Re: jet fuel can't melt
That meme is such a successful disinformation technique.
564 posts • joined 12 May 2010
That meme is such a successful disinformation technique.
Another factor in choosing 999 as the UK emergency number was that, on the old dial phones, it was the number that took the least time to dial having the shortest distance to travel on the dial itself before allowing another number to be chosen.
Quick update: Changing the FPS setting in BMEngine.ini, along with disabling the motion blur setting, resolved *all* the issues I had with the game. It now runs slick and smooth at ~47fps.
and what a hell of a game it is!
"the PC version is capped at 30fps. (You can change it by editing config files, but it's illustrative of much if the developers are making this the default)."
yeah, that tallies with what I saw last night. I hate it when they nerf PC releases this way! There was an incident a while back where Microsoft were actually bribing a software house to dumb down a game on the PC so that the performance on the Xbone was comparable at release; can't remember what the game was though.... ah yeah, WatchDogs, that was it.
Thanks for the tip on unlocking the framerate!
Played this for about an hour last night and yes, its very engaging and slick. The combat does indeed feel smoother, the keyboard controls are instantly familiar from previous titles and the graphical fidelity is indeed of a very high standard. The opening scene is original (press Space to do what now??), amazing and horrifying all in one go and sets the tone for a darker Gotham than you might expect.
That said, even though I run on a fairly powerful gaming rig (AMD 8 core, watercooled, GTX Titan) that can churn out GTAV in full detail, I had some very noticeable stutter when driving the batmobile (oh god, yes!) which appeared to be related to the motion blur/depth of field setup; the usual criminals. So, off to the menu I went only to find that I had no option to decrease or remove those effects! I'll take a look at the config files tonight, but that's something of a shortfall in PC configuration settings and will make the game unplayable for a lot of players I suspect.
"that should be grinds thee'"
Forsooth and verily it doth grind most foul upon my person and my tooth, liken unto grit drawn from befoul'd oysters, but for thee and thine I can'st not speak.
...awww, but daaaaaaad....!
Dave probably would steal my shoes. Well, one of them, just to maximise the annoyance.
Again, you assume you know my politics, and assume I am a labour voter. You'd be wrong.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of the population chose NOT to vote. That still makes you wrong in saying that the majority voted FOR the conservative agenda.
""Pointless ad hominem attack....." Standard Boring Bernie response when he has no counter to offer."
ooh, look another ad hominem. Surprise!
"you must have missed the fact that the majority of the electorate in the recent UK elections are not included in your "our". "
I see you share Mr. Cameron's idea of "majority". You know, the one that's not.
Pointless ad hominem attack.
Let me know when you're properly awake...
""....Security Service suspect someone, imprison them, and then try to extract information from them with no interest in due process....." Fail! The Secret Service does not have the power to arrest or detain."
Take a look at the remit of the newly formed NCA then. Covers that "judicial gap" very nicely.
You're quite right about attempting to uncover just how many potential terrorist attacks have been prevented by the intelligence and law services, but what we can do is look at the attacks that have "got through". In many of those cases it has become apparent that the services were often aware of the potential terrorist activity before any incident took place, and yet did not act. We can, from these examples, infer that the services allow attacks to take place in pursuit of some higher, often unknown goal (perhaps as simple as finding "bigger fish", perhaps something more clandestine, who knows?).
So, we can compile a list of failures if not successes, and we can draw conclusions from that. It *may* be that these failures are in our scope of awareness due to the propensity of the media to highlight bad news and failure, and the tendency of the security services to not publicise success (though, there are some notable examples of that too, which places their claimed need to keep success secret in some doubt) would simply reinforce that illusion, but I doubt this is entirely the case.
If nothing else, we should be keenly aware of the cost of these operations; politically, socially, and economically, and in light of the publicised failures we should, and must, examine the cost/benefit ratio of those operations.
Simply put, we need evidence that the security operations are *worth* the cost, and right now it appears, from our point of view, that they are not and we are being asked to accept the fact of the threat on trust by a governmental system that has demonstrated, or is at least perceived, that it cannot be trusted.
"PI said that GCHQ is starting to see itself as “above the law”.'
"“There are no legal penalties for misuse of this information..."
And the governments response to these criticisms, the ISC findings and other commentary?
Good luck, PI, but I think you're scuppered right out of the gate.
Fair play, that was comedy gold Matt. :D
" quickly identify known criminals (including those that are wanted) before they can do more crimes" - MB
"What is meant by 'known crims'?" - Divided
Quite so. Back in the day, when I was still a young lad living in an enlightened country, we had a word for people before they'd committed a crime: innocent.
Not a word you hear much anymore.
Some may call me a paranoid conspiracist nutcase for suggesting that this is a pilot for a larger scheme (indeed, some have in the last hour or so), but consider the alternative explanation:
That the Powers That Be, believe that attendees of a major music festival are more likely to be criminals, untrustworthy or international terrorists than any other section of the population. It seems to them that its a good idea to surveil this very specific cross section of the community, for whatever reason, and to prevent them using cash in the cause of crime reduction.
Personally, I'm not sure which explanation is worse.
So, yes, theories, that's what science has. Not facts. A theory stands, by definition until and unless it is disproved. Each of those theories remains un-disproved. "Laws" are theories too, they can and are occasionally disproved and then science adjusts and continues to grow and learn.
"Where did the original something come from? Your answer is still a question, not answered."
A question that you didn't answer either. Your theorem states an answer that is disproven by a simple, logical question. This one. Tell me where God came from? Easy enough isn't it? And when you resort to "He is eternal" I shall ask "Why then cannot the universe be the same?". God relies on "something from nothing" just as much, if not more, than any "Big Bang" theory. Problem is we have *some* evidence of the big bang and none for the existence of god(s). That, I believe, puts science ahead in the race for truth.
"Virtual particles, you proved that by scientific method as well? Or is it still theorized?"
Yeah, here you go. I hope its not too difficult for you to grasp the science. I'd like you to compare its validity to the bible please: http://physics.about.com/od/physicsutoz/g/virtualparticles.htm
"Weather cycles? Random at best!"
Random? Where is your god in that then? I thought "random" couldn't happen and that was your disproof of evolution. So, random in weather, but not in genetics. Perhaps you ought to get your story straight and decide if your god is omnipotent or not.
Also, here is some reading on chaos mathematics and the nature of fractals. Again, I hope its not too hard: http://miqel.com/fractals_math_patterns/visual-math-natural-fractals.html
"Platonic Idealism, or the World of Forms... really? Still theories, where is the reproducible science?"
You missed my point here. Platonic Idealism was a scientific theory predating any interpretation of Christianity by centuries. It has been overturned and discarded by science. Show me an element of religion that has been discarded or supplanted by new thinking in the same time scale.
"The Origin of Species was never pier reviewed..."
Not as we do so today, no, that's true. Can you show me the peer review for the bible please?
"standard set of responses, which all point to yet more theories, based on more theories etc. etc. [...] So where is the real scientific evidence, testable, reproducible evidence?"
Someone doesn't understand the concept of scientific theory, or the scientific method do they? But, even pushing that fundamental lack of knowledge aside, I am forced to ask which bit of your creationist cobblers is factual beyond dispute, and thus superior?
"So where is the real scientific evidence, testable, reproducible evidence?"
Science has lots. Where is religions?
"Stop trying to disprove evidence with weak theories to suit your religion"
I do not practice a religion.
I have nothing to lose, you on the other hand stand to lose your faith and childlike assumptions about the universe. You stand to lose the comforting thumb you have stuck in your mouth.
Next troll please, this one is done.
Consider it done, Jake.
"The big bang cannot directly be reproduced or tested..."
Yes it can. Heard of the LHC?
"Creation - Something came from something"
Where did the original something come from? Turtles all the way down is it? This line leads to the conclusion that god is an atheist. After all, god clearly does not believe that god was created by anything else, such as a further superior being, but exists in and of itself as sentience. Therefore, god is an atheist. Your argument is just as ridiculous.
"Can any scientist demonstrate something coming from nothing?"
Virtual particles. Someone doesn't know aught of quantum physics either.
"Can any scientist demonstrate complexity coming from chaos by random forces without any intelligent input?"
How about weather cycles? the spots on a ladybird? Mandlebrot patterns. Chaos maths. Someone doesn't know much about pure mathematics, do they?
"Creation - Random mutation damages the genetic code reducing fitness and degrading a species over time"
Are you familiar with the concept of Platonic Idealism, or the World of Forms? This idea that there is a "perfect original" for all things predates the bible by some two thousand years, but that aside, even accepting the premise of this argument, why would god allow the degrade of his perfect design? To teach us some sort of lesson in humility? Or, if the degrade is part of the design and god is infallible, then the perfection he envisages has not yet been reached, indicating your statement regarding genetic evolution is wrong even by the standards your argument sets.
"Can any scientist demonstrate selection that removes enough genetic damage to cause a species to become more genetically fit than the preceding generations?"
I'll leave this one to Charles. Please read the Origin of Species. I think he demonstrates it rather well. If you find the language hard, there are *thousands* of books on the subject by *hundreds* of scientists.
"The second law of thermodynamics, things tend toward disorder unless energy is put into a system, simply states that left to its own things decay over time. "
You need to do some basic reading about entropy. This is *not* a good definition at all. Even if you can't be bothered with that, perhaps a refutation like the Poincare recurrence theorem might do. There are plenty of others. If entropy increases, order has been lost. If it decreases, order has emerged or been created. The point of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that entropy can’t decrease without increasing by at least as much in some connected object or area. In other words, it can’t decrease overall in a closed system. Please indicate where the bounds of gods closed system might lie.
"Whether you are currently a creationist or evolutionist I challenge you to become an evidence-based thinker. "
Done and done a myriad times, old chap. I think you could do with some schooling in the arguments you have championed here. Not a bad shot, but not up to scratch.
BM Orwell, Atheist, Scientist, Philosopher and Ex-Methodist minister.
Hello Mr. Troll.
The Bible is not evidence of anything other than people can write stories.
Thank you for the timely reminder to retain balance; it's easy for me to get angry about this. The school is not teaching religion as history alas, and my evidence for that is the instruction about "daily prayers" they've also spouted. This is a pro-religion/Christian agenda.
As for arguing from a position of knowledge, I should probably mention that I used to be a Methodist preacher....
Science is never right, it is just a little less wrong than yesterday.
Religion is always right, the same as it said it was yesterday.
Do you mean "4.Behemoth rests under the branches of the lotus tree and takes cover in reeds"...that one?
Sauropod was probably about 70ft long and weighed maybe 8 tons or so. Those are some damned big trees and reeds then. Just sayin'.
That's advice that could be given to a fairly large slice of scientists these days. Climatologists for example.
[Prepares for the downvote storm].
Quite so, even in western mainstream education the "religious education" is there.
A few days ago, my seven year old daughter came home singing hymns and talking about "Jesus who was gods son and died for our sins". She does not go to a religious school, and the one she attends is most definitely "inner city" multi-cultural. I can't even begin to talk about how outright offensive this is, not only to me but surely to the other parents in the school.
It's also taking some careful thinking and words to address the difficult conversations that this now raises with my daughter. (I've settled on "It's a story that some people choose to believe, but that doesn't mean its true").
I have decided to stand as a school governor.
Heaven help them if I get in, one might say.
No, no... GOD told him, and GOD *was* there. So he's right. Yes? that's how it works?
He's no MB, is he?
Superb response, needing more than a simple upvote. The US, and those that sing the "obey the law because you don't know better" song should remember how the US was formed in the first place; people defying an unjust law imposed on them by an unjust power.
They appear to have an objective of sorts: provoke the west (Rome, as they think of it) into a "final battle" at a specific location in Syria (can't remember the name of the place).
They want this to happen because, according to their prophetic scribblings, once they are defeated in that battle (yes, they know they can't win), then the end of the world will be heralded and what is left of "true islam" will inherit the earth and the remaining kufir will be destroyed.
ISIS entirely understand that they are outmatched, and that they will be utterly defeated by their enemies, but want to provoke that battle anyway. That's why they are carrying out atrocities, destroying world heritage sites, performing mass executions and putting the lot on social media. They *want* us to fight them.
This linked article is highly insightful and worth a read..
Nah, he's here. Posted in the EMC/HP thread within the last 30 minutes. Several posts on other threads over the last 10 days.
I think he knows which way the wind is blowing.
"Now more crims will escape punishment because authorities will not know about them until after they impose their evil"
You know, there's a word for people before they actually commit a crime: Innocent.
Please prove the fallacy.
" I've never heard of any innocent person being the slightest bit harmed by any use of it"
I'd like you to do a search for "Extraordinary Rendition". After that, please read about a place called Gauntanamo, with a specific eye on the nature of the interns, their legal rights and, most importantly, what they have been charged with. It is reasonable to assume that NSA data collection was responsible for a proportion of those activities.
You notice how quiet MB has been on this subject and related items lately?
Perhaps he's finally realised that his argument, of how everything that the Gov(s) have done is all good and legal and fair and honest, has all been "male bovine" all along?
We can but hope that enlightenment has dawned.
Because Anjem Choudray, as objectionable as I find him, has not broken the law. He is entitled to speak his mind and I am entitled to argue with him and criticise him. This is why we are not the state than Mr Choudray wants us to be; it's why we are better than that. The moment we surrender that freedom take steps closer to the totalitarianism that he, and thinkers like him, want us to have and we lose ourselves another tiny piece at a time.
Let him speak, we'll point and laugh.
if that's too complex for you, perhaps we should imprison Roy "Chubby" Brown, because he upsets lots and lots of people with his comedy?
Or what about our very own Matt Bryant? I mean, we can clearly see by the downvotes over the years that he is found highly objectionable by the masses and therefore should be silenced immediately!
Beware of "liberal censorship", wherein we take a sharp breath when someone says something "illiberal" and we respond with "you CAN'T say THAT!"
Yes, you can say that. Speak up so we can all hear you.
as a "neo-socialist", I'd be delighted to see a fight-back from the centre/moderate left, but please, not TUSC. Anyone who thinks quoting Bob Crow as a source of profound political wisdom and believes that unions should be a voice in foreign policy decisions may need a rethink.
I don't want to swap one uninformed extremist for another one, ta very much!
...shades of Oryx and Crake.
Quite so. Either way you cut this it's worth remembering that consensus != science; it's closer to faith.
You're almost certainly right, but how do we feel about that? I've been a gamer for....oh...far too many years, and I've always stood on the side of content being free of censorship (If I don't like it, I don't buy it), but is Hatred a step too far?
It's set out to be provocative, and has provoked a reaction...
*crosses off Canada and New Zealand*
*Googles winter clothing....*
"Measures will also be brought forward to promote social cohesion"
""Fear and grievance have won, liberalism has lost. But it is more precious than ever and we must keep fighting for it." ~ Nick Clegg.
Iceland. New Zealand. Canada.
All seem like reasonable candidates.
"Donate money and time to Liberty, Privacy International, Big Brother Watch and any political party who comes out against it. Then tell your MP about that too."
Quick, before they are labelled as 'extremist philosophies likely to inspire terrorism.'
You are dead.
Hmmmm.... I have played all three Witchers and just about every other RPG ever released on a PC and I'm giving Witcher 3 7/10 if I'm generous. It's no Skyrim, that's for sure. I'm playing on a GTX Titan based rig, with a 4k monitor.
* Nice framerates, very nicely optimised.
* Stunning lighting
* Great landscapes and scenery
* Beautiful soundtrack
* Best texture work I've seen in some time, especially on skin.
* Clunky animation, especially running anims. Makes it hard to stop where/when you want to.
* Little skill required for a very repetitive combat model.
* Voice acting is awful in the main
* Script is stilted, B-movie stuff.
* Character is not tabula rasa, but we're given "moral choices" often.
* Gameplay feels a little dated and "on rails".
For a similar gameplay experience, done better, I think you're best off taking a look at Batman: Arkham Knight, Shadow of Mordor (my Game of the Year) or Assassins Creed Black Flag. If you want a more immersive RPG, head right back to Skyrim. The Witcher isn't a bad series, but it is over-hyped, and isn't "all that".
Also, grocery store had best not be selling personal data is almost certainly a breach of data protection laws.