RedRogue

Ok, so you've made the change over from 9x to Windows 2000 or maybe thats all you've had on your current rig. After the change or comparing to similar systems running Win98 you notice that your performance with your favorite games is sub-par. Well there might actually be a solution, a well hidden solution by M$. Its the compatibility layers specifically the Win98 compatibility layer of Win2k. This is how you enable actually being able to use the layers. This ONLY works with Win2000 Pro Home edition with Service Pack 2 installed. 1. Login as admin, if your the only user on the system and there are no other profiles this would be a standard login. 2. Goto your start menu and click Run. Enter "regsvr32 %systemroot%\apppatch\slayerui.dll" you will get a message saying slayerui.dll is enabled. 3. Now in the shortcut NOT the .exe of a application under Properties there will be a Compatibility tab. In their you can now enable this program to run under one of the selectable compatibility layers. The above process with enable compatibility layers for Win2000 with SP2 but there won't be a 98 layer just a 95 layer.

Actually it will, and already has for me on several programs that where designed and intented for use on Win98 Platforms. Pretty much any program that 'preferes' Win9x memory managment and allocation over NT memory allocation. AnarchyOnline, StarFleet Command 2, Mechwarrior4, and even OFP have shown marked improvement over what was low perfromance on my system. I've used all these programs on this same identical system with Win98 installed and they ran like a dream. I moved up to Win2K and they ran, but not as well as they did under win98. After finding and enabling the compatibility layer for these specific programs as this does not apply to the system on a whole, they where all back to working as good as they had under Win98. Edit: Newer software will show little difference in this, this is pretty much for older titles. And if it is working fine under win2k for you as it is. You won't see improvement, it does not BOOST performance, but rather alleviates some issues that may be ROBBING performance from it.

Here are some more: http://aircargo_tracking.tripod.com/jokes2.html

LOL 25 pounds for that. Here I can go down to Software Etc. and find it for $4.99. Great game once you do the third party realism patch.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Mar. 19 2002,21<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hehe, I love people that think buying 93/91/95 octaine for their 83/82 octaine engine will give them better gas milage or performance. do you even drive? If you live in the NOW and your car (most all cars made after 1985) has an ECU or "computer".. which controls timing and ingntion.. for instance my truck will run on 87 octian gas  *ok* its the minimum octain rating, my truck will tolerate but if I use 93 the ECU detects the better fuel and adjusts the timing to take better advantage of it..  modern cars (if they are in deqacent working order) will always beinfit from better gasoline..  in my case its ALMOST cheaper for me to use 93 than it is to use 87 I tested this on my GF and I's roadtrip to colorado last year.. 87 oct on highway= 295 miles on 18 gallon tank=16.3mpg 93 oct on highway= 350 miles on 18 gallon tank=19.4mpg (average of 4 tanks, 2 of each grade) so in my case I REALLY dont pay much more for preamo gas because I go farther on it.. Actually vehicle computers are tuned to run at max performance at around 93/95 oct (non turbo cars) but can TOLERATE gas at lower quality, the ECU will detect any knocks that occure (result of lower octain) and retard the timing to eleminate it.. of slower timing also means less performance at higher RPMS.(say 2800+) and as far as I know there arnt very many cars in the US that can use "82/83" octain..  dont get me wrong.. running 110 oct race gas in yer totally stock vehicle wont do you much good.. but with a good set of plugs (NGK/Bosch Plat) and a good set of wires (8mm low impedence) you can use REALLY good gas and get a kick from it.. if your ECU's timing range can encompass it.. I for one have never seen a car that runs on 83 octain gas.. ive never even seen 83 octain gas..  but im pretty sure whatever uses it is a very very NON sports car.. just something to "get you around" in an the case of these lawnmowers you sit in, performance.. wel.. they dont know what performance is..  its like souping up a wheelchair.. LOL the "minimum octain raiting" (as it says on vehicles) is just that. the MINUMUM gas quality your car is designed to TOLERATE.. not what its ment to run its best at.. better gas=better preformance..[/q]<span id='postcolor'> Well lets see been rebuilding engines for going on 7 years now. Done small track and dirt track racing and restoration work on several beautiful muscle cars, including my dad's 1969 camaro SS. While all you have said above seems quite impressive it is also almost completely false and a product of lack of knowledge in the makeup of petrol. Fact: Octane rating has nothing to do with the efficiency of buring gasoline. Gasoline's two primary combustable hydrocarbons are Heptaine and Octane, octaine being the smaller percentage. Octaine burns slower than Heptane and with less heat and expansion (power). Octane also ignites at higher temperatures and compressions, this is why high performance engines are designed for higher octane fuels. Higher compression without the risk of predetonation (knock) allows for better performance by compressing more fuel/air into the combustion chamber. Most car engines are designed for use in 87 Octane rated fuels (My mind was wandering 83/82 should have read 89/87). Higher octane fuels add no increased benifits and actually cause higher emissions because the hydrocarbons burn slower and are less combusted when leaving the engine than lower octane fuels. In older engines that are not electronically controlled an engine would 'knock' as carbon buildup increased compression ratios in the cumbustion chamber. Using higher octane fuels would alleviate this knocking. Modern engines use Electronic Control Units, ECUs to do many things including advancing/retarding the valve timing and ignition. When carbon buildups occur in these engines over time the ECU will retard the timing until the knocking is no longer detected thru the knock sensor. This robs your engine of power and efficiency. Many people confuse higher octane fuels with higher performance because of "jet(kerosene) fuel and high octaine piston-engine aircraft fuels", people view these powerplants as powerful via their fuel. In fact the reason why they use these fuels is because the high compressions they operate at to counter the low air pressures at altitude and develop more power thru higher compression.  Any less knock resistant fuel would cause knocking in the piston-engines quickly damaging the engine and a loss of power. Turbine engines would simply develop less power because they cannot achieve the designed compression before the fuel would ignite. The greatest factors in gas milage are: 1. Driving habits, slower acceleration and less RPMs 2. Engine maintanence 3. Outside ambient temperature, engines operate efficiently   at relatively warm temperatures. Colder air means more   heat is lost into the engine block rather than expanding   the gas after combustion.Note: This is not air intake   temperature but rather total engine temperature. 4. Proper tire inflation 5. Weight Here is some reading the 'professor' might want to review before he tries to lecture again. ColledgeClub.com Federal Trade Commission - Facts for the comsumer Better Buisness Bureau Carjunky.com Greennature.com And last but not least and also my favorite Cartalk.com articles Don't Use Premium for this engine Do use for this engine - high compression engine

Hehe, I love people that think buying 93/91/95 octaine for their 83/82 octaine engine will give them better gas milage or performance. Unless the engine was designed for it or your engine has knocking problems do to carbon buildup or wear buying a higher octaine fuel is just throwing money away, and you usually get less gas milage.

You could easily come up with an endless list of valid reasons. And you could easily come up with an endless list of why it wouldn't be there.

There has long been held the idea that an American submarine had been shadowing the U.S.S. Liberty and took photographs and film of the attack thru its periscope. Here is an article making that statement. http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0697/9706019.htm However even if such film where taken, I highly doubt it will ever be released if it hasn't been destroyed already.

This whole thing will and has gone down in history much like the incident with the U.S.S. Maine in 1898, we will never know all the facts nor will suspicion ever be removed from either side.

U.S.S. Liberty Before the Attack U.S.S. Liberty After the Attack Egyptian Calvary Horse transport - El Quseir Now can someone point out to me how it would be conceivably be possible to mistake the Liberty for the El Quseir, a ship a quarter the tonnage of half the length and 2/3s the beam of the her. Where in either ship does it look like these is any type of armament that could be used for shelling. BTW, in that accounting AL it states the ship was calculated to be traveling at 30knots and then recalculated to be doing 28 knots later. As I do not know if it claims the ship was acutally traveling at 28knots the ship was only capable of traveling rated for 18knots. She was steaming at 5knots before and during the beginning of the attack anyway. Apparently they had someone with my math skills from this morning doing the calculations.

No Longinous, at the time of the launching of the F-4s they still did not know who was attacking the Liberty and had misidentified the Liberty as a USNS ship, a civilian ship under service for the navy and did not want to risk the possibility of a war with Russia if they where the aggressors.

No clue.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Mar. 15 2002,04:49)</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">Anyway it happened over 45 years ago<span id='postcolor'> Actually, it was 34 years ago. In June of '67. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the Allies had lost WW2 our military leaders would have most likely been put up on war crime trials much like the Germans where. Â Truth is in the eye of the beholder.<span id='postcolor'> True. However, the Allies didn't kill more than 6 million Jews in concentration camps. Though I'm sure the Nazis would drum up some fake charges. Anyways, reading about the attack on the USS Liberty makes me pissed, I am a little confused as to why the U.S. is still supporting Israel..... Tyler<span id='postcolor'> Wow, what where my math skills doing. As for the second part, think about it. If Germany had won albit an unconditional surrender of the allies, then the world would have become reigned under their right and their wrong. So then the Holocaust would have been justified and right.

Addition to above: Anyway it happened over 45 years ago, the people responsible are most likely dead or dying. Â I just find it ludicrous that goverments must continue to lye about such things (with really bad ones btw) when they where clearly in the wrong. Â This includes the U.S.A. government. Chew on this; If the Allies had lost WW2 our military leaders would have most likely been put up on war crime trials much like the Germans where. Â Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Surprising it takes a TV documentary to even bring this to the attention of today's people. Shows you how important history is to most people but anyway. The attack occured on the 4th day of the "Six day war" if I remember correctly, which was in 1962... or was that 1967. Â Anyway, the ship was a intelligence gather. Which is a ship that taps into RF transmissions and then rebroadcasts them back to NSA headquarters. The ship was assigned there to gather intel on Arabic coms during the inevitable hostilites. Â However the ship also picked up the Israeli coms and sent them still encrypted back to NSA. Given the facts and the testimony of the crew which would get nothing out of fabricating a story, and the Israeli reports themselves which make little logical sense and full of inconsistances as one is sighted by Wobble above: I have long come to the conclusion the attack was deliberately perpetrated to sink the ship with no surviors and prevent the ship from sending a distress signal identifing the attackers and bringing the 6th fleet to its aid, to allow the planned Israeli military actions to proceed against Seria without American intelligence gathering of Israeli coms. As a footnote to why the ship was allowed to survive in my theory I can only suppose they perhaps thought the ship was sinking and maybe the 6th fleet would come looking and find the Israeli's redhanded so to speak. I find it highly suspect that the Israeli goverment issued an apology only apon and immediately following the ship managing to send an plain language distress signal identifing the attackers as Israeli. Alot of things do not add up on the Israeli account of this incident.

None of the above, can't wait for Star Wars Galaxies.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 13 2002,18:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're all so naive and misinformed - it's pathetic!<span id='postcolor'> Frankly this is a reaction I would never expect from you, as you have tended over time to remain removed from such topics here and when you did speak up did it with an informed objective mindset. I would also welcome your opinion on such an issue, especially since if I recall you are perhaps the only person here acutally living this 'event'. As for me, I believe both sides are just as guilty in this 'war'. I read both American, European, Israeli, and Palestinian reports to try and maintain an objective view. Forgive me if I don't believe every Israeli army dispute to a Palestinian claim. Neither do I believe every Palestinian claim. Both would be foolish, I don't believe everything our military or government here says even. As for the current situation there I do not see how it could be viewed as anything less than an invasion of Palestinian territory... what little of it they have. Israel has now set itself thru its military as judge, jury an advocate of their Palestinian 'problem'. This doesn't mean I don't think that Israel shouldn't be able to defend itself against these attacks, but all things have their limits. And in my mind surrounding a city with infantry and armor units and ordering via loudspeaker that ever Palestinian male 16 years and older must come out of their homes and surrender to Israeli forces is over those limits. Do I have a solution? No, and I don't belive one will ever truely be found. But I do hope that a just compromise can be found before this thing gets worse.

Sometimes a price must be paid to prevent cheating.

As I said a long time ago, all they need is a server setting so that if a different cfg.bin/cfg.cpp is detected that person is immediately disconnected from the game. The current system is impractical: 1. With alot of people chatting the text goes by way to fast to easily see such a message. 2. Then you have the problem of what if an admin isn't present? Do you realize how freaking hard it is to get twenty something odd people to type #vote kick playerx.... If it can detect a modified or changed cfg file I do not see the great challenge a disconnect if detected feature would be. But in two replies from BIS I've been told a message would be sufficient........... I'm still reserving the right to say "I told you so".

Apparently I was this. http://members.shaw.ca/stanryker/test01/test01Dragunov.jpg

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Feb. 27 2002,08:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The war of 1812 was really a backstab move by the US against the Brits, since they were fighting against Napoleon's vast empire with the Russians. The US saw an oppoturnity to seize Canada but the attack was repulsed, and as mentioned above, even the White House was burned by British redcoats. In that conflict i'd sat US got what it deserved <span id='postcolor'> I have no idea what history book you got that from.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Feb. 27 2002,06:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, maybe not from where you live Red Rogue. But I just got back from vacation last winter break. I was in Russia and Amsterdam. And during my tavels, I met alot of people from different places. And when talking to them, eventually the conversation would come to 9/11 and their personal views on the matter. I met a british girl, Australian boy, 2 New Zealand brothers, a Korean guy and his girl freind, several Russians in Russia. In Amsterdam, I spoke on the matter to an Irishman, Frenchman, some guy from Cameroon, and a Scottsman, and several Dutch. Every single one of them except for the African guy from Cameroon agreed that Bin Laden should be taken out, and they all said that they supported the war in Afghanastan. I don't know, but that's alot of people from around the world who seem to agree with us.<span id='postcolor'> Where did I say I did not support the current military activities in Afganistan. There is a big difference between wanting the elimination of the people that commited the WTC attack. And wishing and wanting to kill the people they hide themselves in. The intelligence of a person I meet or see that says I want to kill some afgans greatly diminishes in my eyes. Apparently many people cannot distinguish a few people from the many, that it must be a nation of people and not mearly a faction.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Feb. 27 2002,06:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, maybe not from where you live Red Rogue. But I just got back from vacation last winter break. I was in Russia and Amsterdam. And during my tavels, I met alot of people from different places. And when talking to them, eventually the conversation would come to 9/11 and their personal views on the matter. I met a british girl, Australian boy, 2 New Zealand brothers, a Korean guy and his girl freind, several Russians in Russia. In Amsterdam, I spoke on the matter to an Irishman, Frenchman, some guy from Cameroon, and a Scottsman, and several Dutch. Every single one of them except for the African guy from Cameroon agreed that Bin Laden should be taken out, and they all said that they supported the war in Afghanastan. I don't know, but that's alot of people from around the world who seem to agree with us.<span id='postcolor'> Where did I say I did not support the current military activities in Afganistan. There is a big difference between wanting the elimination of the people that commited the WTC attack. And wishing and wanting to kill the people they hide themselves in. The intelligence of a person I meet or see that says I want to kill some afgans greatly diminishes in my eyes. Apparently many people cannot distinguish a few people from the many, that it must be a nation of people and not mearly a faction.

Then you know very little of the world.

Then you know very little of the world.