Iraqi Bob

If you peddle enough bullshit for truth on enough channels, people will eventually accept it.

Yes, funny story that..? :P

You sure it wasn't CFC's (from aerosol cans, etc.) and not CO2? Anyway, I'm not entirely sure whether man-made climate change is true, but air and water pollution is definitely apparent. Toxic emissions in western countries have improved in recent years but they still remain significant. In some countries it is a huge problem - just look at China. To eliminate emissions from transport, we could switch to hydrogen. The infrastructure is not there yet but if we managed to search for oil, drill a hole, ship it half way around the world, refine it, and bring it to the fuel station then I'm sure obtaining hydrogen isn't going to be that hard either. Plus it's safer, abundant, requires less vehicle maintenance (only one moving part in the engine) and you don't have to nick it off some poor sod in the desert. Hydrogen would be the savior of our gas-guzzling supercars. But alas that won't happen. Because people are either stubborn or incompetent. Too stubborn to make the push and incompetent enough to spend public money on rediculous ideas like electric cars.

The Complete List of Badasses

You'll all see in a few years. The F-22 would prove essential during America's war against Europe.

The velocity is highest at the muzzle, and decreases steadily due to drag. If the bullet is shot at an angle between 0-90degrees relative to the horizontal ground so that the trajectory forms an arch, the vertical component of velocity will be zero at the highest point in the arch. The bullet may accelerate again due to gravity but will not reach the same speed as the muzzle velocity if all the ground is at the same level. Here's two useful links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_of_motion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_velocity

Oh, common. Have you watched this channel? I'm no fan of the media but the BBC is hardly a propaganda machine. Journalists have a responsibility to report the truth and just because they gave the events in Iran a lot of coverage does not mean they should stop it because the Iranian government doesn't like it. Someone should tell them that unlike their press, ours is free and not influenced or controlled by the government. We harbour everyone, everyone from serial rapists from Albania to one-eyed hook-handed "Islamic" nutjobs, which only reinforces our incompetence. Actually I was thinking of just walking away, but whatever. I beg to differ. There is enough to go around - it's our greed that tells us that we need more and more. And even if there wasn't - it's still running out anyway. So why not seek another way? I'm not a sandle-wearing ecofascist but I'm certain we can completely switch to renewable energy as long as we're not stubborn. After all, if we managed to search for oil, dig a hole, extract, ship it half way round the world, put it in a refinery, transport it to a petrol station and then sell it all for a quid per litre then I'm sure we can put equal effort into hydrogen and nuclear fuels. That wasn't really what I had in mind. I was thinking more of the coup against the elected PM Mossadeq in the 1950's (no bombing needed there - Churchill just had to phone his American friends for a hand), or if you want to go back furher, the 1920's when they put Reza Shah on the throne, and in the 1800's when they carved up Iran's borders with Russia and India. That is the way it is. But what I'm saying is that is doesn't have to be. But then again I'm a religious man and my opinion is disregarded when it comes debates on "survival of the fittest" and "protect our freedoms" and all the rest of that tosh. You call it "survival"; I call it "materialism". Sure, I'll gladly kill the next knife-wielding chav that breaks into my home. But I'm not going to appease Johnny Arab and his merry gang of wife-beaters so that I can fill up my car every day. Nor am I willing to kill him and enslave his country's population just because someone supposedly suggested that he may or may not be planning to bomb a nightclub in Surrey (coordinating the whole operation from a cave in Tora Bora might I add).

I don't wish to demonise them either - I don't think they're evil. I just think they're a bunch of twats. It's in their culture anyway (that sounds a bit prejudice but think of the way Mancunians and Scousers hate eachother). I just don't like them because every single one I've met is stingy, paranoid, and hypocritical. But even with that in mind, why fight anyway? Why does everything have to be a stand off? If my enemy is human, then I cannot bring myself to kill him even if he's a complete twat. It might sound naive but why can't we all just get along without having to fight or seek to control someone? In Iraq we say "don't bark back at a barking dog". The more religious of us would say "love your enemy". ;) At the moment I'd like to see nothing more than Britain removing its embassies in Iran (and visa versa) and bidding them farewell. Because although Britain has a lot to answer for with regards to its past colonialism in Iran, Britain isn't the once racist empire that bombed whoever they thought wasn't acting civilised. Nowadays its just a soft, incompetent "naughty naughty, we're very cross" government who claim hobnobs on their expenses rather than spending their time gunboating uncivilised nations. I doubt they even have the competence to incite a protest in Iran, let alone intend to. I'd rather not quarrel over land, resources, religion, or any other rediculous thing that we think we need to kill eachother over. However, there are exceptions of course. If someone is trying to impose a way of life that on you that is not consistent with universal human rights, and if you can't reason with them, then I say fight to protect yourself. Huzzah. Spoken like a true imperialist. ;)

8 UK Embassy staff are arrested. *sigh* I for one, having dealt with these people, am completely unsympathetic to their cause against the two "Satans". I think it's hilarious that some people in the west are apologetic towards Iran.

Here are my comments.. The controls are really shoddy. I can't put my finger on it but it seems like I can't get used to them no matter what I do. The motion blur and the head bob are nice effects but are they really necessary or realistic? Also, units look like they're going too fast to believe when they're running - especially considering they're carrying heavy gear. And why do I need laser precision just to get myself in such a position that I can get gear from an ammo crate, or talk to NPCs? The voice acting in the campaign is absolutely dreadful. The main character sounds like a Persian nightclub owner and most of the NPCs sound like little kids. Can't really steer ground vehicles by mouse like I could do in Arma1 so I have to use the keyboard. Fixed wing aircraft are flyable but again the controls are not as good as in Arma1. Helo controls are about the same. HDR and lighting effects go a bit over the top so it takes me longer to take in my surroundings and identify enemies. I've been playing for several hours and I can't see what all the fuss is about. In terms of playability, its definitely worse than Arma 1. It's got a bit of window dressing here and there, but nothing groundbreaking. Even if all the bugs (and there are a lot) are fixed, I'm not going to bother much with this one.