Sneaky

The source for this rumour is quite clear: Bigfoot Have a look at the last note there...

ok, thanks. I removed the line alltogether, but I guess it just went for the default then. Thank you very much

Hello there Im trying to setup a dedicated server on my local lan, and dont want it to be publicated on the internet. I've been reading over the wiki and looking trough the forum, but cant seem to find the command I need. So could someone please tell me how its done? Everything seems to work fine, I just dont want people from the outside world to join Thanks

Look at the gun... heh heh heh heh Well, it looks real at least, though I doubt a softgun would help much if something actually happened

Heh, yeah, before the two episodes mentioned here, there was a car that managed to drive into a tank that was parked by the road. There was also a car that tried to overtake a tank, but somehow lost control and slammed into the side of the tank. Battle Griffin is a realistic excercise

I have started looking for a pair of boots to supplement my Crispi boots, which is too warm and heavy (2.3kg!) to be used during summer. What I need is a pair of lightweight, waterproof boots with goode ancle support that will be used for walking in the mountains. Temperature from 0-25°C, in Norway. They should be of the high type, around 20cm and up or something, black (I like black ) and suitable for walking over long distances with heavy backpacks. Other things of note is that I like "tactical" looking boots, and they dont have to be the cheapest shit that can be found. I prefer quality. Im used to heavy and rugged equipment from the military. And if they can be used in normal everyday life to some extent, its a big plus. With that I mean they dont look like skidoo-boots. So, my question is simply what can you recommend? I like the looks of the Bates Enforcer and M-9s, but I dont know anything about them, so I kinda dont want to take the chance on ordering them over the internet (no shops in the area that sells those) Any tips? Many thanks in advance

Nice walker, now were getting there. Got to be something useful somewhere there. Now I just have to find a placed here in the area that actually sells those shoes:) can become quite a challenge

I know Alfa makes good boots, but hows the weight on those, and arent they rather warm? Brgnorway: Im aware of the points you got there, but I still tend to prefer high boots. Come to think about it, I already got high and cool looking boots (the crispis).... so perhaps I might ditch high boots for the sake of weight... hmm, got to look into that.

Aaaand back on topic.... If "hiking" boots is what I think it is, (walking on roads) then Im not looking for that:) I'm walking in rough and hard terrain, mostly avoiding everything that have anything to do with a road or even a track:) Heres a pic that supposedly is taken from a mountain that I'm planning a trip to next summer, Hallingskarvet, on top of the hardanger platou. You can see the kind of terrain I tend to walk in here. and another one from hardanger platou I feel the wilderness calling when I see such pics:)

My crispi boots that I use now is quite good boots. The downside is their rather extreme weight, and they're too hot for summer trips. I dont know the model name of those boots. I got them while serving in the military (KJK). (For norwegians: TS-verdi pĺ 2000kr) While I dont walk so very often, I really prefer to have the equipment in order when I'm first taking a walk. I really dont want to get lost on the Hardanger platou with a set of broken boots... When I'm out walking it tends to be long and hard trips, so good shoes is quite essential. I do see a bunch of advantages with boots of the height of the above sample (thanks, btw), but I really prefer having taller boots, because it eases crossing of rivers and you avoid annoying problems with getting plants and the like into the boots So if anyone know anything more, I'd be happy for all opinions.

I agree with this one. We were taught that if you were wearing an armband with a red cross on a white background, you are not allowed to use weapons (we were taught that you couldnt even touch a weapon, but I doubt thats 100% right, we werent medics after all). However, every patrol have a medic in the team, as in a normal soldier with extra medical education (a little). He carried some extra medical stuff, but otherwise he were just a normal soldier, carrying the same stuff as any other soldier. I vagually remember something about the last type of medic might use a green cross or something, not sure though. "We" were the Norwegian amfibious forces, just for the record.

I've been thinking rather much about this lately. How much equipment/weight do a soldier carry on a mission in more tropical enviroments? I know that in colder areas (arctic) we need quite a bit of equipment, but, while I know theres a rather large difference, I never see any soldier in movies or on the news that carry anything more then a very small package in the warmer areas of the world. Im talking about soldiers moving alone, with no, or limited resupply possibilities, in a mission that lasts say 3-7 days. The question came up after watching Tears Of The Sun, so you could use that as a reference if you want. In the commentary on the dvd, an ex-navy seal said he wanted everything to be as real as possible, and they carried A LOT of equipment, they mentioned 30 kg. That doesn't sound like a lot at all in my opinion. So, is this "realistic"? (yes, I know theres a lot of bullshit in that movie, but this got me confused) It sounds all wrong compared to my cold-weather training that I have.

ok, if we assume that they have to carry with them all the water they need, its gonna pass 30kg i no time. But is that really normal? Isnt use of water cleaning equipment in wide spread use? Yeah, we for the most of it carried with us all the water, but we had cleaning equipment available, though cleaned water tastes like shit

I guess I should have been able to think that far I dont watch much tv any more, so I havent seen such programs. But thanks alot

yeah, were getting there:) But in the type of missions I did, lying in an OP and observing the enemy "behind enemy lines", it isnt so very smart having people coming and going in and out all the time, so we carry enough equipment for up to one week (thats how long were supposed to be able to survive whitout resupply). about heavy rucksacks.... Ive at times carried packs closing up to (and in a few cases, exceeding) my own body weight. Its really fun to sit in a zodiac for about 10 hours straigh, 15c below 0, during night, storm, and thinking that when we finally reach land and can begin moving and getting a bit warm, were gonna walk som 10km in montainous terrain before we leave the reconpack in a cache, and take the escapepack the last say 10 or so km to the point were gonna set camp for the next week. In my opinion, "welcome to the cold version of hell" is a suitable descripion Im glad Im done with that

Just the usual stupid norwegian conscript here. I served as something that rougly translates into coastal rangers, recon (istar). There are some things I`ve never understood about what I`ve seen of other countries armed forces: Where are all their gear? I cant remember seeing say US or UK forces carrying large backpacks, and I cant quite imagine that you can drive all the way to the mission area (for the sake of stealth) in some cases. We always carried a shitload of equipment, which means a 125l+36l recon pack, a 45l+10l escape pack clipped on to the recon pack, and a vest loaded down with as much stuff you could fit, and still we had problems getting room for everything. Now I guess theres a rather big difference between operating in warm and hot climates as opposed to the semi-arctic climates of the coast in norway, and we used zodiacs for transport, no land vehicles, which means alot of walking, but still, everyone need a bit more equipment then what appears to fit inside say the molle pack on the previous page, right? Hope someone can clear this up. Im fairly sure theres a simple reason for this, but I cant see it so far:)

woa, uh, there was intended to be some irony in my post back on p.2. I really did not mean that anyone should be nuked....

Ahhh, yes, well said

G36 Firing Your source for everything hk

Were most likely gonna get NH-90 soon Not likely to be armed, but you might get to use something thats new in the military. THAT is sensational

As far as I have understood it, you dont get to choose what you will fly if you become a pilot. You will be placed in either a Falcon, a Hercules or a chopper of some sort, depending on where you are needed the most. But flying military aircrafts is quite demanding I believe... You get a truckload of info from all directions all the time, while you at the same time have to make decisions and actually perform those decisions. I dont know you, but I doubt I'm smart enough for that But of course, Flying helis must be alot of fun, so go for it if you can

interesting link. But what you say, I can say too; "I'll say it again. Â Just because you can't /won't understand god/faith, doesn't mean its not true." And why is it that since I dont know something, there is no reason to tell me? If I knew it in the first place, would it then be neccesary to teach me anything? Doesnt sound much logical. But Ill leave for now, got some reading to do.

concerning carbon, you could read this. Its not my field, but as far as I can see, he have a point there Im slightly tempted to say the same to you. But then you would have to remember that the evidence against a supernatural-based religion would be a bit wrong, since evidence is largely created using science, which is... science, not belief Eh, when Im talking about science here, Im referring to the religion part of the science, not the technology part of science.

I certanly dont know everything myself, infact rather little, but Im interested in learning how the individual person have become so convinced that the evolution/big bang thing is true, when the science, that is used to prove this, cant... eum, prove anything, since we cant go back in time to check out what actually happened. Heh, I think Im asking for a truckload of info, but Ill see if anyone cares to enlighten me

heh, you just keep saying this dont you If you dont want to discuss this, its ok, but it just sounds like if youre saying "this is nonsense" because you dont WANT to believe it, not because youre so very convinced that the science theory is correct. In my opinion, if you want to convince someone to change their opinion/belief, the explanations for your opinion is quite critical. Saying "thats the wrong order", doesnt help anyone in any direction. If you had added the reasoning for this opinion, it wuuld imideately be much more credible. And I find it slightly funny that you already know that I would say "I cant believe that" Sounds a bit like as if there aint any good proof ;)