Gisen

I don't know what is wrong with you. I explained this quite clearly last time. Consensus means 'most' - it doesn't mean 'all.' The conclusions of two people do absolutely nothing to the OVERFUCKINGWHELMING consensus of educated, intelligent, qualified scientists. Do you understand?

Iron cross; please don't talk about things you don't understand. ALL devices that use electricity and or magnetism - including human brains, for example- have an electromagnetic field around them; there is nothing special about wind turbines. Wind turbines show up on radar because they are large, moving objects that are radar reflective. Carcinogenesis simply means the formation of cancer. Again, nothing special about wind turbines that cause it; you're just being ignorant. Burnt toast is more carcinogenic. In short, you're just repeating total bullshit myths about electronic sensitivity that have absolutely no basis in fact; and EVEN IF they did, there is nothing special about wind turbine generated electricity compared to electricity generated by any other means. I deliberately have not posted my own views on which generation method is best because I just want you to realise what utter crap you are talking.

I think that this prudish nonsense should be stopped immediately. It's ok to play a game with blood and gore where you shoot other people but not OK to see some human anatomy? Grow up.

The answer is: it depends. Just look at the motherboard manual.

How exactly do you know that the ecosystem won't collapse? Please explain this to us. Your qualifications in biochemistry or similar would be helpful to know as well. The simple fact is that you don't have the first clue what impact and knock on effects something like a huge increase in algae would have. Another mark of ignorance from you: ...because life is pernicious and can survive ecosystem collapse? Key word: LIFE. Not "HUMANS." Have you any idea what percentage of species die out when a mass extinction happens? Apparently not. What is wrong with your reading comprehension? Seriously. Plain english:IN COMPARISON If you don't understand the words, look them up in a dictionary. Electric arc furnace Maybe you should have tried looking on the internet before posting such stupid things. Or possibly reading the post you are quoting where I stated quite clearly As I said, lazy, selfish and ignorant.

If you have a quick look at sites like Tom's Hardware you can see some comparisons of various different video cards for different prices. It's best to go on facts like x card gets Y FPS in Z game with such and such components than people on this forum saying "I have a ubertek 6421 cpc464 and it si teh pwnzors!" Having said that; in terms of cards; PCI technology is oldest, then AGP, and PCI-Express (or just PCI-E) is newest.

As I'm sure we all know, Vista is not a gaming OS. But here is confirmation of exactly how much worse it is than XP: http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_110a.html

When I said 'organise ... an admin' what I meant was get a server with an admin or team of admins. Create a community. It's the jumping about playing on public servers with no idea of who you are playing with that causes the problems. And I certainly wasn't trying to cause any arguments about DM vs whatever, but we all know that proper coop (i.e. not evolution) servers don't suffer from this problem nearly as much as public free for all deathmatch servers, because what the cheaters want, by and large, is to annoy or defeat humans. And Looz is right, coming on here making countless threads about it is just making them happy. Servers already have the equal mod required option, Wittman

What!! Are you quite mad, sir? I cannot believe that you actually think this is the case. Where do you think you get food, water and oxygen from? How exactly do you plan on surviving if the ecosystem collapses? The worst economic disaster imaginable is a mild annoyance in comparison, and certainly would not mean the extinction of the human race, which the loss of the ecosystem would. I know of hundreds of fuels that produce no CO2: any that don't burn carbon in an oxygen atmosphere. Did you miss science at high school? In any case, the CO2 can also be reclaimed or scrubbed out if the plant cannot be converted to using pure fuels. You are also STILL ignorant of the fact that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas despite it being mentioned almost every page of this thread. This wonderful phenomenon called 'ELECTRICITY' can be generated without burning fossil fuels by a variety of means. Most people, especially fat, lazy people who drive SUVs across the road to their neighbours don't actually need to burn as much as they do. Using the almost magical power of electricity, we can create fuels such as hydrogen, or indeed heat things directly by using the electricity in such a fashion. I'm surprised you have not heard of electricity, it's quite popular over here. Yes, I suppose your attitude of complaining about something you don't want to understand because you're too selfish to want to change anything in your comfortable, wasteful life- and fuck everyone else - is a much better solution.

Linking to the IPCC report doesn't actually tell me anything about what YOU have a problem with about it. It all supports my position, not what yours seems to be, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. Page 17 included. Human caused climate change is going to have long lasting effects which are going to continue long after the initial damage is done. I know this. What's your problem with this? Hmm, an ad hominem attack on me. How unexpected. If you are willing to listen to arguements from 'both sides,' could you at least point out what you disagree with when you refer to the IPCC in such disparaging tones? Could you also please try to understand what the word consensus means and why it is so persuasive that "The IPCC , the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, and the National Academy of Sciences (which even the White House calls the "gold standard of independent scientific review") all say that human activity is causing global warming." Let me elaborate exactly what the problems are with the daily tech link you keep spamming about a lack of consensus, because I appreciate you may not have understood the first time. 1) The article refers to a survey, and a survey conducted by one person at that. Surveys are not as reliable or objective as other data. 2) It's unpublished. I.e. it has not been peer or editor reviewed, which at least raises the possibility that its a pile of foetid dingo's kidneys (although of course it may not be.) 3) Because it is a completely subjective survey by one person, when other people repeat the survey we would most likely find different results. In fact, we do: A different person gets completely different results This analysis finds that the original researcher used flawed techniques to analyse the information and that consensus has in fact increased over time, not decreased. Please note that the same objections I raise to the original survey do also apply to this one. 4) Trying to interpret how the wording of a paper reflects on the individual scientist's acceptance or not of a particular theory is flawed at best. Well, if I had ever claimed to have a faultless argument that would indeed be true. However, if you are trying to say that the overwhelming acceptance of scientists of all nations and fields on the facts behind climate change indicates that they must be wrong, try to consider which is the most likely: a) All of these scientists, with their peer-review, intelligence, hunger for truth, competitive interest in proving each other wrong and decades of training and experience are wrong and only you, with your ..... daily tech articles.... are intellectually capable of seeing the truth b) You're wrong. Tricky one, isn't it? Well, I've already laid out the basic ideas with the video link I posted. I shall restate it in the hope that you actually find a coherent answer for any part of it: "Despite the potential costs and risk of economic disaster in acting on climate change, any chance of averting a worldwide catastrophe that would result in the end of life as we know it on the planet is worth taking."

No, I think you are overstating the problem there. The very worst scenario from acting on climate is an economic disaster. Although indeed very bad, that is not as bad as NOT acting on it. Look, you're being silly here and totally overstating what is necessary. There are clean, renewable sources of electricity. There are ways to hugely reduce the amount of emissions on all forms of transport and ways to allow development and work to go on without having everyone live in a grass hut eating tofu or whatever. Think about what you're saying : "we might be fucked, so lets make sure we're fucked." Brilliant.

I also reccomend a better understanding of the type of argument I was using, try reading up on 'devils advocate.' I've yet to see any rational debate from you. And you want close-minded? Look in a mirror. What exactly do you fail to understand about the scientific consensus behind climate change? I'm willing to correct whatever misunderstanding is at the root of your delusion that it isn't happening if you are truly willing to learn. Of course, if you do actually have any facts, better explanations or indeed anything other than strawman (or straw man, if it makes so much difference to you. I suggest you look at your own spelling and grammar before nitpicking) bullshit, I am also willing to be corrected. You just haven't actually posted anything worthwhile or valid yet. I find it immensely amusing that you are unable to admit your ridiculous straw-man post was such. First you claim it was irony, now you are claiming it was a devil's advocate position. It can't be both, as a scholar of the english language should know. I don't really care what you want to be labelled as. All you have posted as evidence in support of whatever you think you are is a basic misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of the huge body of scientific evidence supporting man-made climate change. If you want to explain exactly what you don't like about it clearly and concisely, go for it. *edit* and you've still to answer a basic question relating to our initial disagreement : "No matter what the potential cost of acting on climate change, if it gives even a small chance of averting the doomsday scenario it is worth doing. What exactly don't you understand about this?"

Totally disagree. The main strength of Arma is its flexible, open ended mission editor and ways to make scripts and so on. I'd rather have the DM and CTF players organise themselves an admin if cheating is such a problem.

To learn how to use the map, turn the extended info and the GPS off and put yourself in the editor with a huge placement radius, then try to figure out where you are.

Do you know that you can secure your wireless connection and the instructions on how to do so probably came with the packaging?