Recent posts by pacogoatboy on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / Orbital Decay -- now with essential advice in 1st post

Agreed jonathan. I don’t normally have substantial lag problems, but when I play this I just get swarmed by the enemy. I can beat level 2 by the skin of my teeth, but I’ve also been killed probably a dozen times in level 1. I can hit them, but they just keep appearing too quickly. (explodingferret: It would be good if the wave timer were tied to framerate rather than the system clock.)

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / Brief Guide to STH3: Remembering the Alamo Badge

Hrm, I had serious money problems with this method after I bought the first turret. I was usually able to keep up with turret upgrades, but I was at least 50% low on gunmen and far more than that on repairs for most of the game. By level 35 or so I made up the difference, but earlier on, there were some pretty tough levels as a result.

I would suggest upgrading the shotgun’s capacity and reload speed if you’ve got some spare cash. This allows you to strafe the sky from time to time and take out the invisible bombers. It’s probably coincidence, but I seemed to notice a bomber just to the left of the white box at the top right very soon after the fuel trucks came across. In any case, if you shoot with the shotgun across the sky, you can hit at least half of the bombers. Of course, in the last couple of levels, you usually don’t have time for this, but earlier on, it can help save some damage and earn an extra buck or two.

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / Storm the House 3

Exactly how many gunners do you need to increase their firing rate significantly? Shouldn’t two gunners kill twice as many people? It seems like 10 gunners barely fire any faster than 1. I just don’t get it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Argue Beta Testers

probably don’t need more at this point, but i’ll test

 
Flag Post

Topic: General Gaming / Necronomicon hard badge is stupid as hell. . .

I hang onto my Blackmail card every time I get it until I have the enemy tainted, barring a handful of otherwise spectacular cards that I don’t want to play right off. I think that the game’s luck element is far too strong, particularly in the challenges, but the campaign is highly strategy based. I think I only died once in campaign mode, when I had a bad run of luck on level 3 or 4 and got wiped out quickly. Otherwise the matches were rarely even close against the computer… This IS a card game though, and every card game is luck based. What do you want, the ability to go through your entire deck and choose which cards to play each time?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Landing on the moon was(maybe) a hoax, UPDATED

Response to RMcD

>Did I? Who, when?

How big is your ego guy? There are only a few pages of posts, if you had read them, you would have seen a post by the person who started the topic, dd790 back on page 2. I know that reading is hard work, but before getting your panties in a bunch over someone else’s comment, perhaps you’d best check the beginning of the topic. Why on earth would that have been aimed at you?

By the way, the original comment was:
bq. 2 NASA employees tried one died of “cancer” and so did his wife days after saying he was going to come clean and the other died of a “heart attack”. Would you speak out?

The whole argument of whether we are really here or not is pretty ridiculous. In practice, there ARE ways of proving things, but as mentioned, that requires us to follow some basic axioms, first and foremost that we are real and that our senses portray a reasonably accurate (but alterable) reality.

What would it take to ‘prove’ a moon landing really did occur in 1969? Would we have to fly every single conspiracy believer to the moon so that he or she could experience it directly? If we returned there, couldn’t we just be replicating the already faked moon landings? Maybe those conspiracy theorists were taken to a secret NASA facility with artificial reduced gravity… You can ALWAYS come up with a ’Well yeah, but what if…" reply to something. The important feature in a thinking invidiual is that he or she is sufficiently skeptical to avoid falling prey to ridiculous claims while remaining credulous enough to believe in those things that have sufficient evidence to support them, even if they are counterintuitive (quantum mechanics, for instance…)

Additionally, your two coin example is indeed a scientific idea, since it can be falsified. While all available evidence points toward two coins, it’s still possible that some test more reliable than your senses might demonstrate that there are not really two coins at all… It’s not likely, however. I never said that nothing can ever be true, just that its impossible to PROVE that something is true (again, unless you accept some basic axioms as fact, which defeats the whole idea by basing your proof on unproven concepts.)

The most fundamental argument that conspiracy theorists seem to have is that it simply wasn’t technologically possible to get the astronauts there and back alive. They had to stay in a contained environment for 8 days, no more. The only major changes from an orbiter to a moon mission are that the moon mission must travel faster and that it had a lander attachment. If you consider the lander as an extension of what would normally have been an orbiter (or its payload, perhaps) then the idea is completely reasonable. Radiation was a concern, but the majority of solar radiation can be (and was) blocked by the body of the spacecraft and the bulk of food, water, and supplies that were placed between the astronauts and the sun. If a large solar flare had impacted the astronauts directly, they may well have died, however, such events are not frequent (in terms of them being aimed closely enough at the earth/moon, they happen fairly often but are oriented more or less randomly) and none occurred during any of the Apollo missions. The math required to get the machine there is stuff that high school students can do, so the claims that the computer was insufficient are flawed. It did exactly what it needed to and nothing more.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / McCain in the lead: How did that happen?

It turns out that the electoral college idea actually provides more power to the individual voter. It’s statistically more likely that your single vote will turn the tide in your state election, thereby throwing all of your electoral votes (there would be 3 of them guys, not 2, since you have at least 2 senators and a member of congress) to one candidate or the other AND that set of electoral votes tipping the balance for your candidate than the alternative, your single vote tipping the balance of the entire nation. If the second situation were the case, candidates wouldn’t campaign anywhere but the east coast, west coast, and major cities in the midwest and texas. Not that they do much more now, but still…

I just started laughing the other night… there was a show called something like Who is Sarah Palin (or some such, I can’t remember the title) on Fox News. I flipped to it to see what it was like, and it turned out to basically be a love letter to her. An hour (maybe 2) long cheer session for the lady that someone must have made in four days after finding out she was the nominee. They report, you decide, after all…

I love the fact that conservatives are being forced to cheer for a lady whose personal life is so completely opposite to what they stand for. Gooooo abstinence only! I realize that people’s children aren’t usually your standard campaign material, but come on, if the parent is spouting a bunch of ‘family values’ garbage, but has a knocked up 17 year old at home, perhaps their own family values need to be called into question…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / What came first? The chicken or the egg?

How about this…

The ideas of chicken and egg are words created by humans, so the question could just as easily be interpreted as which idea came first, and since the phenomenon of speciation is blurry, as remarked by phooltk all the way back on page 1, the question in its original form doesn’t mean much. As such, the idea of egg almost certainly came before the idea of chicken, since all birds lay eggs and they were and are a common source of protein for most of the world’s population, whereas chickens weren’t domesticated until about 5000 years ago.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Obama [doesn't] admit that he's a muslim!

Like most things, the people who want to hate the guy will point to this and dance up and down while shouting about how evil he is and how he’s going to sell the US out to the middle east (… too late, Bush already did it, at least the parts China didn’t already own…) The people who want to love the guy will jump up and down and shout about how bigoted and stupid the other group is while pointing out that he’s not a Muslim (didn’t the guy get news for months about attending a CHURCH where the reverend was an idiot?) In the meantime, those folks who haven’t made up their minds, or more likely, who claim to have not made up their minds, probably won’t see it at all because they’ll have the sense to realize that the video can’t possibly be the whole story.

Bah…

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Landing on the moon was(maybe) a hoax, UPDATED

One of the best arguments for the moon landing is that the one group of people who would benefit most from it being debunked have not said a word. Who might this group of people be, you ask? It’s the Soviet government, of course, or Russian these days, I suppose. The Soviet Union had access to telescope arrays all over the world, just as we do. It is a basic trigonometry problem to determine the location of a broadcast station from the direction that the telescopes point. If the Russians had had that evidence, you can bet it would have been spread far and wide. Of course, the response to this is that the US launched a transmitter to the moon on an unmanned mission.

Moreover, how could literally thousands of people have been involved in this conspiracy without a single one of them, the people who actually worked on it that is, saying a word? You claim that two tried and died under mysterious circumstances, correct (names and dates would be nice…)? Why not death bed confessions then, if all of the remaining people feared for their lives? Certainly the number of people involved had to be enormous if this is true, and at least one of them wouldn’t have been able to keep his or her mouth shut for forty years.

The largest problem with these arguments is that you are attempting to use scientific reasoning with non-scientific arguments. The fundamental idea behind science isn’t that hypotheses are proven, it’s that they are possible to be disproven. No scientific idea CAN be proven, that’s the point of science. We gather evidence to support ideas, then modify or discard them if needed when contrary evidence is discovered. However the insistence on using the same arguments over and over again after those attempts to disprove the moon landing have been shown to themselves be false are pointless. I am not aware of a single piece of documented (or even well argued) evidence that even casts a reasonable doubt on the moon landings, and there is a huge amount of evidence to support them.

If I’m wrong here, please explain clearly. I’d love some specifics that aren’t just rehashed hypotheses that were disproved shortly after they were proposed…