Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

b101_uk

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    273

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by b101_uk

  1. Posted

    It certainly wasn't lol you see he has not bothered to look at the policies or previous voting record of the absent UN Members. To assume that those who did not vote are in some way supporting Gadaffi is ridiculous - here's the proof. He also does not know that there are in fact 193 members of the UN since South Sudan was added this year.

    The UN Gen Assembly requires a 2/3 majority to pass a resolution.

    Out of 192 members:

    114 voted against Gadaffi

    17 for

    15 abstentions

    46 absent

    Being absent from a vote is not necessarily a snub and counting those votes as negative shows you have no understanding of democracy and what you did above is akin to stuffing a ballot box to get your own way. A common tactic used by dictators.

    UN Members are absent for many different reasons and it's actually very common for 1/4 or more of them not to show up.

    Lets have a look at at who wasn't present at the vote:

    1) Libya

    You cant count Libya as it was suspended from the UN GA until after the vote. -1

    2) Non regional democracies. These have little or no connections with Libya and are distant geographically. Did they have any interest at all?:

    Bhutan, Cambodia, Papua New Guinea, Kyrgyzstan.

    3) Dictators club, 1 party states and those with histories of unfair elections and human rights abuses, lets call these snubs:

    Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Myanmar, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Belarus, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan.

    4) States that have recognised the NTC or declared their support for NTC as the ligitimate government but did not attend the preceedings.

    Albania, Nigeria, Rwanda, Niger, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic, Ghana, Comoros, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Liberia, Seychelles, Marshall Islands. -14

    5) States that do not recognise the NTC

    Dominica, Eritrea

    6) Pacific Island Nations - these have a history of limited attendance and usually only attend votes in which they have some interest. Most have not voted or made statements for years. Most have not updated their UN webpages for many years and some are blank. Do they have any interest?

    Micronesia (Federated States of), Samoa, Palau, Solomon Islands, Nauru, Tonga, Tuvalu. -8

    7) Members without permanent missions to the UN - they don't vote on anything:

    Kiribati -1

    8) Carribean States and South American states, may have chosen not to attend due to support of Gadaffi by neighbours.

    Saint Kitts and Nevis, Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Haiti, Guyana.

    9) African States, don't knows.

    Burundi, Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Somalia.

    10)No recent history of participation, blank UN mission page.

    Sao Tome and Principe. -1

    So........I will graciously hand over all undecided, non participating nations to your side. Some of those have stated that they will recognise a Democratic Libyan Government after the elections, i.e. not Gadaffi. Lets see if you still win with those very generous allowances.

    I will take the 14 members who have recognised the NTC, we will not include Libya as it was the subject of the vote.

    193 - Libya = 192

    46 - 14 = 32

    17 + 15 + 32 = 64 (your total)

    114 + 14 = 128 UN Members with clear evidence of support for the NTC.

    As you can see, out of the 192 members of the UN that could possibly vote, there is still 2/3rds support for the NTC, probably more. That is enough to carry a vote under UN General Assembly rules.

    :rolleyes:

    Lol you dictator-like ballot box stuffer.

    Under many voting regulations used the world over of you will find abstentions & people who are registered to vote but don’t count agenised any proposal to/for change or they would have voted, this is the same system that is used by business to appoint board members of e.g. PLC’s, mutual’s and coop’s etc or if you like aspects of “justice†much like a jury where all must vote and in some cases a clear majority of 10:2 is needed, its funny how in the 21st century we can video link a court with a convict/witness elsewhere which on a world scale is quite small importance yet the UN somehow cannot get 192 representatives to vote on everything all the time even if it’s by proxy.

    You also and I guess it’s your age seem to be confused between a country recognising the NTC but being absent from the vote as being in favour of Libya joining/regaining a seat which is a dictator like fallacy, e.g. Pakistan who is one of the 14 votes you were quick to claim is extremely active in the UN and has had many of its military working on UN peacekeeping missions, but they was absent yet seemingly that rises no alarm bells for you as to “why†they were absent if they support the NTC.

    You also seem to forget that the NTC has been quite self-appointing and it already having wrangles with parts of the Libyan tribal system who are pushing for elections in order to form a government with authority of the people given the NTC is NOT formed from people all tribes, sects and has defiantly not been voted into place, the number of tribes & sects etc has already been touched upon in this thread by others.

    You also don’t seem to recognise that many of the non-attendees from the less well-off nations get “aid†from primarily Western nations and like stocks, shares and commodity’s (which can go up and down in value) “aid†gets used as a leverage method to secure support, it is also used as a means of punishment in cutting some of it if you vote the wrong way to your benefactors preference as “aid†is seldom “unconditional†even if implied as such thus you “could†stay away at key times to avoid problems.

    If we come to your creative accounting, you need the 114 + the “14†you used in you point #4 in order to reach the magic 2/3 majority of 192 (128) which BTW is somewhat short of the 72% you claimed on face value initially, true under UN General Assembly rules the vote as was was enough to carry the vote however when you delve into the whys & whats or the shortcomings of the UN voting system vs. fairer more decisive method it raises obvious questions, only getting ~59% of potential voters is somewhat different to 2/3 (66.66R%) or 72% dependent on what you view as a “majority†or “definitive†or any other superlative you may wish to use that amount to clear unbiased decision not influenced by the power or hold one nation may have over another that may influence outcome or incur “political†or “fiscal†penalty’s.

    And you accuses me of being of having “no understanding of democracyâ€! :eek: lol

  2. Posted

    Lol laughable nonsense guys. Scroll up 2 posts and see how many countries and organisations agree with me. That's 114 nations of the UN General Assembly or 72% voted against Gadaffi on Friday.

    All the Gadaffi state sponsored terrorism, attacks on neighbouring countries, and 35 years of international trouble causing are historical fact. Everyone knows it and that's why the only countries that vote for him are old corrupt friends, old communist allies and dictators just like himself.

    If it's propaganda prove it wrong. 72% of the UN General Assembly don't think so.

    There are 192 member country’s in the UN, there are 196 undisputed “country’s†in the world, if you include “disputed†territory’s the number is in excess >250 country’s.

    Thus it was not 72% of the UN it was ~59% based on 114 being for and the remainder out of 192 total being opposed, no doubt you are aware that not even dignifying the vote by giving it your presence is a snub to its validly and should not be ignored (much like recalling your ambassador or diplomatic envoi in protest at somthing) or the possibility to call for a vote at short notice while you have the most likely people present to vote for something.

    I am sure being the well travelled person you claim you must know many country’s whos constitutions require a specific high turnout for any vote to even be considered valid, other specify a value of much higher than 50% of the vote to be considered passed as they require e.g. a clear 3/5 or 2/3 majority.

    ;)

  4. Posted · Edited by b101_uk

    As 'luck' would have it, my mainboard died last night in a BIOS update failure.

    After flashing the bios did you remove/short a jumper which effectively clears the currant (old) BIOS setting from the CMOS allowing the new bios setting to be used, which in the case of a major bios revision is needed as the old setting may not be in the same place as new settings as things get added, so cause a failure/conflict when the new bios reads the old bios settings in the CMOS.

    Sometime you can add command line switches to the flashing utility which can do the above as a “soft reset†but sometimes you need to do a “hard reset†by removing/shorting the jumper (or the battery) for 30 to 60sec to clear the CMOS properly.

    Granted you probably know and applied the above anyway and read the handbook, but in case you didn’t it may be worth a look to see if the CMOS is/was cleard after the bios flash. ;)

  8. Posted

    @b101_uk:

    You come across as extremely naive. You say that speech and the press are both "too free," the implication being that etc etc etc etc

    I think you are the naïve one as you have failed to understand what I said

    My answer was posed as a question

    “Is this the same “free press†that there is all the currant argument that they are “much too free†and overstepping the bounds?â€

    i.e. Phone hacking and the bounds between something that is not in the public interest vs. something that is, “in the public interest†is not a byword for printing the extremely trivial/tacky reporting just to make money and fill out copy space, on the other hand e.g. MP’s expenses is “in the public interestâ€, likewise the press should not have near cart blanch to print made up lies and fabrication because they know it is incredibly costly and complex for individuals to sue for deformation. ;)

  9. Posted

    That may be true but it's probably best not to forget the 1000s that were killed both in Libya and internationally on Gadaffis orders during the past 40 years. Including Pan Am flight 103 and UTA flight 772 the following year.

    Also the Libyan Army in 1969 numbered around 6000. Gadaffi increased it's numbers to 50,000, that's just the Army, multiply that figure many times to include the rest of his bloated security apparatus. That's just how much protection he needed from his own people.

    If you really do live in the UK could you please answer the following:

    Do you like the right to vote?

    Do you like freedom of speech?

    Do you like human rights?

    Do you like a free press?

    Do you like an independent judicial system with police oversight?

    Yes to all? If so why would you deny these things to the Libyan people?

    Equally one could ask the same of the US president’s in the same 40 years, ultimately I suspect world wide the US/NATO/UK and a few others have each killed a lot more people “internationallyâ€, if your like the USA who like to double deal or interfere in things that are NONE of their business or try to subvert things to their advantage you are going to get burnt or have people retaliate.

    The increase from 6000 to 50000 can be accounted for with the larger amount of wealth Libya has now than then, the extra installations it has to protect and the continued harassment Libya has had from the likes of the USA long before Pan Am flight 103, take the Freedom of Navigation exercises which were just to provoke response.

    As for “Do you like the right to vote?â€

    right to vote is ok but it is much overrated because a lot of people are to short sighted and some party’s follow traits of mismanagement like labour are not good at saving money only spending it and leaving the coffers bare, they are good when there is “good times†financially but as soon as financial storm clouds are seen on the horizon you want them out and the conservatives in, unfortunately a good percentage of voters are yet to figure this out soon enough or just to dyed in the wool to vote for any other party.

    As for “Do you like freedom of speech?â€

    What like the BNP etc or the right to print lies of someone?

    As for “Do you like human rights?â€

    Ok you have me on that one :rolleyes:, but I like a lot of people would have picked “old†Libya over many other worse places in the world ;)

    As for “Do you like a free press?â€

    Is this the same “free press†that there is all the currant argument that they are “much too free†and overstepping the bounds?

    As for “Do you like an independent judicial system with police oversight?â€

    You mean the same judicial system which allows police to in the worst cases get away with murder because there are far to many armed officers who see being armed as a way for extra overtime so standards slips because they can no longer pick just the finest officers with the highest ethics wile having the knowledge and fortitude to act within and to the letter of the law as would be applied to us?

    You know it’s easy to throw about a few short statements to hide behind. ;)

  10. Posted

    I don't get it. You guys are getting upset because you think the West is stirring up a coup, but apparently you forget that Gaddafi came into power through a coup. In 1969. He's had sole control over Libya since then, swiftly acting to crush dissent whenever it has arisen. This is not "flimsy hearsay" from armed rebels; it is historical fact. How can you pretend that this constitutes a legitimate government? I agree that NATO shouldn't have intervened militarily (for economic reasons), but Gaddafi was a tyrant and there's really no question about that. The self-delusion going on in this thread is staggering.

    LOL

    So you’re sighting a coup d'etat that was literally over in a couple of hours carried out by Libyans in Libya when there was a power vacuum when the first and only ever king of Libya was out of the country AND very few people were killed vs. todays conflict in Libya.

    And if you want that as an argument then Mohammed El Senussi should be in power then? :p

    :D

  12. Posted

    Clearly, the people of Libya didn't think it was legit.

    Clearly there were times when most of Libya was behind the legitimate government, if it wasn’t for the perpetual whipping up of a storm by media threw the reporting and showing of political rhetoric being spouted mainly by the Americans at first who then caused other “lapdogs†to spout more rhetoric agreeing based on flimsy hearsay and armed rebels claiming to be civilians and moaning that shock-horror they were being shot at or unarmed people clearly standing around armed people and captured military hardware.

    Its just like the WMD’s that never were.

  13. Posted

    Myself I have always preferred the GPU being the bottleneck as that leaves spear CPU cycles for other things.

    So I would suggest the fastest quad core that is compatible with your motherboard and within budget.

    However you should really fire up task manager and leave it to run in the background while you play some games to see how your CPU is being used (graph), i.e. if it’s at or near maxed out all the time then you would probably be better off with a new CPU, if on the other hand if each core is well beneath maximum use then look at the graphics card usage with e.g. MSI afterburner to see if that is working at 100% most of the time.

    Once you have observed how your CPU vs. GPU are being utilised across a few games it will give you an idea where any deficiency or gain will be, hopefully either the GPU or CPU will show its self as being maxed out most of the time which will make the decision easer BUT by the same token if the GPU & CPU are well matched they could be evenly maxed out all the time it will make the decision harder.

    As for the 550ti it I hear murmurings that it may be one to avoid even over the likes of the prior series like the 460 and above so you may want to look into the relevant merits/comparisons in reviews on tech based websites like tomshardware, guru3d etc inc their forums.

  17. Posted

    Hi b101_uk

    Every single one of the points I made is supported by the evidence as is the conclusion.

    If you think Bloomberg is a conspiracy site I feel you may need to reassess and remove your tin foil hat b101_uk. ;) :D

    Kind Regards walker

    No tinfoil hat needed as I am wise enough to know not everything said by news channels/papers/etc is true, lots of it is based on superstition, hearsay or even lies or just mere opinion, if I had £1 for every “story†of news that I have had a first-hand knowledge of because I was there/involved/instigated/etc then wile I wouldn’t be rich it would more than pay for the medication that you clearly need. :p ;)

  18. Posted

    Most of the uncommanded pitch up is actually an “engineered†precursor, as if you had excess forward cyclic authority to push threw at e.g.>> Vne near critical AoA you would actually end up much deeper into a roll based retreating blade stall as e.g. the left side runs out of lift wile the right is making plenty of lift, an uncommanded pitch up of the nose serves to slow and allows a reduction in blade pitch (AoA) thus taking the retreating blade/s out of stall so is better than being able to override any nose up pitch and it entering a roll/bank with limited and reducing options and a natural building of speed you don’t need.

    I was not referring to “retreating blade stall†I was referring to the dissymmetry of lift which ultimately leads to “retreating blade stall†which is an end product so to speak, aspects of this (dissymmetry of lift) are being applied opposite left><right to direction of travel IMO given the side that the retreating/advancing blades are relative to direction of flight,

    i.e. fly at set speed 40, 60, 80, 100kts using a centre stick hover trim, the stick (cyclic) bias moves left of centre when going forwards and goes right of centre when flying backwards, is that not opposite to how it should be applied given the cyclic’s effect on blade pitch/AoA as you move it left or right vs. the retreating/advancing blade side and there “effective†airspeed thus pitch/AoA needed on the right/left during normal flight?

    If we then temper my statement above with the question of “flying sideways†left & right vs. what is the effective retreating/advancing blade position and its effective airspeed vs. cyclic position forward/rearwards of centre and the effect on blade pitch/AoA?

    Then this reports correctly (as far as I can tell) if you start off with a centre stick hover trim, as flying sideways to the right the cyclic bias shifts rearward of centre favouring the retreating blades with increased pitch/AoA over the advancing blade, when flying sideways to the left the cyclic is bias shifts forward of centre favouring the then retreating blade with increased pitch/AoA over the then advancing blade.

    As for specifically “retreating blade stall†in game its seems to have lost any uncommanded pitch up of the nose though has gained turbulence/shaking and if pushed through almost exclusively ends in a right roll/bank rather than a left roll/bank – that’s if you can trigger one at all even if well above Vne and well above >160kts or without initiating the nose up yourself, at lest prior iteration had the uncommanded element of pitch up as it drew plenty of comment from others ;)

    Though all it could be I am just so ham-fisted! :D

  20. Posted

    You could wish to take the conspiracy theorist view and assume the worst connotation of each possibility.

    Its only really people who have insecurity’s over “drugs†& “sex†who actually perpetuate the worst connotation by the fact of trying to make hay out of such things.

    Cocaine is nice, sex is nice, cocaine AND sex is better! he was young, on the balance of probability she would have been in the more likely position of being able to get cocaine (job/employer/etc NOT skin colour), the “substance†in the pictures is by her and not him and to be honest he has a more “I’m quite drunken on wine†look about him which rather precludes cocaine use ;)

    In all honesty if you were looking for a “Press Secretary†then is an ex-editor of a national newspaper who hasn’t been to overly critical of the conservatives wile an editor not a good choice for such a job on his own merits and skillset given the public dislike for the likes of e.g. Piers Morgan :p (another ex News Corp man).

  21. Posted

    ;2022002']I´m not sure about retreating blade stall in 84444. Shouldn`t the heli tilting over to the left side? Shouldn`t I feel when the stall is "building-up"?

    Yes, as the left is the retreating side, that also means the cyclic should bias to the right of centre #1 to stay level as you effectively have to increase blade pitch on the left and reduced it on the right advancing blades or you would roll left as speed built from a hover with the stick centre.

    #1 assumes movement forward increasing speed from centre stick trimmed hover.

    I did hit upon it I think it was in one of my latter posts in the autorotation thread of prior builds and came to the conclusion it is being applied but as a mirror image to what it should due to a left/right mix-up vs. forward or backwards movement, as for me forward movement is left stick bias and backwards movement is right stick bias.

  22. Posted

    Wow George Osbourne Snorting Cocaine and Sex Romps with a Dominatrix 17 years ago when he was just 23 and NOT an MP, so what?

    Are people not supposed to live a little as “young people†long before they even become MP’s, you only have to pop over the Irish sea and you have people in power who were "terrorists" with strong links to deaths, so all of a sudden a couple of lines of cocaine and heterosexual sex romps when NOT an MP are trivial at best and NOT really worth repeating.

    As for “I wonder what kind of hold that would give Murdoch's News Corp over Cameron and the Tory Party?†well you only have to look at people like you who lend such weight to flimsy lightweight story’s as above.

  24. Posted · Edited by b101_uk
    readme info

    use the "Launch TKOH Community Preview" shortcut thats in the root A2OA folder

    e.g. X:\\\\\\arma 2 operation arrowhead\Launch TKOH Community Preview.lnk

    don't launch with the takeonhpreview.exe thats in X:\\\\\\arma 2 operation arrowhead\tkoh_preview\

    HOW TO INSTALL, RUN & UPDATE THE COMMUNITY PREVIEW:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To install for the first time, run the preview EXE to apply the setup automatically (you may be prompted to choose your exact version in some occasions). To update, you must un-install and install once more.

    * This will install all preview content to a mod folder "tkoh_preview"

    * To launch TKOH Community Preview, you must use the shortcut "Launch TKOH Community Preview". This is located in the main game directory.

    * Note, you can always run your Arma2 OA final version in the main Arma2 OA folder if you use default application shortcuts, start menu or run the regular arma2OA.exe without the preview mod folder.

    Extra information: you can configure your TKOH Community Preview to include other mods, etc.

    * To launch custom mods, just make make sure that in your ArmA shortcut start-up target line:

    - You are running the takeonhpreview.exe.exe from your "tkoh_preview" folder.

    - You have "tkoh_preview" in your modfolder as in -mod=tkoh_preview

    example: "C:\Program Files\Bohemia Interactive\ARMA 2 Operation Arrowhead\tkoh_preview\takeonhpreview.exe.exe" -mod=tkoh_preview

    - Make sure the shortcut's "Start In" section refers to main "ARMA 2 Operation Arrowhead" main working folder and NOT "ARMA 2 Operation Arrowhead/tkoh_preview"

    example: "C:\Program Files\Bohemia Interactive\ARMA 2 Operation Arrowhead"

    readme in TKOH_Community_Public_Build_#####.zip

  25. Posted

    You can't just enter or leave a military compound just by wearing a captured uniform, you need the according ID and movement command papers that ara all checked whenever you leave or enter, no matter if on foot or by vehicle. A typical guard team consist of 8 men with 2 men as over-night reeinforcement. A Military compound is not a boyscout camp where loitering around does not raise suspicion.

    Perhaps there should be some limitation on the effectiveness of enemy uniform vs. civilian clothes, i.e. the former being of use for a short-term before you inevitably get found out but do allow you to get into restricted places vs. Civilian clothes, which allow you much longer unfettered movement around the island BUT don’t get you into restricted enemy places.

    Perhaps have some method of logging time in enemy uniform & civilian clothes which over time and in proximity of the enemy increases the overall effectiveness of you using enemy uniform or civilian clothes types.

    If there is a story going on in the background of A3 perhaps incorporate a “forger†who will make you civilian ID papers and at a later point enemy military ID papers, in the case of the former civilian ID papers it would get you past road block/checkpoints or pass an ID challenge from enemy solder which at lower levels in civilian clothes without ID you would have to avoid, with the latter military ID papers you would have to have ID of someone other than in the unit you will be attacking which early on has got to be “harvested†ware as later on you get a much better forged military ID of XYZ rank which is enough to fool lower ranks of enemy but less effective on equal or higher rank enemy.

    Likewise, if you are a lower rank and are ordered to do something by a higher rank enemy then you have to be seen to do it to avoid being found out before/wile slipping out of there view.

×