ember3579

I've shot both a rifle and a compound bow (which I currently own), and I can say this with absolute certainty; hitting the target with a bow is a LOT harder than with a gun for me. My overall accuracy with a decent rifle is within 2-3 inches of where I want to hit at about 100 yards. With a bow, that's within a foot of where I want to hit at about 10 yards. It's fun nonetheless, though.

If I remember correctly, I'm fairly certain that some very unusual cosmic events are supposed to occur all in that year. My current running theory is this; what if the end of the Mayan calendar isn't so much suggesting destruction as it is mass change? All that once-in-a-lifetime stuff happening in ONE YEAR is sure to start SOME sort of scientific breakthrough. Maybe that's what it's referring to; us making something that permanently changes everybody's lives for the better. I don't remember anything specific, but a few minutes on digg.com should bring up some [cabbage].

I just thought of something. What do we do if we come across a person who, for some odd reason, is infected and hasn't had any of the detrimental effects of the zombie virus occur (in other words, they control the infection rather than vice versa)? Chances are, the virus will still be transmittable and have the same effects as normal, but still. Would we keep them around in some hope that we might be able to create a vaccine of sorts, or what?

So, it's like this... Detriments of Rage Zombies: a LOT faster than Romero Zombies, stronger, more coordinated (can climb stuff as effectively as a human), has a working cardiovascular system (can regenerate and bleeds like normal), and infects people almost instantly Benefits of Rage Zombies: die a LOT faster on their own than Romero Zombies, can be killed using conventional methods (except pain overload, they can pretty much ignore anything short of being set on fire), gets exhausted (I think, not sure), and doesn't have as improved senses as Romero Zombies Sound about right?

That's probably one of the reasons they gave them up, yes. But they forfeited a HUGE moral bargaining chip that could have been used to give them time on nuclear development. The fact that Bill somehow brought that about is undeniable. Hopefully, Fox and it's bastard children can't find some way to spin this against Obama or some other craziness, but I'm glad it happened nonetheless.

I'm planning to go to MIT or (as a fallback) Marshall. One's the best robotics school in the country, and the other's the best in the state. As you can see, I know what I want to do. The only question I have right now is how I go about doing it, really.

No, apart from the bodyguard busines, it doesn't. Thanks for pointing that out. Beating on the weak is for scum. But fighting with other men, under terms agreed upon by both parties, is not. It's just part of being a guy. As primitive as it may seem, everyone one of us males has testerone flooding the entirety of our bodies, testerone that is constantly screaming at us, screaming, "FIGHT, FIGHT!". It's why we find so much enjoyment in wrestling, in football, in just having fun grappling with our buds. It's why Fight Club is such an iconic male movie- we all love the thrill of battle, of fighting 'til our last breathe. So don't act like your better than other guys because you for some odd reason don't have this base instinct. I don't think I'm alone in saying this: get off your high horse. Not to be homophobic or whatever but gay guys are the exception to this, I have a gay friend and he hates fight club. I think you mean breath ;) Gay dudes are most of the time an exception, but I know a few gay guys and they're also into fighting. Remember, there's almost always an exception. You just need to look for it.

She is a f@#%ing 8 year old girl. What do you think? EDIT: Correction. An 8 year old girl lured in by chewing gum.

..... Are you REALLY this naive? Beating an innocent woman half to death then raping her isn't the result of a troubled mind. Torturing a little kid with a hand drill isn't the result of a troubled mind. Ordering the brutal and industrialized murder of around a dozen million people isn't the result of a troubled mind. It's the result of being an evil sonuvab#$%^. If you find someone doing anything like that, you don't try and get them to counseling. You make damn sure they can't do it any more. No one seriously defines themself as evil. You have quite a dramatized perception of life (remember that we can't trust the media). There are always different degrees of mental instability and varied motives amidst malevolent minds - they give their own actions reasons that seem entirely justified. Selfishness, power-lust, greed and misguided belief systems are a result of foul up-bringing, no one is evil at heart and everyone has the capacity to be fixed. Punishing people for their crime(s) never works to absolutely prevent further offenses. Sometimes people's lives just suck so much that they don't care what anyone else thinks, they don't even care about themselves - have you ever felt that depressed or rejected? It may cause the pursuit of a warped desire for pleasure (also the result of a stray mind). So your opinion is that a person's evil actions aren't their fault, but their upbringing's? That MIGHT work with a percentage of it, but with most SERIOUS crimes the only person/thing that can be really blamed is that person. Besides, if a bad upbringing is all that made people go bad, then what about the people who had a bad upbringing and DIDN'T go bad? Do we just lock them up because they might end up the same way? Once you get past a certain point (such as raping an 8 year old girl, for example), you simply can't blame anybody but the person who done it for what they did. To try and do so is insulting the victim(s) and minimalizing the atrocity committed.

This is actually in all probability true. In all seriousness, rage zombies are essentially just regular humans that were made completely bats@#$ insane and go after anything living they can see with no thought or respect of anything else, like fire or ditches or a mine field. If that's true, then it should also follow that causing them to bleed out or otherwise shredding the body should be a viable (if somewhat risky to clean up) method of killing them. This means that things such as explosives and razor wire are effective methods of zombie extermination. That makes things MUCH easier, and we're not even getting into the ability for them to starve to death.

..... Are you REALLY this naive? Beating an innocent woman half to death then raping her isn't the result of a troubled mind. Torturing a little kid with a hand drill isn't the result of a troubled mind. Ordering the brutal and industrialized murder of around a dozen million people isn't the result of a troubled mind. It's the result of being an evil sonuvab#$%^. If you find someone doing anything like that, you don't try and get them to counseling. You make damn sure they can't do it any more.

In general, the main things that I'd consider cheap are nutshots, kicking people while they're on the ground, picking up a weapon, eye-gouging, calling for help, and breaking bones intentionally. If the fight's for fun, then these things are off-limits. If the fight's for business, however, you can be as brutal as the situation demands. For example, if you're fighting someone who just tried to rape a girl in some back alley, you have every right to pick up a rusty pipe and cut his beanbag off with an end of it. While honor is a very good thing to have in fun fights (for respect or enjoyment), it has no place in business fights (defending/saving someone, removing an evil person from the equation).

I can guarantee you, if the identities of the boys and that girl's family are ever made known, they will need a bigger security detail than Barack Obama to keep them from being skinned alive, then burned in the town square. And yes, that's a light punishment in my opinion.

Based off of past fighting experience, my fighting style is essentially to immediately go for the most damaging attacks available (ex: if the opponent's near a wall, slam him into it) as rapidly as I can until the dude's unable to fight anymore (unconscious, incapacitated, or dead if absolutely necessary). If there isn't anything readily open, I try and set him up for something (throw an attack that I want blocked, hit him past the down block). One of the things I'd do in a fight is, when he throws a punch, 1) sidestep the punch so that you're on his back (other side from his other arm), 2) grab the arm, and 3) either hit the elbow as hard as I can (break the arm), elbow him in the side of the head (potential K.O., nigh-guaranteed disorientation), or throw him to the ground and go from there. I'm almost constantly thinking of reactions when I'm in a fight. Thankfully, I can take hits well enough that I can recover quickly (or even ignore most light/medium hits) if they go raw. I fight best with something in my hands, though. Even more than normal (better than if a random person grabbed the same thing), strangely.

I still say that Lewis County, West Virginia is one of the best places to be. Reasons are as follows: 1) mid-low population, which means very few local zombies but still a good number of people still alive 2) in the middle of Deer Capitol of the United States of America (a flying s#$^ton of various artillery, almost every local has at least moderate skill with firearms, and quickly replenishing food supply) 3) difficult to get to without decent vehicles acclimatized to mountain terrain (there's a few back roads, but only two entrances via highway that can be easily stumbled upon) 4) multiple suitable base locations (old mental hospital is in decent condition and has some reinforced rooms, various caves, random buildings, etc) 5) at most a 3-4 day drive from any spot on the east coast (makes it easier for people in Europe, and gives us a very large list of places we can salvage stuff from) The only conceivable problems are the small groups of KKK and Neo-Nazis in the area. Thankfully, most of the real nuts are past the mountains to our southeast, or similarly away from our area. Which of you thinks this is a good idea?

For an example of why we don't hold PETA in high regard, look up their spoof flash game of the Cooking Mama series. That should be all you need to see. These people are f#$%ing psychotic. They just do so much random, crazy bullsh$% that it makes the whole animal rights movement look just as crazy as they are to the majority of people on this planet.

If you're wondering why I rated the trench [bleep]e as the worst primary weapon, all you need to look at is reach. Primary weapons are supposed to be powerful and have a good range of attack. While any melee weapon has a limited range, katanas and bats both have better reach than a trench [bleep]e.

For sit.1, the only time you could conceivably be in that sort of position is if you're either out scavenging or the base wall was breached. If you're out scavenging, you should have both medium/long range firearms and short range. A shotgun should be readily available, or even a good melee weapon. It shouldn't take 1-2 seconds to switch weapons, more than enough time if they're 6 feet away. Also, you should have some sort of close range weapon within arm's reach at all times in the base if you stockpile properly. I know in all the video games you can carry two primary weapons, a pistol, and a melee weapon. Not so much in real life. Switching weapons also takes time. A shotgun would have to go on your back if you had one, and then you would probably have to undo some catch with your hand to get it off you're back, swing it around, chamber the first round if not already done, then aim, then fire. That would take a minimum of 5-10 seconds. Situation 1 isn't just going to happen if the wall is breached or we're out scavving. It's not like all of us are going to magically appear at a base, when the planned one is hundreds of miles away from most of you. Also, on the topic of guns, they're heavy. A shotgun weighs anywhere from 7-15 pounds, which is heavy. The shells add a couple pounds to that too. And in any case, if 10 zombies are at extremely close range, a shotgun is bad. You have to pump it each time, since I doubt any of us are gonna come up with an auto-shotgun, and that takes too long when they're on top of you. A melee weapon wouldn't do much good either. It says explicitly in the ZSG that you should have at least a few different weapons on you for various purposes (melee, close range, mid/long range is good enough), so you should be prepared for that. Also, of course switching weapons takes time. However, just how long would it take for you to put down an assault rifle and snag your shotgun from your back? If you take time to practice, it shouldn't take longer than 2 seconds, including the time it takes to chamber a shell. As for your theory that full auto is better for keeping the zombies from getting at you, that might work to a degree. However, which sounds better, a veritable wall of lead with each trigger pull that tears chunks out of any organic object that's in the general area the gun's pointed at (decent shotguns use clips of some sort, so you should have a few shots before needing to hand reload), or a constant stream of low-kickback, mildly inaccurate bullets? Keep in mind that only a head shot will neutralize a zombie.

For sit.1, the only time you could conceivably be in that sort of position is if you're either out scavenging or the base wall was breached. If you're out scavenging, you should have both medium/long range firearms and short range. A shotgun should be readily available, or even a good melee weapon. It shouldn't take 1-2 seconds to switch weapons, more than enough time if they're 6 feet away. Also, you should have some sort of close range weapon within arm's reach at all times in the base if you stockpile properly. Sit.2 is the only good reason for full auto. Taking out humans is what it was made for. Why do you think all formal militaries carry assault rifles?

Assault rifles can go semi automatic, genius. The only reason they're gray-listed (not quite banned, but ill-advised) is because of the temptation to switch on full auto against zombies. Other than that, they're one of the best weapons in existence for a zombie survivor; very large clip size, designed for heavy wear and tear, not difficult to carry on you at all times when you're trained properly. If it weren't for the Mexican drug cartels and various idiots doing stupid stuff with them, they'd be guaranteed to be findable legally in almost any well-stocked gun store for a long time in America. Ammo shouldn't be much of a problem either, depending on where we set up at. I don't know about you guys, but I still say West Virginia's one of the best places to be at for this sort of thing.

What part of the current situation has ANYTHING to do with religion? I don't pretend to know the particulars of the problems in Ireland, but I'm starting to get tired of people blaming religion every chance they get. I'd recommend either staying close to home and getting some sort of personal defense item or start carrying something in case you get randomly jumped by a group. A pair of knives is good for attack speed and mobility, but something that can be carried openly like a bat might keep weaker and smarter opponents from going after you. It might attract people wanting a fight and/or police, though.

I think a refinement of the gun licensing process should help with reducing the number of bad guys who can get guns legally. Here's how I think it should work; 1) Set up a database of people nationwide who are registered to have guns. 2) Have that database keep track of the registrants' criminal record, and adjust the person's license accordingly (as your record gets worse, the guns you're allowed to purchase are restricted starting with the most lethal). While this won't allow officers to randomly take any restricted firearms in your possession without warrant, it will add onto any punishment you receive for crimes which you used that weapon with, in the form of a felony. 3) Give each registrant a card which can be scanned by any gun distributor (scanners should come with this) for instant access to that person's clearance for the guns. This allows expedience in purchase as well as a record of what the person has purchased (so that if they need to be arrested for something, authorities have an idea of what to expect). It's a rough idea, but it might work with some refinement. It's the best of both worlds; gun people have quicker access to their equipment, and the worried people have a better way to make sure the wrong people can't get guns legally. While this still doesn't take care of the problem of illegal firearms, it helps in neutralizing the legal variety's viability for crime. If something like this is implemented, we might be able to more focus on the real problem behind gun crime; black market trade.

Mass Effect was the first game I played on the 360. It was the [cabbage], and it justified me dropping ~320 USD for it and the pro system. However, there were a FEW problems. 1) There wasn't enough content. As kickass as the gameplay was, it seemed too short. This might just be me wanting to play it longer, but still. Get a more varied library of things to do, and I'll be fine here. 2) The areas I could go to were VERY limited, and too much of them seemed cookie-cutter. 3) The weapon types I could use were limited. Opponents got freaking ROCKET LAUNCHERS where we got grenades. Sure, the explosive rounds mod might effectively turn a gun into one, but it's just not the same. 4) The way that special abilities were done seems lackluster. When I'm playing a soldier, the only abilities I use personally are the weapon attack abilities. While some of the effects seem useful, I really dislike pausing the action every time I want to use them. I'd like that fixed, please. 5) Sniper rifles are WAY too finicky. While I can understand the low accuracy unless if you use the zoom feature, having the targeting reticule move around like I'm drunk is somewhat overkill. Reduce that, and I'm good. I can't wait for the next one!

What happened to the "few hours of break time" thing? Also, and I can tell you this right now, if you think a group of GAMERS will find suitable entertainment for the duration of their confinement in reading and board/card games (I'm probably not going to be the only one who'd like to train with weapons, so that's being left out), then you're not smart enough to be able to even get to this place, let alone be productive for the few days of sanity you'll have left. I don't know about you, but gaming is a TON preferable to sitting around watching the power plant rust. If necessary, we can set it up so people have to earn their game time. Could be anything from guard duty to helping with the general upkeep. If you must, think of it as a reward for being helpful. (if you say that survival is reward enough, you haven't been around other humans in a long time)

3. What would be the consecuences (sp?) nuking Japan ended the WWII and created the ONU what would nuke NK would make? Well, it's like this. You know Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The two spots where nukes were dropped on Japan in World War 2, over half a century ago? It's still toxic to go anywhere near there outside of full hazmat setup. Mix that with nuclear fallout (dust from the explosion is irradiated, spread WAY the [bleep] out thanks to winds), and you could turn the region into a wasteland if you drop anything. That, my friend, is why they're f@$%ing called "Weapons of Mass Destruction": they annihilate everything in the entire area and make it uninhabitable for a very long time. http://www.cracked.com/article_16477_5-famous-sci-fi-weapons-that-theyre-actually-building.html #2."Rods from God," Space-Launched Kinetic Megabombs Much better than a nuke. If only it actually existed. I heard about those. All of the kinetic destructive power of a nuke without the radiation poisoning the land in the immediate area for a couple decades. It's a "Best of both worlds" type thing, with the only problem being the vulnerability of a satellite from a well-aimed rocket. At least with nukes it's hard to know where they're at. To the bolded, my Answer is have an automated Defense Network that can tell if there is an incoming Missile or rocket heading towards it. Also having a ground team to monitor the Automated Defense just in case it tries to fire on friendlies. The ground team would be able to deactivate the Satellite and destroy said missile in flight if something happened. Then again, you could do what they did in End War, Just make it a freaking Space Station. While the American military has a LOT of cash at it's disposal, a dedicated space station is somewhat beyond their abilities, unless if Congress clears the inordinate amount of money needed for that. I don't think they'd very much like spending upwards of a couple hundred billion on a comparatively minor adjustment to the arsenal.