JediMaster

Iceland will come with F-14.

I suppose that would depend on the size of the, ahem, "attributes" of those participating...

This strikes me to be like the field mods ROF has.

By the time he gets to some of these releases, our smartphones may be powerful enough to run SFP1!

I had pretty much all of them that came out up thru late 85, the end of the first run of ROTJ toys. After that, I never got any more.

Depends on the weather and the boat I would think! Besides, if people can get car sick, they can get sick on anything in the water.

Polar launches aren't very useful for most things. I think the populations of CA and NV would also object to boosters being dropped on them. Due to the Earth's rotation, it's most useful to launch to the east, over water. The ideal location is on the equator, and that's what Sea Launch does, sailing out to the middle of the Pacific at 0 latitude to launch rockets and get max payload for the minimum thrust. As for storm damage, not much. It's all built to take hurricanes, so only tornados do anything. There have been numerous delays due to weather, but more due to over-cautiousness than anything else. If the shuttle had to abort back to KSC (something that was considered highly dangerous if necessary), the winds at the SLF couldn't be past a certain amount cross-wind (I don't recall the number). If a rocket explodes at low altitude (a few thousand feet) when the wind off the ocean is blowing a certain way and colliding with wind blowing from the west overland (which causes the storms on the east coast regularly, oddly it doesn't really happen on the west coast) there is risk of a cloud of deadly chemicals blowing over Merritt Island and killing thousands. On the flip side, I'd hate to see an earthquake hit as a launch was just prepping when all the gantries have swung back!

Well, he did it because he said that's the way it was SUPPOSED to be, but due to technical limitations (ie the squibs going off near Ford's head would be too dangerous) it was dropped. When the SE came out, it could be done digitally, so it was. Same with making Han step on Jabba's tail, since originally Jabba was supposed to be bipedal, but the redesign for Jedi made Han's motion pass thru the tail. The first film was a defining moment in my life, as was getting the first toys (R2 and C3PO).

I did that with a B-1 at low level in Korea. It was just slicks, not JDAMs, so the destruction was in a line, but it was very impressive nonetheless.

I never got to play much of that one as the default FOV was bugged and would result in CTDs galore. I gave up on it and only years later found out changing the FOV by as little as 1 degree fixed that tendency. Sigh...

They still call it NCC where you are? Here it's now SIMC. Don't ask me what that one stands for, I can't remember.

It's a more a reboot of the final Planet film, the one had that the ape revolution.

Since Tomcat is the next in development along with some other 70s planes, I'm thinking that won't be any time soon. Especially if he gets to making that Korean War sim he's talked about.

Why would they get in that thing??

That's because unlike the weather, we have really NO idea how that smoke-and-mirrors show works!

Except that as much as I disliked renaming Storm of War to "Il-2" (when CloD has no Il-2s or even any Russian planes in it), I think World of Planes is the stupidest name ever. Should've gone with World of Flight at least. World of Tanks is a stupid name, too, and I think 2 "World of" MMOs is enough, we don't need a 3rd.

Oh, you'll only vacation there?

As long as the alternatives are more expensive, less portable, or require expensive infrastructure upgrades that increase the cost indirectly, there will be resistance. In fact, the reason oil is lasting this long is because the overall cost has increased to the point where things like shale and sands are now cost-effective, along with new drilling techniques getting at previously unreachable fields or getting it out of unreachable parts of existing fields. Oil at $90/b has proven to be sustainable and while sub-$50/b oil is probably long gone, we'll have $90+ oil for quite some time yet. When oil's price becomes too high THEN we will get the other sources made affordable, if only by comparison if not absolutely.

I can't wait for the day when we get another 24 hrs NEWS channel, like CNN was 25 years ago.

Wasn't that great to watch from the ground. Stupid clouds covered it after about 30 seconds, just like the previous one. Oh well.

Well, I'm sure human activity isn't helping, but there's one unavoidable fact: the Martian polar caps are shrinking. We're not doing that. Solar energy decreases as a square of the distance, so Mars is getting a lot LESS solar energy than earth. So, doing the math, if our planet gets more solar energy than Mars, and what Mars is getting is enough to make its caps shrink... Does this mean we can do whatever we want? Of course not. We will just make it worse. Would the world change in such a way to make the climate hostile to humanity even if we weren't here? Possibly. The fallacy of the "green" movement is that the Earth and the sun are static. It has been both far warmer and far cooler than it is now with no human intervention. It can easily become either again, and any change could possibly render the planet if not uninhabitable at least inhospitable except for the previously inhospitable regions (ie Antartica becoming a great place to live if it gets real hot and the equatorial areas being nice and temperate if things chill down). So the question is not "is mankind changing the climate", because we know we are, it's "is mankind changing the climate enough, in combination with its own tendency to change anyway, that we or our children or grandchildren will be in severe peril, and what can we do to alleviate the problem?" It's quite possible that if every "emitter" disappeared today, whether coal burner, fossil fuel burner, gas emitter, etc, the world would continue on its merry way with no real observable difference in what is to come ie it's too late for us to change anything except for the worse. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. But if all our efforts won't help, and business as usual isn't going to make it that much worse, how much effort should we really exert? This is what studies should be for. This is what they have failed to provide.

You know, I don't feel older. I DO feel heavier and more sluggish, though, should've had less to eat.

Justin Bieber?

The problem is there is big money on both sides of this issue. That means politicians are being bought and sold over it. THAT makes it political. Science is not and will never be, but scientific studies that require funding usually are. Trace back every one of these studies and you'll find one side or the other behind the funding, and even if claims of distance are made they're not believed. Maybe if someone like Bill Gates funded such a study, when he has little of interest in either side, it could be viewed reasonably.

I'm still pulling for reruns from Vesuvius and Krakatoa!