Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums


GR.net Supporter
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About calius

  • Rank
    Pointman - 1st Class
  • Birthday April 19

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Are you totally blind to what I am talking about here or are you deliberately missing the point? Re-read everything ive posted. 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. 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 t
  2. 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. You pay tax and insurance on your car? So should passengers be charged too? 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
  3. This is the same point about that quote I posted above. Who is it that "lets" it be viewed for free? Is it a non payer? or is it the BBC? So how can you defend a corporation that charges you as a license payer and then insults the license payer by letting anyone else view the content? Its the BBC that needs to sort it out internally and not slap a fee on people because there signals and data gets broadcast out of their control. Then defend the corporations with a notion that becuase the BBC lets other see it, they should now pay? Thats the brainwashed argument, literally arguing FOR the
  4. Its not "yet" but they are trying to crowbar it in. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1297660/The-internet-licence-fee-Viewers-watch-TV-charged-year-hints-minister.html So the BBC lands on the internet and then you pay for it, license is for live signal ... so they simply set up a subscription service for valid license owners to access their data online ... you know, like every other website on the internet, that's how it works. Nice bit of media wording, this actually should read: Iplayer is a stream site not a live site, so they should simply set up a
  5. So did a "passenger jet" smash into the pentagon (it must have to fit the official lines)? And if so show where has it been certified as real, has anything of the evidence looked real as regards a "passenger jet" smashing into it? If they suddenly after all these years miraculously release clear pentagon footage from different cameras, will you then say "here guys look, proves its real" ... becuase that would be a sticky one going by your logic. Or is it that anything that sits perfectly to official sources is selectively the best proof and anything else is filed under must be proven? When in
  6. I dont think anyone has noticed the Irony in the name
  7. Thats exactly what I thought too.
  8. I think its the LM position/turn based on the perspective shift of everything else is what they are getting at. For me the most interesting is the last two images on page two where it "seems" as if the LM is far to the right, then a camera move later (but all the same things in the background) and the LM is bang in front near field. The crater to its left in the second pic is the crater in the first. I think the floor is confusing but the background staying the same makes it odd (all be it the camera is lower down in shot two and moved forward a touch). To me if this was anyone else making moo
  9. I actually saw this on the player and didn't click to watch it, so I will give it a viewing this eve.
  10. Well its a shame to close this thread on the basis of Trolling or anything such as that, so I hope it stays open, I feel the "noise" as I put it has put it in that area and apologies to a certain extent to continue with direct replying to certain things, ive tried to keep it on point as much as possible. Everyone is entitled to post but a hint of cynicism doesn't really help a debate or a thread of such a topic, a point ive been trying to make (all be it very long winded and a few pages of to & fro) for a while. I guess that draws a line under that side of it, so fair enough. ... I
  11. Sure it does ... how? I refuse to accept a kids mobile phone video and a small hole as undeniable evidence of a large jet, well ... yes I dont "accept" that to prove it, not at all. Its really very simple, the case is done, the act has happened official lines made the commission report, nothing to see here, move on people. So, show the old evidence of the attacks and CCTV footage just like the mountains of footage for the towers, its not hard, they have it ... show it, they dont show it .. its not "acceptable". We have footage of the pentagon from the hole in the wall so no security issu
  12. Yes indeed, have you tried out the "Jackal" scenario ... its much like the stealth mission of Arma1 at the militay base, although much better IMHO. That mission with FLIR is such a great example of stealth with new features. Have to say I got this a few days ago, training is so much better improved, FPS and performance is a slight ###### with new houses and AI "thinking" ... used with ambient civy's = nightmare on my system, but that's just one area, its well worth it and puts Arma back on the map so to speak
  13. Im having a good eye ball at the images of these cloud types, very similar yet not exactly what im seeing (although I do see those) when im referring to seeing a "trail" (lets loose the "chem" bit so not to go direct). I have seen these that "are" the ending result sheets IE its those exact trails that are then spreading/lowering and becoming wide spread sheets, but keeping its line form at a distance. Yes im aware of flight plans/flight and general flight patterns. What im referring too is a very specific section in one part of the sky, yet to the right you have standard cloud format
  14. Read what I posted ref the plane I was referring too, prove the plane hit (an actual large jet) you get a cookie. If not then its open debate and if its open debate its not a closed case, etc and so on. Its not really about views contrary to my own, you must have ignored every-time I replied to that notion that you brought up. What I'm saying is, every time a conspiracy gets posted from here on in (which is what would be posted hence its title), then its pretty obvious where you will come from with a reply. I wonder when you or some others would get to a point of thinking ... hmmmm, th
  15. Todd .... Dead? Coffee & Croissants (Neighbors)
  • Create New...