GODDAMNIT i cant believe i missed it!! its the summer and ive lost track of days of the week. i rarely know what day it is or what the date is. for me its basically groundhog day. i waited a whole week to take part in this movie and on the day it happens i forgot its saturday!! OMFG
Search
Search results: 419 found, showing up to 50
I'll Do It
for USA, the highly specialized classes that require a lot of training in real life, the medic, the engineer, the special forces: are white
support (machine gunner), Anti tank, and assault (general issue) are black
the white guys get green gloves, the black guys get black gloves. and not black as in black, black as in skin color black (basicallly brown , same color as their skin).
in MEC and CHINA there is NO difference in gloves at ALL. MEC has their special gloves, China has their special gloves, but its all the same within the same country.
why are the white people, if u look at their faces, they are very detailed, and someone took a long time to make them? they look good
have u seen the black ones? they look ugly and they like dolls... and to even go further, they have the stereotypical large black nose and lips etc.
did someone think it was funny to give the black guys black gloves so it looks like their skin color?
i mean come on, i know there aren't many black people in sweden where DICE made this, but i think there is something malicious behind these tiny clues. it probably wasnt intentional, probably done in the subconcious.
(btw im not black or white)
feel free to share your thoughts on this, call me an idiot, or agree
support (machine gunner), Anti tank, and assault (general issue) are black
the white guys get green gloves, the black guys get black gloves. and not black as in black, black as in skin color black (basicallly brown , same color as their skin).
in MEC and CHINA there is NO difference in gloves at ALL. MEC has their special gloves, China has their special gloves, but its all the same within the same country.
why are the white people, if u look at their faces, they are very detailed, and someone took a long time to make them? they look good
have u seen the black ones? they look ugly and they like dolls... and to even go further, they have the stereotypical large black nose and lips etc.
did someone think it was funny to give the black guys black gloves so it looks like their skin color?
i mean come on, i know there aren't many black people in sweden where DICE made this, but i think there is something malicious behind these tiny clues. it probably wasnt intentional, probably done in the subconcious.
(btw im not black or white)
feel free to share your thoughts on this, call me an idiot, or agree
screw bf3, LOOK AT THIS NEW GAME COMING OUT THIS YEAR!!! its just like bf2 inf/vehicles/checkpoints except better graphics and they have DRONES! It's called Frontline: Fuel of War and set in 2024 or soemthing
trailer http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30476.html
drones http://www.gametrailers.com/player/29387.html
backstory http://www.gametrailers.com/player/24050.html
its for xbox 360 and WINDOWS
trailer http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30476.html
drones http://www.gametrailers.com/player/29387.html
backstory http://www.gametrailers.com/player/24050.html
its for xbox 360 and WINDOWS
The thing that pisses me off is that Ron Paul gives all this talk about the evil Fed and the evil inflation and yada yada yada, and yet the Ron Paul fan club is just eating up all of this, believing everything. You're taking economics lessons from a US representative/gynocologist? You honestly think that a guy who looks at [female body parts] all day long/representing not even a state (senator) or governing one (governor) but only is a mere REPRESENTATIVE of a tiny district, and you believe it all when he talks out of his ass about economics??? I feel sad when i look at youtube clips of ron paul yelling at Ben Bernake and the Fed chairman is just there like, what the fuck is this politician lecturing to ME about economics for, and Ben has to correct him on his economic thinking. The only other people who eat up Ron Paul's economic conspiracy theories are other conspiracy theorists/people who aren't crackpots but still have no reputable official grounding in economics.
Listen up: The majority of economists believe that central banks are necessary for the world economy. Why else do you think every nation in the world has one? Why is there a European Central Bank? It's too late to go back to the gold standard. stfu. There is no connection between a falling exchange rate and inflation. Currencies affect EXPORTS/IMPORTS and INVESTMENTS. If there is a connection, it's through 4 variables, and there is no strong bi-variable coorelation between currency and inflation.
Also ben bernake says that actually in recent years Money Growth has been quite moderate.
Ron Paul keeps on saying he's not isolationist, just non-interventionalist. Does that mean he'll continue to engage in diplomacy and economic ties but not do anything militarily? NO. He's an isolationist. He wants to withdraw from the UN (basically crippling it as the US provides most of UN funding). He wants to withdraw from WHO, WTO, all the free trade agreements (world free trade is the reason why the world economy is growing 5% each year idiots), kill federal education, kill income tax, increase the economic inequality even more than it is now (which isn't that bad, as Ben Bernake says, inequality is going to be a fact of life in the process of globalization so the focus should be not economic inequality but economic MOBILITY. ron paul killing education, and vocational training, thats basically killing the mobility) , he'll basically make the United States not a Federal system anymore but a CONFEDERACY with minimal federal role, make america an isolated country as resurging tyrants like russia and china go flexing their muscle all over the ex-USSR provinces and china does the same in Asia (with taiwan and military build up) and their increasing influence in Africa (which supports corrupt regimes in order to secure resources for their economy).
He is a paleoconservative , the same kind of politician who opposed entering WWI, WWII, and voting no to America joining the League of Nations. The probability of success of The League of Nations with America was moderate at best, America not joining it doomed it.
so not only would ron paul screw up america. he will screw up the WORLD. we already have enough trouble with a collective action problem amongst the worlds nations to stop climate change; hes gonna make even more collective action problems by minimizing the federal government and basically having each state being more powerful and more incooperative with each other.
Listen up: The majority of economists believe that central banks are necessary for the world economy. Why else do you think every nation in the world has one? Why is there a European Central Bank? It's too late to go back to the gold standard. stfu. There is no connection between a falling exchange rate and inflation. Currencies affect EXPORTS/IMPORTS and INVESTMENTS. If there is a connection, it's through 4 variables, and there is no strong bi-variable coorelation between currency and inflation.
Also ben bernake says that actually in recent years Money Growth has been quite moderate.
Ron Paul keeps on saying he's not isolationist, just non-interventionalist. Does that mean he'll continue to engage in diplomacy and economic ties but not do anything militarily? NO. He's an isolationist. He wants to withdraw from the UN (basically crippling it as the US provides most of UN funding). He wants to withdraw from WHO, WTO, all the free trade agreements (world free trade is the reason why the world economy is growing 5% each year idiots), kill federal education, kill income tax, increase the economic inequality even more than it is now (which isn't that bad, as Ben Bernake says, inequality is going to be a fact of life in the process of globalization so the focus should be not economic inequality but economic MOBILITY. ron paul killing education, and vocational training, thats basically killing the mobility) , he'll basically make the United States not a Federal system anymore but a CONFEDERACY with minimal federal role, make america an isolated country as resurging tyrants like russia and china go flexing their muscle all over the ex-USSR provinces and china does the same in Asia (with taiwan and military build up) and their increasing influence in Africa (which supports corrupt regimes in order to secure resources for their economy).
He is a paleoconservative , the same kind of politician who opposed entering WWI, WWII, and voting no to America joining the League of Nations. The probability of success of The League of Nations with America was moderate at best, America not joining it doomed it.
so not only would ron paul screw up america. he will screw up the WORLD. we already have enough trouble with a collective action problem amongst the worlds nations to stop climate change; hes gonna make even more collective action problems by minimizing the federal government and basically having each state being more powerful and more incooperative with each other.
DO NOT INSULT TEH WIDGETS & FINDER!!!stryyker wrote:
Simplified my ass.
I can do all the same things with a PC that I can with my Mac. Except the retarted widgits and finder.
p.s. iCal organizes my life
In proper colleges you need a computer and a word processing program. For notes you can use pen and paper. There are college public computers and I guess you can write your paper there if you can't afford the computer. But you can't save any documents on it and so you must upload your work onto your email account everytime.agent146 wrote:
ya thats the arguement that i get alot actually lol. that non mac users are gaming geeks and mac people have "lives" but there is a flaw in that. why the bloddy hell do you need such an expensive computer then? jeez my buddy has a macpro book and all he does is use it for the internet and facebook.[-DER-]Omega wrote:
They're good for college students who aren't into gaming. AKA people with lives
and besides a real collge students only needs his pens and paper. YAA PEN AND PAPER 4 ever man....unless he is in graphic design and compute science... but thats different.
i dont' have anything against mac system either. what i am against is "elite" mac users whom are smacktards who think they have "itunes" and "imovies" and thus they more leet them me and that viruses dont' attack macs . sadly i meet alot of them at my school who tell me to get a macbook pro. but then again the price.
PCs have iTunes too.
iMovies are simple to use.
The number of viruses that attack Macs are much less, so much that I don't have to buy those gay anti-virus wares that I have to buy for my PC.
I have an iMac at college so I can get my work done and Mac OS X prevents me from gaming Well there are still some games that can be played, but still, they're crappy games and I'm going to have to deal with the low performance, thus the deterrent At home however I have a good gaming PC so I do my gaming there.
In my college at least half if not more students in my year and lower have Macs. They currently offer discounts for college students. Also as kylef linked us
The reason why Macs are so expensive is because Apple is vertically integrated, meaning they are in charge of everything that comprises the computer. That means they can make it sync together and work better together, at the cost of a lower price. Other makers of computers can just outsource different components to different companies who can make components at cheaper prices. Basically like how my friend built my very top shelf gaming PC for me for only $1500 using new egg. However, getting all the components from one company (Apple) would make it more expensive as that company may not be as efficient in making a certain component at a cheaper price.
However, Apple has made some efforts to outsource components to other companies, such as the new Intel based iMacs, etc. They used to have their own processor unit.
All in all though, Macs are more expensive in relation to their comparably lower performance only because they have mainly all the components under control of their company and do not outsource components to different companies. This is done so that the computers that Apple makes can be harmoniously synchronized.
In my college at least half if not more students in my year and lower have Macs. They currently offer discounts for college students. Also as kylef linked us
It looks awesome. The iMac has it all in one monitor. However, aesthetics aside, Mac OS X crashes programs on me just as much as Windows Vista, and sometimes it's impeccably slow.* Industrial design. Apple hardware is designed to look good and work well. Just take a look at the robust and elegant design of a PowerMac G5. Beautiful. Solid. Most Wintel PC manufacturers seem to use whatever piece of plastic they can find to stuff their components into. And then they paint it black or beige and finish their non-design by putting a few stickers on it.
The reason why Macs are so expensive is because Apple is vertically integrated, meaning they are in charge of everything that comprises the computer. That means they can make it sync together and work better together, at the cost of a lower price. Other makers of computers can just outsource different components to different companies who can make components at cheaper prices. Basically like how my friend built my very top shelf gaming PC for me for only $1500 using new egg. However, getting all the components from one company (Apple) would make it more expensive as that company may not be as efficient in making a certain component at a cheaper price.
However, Apple has made some efforts to outsource components to other companies, such as the new Intel based iMacs, etc. They used to have their own processor unit.
All in all though, Macs are more expensive in relation to their comparably lower performance only because they have mainly all the components under control of their company and do not outsource components to different companies. This is done so that the computers that Apple makes can be harmoniously synchronized.
are computer stuff in Aussie-land expensiveSpark wrote:
You're telling me, my card is sub-minimum and it works OK...ish.sithao wrote:
The minimum requirements for this game are bullshit.
Hurricane wrote:
I am going to kill you in your sleep
come on everyone has bad photos
heyyy its good he revived it... other wise i'd have never known of this wonderful movie
DOWN WITH THE CAPITALIST!
lol
lol
hi do you guys know if there are a lot of euro servers for this mod cause i wanna make sure theres an availability of servers with low ping to me before i go thru the process of installing everything such and so
nice one for a first movie, have you searched other topics (like editing and erasing name tags?)
i know i know it'll be hard but nokken managed to get that many people to work together, why can't bf2s? perhaps the scandinavians are more organized lol
also the war in iraq movie was made with bots, the creator told me. he took charge of some things however.
but still imagine the war in iraq movie but with humans. is it possible to have unlimited bots? like 64 humans fighting 64 bots? omg love <3
also the war in iraq movie was made with bots, the creator told me. he took charge of some things however.
but still imagine the war in iraq movie but with humans. is it possible to have unlimited bots? like 64 humans fighting 64 bots? omg love <3
Cinematography and editing is an important part of a bf2 movie. However, spectacle is also one. Thinking of action, then multiplying it x100, that's the Spielberg way! Thinking big. What makes his movies awesome is not only his cinematography but his orgy of special effects and visual thrills. Filming one tank might cool; filming 100 tanks = yay!
MOAB, for your next movie, have you thought about custom maps? It would be awesome for a filmmaker of your skill to expand past the constraints of the BF2 maps (not that the present one you're making is bad, I look forward to it coming out). Such as maps with like masses of blackhawks (massive invasion, like in COD4, 12 or something landing an invasion force), or like 4 or 5 F-35s in the air combating 4 or 5 J-10s. It'll be Top Gun x 1000000 you can do a massive air battle. It doesn't have to be difficult, you could use maps that are basically the same except edited for more vehicles. One of my friend's clan has a server that has 20 choppers each side (they're chopper fanatics, rank 1 for TWL 2v2 chopper), I once saw a movie by the makers of Mine and Mine 2 (Nokken was it?) that had a ton of jets and blackhawks on dalian, more than possible in the original map. So those types of maps do exist.
So if you can procure some custom maps you can really introduce something new never before seen in bf2 movies.
Custom maps open up a whole variety of options to explore. Think of SF Insurgents in Karkand or Mashtuur! Think of a convoy of 10 Humvees (possible in an edited map) and like a hundred RPGs flying downhards towards them from rooftops (missing them of course). I'm thinking of the convoy scene in Black Hawk Down, etc.
There's this guy giving away this custom map that allows helicopters and jets to be in karkand! think of blackhawk landings and deployments, as well as soldiers calling in AH-64 support, all in the claustrophobic high rise surroundings of Karkand. He made a video called "War in Iraq", its on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj8j6nYjIAg
So if you can procure some custom maps you can really introduce something new never before seen in bf2 movies.
Custom maps open up a whole variety of options to explore. Think of SF Insurgents in Karkand or Mashtuur! Think of a convoy of 10 Humvees (possible in an edited map) and like a hundred RPGs flying downhards towards them from rooftops (missing them of course). I'm thinking of the convoy scene in Black Hawk Down, etc.
There's this guy giving away this custom map that allows helicopters and jets to be in karkand! think of blackhawk landings and deployments, as well as soldiers calling in AH-64 support, all in the claustrophobic high rise surroundings of Karkand. He made a video called "War in Iraq", its on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj8j6nYjIAg
wouldn't you ask your mind taht very question?
yeah i like ur other videos too
great vid man, good and interesting kills, good variety, good editiing, good movie
SWEET one MOAB, can't wait for when it comes out, looks really professional
man that sucks i hope you get a generous reimbursement and the police catch those f*kkers
Hmmm... I've thought about this again. It can be argued that it will slow down the slip of the dollar. By decreasing interest rates the Fed is causing inflation in the long run, which may make investors cop out (and decrease the dollar exchange rate). However, by decreasing interest rates the Fed is ALSO helping out economic sectors in the economy survive the credit crunch caused by the mortgaged crisis. This may encourage investors to slow their copping out of US investment (and slow down the dollar exchange rate).Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:
I think the fact that the Canadian and English banks have both lowered their interest rates is going to amazingly help the dollar and put a dent on the slide. That coupled with the fact that the FED will most likely act within six months to lower our interest rates as well will probably stop the dollar from slipping at all and start an upward reaction. That is just on the fiscal end of it.
On legislative end there is so much that we can do but probably wont do. This can include reviving the rust belt with new manufacturing. Slowing the imports of other companies and increasing internal production along with exports. Also, helping the mortgage situation could greatly affect the dollar.
Okay, first of all, you're saying that a worthless dollar means we won't have any purchasing power and our 'economy will grind to a halt'.
This is absolutely not true. A weakened dollar only means we won't have any purchasing power of IMPORTS. International trade only makes up less than 15% of our GDP (e.g. toyota cars are not imports. they are products of the american branch of toyota, sold in dollars. however they worsen our current account deficit by sending profits to their headquarters in Japan). Yes, a weakened dollar will mean imports will be inflated.
However, if you are saying that our purchasing power is decreased due to inflation sparked by the low dollar (as companies sub-contract multiple parts of their products in foreign countries, their costs rise due to exchange rate transactions, and this increased cost is passed down to the consumer in the form of higher prices), then I understand. I don't know that much about this yet, all I know is that this is what Ron Paul is saying and Ben Bernake isn't.
Why would we make and export steel when other nations are more efficient at it? We should focus more on technology and services, things that the US and the EU are good at.
I would like to reiterate what i've written above: "actually, loose monetary policy like that doesn't occur anymore, not since well over 50 years ago. that policy of printing money is morein line with what south american countries did 20 years or such and so ago."
Money growth (money supply/printing money) is actually pretty moderate according to Ben Bernake. And we've only reduced interest rates due to trying to help the credit crunch of the subprime mortgage crisis. We don't do this all the time and the Fed generally doesn't like loose monetary policy (changing the interest rate lower) because it breeds inflation. Inflation in the US would mean foreign companies won't invest in the US as much, and sell their assets there (weakening the dollar). This weakening of the dollar would mean more inflation in the US (according to Ron Paul). However, low interest rates help the banks, which then help the various economic sectors that have been hurt in mortgage crisis. So I think Bernake weighed the pros and cons of lowering the interest rates and decided to lower it for the time being.
Sorry I made a mistake above. Instead of the sentence: "Fed is not printing money, it's borrowing money. and its borrowing with T-bills and other variants. treasury bonds. " I meant: "Fed is printing money, the Treasury Department (seperate government entity) is lending T bills and treasury bonds to fund its budget". I wanted to point out that there is less confidence that the US is able to pay back its debts, because of its current account deficit, and therefore foreign investors are selling off their assets in the US, weakening the dollar. The Fed printing money doesn't directly weaken the dollar, it increases inflation, and that makes investors less than happy, which also makes them want to sell off their assets in the US.
The Fed printing money: Money supply = monetary policy, is different from lending Treasury Bills (T Bills) in order to fund the government budget, which is fiscal policy. The Fed is the Central Bank (monetary), the Treasury Department is one of the bureaucracies under the Executive Branch of the US government, which is ruled under the President. The Fed as a central Bank is much more independent from the government than other central banks. It does however have to report to Congress (Legislative) occasionally, but it retains its secrecy and independence.
This is absolutely not true. A weakened dollar only means we won't have any purchasing power of IMPORTS. International trade only makes up less than 15% of our GDP (e.g. toyota cars are not imports. they are products of the american branch of toyota, sold in dollars. however they worsen our current account deficit by sending profits to their headquarters in Japan). Yes, a weakened dollar will mean imports will be inflated.
However, if you are saying that our purchasing power is decreased due to inflation sparked by the low dollar (as companies sub-contract multiple parts of their products in foreign countries, their costs rise due to exchange rate transactions, and this increased cost is passed down to the consumer in the form of higher prices), then I understand. I don't know that much about this yet, all I know is that this is what Ron Paul is saying and Ben Bernake isn't.
Why would we make and export steel when other nations are more efficient at it? We should focus more on technology and services, things that the US and the EU are good at.
I would like to reiterate what i've written above: "actually, loose monetary policy like that doesn't occur anymore, not since well over 50 years ago. that policy of printing money is morein line with what south american countries did 20 years or such and so ago."
Money growth (money supply/printing money) is actually pretty moderate according to Ben Bernake. And we've only reduced interest rates due to trying to help the credit crunch of the subprime mortgage crisis. We don't do this all the time and the Fed generally doesn't like loose monetary policy (changing the interest rate lower) because it breeds inflation. Inflation in the US would mean foreign companies won't invest in the US as much, and sell their assets there (weakening the dollar). This weakening of the dollar would mean more inflation in the US (according to Ron Paul). However, low interest rates help the banks, which then help the various economic sectors that have been hurt in mortgage crisis. So I think Bernake weighed the pros and cons of lowering the interest rates and decided to lower it for the time being.
Sorry I made a mistake above. Instead of the sentence: "Fed is not printing money, it's borrowing money. and its borrowing with T-bills and other variants. treasury bonds. " I meant: "Fed is printing money, the Treasury Department (seperate government entity) is lending T bills and treasury bonds to fund its budget". I wanted to point out that there is less confidence that the US is able to pay back its debts, because of its current account deficit, and therefore foreign investors are selling off their assets in the US, weakening the dollar. The Fed printing money doesn't directly weaken the dollar, it increases inflation, and that makes investors less than happy, which also makes them want to sell off their assets in the US.
The Fed printing money: Money supply = monetary policy, is different from lending Treasury Bills (T Bills) in order to fund the government budget, which is fiscal policy. The Fed is the Central Bank (monetary), the Treasury Department is one of the bureaucracies under the Executive Branch of the US government, which is ruled under the President. The Fed as a central Bank is much more independent from the government than other central banks. It does however have to report to Congress (Legislative) occasionally, but it retains its secrecy and independence.
Hmmmm.... The North American Union. The NAFTA superhighway. The Amero.blademaster wrote:
me 2 I started a topic like this but I was not called anti-American heheheCameronPoe wrote:
Watch out - I started a topic like this recently and was told that I was being 'anti-American'.
but any who yeah dollar is not doing so good but U.S. might merge with mexico and Canada to form Amero currency just like Euro currency.
As confirmed by Lou Dobbs, Steve Previs of Jefferies International (a VERY respectable firm), and Ron Paul.
I'm ambivalent on this issue. It has too close ties with conspiracy theories. When they mention how the Council on Foreign Relations are like this evil cabal that wants to create basically a new North American order. I don't know man, I dont really think all of this is substantial. I doubt the 'Amero' would form and even if it does, they probably wouldn't call it the Amero.
The Security and Prosperity Partnership (http://www.spp.gov/) just wants to increase trade links and cooperation, as well as security issues. It says nothing of an American 'Schengen Agreement' (the european agreement that allows EU citizens to move freely across borders) or a unified monetary union (like the Euro). Canada and Mexico are our biggest trade partners. Its only natural to want to increase cooperation with these trade partners.
I vote 'insubstantial' for the NAU and Amero conspiracy whack job claims.
And even if it is true, I wouldn't be totally against a NAU and Amero. Albeit I would like the currency to be named something other than that wierd ass name.
Dude, what the heck are you talking about? Interest rates do not have that powerful of an effect on the currency rate. Sure, lowering interest rates might spur investment and consumption (increasing supply and demand--as it is easier to borrow capital) but what comes also as a result is inflation. This discourages investment. Hence, foreign companies would not want to invest in uncertain American capital. Which means they will not convert their foreign currency and buy Dollars (hence upping the Dollar exchange rate) in order to buy this uncertain American capital.Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:
I think the fact that the Canadian and English banks have both lowered their interest rates is going to amazingly help the dollar and put a dent on the slide. That coupled with the fact that the FED will most likely act within six months to lower our interest rates as well will probably stop the dollar from slipping at all and start an upward reaction. That is just on the fiscal end of it.
On legislative end there is so much that we can do but probably wont do. This can include reviving the rust belt with new manufacturing. Slowing the imports of other companies and increasing internal production along with exports. Also, helping the mortgage situation could greatly affect the dollar.
Reviving the manufacturing sector, are you kidding? America's manufacturing sectors cannot compete with foreign manufacturers in our free trade agreements. and to terminate those FTAs would mean protectionism and inefficiencies of our domestic industries, hurting the consumer (but benefiting these inefficient companies and the government--as they gain tax revenue from these companies). If you want exports, think what we specialize in: the service industry. Finance and capital. Science and engineering. Technology. Ipod's do not come from our manufacturing sector ladies and gentlemen. They are manufactured in China. It is our DESIGN and TECHNOLOGICAL INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL that is the export.
Bush is helping the mortgage situation. Although I do not know why. It is not government's job to intervene when people make bad decisions and want more than they can have ("i want a big house! but i have to take the risk of me not being able to afford the mortgage because i want a big house and it's riskier to borrow more sums of money as i do not have the income to reasonably cover the risk of it rising with variable interest rates!"). It's not that they're all going to be homeless. They're just going to have to refinance their mortgages and get a smaller house, like an apartment. However, helping the mortgage problem also helps the banks (who are at fault and really should live with the consequences of it--as Bush said, its not our job to help investors who have made shoddy mistakes). However now the Bank's woes are being felt in OTHER parts of the economy and that's why Bush is intervening. It is hurting other sectors of the economy as Banks lend less to companies who need it among other things.
You have a point. It's good to talk with someone that's not talking out of their ass and knows what they're talking about.Bertster7 wrote:
OK. You seem to have a decent grasp of the mechanics of global economics. Now ask yourself a few questions; does the US import more than they export, does Europe import more than they export and do what is the effect of having a weak currency on imports?-]Eucalyptus[- wrote:
i've taken courses in international economics... i dont see how the drop of the dollar is doomsday as some poster have the impression of.
if anything this will help america. already the effects of it are being felt. with a lower currency it is cheaper to buy america's exports. this will help our account deficit in the balance of payments and correct our trade imbalance with the world (which is gradually improving, due to our low dollar AND aircraft exports). if anything it will help america. it will hurt europe to have such a strong euro. exports will suffer, as such exporting industries will suffer and many will lose jobs. imports for europe will graudally become more cheaper as the euro rises. thus europe will worsen its account deficit (and in the future correct it with a lower euro--its a cycle)
if all the OPEC countries want to be paid in euros, then the euro value will rise higher (as everyone sells their currencies into the world currency market and the euro exchange rate rises as they buy it, and use the euro to purchase petroleum--which runs the world economy.)
with the dollar falling, investments around the world denoted in dollars will be sold, and the dollars received sold into the currency market with the result of pushing the dollar exchange rate lower.
i really cant see any problem that will hurt america's economy. foreign investment in america might fall but the benefits of this low dollar will overcome most of the negative effect. foreign investment falling in america is not caused by a decreasing dollar (as it would actually be preferable because american capital assets would be cheaper) but its caused by the dollar VOLATILITY. once it stabilizes investment will return again, but that will also decrease in the future because as we sell more exports, our currency value will rise again, foreign investment in america will decrease and we'll be back in the account deficit (and trade imbalance) again as we eat up more imports.
also, whoever said that disaster looms if china gives up the dollar has no idea whats going on. i assume what you mean by china giving up the dollar is unpegging it to the dollar. in which case, that would only help the US-CHINA trade balance in the US's favour and improve the US's Accounting deficit in its balance of payments.
Quite simply, the US imports way more than they export, as does Europe - for economies that import more than they export, having a weak currency is a bad thing (because imports cost you more, leading to probable trade deficits) - unless the economy adapts to utilise a different trading model that is less reliant on imports.
With that in mind, it is beneficial for Europe to have a strong currency and detrimental to the US to have a weak currency - as things currently stand. It is far from being a catastrophic scenario, but it is not a good thing for the US.
However, I believe it is a matter of time frame. I would like to point to your "as things currently stand". Yes, as the US currently imports more than it exports, and yes, as the EU imports more than it exports, EU imports will become cheaper with a stronger Euro (minimizing the cost to its accounting deficit) and US imports will become more expensive with a weaker Dollar (increasing the cost to its accounting deficit) but in the long run eventually consumers in the US will buy less imports due to its vast cost and eventually the EU will buy more imports due to its relatively low cost. What comes after is that the US's accounting deficit will reduce over time and the EU's accounting deficit will rise over time.
The unique thing with the US is that the currency has to fall extremely low to get people there to stop buying imports. We love our imports. Most of our manufacturing sectors are replaced by foreign manufacturers and hence we import. Like the EU, in order to reduce the accounting deficit we must export (not just say, American planes, but what we are specialized in: Services. As you probably already know, The Service sector of the US far exceeds manufacturing and agricultural). And while the fall in the dollar may in the short run hurt the accounting deficit eventually it will come to be to improve it. And while the rise in the euro may in the short run minimize Europe's accounting deficit eventually it will come to worsen it.
The thing is, its gonna take a LONG time. As I said, we love our imports. We need it. Half the cars in the US are from Japanese automakers (yes we can tax their American branch but their profits go to Japan's accounting balance, and create a negative reciprocal amount in OUR accounting balance).
Not to mention, especially where I live, people love their luxuries. Mercedes, Burberry, Gucci. The US income gap is vast (not necessarily bad, as Ben Bernake said, the focus shouldn't be a matter of economic equality but economic mobility) and the top of the gap is insanely wealthy. That may explain why they don't mind the increase in price of imports due to currency fluctuations that much as they have a larger disposable income. I'm not sure about the significance of the buying preferences of the top tier of our population in our accounting deficit, it's probably small, but it's still a factor.
actually, loose monetary policy like that doesn't occur anymore, not since well over 50 years ago. that policy of printing money is morein line with what south american countries did 20 years or such and so ago. Fed is not printing money, it's borrowing money. and its borrowing with T-bills and other variants. treasury bonds.Phrozenbot wrote:
One major reason why it is losing value is that the Fed is printing money out of thin air, throwing more dollars in circulation and thus diluting the value of the dollar. Plus, the lack of confidence in the dollar means less people are investing in it and eventually foreign investors will liquidate what they have invested.
The dollar is going to take a major dive. If you have lots of debt, you will be screwed. I say pay off your debts, and get your hand on some physical gold.
what IS making the dollar go down is because of the sub-prime mortgage invesments in the US housing markets. banks made bad investments, banks made losses, they loan less and at higher interest rates, sectors of the economy suffer, and it is precisely those OTHER sectors of the economy suffering which is what is making the dollar drop. world investors (US and foreign) are selling of their investments in America (cutting their losses as there is a projected recession in the coming months and as such there will be company losses (investment losses). They are then placing them elsewhere, some other country that is more stable. and that involves selling dollars (that they have been paid in, as investments in US are denoted in dollars) to the world currency exchange (which shifts the supply curve of dollars down, decreasing value) and buying whatever currency it is of the country they would like to buy investments in (basically shifting one asset in US to another form of asset in anotehr country, all the while dropping US exchange rate and upping the other country's exchange rate).
we've gone off the gold standard (Bretton woods system: world currencies backed by dollar, dollar backed by gold) in the 1970s for a particular reason, and that is in a floating currency world system account deficits (basically trade imbalances, but not exactly) can correct itself better.
i've taken courses in international economics... i dont see how the drop of the dollar is doomsday as some poster have the impression of.
if anything this will help america. already the effects of it are being felt. with a lower currency it is cheaper to buy america's exports. this will help our account deficit in the balance of payments and correct our trade imbalance with the world (which is gradually improving, due to our low dollar AND aircraft exports). if anything it will help america. it will hurt europe to have such a strong euro. exports will suffer, as such exporting industries will suffer and many will lose jobs. imports for europe will graudally become more cheaper as the euro rises. thus europe will worsen its account deficit (and in the future correct it with a lower euro--its a cycle)
if all the OPEC countries want to be paid in euros, then the euro value will rise higher (as everyone sells their currencies into the world currency market and the euro exchange rate rises as they buy it, and use the euro to purchase petroleum--which runs the world economy.)
with the dollar falling, investments around the world denoted in dollars will be sold, and the dollars received sold into the currency market with the result of pushing the dollar exchange rate lower.
i really cant see any problem that will hurt america's economy. foreign investment in america might fall but the benefits of this low dollar will overcome most of the negative effect. foreign investment falling in america is not caused by a decreasing dollar (as it would actually be preferable because american capital assets would be cheaper) but its caused by the dollar VOLATILITY. once it stabilizes investment will return again, but that will also decrease in the future because as we sell more exports, our currency value will rise again, foreign investment in america will decrease and we'll be back in the account deficit (and trade imbalance) again as we eat up more imports.
also, whoever said that disaster looms if china gives up the dollar has no idea whats going on. i assume what you mean by china giving up the dollar is unpegging it to the dollar. in which case, that would only help the US-CHINA trade balance in the US's favour and improve the US's Accounting deficit in its balance of payments.
The population may 'hate' America (I doubt it, I just think it was the unilaterialism that infuriated the people) but European governments generally work with the US. In our squabbles amongst ourselves we fail to remember that the US and Europe are allies (Western Europe AND Eastern). Our division only makes us weaker in the face of a rising totalitiarian Russia and a rising and militarizing China.
The EU has realized this and has imposed upon itself an arms embargo to China. The EU is currently focusing on energy independence so it does not have to rely on Putin's Russia Just as Bush is now trying to focus on lessing energy dependence on the Middle East, albeit some would argue he is not extreme enough in his measures.
You know there is an organization called the 'Putin Youth', like the 'Hitlerjüngend' now? Does 'cult of personality' ring a bell?
China is now not communist in the 'state socialist' sense, but 'state capitalist', basically an authoritarian-bureaucratic nation. Back when it was 'state socialist' it had a 'raison d'tat'. According to China and it's Bolshevik-like interpretation of Communism (there are many; anarcho-syndicalists, marxists, trotskyists), the purpose of authoritarian government was for it to be a 'vanguard' for the working class and to defend communism there, as well as implement it. Yet even China knows that this is to be temporary, until true communism could be reached. If you've read Marx you'll know this centralized temporal government is supposed to dissolve once communism has been fully implemented. Well China has turned away from communism. And there is no more threat to communism to defend against (it is now destroying communism itself). Then what is the purpose of this authoritative government now? It has lost it's 'raison d'tat' and needs to democratize. The Communists Party has spoken about a new 'Socialist Countryside' policy to appease the peasants hurt during this capitalist transition. I doubt that this is anything but lip service and the policy is more about concessions to the peasants to stop their revolting and constantly protesting citizenry. The Communist Party is full of businessmen. What is the Communist Party's 'raison d'tat'? It has none. I'm not advocating overthrowing China and attempting to 'democratize' China like we tried to do in Iraq. But we must be vigilant in watching this authoritative state's actions and counter their ambition for Asia to become a gigantic 'China's Sphere of Influence'.
We owe it to our allies, both the US's and Europe's, We owe it to Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. If you want evidence of how China is currently undermining the West, look up this BBC article about China's influence in Africa. They have an entire section on it. Read articles in the 'Foreign Policy' Magazine. China is giving low-interest loans with no strings attached to African despots. That means loans that do not require reforms of corrupt institutions and no economic reforms, as such that the IMF and World Bank loans give. This loan is not meant to help Africa sincerely, it is only to acquire influence in corrupt African governments and so Africa can repay China in giving out economic development contracts (which ultimately benefit China more than Africa as the trade balance favors China). This undermining of Western influence and our progress we are trying to accomplish in trying to reform African institutions are being undermined by China in its greed for raw resources that they need to fuel China's economy. If you want more information google 'Millenium Challenge Corporation'. It is a US government sponsored aid organization that only gives aid to nations that have made the necessary adjustments and reforms.
There is no purpose to keep pouring in aid into africa if the aid is squandered due to corruption and economic policy inefficiencies.
I would also like to point out a BBC article about Amnesty international reporting of Russian and Chinese arms sales to the Sudanese government, which had backed the janjaweed militia. About how there are reports of aircraft firing upon Darfur civilians (this was prior to our current AU-EU solution that we have currently)
The US may have the largest military budget in the world, but look at its relative size in relation to its GDP. Other nations have higher percentages of military spending in relation to their GDP. We only are spending so much because our economy is the largest in the world. Although we should also mention the fact that we need to have a presence in the world as a deterrent--there may be some places where it is unnecessary to have American soldiers stationed--however our 30,000 troops in the North Korean/South Korean border was the only thing standing in the way of NK invading SK long long ago. If we didn't have minefields, the troops there, the troops in Japan, and our Navy patroling East Asia, they would have ignored American and world criticism long ago and invaded it. Words and diplomacy are important in international affairs--power to back up your words is not to be underestimated however.
The West (US and Europe, and one may include Australia ) must settle their differences and work together. We are all liberal democracies in a world facing jihadist international terrorism, rising authoritarianism in Russia and a China with uncertain ambitions. The nuclear proliferation in the ex-USSR isn't helping, and Iran, a known state sponsor of terrorism (hezbollah, etc) having nuclear technology--not saying they want nuclear weapons, they might just want it as they say for peaceful means. But this, coming from a state sponsor of terrorism? Can you imagine a nuclear weapon in the hands of jihadist terror?
Our ties with the UK are the strongest, our ties with Germany second. Our ties with Europe are undeniable. Our ties with Australia (and NZ) are undeniable (ANZUS). Our ties with our Asian allies of Japan (whom we've rescued from authoritarianism), South Korea (whom we've regrettably occasionally PLACED authoritarianism in during the Cold War in an attempt to avoid communism--regrettable, but it was the Cold War), and Taiwan (not official ally but we have a pact).
We as the US, EU, and Australia must also focus on energy independence and the production of non-fossil fuel energy sources (perhaps look keenly upon 'clean coal' with CO2 trapping technology, which is a fossil fuel, but emits nothing).
Energy Independence through non-CO2 emitting sources not only helps Climate Change (which is unevitable but we can stop the worst effects of it now--effects which will harm poor nations the most), but also help fight international jihadist terror.
Where do you think international terrorists organizations are getting their funding? Oil gets the Saudi economy running, Saudi Arabia practices the most extreme form of Islam called Wahhabism, many rich businessmen involved in this economy donate their money to very strict Islamic charities, and some, not all, but some are affiliated to terrorist organizations. In Islam one of the pillars is to give charity, I'm not sure but I believe it is around 10% of your wealth to charity? Thats a lot of charity and its more than westerners give to charities. That's also a lot of funding for the few extremist Islamic 'Charities' that fund extremist Mosques (the same mosques that wanted to behead those Scandinavians for drawing a cartoon) and terrorist organizations. It's not just al-Qaeda, there are 20 other different international jihadist (yes i know jihad means struggle and not holy war, but it is implied as such in the terrorist vocabulary) organations that want to destroy us (According to a released National Intelligence report after 9/11).
Anyone who thinks jihadist terrorism is a over-blown threat, think of not only 9/11, london bus bombings, and spain. Think of Turkey (a nation that was against the war). Think of the Ugandan Embassy bombing. Think of the 30+ incidents involving jihadist terrorism (less publicized) that occured all throughout north and west Africa.
We, as the US, EU and Australia, have lost our way. We have become weakened through internal squabbling. We as liberal democracies should work in a multilateral fashion (not necessarily through the UN, as China and Russia control 2 SC seats) to meet to challenges of the 21st century. And that is Jihadist terrorism, Authoritarianism and Climate Change/Energy Independence (as well as those side projects such as helping alleviate poverty and develop poor countries--We as Americans may be giving the most world aid, but as a proportion of our GDP, it is abysmal, and must be changed.)
And there is still signs of hope. The US, Germany, France and the UK are currently in line with a unified policy against Iranian uranium enrichment. US (AND FRENCH, I MIGHT ADD) intelligence might be wrong that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but could this historical state-sponsor of terrorism be trusted with uranium enrichment? Why did it reject uranium offers from the Gulf states? Why did it reject the offer of Russia to have Iranian uranium enriched in Russia under supervision? Many compromises, many rejections. There is still hope however--Ahmadinijad's power is waning.
The EU has realized this and has imposed upon itself an arms embargo to China. The EU is currently focusing on energy independence so it does not have to rely on Putin's Russia Just as Bush is now trying to focus on lessing energy dependence on the Middle East, albeit some would argue he is not extreme enough in his measures.
You know there is an organization called the 'Putin Youth', like the 'Hitlerjüngend' now? Does 'cult of personality' ring a bell?
China is now not communist in the 'state socialist' sense, but 'state capitalist', basically an authoritarian-bureaucratic nation. Back when it was 'state socialist' it had a 'raison d'tat'. According to China and it's Bolshevik-like interpretation of Communism (there are many; anarcho-syndicalists, marxists, trotskyists), the purpose of authoritarian government was for it to be a 'vanguard' for the working class and to defend communism there, as well as implement it. Yet even China knows that this is to be temporary, until true communism could be reached. If you've read Marx you'll know this centralized temporal government is supposed to dissolve once communism has been fully implemented. Well China has turned away from communism. And there is no more threat to communism to defend against (it is now destroying communism itself). Then what is the purpose of this authoritative government now? It has lost it's 'raison d'tat' and needs to democratize. The Communists Party has spoken about a new 'Socialist Countryside' policy to appease the peasants hurt during this capitalist transition. I doubt that this is anything but lip service and the policy is more about concessions to the peasants to stop their revolting and constantly protesting citizenry. The Communist Party is full of businessmen. What is the Communist Party's 'raison d'tat'? It has none. I'm not advocating overthrowing China and attempting to 'democratize' China like we tried to do in Iraq. But we must be vigilant in watching this authoritative state's actions and counter their ambition for Asia to become a gigantic 'China's Sphere of Influence'.
We owe it to our allies, both the US's and Europe's, We owe it to Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. If you want evidence of how China is currently undermining the West, look up this BBC article about China's influence in Africa. They have an entire section on it. Read articles in the 'Foreign Policy' Magazine. China is giving low-interest loans with no strings attached to African despots. That means loans that do not require reforms of corrupt institutions and no economic reforms, as such that the IMF and World Bank loans give. This loan is not meant to help Africa sincerely, it is only to acquire influence in corrupt African governments and so Africa can repay China in giving out economic development contracts (which ultimately benefit China more than Africa as the trade balance favors China). This undermining of Western influence and our progress we are trying to accomplish in trying to reform African institutions are being undermined by China in its greed for raw resources that they need to fuel China's economy. If you want more information google 'Millenium Challenge Corporation'. It is a US government sponsored aid organization that only gives aid to nations that have made the necessary adjustments and reforms.
There is no purpose to keep pouring in aid into africa if the aid is squandered due to corruption and economic policy inefficiencies.
I would also like to point out a BBC article about Amnesty international reporting of Russian and Chinese arms sales to the Sudanese government, which had backed the janjaweed militia. About how there are reports of aircraft firing upon Darfur civilians (this was prior to our current AU-EU solution that we have currently)
The US may have the largest military budget in the world, but look at its relative size in relation to its GDP. Other nations have higher percentages of military spending in relation to their GDP. We only are spending so much because our economy is the largest in the world. Although we should also mention the fact that we need to have a presence in the world as a deterrent--there may be some places where it is unnecessary to have American soldiers stationed--however our 30,000 troops in the North Korean/South Korean border was the only thing standing in the way of NK invading SK long long ago. If we didn't have minefields, the troops there, the troops in Japan, and our Navy patroling East Asia, they would have ignored American and world criticism long ago and invaded it. Words and diplomacy are important in international affairs--power to back up your words is not to be underestimated however.
The West (US and Europe, and one may include Australia ) must settle their differences and work together. We are all liberal democracies in a world facing jihadist international terrorism, rising authoritarianism in Russia and a China with uncertain ambitions. The nuclear proliferation in the ex-USSR isn't helping, and Iran, a known state sponsor of terrorism (hezbollah, etc) having nuclear technology--not saying they want nuclear weapons, they might just want it as they say for peaceful means. But this, coming from a state sponsor of terrorism? Can you imagine a nuclear weapon in the hands of jihadist terror?
Our ties with the UK are the strongest, our ties with Germany second. Our ties with Europe are undeniable. Our ties with Australia (and NZ) are undeniable (ANZUS). Our ties with our Asian allies of Japan (whom we've rescued from authoritarianism), South Korea (whom we've regrettably occasionally PLACED authoritarianism in during the Cold War in an attempt to avoid communism--regrettable, but it was the Cold War), and Taiwan (not official ally but we have a pact).
We as the US, EU, and Australia must also focus on energy independence and the production of non-fossil fuel energy sources (perhaps look keenly upon 'clean coal' with CO2 trapping technology, which is a fossil fuel, but emits nothing).
Energy Independence through non-CO2 emitting sources not only helps Climate Change (which is unevitable but we can stop the worst effects of it now--effects which will harm poor nations the most), but also help fight international jihadist terror.
Where do you think international terrorists organizations are getting their funding? Oil gets the Saudi economy running, Saudi Arabia practices the most extreme form of Islam called Wahhabism, many rich businessmen involved in this economy donate their money to very strict Islamic charities, and some, not all, but some are affiliated to terrorist organizations. In Islam one of the pillars is to give charity, I'm not sure but I believe it is around 10% of your wealth to charity? Thats a lot of charity and its more than westerners give to charities. That's also a lot of funding for the few extremist Islamic 'Charities' that fund extremist Mosques (the same mosques that wanted to behead those Scandinavians for drawing a cartoon) and terrorist organizations. It's not just al-Qaeda, there are 20 other different international jihadist (yes i know jihad means struggle and not holy war, but it is implied as such in the terrorist vocabulary) organations that want to destroy us (According to a released National Intelligence report after 9/11).
Anyone who thinks jihadist terrorism is a over-blown threat, think of not only 9/11, london bus bombings, and spain. Think of Turkey (a nation that was against the war). Think of the Ugandan Embassy bombing. Think of the 30+ incidents involving jihadist terrorism (less publicized) that occured all throughout north and west Africa.
We, as the US, EU and Australia, have lost our way. We have become weakened through internal squabbling. We as liberal democracies should work in a multilateral fashion (not necessarily through the UN, as China and Russia control 2 SC seats) to meet to challenges of the 21st century. And that is Jihadist terrorism, Authoritarianism and Climate Change/Energy Independence (as well as those side projects such as helping alleviate poverty and develop poor countries--We as Americans may be giving the most world aid, but as a proportion of our GDP, it is abysmal, and must be changed.)
And there is still signs of hope. The US, Germany, France and the UK are currently in line with a unified policy against Iranian uranium enrichment. US (AND FRENCH, I MIGHT ADD) intelligence might be wrong that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but could this historical state-sponsor of terrorism be trusted with uranium enrichment? Why did it reject uranium offers from the Gulf states? Why did it reject the offer of Russia to have Iranian uranium enriched in Russia under supervision? Many compromises, many rejections. There is still hope however--Ahmadinijad's power is waning.
genius_man16 wrote:
well, you do damage things when you fall (and yourself, lol) and you do slightly more damage when you are in your parachute
i don't have pics, but my buddies and i tested it on an empty server once
so i guess he was about to die and you did the finishing damage
HAHAHAHAH classic.Wallpaper wrote:
Whenever I jihad a tank and the busted car flies back at me and kills me
nice job moab, nice cinematics, i must applaud
one bit of constructive criticism however:
you make it very realistic, how about making it more realistic by editing the parts where they enter the blackhawk? because the soldiers don't just climb into the blackhawk, they kind of 'teleport' into it, and it seems less realistic. perhaps show them walking up to the blackhawk, then cut to a scene where they are already in the blackhawk and is lifting off?
one bit of constructive criticism however:
you make it very realistic, how about making it more realistic by editing the parts where they enter the blackhawk? because the soldiers don't just climb into the blackhawk, they kind of 'teleport' into it, and it seems less realistic. perhaps show them walking up to the blackhawk, then cut to a scene where they are already in the blackhawk and is lifting off?
EucalyptuS
Europe
Europe
and i dont think hes trying to 'trick us' or anything
i think its just the hitbox and lag that let the type 88 kill him.
in any case, i think you should all stop being so mean to mushroom as he made such a good video (nice editing) regardless. i dont know about you, but i've never shot a guy out of a fast moving heli with a sniper rifle
in any case, i think you should all stop being so mean to mushroom as he made such a good video (nice editing) regardless. i dont know about you, but i've never shot a guy out of a fast moving heli with a sniper rifle
OMG WHAT A BATTLE nice one dude! soooooo intense its like a movie or choreographed
no i think he meant a game existing first, then all the other crap that comes after,-]Eucalyptus[- wrote:
Halo's storyline is one of the main aspects of the game, not to mention its music and game play among other things. Halo's storyline is not to be belittled. However I don't think any game can stand up to RPG's.... their main purpose in life is to create an alternate world. To do taht, you need depth of story and detail, as it is a Role Playing Game they need to make a whole new universe.... i think Elder Scrolls and all those other RPG's can't compete really
lord of the rings/ star wars arent games. they're spin offs of movies
Halo's storyline is one of the main aspects of the game, not to mention its music and game play among other things. Halo's storyline is not to be belittled. However I don't think any game can stand up to RPG's.... their main purpose in life is to create an alternate world. To do taht, you need depth of story and detail, as it is a Role Playing Game they need to make a whole new universe.... i think games can't compete with the Elder Scrolls and all those other RPG's really
cool dude +1
i love uncut frag videos, i hate it when people edit out lapses in the kills cause then u dont know if its all those kills in a row or just an assemble of kills
i love uncut frag videos, i hate it when people edit out lapses in the kills cause then u dont know if its all those kills in a row or just an assemble of kills
yeah but the thing was i was convinced it had something to do with windows update so i searched 'loading maps windows update' and i couldn't find anything
okay after hours at work i found out i had to rename a radial file. it had nothing to do with windows update. i also deleted the my documents bf2142 file again too just in case.
i fixed it, anyone else having the same problem as me go here:
http://www.teamwarfare.com/forums/showt … did=372253
i fixed it, anyone else having the same problem as me go here:
http://www.teamwarfare.com/forums/showt … did=372253
Hey guys, i've been able to play bf2142 just fine before, i didnt do anything with the computer, installing new programs etc, changing registry settings, or whatever, nada. all ive been doing for the last few days was play bf2142, cnc3, bf2142, cnc3, thats all.
why do new problems always arrive when you do absolutely nothing? computers are supposed to be logical. a + b = c. if u dont change anythign with the computer, there shouldnt be any problems.
unfortunately now my bf2142 can't even get into servers, load the maps anymore. it loads, and it loads SLOW, then the entire game freezes at 3/4 of the way there or 1/2. i cant press escape to unload resources, i cant ctrl alt delete (or ctrl shift esc as vista would have it) the entire application just froze.
this all happend right after i installed the recent windows updates:
i updated it on june 11th.
now is june 12th and i cant freakin play anymore.
so what do i do? i uninstalled the wretched updates. restart, extra restart (just in case, problems arise in computers out of nowhere so i assume this sort of voodoo magic might work), start bf2142 and try to join server but it doesnt work. also freezes. then i google bf2142 and windows update to see if anyone has the same problem. sure, they might, but its only similar and not the same. for example, their problem was all the way back in 2006, in the early patches of bf2142 when bf2142 said not to install a particular windows update. ladies and gentlemen, my comptuer is not that ancient in updates, the last time i updated it was june. then anotehr source on the internet says to delete the Battlefield 2142 folder in My Documents so the game can reload all the stuff it reloads when you load maps. done. i deleted that folder, restarted my computer, turned on bf2142 and reset all my video settings. i then try to load a map, with the title saying "Optimizing shaders, this happens whenever you change video settings" and it FREEZES AGAIN AT 3/4 of the LOAD!!! WHY!!!!! WHY!!!!!!!!!
i'm in tears right now, please help me
computer:
64 bit system, windows vista, intel dual core 2.4 ghz e6600, geforce 8800 gtx, 2 GB of 800 hrz corsair 4-4-4-12 ram.
i run the game on 1600 x 1200, with everything medium. i dont think game settings is an issue since those settings worked fine for 2 months.
windows updates:
Security Patch for Microsoft .NET framework, version 2.0 (KB929916) - Important
Security Update for Windows Vista for x64 based systems (KB935807) - Important
Update for Windows Vista for x64 based systems (KB936357) - Important
Update for Windows Mail Junk Email Filter for x64 based systems [July 2007] (KB905866) - Recommended
Update for Windows Vista for x64 based systems (KB933928) - Recommended
Update for Windows Vista for x64 based systems (KB935280) - Recommended
Update for Windows Vista for x64 based systems (KB937077) - Recommended
all of these updates were 'published' (as it says) July 10th 2007
why do new problems always arrive when you do absolutely nothing? computers are supposed to be logical. a + b = c. if u dont change anythign with the computer, there shouldnt be any problems.
unfortunately now my bf2142 can't even get into servers, load the maps anymore. it loads, and it loads SLOW, then the entire game freezes at 3/4 of the way there or 1/2. i cant press escape to unload resources, i cant ctrl alt delete (or ctrl shift esc as vista would have it) the entire application just froze.
this all happend right after i installed the recent windows updates:
i updated it on june 11th.
now is june 12th and i cant freakin play anymore.
so what do i do? i uninstalled the wretched updates. restart, extra restart (just in case, problems arise in computers out of nowhere so i assume this sort of voodoo magic might work), start bf2142 and try to join server but it doesnt work. also freezes. then i google bf2142 and windows update to see if anyone has the same problem. sure, they might, but its only similar and not the same. for example, their problem was all the way back in 2006, in the early patches of bf2142 when bf2142 said not to install a particular windows update. ladies and gentlemen, my comptuer is not that ancient in updates, the last time i updated it was june. then anotehr source on the internet says to delete the Battlefield 2142 folder in My Documents so the game can reload all the stuff it reloads when you load maps. done. i deleted that folder, restarted my computer, turned on bf2142 and reset all my video settings. i then try to load a map, with the title saying "Optimizing shaders, this happens whenever you change video settings" and it FREEZES AGAIN AT 3/4 of the LOAD!!! WHY!!!!! WHY!!!!!!!!!
i'm in tears right now, please help me
computer:
64 bit system, windows vista, intel dual core 2.4 ghz e6600, geforce 8800 gtx, 2 GB of 800 hrz corsair 4-4-4-12 ram.
i run the game on 1600 x 1200, with everything medium. i dont think game settings is an issue since those settings worked fine for 2 months.
windows updates:
Security Patch for Microsoft .NET framework, version 2.0 (KB929916) - Important
Security Update for Windows Vista for x64 based systems (KB935807) - Important
Update for Windows Vista for x64 based systems (KB936357) - Important
Update for Windows Mail Junk Email Filter for x64 based systems [July 2007] (KB905866) - Recommended
Update for Windows Vista for x64 based systems (KB933928) - Recommended
Update for Windows Vista for x64 based systems (KB935280) - Recommended
Update for Windows Vista for x64 based systems (KB937077) - Recommended
all of these updates were 'published' (as it says) July 10th 2007
if you learn to use the G36e effectively you would be better off.SyDuS wrote:
problem is most of the bf2 community cannot stand the gun, all these l85 posts get an OMFGWTF teh gunz is teh sux, Un@curayt POS. because few ever learn how to use it effectively, i personally love it, my favourite assault rifle, mouse button bound to single/full depending on situation and the thing rocks. probably the best gun for pesky mounted LMG campers, dunno why but my kdr and kills in general are far higher with it than the G36e or M16, and anyone with half assed accurate skills can rack up kills with the G36, oh and the best thing is the OMFG U L85 NOOB is far less common than the OMFG U G36e NOOB
hallo willkommen zum forums
-=]NS[=-Eagle wrote:
Well, there is a cruise ship docked there so the carrier cant be much bigger than that eh?-]Eucalyptus[- wrote:
ok this might be a technicality, but i dont think an aircraft carrier could be in that channel and so close to land. the depth of the water isnt enough
an aircraft carrier is much, much bigger than any cruise ship
LONG LIVE THE USS REGAN!!!
ok this might be a technicality, but i dont think an aircraft carrier could be in that channel and so close to land. the depth of the water isnt enough
OmG guys you guys are so mean!!! dont you know the poor z-8 is sensitive about her weight?????
i was responding to people who didnt get your sarcasm and thought that tactic was brilliant (e.g. the guy who 'used to do that all the time with his buddies')