column5

A-7D was the first production aircraft with HUD, followed within months by the A-7E. Not sure which one saw combat first.

Man that is some crazy stuff.

I think turning it off temporarily will let you download and install the aircraft. You are the second person today who has had this problem. I believe that a new virus definition released recently is detecting something in those files that it interprets as a virus, even though it is not. Virus scanners look for patterns in files that match patterns found in known viruses, and in this case it is just making a mistake.

Just pause your antivirus while you download and extract the planes, then turn it back on.

w00t! Premier member now!

CA has been a great site to be a part of, going all the way back to the time when it was BioHaz. The explosive growth in the last year and half is incredible, and it has definitely become the best simming (and probably the best gaming) community on the Internet. Thanks MK2 for the huge investment you made! We have all benefited greatly. Thanks for having the faith in the Strike Fighters community to put so much money and time into furthering it. While we are passing out accolades, thanks also to Erik, Fates and Dave for their leadership.

Well...we are only human! FA-18C and D are in the same boat as the A-7. Both need the new avionics70 for HUD and A2G radar. They are being actively worked on though. Hopefully it won't be long before the new patches are ready. Then the radar will work.

That sounds like a symptom of an asymmetric load. Did you have any unexpended ordinance on the left wing? Even a slight imbalance will cause this. The lack of trim makes it a pain in the ass to fly like that, I agree. Regarding the radar, the new A-7s are designed for use with the WOI+ avionics70.dll. Basically, your radar problem will be fixed when WOV gets updated.

Ah yes, but that was the A-7D. NF3 is definately still happening. It will be compatable with the new service packs when they are released, and might still have the A-7D as an exclusive for the first week or two.

Hope you guys like it!

Released! Get it here or at C5.

As long as the motherboard supports, I'd say it would be worthwhile. Go to 2 gig RAM first tho...cheap these days.

Core 2 Duo 2.4 @ 2.9 4GB RAM on XP x64 GeForce 8800 GTS (Can you say, "scalded cat"?)

Fo sho!

Hmmm I think we usually get the models out within a day or two of the preview, unless there is some sort of problem discovered at the last minute.

MF preview on Friday usually means...

Agreed. As are the magnets that you place on your fuel lines, the little metal fans that you put in your air intake, etc. I believe that Mythbusters tested one of the electrolysis devices and it busted big time. One thing that might improve your milage is to get a custom computer chip with a more fuel efficient program. It may rob some power, but that is the trade off. Depends on what kind of car you have as to whether they are readily available, and I'd still do plenty of homework before buying.

Hyperbole is yuo.

I'm not sure what your point is. It has been illegal for criminals to possess firearms for many years. Keep in mind that this is a federal law so when you read all that mumbo jumbo about interstate commerce that is how they acquire jurisdiction (basically all guns have to travel across a state line at some point in their distribution and sale). None of this stops criminals from obtaining guns and using them. (g) It shall be unlawful for any person— (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) who is a fugitive from justice; (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) who is subject to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

That is the key. If we banned all guns today, the only people affected would be law-abiding gun owners. Criminals will allways be able to get them. No amount of legislation can prevent it.

You know that Brier got beat up one night in a DC park a couple years back while he was out cruising for gay hook-ups. It was covered up in the news.

That's the most sensible argument I've heard in favor of not applying the death penalty in these cases. But I think that the law has to focus on punishing the crime at hand, and not with hypothetical scenarios.

I think we should use them in a version of the Running Man game show.

It doesn't actually work both ways. The concept of innocence comes into play. In both examples, there are clearly innocent parties and clearly guilty parties: Rape example rape victim = innocent rapist = guilty Abortion example fetus = innocent abortionist = guilty So while I respect your opinion, I think you have to agree that one position consistently supports the innocent while the other position supports the guilty. One position is rational while the other is irrational. To position the argument as one of pro-life versus pro-death is to miss the point. The real issue at hand is whether we apply appropriate punishments to those who commit heinous crimes for the dual purposes of punishing the guilty and protecting society as a whole.

Because liberalism is a mental disorder. It seems scizo because it is.