Jump to content

BTGBullseye

Member
  • Posts

    19,552
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BTGBullseye

  1. ES3 was the better game as far as gameplay and storyline IMO. Had a few issues with ranged weapon & spell aiming though. Quests and some enemies were too easy to beat, as was the main storyline. (I could beat it with a level 12 thief)

     

    ES4 had better GFX, better voice acting, and more to do. Didn't like the fast travel for it though, lacked the realism that ES3 had in it's travel system. Quests were significantly easier than ES3, not what I was hoping for.

  2. Worst game that I've played is unequivocally X3: Reunion.

     

    Impossible to navigate.

    Hard to do combat.

    Nearly impossible to trade. (and even more difficult to get a profit from the trade)

    Nonexistent help to learn the game.

    No waypoint system. (you get lost trying to go from one spaceport to another in the same system)

    Frequently you get impossible-to-beat enemy swarms that come after you when you're just starting out.

     

    Biggest waste of $10 in my life.

  3. Why does everyone seem think that Battlefield 2 is the best game in the Battlefield series? I have it, (and all expansions) and don't even consider it as 'on par' with 2142. Best IMO was the original 1942 + expansions, with BFBC2 in a close second place for the series.

     

    My personal favorites change on a regular basis, but if I had to choose 5 games (expansions not included) to be able to play, and none others for the next 20-30 years...

     

    Battlefield 1942 + Expansions

    Command & Conquer Generals + Zero Hour

    Tribes 2

    Blades of Avernum (Google "Spiderweb Software", they have great classic RPGs)

    Civilization IV + Expansions

  4. What are these "quotes" I keep hearing about that are gone?

    I am pretty sure they are talking about the random qoutes from freemans mind that you would see when you either gave someone rep or took it away.

    I still get those...

  5. Why are creationists always so transfixed on carbon dating?

    Because it is the foundation of 99.999999% of dates used in supporting Evolution.

     

    It only goes back 50.000 years which is an incredibly minuscule slice of time on the geological time scale.

    What makes you think that it can accurately go back farther than recorded history?

     

    Since you basically did a huge copy/paste on the first page I think I'm allowed a simple copy/paste as well

     

    The variability of the C-14/C-12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 (Dickin 1995, 364-366). Calibration is possible by analyzing the C-14 content of items dated by independent methods. Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C-14/C-12 ratios back more than 11,000 years before the present (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991). C-14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years by using uranium-thorium dating of corals (Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993), to 45,000 yeas ago by using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998), and to 50,000 years ago using ocean cores from the Cariaco Basin which have been calibrated to the annual layers of the Greenland Ice Sheet (Hughen et al. 2004).

    In other words, scientists calibrate carbon dating by using other dating methods.

     

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.html

     

    In fact I suggest you check out this entire website and see if your favorite arguments are in here.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

    You addressed nothing that was stated in the article provided.

     

    C14 levels fluctuate, and at unknown times, so much so that there is no way to accurately calibrate with any test beyond recorded history that covers atmospheric C14 fluctuation data.

  6. Thankfully, multiple dating methods are used. Some of the dating methods used:

    • Argon-argon
      Helium
      Isochron
      Lead-lead
      Potassium-argon
      Rhenium-osmium
      Rubidium-strontium
      Samarium-neodymium
      Uranium-lead
      Uranium-thorium
      Uranium-uranium

     

    There are more, but that should give you a pretty good idea. All these radiometric data agree.

    These are available methods, but rarely if ever used for fossil dating.

     

     

    C14 is only effective to a certain limit anyway so it isn't that useful when dealing with geological time scales.

    And what would that limit be exactly?

  7. IntelliMouse Explorer 3.0

     

    It's an older gaming mouse with 5 buttons, but I would consider it the second best mouse I've ever used. (make sure to overclock the USB port you put it on to 1000Hz polling rate, you have the DL a 3rd-party program to do it though)

  8. I'm still on XP, but I plan to go to 7 in the near future. I won't be doing so until I have a VMware install so for programs that simply won't run on 7, I still have options. Apparently if you have enough RAM now, the speed hit for virtualized programs is quite reasonable.

    Unless you're planning on using DOS or Win16 programs, you won't need XP. Just disable UAC on Win 7 to open up it's capabilities, and you'll not want to go back to XP again if you can help it.

     

    Make sure your computer has good enough specs first though, and there is no need to go to Win 7 if you have less than 4GB RAM and less than a DX11 video card. (DX10 has an XP release that works great in most games, it's a RC)

×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.