Jump to content

Darkling

Members
  • Posts

    964
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Darkling

  1. So when's the Naval Expansion coming out? Darkling Runs for Cover Don't hurt me!
  2. quote:Originally posted by almostpilot: There is one bad point (at last for me) about Arma: The game Campaign is far far worse than in OFP. Based on OFP main campaign experience that i played i expected more from Arma.Would you say the game campaign is bad because it's the same as OFP, worse than OFP, or you simply expected a better improvement? I was thinking about picking up a copy of OFP, but wondered if it would be worth it now that I have ARMA. Does anyone still play OFP, or has everyone moved over to ARMA? Considering the requiirements for ARMA, I'm just wondering if there's still a lot of people playing OFP, simply because of the hardware requirements are pretty steep.
  3. quote:Originally posted by $iLk: Not everyone dumps the horsepower into their rigs like I do. Yeah this things a monster, I've just upgraded to an X2-3800+ System with a Gig of RAM and a 6200 video Card with 256 Megs of RAM. My rig BARELY runs this thing on low settings. From what I understand, it should do fairly well once I upgrade my card to a 6800 or better. I just downloaded the Op Flashpoint Demo, I can't believe that I've never heard of this game before. From what I understand, there's still a fairly large community playing the older version. I'm wondering if I should get that one too, or is everyone moving over to ARMA? You're right though, it's basically a fairly small upgrade from Op Flashpoint. BTW, I've heard that the US & Euro versions will be coming together on patch 1.07, what's the difference anyway?
  4. Just wondering if anyone's playing They take a novel approach, instead of having a bunch of seperate tiny maps, they have one MASSIVE map, with different missions available. Unlike, BF2, when you fly a jet, you actually have to fly a decent amount of time, before getting to your objective.
  5. quote:Originally posted by Kalshion: Join the club Darkling. Currently I'm unsubbed as the game has become to boring; most of the corporations are full on Pvp and Pvp in this game is purely based on who has more skill points, it's not based on actual SKILL. (Leadership maybe, but not actual skill) But then again, money is also the issue.. I don't know if I can agree with that. Yeah, I've got over 25K SP, but both my sons joined me about 6 months ago and I started a new character, and we trained up some very basic skills, went gate camping, and had some good ol' fasion Pirating going on. We got A LOT of stuff from these gate camps and it was a TON of fun. I think that Strategy still counts for A LOT in this game, but it does have a tendancy to suck you in, and soon, that's all you're doing is playing.
  6. Hell, I've been off for so long that my character isn't even training anything anymore. I have over 25M SP, but no where near Carrier requirements. I was thinking of getting back in, but I want to find a new group to hang out with, the old one that I was with just got way too stale.
  7. Downloaded the Demo and I couldn't believe how small the planets were. I mean come on, a planet was basically slightly larger than a football field!
  8. I saw this story a while back, the worst part is that the guy perpetuating the lawsuit is a Judge, he should be disbarred.
  9. quote:Originally posted by $iLk: Is this a bad time to ask about a Windows 3.1 server? I'm building one with matchsticks and a potato. Maybe you can build an E&B server out of that.
  10. I was perusing over at Lancers Reactor to see if there's any new mods out for Freelancer, when I saw these games by StarWraith. Apparently, Shadows of Orion is what made them, and that's now out for free. In addition, they have Evocron Alliance 2, for those who like the whole Privateer/Freelancer type games, and Arvoch Conflict for those who like a more "Wing Commander" type game. From what I see, the graphics suck but the "Newtonian Physics" and a bunch of other cool aspects might make this worthwhile. I'm wondering if anyone here has ever played these games, and if so, what's your opinion on them?
  11. You've GOT to be kidding me. Let's see, UN, what should we focus on? Tyrants and Human rights violations? Nope! World Poverty? Nope! Regional Wars? Nope! Disease, the HIV crisis? Noway, all that stuff's too hard, let's take everyone back to driving school! Weeeeeeeeee!
  12. Most of you know me as a pretty hard core right wing conservative guy, but I think this is something that we really need to look at to make us safer and more secure for the future. Any way you slice it, practically all terror organizations out there, be it the Russian Mafia, Radical Islam, Nigerian Warlords and even pests like Hugo Chavez all get their money from one primary source, and that's Oil money. Whatever we can do to lower the value of oil, will have a HUGE impact on these organizations and effectively cut their funding by massive amounts, so here's what I propose that we do. Oil Drilling Let's face it folks, we have some of the biggest oil reserves in the world, and why we're not using our own is beyond me. Cheveron alone has found one of the biggest oil reserves in the world in the Gulf, we need to expedite the process on getting this stuff out of the ground and into our own refineries. Natural Gas It's estimated that the world has a MUCH larger supply of natural gas, than it does oil, and yet, when my house was built a couple of years ago, NG was not an option for me, since the city didn't pipe it in. I propose that we pass a bill to where the city or Developer MUST provide an NG pipeline to all new homes built, plus a certain percentage, say 2% a year or so of existing homes should be added every year. This alone would probably save me about $100.00 a month off my electric bill, and would insure that no oil was used in my cooking, water heating or clothes drying. Solar Power The first thing that needs to happen with respect to alternative energy is that utilities MUST buy all electricity generated from these sources at the same rates they pay other utilities when they buy their energy. The second is that some sort of credit needs to be given to the homeowner who is purchasing a home with Solar Panels installed. When I bought this house, I was pretty much at the maximum of what I could finance, so if I decided that instead of Roof Tile, I wanted those new roof integrated tiles , the finance company wouldn't take into account my savings on electrical generation (about $250.00 a month), so this is something that definitely need to be considered as an added income. In addition, I believe that Solar Power generation should be MANDATORY on all new homes on a sliding scale. They should start off with say 2% of a Builders Homes should be solar, then gradually increase every year. This would allow the manufacturers to ramp up production. If a small builder is building say 50 homes, then at least one of those need to be Solar. If they're building less than that, then they would be excluded, but later when the requirement is say 10%, then if they're only building say 10 homes, then at least one of those need to be solar. Lastly, when roofs are replaced on existing homes, they need to have at least some aspect of solar incorporated, even if it's only the water heater. Wind Power I was driving down the highway the other day and imagined to myself, hey, what if all these light poles had a Wind Generator mounted at the top of each one? In a way it would be a way to "recoup" some of the energy used to drive the cars on the highway. There should be some sort of requirement for a certain percentage of our energy coming from Wind. Possibly even a requirement that all homes sold in the US with a lot larger than say 6000 Sq. Ft., should be sold with a Wind Generator. I mean let's face it, even if everyone installed these tiny 400 watt Units, it's not a lot of power individually, but multiply that by millions and it could save millions upon millions of barrels of oil from being imported here. And these things are less than $1000.00 installed. Even the 900 watt unit, which is enough to power a Clothes Dryer, is less than $3000.00! Cars We should mandate that all vehicles sold in the US be of the Hybrid variety and EVERY ONE should come with an electric only option, so if you want to charge it at home you can. If you were to convert Electricity to a Gas pricing model, Electricity works out to about 90 cents per gallon or less. Not only would everyone save a TON of money, the Terrorists get a heck of a lot less cash. The Toyota Prius is sold around the world with an Electric only option, but they don't give it to us here in the US because Toyota is afraid that people will think they HAVE to plug in their cars, so instead people have to buy kits to convert the car to Electric Only mode. This law would eliminate stupidity like this. SUV's All SUV's sold in the US need to have either a Diesel or Hybrid option, and eventually be Diesel or Hybrid only. This one's a no brainer, I mean with the new quiet Diesel technology, the only reason people aren't buying diesel is because it's either not available in the vehicle they want, it's a "Special Order" situation, or people just don't know. In addition some of the smaller SUV's can easily be converted to a Hybrid like the Toyota Highlander. The only reason cars like this cost more is because they're produced in limited quantities, if they were mass produced like other vehicles, there would be no premium on them. NIMBY's Not In My Back Yard! There are some NIMBY's worse than others, like Gas refineries, which haven't been built in ages, but I think there needs to be ONE uniform approval process for ALL NIMBY's and preferably have them all in ONE site. For example, let's say that I was going to put in a LandFill somewhere. I would need to find a site that could accomidate a Landfill, a Sewage Treatment plant, an Electric Generation plant, a Gas refinery, a Recycling Plant and some sort of Electric Recovery plant. I could either build all myself, or sell the rights for the rest to be built by other companies. The reason for this would be multifaceted. First, landfills and Electric Generation plants MUST be built, there's no getting around that, and once they're approved, then all the other NIMBY's will be approved as well. Second, having all these guys together in one geographical area makes a lot of sense, because this way the Electric plant could possibly start buying Methane from both the Landfill AND the Sewage plant to generate more electricity. Third, it makes it easier to use TCP Processes (Thermal Conversion) on trash, if refineries (which have similar plumbing to TCP), are right next to the Landfills. Fourth, the utilization of more waste to energy and waste to recycling, will mean the landfill takes a much longer time to get filled up. Finally, the more energy we can recover from our trash, means less oil imported into the US, and the more Gas refineries built around the US means lower prices on Gas, since there will be less supply problems. Summary The Left will oppose this plan because of the Oil Drilling and NIMBY issues. The Right will oppose this plan because of the "Freedom of Choice" issues, but I firmly believe that unless you drain their pockets of the cash they use to perform their ops, things are only going to get worse and worse and worse. Self reliance is what the US is all about, so let's be self reliant, shall we, let's not HAVE to rely on Nigeria and Argentina for Oil, when we can do things TODAY to start cutting that down. I'm not saying to do it overnight, but a 10 or even 20 year plan, I think, would be enough time to get all of these policies into place. I'd like to know the communities response to this.
  13. quote:Originally posted by aramike: Wasn't there an ice age once or twice in the past?I doubt any of the Global Warming crowd will be answering any time soon, they're probably shivering in the current unseasonably cold temperatures or reading The Sun Sentinel on how it's currently running about 10 to 15 degrees colder than usual, and how we've broken records set back in 1980.
  14. Well I'm here in NY, hoping my flight didn't get cancelled like hundreds of others did. So far Jet Blue says it's going out on time at 1:15, so I'll keep my fingers crossed. I can see on their site that the one prior to mine was cancelled. I've been coming here for my Neice's B-day every year for the past 5 years, and the first 3 years, the weather was great. Last year, it snowed! (Keep in mind it's SPRING) and this year it was in the 40's plus we got that Nor'Eastern blow through and the northern part of NY got Blizzard Conditions in spring. Now I'm not going to say that the Earth is cooling, but I guarantee you that if the opposite had happend, these guys would be all over this as more "Evidence" that earth is warming. Unlike most of these people I realize that weather isn't predictable and it changes all the time, it always has and always will, regardless of what we do. Who knows, maybe in the distant future, Spring will be Cold, Summer Mild, Fall Hot and Winter, well, fallish.
  15. quote:Originally posted by Nomad: I say that you don't understand the subject because you DO NOT SPEND YOUR LIFE STUDYING THESE MATTERS, hence you can't immediately relate all the principal & various studies on the matter which confirm or infirm a given hypothesis to make your own objective opinion outside the framework of the subject of your (temporary...) focus.I'm not going on just my understanding, but by the understanding of the scientists that are presenting the opposite of the "Popular" view. The reason I identify more with what they're saying, is because they make more sense and their data, to me, is more compelling. quote:Originally posted by Nomad: It's absolutely classical from a non-initiated to see a single pseudo-scientific article and jump to conclusions while simultaneously ignoring all the rest of accumulated work in the field by other sources.Isn't that the official IPCC policy? Ignore any science that conflicts with their views? quote:Originally posted by Nomad: If you are really interested by this subject I advise you to consult BENESTADT. Svensmark's hypothesis gets quite a beating in it.In all honesty, to me, this is a minor supporting argument, what's much more compelling to me is the data showing that the late 1800's was the COLDEST period in the past 1000 years, basically that was the end of "The Little Ice Age". Since then, the temperature shot up until around the 1940's, cooled until the 1970's then shot up again, up until about 5 years ago (and holding steady since). In other words, the 1940 was the BIGGEST decade of industrialization, and we had cooling, the exact opposite of what the Global Warming theorists have said should happen with excessive CO2 production. More importantly though, it's been MUCH warmer in the past, especially about 1000 years ago. And if you missed the next parts of the video here's quote:Originally posted by Nomad: Try to find out any scientifical peer-reviewed study which explains exactly how the 95% heat retention properties of water vapor you refer to are calculated AND CONFIRMED in the real world. You won't find any, you know why ? Because you can't calculate it, it's too complex, because you should take into account the conflicting properties of water under simultaneous various states, in various amounts, at different altitudes, localisations, and durations. Worse, provided you could use a computer powerful enough, a few seconds after beginning your calculations, you could start all over again, because the variables are constantly changing... 95% is an empiric approximation that, funny enough, is always conveniently used as the flagship argument of all those who attempt to deny human implication in GW. But you know what, you just pointed out there a HUGE flaw in the current Global Warming Studies, and that is that it's operating under flawed assumptions that is difficult to impossible to predict accurately using computer models. Which is why many are turning to historical data, such as what's shown on the video above. Take a look at it and let me know what you think.
  16. quote:Originally posted by Nomad: Too bad some peeps here congenitally speak about things they can't understand due to missing scientific education.Oh please, as if the scientist supporting Global Warming are using REAL science, I mean come on, First, they want to magically discount things like Water Vapor from the calculations of Global Warming, knowing FULL WELL, that water vapor accounts for up to 95% of the atmospheric heat retention properties, then they want to give us data that comes from Ice Cores up until just a few decades ago, then pull the old switcheroo and use Hawaiian Volcanic Air samples to create the magic "Hockey Stick" diagram that's become so famous. I mean come on, are we a bunch of Morons for buying this stuff or what. quote:Originally posted by Nomad: Cosmic radiation correlation with cloud formation is debated at the CERN (where I was in 1995 for the last time) which is the biggest particle physics research facility in the world, under the code CERN-SPSC-2000-021 (2000 stands for YEAR 2000, lmao, but thanks for the update...).1995? Ummm, his conclusive experiments that PROVED his theory didn't finish until 1997, and they weren't published until 1998??? Guess you weren't around for that? quote:Originally posted by Nomad: More precisely, the study focuses on the modulation properties of the intensity of the Van Halen belt over the formation of low-altitude clouds which CONTRARY to high-altitude clouds, REFLECT solar radiation and thus favorise COOLING. Thus, when exposed to sunlight, less low-altitude clouds means increased solar radiation reaching earth's surface. However, at night, since clouds are missing, the earth can RADIATE BACK IN SPACE the accumulated energy. In short, during daytime the exposed surface gets warmer, and at night colder. Therefore we are absolutely not talking about a cumulative heating absorption capability like what atmospheric CO2 induces for example. It's indeed correct that cosmic radiation FAVORISES the creation of the MOLECULAR PRECURSORS which play a role in cloud formation. However, and here's the problem (which you don't see mentioned in the article and for causa...): even Svensmark itself has NEVER been able to find or identify ANY GCR CORRELATION TREND with GW. Worse, there are instances where REAL WORLD DATA presents results which are EXACTLY THE INVERSE of what Svensmark's model predicts. Excerpt: "According to the mechanism suggested by Marsh and Svensmark [2000] to explain the positive correlation between GCR and low cloud cover, there should be no lags on monthly time scales between the GCR and cloud cover, but rather an almost immediate response of cloud cover to rapid variations in GCR. We have therefore calculated high pass filtered data permitting only oscillations faster than 1 year, and looked for correlations or co-varying features in these data. Surprisingly, there seems to be a negative correlation between GCR and cloud cover on these time scales (Table 1). If correct, this would contradict the Svensmark hypothesis, while at the same time suggesting a link between GCR and clouds on 1ÔÇô12 month time scales." http://folk.uio.no/jegill/papers/2002GL015646.pdf And here two extensive studies about the flaws of Svensmark's model and conclusions: Benestad, R.E. (2002) Solar Activity and Earth's Climate, Praxis-Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, 287pp, ISBN: 3-540-43302-3 Damon, P.E. and P. Laut (2004), Pattern of Strange Errors Plagues Solar Activity and Terrestrial Climate Data, Eos, vol 85, num 39, p. 370 Next. Well, the study that you provided a link to, doesn't refute the theory, however it does say that it weakens it a bit. Here are some problems that I noticed with it though. [*]First, it only covers a 16 year period, which by weather pattern standards, is extremely small [*]Second, they focused most of their studies on an area around the Hawaiian Islands (small sample size) [*]Third, it seems to me that they've got the wrong studies in their hands, because the study DOES say that the more Solar Iradiance, the less Cosmic Radiation you have (since Solar Flares Bat them away) and they're pointing out, that the more Solar Radiance the less cloud cover, that's NOT the inverse of the study, that SUPPORTS it. You know, just because I'm not a scientist, doesn't mean that I can't read or do math.
  17. quote:Originally posted by Nomad: quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Yeah, and European stupidity as well. As far as history is concerned, the meltdown of organized christian militias, the only powerful pro-israelian proxy which could have nowadays opposed pro-syrian influence in Lebanon (and hence decreased the amount of weaponry reaching Hizbollah, Hamas and Co) is solely due to a single and exclusively US decision. Foreign policies emit ripples through time, and it seems that you still don't realize it despite having access to over 2000 years recorded human history. You will be entitled to talk about european stupidity the day US decisions don't come regularly back biting your a*s... As far as I'm concerned Bush Sr. was a traitor to the conservative cause. He backpedaled on his "No New Taxes" pledge, which caused a downturn in the economy, and he did so as a "back room deal" with the Dems to make it more "smooth sailing" as he went after Saddam. This other back room deal that you're talking about shows me just how much of a sellout he really was. Everyone complains so much about how W. Bush "Goes it alone" and never bothered to build the "coalition" that his fathers diplomacy had created. In my eyes, the way he did things was definitely the right way, no back room deals and no selling out of friends to "Make things easier". As the old American Civil Liberties Union used to say when it was run by Christians, and opposing discrimination, "We don't do things because they're popular or even wanted by the majority of Americans, we do them because it's the RIGHT things to do"
  18. I'm not sure if I should start this topic under science or religion, considering how religiously fanatic the Global Warming Guys have become about their "beliefs". A little known experiement seems to point us in the other direction. Too bad it took so long for someone to take notice.
  19. quote:Originally posted by Nomad: @Darkling, Jag: Okay, then allow me to fill you in on a few things. I've spent what ? More or less 22 years in diplomatic circles, among them 4 in Lebanon. Facts finding ? LMAO: you don't travel to a country living under an authoritarian regime without a prior diplomatic negociation when you are a lawmaker from a country considered as unfriendly.That's all very interesting, and sad, but has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Nancy visited Israel before visiting Syria, she then went and told the Syrians that Israel is ready to talk peace with them. In other words, she was trying to broker a peace agreement. What about that is it that you don't understand that makes it different than simply visiting a country and it's leaders? It's one thing if I'm going to visit Syria and talk and listen, so I can gain a better understanding of what's going on over there, as the Republican congressmen set out do to. It's another to go there and start "relaying" messages from Israel (a message that was botched BTW) and try to kick-start the peace process on my own, like Pelosi tried to do. P.S. If you haven't gotten the clue by now, let me highlight it for you. George W. Bush, never agreed with the things that his father did. He didn't agree with the policy of going in and "containing" Saddam, he felt it was better to get rid of him permanently, and being far more "Christian" AND conservative than his father, he DEFINITELY wouldn't have sold out the Christian Syrians. But these days, hard resolve doesn't count for anything, it's how much you can talk that does.
  20. quote:Originally posted by Nomad: Someone mind to enlighten me why Republican lawmakers (Frank R. Wolf, Joe Pitts and Robert B. Aderholt) who visited Syria a few days before Mrs. Pelosi, and Republican lawmaker Darrell Issa, who met Assad THE DAY AFTER Pelosi, don't all deserve also a bullet or should be considered traitors ?I will enlighten you quote:Originally by Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala - FOXNews in a statement issued Wednesday putting distance between his trip with Reps. Frank Wolf of Virginia and Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania. Other Republicans visiting Syria in recent days were Reps. David Hobson of Ohio and Darrell Issa of California. "I, along with my colleagues, fully support the Administration's long term strategy and decisions regarding Syria. My visit was in no way an attempt to make foreign policy or negotiate on behalf of the United States government," Aderholt said, characterizing the visit only as a "fact-finding trip."In other words, they were there on a fact finding visit, but they support the presidents policy. Like it or not Nancy just CAN'T STAND the fact that in this situation, the Bush policy IS the official US Position. She wasn't there on a fact finding mission, she was there trying to conduct "Shuttle Diplomacy" as the news organizations are saying. In other words, she was trying to broker her own peace deals over there, when she has not IDEA, WTF she's doing.
  21. Didn't you know that's where SG1 keeps their Beta Site? The industry, the SUV's, they're all destroying the place already.
  22. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this treason? I mean, doesn't the constitution say that only the president is to receive foreign dignitary's? In addition, isn't Syria considered a State Sponsor of Terror??? I wonder if anyone would have the guts to impeach her over this?
  23. quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: Actually it was in the FAQ (it probably still is) and is related to support for force feedback joysticks. Tech has come a long way and the XB360 gamepad is totally different. I'm just bustin on ya, it sounds fantastic, I can't wait to play it. When is it that they'll have it on GT, next month?
×
×
  • Create New...