MSBoxer

I have had the Logitech X-55 for several years, while cannot compare to the Thrustmaster equipment, it is more than enough for me. I also gave up on Track IR years ago and switched to VR. As far as I know IL2 supports VR.

I have a treasured copy of The Shield and the Storm by Blake, Thomas G, which covers the 1991 gulf war. This book has always been special as it is dedicated in part to my father who passed away Jan. 1 of that year.

I also enjoyed Lucifer's Hammer.

Only 3 or 4 times

Thanks, the original image was timed perfectly and at the right angle. Or at least good enough to fool my old eyes!

Ahh, thank you! Counter measures! I thought some photo-shopper thought it would be cool to simulate a missile launch, but decided to put the flare behind the nacelle! This has really been bugging me!

I have had this image in rotation for my desktop wallpaper for a while now and just noticed something that makes me question it's authenticity. Let me know if you see anything off.

I have found this documentary to be incredibly educational and heartbreaking. My dad was in the Americal Division in 1969 a year after another unit in the division performed the massacre at Mai Lai. I never made this connection in the past. Almost a year to the day afterward he was in his bunker at LZ Buff (later LZ Stinson) when it was hit with an RPG killing everyone but dad. He was airlifted out and thankfully made it another 21 years. In watching the documentary I find myself getting more and more pissed as president after president admits that the war is meaningless and can't be won, yet refuse to admit it to the public for fear of looking weak or losing an election! My father and many others were put into harms way for no reason what so ever. The comments in the documentary about being the last generation to trust the government really hit home.

Most guests arrived late, ran short of appetizers. Is that the Donner Party you mean?

Big fan of beach volleyball as well and I am already sick of NBC delaying the matches 3 hours so they can show 1/3 of the match in prime time while cutting away to a human interest piece on a swimmer, or a guided tour of a London landmark.

Thomm, there really is not any detail on these stick and tissue models. Just balsa and colored paper...sure some detail them to look like the prototype, but we just build them to experience the project and watch them fly. We had our first test flight last night with 100 winds on the rubber motor...not real good. Today I adjusted the wing and it flew pretty good with 200 winds. Looking forward to nicer weather and an open field!

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/394912_369676226383105_100000221917070_1647862_392636588_n.jpg not bad, just need some good weather to test it

I do try! I got to thinking that, and I am gonna sound old here, that kids today do not appreciate or understand the long term commitment to starting and completing a project. So I wanted my son to get a taste. The plane is about done, I just need to order some colored tissue to cover it. I will be sure to post more pics/videos when ready. Thanks for the link, I will check it out.

For Christmas I gave my son a few balsa airplane kits that we can build together. I have not built one in more than 20 years, but had fond memories of building them with my dad when I was young and thought my son might appreciate the experience. I hope that he gains an appreciation for the value of the project, not just the finished product...and that the darn thing flies!

I have often thought that anyone who actually wants to be elected to government office should be disqualified due to a lack of mental facilities. I am also close to supporting the concept that only those that actively contribute to government coffers should have a vote. I know this is not possible, and has a multitude of problems with dis-enfranchisement. But I am a firm believer in the old quote "A democracy will only last until the people realize they can vote themselves money out of the treasury".

There was also a very obvious failing by the local sheriff who was quick to point fingers at the right wing. Yesterday he stated that his office has dealt with this young man in the past in relation to multiple death threats that he made against individuals other than Giffords. Why the hell was the shooter not put on the list that would have denied him the opportunity to purchase the firearm that he used!

It is distressing that the first reaction by many was to point fingers and lay blame without any evidence what so ever. Even when friends point out that he was a liberal less than 2 years ago, the narrative remains that he was encouraged to do this by the tea-party and other conservatives. The only fact we have to operate on is that this is one sick SOB. We know he was a liberal a few years ago. We also know that he referred to Giffords as fake or phoney and that some of his views could have been considered similar to some far right wing views, or they could also be those of far left anarchist. Did he shoot Giffords for her refusing to support Pelosi as minority leader? Did he shoot just to show hatred of all government? Did he shoot because of a bullseye on a map? I have trouble believing any of these were the cause. I think that if they were he would have simply assassinated his target, but shooting 20 people? Insanity is the only cause I can come up with...anything else is just too frightening to contemplate.

I never stated that the CRA was the prime cause, but wanted to point out that the government had a role in the collapse. When the Government tells banks that they must loan money to those with greater risk, then facilitates that with relaxed regulations it has an impact. Of course the fact that the financial institutions saw an opportunity for increased profit with less oversight added a great amount to the inflation Thank you for the links, but I feel that the articles I linked to have a bit more weight than a spokesman from the Federal Reserve and a contributor to the Huffington Post. I am not saying that either is wrong, but one works for the government that had a hand in the problem and the other has a clear preference for the very policies that CRA supported. Again, I never intended to state the CRA was the prime cause. I believe that this is a case of Government programs with good intentions being implemented poorly, loosening of regulations and corporate greed creating the "Perfect Storm". Edit - After posting this I took a look to see if I could find any posts on Huffington from Felix Salmon, and while he is cited many times, a quick search does not result in any articles posted by Mr. Salmon. One of his online profiles listed him as a contributor, but it appears that the profile may not be accurate.

It appears that financial experts disagree with you about the CRA's role in the bubble. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6 http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/housing-bubble-subprime-opinions-contributors_0216_peter_wallison_edward_pinto.html Predictions from 1993 and 2000 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEED6133EF933A25750C0A965958260 http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

One also needs to take government regulations which in effect forced banks to make sub-prime loans in order to extend the dream of home ownership to a larger percentage of the population. Then the government allowed the creation of bundled securities to "spread" the risk and reduce the exposure of the two primary NGOs which underwrote a majority of the loans. This led to the increase in home values due to simple supply and demand, drove up costs, increased profits for banks and spurred construction. Of course this was not a sustainable model and we are all seeing the results. It is interesting that the creation of the program cited in the article coincides with the expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act....hmm could it just be a coincidence?

OK Jon you want facts here are some facts. One - the website www.alternet.org makes the statement that "Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason". This is not the subject of the survey but conjecture on the part of the author Two - The University of Maryland does not manage the website, nor did they administer the survey. The survey was created by "World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland", what they fail to mention is that while it is partially managed by a department at the University, it is actually a joint project with "Center on Policy Attitudes ". Of course the author knew that attributing it to a University exclusively would give it more clout. Three - You hate Fox and that is fine. I actually don't care for Fox news either. But I hate those who insist on using the broadest, coarsest brush as a means to illustrate their opinion rather than look beyond the surface and explore the issue with a more open and analytical mindset. Four - Since you insist on making this a crusade against Fox without looking at the deplorable state of the media in general, while resorting to childish passive aggressive attacks there really is no reason for me to continue to attempt to have a mature discussion on the topic. Have a Merry Christmas The best to you and yours

Wow, you really have some issues. Where have I said that they are not the worst. I am simply trying to point out that they are merely the sickest in a community rife with disease. And I feel the need to point out that the article posted on a liberal website bashing a conservative news source DOES NOT point out that FOX is the worst. It points out that it's viewers are the lest informed, or do not know the facts according to a survey. Is this because of Fox, possibly, or it could be indicative of the socio-economic/educational demographics of those that prefer to watch Fox. Odds are it is somewhere in between. Now what would be interesting is a study that correlates the answers in the survey to specific quotes from Fox that reinforces or can be attributed as a cause to those views. As any educated person knows a survey can be made to say almost anything that the surveyor chooses. Data is data, but analysis is interpretation and phrasing of questions is everything. That is what I was trying to point out in my initial post, the questions leave too much space for perception and interpretation. "Is the economy getting better?" well to a majority of the people I deal with on a daily basis as an employee of an international association of business owners it is not. Now government statistics may say otherwise, but to these folks it is not.

Jon, I was responding to Elmar's statement that MSNBC has a bias while Fox actively pushes the conservative agenda and was trying to point out that MSNBC also actively pushes an agenda. My choice of the word everyone was obviously hyperbole and while perhaps a poor choice was meant to illustrate their intent. Even Time, a publication widely recognized as left leaning stated "Credit where due, Fox also had a more, well, balanced panel much of the night than its competitor MSNBC. Holding forth from left of center for Fox were the recently-high-profile Juan Williams and Democratic political guru Joe Trippi. MSNBC's main lineup, on the other hand, was basically its center-to-left lineup of nightly hosts: Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell. Read more: http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/03/midterm-media-do-the-wave/#ixzz18K0H0ja3" And the same from US News: "Fox is at least making a pretense of maintaining the traditional separation between news and commentary. Then there’s MSNBC, which is being anchored, more or less, by liberal yakker Keith Olbermann…Occasionally they bring in the hyper-aggressively liberal bloviator Ed Schultz, setting up the image of the left quizzing the far left."

Did you all not see MSNBC's anchors covering the 2008 election attacking and insulting Palin every night while getting "Tingles up the leg" whenever Obama spoke? Or their star Olbermann apologizing for being forced to air the republican's video at their convention and that he found it insulting. If Olbermann and Mathews had spent as much energy looking into Obama's background and experience then perhaps the public would have realized then that he is not qualified and that his policies were not what America needed then instead of 18 months later. Instead they pushed the democrat agenda and sold everyone on "Hope and Change" with no substance, no meaning and no clear plan to implement anything. It was only after he was elected and in office for more than a year that they even began to question if he was up to the task. Bias is truly in the eye of the beholder. O'Rielly is a tool just as much as Olbermann and Mathews, but Fox does not tout him as a journalist and give him control over coverage of the Democratic convention.

Oh, I have no illusions that any media source is un-biased. Just pointing out that he called for skepticism on both sides of the issue. Fox is pro-right MSNBC is pro-left All others tend to lean in one direction or another - none are truly un-biased that is why I do not watch any single network but tend to read news online from multiple sources so that I can get various viewpoints on any given matter. The problem is that the bulk of the public lays their trust in ONE source and that becomes their gospel. Now it should be no surprise to anyone that I tend to the conservative bent, but during the last election cycle I watched more NBC-MSNBC than any other network news. I also read news online from Fox, MSNBC, CNN, BBC and various other national and international publications.