'm the douche?

You react to anyone who calls you out on this callous post by calling them names and jumping to the conclusion that they only have their opinion of your post because of their fear that Obama will take away their guns...

And I'm the one who needs to calm down?

Please take a long hard look in the mirror.

And yet you couldn't even wait one day before attempting to use this tragedy as propaganda?

I don't know what the label "Watertowers" refers to, but I thought immediately when NBC's deceit came to light that Zimmerman should sue.

The network's claim that this was an accident is absolutely laughable. They took two separate sentences and edited them together (while editing out questions from the police in between). No way... absolutely no way that's a "mistake".

For deliberately deceiving their audience, NBC ought to lose their entire audience. But, given the fact that people just don't pay attention, that's simply not going to happen. I won't ever watch an NBC "news" program again, but I know I'm in the minority on that one. I hope Zimmerman wins millions so the network at least pays some penalty.

EDIT: Heh.. now I see there is actually a player who goes by the name Watertowers and this thread was addressed to him. I'm a dope. :)

Buy an island, a yacht, and a few hundred thousand acres of forest somewhere.

Then I'd burn all the forest I own and when all that extra CO2 in the air caused sea levels to rise, submerging my island, I'd find somebody else to blame and sue them. Then I'd have two billion. Enough to buy and incinerate the Amazon.

Eventually I'd have enough money to buy the moon, but i don't know what good that would do. Nothing there burns.

Where are you getting your figures from? I've been googling mostly unsuccessfully, but the few sites I've found say that Texas receives about 90 cents back from the Federal Government for every dollar that Texans pay in Federal taxes:

http://www.ritholtz.com/...r-taker-of-federal-taxes/

I found another site that claims Texas received only 72 cents back per Federal tax dollar paid in 2010:

http://visualizingeconomics.com/...idreceived-for-each-state

I have no idea whether these numbers are accurate, or where to find definitive information. If anyone does know where I might find such info, I'd be interested.

That being said, IF the above links are truthful, then to say that Texas' budget is only positive because of Federal money is incredibly misleading. If the money being siphoned off by D.C. were left in Texas' economy, they'd be in better shape financially than they are now. And that is even if Texas used whatever taxes they decided to collect just as wastefully and incompetently as the Federal Government does.

And if those links above contain false information, then I'd expect a google search to come up with an overwhelming barrage of statistics from left leaning websites claiming the contrary. From what I can find, they only talk about Texas and Federal dollars in vague terms like "Texas is addicted to Federal money".. Well of course they're addicted to getting their own citizens' money back.

I enjoyed TEQ while it lasted. I was lucky enough to be chosen by Ripper to play with him on the teams server. Since my networth was always so low, I was their secret weapon when we needed to landkill a tag :)

I absolutely loved the fight server. Fighting your way to the top rather than just grabbing a billion small countries each reset was a ton of fun (or in my case, fighting my way to mediocrity). When they nerfed that, and turned it into a tournament server, I lost interest. Evidently a lot of other people did too. Sad to see that game dying on the vine.

Dissident, while I think Klown may have stated it rather inarticulately (due to being angry) his point is a valid one, IMO.

Government programs that provide a crutch allow people to continue to make the poor decisions that landed them in poverty in the first place.

I'm one of those 50+% who've lived in poverty during my lifetime, and it was due to the poor choices I made. Luckily for me, I never became hooked on the government programs which, while possibly well intentioned, effectively keep people mired in the same old patterns.

I don't understand how these programs can be considered to be a success. They were supposed to eliminate or drastically reduce the number of Americans in poverty. On that front, they have failed miserably. Whether it's the same individuals who are in poverty now, or new individuals is irrelevant. The programs which we've spent trillions of dollars on have not reduced the percentage of Americans who live in poverty.

To look at it another way, if we could go back in a time machine and stop the War on Poverty before it started, we'd currently have a national debt of approximately zero dollars rather than 16 trillion, even if we kept all of the other irresponsible Federal spending that has occurred during that time. We've traded a false promise of help for the poor, for mountains of debt for our children... guaranteeing that every one of them starts out with a giant weight around their neck, further increasing the chance that *they* will experience poverty in their lifetimes.

Anyway, that's my take on it, but meh.. it seems this is what the people of America want. Who am I to argue?

The "War on Poverty" in the US began in the 60's. Since then we've spent tens of trillions of dollars on these programs to which you refer, and the poverty rate now is the same as it was then.

Perhaps - just perhaps - government isn't the answer to everything.

More specifically....

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, **shall not be violated**, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

It's not about pot.. it's about resisting the erosion of your constitutional protections. Never let anyone take these protections from you without resistance, even if you know that what they're looking for isn't there.

Wait.. The original Tron, or the new one? If you're talking about the newer Tron, then I am calling into question your judgment of "awesome movies".

Lmnop

It really depends on your play style, which server, etc.

I've always favored keeping 10% of my land producing spies at all times. If I'm playing indy, 10% of production is always set to spies. Any other strat, 10% (or thereabouts) of my land is indy complexes producing 100% spies.

Probably overkill, but I'm a big fan of information.

Because you can buy from the public market without leaving protection and without using turns (just can't sell to it). Using this, someone who was able to get their private market prices high enough would be able to buy cheap units from the public market and sell them on private for a profit. It does sound like kind of a cool challenge. :)

Hey br3nt00. I don't know for certain that my startup strategy is the best there is. I know it works for me, but that also has something to do with how I've always played.

I do know for certain that selling turrets while under protection is superior to selling spies. There's an easy way to check this for yourself if you want. Spend one turn on CS or cashing or something with production set to 100% spies. Then do the same with 100% turrets and look at how much the amounts produced will bring on your private market.

Spies used to provide the most money on the private market, but that was a very very very long time ago.

I've always used a strategy that gradually builds indies and CS alongside each other. The oversimplified version is basically, build CS til you reach a BPT of 10, then build a couple turns of indies. Now at this point, you start playing one turn at a time, producing 100% turrets, and selling what you produce after each and every turn. This start-up has been tried and true since the very beginning of the game. As long as you're not lazy, there's really not a way to botch it.

Build 4 cs (1 at a time) then 11 indies, keep up that pattern. Every time you gain one more BPT, build a turn or two worth of indies.

It is a little bit tedious, but pays off with a decent BPT OOP, and up to about 1.5 million cash on hand. I always stopped selling on private market at somewhere between turn 75 and 85.

Last time I played, I had it optimized for best BPT and starting cash, but that was a long time ago and I've forgotten most of it. My most recent start, doing it just by feel, had me at 1.2 milllion cash OOP.

and br3nt00, definitely, absolutely don't try to produce your own tech as an indy. It's just a massive waste. You're better off either building up your indy tech level slowly through buying, or forego land growth for a few days and instead put the money you would have spent on building into tech.

Been having the same problem here for the last couple days. Can't get the bonus credit from top 100. The other two work fine. Have tried from two different PCs (both on the same wireless network though)

Cerberus, you hit on it when you pointed out that the US government is supposed to be based on The Constitution. 90% of what Congress does today has no constitutional validity, and unfortunately we have a Supreme Court that seems content to let Congress take almost any power they want (not exactly anything new here) Changing the actors won't change that fact, unless the new actors know that they will be ousted unless they start passing amedments to clarify and solidify what The Constitution says. We have allowed politicians to twist The Constitution into something it was never intended to be.. we've knocked down almost all of the obstacles to tyranny over the last 100 years.

Our founders understood that power corrupts almost all men, which is why they made it so hard for government to actually do anything. Unfortunately, WE, the people, have stood by and watched as the protections they left to us have been destroyed. Educate your fellow citizens about the original intent of the US government, or any purging of Congress is doomed to be replaced by equally corrupted men.

T.

Does the old AT archives site that was searchable by username still exist? Been looking for it but haven't remembered where it is (if it is still there)

T.

.

If you're hitting a wall regarding expenses and food consumption as an indy, you need to sell more often. At a certain point, industrialists must sell two or three times per day. Log in, sell as much as you can, log out. Repeat every time your goods sell.

I disagree somewhat with those who say you should only have the tech for your main strategy. Weapons tech is, IMO, critical for any strategy. It allows you to keep the same amount of defensive power with far less units, thereby allowing you to reduce expenses. The added bonus is that lazy attackers will sometimes fail to take your tech into account, and bounce.

And of course, especially if you're doing an all explore, maxing the tech for your strategy comes before getting more land. Same production on half the land means you're less attractive as a land grab target.

I don't know if the markets are still the same as they were last time I played, but I never found a tech startup to be that effective. It seemed that by the time I was done with the exploring and building phase, tech prices were low enough to make the tech start phase unnecessary. I remember adding up the cost of tearing down all those labs to rebuild, the turns where most of your land is producing nothing, and finding that just focusing on growth until tech prices came down a bit was the way to go.

Of course, that was 5 years ago. Maybe the markets rise and fall at different points in the reset now.

Thanks!!

Oh and MrTan1, capitalization in the middle of a word is overrated! :)

Wow, so cool to see so many familiar names are still here.

Detmer: Just you wait. Now that we've got a decent coach, WSU football will be a force to be reckoned with in the Pac-10 again (er.. pac 12 now?)

de1i: I live in Richland now. Moved from Everett a couple years ago. Its good to be back home :)

Ruth: RookieRick is doing well. Has three kids (oldest is his 13 year old daughter) I live about 5 miles from him now.

Papa: I don't even know if my ICQ account still exists, and don't remember what my password was. Haven't used it in about 5 years. Too bad too, since I had that sexy 6 digit number :(

Really great to see you all again,

T

Forums may have a little to do with driving away new players, but I don't think they're the only reason. Not by a long shot.

The most obvious: It's a text-only, turn-based game. Who wants to play a text game when there are a myriad of RPGs out there that include graphics, and which you can play for an unlimited amount of time each day? (besides us nerds, of course)

Also, doing well in this game requires some effort, or at least some knowledge of math. For most people, that's just not what they're looking for in a game. Just look at the progression of virtually every MMORPG in history. No matter what level of challenge they might offer at first, almost all follow a progression of "dumbing things down". WoW is a pretty good example of that. The game that was the best MMORPG ever, IMO was Asheron's Call, and they did the same. If they don't keep making it easier and easier to get the new shiny object, people get bored or frustrated and leave.

And as far as gaming forums go, Earth's seem to be quite a bit more civil than the average. From what I've seen in the limited amount of reading I've done here since last night, it doesn't seem to me that these forums are any worse than they were when Mehul ran the game. So why has the player base dropped from several thousand to several hundred? I suspect rules enforcement may have a good deal to do with that. There were never really 10k Earth 2025 players.

Sure, there are the disagreements between this alliance and that alliance, or this player and that player, but the casual player isn't going to give a rip about those threads anyway. He or she will shrug and move on to looking for strat advice, or whatever brought him or her here.

T