RedRogue

I haven't played OFP in over a year and I'm removing the save in my Favorites header so I won't be checking in anymore. Its been fun, its been bad, and in the end its been what its been.

Research into the above ironic facts.

I have one going that screams by earth just missing the atmosphere then loops out towards the moon and comes back doing its high speed pass again. Been going for a couple hours now.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Oct. 01 2002,14:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Oct. 01 2002,19:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It might be nice to have some latitude, but in the end having safety limitations can only cut down on non combat fatalities and accidents. Â And the reality is that the majority of lost aircraft in the last 20 years have been from training and routine flights than they have been from combat. (At least my impression of the reality, that is )<span id='postcolor'> I'm not disputing that. The MiG-29/Su-27 do have safety limitations, it's just that they can be overriden temporarily in extreeme situations, and even not-so extreme situations if the pilot so wishes.(The Cobra maneuver for example, requires that the AoA/G limiter be switched off). BTW, this is not a limitation of all FBW AC, since all Su-27 and the newer MiG-33 have digital FBW.<span id='postcolor'> Actually exceeding the limits of the airframe is not the biggest concern with the automatic G limiters in the FBW systems or with any military aircraft application. The biggest problem is depending on loadout conditions of causing damage to munition release systems and/or launch guides. Talk about making a bad situation worse, sure you got into firing position by exceeding loadout parameters but now your munition won't fire because its release is jammed. And like Warin said many less experienced and gunho pilots place their skills and capabilites far over what they really are and giving them the option of being able to test that limit only gets them in more trouble.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Sep. 30 2002,17:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Old news, and its not true seeing how two brown haired parents can still have blond kids ..... or my sister isnt really family ...... Would explain allot! <span id='postcolor'> In case this hasn't been pointed out yet. You should have paid more attention in Biology class. While your parents may both have brown hair it does not mean they do not carry the blonde recessive gene which they both passed to your sister, hence why see is blonde.

The JSF was designed with the stealth capabilities and a margin of the F-22s ability to reach mach without an afterburner. JSF also has VTOL capability much like the Harrier Jumpjet but uses a forward thrust fan and thrust vectoring of the engine to perform VTOL manueuvers. http://www.pratt-whitney.com/unique/html/jsf-external/jsfvid.html

Take a look at these two websites, notice how similar they are? I found this while searching for reasearch material after reading this thread and thought it was a bit weird. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/atacms.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/atacms.htm

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Sep. 03 2002,19:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">*Cough* Single shots *Cough* Unless you consider your hand a magazine.... <span id='postcolor'> Hmmm. 'Magazine Fed' does not mean that the weapon is semi-auto. A magazine can feed a bolt-action or a semi-auto. Infact, you can have your Remington 700 fitted to accept M-14 magazines. I'm not sure which company does it though. Tyler Edit: Jester, do not get a BB gun, they are horribly innacurate when comapred to most pellet rifles.<span id='postcolor'> If you had actually READ that post you would see the words "single shots". This rifle as an example is a single shot, you load a round into the chamber by hand each shot. I'm my previous post I was refuting your statement that bolt actions are magazine fed. Single shots aren't, they have no magazine. You have 1 round in the entirety of the rifle at all times. A bolt-action with a internal magazine is a repeater. As the rifle ejects and self-chambers a new round each time you operate the bolt until the magazine is dry.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Sep. 03 2002,18:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also are bolt actions easier to clean than magazine fed? And which would be better for someone who has never shot a bolt action.<span id='postcolor'> Bolt-Actions are magazine fed silly. Â <span id='postcolor'> *Cough* Single shots *Cough* Unless you consider your hand a magazine.... Your #1 advantage to bolt action rifles are their simplicity. My Remington .22 single shot which was made in 72 I belive consists of the barrel, stock, trigger lever, and bolt. 4 pieces thats it. Now your bolt-actions with internal magazines are slightly more complex but the actual action isn't that much different. BTW what exactly would you expect to hunt with a .22? Other than varmit its illegal to use it for any other game hunting in almost every state. Edit: Thats 4 pieces that you would need to break it down into for you tech geeks. Also if you do purchase a firearm or pellet/bb gun a word of advice. Too much gun oil is always worse that too little. If you add to much oil not only is it a ***** to keep the weapon clean externally, but the access oil will catch carbon and dirt/dust and foul the weapon quickly.

I am all for stricter requirements for gun licensing and training/testing before allowing licensing of a firearm in the United States. However I will never stand for the complete illegilization of firearms. Until people are taught the reality and control required to be responsible for firearms and those that will never take it seriously are prevented from purchasing firearms we will continue to see gun related accidents in the USA. 1. Firearms are NEVER a toy, be it a bb gun, pellet gun, or whatever. They are a tool that is designed to kill or maim. Having been shot at and shot before I get very very upset when someone points a firearm in my or anyone else's direction. 2. Alot of people that purchase firearms for home defence would fail in actually operating the firearm when the time arose. It is one thing to stand at a firing range shooting at a target. It is completely another matter to shoot or threaten to shoot a human being at short range under duress. 3. Guns and children NEVER mix. It is ok to teach them gun saftey and control under supervision but keep all your firearms locked away in the Gun Safe not a flimsy glass front display cabinet. And make sure you have the only key in your possesion at all times. To actually utilize a firearm in home defense you would have to keep it loaded, easily accessible, and unlocked. Otherwise you would be pointlessly struggling with a trigger lock and or loading the weapon. These are the 3 Most stupid actions you could ever do with a firearm around children or family.

Unfortunately since Canada now wants you to PAY! for their federal publcations of crime reports I will have to find other less crediable reports to use... 42$ for a federal publication.............. ripoff

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Sep. 01 2002,21:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 02 2002,04:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">funny..some newguy digs up an old thread...about 2 weeks old. and this is his first post....and all of you are contributing to this too...might as well as spam here <span id='postcolor'> Umm, Ralph... They are not having a spamfest or it would be close. It is a discussion. Do you need 48 hours without posting rights to figure out the difference between a thread 2 pages down the guy is interested in, and spam? If all of you gun nuts think that gun control = more crime, how do you explain Canada? We have ea very low incedence of violent crime, and fairly strict gun control.<span id='postcolor'> .... beat me too it.... but since you brought it up I will redo my analysis of Canada's crime rate versus America's crime rate. Last time I did this in another forum using 99 reported crime rates normalized between the two nations Canada's per capita crime rate was slightly higher. I will post the results shortly using the latest possible data (and links for you Warin and Avon, cause I know how much you love links).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 01 2002,21:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">funny..some newguy digs up an old thread...about 2 weeks old. and this is his first post....and all of you are contributing to this too...might as well as spam here <span id='postcolor'> Why would bringing and old topic back to life be wrong? Maybe there is more people would like to discuss on it, and since any new thread would be instantly locked by El Presidenti Denoir as a "useless thread" or "double thread" the only alternative would be to use this thread. There is digging up old threads for absolutely no point or injection of discussionable material, and then there is bringing your view to a topic you would like to have viewed.

And because that table turned out into a jumbled mess click herefor Colorado crime rates. As billytrain stated many people are under the false conception that the lack of crimes commited with firearms due to laws banning firearms means they have low crime rates. Rape is rape, be it done by brute force or with a gun. Murder is Murder be it done with a board with a nail in it or a 9mm berreta.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Antichrist @ Aug. 15 2002,21:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No fuking way!! Look what happened to US, they have one of the highest crimes commited with a firearm rates in the world. And look at NZ for example, it is not allowed to own a gun, except for hunting purposes etc. And we only have like 2-3 shootings a year!!<span id='postcolor'> And your also comparing a population of 4 million to a population of 290 million. If you even want to do a remotely fair comparison you would have to compare New Zealand to Colorado in that they are approximately the same in population and land area. Colorado Crime Index Rates Per 100,000 Inhabitants: Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Rape Robbery assault Burglary Theft Theft 1990 3,294,394 6,053.7 526.0 5,527.8 4.2 46.2 90.6 385.0 1,208.8 3,890.6 428.4 1991 3,377,000 6,074.1 559.3 5,514.8 5.9 47.0 107.4 398.9 1,158.3 3,930.0 426.4 1992 3,470,000 5,958.8 578.8 5,379.9 6.2 47.3 120.5 404.9 1,090.9 3,780.1 509.0 1993 3,566,000 5,526.8 567.3 4,959.5 5.8 45.8 116.7 399.0 1,009.8 3,499.4 450.3 1994 3,656,000 5,318.4 509.6 4,808.8 5.4 43.2 106.9 354.0 925.7 3,490.2 392.9 1995 3,747,000 5,396.3 440.2 4,956.1 5.8 39.5 96.2 298.7 934.1 3,634.5 387.5 1996 3,823,000 5,118.5 404.5 4,714.0 4.7 46.2 98.2 255.4 900.8 3,415.5 397.8 1997 3,893,000 4,650.4 363.2 4,287.2 4.0 43.1 83.3 232.8 796.1 3,077.3 413.7 1998 3,971,000 4,487.5 377.9 4,109.5 4.6 47.4 81.5 244.4 786.5 2,917.9 405.1 1999 4,056,133 4,063.3 340.5 3,722.8 4.6 41.4 75.3 219.2 665.1 2,692.9 364.8 2000 4,301,261 3,982.6 334.0 3,648.6 3.1 41.2 70.5 219.1 630.8 2,623.5 394.3 New Zealand : Look here I'm too lazy to write all that out.

If your talking about the way that power is trasmitted from generating station to the user AC power lines are here to stay. There is no other safe and viable means of transmitting usable amounts of power. 1. Microwave is possible but alot of people don't like the idea of bouncing mwaves all over the place. And the precision control required to bring waste to a minimum would be cost prohibitive. 2. Laser is becoming possibe but with high waste in the forms of diffusion in the transfer medium and reciever end. Again the precision control required is cost prohibitive. Without reactive stabilization controls to a pico meter adjustment your 10 MWatt laser might get pointed right thru downtown LA due to a nano meter movement of the earth. 3. Currently fiber optics cannot withstand the intensity required for usuable power transfer without using huge diameter bundles of fiber. Comparison: 1. AC wires, safe until you touch them like a dumbass. And for those that believe in the EM radiation levels causing cancer from AC lines. If you stood directly under a primary AC transmission tower you would recieve more EM radiation from the moon during that night than from the power lines all day. 2. AC lines are cheap, relatively speaking, and require little maintanence. The real issue: The arrangment of the power grids. I don't understand why you would want to send power thru thousands of miles of wire creating high loss. Examples: My hometown is right next to Beaver Damn in NW Arkansas, USA but the power generated there is sent to West Oklahoma. My hometown recieved power generated in Joplin MO, USA. Instead of selling the power to surrounding users power is sent criss cross all over this nation. Sure it works but there is alot of power loss. Change in topic: There will never be a 0 enviromental impact form of power. If you undestand the law of conservation of energy and matter you will know that power does not come from nowhere. Theretically if enough solar power was used world wide the earth would become colder because energy that would be used to warm the earth's surface would be used to generate power. Wind power is the same, if enough wind power was used atmospheric circulation would be impacted because power in the form of moving wind would be sucked into generating electricity. The goal is to spread out our fuel/power sources and to spread their damage out of longer periods of times at lower levels. Therefore bringing the damage they cause into managability (word?).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Aug. 30 2002,04:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, heres a nice little side note on coal vs nuclear. Power plants that use coal dont melt down and turn the surrounding 100 miles into a radioactive wasteland.<span id='postcolor'> If you will read into the incident of Cheyrnobal (spelling?) you will find that it was the result of the most ignorant thing you could do in operating a nuclear reactor. 1. They disabled and locked out all fail safes. 2. They brought the other 3 reactors down to minimal levels 3. The plant was now running on the 1 reactor they where going to test with. 4. They removed the control rods and decreased primary and secondary coolant flow. 5. The power levels, because of the decreased secondsary coolant flow to the turbines, began to drop. 6. With decreased primary coolant flow the reactor began to overheat 7. Coolant flow was further decreased with concurrent drops in power levels and increase in core temperature. 8. Now being without sufficent power supply to increase coolant flow, insert the control rods or do an emergency flush they where helpless to keep the reactor from overheating and breaching its core. 3mile Island was a result of the same, idiots bypassing safety devices to run 'experiments' that shouldn't have been performed in that manner. Fortunately they where able to vent the hydrogen gas formed from the overheated reactor and thereby restore coolant flow. In the manner which western nuclear reactors are designed in not being dependant on control rods for primary reactor control it is impossible for them to have a self-initiated 'melt-down'. When a critical situation has developed an automated self-powered and redundant system begins an emergeny flush of the reactor, fully inserts the control rods and brings primary coolant flow to its maximum safe levels.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Aug. 30 2002,04:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedRogue @ Aug. 30 2002,11:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. A single coal plant emits more radioactive particles into the atmosphere and enviroment in a year than a nuclear power plant will in its entire lifetime. This is from the fact that coal desposits contain thorium and uranium isotopes.<span id='postcolor'> How much is "more"? What effect do these amounts have on the environment over the lifetime of the plant? Are these isotope particles more or less dangerous than a coal plant's other emissions? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2. In the USA emission plants are required to use scrubbers to clean their emissions of particles before released into the enviroment. Somehow coal power plants have become exempt to this law. Can we say Senators and Congressmen with investments into coal production and power production.<span id='postcolor'> Gotta link for all these nifty facts?<span id='postcolor'> If I can find my thesis paper I did this on in the library I will provide the biliography links for it. And the isotopes are cancerous if inhaled or ingested but they are not as lethal on an individual level as spent U-235 or Plutonium (The most lethal element in any isotope form).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 30 2002,19:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ Aug. 31 2002,01:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nothing beats, shooting down a Mi24 in OFP then having it fall on you and kill you.<span id='postcolor'> Shooting a jeep in OFP and then having it fall on you and kill you.<span id='postcolor'> Death by chair is good too. There I was sitting in a niche between two buildings when an explosion hit the command tent. I glance over just in time to see the underside of a chair close up... then..... "You are dead."

Well that turk Ex-Ronin won't have to worry about it.... Oh wait he is greek , good thing your still living in the UK. Wouldn't want to have to turn in that OFP cd now would you.

Since you all have decided to jump onto the enviromental bandwagon I pose a question to you. Where do you stand on the use of nuclear fuels to provide power where the byproducts cannot be absolutely safely stored or disposed of for hundreds of years? Answer first in your mind and then read the following: 1. A single coal plant emits more radioactive particles into the atmosphere and enviroment in a year than a nuclear power plant will in its entire lifetime. This is from the fact that coal desposits contain thorium and uranium isotopes. 2. In the USA emission plants are required to use scrubbers to clean their emissions of particles before released into the enviroment. Somehow coal power plants have become exempt to this law. Can we say Senators and Congressmen with investments into coal production and power production.

Except that the word ricochet is french.

I think you need to reread the title Denoir. He was asking for the most significant event in the 20th century, not the most insignificant

You all still sleep? Man I remember the days when there was actually time to sleep. And...... crap off to work again.

Haven't touched it since 1.58/1.59/1.60 betas. Where the new netcode in those screwed up my MP performance I completely lost intrest in the game. Currently I play BF1942, a little AA, and alot of NWN.