I have both the 360 and PS3. If I had to keep only one it would be the PS3 because you get a free Blu-ray player worth another $400.

Forza 2 sounds great but I can't enjoy a game without a cockpit view. And the 360 doesn't work with the G25 or the DFP. What's the point of great driving game if you have to use some crappy wheel?

And I suspect that the final version of GT5 will be the best overall driving game on any platform (of course LFS will have better physics).

An Idea!

I thought you might try something like a stuffed falcon. Google about scaring birds. I found this:

http://www.whirlybirdrepeller.com/

I'm sure you can find something scarier. I hope you don't have to resort to a scarecrow.

Quote from SamH :

Am I missing something? Does someone here actually believe the Noah story?

I must say I don't. I believe the Bible was inspired by God. I don't believe it is was dictated by God.

Does anyone actually believe the materialist account of the universe? Unthinking, unfeeling, unconscious matter randomly accidently arranges itself into matter that writes poetry about beauty and debates the existence of God.

So if everything is just matter behaving according to physical laws then even your belief that there is no God is just matter behaving according to physical laws. My belief that there is a God is also just matter.

We are all puppets controlled by the hands of physics. Everything we say think or feel is controlled by this hand. Even now as I write this sentence it is the all powerful hand of physics controlling my words.

People just accept atheistic materialism without really questioning it. People mock those who believe in God but in truth it's very rational to believe that human beings come from something that is very much like them--God. On the other hand it's quite irrational to believe that human beings come from something completely unlike them--unfeeling and unconscious matter. Aren't we a part of the universe? If the universe is unfeeling and unconscious then so are we.

Quote from Hankstar :

Scandinavian countries have been declining religiously for years and they've long been reputed to have some of the highest living standards and lowest crime rates in the world. Australia, the UK, Canada, Germany, Japan and others are pretty much secular nations (i.e. no state-imposed religion) and are all doing okay in terms of living standards and crime.

So, if religion declines crime decreases and living standars go up?

I'm surprised. I thought it had to do with increasing per capita income or high taxes and large government run social programs.

I think there is even one European country that pays for your prostitutes if you're disabled. Now that's a social program

Quote from Hankstar :

I've always had trouble reconciling the concept of "Christian charity, pacifism, tolerance and inclusiveness" with stuff like this:All the charity, love and forgiveness you want but if you believe wrongly, down you go - at the hand of the all-loving god. Or is it at the hand of the all-loathing devil? Without a name in that verse it's hard to tell who we're talking about.

You have a valid point. Christianity does teach that in the afterlife unbelievers will be damned.

But it also teaches that it is God who will judge and punish. It is not the Christian's role to seek revenge.

Quote from Luke 6:37 :

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven

I'm not here to convert you to Christianity. I'm only arguing that:

1. Religion is not responsible for MOST wars.
2. The greatest mass murderers were NOT religious.
3. Christianity encourages radical PACIFISM.

Quote from zeugnimod :

Can't you say that about every religion?

No. Judaism and Islam both teach that adulterers should be stoned to death. It's Jesus who says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

But Christianity gets absolutely no credit from the secular world for this kind of radical tolerance.

But that is another topic. My claim here is that the idea that religion is the main cause of wars or mass murderes is an argument without merit.

The Iraq War was caused by a border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait. Nothing to do with religion.

WWII -- history's worst war began when Hitler invaded Poland. This had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with racism and nationalism.

The true culprit is greed, selfishness, and hatred. The dark and hard human heart. That's the ultimate cause of genocide and mass murder.

What can we do about greed and selfishness? That's the problem that religion tries to solve. But it's not an easy problem.

Last edited by somasleep, Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:05.

A dog is 100x better than a gun.

And a dog can't be used to shoot you dead when you're caught in bed with your mistress

Quote from Hankstar :

Myth busted? Not quite. Faith is the common denominator here (and a seriously unbalanced psyche).

Simply: the problem with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc wasn't their religion or lack of it. It was their absolute faith in their own twsited ideology combined with a ruthless thirst for power that drove them, not any apparent lack of religious belief.

The words religion and Faith have clear meanings. You can't redefine words. Being arrogant is not a kind of faith. Your new definition of "faith" now includes arrogant atheists?

If you're intellectually honest you have to admit the idea that religion is the main cause of war or that history's worst killers were religious is false. Simple as that. No need to redefine words.

Moreover, what if you have faith in an ideology that says: Feed the poor, clothe the homeless, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, turn the other cheek, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. What's so bad about that?

Maybe the problem is not religion or atheism. It's the dark hard hearts of men. Greed, hatred, lust, jealousy, dishonesty.

Religion says that you can NEVER have a good society unless you have good people. Changing governments, social systems, and laws won't do a thing unless something is done about the human heart.

Religion rightly says that the problem is in the human heart and change must come from within the individual. The non-religious view is that changing social systems and governemnts (e.g. communism), external change, is what's needed.

I also want to add that Christianity is essentially a pacifist ("turn the other cheek" "Peter, drop your sword") ideology. It's ludicrous to lump Christianity in with Islam and Judaism. If we're fair and honest we have to concede that Christianity is essentially pacifistic and most people who call themselves Christian (e.g. George Bush) don't adhere to the basic teachings of their claimed religion.

Is this the guy?

I've always hated Woody Woodpecker.

I've watched many cartoons and one solution is to create a stuffed toy in the form of a female woodpecker and fill it with explosives. When Woody goes for the bait then BAM!

Just be careful Woody can be very dangerous

Guns and marriage don't mix

Quote from tristancliffe :

My feelings are, basically, the coldest, nastiest and war mongering humans have all been religious. Make of that what you will.

First you claim that "most" wars are caused by religion but when you are called out on it you can't name these wars. WWI? WWII? Vietnam? Napolianic Wars? Roman Conquests? Punic Wars?

Most wars are about land, territory, borders. Most of the remaining wars are struggles for political power--civil wars--communism vs. capitalism, democracy vs. totalitarianism, facism vs. socialism.

This is just fact. I hope you're fair enough to concede this point.

Now you claim that the "the coldest, nastiest and war mongering humans have all been religious"

All?

Let's name some of histories "nastiest" war mongers.

#1 Hitler: Most would agree that #1 on this list is Hitler. Hitler was NOT religious. He hated Christianity. He thought it was "weak." He hated Jews but not for religious reasons. He hated Jews, slavs, and all non-"Aryan" ethnic groups. Hitler believed in "survival of the fittest." Shall we blame Darwin?

#2 Genghis Kahn: Religious?

#3 Napolean: Religious or megalomaniac?

#4 Alexander the Great:

#5 Attila the Hun

How about some great mass murderers.

Joseph Stalin may be responsible for 50 Million deaths. Pol Pot a mere 2 Million intellectuals in Cambodia. Lenin and Mao were ruthless.

So, on my team of "most evil" non-religious people I'll take: Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Who is on your team?

Another myth about religion busted.

Politically motivated prosecutions are extremely destructive to democratic government. What kind of democracy do you have when after you lose an election your opponents gather together to prosecute and imprison you?

This is the kind of stuff people do all the time in third world countries. Think about it.

Is there any connection between "Knight Rider" and "Night Rider" from Mad Max?

Remember, "I am the Night Rider! Mwahahaha!"

Quote from March Hare :

Did you see the movie too?

It's not as great as the series though.

I saw the movie. It was pretty good but the ending annoyed me.

I just think this series is one of the most intelligent and creative stories I have encountered in a long time.

It also made me care about the characters.

A few months ago I watched every episode of Full Metal Alchemist.

What an AMAZING series. Simply brilliant writing. Now my all time favorite anime.

Do you think Al-Qaeda would have a harder time convincing new recruits to hate American if the president of the U.S. is black?

Think about it. The image of America as a evil imperialist monster is easier to sell when the president is a white male because whites or europeans have always played the role of oppressor in the 3rd world.

If the face of America is brown skin like them then it's really hard for them to inspire hatred and recruit new members. And don't forget his name Barack Hussein Obama.

I suspect that simply electing Obama may decrease the chances of a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda. It's just far easier to hate someone like McCain or a Clinton or G.W. Bush than Barack Hussein Obama.

Is there any truth to what I'm saying?

I'm sorry to post again so soon but please watch this YouTube video of Cheney explaining in '94 why it would be a bad idea to topple Saddam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

I was always scratching my head trying to understand why we got in this mess in the first place. Even an ordinary citizen like me knows that Iraq would be a quagmire. I would expect those brilliant minds in the CIA would know that too.

Well, I guess they did know. So, why did they invade?

Quote from atlantian :

oh, i ment GT as in Grand Turismo...

Here is a viper doing donuts(??) IRL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBW1FC7OyiY&NR=1

Here is a viper in Grand Turismo doing the same thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLii_uu1I9s

Here is the same thing in LFS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTqanKs2CUo

I can't tell the difference just be looking at replays. Well, I see a lot more smoke IRL

Quote from Hankstar :

Used to be fiscally tighter. Used to is the key phrase here. The Reps also used to be all about small government! Tell that to Homeland Security and all the other layers of federal beauracracy that the Bush II regime has slapped on top of everything else. They also, ostensibly at least, used to be about keeping the government out of private affairs - tell that to the telcos/ISPs that are about to be granted retroactive immunity for illegally spying on US citizens in their millions.

The sad thing is there's not really much difference between the GOP and the Dems right now: both seem pretty happy to talk about giving Iran what-for and "spreading democracy" (as has been done so successfully before in thriving, free nations like their allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and any other number of repressive, regressive medieval religious dictatorships). Both are all about "security" (both forgetting that the best way to prevent terrorism is to stop participating in it). Neither seem too concerned with discussing actual things like sane foreign policy, healthcare, war veteran's rights or any number of other important topics. It's no surprise though: as usual, it's a popularity contest and it's about who's more 'electable', not who who deserves to be elected. It's about who you like, not about what they stand for. It's a bunch of goddam stage-managed sound-bites designed to confirm what a candidate's supporters already think they know. With the glitz and ribbons and events in stadiums it bears more similarity to American Idol than an actual election. And the cash they blow! Such expense for (at best) a 50% voter turnout. Imagine what these spoiled rich kids would spend if they had the entire eligible voting populace to appeal to?

I used to rant a lot about Bush on these pages. Sure, he's a dangerous, clueless fundie halfwit who's lied, cheated and snaked his way to the top (with Daddy's help) and has made the entire planet more dangerous for everyone living on it, but (barring some catastrophe which forces the Whitehouse to declare martial law) his reign ends in 10 months (praise Jeebers). That got me thinking, though - what will change, even if a Dem gets elected? Will poor people get a living wage? Will they be able to afford hospital bills? Will social security still exist if they fall on hard times? Will the US stop its near-annual bombing of any country it pleases for any reason it can make plausible? I came to the conclusion "no". Regardless which side of the US political coin they've been on, US presidents since WW2 invariably end up making war on somebody (overtly or covertly), the poor & middle class always pay for it in blood or taxes and the top 1% - those who can afford the best lobbyists - lap up the profits. I think the only thing that will change with a Democrat president is that FOX Noise will actually start criticising the government. My problem (I guess it's always been there under the surface) is a political system that encourages non-participation by the people who are meant to own it by making running as a candidate cost-prohibitive for anyone who isn't a self-funded, old-money multi-millionaire. A system that rewards cronyism, nepotism and punishes anyone who dares deviate from the narrow far-right/centre-right pathway. A system that basically discourages voting, especially in recent years with all the Florida/Ohio voting machine shenanigans (seriously America, use paper and pencils - they're cheap unhackable...but of course, that's why they're not used), but more generally by making the result of a Presidential election largely unconsequential to normal people. The last two certainly had serious consequences, but only because that clueless daddy's boy got elected and re-elected. Bah, I'm tired. Carry on, Kiwi cousin.

Wow, you're so cynical. You know what you need? You need some Obama ! Yes we can! (teasing)

If it's stupid wars and bombings you don't like then Obama is the only candidate who voted against this (not war) occupation. He's the least likely to go and start a new one.

McCain will almost certainly bomb Iran and perpetuate the policies of fear and paranoia. He may just start a world war.

Hillary will go to war just so she doesn't look weak. She'll have a big chip on her shoulder. One big negative with Hillary is she said she'll start pulling x number of troops 60 days after she takes office. Who wants a president who makes political promises using numbers she just pulled out of the air to make military decisions?

The choice is clear.

When you try out a new driving game and you say, "the physics suck!" What are the objective criteria you're using to make that determination?

Braking distance? Grip when making turns? Weight transfers?

When comparing games I always hear people say things like, "the physics are no where near live for speed" but they rarely make objective statements about what it is that game x is lacking.

What criteria do you use when comparing sims? And what are the minimum qualifications a game requieres to be considered a "sim"?

Obama wins Maryland, Virginia, and Washington D.C.

He's got the momentum and the lead in delegates.

It looks like it's going to be Warmonger vs. Hopemonger.

Someone here said that Obama just says what people want to hear (as compared to Hillary). That makes little sense.

In one debate when asked about illegal immigration taking American jobs Obama had the courage to call it scapegoating. It would have been much easier to play to the fear of foreigners taking jobs angle but he didn't. I'm sorry but if illegal mexican aliens are taking your job then you really need to aim higher than dishwasher, delivery boy, and handy man.

Hillary says she'll start pulling troops out 60 days after she's in office. As retired General Powel commented, where does she get that number? What makes 60 days magical?

Obama on the other hand said he would set a date for withdrawl (16 months) to motivate the Iraqi government to prepare but he didn't say he would just start plucking troops out immediately like Hillary.

I'm sorry but Hillary's judgment is very suspect.

Plus Hillary voted for this war that she's complaining about. Obama voted against it and very clearly stated why he was against it and everything he said came to pass.

Obama's taken no special interest money. He's campaign is publicly funded. Hillary has taken more special interest money than McCain. It's easier to believe some who isn't getting paid by special interests.

Obama has that elusive leadership quality. In a room full of people who would you follow Obama or Hillary?

McCain will go down in flames in the general election once everyone watches this video of him singing "bomb bomb Iran."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

President McCain? "Bomb, bomb, Iran." God help us all.

Quote from DEVIL 007 :

¨
I am curious what system spec you have.I see you have max setting and AA+AF.
At me it draw like 20 FPS often and I even cant use any AA.I also run at only 1024*768 res.I have A64 3200+,2x512MB ram and 7900GT running at 7950 frequencies.

This game highly CPU limited. My x2 4200 paired with 8800 GTS is not enough. To run this smoothly you need a Core 2 Duo 3.0Ghz.

If only someone could combine LFS physics with these amazing graphics. Grass has never looked so goodl

I won't buy it because I hate rally races and the physics is just too awful to bear.

Quote from Taavi(EST) :

Ok got around to trying the demo myself, and i have to say codemasters has done it this time with the feel of the cars, the cars actually have a little bit of realistic feel.

I didn't know real cars could come to a dead stop almost instantly.

Long, long ago I remember this game called "Vette!"

It was supposed to model San Francisco. It was like a car simulator. But it was a slideshow and the clipping was horrible.

Anyway, I always wanted a modernized version of Vette! because I loved the idea of a car simulator where you can drive in traffic, get on highways, and freely go wherever you want.

When I first bought my MOMO this was the kind of driving game I was looking for--cockpit view, traffic, real roads, and freedom. What did I find?

Midtown Madness? OMG old graphics and totally arcade.
NFS: Porche Unleached? Ancient graphics.
NFS:MW? No cockpit view. Totally acrade control.

And finally there came TDU.

Great graphics. In cockpit view. Traffic. Real roads. Realistic car handling (not like LFS or GTR but good enough).

You may compare TDU to other games but no other driving game does what it does.

This is a driving-fast-in-traffic game. If you like the idea of weaving in and out of traffic then this is your game.

If you like racing other players then this is not your game. The online racing is poor compared to most racers. BUT If you like racing other players in traffic then this is your game.

Personally, I love it.