hymewales

Does anyone know how to get in touch with the creator of the Tabi SNCG Aircraft; SNAF; SNAF HD; and Tabi Military Helicopters? Tabi's link is down and I would like to get those as a dependency for . Thanks.

Lacey14 - "My opinion is that Europe would have won the war against Germany most likely by itself, even though the US made it happen easier in the end." Wrong - The war was at a stalemate before the US entered the war militarily. There was no way Europe could fight against the advanced miltary and tactics of the Germans. The US was already involved with the war before Pearl Harbor and losing military transport ships by the hundreds at the hands of the German U-boats. Without those transports, Britain may have succumbed. However, Hitler made the mistake of invading Russia and Japan botched Pearl Harbor by missing the US aircraft carriers. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was American air power that won the European theatre by bombarding the German industrial complex, stopping thier war production, and interrupting thier flow of resources. Without American air power and it's industrial might to continue building its own war machines unabated, Germany would have advanced thier military technology and gained the upper hand. Jet fighters anyone? (There were also rumors Germany was building an atomic bomb of thier own...true or not we'll probably never know for sure, but Einstein did immigrate to the US) However, America could not have done it's job without the sacrifice of the brave French underground and the Brits continuing thier fight, as well as the other Europeans involved. America didn't win the war by itself; but without America, Europe would be different today. Europe could not have won against Germany without the North American contingency of Canadians and Americans.

Muck308 "Also... the government doesn't remove any drugs from any country. They flip them just the same as the dealers. They seize it. They sell it. They sieze it again. They sell it again." I don't know what country you live in, but in the U.S., the drugs are destroyed by DEA (by flames); the government does NOT "sell it". Contrary to what you may believe... Goin2Chicago "I'm glad to see some states are taking a stand against the federal government and are legalizing the medical use of cannabis." Just remember that Federal Law trumps state law. And...You can still get fired at any company in CA for failing a drug test the CA Supreme Court recently ruled. This ruling goes directly to Federal Laws overseen by OSHA. ricb "Therefore if you simply possess the substance you must be punished." & "That is a trap that creates a never ending black hole for tax dollars." Those are mostly local and state laws where those are enforced. Federal authorities rarely go after someone for simple possession. So those "tax dollars" you are talking about are being spent by local and state governments. The federal government does subsidize some of these tax dollars; but mostly for drug education. Duke87 "My opinion? Legalize it all..." Legalize drugs like Meth which are made in someones basement with who knows what kind of chemicals? Are you crazy?

http://www.archive.org/web/web.php What about the use of the Wayback internet archive thread to retrieve damaged content? edit: Last archive for Simtrop was Aug 28, 2007 and starts Feb 2, 2003.

Palpatine: Brother. We're related, you and I. Go back thousands of years and somewhere our DNA will come together. Don't appear to hate me so much. I love my country as do you. I bash no country. In fact, New Zealand is a place I'd like to visit. I'm not saying that's where you're from because I don't know, but maybe we can grab a beer or your drink of preference on me one day and you'll see we're not so different, you and I. At least I know we agree on the global warming issue. "Name another country as complex as yours - America, sure thing, lets try every Western Commonwealth Nation, the EU nations oh and Japan, they are ALL complex societies with their own unique set of problems." That's exactly what I was saying. Re read the portion of my post you highlighted without your emotion next time. "You say America is complex and we outsiders could never understand." You said that; I did not. Read my post again and point out those exact words. You won't find them. You are adding words that don't exist to change the context of what I said. Luckily, it's in writing for you to see. I still love you brother. "So don't try that amercian-centric crap this end with me the same crap that has got America in a bind onthe world stage, AND especially after finishing a full doctrine thesis on Structuralism, Political Economy and the Abortion Debate in the USA." Please point out where this "americian-centric crap" is in my post? Fact is, you're ASSuming way too much. The summary of my post is that the U.S. will deal with her gun problems. Our Constitution allows for gun ownership. The judicial branch of the U.S. will decide the fate of that Amendment. That's the cliff notes version. Of course you could immigrate here, join the political ranks, and try to make policy changes. I highly encourage that because <start sarcasm> we both know the current U.S. politicians are the best < end of sarcasm>. "As for keeping you gun, you do that, just hope you don't hit an innocent person on the way out when you discharge that weapon against a "criminal." " I'm a federal police officer. Of course I'll keep my gun. Who will fight the criminals if it's taken away? I'm highly trained with the weapon as are all federal agents. As is my father, uncles, cousins who are all former military and highly trained. Most people with weapons are trained to some extent. You take guns away from the citizens; the criminals will still have them. Why is that so hard to understand. Try this; The 2nd Amendment existed in the first place and the weapons are still accessible via the black market. The faucet has already been turned on full blast. The water has soaked into the crevices and finding all of it will never happen. I also know Aussie police carry guns. I'm not uneducated. Let's get that beer and you'll find out. "Ok since 1995 how many School or University Shootings have you had Then how many have the 4 main commonwealth nations (UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) had." I don't know; but I bet their constitution don't have a "Right to bear arms" provision in it either. If it does, point it out. That's just my point. That's why you can't compare the two. It's a societal problem brother. Maybe the parents there are better than they are here...The parents should have been more involved in those kids lives and prevented this kind of violence by preventing access to the guns. Every time, it was an arsenal; parents and/or friends had to know when things were getting delivered via the internet. Someone turned a blind eye. Stupid people do stupid things to glorify their lives whether it's a terrorist in Indonesia killing innocent Aussies or a dumb kid killing innocents for no reason at a school. A c

"Solving violence with violence... sounds a lot like something else I've heard of... what's it called again... oh, right, war." I rarely post here because I'd rather be shopping for some good mods or buildings I can't make myself. So here goes: I am a government agent Krbe. I'm offended by your statements on if it is OK to shoot a government agent. That's like me asking if it would be OK if your nations troops could be shot. Dumb statement. Gov't agents usually do not do anything without the checks and balances; i.e. a judge issued search warrant. Legislative vs Judicial branch...Don't bring up any "War on Terrorism" policies because that is not what I'm referring to. The right to bear arms is not "solving violence with violence". The right to bear arms in case of <you fill the blanks in for whatever violence you want> is like the current deterrent system we've had <being the US> since the invention of the atom bomb; our nuclear arsenal to prevent any country from attacking the US because of the fear of mass retaliation. The right to bear arms is the same type of deterrent. These deterrents prevent war or the government from becoming too strong handed in the wake of any failed checks and balances <i.e. a Revolution>. That is the effect the fore fathers wanted; deterrence. Take those deterrences away, and we're no better than say Japan who relies heavily on the US for protection. Where would our protection lie then? With Australia or Europe? I hope not... The militia is NOT the National Guard. The National Guard is a government run military entity. The militia is the people or citizens of our great nation with no affiliation to the government run military entity. If another nation were to invade the U.S. and deplete our military resources, the fall back for national defense would rely on the fellow citizens of our great nation. That is the militia as the fore fathers intended. Those who say one country does not have much crime <i.e. Japan> because of the ban on weapons does not understand the complexity of the issue. Our Constitution is not your Constitution. This is not Europe's or Asia's issue. It is the United States' issue; and hers alone. The problem has never been guns. It has always been the people. There will always be a black market to purchase guns from and/or to smuggle them across the borders. With 300 million people, there is bound to be crime. It doesn't matter if you put a gun or chainsaw in the hands of the criminal. The crime will happen. Guns are meant to kill. However, they do not shoot by themselves. It takes a human with a brain, no matter how warped, to pull the trigger. The problem lies with society. Japan's society is not the United State's society; nor Europe's, Australia's, or Asia's. The mass school shootings involved people that had a warped mind to kill others; not much different than today's suicide bombers. They want to die; but think they need to glorify it by taking others with them. Gun control will not solve the issue. If guns were rendered useless in the U.S., then there would be other means. Explosive devices are banned but that has not prevented the 1991 World Trade Center bombings or Oklahoma City now did it? Or the Atlanta Olympics bombing or the numerous abortion clinic bombings or...I could go on. Name another country as complex as ours and you will see you have issues with crime as well...in different forms and fashions. I'll keep my gun, as will my father, brother, uncles, nephews, and other relatives because we are the deterrence; we are the militia in case of foreign aggression on our soil or by a rogue government who attempts to dissolve our rights as our fore fathers intended. End of rant.

I'm with MrFingers Schm0...If I knew you person to person, I'd make a bet that in 10-20 years there will be better scientific data which shows that "man made" global warming was a myth (not the cooling part though that MrF refers to) and that man was only responsible for x% (I predit a low percentage). Schm0, I never got to respond to your last post before they closed down the MrF thread in favor of this one and rebut some of what you said. I guess I never will... I love how you bring up computer models and the many scientists and thier theories, including those who are 90% certain (IPCC) that the increase in CO2 is causing global warming. Here's what I'll give you: Yes...CO2 is increasing. Yes...the climate is warming. But you can't just use that one variable when there are many other variables that contribute to global warming, some of which have yet to be researched and do have something to do with climate change (I'm not regurgitating them because I've made up my mind on this issue until I can see all of the variables factored in and I'm not changing it until then) and history shows spikes in the past just like this with warming periods warmer than now before man became industrialized. You're gonna bring up the last 50 years, blah, blah, blah (I'm not changing my mind). The computer models are just that...models. It does not make them fact. Heck, weathermen can't even predict the weather a week in advance and resort to the use of statistics to make their predictions. Yes...I'd support changes in fuel, coal, natural gas consumption for pollution reasons; which has nothing to do with global warming like I said in the last thread (See your own myth link on the pollution vs global warming). What I don't support is the band wagon jumping everyone is doing without taking a step back and resort to being narrow minded (not referring to you when I say this, but rather the media who jump all over this trying to make everyone feel bad) and making the scientists' statement that they are probably 90% sure that CO2 is causing the global warming and turning it into fact (90% does not make anything fact). Both sides have only theories and little facts to support them. In 10-20 years, it will be resolved as "myth" for one side or the other. On that note, I'll read the posts and lurk...laughing at all the time and effort you are spending Schm0 trying to convice others of what you believe... I'm off to mow my grass now with my polluting lawnmower, while breathing my CO2 into the atmosphere. At least the 6 trees I planted will take of that. My wife will be home soon from work driving her Subaru SUV (best gas mileage of all non hybrid SUV's). My computer and power in my house is being run by a mixture of hydro-electric and coal power. My Honda sits in my garage (with my recyclables) where it only gets driven on the weekends when I go out alone because it's too small for the wife and kids. My Government rig, a less efficient Ford SUV mind you, is in the shop getting a new engine at only 22k miles. And my job requires me to travel frequently, which means flying.( Trust me, in my line of work, you don't want me showing up at your door (don't worry, I'm not)). I live in the US where it is one of only 2 nations with growing acreage of forests, and since the 1970's with the EPA regulations in charge has made breathing better for everyone by reducing pollutants. History shows me man will do what's right when it's time, at least here in the US. While you think of worst case scenarios, I think of... Maybe in 10-20 years, I'll be driving a fully electric/solar vehicle, in my house powered by efficient solar panels with nuclear power the main power plant for the US. I'll be cutting my grass in shorts and a short sleeve shirt (because it's summer, not becuase it's warmer then than it is now) with a non polluting mower. My kids will have vehicles by then, hopefully like mine. And flying will be pollutant free. And you'll be paying because you lost the bet...or myself likewise. Peace...

Global warming and pollution are two seperate issues...and yes, pollution needs to be reduced. According to the beloved graph, the Earth has been warmer in periods than before now. CO2 has also been increasing since the Roman Empire. Are we to blame the Roman Empire for starting Global Warming? All this graph shows me is that CO2 increases and temperature increases are part of a natural cycle that has occurred for hundreds of thousands of years. Is there a clear correlation? There are clear periods when the correlation is not what it seems. Like right after 125 thousand years ago when CO2 was constant, but temperatures were still decreasing. Or even later after year 0, the CO2 spikes but temperatures jump up and down and not spiking as in earlier periods with CO2. This means, there are other factors... Schm0 To get an accurate determination of human impact on global warming, you have to factor in other events like the Earth's orbit around the sun (Milankovitch cycle) and the fact that we are in an unprecedented heightedned increase in solar activity in recorded history. Not to mention the Earth's weakened magnetic field. <See page 13 of this thread for references>. No studies have been done to include every variable into the global warming equation. There is only limited studies on the Milankovitch cycle and the Earth's magentic field and none relating to thier effects on global warming. Unfortunately, our climate is more complicated than merely looking at the make up of the atmosphere. What's happening on Earth cannot be compared to Venus because Venus is outside the livable zone in our solar system and Mars does not have the magnetic field or gravitational effect like that of Earth. Our climate is like an engine. Trying to determine what is causing an engine to overheat by looking at just the air intake is not going to help...Many factors determine our climate, not just one. Back to what Palpatine001 said: He believes the warming is 95% natural and 5% human. You Schm0 said "Even so, a 5% increase in temperature world-wide would have devastating effects.". That would equate to 0.25% being the fault of humans and the rest being natural. So, a 5 degree change would equate to 0.25 degree change as human caused and 4.75 degree change as natural. I agree with palpatine001. No changes can be quickly implemented to reduce temperatures so adaptation is what we have for now...Mother nature will eventually correct herself.

The Milankovitch cycles take significantly larger spans of time to register changes that were much smaller than those we've seen recently. The cycle might explain differences in temps between 2004 and 1704, but the position of Earth is not different enough between 1974 and 2004 to explain a rise of 0.8 C. Your research has failed you. We do not know what the orbit was in 1704. How do you know that a minute change in the orbit did not account for a certain percentage of that 0.8 C increase? I don't...you don't. There's no research on the topic... http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/howard2/recent.htm http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~polsen/nbcp/cmintro.html http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/cli_sun.html http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/iceage_orbit_wg.html http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/cl_record_milan.html http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027817.shtml You say that all the evidence comes from a few tree rings which is simply not true. Evidence has been taken from ancient rock formations, trees (which you've pointed out), ice cores, sediment cores, and all from around the world. Trees admittingly are the weakest pieces of evidence but a collection of evidence from around the world is enough to at least paint a disturbing picture. You missed the point... I was never talking tree rings. I'm lost at how you as a graduate could ever think that is what I was talking about. It leads me to believe that you do not carefully read what is written. Unless you thought I was referring to this: http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm Again: I'm saying you see one tree...I see the forest. Your one tree being something called the human effect (CO2) which you believe is the major, if not only factor in global warming. I see the forest...other factors of nature that effect climate that have yet to be fully studied. I look at all possibilities and not rely on one. Again, you are trying to debunk each of what I have said one by one on why it could not be a certain thing causing the warming. The forest refers to placing them all at fault; not just one by one. If solar radiation is at most 30%, what percentage is the change in orbit for temperature increases and what about the weaking magnetic field? I can say they have not been calculated because enviromentalists are trying to hijack this cause. (And yes, I believe we should rid ourselves of polluntant emitting vehicles and power plants so that one day I may breath fresher air. I believe in planting more trees. The U.S. is one of only two nations with growing acreage of forests. Yes, I recycle. Yes, I drive a vehicle that gets 30mpg.) Your 1950 theory on solar irradiation is not true... http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif Agreed, this debate will never sway anyone who has an opinion already. Thats just human stubborness for you, and as I fall in the "human category", I too am at fault. But I have done countless hours of research (as I might be going to gradschool for astrobiology and climate change is one significant thing I might need to know). After tirelessly looking up peer reviewed studies for both sides and even the rebuttle studies for both sides, I'm still convinced that solar radiance, orbital cycles, and the weaking magnetic field are only small factors for what has been observed. You are as stubborn as myself. The coorelation between CO2 and temperature in this graph shows me there is no correlation... http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Radiosonde.html I'm gonna have to agree with whoever brought up the "financing these researchers" problem. Having to compete for research money myself, I know what kinda benefits (or lack there of) University staff receives to do the research. If its from a University, I will rarely ever doubt the intentions of the author. By anyone else, and I will doubt it immediately. Unfortunately, this leads to a lot of legitimate anti-anthropogenic forcing supporters being grouped with what I will for now call "false" scientists. There is legitimate research projects by the opposition, but there image is marred by "corporate scientists". Money keeps the research going and the research of today is global warming. What a better way to make money scaring people into thinking they have caused what appears to be a natural cycle. Just a quick side note, can you post something in regards to a weaking magnetic sphere (and please don't let it be that scientologist). Google it ... http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,837058,00.html http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/15/flip_pla.html?category=earth&guid=20061115103000 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/programs/3016_magnetic.html No way would I listen to a scientologist. Maybe we should get a beer together and discuss this over pizza. No one man can say he knows everything. If man keeps an open mind, he can continue to learn for a lifetime. Here's a good site for you: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

"The temperature decrease observed during the post WWII era is not evidence of Global Warming being a farce. In fact, in somewhat supports it." Your words when talking about the CFC's. Somewhat is a very weak statement. I think you miss the point I made regarding Solar activity, Milankovitch cycles, and the weaking of the magnetic field which you avoided...You are basing your assumptions on one thing...one thing called the internationally media recognized increase in CO2; Basically placing all of your eggs in one basket. You are seeing only one tree when you should be seeing the forest. You cannot use one set of data and make a conclusion based on it when many other factors are at work on this beautiful thing we call Earth. Basically you are saying you're favorite team is going to win the World Cup (or whatever your sport is) based on the assumption the team consists of the best players from around the world (analogy). This is your CO2 theory. You have to factor in other events like the known fact that we are currently in the closest orbit to the sun (Milankovitch cycle) and the fact that we are in an unprecedented heightedned increase in solar activity in recorded history. Not to mention the weakened magnetic field which is also fact. The video shown supports the fact that solar activity plays a better role than CO2 in the increase in temperatures. There is not a 100 percent match in the graphs in the the comparison to CO2 and temperature increase. I don't know why there is a drop in temperature and the the CO2 levels remain the same. You cannot say it is becuase of reduction in CFC's or anything else. It is not fact. The graphs match when compared to the recorded solar activity and temperatures. Basically you are convinced you have the World Cup winner even though the team does not have chemistry (Earth's orbit), the coach is having a difficult time with his family and is not focused (solar activity), and one your main players is hiding an injury (weakened magentic field). Sure you can try and discredit them one by one, tree by tree; fact by fact. But when you look at the trees together (the forest/facts), the evidence is compelling that we humans may not be the cause of Global Warming but that it is a natural cycle of mother Earth. Global warming is happening. I know I cannot convince anyone to change thier beliefs because I feel that is not right. You will believe what you want to believe. You will tell me to research my facts and I advise YOU to do that. I'm not changing your mind, only putting doubt in the theory. Nor am I changing mine. Someone said earlier he/she used a common sense check...use common sense...common sense dictates to research all of the facts and attempt to factor in every part of the equation, not just one unproven theory. I have yet to see anyone here or scientist factor anything other than CO2 into the current theory. The equation only contains one thing...CO2 in the atmosphere. A bunch of world class players on the same team does not make a champion. A theory does not make something fact.

No scientist or government has ever disputed that global warming is not happening...they dispute the causes. (such as humans) The IPCC report fails to mention anything other than gases in the atmosphere (like the hockey puck effect). Why do a half job on the reporting and not include things like solar radiation, the earth's current orbit (Milankovitch theory), the weakening of the magnetic field, and such? It's because they don't fit into their little created equations. Humans like to control and explain things. Some things cannot be calculated (weather and the how expansive is the universe are examples). All of these factor into the Earth's weather. Has any human actually accurately predicted the Earth's weather month's ahead of time as far as the exact temperature and the time it will rain? No...because the weather is unpredictable. For those of you who believe it is human caused, get rid of your car (hybrids run on gas also), turn off all electricity and water sources (water in your home uses electricity to be filtered for safe drinking) in your home, shop at places that don't use the aforementioned (Good luck with that also unless you're an avid bow hunter), and work in a job that don't use any of these CO2 producing technologies (good luck finding one). You'll soon realize it cannot be done. Stop being part of what you call the problem and do something about your own carbon emissions. Then you can talk. Stop studying geology or geography and study engineering so you can design the ulitmate carbon free vehicles and power plants. Stop being part of what you see is the problem. Soon you will realize it is hard to change course until the technologies are developed and ideas are created. Quit screaming the sky is falling. We already know the Earth is warming...but quit screaming it's because of you and me. No one has yet to prove that in my book. Until all factors are put into thier created eqautions, none of those IPCC reports mean jack...

I usually have lurked on this CJ in the past. But I have to come out and say that movie/slide show was sweet! Keeps me coming back for more...

This looks good...I've been waiting for a Pro football field.

I like the Japanese rail system. I have yet to go to New York. But while living in Japan, I found you can travel cheaply to many areas of the country; Harajuku and Shinjuku to watch the Nissan Skyline race a superbike; Roppongi to party; Yokohama for the Naval Base; Ginza to window shop; Akihabara, the electronic part of Tokyo, and back to Tachikawa where the good ole' Air Force Base was. Man, I miss those days...

I'm running a nVidia 7900 with no issues. I suggest getting the driver updates as dudeson suggests. That computer should run SC4 very well with those specs. FYI...Being an older game is meaningless unless you're trying to run it on Windows XP 64.