All Posts by lomiller

Originally posted by Nadia

The Complete Guide to Display Settings Options

www.theclenchedfist.com/Content/pa=showpage/pid=15.html

 

 

turning Bloom effects off

turning Floral Displacement off

 

helped my performance

Originally posted by sonicsix

The MM is MMORPG simply means "massive multiplayer".  In layman's terms, it means it is a big world with lots of players.  Somewhere along the way someone decided that MM meant "forced grouping".

It costs tens of millions of dollars to develop a game that supports lots of players, and there is simply no reason to spend that money if the playstyle can be replicated with a single player game and a built in MSN client.  

Maybe you don’t object to paying $15 a month for a limited proprietary chat engine but I demand more from my games.  

Originally posted by sonicsix

That is why there is such a shift to solo playability.  It only takes one idiot to make hundreds of people quit playing a game, and that's lost revenue for developers.

Originally posted by fantaros

 

Originally posted by unconformed

im sure his day will come. im not too concerned about him, considering we are at war against islamic terrorist and he is an islamic terrorist trained and bent on murder of innocents. my eyes are dry and americans freedoms are intact. i care nothing about students who are on student visas. this guy is not an american. he is an enemy combatant who arrived in this country on 9/10/2001. how convienient. fuck him.

Racist much?

 

 

A few couple of thousand years ago some wise men discovered the act of trial, where some1 could have a chance to prove his innocence against a crime he is accused of doing.

 

Ironically that guy lived in what is modern day Iraq. 

Originally posted by olddaddy

Just some more of my rant against politicians before I go off to work......

Michigan is de-commissioning nuclear power plants and replacing them with coal plants, does that sound environmentally friendly? I don't know who is paying our legislature off today, but.....

Originally posted by Teala

Originally posted by lomiller

 

Originally posted by Zorvan

 

Actually, nobody opened it back up as far as I know.

 

And the thing that has always bothered me with the whole "use up foreign oil first" line of thought is: why?

We have enough oil in the United States of America ( on the mainland, not counting Alaska, Hawaii, or our "territories" like the Virgin Islands, etc. ) to last well over 100 years at our current rate of consumption. Now, we sit here having wars over somebody elses oil because they know we depend on their oil, when we could just dip into our own reserves and watch them flounder when they lose our cash.

Then they could either reduce the barrels to a reasonable amount and we could again buy from them, or they could try to wait us out for the next cenbtury and a half, by which time we will have alternative fuels as a mainstay and then their oil will not be needed.

 

 

The US uses 7.5 billion barrels of oil per year, and it has a total reserve of 25 billion, so no the US does not have 100 years worth of oil. 

They oil communities estiamte there is 1.8 t o2.5 trillion barrels of oil left in the ground.  Yea...we're talking trillion barrels.    That should be enough for now until we can get teh infrastucture in place to get other forms of fuel to the masses like hydrogen.   Also...do you know there is enough natural gas in the ground, in the US,  to fuel every home in the US for the next 100 years!   Now we know that we have renewable sources of energy and we're not all going to use the natural gas...so that means there is more then enough natural gas to last a very, very longtime - until we get other forms of fuel.   ^_^

Originally posted by Zorvan

 

Actually, nobody opened it back up as far as I know.

 

And the thing that has always bothered me with the whole "use up foreign oil first" line of thought is: why?

We have enough oil in the United States of America ( on the mainland, not counting Alaska, Hawaii, or our "territories" like the Virgin Islands, etc. ) to last well over 100 years at our current rate of consumption. Now, we sit here having wars over somebody elses oil because they know we depend on their oil, when we could just dip into our own reserves and watch them flounder when they lose our cash.

Then they could either reduce the barrels to a reasonable amount and we could again buy from them, or they could try to wait us out for the next cenbtury and a half, by which time we will have alternative fuels as a mainstay and then their oil will not be needed.

The US uses 7.5 billion barrels of oil per year, and it has a total reserve of 25 billion, so no the US does not have 100 years worth of oil. 

Originally posted by Enigma

Originally posted by unconformed

so why dont they build new refineries?

The libs (democrates) already stated they wont build new refineries; because Leonardo DeCrapio said so. The newest one is like 30 to 40 years old.

People can get all pissed off at the oil execs all they want but if they ever saw the behind the scenes of what the democrates do about the oil, youd be even more flabbergasted.

Originally posted by DailyBuzz

Originally posted by outfctrl

Now don't get me wrong, I am not among those who think somehow the world will end with an Obama Presidency (I have no doubt we'll come through it somehow), but I am convinced that his lack of experience, obvious insincerity and what I believe is a deep seated hatred of this nation will be a major setback for us all. 

You know what scares me far more than a lack of experience? A lack of judgment. Obama has displayed extreme insight and eloquence in his reasoning behind the stances he takes. Meanwhile, McCain seems intent on continuing failed policies until, well, who knows when.

Actually McCain’s first instinct on many issues is pretty darn good.  The problem is he has pretty much abandoned those instincts in order to win support with republicans.  The old McCain would have made a pretty good president, but now he’s just old McCain. 

Originally posted by Draenor

Originally posted by lomiller

Any of those would be enough for you to label someone as a “left wing fanatic” and you know it.  If someone like Nixon is a left wing fanatic compared to you, where do you think that places you on the political spectrum and what credence can we possibly give your assertions someone it to far to the left? 

No, I don't know it...I think that you know that overal views and voting records speak much louder than a few cases that you can use to conveniently perpetuate a fallacious argument.  Voting records, and trends in belief, are far more important than one or two things that you can pull out of your ass that go with what you want to believe - and to say that Obama is no more liberal than Nixon because of those things is an absolutely ridiculous proposition.

Why not cut the handwaveing and give some examples of things he’s voted for that are “more leftist” then Nixon’s universal socialized health care scheme or environmental laws.

Any of those would be enough for you to label someone as a “left wing fanatic” and you know it.  If someone like Nixon is a left wing fanatic compared to you, where do you think that places you on the political spectrum and what credence can we possibly give your assertions someone it to far to the left? 

Nixon Broke the decades long silence with China without demanding “preconditions” pushed a national health insurance plan that was even more comprehensive then the one Obama wants, ran a surplus budget in wartime, set up the EPA and proposed a progressive tax scheme that actually had the income tax system *paying* money to the lowest wage earners rather then charging them higher tax rates then the wealthy. 

Of course he didn’t oppose spying on Americans, I guess if that’s what you think separates “dangerously extreme leftists” from good solid republicans then you could argue he was vastly further right then today’s Democrats. 

You not having done your research won’t change the facts.  On a wide range of issues, ranging from opening relations with hostile governments, to progressive taxation, healthcare, balancing the budget, and the environment Nixon and Obama’s platforms are very comparable. 

Originally posted by Cabe2323

 

No the vast majority of people don't want to move away from Bush policies so badly that they would put such an extremist as Obama in office. 

Originally posted by Cabe2323

 

Bush spent trillions all added to the Debt.  Obama's policies would be way more expensive.  Sure he might not add it all to the debt like Bush has but he sure would add it to our pocketbook.  I don't want 50% tax brackets like Iceland has.