David Hingtgen

Went to Sears today---they redid their setup again. Much better than BestBuy IMHO. Lighting, while flourescent, is the most "yellow" flourescent I've ever seen and is simple overhead lighting like the rest of the store. As opposed to BB, which uses back-lit blacklights in the TV section... So TV's look much more "normal". (All TV model names are "approximate" as I haven't memorized them all---but you should certainly be able to figure out what I mean) I'm dead set on 32in, so that's all I look at. Anyways---Sears eventually rotated to a long BluRay promo for "Cars"---and we all know high-end CG animated films are among the best stuff you can get to evaluate a TV. Clearest image I've seen yet on a display around here. Even though checking around all the signals were RF/coax cables from 8-way splitters. (yup). Also, Sears leaves the remotes out, so you can check out how they feel, button placement, TV menus, etc. The Samsung LN3253H had the blackest black by far. Surprised. Also, it was one of the "yellow" LCD screens, as opposed to the more common now blue/purple. But, it was just plain much blacker. Its yellow hue was VERY slight, as opposed to even the blackest of the blue ones being noticeably blue. (NO TV is black to my eye---shut off CRT's are not black IMHO---they all have a hue and/or shade) The last "yellow" LCD screen I saw was terrible in every way. But that was an old, cheap, PC monitor. Or maybe that Samsung was just so black and hue-less, the slight yellow tint was actually the store's lighting. That Samsung also looked really good overall. It was next to the 1080p Sharp, so that was a good opportunity to compare. (All TV's were set to super-blue white and super-bright contrast, but I wasn't going to go through and adjust a half-dozen TV's to compare under more realistic settings--too much effort, and the all-important Sony S3000's remote wasn't there) Anyways, I still can't see 1080p on a 32in at a distance of 5 feet or so being better 99% of the time. Again---only large, static text shows a difference. I watched like 5 mins straight of "Cars" and the only time I saw a difference was the logo---the edges of the lettering is less jaggy on the 1080p. The input was 1080i according to several TV's, and all the 720p's seemed to scale it flawlessly. Though maybe getting a decent connection like component or HDMI might reveal differences, both among TV's and 720p vs 1080p. Best Buy seems to use component, but through SO many splitters it looks like an antenna reception in a snowstorm... Sharp 1080p models are still around 300 more than the best 720p models. (Here at least, BB and Sears have nigh-identical prices) Currently leaning towards Sony 32S3000 and Panasonic 32XC700 at the moment, as they have non-gloss bezels and seem pretty similar. (I hate glossy bezels). However, that Samsung did look overall about the best I think, and certainly had the best black. (Of that store that day that source). It did have a glossy bezel though. Maybe I can learn to ignore it. I hate having to compare TV's with such "not how it'll be at home" settings, but it's all you can do unless you can find every remote and can figure out what mode etc they should all be in. (Dynamic pic, motion control, noise, etc--some TV's have all that hidden and automatic, some have their own button on the remote--hard to get them truly all set to the same settings) Honestly, all 3 of the ~1000 buck 32's seem VERY similar, with individual store/settings making the difference I think. Will have to check the Samsung at BestBuy again, see how they have it set up then. (BB changes around the main 3 or 4 I'm interested in EVERY time so I can never get a good comparison among them) PS---as you might gather, I don't buy things on impulse. And as things increase in price, I spend exponentially more time analyzing. But hey, this'll be the most expensive thing I buy for a long time. (hopefully) PPS--the Samsung has 3 HDMI and 2 component. Sony is typical at 2 of each. The Panasonic is only 2 HDMI and 1 component, which'll fill up quickly when I get a PS3 and likely HD-DVD player, in addition to my 360 and DVD player already . Don't they realize anyone buying an HDTV is probably going to have a LOT of stuff to plug in? You should see my pile of cables and splitters with my current setup. (And I leave my Dreamcast unplugged--it "shares" the connection with the DVD player as that's the easiest one to unplug)

A-6F would have helped a lot. Cheap and easy. Heck, new-build A-6E's would have worked decently well.

ARC's down so can't ask our resident F-22 pilot. (Dunno if he could say or not, but he surely knows if anyone)

I found normal with a soldier to be very easy. Died a few times early, but then never died more than once in the same place--generally I only ever died from: 1. Mako. Sometimes you'll take 6 rocket hits and have no idea where they're coming from. Far more Mako deaths than "on the ground" deaths. 2. Unexpected Krogans. If you blindly stumble into one turning a corner, you are likely dead, as they will charge you. I don't know if any geth ever killed me, maybe once or twice in the game once I got past Eden Prime and had the slightest clue what I was doing. Oh yeah, the only real "boss" of the game besides the final one--the very cold planet. Took 2 or 3 tries before I figured out it was your standard "kill the lackeys, not the boss" type of fight. But since it was my first run, being a paragon--I wanted it to be quick and easy. For my 2nd run, I might skip straight to hardcore, to use that character later on insane. (If it's way too hard, then I'll do veteran then hardcore) (my 2nd run is always my "master" run in Bioware-type RPG's)

I avoid team battle 1 for that reason. People don't seem to understand that every stage is played different, not just a different ground texture. Your other team members just fly around randomly. Of course, if you're the ESM-carrier, the other team always seems to know and they ALL come after you. Really, all I play is team 2 and 3 (3 with NPC off, so it's just "open and free" to dogfight in). I'd play battle royale a lot more, but it's rarely going on. And if it is, it's set up for 20 min battles with 16 players and the host won't start it when only 15 are ready and waiting...

Looks like FAST packs and stand at the moment. We haven't even seen a drawing of a fold booster for it.

I used ONLY the assault rifle my first run. Not a single point into other weapons. (Had I known about unlocking stuff for future plays, I would have switched to sniper rifle--by the time I knew, it was too late to make it worth it--I wasn't going to try to learn and put points into a new weapon at the end) By the end with high-end mods, the AR simply wouldn't overheat. "Overkill" became worthless. And I found just running right into the middle of the pack was the best, fastest way to take people out. I'm going to play as a vanguard next time.

And using that scheme is basically cheating. I don't know WHAT it does, but it makes the missiles trail green smoke, and they're like super-QAAMs. I died like 5 times in 10 secs. They HOME and TRACK like you wouldn't believe. In a week or so maybe the novelty of it will wear off, but for now---online sucks if people are using that.

I support the F-35 as a Harrier replacement and that's it. For an F-16 replacement---for how much it's costing just buy F-22's! If everything's going to small-diameter-bombs anyways, there's no need for big external 2000 pounders.

Yeah, but it's the third time I'm worried about.

I know what I missed (that's how I know I missed it) but want to see it for myself. I thought having won there'd be no spoilers, but I keep encountering stuff I hadn't seen, or am already spoiled for some funny lines, renegade-only events, etc. I need to stop reading "I won the game" threads. Annoyingly, I keep reading Wrex has all the good lines (and of the few I've heard they are), but I'm not bringing him along until the THIRD playthrough. (It'll mess everything up unless I decide to play as an Infiltrator on the 2nd run--but I don't plan to)

I bet they could get the rights to Dobber's scheme pretty easily.

Anyone playing ME, awesome sidequest easily missed (I did): Attican Beta Cluster / Hercules System / Eletania Go there. And bring the thing you get from I don't know if "the thing" is easily attainable as a renegade (it can be done but many don't have it) so it might be a long while before I get it. Darn, and I found every other and none of them did anything other than get my hopes up for something cool. Apparently the one in Eletania does something. Though I swear I was there, but didn't find anything.

Graham--the Super Nova schemes are clearly based on the F-15 prototype schemes (IMHO). Just have them do those. Though the Super Nova schemes have extra striping. Or hey--how about the ACTIVE scheme? That's awesome, and well-known in Japan. (It has to be, Namco puts it in every Ace Combat game from the past couple of years)

Doesn't a Sith Lord have "Force Persuasion" or something?

Hey, they're finally going to take off all those 0-point, played for 5 mins arcade game demo-only versions off people's achievement and gamercard lists. (It's been bugging me for a long time--simply because they were played more recently, it means games I actually spent time with are 40 slowly-scrolled slots below junk I hated after 10 secs) http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3164575

I have two different lists of them. (I never completed the quest, too much of a Paragon) I'm betting you're missing one in the Citadel Tower, one is up high and WAY off to the side by the council chamber.

Ok, maybe a stupid question, but as you can tell I haven't even looked at printers in many years. Why would one buy a printer that's not a photo printer? Photo printers seem capable of printing "normally" as well and don't seem to inherently cost any more. Or do cheap photo printers suck? (Because the high-end ones greatly surpass normal printers in price) Or, since photos are the only "upgrade" I'm looking for, should I just buy a small, cheaper photo printer and only hook it up on the occasions I need it, rather than buying an all-new printer for everything? PS---a lot of time I'm just looking more for "raw ink/color density" than "smooth glossy finish"---as in printing a photo as best I can on normal cheap paper. Are any printers especially good at that? PPS--I do have a ZIP disk here somewhere, leftover from college.

Hey, I like having all the cables look different--makes it easy to track them when hooking and unhooking things. Plus even new PC's only have so many USB ports. (though all my Firewire ones are unused) This PC's old, it'll be replaced in a year or two. Might be my longest-used PC ever. Almost nothing'll work with the motherboard anymore. Hard enough to find AGP graphics cards... I plan to re-use this one's new DVD-ROM and possibly power supply in the new one, but probably nothing else.

A little OT but close enough: Suggestions for a new printer? My current printer is years (and years) old. (HP 832C) It still works perfectly, it just isn't really capable of printing photos well (nor at all quickly). And since I haven't had a film camera in years, my printer's the only way to get hard copies of my pictures without heading down to Wal-Mart. Budget? 200 bucks maybe? 150'd be better, but if 200 gets way better photo abilities, that'd be worth it. Speed isn't TOO much of a concern, anything's faster than what I have now when it comes to printing a photo. (All inkjets print out reports and spreadsheets equally well and fast IMHO, how they print photos is the real test) I like to print BIG though if I'm printing a hard copy, full 8.5x11 sheets when possible. Not a bunch of litle 3x5's. I have a couple requests/requirements: 1. Not very tall. My printer's in a sliding drawer, so it can't be more than 7.5 inches tall. (And it can only be 16 inches front to back--but most printers are fine in that dimension) 2. If it could scan, that'd be nice, but most "all-in-one" things are quite tall and deep. 3. Separate ink for each color would save me money. For as long as I've printed in color, I've only ever had "CMY" cartridges that run out of yellow, but red and blue are still half-full. I'm always buying new catridges that are still half-full, but out of yellow. Don't know why, but I go through yellow way faster than the others. 4. Good with printing envelopes. Some printers are very finicky, I like a dedicated envelope slot or tray spacer or something that's quick and easy to have it print envelopes without a fuss. PS---I still like big parallel cables on LPT1 for printers. USB-only is ok, but not preferred.

FB-22.

I might have to go make a uber-password for my Live account. It's currently one of my "high level" ones. But it's not one of my "totally random mix of letters and numbers" which I reserve for really important stuff. (I can only memorize so many totally random long character strigs)

Exactly--Congress etc wouldn't understand that there's much more to the F-22 than just agility etc. They'd read reports that the F-15ACTIVE can out-fly the F-22, and say "well then we'll just buy new nozzles for F-15's and 16's and save billions". As for stealth---I say the F-22 beats anything but the B-2. The F-117 is an angled compromise limited sheerly by computer processing ability of the time. The B-2 is utterly perfect 3D curves, as it has no need to fly in anything but a straight line. The F-22 is a "slightly compromised" 3D curve design, as it needs to be able to dogfight. Though the F-23 would beat the F-22.

I vote for the F-15ACTIVE beating even the F-16VISTA, as the ACTIVE has twin 3D nozzles and canards, which is far more than simply adding a vectoring nozzle to a single-engined non-canarded plane. Some say ACTIVE can out-fly the F-22. Supersonically I doubt the F-22 can out-do the ACTIVE. And it's very cheap and easy to add just the nozzles, the ACTIVE nozzle was designed to retrofit every F100 engine out there. So of course it never happened. (If you could get F-22 performance from old planes, why buy F-22's?)

I've personally see a mach shadow, though I didn't photograph it. Lasted several minutes. Took years before I ever found a mention of the phenomena (and its name)----thought I was seeing things or was nuts for a while. (Most people doubt you saw a hovering shadow of a non-existent object above a plane's wing) http://atmospherical.blogspot.com/2007/09/...ridescence.html (bottom 3 pics) I can't find any references to a "mach shadow" using google, but I'm pretty sure that's what it was called---it was specifically more of a shadow/darkness than a simple mirage-like "transparent distortion) But that link's the closest thing I could come up with. Though if you look, you notice everything to the right of the shock in the photos is slightly darker. What I saw is more like a clearly defined "line of darkness".