Militaris
-
Posts
617 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Militaris
-
-
Melissa Theuriau ... easily.
-
Unlike most of the others, I would give it a try.
first attempt
Eyes closed*.
hello mu name is miliyaris, U an najubg geaos if nustajes gere.
Eyes open, looking at the screen.
Hello my name is militaris, I am making heaps of mistakes here.
Second attempt
Eyes closed.
this another attempt at writing without looking.
Eyes open.
this is another attempt at wrinting without looking.
Third Attempt
Eyes closed
This going too be m last setence for this test.
Eyes open
This is going too be my last setence for this test.
*On my first attempt I did spin around on my chair once with my eyes closed. On the following attempts I started with my hand on the t.
-
Saying fish have no intelligent or memory is ignorant. They have both.
trout have a fairly good memory. The more one is targeted/caught the more wary and harder it would be to catch again. Trout in heavily target rivers are often very wary and require excellent presentation to catch, while trout in remote regions are much more forgiven because they simply lack any/much past experiences of being targeted by that method.
Fish have low low intelligence compared with mammals but they can still comprehend and understand from past experiences. A basic fundamental of intelligence.
<><><><><><><>
When you guys refer to a 'Straight' hook are you referring to a hook without even a curve, or one which is barbless?
If it is a barbless hook, like I already said they are just as, if not more efficient then one with a barb. The reason being they can penetrate deeper. If you can not catch fish on a barbless hook it would be due to poor overall technique or the use of blunt hooks.
-
I have drunk a few rather bad red wines.
(All of my chinse flatmates (sample size 4) drunk quite a bit of milk.)
-
One clear advantage is it keeps all your fish together until you are done fishing. Then after you are done, they are all on a line and can easily be transported from one place to another.
Bucket.
A line is a lot easier to take with you. Fits in the tackle box. And you don't have to worry about putting water in the bucket.
It is fine to use a line once the fish is dead, I often do a similar thing. My issue was using the line when the fish is still living. There is simply no
advantage to it.
-
Do not give me any rubbish that ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åfish do not feel painÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ
-
Wrong.
That is just putting undue suffering onto the fish. The first thing which should be done is a blow or iki to the head. Kill it instantly!. Followed by bleeding and chilling if desired.
There is absolutely no need to pro-long the suffering. Actually most fish typically taste better after a quick death. Doing what you suggested would allow for a large build up of acid and stress characteristics in the fish.
How can you blatantly say it is wrong? They make those fishing lines for a reason, because people use them. Sure, you can disagree with whether or not it is cruel/necessary, but just plain saying "wrong" is stupid.
No. Using one is Stupid. Anyone who use one really deserves to have it shoved down their throat and through their lungs. I wonder how much they would enjoy it. Completely unnecessary cruelty towards the fish with zero positive advantages and several clear negative ones.
Also if you read what I wrote I did not only say 'wrong', I justified it.
-
Sorry, I'm not this immature or stupid, but this is the only way I can put this. Is Ebola the sickness where your insides melt.
Crudely yes.
-
I am a keen fisherman, and I sometimes keep a odd fish for a feed, especially if it was badly hooked. The majority of fish I catch would be released. People who kill every fish they catch simply sickens me. Fishing is a sport, maybe a blood sport, I do not consider it in any way to be a means of gathering a meal.
Why release fish? Because it helps to conserve the population, and that fish can be caught another day. Handle correctly the fish would experience minimal discomfort. To me, seeing a fish swim away after a long fight is a big part of the total experience. Much preferable then watching it lay dead on the bank.
After you catch a fish, and plan on eating it, the first thing you do is stick a rope with a [bleep]e on the end through the fish's mouth out through the gills.
Wrong.
That is just putting undue suffering onto the fish. The first thing which should be done is a blow or iki to the head. Kill it instantly!. Followed by bleeding and chilling if desired.
There is absolutely no need to pro-long the suffering. Actually most fish typically taste better after a quick death. Doing what you suggested would allow for a large build up of acid and stress characteristics in the fish.
-
I am going to order my copy tonight :)
Hope it arrives in time.
edit: Done :)
-
Half of you guys would be dead in a couple of minutes, many would still be running around trying to get/find their stuff when the holocaust start. The other half would have a chance to last at least a few hours, especially if luck is on their side.
It is not a matter of it, but when. A zombie holocaust would occur one day. I feel everyone should at least have 1 firearm with a supply of ammo in their house. A full armed society could quite easily survive relatively intact. The biggest threat are the anti-gun campaigners, and gun control laws. Such laws would mean there is little chance to stop the plague once it is underway.
Anyone without a firearm would also quite quickly be added to the ranks of the zombies. I say, anti-gun campaigners are a danger to the future of humanity and should be shot.
-
11.6 days is the longest time I can find to emit 1000t of CO2, around 6 countries share it.
It does make me wonder how accurate the figures are which they use. Especially for the less developed nations. But then left greenies like them are terrible at making up data.
-
Thinking back, it had a couple buttons on it. It also had a small analog stick.
Nintendo was even working on wireless controllers for their machines back in the 1980's . There is a bit on them here.
-
a patent filed in February, 2005 which refers to a device titled "Trigger Operated Electronic Device."
The Wii was revealed in E3 2005. It was developed way before that. This company just wants some quick cash.
Priority on this patent is way back in 1995, it only just got filed in 2005.
Filing dates don't really matter too much...
Also, while you're thinking of that, triggers on the N64 and whatnot wouldn't matter either as prior art, because this patent is for a wireless device.
I had a wireless controller with a trigger on it back when I was 5. That was around 7 years before 1995.
-
I agree that the Nintendo would of been working on it, from before the patent was issued. If it gets that far the court would rule that the patent is on already existing design and the case would get thrown out. Hopefully the company would lose quite a bit in legal fees.
-
I agree that a prison would be a great place to hold oneself up in. The only problem, is that it would be fulled with prisoners which are not always mentally stable. There could be conflict and infighting occurring. But apart from the short comings of the inmates, a stone or brick walled prison would be ideal with multiple layers of protection. Even the strong, climbing and intelligent zombies would be blocked.
The other obvious option would be a castle which is in 'working' order. Such a castle would probably prove superior then a prison because it was designed to be defended and keep people out rather then keeping people in. It is also might have a 'escape' route. The only problem is that they are only common in Europe and maybe parts of Asia, plus most are in a state of dis-repair.
-
When it comes to zombies the rules are simple; you stay in one place, you die. I will be travelling non-stop, avoiding urban areas unless I need to replenish my food/fuel/ammo supplies.
Your strategy has its merits, but I see one main flaw, and that would be when you need to rest.
Even in remote parts there would still be danger. It would only be a matter of time until you get surrounded while sleeping (Assuming you choose to sleep in a inaccessible spot). Because you are traveling the amount of ammo and supplies would be limited and would not allow for any serious length to a siege or a breakout attempt. Especially if a large number of zombies have gathered.
I still believe the best chance of survival would be to become as fortified as possible when enough supplies to last for several months. Although with only 1 hour like this scenario does not give much preparation time for a fortification strategy.
The main flaw to a fortification strategy is what would happen once supplies are running low. If the zombies have lost interested a chance to resupply would be possible. But if they kept on gathering in every increasing numbers there is not much chance.
Getting to the coast, and sailing out to sea in a well stocked boat with a reasonable size crew could be the best option. At sea you should be able to collect your own water (rain) and provide food in the form of fish. Although supplies of other foods would require a landing attempt every so often but at least there should not be any large gathering of the un-dead to worry about and constant attacks would not be a risk. Assuming the zombies could not swim indefinitely and infected ships are avoided.
-
Whats do you notice about all these things? they all produce carbon dioxide. the diffrence is in how much is left unburnt and how much energy you get per amount burnt. and some of them are renewable but not worth the amout you get out of making it.
One advantage of Biodeisel and similar fuels is that it is taking CO2 from the atmosphere when it is grown. when burnt it returns that CO2 so no net increase.
With stuff like coal and oil, that CO2 have been removed from the atmosphere for millions of years, when burnt it is increasing the amount of CO2.
-
and anyway the Ozone deleption has already started to recover, CFC concentrations in the atmosphere are on the decline and a complete recovery is predicted to be around 2050.
Did a politician tell you that?
nope.
The Ozone hole rarely gets brought up in politics now, mainly (I suspect) because the worst of the problem is already behind us and the solutions are working. I live in New Zealand, which is sometimes directly beneath the hole so it affects us more then anyone else. If you look at the data you would see that the amount of CFC in the atmosphere is already declining, they were the main cause to the hole in the first place.
Anyway, the ozone hole has next to nothing to do with climate change so not really the point of this thread.
-
I'm much happier driving a car that I know is my own, runs great, and I enjoy driving. It's not particularly fast, but it gets me around safely.
Mine is the 3L diesel and I had it up to 160km/hr, the the speedometer only goes up to 160km/hr.
They are great vehicles and so versatile with so much room, plus with a few modifications they are excellent off road. The IFS versions also are nice and comfy to ride. It is also plenty of room in the boot to sleep in, I would choose one over a van any day.
Mine tops out at 108 mph, and it takes a whole lot of road to get there. Oh if only a diesel Helix Surf could be registered in America... I wish I could get a hold of one. One option is to get a diesel engine and convert an American 4Runner to work with it, but again it won't pass emissions.
I am surprised that you can not get a diesel 4runners locally. Diesel is so much better... at least in my opinion.
Have you considered getting a LPG conversion down to your petrol engine. Make it dual-fuel. The running costs for LPG is much better then petrol (atleast in NZ), and it is cleaner.
-
A hour is not much time to get prepared.
Weapons: I would raid our gun safe. In there I would have around 500 shotgun shells, mostly are just bird shot though. There are few dozen rounds for 22 and 306 in there. I do not believe that shotguns would be that good of a weapon, I need accuracy and range. I doubt I would be able to get any semi-automatic weapons.
I would also try and contact and warn as many people as possible. I would try and get as much ammo, weapons and other gear collected as possible. I would then drive to the nearest shop and stock up on bottled water, food and batteries. I would like to be able to last at-least 3 months before leaving the hiding place for more supplies. Having a supply of 'light' for night would also be important.
For defence and hiding place, I would need to remain above and out of reach of the zombies at all times. Being in close contact would bring to much risk of being infected. I doubt anyone out in the open would last more then a few minutes.
It is hard to decide on my hiding spot. It has to be easy to defend. I would probably choose the upstairs portion of my house. I would gather all of the supplies and helpers upstairs. Before destroy the stairs preventing the zombies from reaching us. The main flaw with my house is that it is built out of wood. I doubt I would have much time to organize anything more.
Body amour would be great, but I can not think of anything which would be easily and quickly accessible.
My technique would be one of survival and 'withering the storm'. I would kill any zombies which would pose a direct threat to the house. I doubt I would have the firepower to do any serious damage. The long term goal would be to try and make contact and join other survivors and probably construct a defended compound.
I suck with regards to music so can not think of any theme songs.
-
CFC reduction- doubt that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole
Also Read
Newman, P. A., Nash, E. R., Kawa, S. R., Montzka, S. A. and Schauffler, S. M (2006). "When will the Antarctic ozone hole recover?". Geophysical Research Letters 33: L12814.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2 ... 5232.shtml
Doubts about vegetable oil powered enginesType ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åvegetable oil carsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ
-
Politically - Pull out of Iraq and use the millions of dollars wasted there to stop global warming.
But even if politicians started this idea today it wouldnt change the outcome. The CFC's (and others) made 20 years ago have not reached the atmosphere, so only one can guess the full extent of the damage. The deed is done... nice knowin' ya peoples.
lol @ coughing lungs out...
CFCs are not a greenhouse gas. They cause a reduction in the amount of Ozone. and anyway the Ozone deleption has already started to recover, CFC concentrations in the atmosphere are on the decline and a complete recovery is predicted to be around 2050.
My nieghbour and his pit crew are trying to make a car which drives on vegetable oil.
Imagine that.. gas stations dispensing vegetable oil for cars - :-k
These have already been made and are working.
... to demonstarte this the most powerful country in the world went to war for a portion of there wealth.This is completely untrue. It is sad how people have to make things up to try and further a point.
what opec does is it buys out the more advanced ideas of fuel effiecent technologies and will use them when all of the oil has run out.Evidence?
The automotive industry is just as large and extremely competitive. If such technologies were available, many would secure and implement them in a second to gain a advantage. By saying that, many engines are much more fuel efficient today then they were 5 years ago.
im not even an american, and i can see how much of a burden bush has been on america and the world.
and what burden is that?
the sad thing about global warming is greed - big oil companies - OPEC - only want one thing - money, they dont care about the environment, fundamentally.its a sad fact, but seeing the power that these huge companies have, its hard to see a change of car/vehicle fuel until crude oil runs out.
They are also under massive pressure from the consumer to provide cleaner and environmentally friendly options. If a company gets a bad reputation it would result in reduce earners and less money. To fulfill their 'greed' they need to have the consumer demanding their products.
-
The carelessness of either owner is no reason to have a cat declawed.How about this? Your cat has been killing your neighbours - prize winning - pigeons. You either get it declawed or put asleep.
Its not like we WANTED to have them declawed.. (currents cats arent declawed anymore, they cant hunt anything anyway)
You make it sound so simple..
If the choice comes up: Declaw them or have them killed, with no other option?
What would you go with?
Why not put the pigeons to sleep?
A little something in their water/food should do the trick.
Cats are more common pets then pigeons so the pigeon owners responsibility should be to provide accurate protection for his pets. If any gets killed it is their fault and problem.
perhaps the biggest cabbage story i have heard in my life
in Off-Topic
Posted
That guy sounds cool. I use to enjoy tricking people into phony arguments. If he is anything like me, he would be loving the fact how passionately magekillr is trying to prove him wrong.
He really does have a point in regards to the cold war being a continuation to WWII. Just because people have given a name to a part of a conflict does not mean that the conflict ended.
I say that it is quite easily arguable that the cold war is indeed a extension to WWII, if you can not see the justification I suggest reading up on history.