Noon416 (OFPEC)

Admittedly, they had to link two particles using a third intermediary particle in the past, when trying to entangle them. But recently, an Austrian team have broken that by entangling two particles without any physical link between them (the two particles where 50km apart). I haven't found any details as to how. Providing their method becomes more commonplace, it removes the need to physically link particles that are being entangled, and hence, removes the lightspeed barrier.

Well, the time taken is literally zero over any distance, as the transmission is done via 'entanglement' otherwise known as 'superposition'. The current methods being researched and tested (they can teleport one photon at the moment) involve these 'entangled' particles, where a change in the state of one particle is *immediately* reflected in the other entangled particle, no matter where it is in the universe. But yes, at this stage they've only achieved it when dealing with single photons. Dealing with the complexity of even a single atom creates an exponentially mroe difficult problem, let alone anything like a human. Especially given that you would have to capture all the states of all the particles at the same instant. Then safely transmit that data via 'entanglement'. And then collapse the data back into the normal particles all at the same time. For more confusion, read up on "Schroedinger's Cat".

I aint no rocket scientist but i figure Newton's law will apply. -A tiny tennis ball hitting a 20 feet Wrecker's ball will only bounce back with the Wrecker's ball remain still -A tiny tennis ball laden with explosives hitting a Wrecker's ball will scar the surface or cause a crater. Wrecker ball will slightly move. -A tiny tennis ball laden laden with high compact fusion energy hitting a Wrecker's ball may either cause a crater or if it is powerful enough, sent the Wrecker ball far away. The good thing about science is that we can calculate what kind of damage base on the size of the carrier we want - total destruction or alter its orbit. Most dour scientists will prefer to err on the side of caution than over enthusiasm, thus explosions tend to be greater than anticipated. And tennis ball sized clump of antimatter would vapourise the wrecking ball and create a whopping great crater. (1.2kg of antimatter is as energetic as a 25.77 megatons of TNT)

Re-quoting the point you completely missed...

The biggest issue I see will be the structure of fan-sites that support both (or all three) games. Depending on how hard CM chases the community about their trademark, sites labelled "Operation Flashpoint something" will not be able to carry the "Armed Assault" or "Whatever OFP2 is called" content as well in their site branding. So sites will either: - Become generalised sites supporting all three but using none of them in the site names/branding; or, - Split their content and have two visibly seperate sites, one supporting OFP and the other supporting BIS's other games; or, - Will stop supporting OFP altogether and start supporting BIS's new games exclusively; or last but not least, - Won't support BIS's new games and will stay supporting OFP only. Either way, the structure of the sites in the community is going to experience a "shake-up"...

he he, a Type II boat verses a battleship (and obviously escorts). That would have been a fun challenge. Have to say, the only letdown with this game is it's horribly addictive gameplay. "Yeah, I'll just jump on for 20 minutes to kill some time" .... and 4 hours later you're still playing, trying to evade a bunch of escorts protecting the convoy you've just shot up. Quite simply, "best sim ever"...

Check here for known issues with Logitech Pedals, and fixes... http://web.axelero.hu/mozso/momo_e5.html btw, GT4 = Too tired to be more specific than that.

Indeed, and it's dead freaking boring. Was on a 727, one of the leading edge flaps failed to retract on one side, so we circled for 90 minutes burning off fuel (instead of dumping) and made a normal landing back at the airfield.

It's also a weight issue. Most large aircraft have so much weight in the wings with full fuel-tanks, that an attempted landing would do some serious damage to the wing spars/wings/engines/etc, as they flex heavily downwards on touchdown...

Looks like your second guess is accurate, Hellfish. It appears to be one of these without the front and rear lens attached. And given... - the rest of the mount characteristics - how far forward the scope is on the weapon - and the cabling running up to it ...I would hazard a guess that they're using it remotely from within the HMMWV it's mounted on, as the scope is able to feed video images into other devices.

I can't say 100%, but it looks like a type of BFA device. "Blank Firing Attachment", its used on weapons that use a gas-recoil bolt, to let you fire blank rounds while still having the bolt function as it normally would. If you fire a blank round without it, no gas is fed back into the system that drives the bolt backwards, hence it would only fire one round at a time before being manually cocked again.

Akira, your first post in response to mine implied an "I've been there, I've done that, you should get over it" attitude. This may not have been intended but that's how it was interpreted. Hence why I feel I had/have a valid point about you dismissing me out of hand. The "flawed argument" was a question ... how is it flawed? Simply because I already had an answer doesn't nullify the intended result, to draw of you what your answer is. Not at all, but you didn't exactly come off smelling like roses from your first post (in response to mine).I don't consider this discussion here for my "misplaced amusement", far from it. I'm sorry that you feel that way, I am not attempting or intending to simply belittle anyone that disagrees with me. Please read my posts with that intent in mind. I should point out that I'm actually referring to countries like Britain (attempting a voluntary 60% reduction), China (voluntarily & demostratably (sp?) reducing coal/carbon emissions), Australia (introducing policy to reduce levels beyond Kyoto expectations), etc etcThe US Administration is a whole different kettle of fish. Thanks, I'll see what I can find there (not much else found via Googling so far, specific to the estimated total credits vs emissions).

My apologies for that, the math does actually take into account the new base of 70 per country and is accurate, but I neglected to include my statement. That would be the sensible thing to do, but so far I've seen nothing to indicate that this will be the case.Will have to look into that when I get home, see if I can find the details from the Protocol on that one (something we could all do, if we're going to use this point).

Since I don't have the time to read 519 pages of thread (7776 posts), I'm going to address this now: People can and do change, you've no argument from me there. It's human nature. But when you try to use an old argument to dismiss my points arbitrarily, it pays to make sure that your stated position back then is valid to the discussion today. Although, I really should thank you, because now that your previous position has come to light, the context of your post changes to one of agreement with my position on the Protocol. Next time you want to try the 'old-timer' card, I suggest that you might want to fold before losing the hand. I'm not talking about personal volunteering as you're right, people won't change in a hurry or give up personal freedoms when they have the choice to keep them. However, the level I'm referring to is governmental. Governments impose their will over the people (thats why people pay taxes), and because of that my point is still valid. A government that voluntarily opts to reduce emissions and enforce voluntary controls will achieve a lot more in the long run , than one that is forced to do so through a flawed agreement. This is because the most common result of forcing a government to do something is that the government will often devote resources trying to find a way out, instead of applying those resources to the problem. Human history is full of examples of such behaviour. It is being done, thats my point.And because of that, why roll out a "fractured unenforceable agreement" (in your own words, still valid today) when governments are addressing the problem themselves, voluntarily. he he, that makes it a very interesting read. LOL, nice one.The actual reason appears to be because the other largest polluters have refused to sign as well, and I knew I would concede that point but I was waiting to see what Akira came back with first.

I understand it very well, thank you. But do you, honestly? Or are you debating with me because I've challenged denoir's statements? Because it appears that when I research your previous discussion about the Kyoto Protocol, you were in fact siding with my point of view that we shouldn't be willing to implement a "proven to be broken" system that might achieve a short-term reduction, when with some more work, a more stable and less exploitable long-term solution could be presented instead. Quote from Akira, Nov 2002, Bush & the Environment thread: Source thread To address your two recent points specifically: Point A: Kyoto demands a reduction on average of 5% less than 1990 levels globally. Yet Kyoto is designed in such a way that adherance to that target is not mandatory and is highly likely not to be met globally. The current estimates are a 1% reduction globally... Point B: Who says we're sitting anyone's sitting on their thumbs? Even countries that refuse to ratify the treaty are introducing voluntary targets, which is a far superior solution to a Protocol that can end up punishing countries even if they adhere to the targets. Voluntary targets are often more easily achieved than those imposed by economic and political force. "I want to do it" is far more powerful a motivator than "I have to do it". Ask yourself why the Kyoto Protocol has taken so long to reach this stage? Ask yourself why if it's such a great idea, your nation refuses to ratify it, Akira. Oh and btw: Just because "Noon416 (OFPEC)" has only been around since 2003 in here, doesn't mean that "Noon416" wasn't around here long before that. Edit: Broken quote closure

It's amusing to me to know that we have discussed that topic numerous times prior to your 2003 joining. he he Akira, I've discussed this many times in many forums in many years, and the 'sink credit marketplace' issue is, without fail, always overlooked. It surprises me that, given your statement, that you're obviously willing to overlook a system that is so easily abused to breach the Kyoto's overall & specific targets. Discussed before, maybe. Understood? Likely not. :P Go back to denoir's country A & B example, if you will... If Country A reduces it's production from 100 to 40, and then sells it's 60 extra credits to Country B, Country B can actually increase it's production of pollutants by 30% on top of the base 100 units. So overall, you only have half the reduction (net pollution is reduced to 170 units instead of 140 units, down from a base 200) required to meet Kyoto targets, yet country B hasn't breached the protocol and won't be punished for increasing it's output by 30%. If you take the same example and adjust it against real world averages, you're looking at an average required drop of 20% to reach 5% below 1990 levels, which equtes to 20 units in the A/B example. So A still goes ahead and reduces it's levels to 40 units per year. Country B buys up the 60 units and applies it to its current 100. It can now produce up to 140 units/year without fear of breaching the protocol. Net reduction in the area: 20 units/year, or 200% higher than the stated target of Kyoto.

Unfortunately your example is based on countries of an equal pairing, denoir. I use the Australia/NZ comparison as it's more accurate to what will be represented in the 'sink credits' marketplace. Source: Fact Sheet 2 International I don't disagree that the Kyoto Protocol intentions were noble, but the basic system is too open to abuse. Also of note is the punishments for failing to meet committments . In punishing one country for non-compliance, the result is the punishment of potentially a number of countries that have lived up to their obligations. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" Link to source In my mind, it's a kneejerk agreement that hasn't been fully worked through before release, and relies on "You have to be seen to be doing your part" emotional blackmail to enlist members. Not to mention the fact that the world's 3 largest polluters (accounting for well over 25% of entire global emissions), the US, China & India, have not ratified it and hence don't fall under it's emissions controls during the first compliance phase and likely won't ratify it during the other phases beyond that... <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>Edit: Broken link</span>

It's amusing to see everyone's missed the single biggest flaw with the Kyoto protocol... The Kyoto protocol works on a "Carbon Credit" basis. Each country is assigned a certain number of credits based on it's ability to soak up carbon pollution vs it's production of pollutants. They can then sell those credits to other nations if they have a surplus. You can see the flaw coming right? No? To use an example of Australia and New Zealand. New Zealand soaks up more pollution than we create, so have a surplus of credits. Australia is the opposite, creating more pollution than it can soak up, so it's is in debit. So Australia simply approaches New Zealand and says "Here's money, give us credits". New Zealand replies "ching ching! How many you need?". So now Australia buys enough credits to say that "yes, on the balance, we're not a polluter anymore so we don't need to change our current practices". Net reduction in global pollution: Zero Now roll this out to the rest of the world and see how many large industrialised nations rush to buy credits...

Unpended for you. Click here people, to check out the vacancy [edit] lol, oops. Well spotted.

ROFL! They did same to me. Since then I dont post on OFPEC athought it's a great resource. I mean it would take them a minute to add "Voice Acting" to the dropdown list. *chiding tone* You know Avon Lady, all it takes is asking nicely. The guys that locked the thread are just doing their job to the standard you all expect of them. We've added "Voice Actor" & "Other". Next time, politely approach one of the Admins about it. We're not ogres and are willing to help out where we can.

To clarify: No OFPEC staff have modified his post at all, nor would we need to. The information contained therein has been "very public knowledge" for a long time. If you check out the italics at the bottom of his post, and you'll see "« Last Edit: 03:50 on Fri, 22 Oct 04 by BronzeEagle »" The only person that has been editing his post is himself a week ago... I say this now, as this (bizzarrely themed) conversation is starting to turn on OFPEC's staff, when we have in fact done nothing of what is implied/claimed.

http://www.space.com/php....t%20al. This is a good example of how detailed you get when viewing black holes in infrared. Not much to go off huh? ;) So there are indeed external interactions that give off indicators in different strengths and different wavelengths. But any thoughts of "swirling vortexes" surrounding and marking blackholes are only that ... thoughts placed on paper by artists in their "artist rendering of what they think it would look like" pictures. That was what I was getting at (sorry, wasn't so clear on my first post).

Black Holes aren't photographed and don't have "warm vortexes". Their presence is deduced only by their gravitational effect on surrounding stars and objects. Hence current "known" black holes tend to be found in binary/trinary systems (or hearts of galaxies in the case of super-massive black holes), where they can be found due to effecting items around them. As far as I am aware, the only other way they show their presence is via bursts of X-ray radiation, which are very very brief, so you could 'photograph' them in the X-ray spectrum if you have good timing but not in the traditional sense that makes sense to the layman. ;)

Well, my small dedicated Linux server opens UDP 2302 and UDP 2304 at a minumum. As to what ports are needed when people actually connect, I'll have to post after some experimentation. Also, the Avon Lady's FAQ has some good articles about this, which I found to be a good starting point.

Adaware is more user friendly, Spybot is more thorough. They both miss some that the other picks up, so if you can, use both. Between them, you get the best coverage against spyware/adware/malware/etc.