Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!PBAsydney wrote:
Hvað ertu nú að rugla í mér, ég er með betri ratio í næstum öllu en þú![n00b]Tyler wrote:
Ertu líka frá Íslandi? >: oPBAsydney wrote:
Well since there is no thread of this kind alive, why not make another one?
Þetta eru nú ágæt stats hjá þér en mín eru betri
/ok stats
Search
Search results: 44 found, showing up to 50
He does look normal... now. Not so much back in the late '70's, though...Erkut.hv wrote:
kinda funny, the dude look snormal (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), but he's out of his friggin mind. One of the most oil-rich countries on the planet, and they need nuclear energy? For what? All of the mud huts really have electricity?
The prisoner with the bag over his head is an American hostage during Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979. The angry guy second from the right appears to be Ahmadinejad (though I have not seen sufficient evidence to prove this is him, but sure looks like him to me and many others).
More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/docum … ages.phtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad
Bob.
Excellent post, very constructive! Also, I didn't know Jesus was on this discussion board.elite wrote:
omg basic knife badge is soo easy, jesus
Hey, YitEarp, I remember playing on some servers with you quite awhile ago.
Those awards are difficult, but check this out. As I mentioned in the "prove ubar wrong" thread....
I was looking at the requirements for the new Special Forces "special service" medals (the Navy Seal Special Service Medal, for example) and was totally floored at the requirements for each of these. For those of you who haven't looked, to get a "special service" medal, you must play in that team, or army, for 4,500 hours - for each team's medal!!!
Now, this seemed rediculous to me, so I did some simple analysis on this requirement just to gain some perspective.
Let's consider someone who has absolutely no life, is independently wealthy and can play for 40 hours a week, with play always devoted to a single team (Seals only, for example). So, we divide the 4500 hour requirement by 40 hours per week, and we get 112.5 weeks. This means that it would take even some total loser making it his full time job to play as a Seal for 112.5 weeks, or 2.2 YEARS, to earn this one badge. Rinse and repeat for the other 5 "special service" badges.
Are there going to be anyone even playing BF2 two years from now, let alone anyone playing exclusively a single team full time for that period. I really hope they meant to make it 450 hours, and that some coder at EA/DICE just made a very bad typo; as it stands, these badges are a joke.
Those awards are difficult, but check this out. As I mentioned in the "prove ubar wrong" thread....
I was looking at the requirements for the new Special Forces "special service" medals (the Navy Seal Special Service Medal, for example) and was totally floored at the requirements for each of these. For those of you who haven't looked, to get a "special service" medal, you must play in that team, or army, for 4,500 hours - for each team's medal!!!
Now, this seemed rediculous to me, so I did some simple analysis on this requirement just to gain some perspective.
Let's consider someone who has absolutely no life, is independently wealthy and can play for 40 hours a week, with play always devoted to a single team (Seals only, for example). So, we divide the 4500 hour requirement by 40 hours per week, and we get 112.5 weeks. This means that it would take even some total loser making it his full time job to play as a Seal for 112.5 weeks, or 2.2 YEARS, to earn this one badge. Rinse and repeat for the other 5 "special service" badges.
Are there going to be anyone even playing BF2 two years from now, let alone anyone playing exclusively a single team full time for that period. I really hope they meant to make it 450 hours, and that some coder at EA/DICE just made a very bad typo; as it stands, these badges are a joke.
What about a little bit of javascript code that people can use as their sigs, instead of a generated jpg image? Have the javascript grab the stats from bf2s.com, but the person would have to host the images of the awards somewhere else, on their own server or on some image hosting site. Don't know if this is possible, but I've seen similar things for other services (such as some of the old new feeds for websites). Something like this could even be configurable by the user (color scheme, etc), and should be relatively easy on your server (no different than loading a player stats page, I would think). Hmmm...Ryan_Mercury wrote:
That's fine and all, but those sigs when generated, need a place to be hosted and constantly updated. So, unless that happens, programming the app is pointless unless you have the $$ for a server to do that on and permission from EA to get stats from.
I'm sure chuy wouldn't mind hosting them and all, so long as it uses consiterably less resources and bandwith than the previous method.
So..
Bob.
Here's a story for you.
A woman walks into her doctor's office and says to her doctor, "Doctor, it hurts when I raise my arms like this!"
The doctor replies, "then don't raise your arms!"
That being said, does your computer fulfill the minimum specifications for the game/expansion? If not, that may be an issue that would cause this sort of behavior. Also, make sure you have all the latest video and sound drivers installed for you specific equipment. You might also look into whether there are updated drivers for your motherboard, for example.
Bob.
A woman walks into her doctor's office and says to her doctor, "Doctor, it hurts when I raise my arms like this!"
The doctor replies, "then don't raise your arms!"
That being said, does your computer fulfill the minimum specifications for the game/expansion? If not, that may be an issue that would cause this sort of behavior. Also, make sure you have all the latest video and sound drivers installed for you specific equipment. You might also look into whether there are updated drivers for your motherboard, for example.
Bob.
And, alternately, America evidently keeps people who cannot even spell or write proper English. Why? Because we're free here, free to speak whatever language we choose or even free to spell and write poorly.CreepingDeath wrote:
Yeah . living here in the USA it's either the MEXICANS taking all of the jobs, or the Packies buying up and running everything. HIDDING behind that think pieceof glass because, so many of us are sick of thier cheap ass ways.
The other day I went into a 7/11 and there was a african american, buying most likely a 2-3day old muffin that was sitting on the counter by the cashier place.(Yes under plastic glass). I know many of times if i am owed like 2-5- 10 cents back, ill just say keep it.
Well this guy was a few cents short of buying the muffin, trying to dig up a few cents more out of his pockets,
Myself thinking it was like 25 30 cents diffrance and knowing i could spare a quarter to help his guy out. what's that 25 cents. Well it turned out he was only 3 cents short of being able to buy it.
I said VERY LOUDLY ?" OH MY FUCKING GOD " you cant be fucking serious your crying over 3 cents. you cheap ass mother that's where i quit. Then i asked what you couldn't spare 3 4 cents for a guy to get a muffin ?No worries, i don't think she even knew what I was saying since now days america lets anyone in no matter if they can speak our lanugage or not into our country.
America has always been a "melting pot" of languages (and people). Indeed, the English language itself, even before America was "discovered" by the Spanish, was a melting pot language. Do you eat beef, or do you eat cow? Venison, or deer? "Beef" and "venison", for example, are derivatives of French words. And English borrows many, many words from many different languages...
Because illegals are the only spanish speakers, evidently? Despite the fact that Texas and California had Spanish speakers living there long before the first English speakers ever set foot there, not to mention Louisiana/New Orleans with the French and Creole speakers that have lived there for centuries. Etc. etc.CreepingDeath wrote:
Then the same day I was at Sears, They just did the advertisments over the radio in english, Then again in spanish. I think this is BULLSHIT fully. Why should we have to accomidate illegales in our country and as andy dice clay said and i love it. IF YOU CAN'T speak my mother fucking lanaguage get the fuck out of my country.
Lastly, how much of the Black Foot language do you speak? Iroquois? Inuit? If you can't speak the original languages of this land, why don't you go back to Europe where you came from!?!?
LOL
Bob.
Which is why communism doesn't work. And to go further, capitalism is a much better concept, in practice, because it uses people's tendency for selfishness, and uses it for the good of all (when people work hard to get the things they want, it typically benefits everyone).xX[Elangbam]Xx wrote:
i love the way it is now, but some aspects of communism i do like. like the unselfishness and equality. But that's impossible to have with humans no offense
But that being said, capitalists are NOT totally selfish. Americans give more money to charitable causes through individual donations that most (if not all) nations' GOVERNMENTS.
Bob.
That depends on the application. For my purposes - displaying and giving out sigs to my gaming group (clan) members, tehsigs doesn't work because you have to have a unique email address based account for every sig, and quite honestly you have to have the time and inclination to care about coding their sig. Now, some folks here have been nice enough to give out their cool sig codes, but many in my clan aren't all that computer literate, etc.midgetspy wrote:
No offence to chuy, but the sigs on this site were 10x worse than the sigs offered by other sites (read: tehsig).
Also, I really liked having the different stats and awards sigs. Using chuy's xml stats feed, I was able to create a clan stats sig, but it was nice to have just the simple awards (badges, medals, etc) sig. Heck, I even created our clan stats sig to have the same width as the BF2s.com sigs
The hypernia/tehsigs sigs are neat, since they can be customized, etc. But for my clan's purposes they aren't very helpful. And thus far I have yet to find any sigs out there that don't require registration and/or programming.
Also, I like how Chuy had different sigs for stats and awards (as mentioned above, I formatted our clan's sig - see below - so that we could use our custom stats sig and bf2s.com's awards sig in conjunction with each other)
Bob.
And of all the "soft core" sigs out there, yours is the best I've seen. Of course, there's this weird thing where I never get to the point of actually looking at your stats...Krappyappy wrote:
i think the most annoying thing is the oversized sigs. as long as people keep it small and within the content limits of the site, it's not so bad.
the 'softcore porn' sigs from tehsig.com are prevalent because it's a large part of the culture from those forums. again, as long as they're small and show no 'unacceptable nudity' [nipples, pubic hair, sexual organs] then there should be no objection. it's no worse than what's on cable tv, after all.
of course i'm biased...
EDIT: Ack! You made it random. Now I don't like it as much, the "static" picture you had was the best.
I believe I agree with you, with one caveat: the courts should be able to strike down a law, but they should NOT be able to indicate how the law makers MUST 'fix' the law. In other words, they should not have the power to legislate from the bench. They might advise (though the supreme court has a tradition since the beginning of NOT giving advice), perhaps, but they should not be able to say to law makers, "this law (or lack thereof) is unconstitutional, you must therefore pass this other law". In other words, they should have power to strike laws, but not force lawmakers to pass other laws.whittsend wrote:
Very interesting. Now I have something to look up...thank you! Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, by it's nature MUST determine the constitutionality of laws; outside the context of the constitution, the court has no validity, therefore the constitutional ramifications of a case MUST be it's primary concern. Chief Justice Marshall may have been novel in saying that the Supreme Court can strike down laws, but that is really just a practical measure, as without it, courts would be required to make the same decision time and again by precedent (if a law had been determined unconstitutional in the SC). When the legislature accepts that a law is dead when the Supreme Court says it is, everyone is spared a lot of unnecessary hassle.SodaBob wrote:
Actually, the U.S. Constitution does not in any way establish the idea that the judicial branch, or the Supreme Court, should interpret the constitutionality of our laws. The idea that the Supreme Court has the power to declare an act, or law, of Congress as "unconstitutional" was actually established by Chief Justice Marshall in 1803 - approximately 16 years after the Constitutiona was written.
For example, let's say the court (whether the supreme court, a state court, or whatever) declares a law banning gay marriage as unconstitutional. Okay, fine. But they should not then be able to tell lawmakers, "you must now make a law declaring gay marriage legal".
Let the lawmakers (city councils, state legislatures, Congress) make laws, the executives (mayors, governors, the President) execute the laws, and the courts (city, state, federal) interpret the laws. These are the proper balance to the powers of the branches of government.
Absolutely.FeloniousMonk wrote:
What people tend to forget is that the Constitution does not grant rights. The goal of the Constitution is to limit the government's powers, not to grant rights to the people. Those rights are, as you said, considered inherent to being human.
However, the fact that many fertilized eggs never make it to becoming fetuses or babies is an act of nature (or God, if you prefer), and not of the woman.FeloniousMonk wrote:
As far as abortion goes, it's a tricky stance because of that very question as to when life begins. Even considering that life begins at conception it's still a troubling issue because women concieve many times during their lives. All it takes is a sperm entering an egg to being conception. Many times that fertilized egg will be shot out during the woman's next period, occasionally even after it has attatched itself to the womb. By that token millions of women around the world are serial killers.
I have to respectfully disagree. At some point the entity owns its own body. At some point in the baby's development, it gains a circulatory system that is completely independent of the mother's; nutrients are passed via a thin membrane from the mother's blood cells to the baby's via the umbilical (sp?) cord. Brain activity begins quite early, and is wholly independent of the mother's. Indeed, in my opinion, at no time after the egg is fertilized and attaches to the womb, is that part of the mother's body. It is inside her, yes, but that doesn't make it part of her body (or are cold germs, for example, a part of a person's body?).FeloniousMonk wrote:
Regardless of when life begins I simply believe that until birth that fetus, or person, or whatever you want to call it, is connected to the woman and thus part of her body.
I do see what you're saying here, but that's like saying that if the government has the power to ban murder with a gun, knife or club, then that means that one day the government may require it. Of course this can happen (Hitler's Holocaust would be an example), but that potential twisting of governmental powers is no reason to not pass laws to ban a practice that denies life to millions, since that potential exists with or without a ban on abortion.FeloniousMonk wrote:
I don't believe any government should have any say in what anyone does with their own body. The problem also lies in setting a precedent; if the government is given the power to ban abortion then the precedent is set for it to possibly one day require it. I doubt anyone wants government mandated abortions like the Chinese...
Absolutely agreed, here here! In my mind, unless the life of the mother is in danger, neither the government nor insurance companies should pay for abortions.FeloniousMonk wrote:
Still, whether or not abortions are legal and/or moral in whoever's eyes, people who believe that abortion is murder should not have to pay for it. Why pro-choicers are striving for state sponsored abortions is beyond me as it only harms their cause.
Bob.
I didn't seen an answer to your question (maybe I missed it?), but yes, at least that's how I did it. Now I can't speak to PHP, as I'm an ASP developer, but I stored all the ranks and their score requirements in a database table. I then simply compare the player's score and the next rank's score requirement (the next rank is determined by using the player's current rank number and adding one, of course, i.e. RankID + 1).NoGain wrote:
Many of the sites utilizing your XML feed or PHP API also show a percentage towards next rank. I haven't seen anything either in the XML and/or PHP API docs that provide this. So, my question is, are each of the various developers storing the various Ranks required scores locally, comparing the existing player score and determining the GAP in order to calculate percentage?
Or, is there some slick method?
For anyone who needs help with this, here's the math:
CurrentRankScore = the score requirement of the player's current rank
NextRankScore = the score requirement of the next rank
PlayerScore = the player's current score
Range = NextRankScore - CurrentRankScore (i.e. the difference between the two rank's requirements
Needed = NextRankScore - PlayerScore (i.e. the difference between the player's score, and the score they need to make rank)
So then the final formula is:
Percentage = ((Range-Needed)/Range) * 100
PercentageNeeded = 100 - Percentage
Example: the player has a score of 400 (meaning he's a Private First Class). Given this scenario, the values of the above would be:
CurrentRankScore = 150
NextRankScore = 500
PlayerScore = 400
Range = 500 - 150 = 350
Needed = 500 - 400 = 100
Percentage = ((350-100)/350) * 100 = (250/350) * 100 = 0.7142... * 100 = 71.42...%
Then just round to the nearest one, using whatever method your programming language (php, asp, or whatever) provides. So in this case, the player has made it about 71% toward his next rank.
PercentageNeeded = 100 - 71 = 29
Then, to create a little progress bar for each player, I just used a simple HTML table, something like this...
Code:
<table width="100"> <tr> <td width="[Percentage]%" bgcolor="blue"> </td> </td width="[PercentageNeeded]%" bgcolor="white"> </td> </tr> </table>
Code:
<table width="100" height="12" border="1"> <tr> <td width="71%" bgcolor="blue"> </td> </td width="29%" bgcolor="white"> </td> </tr> </table>
You could of course use style sheets, instead of the bgcolor= declarations, to better tweak the format of your table's background colors, border style and colors, etc.
For an example, see my gaming group's leaderboard here, written using ASP and SQL database (where you'll see I'm a better web developer than I am a BF2 player, heh heh heh):
http://www.sodabob.com/3DGames/Group/HO … ?MenuID=24
Bob.
Just because a right isn't enumerated (listed) in the Bill of Rights, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. According to the founding ideals of the U.S., as indicated by the Declaration of Independence, rights come from either nature or God (Jefferson was smart to include both believers and non-believers). As such, as he states, these rights are inalienable - in other words, indisputable and irrefutable. He writes that "among these" are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But note that this means that there are other inalienable rights as well, such as the right to privacy, the right to property (which was included in an early draft of the Declaration in the place of "pursuit of happiness"), etc.otorhinorrhea wrote:
How do you see the 9 and 10 amendments supporting the proverbial “right to privacy”…..there is no such thing.
What this means is that if laws take away these inalienable rights - even if they're not listed in the Bill of Rights - those laws can be considered unconstitutional by way of the 9th and 10th Amendments (the two of which, in short, establish that the government cannot take away rights just because those rights are not specifically listed in the Constitution and that the federal government is granted specific powers by the Constitution, but that all other powers are retained by the states or by the people themselves, respectively). Thus if the congress passes some anti-terrorist law that allows the FBI to wiretap without a warrant, for example <ahem>, then it could be considered unconconstitutional, even though "right to privacy" isn't specifically listed in the Bill or Rights.
Actually, the U.S. Constitution does not in any way establish the idea that the judicial branch, or the Supreme Court, should interpret the constitutionality of our laws. The idea that the Supreme Court has the power to declare an act, or law, of Congress as "unconstitutional" was actually established by Chief Justice Marshall in 1803 - approximately 16 years after the Constitutiona was written.otorhinorrhea wrote:
By definition the judicial branch determines if the laws created by the legislative branch and implemented by the executive branch are in line with the undying rights/rules laid down in the constitution. Everything that is legal or illegal is supposed to be interpretable in the constitution, and those interpretations are passed down by the judiciary (by the way the judiciary does not make law, but yes it is their job to interpret the laws created by the legislature or viable and legal.
History of the Marshal court:
http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_h … 2_c04.html
Transcript of the US Constitution (see Article III)
http://www.archives.gov/national-archiv … cript.html
The problem with allowing abortion is that any point that we choose for when an abortion is okay, and when it's not okay, is arbitrary. In other words, when does a developing baby become a person whose life and liberty are protected? Is it at birth? Is it at 8 months of being in the womb? 7 months? 3 months? 1 month? At conception (i.e. when the egg is fertilized)? When the fetus starts to move? When the fetus' first brainwaves begin? In short, when does "life" begin? And before you answer this, are you sure?otorhinorrhea wrote:
As for Roe v Wade, I also support it, but I disagree it is easy to see how it can be constitutionally based, i.e. the converse idea being all Americans have rights (the question is when are you a person and not a fetus)…..
And I do not argue this from a religious standpoint (I'm an agnostic). I simply see this as an issue of human rights, but not, as many see it, as an issue of the rights of the mother. Instead I see it is an issue of exactly WHEN the rights of the baby should be recognized. In my mind we should, as a society, err on the side of life, and should therefore say that life and the rights of the human begin at conception.
Bob.
Native speaker or not, there's a cure to that 8 hour time difference... Here in the U.S., we're pretty much all imigrants or the decendents of imigrants - come on in!!!Speelbal wrote:
Well exchanging Xfire ids wont help for me because there is a 8 hour time difference between US and where I live. English isnt even my native language, wich I regret..
Bob.
I guess I'm just rabidly against smoking. My grandfather died of lung cancer; before he died, the cancer had consumed so much of him that I could have lifted him off the bed - and I was 10 years old at the time. So I always encourage people to quit; I know it's difficult, but please do it!Cougar wrote:
I'll never quit smoking, if I did, I'd choke someone by days end.
If that doesn't encourage you to quit, consider the financial reasons. When my parents quit, they saved up their cigarette money for a year, and bought a sailboat, not on credit but with cash.
Bob.
If you're a good shot with a handgun, that's a perfectly reasonable round for deer hunting, lots of people do it.FeloniousMonk wrote:
screw that, next time I go hunting I'm bringing a .50ae desert eagle ^_^SodaBob wrote:
.223 cal (aka 5.56mm) is the minimum allowed by law in many states for deer hunting, so that it can take down deer. It's just not as effective, but generally if you get a good shot it will take care of the job; however, you might have a situation where even a great shot still allows the deer to run off aways before dropping../KRUX wrote:
Im not a hunter either but i doubt anyone would think a .223 would take a deer down.
I personally consider 7.62x39 (the round the SKS, AK and related rifles use), or any similarly powered round, as the minimum.
Bob.
Nail on head! Nail on head!M1-Lightning wrote:
"libertarian democratic repuplic"
Sounds like a Thomas Jefferson government.
Nicotine is an upper, not a calming agent. He should quit smoking instead, then maybe he'd be more calmDeedubya wrote:
I just noticed you smoke? If so, might I suggest when you start getting frustrated, I mean the VERY second you get pissed, stop right where you are, grab your pack, and go smoke a stick. When you get back, if your team is still being a bunch of bonetards, switch teams? Or maybe just quit playing for the night/day, or a few hours even.
As Tolkien in the Lord of the Rings so aptly said (through the character of Eowyn), "It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two, Master Warden, and those who have not swords can still die upon them." In other words, even were the good people of this world to lay down their arms, there will always be wicked people among us that will take them up. Tyranny exists because good people do not arm themselves against such evils. And even if there were a button whereby guns, and even the knowledge to make them, could be eradicated from the world - people would still kill each other with swords, knives and clubs, and would soon enough re-invent or re-engineer the gun.Nehil wrote:
Well first, I'm actually not a native swede, my parents came to Sweden during the sixties tho I was born here. So I have to study polish history also you see and that's quite alot. Becuse your country has only existed for like 300 years . And also you can call me silly or dumb but I belive military is not needed today, remove all the guns I say!
Without a government, how would you propose to give "each according to his need"? In other words, how would things that people need be redistributed from those that have the needed items and those that don't? Whatever mechanism you come up with would be a form of government.Nehil wrote:
And about your three points on anarchy, 1 and 2 collide. And by my defenition what you have written dosen't count as anarchy, far from it. Anarchy would lead to certain things as: no money, no law (THAT DOESN'T MEAN NO ORDER), no government, no guns, no opression, no borders and no "economy". HUH NO ECONOMY you say, well if you don't have money you don't need any. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." is a good idea and it would work, if we all worked hard for it.
If this dosen't count as anarchy for you lets call it something else...maybe nihilism?...Oh damn.
Also, what that quote ("ability and need") is talking about is communism/socialism, not anarchy. In the utopian ideal of anarchy, there is no government and all are equal because there IS nothing to redistribute. Somehow. But we all know that, because of the way the world is built and the fact that there are limited resources that people desire to have, there will always be some people with more of something (food and/or other resources), and those who will do anything to get that something. Which is why anarchy will never work. Sad, but true.
Thus, a libertarian democratic repuplic, that rules as little as possible while protecting the life, liberty and property of its citizens, is the best government to have.
Bob.
Your last part is absolutely true, as is your statement about the poorest of Amerians vs the average African.M1-Lightning wrote:
Much of Africa is an "anarchy". When there is no community government established to protect the people you get a country run by warlords. It's poverish and deadly. America's poorest citizens have a better life than the average African.Nehil wrote:
I know you could, but if there ever would be a anarchy I think people wouldn't even do that. If you could shoot me without any punishment, would you? Why do you have to protect yourself from? Those crazy commies? Those fucking arabs? Well I promise you that I would never hurt you, so you can rule me out.
Truly, anarchy cannot exist. It's human nature to assemble.
However, even a country run by warlords has a government - it is a feudalistic government, run by warlords
Heck, even the standard family unit is a "government".
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED!whittsend wrote:
I think my own preference would be an Anarco-sydicalist commune. People take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs but by a two thirds majority in the case of....
:-)
Your universal healthcare looks great on paper. However, it causes many problems and only works at all because of the United States. For example, if the United States had similar universal healthcare as Canada, with fixed pricing for drugs, etc. all the drug companies would go out of business OR research and development would die off, because the fixed pricing would be too low to allow them to fund further research. And guess who gets to pay for the difference in pricing between what the drug companies want to charge and what they can charge in Canada? Me!!! In other words, because you have universal healthcare in Canada (or Britain, or whatever), we citizens in the US pay even more for our medicines. On the other hand, since Canada has universal healthcare, where doctors are paid whatever low amount the government wants to pay, and the U.S. does not, all your best doctors are coming here! Why? Because they can make a sh*tload more money here than they can in Canada. This salary difference is made even worse given that, as I understand, any Canadian making over $100,000 gets hit with a 50% income tax - ouch - and they say that universal healthcare is "free". Ha!!! But even if you didn't have a brain drain into the U.S., why be an outstanding doctor, when you get paid the same as a mediocre doctor? In short, socialism breeds mediocrity.CackNBallz wrote:
Canada is under a social-democracy and I like it that way. The government helps out the people with various services like universal healthcare, free education up until highschool, subsidizes more than half of a student's tuition for post-secondary education.
It seems to be working well enough. However, the Conservatives in the country, really the western part of the country (equivalent to the "Heartland" and red states for the USA) want it to be more like America with private healthcare, corporations running more services, less social safety nets. All these things in the end will hurt the middle and lower class workers as well as the elderly, disabled and lazy.
I may vote for the Conservatives for this upcoming election just out of spite to show everyone that a country run by Conservatives is not a good thing for Canada. Canada is well-known because of its liberal ideologies, social services and humanitarian aid. I think that the Liberal Pary will win yet again, but it will be even more deadlocked than before since they will have less seats in Parliament. So... I foresee yet another short-lived minority government that isn't going to do much because they don't have enough seats to enact anything.
Unfortunately, even here in the US we're sliding toward universal, socialist healthcare, what with all the governmental meddling in the healthcare system and Hillary and her ilk continuing to back universal healthcare initiatives. But even still, the US floats the rest of the world in terms of research and development in medicines and surgical procedures. This is not to say that other countries don't have their own breakthroughs, as I know many breakthroughs have been made by individuals, groups and companies in many countries, but universal healthcare stifles innovation in medicines and techniques, simple as that.
...and impossible, given human nature. If we could push a button, and create pure anarchy (which, unlike the popular conception, does not mean "chaos", it merely means "no government"), then the biggest, baddest, smartest, most ambitious, etc. would soon take over and we'd be in the same mess.ubersoldat...dos sniper wrote:
no gov would be interesting.
I believe that we should strive for the closest thing to anarchy as possible, while still maintaining a good working representative government that can protect the rights of the few from the many as well as the rights of the many from the few...
More accurately, you claim that every economic system favors the wealthy. And yes, wealth generally begets wealth. However, only pure capitalism, coupled with a democratic republican system of government, helps guarantee an equal oportunity for the poor to succeed and become wealthy themselves. On the other hand, socialism, monarchy, despotism, and communism and their ilk all stifle individual acheivement, and therefore make it much more difficult, if not impossible, for the poor to better themselves or their community. Remember, Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey started with nothing. Anyone can still make it in America, despite our slow slide toward socialism...Tyferra wrote:
Every form of government benefits the already well off.
Communism was designed to help the working class, but never did. Even Capitalism, although there is generally less of a difference between working and middle/upper classes still benefits the wealthy!
That's like saying that Tookie Williams was a pretty good guy, you know, for having been a murderous thug.Tyferra wrote:
Edit: And Casto's pretty good as far as dictators go really.
.223 cal (aka 5.56mm) is the minimum allowed by law in many states for deer hunting, so that it can take down deer. It's just not as effective, but generally if you get a good shot it will take care of the job; however, you might have a situation where even a great shot still allows the deer to run off aways before dropping../KRUX wrote:
Im not a hunter either but i doubt anyone would think a .223 would take a deer down.
I personally consider 7.62x39 (the round the SKS, AK and related rifles use), or any similarly powered round, as the minimum.
First of all, you underestimate the intelligence of deer (for example), my friend.Womansbikeseat wrote:
hunting for fun is for pussies, THE GAME DOESN'T EVEN KNOW ITS BEING HUNTED, wtf try hunting your buddies around and shoot yourselves in the ass. Next time your out there, sneak up on bambi and wrestle it to the ground and beat it to death or stab with a pocket knife, maybe then you'll feel like a complete man.
But beyond that, unless you're a vegetarian or a vegan (see below), YOU are an even bigger p*ssy, because you do what I call "hunting by proxy". You pay the butcher or grocery store for meat that someone else killed and butchered for you. Just because you don't physically take part in the killing, doesn't mean you aren't responsible for it. Talk about weak. Now I have no problem with people who eat meat but don't hunt, unless you complain about hunters while eating your Big Mac.
Now, if you're a vegetarian or a vegan, then at least you have a leg to stand on in this argument. You can at least argue that "hunting" is evil, because you neither hunt yourself nor hunt by proxy by purchasing meat at the store. However, as Benjamin Franklin observed during his short stint as a vegetarian, (I paraphrase here) if fish can eat other fish, how can eating meat be wrong? Or as "Uncle" Ted Nugent would say, (again, paraphrased) "If God didn't want us to eat meat, why did he make it taste so good?"
Bob.
Look harder!!! Now, you're not going to get a S&W, a Colt or a Glock for less than $200, but there are sub-$200 handguns out there.Horseman 77 wrote:
Satuday Night special? if there were Really guns out there for less than 200 bucks ( $25 if you listen to Hillary ) I think I would have picked one up.
Here's a two year old writeup I just googled, talking about different choices in this price range.
http://www.doingfreedom.com/gen/0103/ba … stols.html
I once almost bought a beat up old Chinese made Makarov knock off, chambered in regular old 9mm Parabellum, for $100 (though this was about 10 years ago). There are also a lot of cheap brands out there that may be under $200; Bersa and Llama come to mind, but there are probably others as well.
Also, go to a local gunshow. There are often great used, brand name guns for CHEAP, though again you have to look hard and do your research before hand so you know what a good deal is when you see it.
http://www.gunshows-usa.com/
If you're new to gun ownership and shooting, I highly suggest that you seek out a hunter or gun safety course provided by your state, as listed here:
http://www.nrahq.org/hunting/statefishgame.asp
These courses are free in every state (as far as I know), and will help to teach you to responsibly handle your firearm. Safe handling is essential to the future of gun ownership, so please take this suggestion seriously.
Your local gun range or club may also provide such instruction, as well as tactical instruction, though these (especially the latter) will likely be fee based.
Bob.
Yes, there was a two characteristic rule, as you said, in addition to a detachable magazine. In other words, the weapon would have to have a detachable magazine, PLUS two or more other "assault rifle" characteristics, which included: a folding or telescoping stock; a pistol grip; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor, or threads to attach one; a grenade launcher.freebirdpat wrote:
And with the 1994 Assualt Weapons Ban (AWB), it took 2 characterics to call a weapon an assault weapon, if it had a bayonet lug and a pistol grip, it was considered an assault weapon.
All weapons were grandfathered in, basically if you already had one with such stuff, it was A - OK. But you could not buy a new one, or I don't think modify one with characteristics.
(Note that adding a folding or telescoping stock AUTOMATICALLY put the weapon into a banned category, since to have a folding/telescoping stock you would also have to have a pistol grip... clever of them, huh?)
You could modify your firearm to add an "assault rifle" characteristic, so long as you didn't modify it to have more than one of the additional characteristics. For example, since my MAK-90 had zero additional "assault rifle" features I was therefore able to trade out the silly original thumbhole stocks and replace them with standard AK "pistol grip" stocks. My friend and I called ATF (now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) and verified this.
But this is all moot, since the ban has been lifted (it automatically expired in 2004). I'm not sure how the end of the ban affects weapons purchased during that 10 year period, however, as far as modification.
Bob.
Here's another "UBAR is almost certainly correct, but EA/DICE are messed up in the head" situation.
I was looking at the requirements for the new Special Forces "special service" medals (the Navy Seal Special Service Medal, for example) and was totally floored at the requirements for each of these. For those of you who haven't looked, to get a "special service" medal, you must play in that team, or army, for 4,500 hours - for each team's medal!!!
Now, this seemed rediculous to me, so I did some simple analysis on this requirement just to gain some perspective.
Let's consider someone who has absolutely no life, is independently wealthy and can play for 40 hours a week, with play always devoted to a single team (Seals only, for example). So, we divide the 4500 hour requirement by 40 hours per week, and we get 112.5 weeks. This means that it would take even some total loser making it his full time job to play as a Seal for 112.5 weeks, or 2.2 YEARS, to earn this one badge. Rinse and repeat for the other 5 "special service" badges.
Are there going to be anyone even playing BF2 two years from now, let alone anyone playing exclusively a single team full time for that period. I really hope they meant to make it 450 hours, and that some coder at EA/DICE just made a very bad typo; as it stands, these badges are a joke.
I was looking at the requirements for the new Special Forces "special service" medals (the Navy Seal Special Service Medal, for example) and was totally floored at the requirements for each of these. For those of you who haven't looked, to get a "special service" medal, you must play in that team, or army, for 4,500 hours - for each team's medal!!!
Now, this seemed rediculous to me, so I did some simple analysis on this requirement just to gain some perspective.
Let's consider someone who has absolutely no life, is independently wealthy and can play for 40 hours a week, with play always devoted to a single team (Seals only, for example). So, we divide the 4500 hour requirement by 40 hours per week, and we get 112.5 weeks. This means that it would take even some total loser making it his full time job to play as a Seal for 112.5 weeks, or 2.2 YEARS, to earn this one badge. Rinse and repeat for the other 5 "special service" badges.
Are there going to be anyone even playing BF2 two years from now, let alone anyone playing exclusively a single team full time for that period. I really hope they meant to make it 450 hours, and that some coder at EA/DICE just made a very bad typo; as it stands, these badges are a joke.
You can legally own full auto rifles, short (less than 18" barrel) shotguns, and other "assault" weapons here in the US, but only if your state allows it (Kentucky and Indiana, for examples), you pay a $200 (last I heard) tax, and your purchase is registered with the BATF(E), and perhaps some other hoops to jump through. I think the weapons are also all used, as I think you cannot buy a new weapon of these sorts, they must already be in "circulation", and I believe it must be legally obtained through a dealer. Such weapons are also quite expensive. But the fact of the matter is that I could as an Indiana resident go today and buy a full auto weapon (though with the hoops you have to jump through, there's a built in "waiting period", as I understand).
As a case in point, there is a popular and very large, multi-day machine gun shoot in Kentucky every year at Knob Creek gun range, run by civilians who bring their personal, often very large caliber, machine guns. I've never been, but the shoot is open to the public for a entrance fee.
Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot
As for hunting with a full auto gun, that would be rediculous, unless you're a jerk or a poacher (such as in Africa, where poachers hunt elephants with AK-47's... and conservation officers hunt poachers with AK-47's...). It's also highly illegal here in the States to hunt with such a weapon, even where such weapons are legal to own.
On the other hand, a semi-auto "assault rifle" such as a AK-47 clone or an SKS (remember them in BF Vietnam?) are great short-range deer rifles, and are functionally no different than a semi-auto "hunting rifle", it just looks "scary". I harvested my second deer with one shot using a MAK-90 (a semi-auto AK-47 clone). Note, however, that even with semi-auto firearms there are typically magazine (aka "clip") limits; for example, most states have a rule for hunting such as "the magazine may hold only 5 rounds."
As for taking multiple shots to take down a deer, there are many variables - including your skill with a rifle, the deer jumping just as you shoot, sudden wind gusts, a particularly strong deer, etc - that would cause you to have to take more than just one shot. In other words, if your first shot only wounds the deer (and it is therefore suffering, or injured enough that it will die but take days doing so), a follow up shot or shots may be required to make the kill humane.
As a case in point, there is a popular and very large, multi-day machine gun shoot in Kentucky every year at Knob Creek gun range, run by civilians who bring their personal, often very large caliber, machine guns. I've never been, but the shoot is open to the public for a entrance fee.
Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot
As for hunting with a full auto gun, that would be rediculous, unless you're a jerk or a poacher (such as in Africa, where poachers hunt elephants with AK-47's... and conservation officers hunt poachers with AK-47's...). It's also highly illegal here in the States to hunt with such a weapon, even where such weapons are legal to own.
On the other hand, a semi-auto "assault rifle" such as a AK-47 clone or an SKS (remember them in BF Vietnam?) are great short-range deer rifles, and are functionally no different than a semi-auto "hunting rifle", it just looks "scary". I harvested my second deer with one shot using a MAK-90 (a semi-auto AK-47 clone). Note, however, that even with semi-auto firearms there are typically magazine (aka "clip") limits; for example, most states have a rule for hunting such as "the magazine may hold only 5 rounds."
As for taking multiple shots to take down a deer, there are many variables - including your skill with a rifle, the deer jumping just as you shoot, sudden wind gusts, a particularly strong deer, etc - that would cause you to have to take more than just one shot. In other words, if your first shot only wounds the deer (and it is therefore suffering, or injured enough that it will die but take days doing so), a follow up shot or shots may be required to make the kill humane.
The ones from India? Or the other "Indians"? And I believe that for the Indians you're talking about, the current vernacular is "Native American", which I don't mind so much because at least it's somewhat accurate, though I consider myself a native American myself, since I was born here...KillerTroop 11th Cav Whit wrote:
Even the Indians from here are American Indian.
Bob.
The laws of grammar were already rewritten. When I was born, "Negro" was the norm. Then it was "Black". Now it's "African-American". I certainly don't personally think someone who describes themselves as "African-American" is unpatriotic - more power to them. But it just isn't very accurate - even if "race" really existed (see my other post above).=ARF=Icefox wrote:
Yes, let us rewrite the laws of grammar because of our senses of patriotism! And lets be sure to kick out all the people in our countries who actually graduated High School and have some college education who would dare refer to themselves in a correct manner!
As far as that goes, if you want to see how grammar rules change, try reading Old English sometime!!!
The Caucasus (aka Caucasia), a region bordering Asia Minor, is located between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea which includes the Caucasus Mountains and surrounding lowlands. The highest peak is Mount Elbrus (5642m).=ARF=Icefox wrote:
And let me see if I fully understand this.. the ORDER to which I describe something, regardless of the standards of language we have accepted, is a reference to my patriotism or lack thereof? Hmmm... And just where is Caucasia, anyway?
The nations that comprise today's Caucasus include Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and parts of Russia. The northern slopes of the Caucasus are in the Russian Federation: Krasnodar Krai, Stavropol Krai and the autonomous republics Adygea, Kalmykia, Karachay-Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria, North Ossetia, Ingushetia, Chechnya and Dagestan. The northern section of the Caucasus is known as the Ciscaucasus, and the southern as the Transcaucasus...
Caucasus
So yes, the term "Caucasian" is really a misnomer just as much as "African American". My ancestors were from Europe (England, Germany, Italy, etc) and America (native), and yet I'm considered "Caucasian" or "White", despite the fact that I am neither descended from Caucasians nor the color of printer paper. Very strange.
I personally put "Other: Homo sapien sapiens" on my census form. Anything else is arbitrary.
Bob.
Which one, South American or North American? It cracks me up that Canadians call we people in the US "Americans". Odd. I guess it's better than United Statesians.KillerTroop 11th Cav Whit wrote:
Why don't we here in the USA just call ourselves AMERICAN and do away with African, and Mexican and all other references. At least put American first.
But I agree - what should people in Africa call themselves? African-American Africans? lol
What's more is that, from a scientific standpoint, there is no such thing as "race." The very idea of "race" is just an arbitrary, and therefore not very useful, classification system created hundreds of years ago to justify European dominance.
American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"
Bob.
What's weird is the the player with the highest BF2 score, BlaZiN.uk, has hardly any medals, and only has about half of the ribbons, and is even missing the Basic Commander Badge.
Bizarre.
Bizarre.
Heck, I've done that to low flying choppers with a single shotgun blast. At least twice.$toneyhigh wrote:
i love it when a heli smokes alot and i kill them with my .50 sniperrifle
did it 3 times and it whas verry nice to see 2 guys get killed in their heli by a sniper
But back more on topic, I still call BS on the AA in this game. I was in one of the AA stations on the aircraft carrier (Wake Island '07), trying out the suggestions made on the original post. There was an enemy helicopter coming in, angling toward me to shoot rockets at me. I let loose with the gatling cannon and, quickly getting a VERY good solid lock, fired all 8 missiles... and nothing. I'm sure I hurt him with the cannon (I couldn't miss, he was coming slowly straight at me), but none of the missiles hit him, and he did NOT fire flares. He was very slow moving, coming straight for me and he couldn't have been 100 yards from the deck of the carrier. And then, of course, the cannon locked up. Only after all that did he finally get a bead on me and fire - and then I died.
L.A.M.E. Lame.
I did get my vengeance when I spawned (my only AA kill in 4 rounds of trying), so I hurt him badly with the cannon, but I simply can't imagine an easier target for the AA on the carrier, and yet still couldn't get him. BS, I say.
As an aside, I kept having the missiles IN FLIGHT lock onto friendly targets either out of sight or 90 degrees off screen, and I'd get team vehicle damage. Another BS aspect of the AA that pretty much tells me to give up (much like idiots who run over their own team's landmines, then punish for it, make me not want to play Engineer).
Bob.
Bob.
All one needs to do is timestamp each update to your SQL database. Then check the timestamp with the current time. If it has been less then two hours since the last update, don't grab the new XML, just display the data already in the SQL db. If it has been more than two hours, let the web page grab the new XML and update the SQL db (updating any existing records and adding anything new). This works since your IP address can have up to three XML requests every 6 hours, and means that your leaderboard data is never older than 2 hours.aTi|Sanders wrote:
NM i was going to do a SQL version and intergrate it into Clan Command Center as a mod. Though i keep running into the issue of auto updates. I had it all written and working. Just didnt finnish it.
What the main issue is with doing SQL is you have to write the SQL insert of any new one while at the same time write an if function that if that PID already exists that it should run a update. Though at the same time you must run all this to update when the XML does.
So have fun.
I think I've seen some others already offering ASP/SQL versions of the XML leaderboard, search this topic for their solutions. If anyone is interested in my ASP/SQL solution for the XML leaderboard, let me know and I'll try to find the time to make it "generic" enough for public use.
I believe there are laws against "purchase necessary" contests. In other words, if he opens the contest only to members, he may be violating some stupid law (I personally think that you should be able to restrict the contest only to those who have donated - and that's coming from someone who has not done so). Not sure about this, though, as I'm no lawyer, but there's a reason why you always see "no purchase necessary" on all contests.DogGunn wrote:
What about selecting 10 people from random.
(Only from the people who have donated of course)
You already have their email address, this also means people will donate money to get a chance at winning?
That said, I think a simple lottery with no contest would be easiest, on you and everyone else. It would also give anyone here a chance to win, whether or not they had artistic/technical skills, game skills, time to participate in a tournament, etc.
Bob.
No, it's not his content, but the programming to make it available is. One would be free to make a deal with EA/Dice/Gamespy/et. al. to create your own stats site directly from EA's stats data, but "scraping" Chuy's site to grab that same data, via his hard and excellent work, would be unethical and not very nice.haligan wrote:
Since this is my first post here I'd like to say thanks for the stats, but I wouldn't call what you have queried your content. At most it is EAs, but don't take that as being ungrateful for what you have setup.
Bob.
Yes! In fact, we really don't need the SPM as that can be easily calculated. It would be much more useful to have just the Nick, PID, Score, Kills, Deaths and Time. With those chunks of data, we can calculate all the other "vital stats", such as SPM, KPM, DPM, etc.Lord_Arkhan wrote:
I am Missing the "Kill/Death Ratio"! Chuy please put it in.
Regardless, the XML feed is VERY cool, thanks!!!
Now I can't "prove" this, but I believe that the damage amount shown for the M24 sniper rifle just has to be wrong. The M24 currently shows as having a Damage score of 95, but this seems too high, given that the M95 (which fires a .50 cal bullet) has that same damage score (i.e. a damage of 95), but the G3 - which in real life fires the same cartridge (.308 cal) as the M24 - shows a damage of 40.Krauser98 wrote:
If you think something has been mistakenly placed in UBAR or if you think the requirements may be wrong, this is the place to let them know (in an adult fashion) what exactly the problem is.
As a feature request for UBAR - it would be cool if all the weapons listed real-life caliber and manufacturer, where applicable. In other words, for example, for the MP-5 it would list Caliber as 9mm and manufacturer as H&K, along with the other statistics. Just a thought.
Thanks.
Hey, no problem, just some thoughts. I can tell you I /really/ appreciate all the hard work you've done - your site is so much nicer than looking at stats in BFHQ - and will visit some of your ad sponsors to help you out...
That's what I was thinking too, though I wasn't talking about EA serving the information as XML. However, that's a great idea, too - if EA created a secondary stats server that you could query and get XML from, that would probably fix whatever problems with DOS attacks they've had, AND allow anyone to query the stats database.
What I was saying was that, if chuy implimented my idea (or something similar), we could use bf2s.com as a sort of 'filter' between EA's stats server and our websites. bf2s.com would grab the info from EA (just like it does now for the player stats pages on bf2s.com), but instead of returning HTML, it would return just the raw data as an XML file. Then we website owners/developers could do whatever we wished with the data, and furthermore he could then re-release his stats package for web developers, perhaps as a simple XML stylesheet or something of that nature, or whatever.
As for giving credit where credit is due, I agree, though the stats package that he had distributed in the past could be just as easily modified to not indicate chuy's authorship, unless I'm missing something.
ANOTHER IDEA would be that he could create a little javascript thing similar to those "old fashioned" newsfeed services, like http://www.moreover.com/ ??? Though I'm not sure they still use that technology for newsfeeds, hopefully you know what I'm talking about? Here's an example:
http://www.sodabob.com/Science/
What I was saying was that, if chuy implimented my idea (or something similar), we could use bf2s.com as a sort of 'filter' between EA's stats server and our websites. bf2s.com would grab the info from EA (just like it does now for the player stats pages on bf2s.com), but instead of returning HTML, it would return just the raw data as an XML file. Then we website owners/developers could do whatever we wished with the data, and furthermore he could then re-release his stats package for web developers, perhaps as a simple XML stylesheet or something of that nature, or whatever.
As for giving credit where credit is due, I agree, though the stats package that he had distributed in the past could be just as easily modified to not indicate chuy's authorship, unless I'm missing something.
ANOTHER IDEA would be that he could create a little javascript thing similar to those "old fashioned" newsfeed services, like http://www.moreover.com/ ??? Though I'm not sure they still use that technology for newsfeeds, hopefully you know what I'm talking about? Here's an example:
http://www.sodabob.com/Science/
Perhaps you've thought about this, but what about making the data for individual stats pages available as simple XML? Then you could allow people to post stats on their own sites in one or both of two ways.
1. You could simply just allow a simple query to your server, such as http://bf2s.com/xml/PlayerID/ that would return an XML file with all that Player's stats. The web site owner could then develop his own programming and site layout to deal with that XML data. To help people do this, you could provide the nice graphics you use, etc.
2. You could do the same as above, but also create an alternate version of your previous BF2Stats package that queries your server for the XML instead of whatever EA/GameSpy/DICE uses.
Transmitting simple XML might also help your server/bandwidth load, but I'm not sure about that.
All this, of course, is assuming that EA/GameSpy/DICE doesn't already use XML to transmit stats data , or that this approach would not otherwise open you up for DOS attacks...
Bob.
1. You could simply just allow a simple query to your server, such as http://bf2s.com/xml/PlayerID/ that would return an XML file with all that Player's stats. The web site owner could then develop his own programming and site layout to deal with that XML data. To help people do this, you could provide the nice graphics you use, etc.
2. You could do the same as above, but also create an alternate version of your previous BF2Stats package that queries your server for the XML instead of whatever EA/GameSpy/DICE uses.
Transmitting simple XML might also help your server/bandwidth load, but I'm not sure about that.
All this, of course, is assuming that EA/GameSpy/DICE doesn't already use XML to transmit stats data , or that this approach would not otherwise open you up for DOS attacks...
Bob.