logo Sign In

Arnie.d

User Group
Members
Join date
17-May-2005
Last activity
19-Apr-2015
Posts
1,595

Post History

Post
#267423
Topic
Burning Dual-layer DVDs
Time
It's best to make an ISO using pgcedit and burn the ISO with imgburn. Don't use nero to burn dvd files directly to a dvd9.
In pgcedit make sure "options > input/output > when saving, leave at least 32k of space between ifo and bup" is marked. In pgcedit you can also set the layer break.
When burning with imgburn you can mark the layer break as seamless.

Edit: There's a very good guide at videohelp (I don't know the link). If you can't find it and need it I can mail it to you (if you PM me you address).
Post
#267024
Topic
Avian Flu
Time
killing 100 000 chickens cause one had the flu isnt gonna do much, the thing with bacteria is that they are sneaky little buggers and they will always find a way to survive.

The flu is a virus (as you also mentioned in a previous post). Bacteria (or their spores) can survive without a host for a very long time indeed. But I'm not sure about virussen. I know HIV can't survive without a host very long. I don't know how long the flu virus can survive without a host. But killing the chickens will ofcourse enormously reduce the chance people get infected.
Post
#267007
Topic
//Star Wars Begins\\: HD Version Now on Vimeo
Time
I think the title should match your other 2 titles. I feel there should be nothing about "a new hope" in the title since it's not the original title. Although I think Skywalking is a very cool name it doesn't fit the other titles. The title should contain "Star Wars" as Building Empire contains "Empire" and Returning to Jedi contains "Jedi" (and "return").

Skywalking
Building Empire
Returning to Jedi

Maybe...
Creating Star Wars
Building Empire
Returning to Jedi

But maybe that's a bit boring.
Post
#266751
Topic
To those who bought the Limited Edition Lord of the Rings DVDs...
Time
Originally posted by: HotRod
Man, I've had the EE boxset over a year now and still haven't managed time to sit and watch them.
Are they any good? Or is it just a few extra scenes?
It's just that they're all sooo long. Is it worth it?

Some scenes really add something to the story. Like how the guy (forgot his name) in the beginning of fellowship gets killed when he uses the ring. In the theatrical you just see him in the river with arrows in his back. In the extended edition you also see what actually happened.

Post
#266633
Topic
Avian Flu
Time
Originally posted by: Shimraa
you know nanner is pretty accurate on this one. the big fear is that the virus will mutate into a human virus then away we go, cause no one will have any natural resistance to it. now the chances of it mutating are very small, and thats why nanner is right. literally what needs to happen is for two virus's to infect the same cell. one avian flu, the other some human airborn virus. so they infect the same cell at the same time. then by shear luck there RNA gets mixed up. and the part of the RNA in the human strain that involves infecting people gets mixed in with the avian flu genome. after all that happens, the few viruses that get this combination much survive to get into another cell(once again very hard, there is a reason why viruses have to make 10000 of themselves after each replication cycle.) once it infect the new cell it needs to successfully replicate itself, the new RNA combination might nto be complete and the virus could be a dud. and there you have it all the unlikely events that have to happen before we get the killer flu. and thats a VERY genral overview.


Ofcourse the chance this happens is very very small and probably no one would believe it could happen if it didn't happened before. But it already happened multiple times in the past. Also the human population in Asia has grown a lot since then. There's more livestock and the people practically live with the animals.
I'm not worried about it, but saying it won't happen again is like saying the Earth will never get hit by a big asteroid again.

Post
#266541
Topic
Avian Flu
Time
I believe the human form of the bird flu that goes from human to human is a realistic threat. It happened before, it will happen again. Question is, will we be ready.

Its mostly the elderly that are susesptible to this in any kind of life-threatening way.

That's not always the case. The one of 1918 was most dangerous for people in the range of 14-20 years.
Post
#266505
Topic
To those who bought the Limited Edition Lord of the Rings DVDs...
Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
The new releases (as far as I understand) are just the extended edition AND the theatrical edition on a ONE two sided DVD (I am assuming this would mean the quality is lower since the EE is on one side and the theatrical on the other.

I think the movie is branched seamless so the first part of the movie (ee and theatrical) is on side a and the second half is on side b. So I guess no quality loss concerning bitrate.
Post
#265255
Topic
Naked Parties
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
Originally posted by: ricarleite
This is supposed to be a freaking Naked Parties thread. Why are you guys discussing politics?

No idea. I guess one politics thread is just not enough

Now that I've read the entire thread, are we going to do that naked body scan thing? Are we waiting for Gaffer Tape to post the first pic?

Edit: What happened to the hot.like.C3PX thread? I can't find it.


Only if you want that sausage fest to start. As most people here know, I am male.

That's not what you said before. And you have a girly avatar
Post
#265129
Topic
Naked Parties
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
This is supposed to be a freaking Naked Parties thread. Why are you guys discussing politics?

No idea. I guess one politics thread is just not enough

Now that I've read the entire thread, are we going to do that naked body scan thing? Are we waiting for Gaffer Tape to post the first pic?

Edit: What happened to the hot.like.C3PX thread? I can't find it.

Post
#265127
Topic
Naked Parties
Time
Originally posted by: Stinky-Dinkins
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
Originally posted by: Stinky-Dinkins
Originally posted by: Arnie.d

Is this "definition" of a liberal generally the same in the US?


No, Reagan was considered a Conservative in the US.

Liberals typically support drastic increases in spending associated with government social programs (such as welfare) which give way to higher taxes. They’ve typically spent less on the military and tend to support more diplomatic approaches to resolving international conflicts. Conservatives favor less government intervention and a stauncher stance on the preservation of personal liberty (however, issues such as abortion and gay marriage fall into the shades of gray separating the opposing sides of this notion.) Conservatives are typically both financially and socially conservative and have thus been slow on "righting" (or have perpetuated ) social wrongs (segregation, civil rights infractions, etc.) On the other side of the ridiculous political coin, while they have supported and changed appalling social practices (integrating the Southern social infrastructure, sending the Jim Crow Laws packing, doing away with slavery, etc.) Liberals have typically demonstrated an inability to differentiate between "Change" and "Progress." They have, in recent times, drastically overcompensated. Social programs like welfare have become bloated and far too easy to abuse, affirmative action has in a sense re-legalized racial discrimination, etc.

It gets confusing when you throw in the two Parties. Republicans are typically considered "Conservative" these days, but our current President has spent record amounts on government programs and hasn't really done anything special to protect vital personal liberties (those on the left will say legislation such as the Patriot Act have done completely the opposite and have irreparably damaged the rights of the American citizenry, those on the right will tell you in special circumstances like wartime such infractions on personal liberty are necessary.) I would say Bush is anything but a true Conservative (some would disagree.)

Lincoln, the most famous Republican, was wildly socially progressive (something today that is almost entirely associated with the Democrats) during his tenure (abolishing slavery, suspending Habeas Corpus, not "punishing" the Confederacy after the Civil War, etc.)

During of the first half of the 20th century (and slightly beyond) white Southern Democrats (sometimes called Dixiecrats) were both Democrats and extremely conservative. Later, they completely shifted over to the Republican Party (look at Strom Thurmond’s tenure in the Senate for a nice, encapsulated look at the shift of the Part lines during that period.)


So generally speaking, what I would consider liberal you consider conservative?


Based on what you wrote, that sounds about right.... but I really have no idea what the political atmosphere is in the Netherlands. I'd say the safest answer is the two affiliations (Conservative, Liberal) are far too different and defined by the unique local political atmosheres of the two countries to really be comparable.


I agree. But I understand now why I was confused.