Parabellum
-
Posts
3,376 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Parabellum
-
-
Just a quick hello to let the forum members who know me that I'm still alive and kicking and still in Iraq, currently in Basrah ...
Took up a new hobby.........skydiving got 17 jumps in now, love it, and it sure as hell beats getting IED'd every mission when I ran the roads LOL .......
Stay frosty peeps!!!
Good to hear from you, mate. It's been a long time since we used to kick around GR. Stay safe!
-
not to condone the Taliban, but they dont see themselves as the bad guys Para
No. Really? I never would have guessed!
-
It isn't really true that someone has to play the badguy. In America's Army, everyone plays the good guy. You see yourself as American, shooting an American weapon, and you see the other team as the bad guys. I see no reason why MoH couldn't do something similiar, if they wanted to do so.
-
Oh and Wolfsong, I noticed your subtitle
"Mission complete"
... actually, your mission is only starting...
Ain't that the truth! Gratz Wolfsong.
-
There's only one real choice for me: Kate Beckinsale. If she's busy though, then Jessica Biel can have me. Or Rhona Mitra. Or Jennifer Aniston. They're all hot. Angelina Jolie is a filthy skank though. I wouldn't wish her on my worst enemy.
-
If it weren't for some graphical issues, such as body proportions becoming oversized or stretched on some animations, I'd say that ArmAII is the best shooter ever. I can't wait to pick up OA and the BAF addon.
-
Very interesting, us boys just love driving around trying to find secret installations. The thing is, it's secret for a reason, and you have to wonder if investigative journalism will do more harm than good.
Bingo. Secret facilities are secret for a reason. If John Q. Public can read about it, then so can people who'd like to do us harm. Same with those fools at Wikileaks that published 90k secret documents. None of those idiots stops to ask if they really should publish potentially dangerous information.
BTW, I've just gotten back from a trip to my mom's house in Colorado. She lives in the shadow of Cheyenne Mountain, and at night, you can see the lights leading up to the entrance of NORAD from her house. Amazingly cool.
-
Oh, fantastic news! We get probably seven different PBS channels here, so we're sure to get it!
-
I'm wondering if they might show it on BBC America. My wife really likes Sherlock Holmes, so it would be a treat to get to watch that with her.
-
Mine would be Cliffs of Dover by Eric Johnson, I think. It's one of the very few songs in the game that actually showcases masterful playing.
-
... Seriously? There's not much to say about that video other than that the maker needs medication. So now, not only was the Federal Government involved, but major news corporations and reporters were in on it, too? Some people will stoop to any level to support their beliefs, no matter how obviously fallacious those beliefs may be. As usual, half-baked theories that sound convincing are relied upon. Who is this fellow trying to convince, us or himself?
-
Thanks for the help, Crowman. I finally got the stupid thing working. In the end, I had to run driver cleaner, and install an old, old set of drivers.
-
I'm having an issue (well, a string of issues) with my wife's computer. First, her ATI graphics card died. So, I uninstalled that, and put in an older FX5500 AGP card for her. The card works, there's a display. But when I install the drivers, the display is stuck at 640x480 and 4-bit color. If I uninstall the drivers and reboot, I can set the resolution up to the monitor's max, and 32-bit color. As soon as I install the drivers though, it gets stuck at the low resolution and 4-bit color.
Can anyone help? I'm ready to put the whole computer through a window!
-
This is the one upcoming game that I'm definitely looking forward to.
-
Are you totally blind to what I am talking about here or are you deliberately missing the point? Re-read everything ive posted.
I have read everything you're posting. What you're claiming isn't what the article said at all.
Its not thier right to charge for it, its there obligation to secure there data that licence payers are paying for and have a login system, so those who dont want to pay dont get the benefit of it, simple as that, pick the analogy apart how you will.
Actually, it is their right to charge people to view their product. Should people be charged a fee just because they own a computer? No. But at least twice in the article, the minister said that is not going to happen. At least twice. You're making much out of nothing, Calius.
The difference is the example para, its a website with streamed content, the BBC site is the exact same tech, you dont see youtube charging YOU to stream it & forced to do so becuase the site happens to be wide open to view, as you say you "choose" to pay a fee in the way that it works and every passing viewer doesn't, theirs no straws to grasp. My point is just because you can view youtube openly right now you should be forced to pay, im damn sure if they tried everyone would be up in arms.
I also don't see the BBC charging people either. Once again, the minister said that the British government would NOT be in favor of charging people a license fee just for owning a computer. How can you read the article and miss that?
First of all going by your first quote you kind of suggest blanket license is justified which surprises me, IE "fee ride" .. its that hardline view im highlighting.
This is fine and im aware of that, if they stick to this then all will be well, but I have heard people to this day tell me "you need a license as you have a PC" and really have the whole thing mixed up.
If they stick to this and have a login then that's totally fine as ive already mentioned, and no more comment on the matter, im just waiting to see how they implement it, one thing that has been missed is the slant of the article and the title "suggestion". The reason I made this and posted is I know a lot of UK people are here and I wanted to see thier points on the matter, so far without them realising what you quoted a few openly agreed to the notion of a blanket license for a PC ... that surprised me. And even in other comments about "we pay so you should" (not here but on that news page comments and elsewhere) ... you can see where people other than me should really get that straight.
I never said that they'd be justified in charging a blanket fee. It's just ... funny ... to me how you're complaining about the possibility of a blanket license for all PC owners in the UK, when the British gov't said that they aren't in favor of doing that. Securing the BBC site and making people register and pay in order to view their content would be appropriate, obviously. The British gov't must think so, too, since they said more than once in the same article that they don't want to do a blanket fee.
You will be suprised poeple who think a blanket license seems to be the same level for a PC Para.
This statement makes no sense to me.
To follow your (flawed) analogy though, how are magazines often packaged in book stores? They're often packaged in plastic wrap! They want you to purchase the material before you read it!Jesus Para, it was an example not a set in stone absolute fact.
If you're going to use an example, then at least use an example that makes sense, and that actually illustrates your point.
And as you have pointed out no need to worry as it wont be treated like a PC licence free (not set it stone) .. yet you still use the TV license model as some sort of level playing field later.
Why must the TV license model be used as a level playing field, when by your own admission, the PC is not like the TV? You're saying two different things, Calius.
The point i'm making is, I know for a fact people really do see it as "BBC can be watched online YOU should pay the license like me" when its a completely different situation, only para really spotted the sections ref to the BBC not going down that route (and they better not). But notice the article starts with the notion thats the case, then quotes later something that's not quite so back and white, although those who are "all pay license no matter what" would read that and agree, its been proven here, and if the license payers called for it enough that would help justify the blanket license view, which is wrong.The headline was written in such a manner as to generate hype. The goal, then, has been achieved. When one gets past the opinion of the writer, and reads what the British gov't actually has to say on the matter, it becomes clear that the title of the article is completely misleading.
-
OFP: DR was abysmally bad. I won't be purchasing any of Codemasters' titles until they hit the bargain bins.
-
Am I the only one who read in the article that they aren't introducing a license fee for PC's? Or has that changed?
-
Hotmail's new layout is pretty bad, agreed. I rarely use my hotmail, thankfully. Gmail's interface is great.
-
... is anyone seeing this at all?
Sorry mate, but with the greatest respect, I am not getting the drama at all. Pun totally intended.
I almost snorted my drink, Rocky.
-
Because any other website with this content charge via login (that's your right as an account holder), of which you choose to sign up too that's how the web works and has always done. Currently its not equal and encoded and the license states any medium that can watch "live" broadcast of which nearly all of Iplayer is not, its post broadcast stream.
So, because internet viewers have always gotten a free ride, you think that they should continue to do so, simply because that's the status quo? Weak argument.
You pay tax and insurance on your car? So should passengers be charged too?
Your analogy is flawed. The 'car' in question is the BBC's programming. It's their right to charge for it, just as it would be my right to charge passengers to ride in my vehicle.
On what websites do you know on the internet that show there content for free, start to charge you to view it without a login, which means anyone can see it even if they dont want too, so they must pay or be fined? They are crow barring payment from anyone online in the UK even if you do not want the service ... is anyone seeing this at all?
First of all, nowhere does the article state that you'd be charged for viewing without a login. You're drawing a wildly unreasonable conclusion from statements that in no way support your position.
Should I now be forced to pay to youtube becuase they have tv shows on them that I can watch right now? Should I be forced to pay for Spotify becuase I can stream music through it right now without paying (but adverts) simply becuase they brought a service to the internet?
If the people who produce videos which are shown on Youtube decide that they'd like to charge, and if Youtube agrees, then I suppose that you'd have to pay. Really though, what difference does that make? You're grasping at straws.
Its the principles of payment for content and choice to opt out that is the major point here. If any other company in the world suggested this people would go mad .. "pay me for I exist" .. I pay ISP fee then anything on top I agree to pay for via login to watch, I do not want to be forced into paying a company just because they exist "within" the internet.
Once again, you're drawing a conclusion that isn't supported by what's said. Maybe you missed this: 'We are not going to introduce a PC licence fee" Or maybe you missed this: "But Mr Hunt said he would not be in favour of simply charging anyone who owned a computer in the same way that anyone who owns a TV has to pay the licence fee."
Even news/media is asking for payment "in order to view" its content online, they are not saying to people becuase we are online and you can possibly view us then you need to pay either way to read our content. You dont see magazine stores charge you on the door becuase "PC magazine" deems it that you might read its content as you browse the shelves.
No one is saying that you have to pay the BBC just to go to their website, either, Calius. To follow your (flawed) analogy though, how are magazines often packaged in book stores? They're often packaged in plastic wrap! They want you to purchase the material before you read it!
Ive never known the internet to be a TV exclusive BBC boys club before, and it shouldn't start now.
May I ask you a question? What about before the advent of live internet broadcast? Did viewers in the UK have to pay a yearly licensing fee to watch the BBC on their televisions back then? I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that question.
-
If the quality of the videos on the internet (in terms of video quality, audio quality, smooth streaming, etc) is equal to the TV broadcast, then I don't see the problem. If people who view the programming on their PC's are getting the same service, then they need to pay the same fee. Would I pay that kind of yearly fee to watch television on my computer? No. I much prefer the big TV, to small, streaming videos on a computer. I don't see the need for all the alarm over this.
-
I've heard similar stories about the U.K. too. You would have thought that the boffins that study human behaviour would have figured out the best approach to deter inmates from reoffending.I remember reading somewhere though, that it takes something on the order of $80,000/year to house a single inmate at some prisons.DS
I'd be curious to know what the percentage of reoffenders was, back when we had chain gangs and true punishment in prisons. My hypothesis would be that the rate of repeat offenders was lower. The Bleeding Hearts don't care too much about keeping inmates from offending. They're too worried about offending the upstanding people who happen to be incarcerated in their jails. I read an interview w/ a prison warden in Canada several years ago, that had to do with guards not being allowed to wear stab-resistant armor any longer. He said that the wearing of said armor made prisoners feel like they were dangerous people, and was degrading to the prisoners. I had to double-take when I read that interview. How any human being could be so stupid is beyond me. Yes, warden, they are dangerous people. That's why they're locked up in your institution.
-
If prison were actually a deterrent to crime, then maybe prisons wouldn't be so full. I remember reading somewhere though, that it takes something on the order of $80,000/year to house a single inmate at some prisons. Inmates get free education, free healthcare, and sometimes cable TV and video games. That's ridiculous.
-
CoD has never struck me as being particularly realistic. The whole line seemed like just a Medal of Honor ripoff to me.
Gay Protest Signs
in Humor
Posted
I'm torn on the whole issue, personally. On the one hand, my mom is a lesbian, and I love her partner (Mom 2.0, is what I call her) dearly; she's like a mom to me, too. It's good to see them happy. They're my family, and rejecting them on a religious basis would be hypocritical; if God did give Jesus Christ for my sins, then how can I turn around and consider others too sinful for myself? From a religious point of view, the Bible does condemn homosexuality. Some people want to argue that point, but they are wrong. BUT, the Bible also condemns gossip, backbiting, slander, lying, stealing, covetousness, idolatry, greed, slander, adultery, coarse language, and tearing each other down. I don't know of any Christian groups protesting any of those things on a regular basis; those are all things that I saw on a weekly basis from congregation members when I was in the ministry. So it makes me sick to see Christians protesting gays like that, because it's quite hypocritical. It's like the story in the Bible where the woman was caught in adultery and brought to Jesus. He told the crowd gathered, "Let he among you who has never sinned, cast the first stone." That is, in effect, what these Christians are doing: They're casting stones. People who regularly lie, gossip, slander, backbite, and tear others down, have the nerve to turn and call other people sinners. Funny, that in the story of the woman caught in adultery, the only person who had the right to cast stones, is also the only person who had absolutely no inkling to do so. Maybe if more Christians had Christ's attitude, then more people would listen, rather than laugh.
So, in short, the video is funny, but then again, it really isn't.