BTGBullseye

Don't insult me. I have trained professionals to do that.

As for me, guess I'm stuffed. XD Which is terrible cause the parents keep telling me off for not gaining weight. I have a very tiny stomach. It's hard to eat anything big. :S The average restaurant sized meal, I think I'd eat only a 1/4 of. If I'm lucky, a half. And yeah, good thing I don't have the disorder.

 

I'm just usually afraid of saying I have anorexia cause people usually link it to the disorder, and I would no way in hell start starving myself, just to look "better". I'm fabulous. XD I don't need to look any better.

Try eating a LOT of butter. Cook your eggs in butter, fry burgers in butter, fry potatoes in butter, use butter on almost everything. It also tastes better than most other non-stick cooking oils. (just don't burn it) Good recipe: melt 1-2 tablespoons of butter in a pan at medium heat, put in a tortilla, and fry until there are dark brown spots and the entire thing is crispy. (press it flat if it starts to puff, but try to keep pressure off as much as possible) Flip occasionally, make sure to coat the tortilla thoroughly in the butter. Do 2 at a time. It is a very dense collection of calories that tastes exquisite. (and is remarkably healthy for you)

I am still a huge fan of Shadowrun. (4th Edition)

I used to GM, and have a few detailed (and extremely fun) campaign outlines, but I suck at actually being the GM. (I just have too much fun trying to make my characters do weird things, and then freaking out the GM when I get critical rolls to do nearly impossible things)

My last session of GMing:

Heading to bed.

The problem with saving on the ships (and the same argument was given by the US Navy) is that it's cheaper in the long run (10-20 years) to make a supercarrier (that means CATOBAR/EMALS instead of STOBAR/STOVL) with the current 'outdated' aircraft, than it is to make a light carrier with an F-35B loadout over the same period. It's not just the initial build cost you have to take into account, but the operating costs of repairing and refueling the aircraft. The F-35B is about 100x more expensive to repair and 3x more expensive to fuel for the same flight time when compared to existing carrier-based aircraft, and it would have far fewer combat capabilities. (much shorter range aircraft that carry fewer and shorter range munitions, and it's far easier to damage or destroy)

I'd personally take the supercarrier with larger loadouts, more aircraft, better mission capability, and lower long-term cost.

The initial cost of just the ships comparing the Gerald R. Ford class to the America class, the difference is $2.5B. ($12.68B and $10.17B, Nimitz class is only $4.5B) The aircraft cost (America class amphibious assault ship) is 6-20x F-35B US$142M, 0-12x MV-22B Osprey $72.1M, 0-4x CH-53K King Stallion $84.9M, 0-7x AH-1Z/UH-1Z Viper/Venom $27M, 2x MH-60S $28.1M, compared to (G.R. Ford/Nimitz class) 12-14x F/A-18E/F Hornet $60.9M, 10-12x F/A-18C/D Hornet $29M, 4-6x EA-18G Growler $68.2M, 4-6x E-2C Hawkeye $176M, 6-8x MH-60R $42.9M. Total cost comparison of aircraft alone is (America) $2.3-$2.9B and (G.R.F./Nimitz) $2.25-$3B. Add in the unspecified compliment of vehicles in the well deck, and it further narrows the price gap. (probably some number of LCAC hovercraft at $45-75M each and possibly some number of ground vehicles)

If they were really worried about saving money, they wouldn't have made the F-35 at all, as it doesn't really lower the initial cost significantly, but increases the long term cost massively. (AV-8B Harriers are only $30M, less than ¼ the cost of the F-35B with the same combat capabilities, and much lower maintenance costs) Best bet for saving money would probably be building a somewhat upgraded Nimitz class ($6-$10B) and loading it with conventional aircraft.

The article was made in 2012, and yet Met Office has not yet changed the statement I quoted?

2 years isn't much for a government run entity... I would be surprised if information is updated before the 5 year mark.

2 Chicken Chimis, and a glass of Dr.K.

HUSSKWWg-0c

I still have trouble understanding the need for the program itself... VTOL/STOVL is impractical for our current military, and very expensive for a much lower performing vehicle. (helicopters perform MUCH better in hover-type combat, and modern fighters perform MUCH better in forward-flight type combat) STOL is practical, but that doesn't even come close to requiring the amount of spending this program has used.

I would recommend Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, Civilization, and Age of Empires if you wanted to get into strategy games.

Command & Conquer series, (one of the biggest successes in strategy game history until EA bought Westwood Studios) and Starcraft series (really a sci-fi venue for strategy games) as well.

If you want, you can even fairly easily mod C&C Generals... I have a half finished mod to allow the laser general to have an orbital insertion power with laser armed infantry. (and it was balanced at one point too)

What I cannot verify is that the claims made in the Daily Mail are the claims expressed by Met Office. They also didn't even bother to cite any of their evidence, to even give a date.

Date of the article was 29 January 2012... You can easily determine exactly what information they were referring to from that, if you really wanted to, instead of demanding that I do all your research for you.

You couldn't verify that people say things when asked in interviews? You couldn't verify that the studies exist? You couldn't verify that the people exist? You couldn't verify that the article exists?

Try looking at these quotes...

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail

If you don't believe that someone said something reliable to this media outlet, why should you believe any articles ever released anywhere regardless of content, or for that matter anything you don't experience first-hand... Heck, why not go all the way and not believe your senses can ever be reliable in any situation, because if you do enough drugs they stop working right.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

 

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

 

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

 

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

Great, now I'm going through and quoting the whole damn article that you obviously refused to read.

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

 

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

 

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

 

The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

 

‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

 

Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

 

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’

You may be a recent addition to the forum, but you feel like a long-term member.

Mice repeatedly clicking, and keyboard key depression sounds.

3 - It's simultaneously a round, and pointy number.

I want to hug everybody here. X3

I've been on other forums but nothing has matched this. Mainly because 1. I get along with guys more than girls. 2. I get along with people older than me. XP One forum had too many girls, the other too many 10 year olds. But this. This is perfect. <3

God, speaking of being a 10 year old. I went back and looked at some of my first posts on this forum. Wow, I was a child when I was 14. I acted like someone who had just discovered what a meme was and was determined to use them in every sentence. Embarrassing really. I'm glad that I've matured a little bit since then.

...

I think.

You have, significantly.

I think we might need a poll to determine our age demographics on this forum, most of us act like we're experienced in life.

Getting ready to go upstairs and get a drink, then play games.

Hey guys, what's your favourite key? :3

Here they are, in all their glory!

Very interesting and odd. Have more, I want to hear the rest of the story.

It requires features from the graphics expansion module, and there is currently no way to emulate it. Reason: why build code to emulate some really complex hardware that is required for only one game ever? (I know, someone should do it anyways)

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source.

Are the sources provided in the article not to your liking for some reason, or are you just acting like a petulant child for no reason?

Revived for evidence that predictions aren't all they're cracked up to be... We still are using oil like crazy with no apparent end in sight.

I am reviving this thread because of something I never heard about when it happened, and just found out about recently... Also because I'm in a necromantic mood, and like returning things from the land of 4 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Operational_history

The next to last sentence in the section... Prolonged heat stress from flying. Sounds an awful lot like saying "if we ever go to war and need to run this plane like any other plane we've ever fielded, it'll lose its main engine". Seriously, prolonged stressful flying kills this thing's engine? Isn't that what combat flight IS?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Thought I'd revive this thread... Been seeing/hearing quite a few comments around concerning 'global warming' and 'climate change' in relation to CO² output...

Star Trek Online.