David Hingtgen

I didn't click, and thus didn't know. Remember MW is supposed to be kept PG-13. Unexpected NSFW stuff is NOT appreciated.

I'll take a B.A.T. and a Lackey Viper. (I haven't bought any 25th stuff, but I'll buy those) Hope they're not in two-packs though.

Locking is required because it's SO floppy, the chest moves if you look at it funny. You can't even make a slight change to the arm/shoulder pose without the entire torso coming apart. Want to raise the gun a few degrees? You'll have to re-transform the entire upper half of the battroid to get it all back together, as the upper chest plate holds the entire torso together, but doesn't really "hold" itself to anything.

I'll wait to see if this one has been improved over the FP version. If it has, I'll sell my current one and buy the new one. The YF-19 is my fave valk, so I have to have the best version.

HUGE restock at Wal-Mart today. I haven't seen this many TF's since the June movie toy launch. A dozen Voyager Starscreams, first '76 BB in months, first Concept BB in months (and only the 2nd through 4th I've ever seen), regular Jazz, etc. Both sizes of Megs. No Prime , Barricade, or regular Ironhide. Repaints: the Dreadwing repaints, Night/Stealth/whatever Ironhide Jungle Bonecrusher (looks MUCH better in person), Desert Leader Brawl (looks MUCH worse in person), Swindle repaint. Plus all the new Deluxes---S7 SUV, Dunebuggy, etc.

Close but not quite---the point of the cut-out in the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizers. Any time you have a sharp zig-zag on the edge like that on a plane, the point is called a dogtooth. Go look at a Super Hornet's or F-4's wing for more.

Actually, it's more along the lines of "hot chick of the week" had extremely soft focus in their shots.

True. Same problem apparently exists with Trek TOS.

Most people just have never seen "old films" in anything other than cable TV or VHS. And the DVDs of many of those films are just transfers of the old VHS and thus look no better. But if they go back and make HD masters off the original film, they will have resolution just as good as the newest and best Hollywood blockbuster. PS--black and white film has inherently higher resolution than color, so think about that...

A quick Wiki check lists typical 35mm movie film at around 6000p equivalent. It'll be a while before any display tech can truly show what 30-year-old film has to offer.

That, and Misa. With VF's already done, there might be a chance for some characters.

JP Starscream also has a sharper dogtooth in the stabilators.

No, he's by far better known as the Invisible Man in Hereoes.

Can't help there, but posting my latest thoughts for the forum: Been looking around PC sites, newegg, etc. After reading processor reviews, even 50 (or 30) bucks would be too much for the SLIGHT improvement a new CPU will give me when it comes to gaming. I have a 2.8 Northwood, the most my mobo will take is the 3.2 Northwood: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showd...i=1956&p=18 Basically, the CPU I have and the one I can get are nigh-identical running when DirectX 9, it's apparently all up to the graphics card---and I've got the best graphics card my mobo will take. I think the best option may be to buy one of those little PCI-slot cooler fans, put it right next to my graphics card, and see if I can overclock it 20% or something. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16811999704 Read the first review---*I* have a air-cooled gigabyte card! (And with how few they make and popularity, it's likely my exact card) 3rd review is similar.

Those are the only 2 things that can be upgraded at this point without getting new "everything".

How important is the speed of RAM, compared to quantity? My mobo supports PC3200/200mhz, but only my more recent mem sticks are that. The factory RAM (which I still have in) is PC2700/166mhz, so all the memory is "lowered" to that. Based on what I own, I have two possible RAM scenarios: 1.5gig running at 166mhz, or 1gig at 200mhz. Should I just remove the 512MB of "slower" RAM and have a smaller amount of better RAM running? Second question: Upgrading from my 2.8ghz P4 to a 3.2. 3.2's of the version I need are almost always less than a hundred, but I don't really want to spend even that much. (need money for YF-21 and new 1/60) If I find one for fifty, yeah. But is that even worth it? 3.2 is only 15% faster. But since a lot of games now want 2.4-2.8 minimum, the 3.2 might hold off "need a new PC" for another year or so. (Apprently some people can get the 3.4 running, but the version I'd need is a hard-to-find CPU and it's pretty darn mobo-specific--you don't know if your exact mobo will take it until you try, and I don't want to waste money on a CPU I'm not sure will work--but the 3.2's are always fine) But I'd like to spend only like 100 bucks this year on upgrades, which is pathetically low but all I want to budget.

Why does everyone lump KOTOR I and II together? BIOWARE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH KOTOR II. Didn't write it, didn't program it, didn't publish or develop it. They just allowed Obsidian to use the name and basic engine. Blame Obsidian and Lucasarts for II's failures.

I want Planet Earth to drop to like 20, and players to 50 or 75...

Ok, just now saw that big clear pic of the unpainted one. Those aren't jet engine exhausts. Those are HELICOPTER turbine exhaust baffles. They are for stealth (IR signature reduction) but they cannot be used on a propulsive jet, only a turbo-shaft, like an Abrams tank or helicopter. If they could be used on a jet, they'd be on every F-15/16/18/22 out there, as well as ever passenger airliner to prevent heat-seeking missile attacks. (and why are they clear? Since they're a solid object and not a flame, etc)

To me they just look like a generic afterburner effect, which we all know is wrong for an A-10. And even if it is an IR-signature-reducing exhaust, that's also wrong for an A-10 and looks stupid. Real A-10 engine exhausts would look best in robot mode.

I like that shade of blue, too.

Acoording to Penny-Arcade, load times on both versions are similar, as in "very short". The PS3 IS faster, but nothing to write home about.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Blade failure will delay STOVL F-35B JSF first flight By Graham Warwick Pratt & Whitney's F135 powerplant for the Lockheed Martin F-35 suffered a second turbine blade failure on 4 February, the same day the US Department of Defense tried for a third time to cancel the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 alternative engine. The third-stage low-pressure turbine blade failed during proof testing of flight test engine (FTE) 6, the F135 scheduled to power the first short take-off and vertical landing F-35B, aircraft BF-1. First flight is expected to be delayed. The first failure, on a STOVL F135 during ground testing in August 2007, was traced to high-cycle fatigue resulting from vibration excited by interaction of the blade with the wakes from vanes upstream of the third LP turbine stage. P&W devised a proof test to deliberately excite the vibration and determine whether any turbine blades were susceptible to failure. Two conventional take-off and landing F135s, FTE 1 and 3, have been proof-tested and cleared for flight. "FTE 6 was next in line. A single LP turbine blade responded to the vibration and broke," says Bill Gostic, F135 programme vice-president. "That was the intent [of the proof test]. We fully expected to find blades that cracked, but believed we could identify them before they broke. That was the surprise." To replace the damaged STOVL engine, P&W planned to begin proof testing FTE 2 on 8 February, but the incident will delay the start of propulsion system testing on BF-1 at Lockheed. "The extent of any delay is still to be decided," says Gostic. P&W is delivering one engine a month. "So the initial thought [on the delay] is nominally 30 days - less if we can expedite FTE 2," he says. BF-1 was planned to fly in late May at the earliest, following hover pit tests of the STOVL propulsion system. The blade failure is not expected to delay flight qualification of the STOVL F135, Gostic says. Ground-test engine FX635 is finishing up a 1,000-cycle accelerated mission test, while FTE 5 is completing altitude testing. "We have completed all powered-lift performance testing," he says. P&W thinks the problem is restricted to STOVL F135s, because the LP turbine works harder when powering the shaft-driven lift fan. Although the F135 is derived from the F119 engine powering the Lockheed F-22, the third LP turbine stage was added to power the lift fan. P&W is redesigning the third-stage LP turbine vane, but plans to proof test all ground- and flight-test F135s. Gostic expects the improved design to be implemented beginning with the second low-rate initial production batch of STOVL engines. The Pentagon, meanwhile, has eliminated development funding for the GE/R-R F136 from its budget request for the third year running. Previously, Congress has restored funding for the alternative Joint Strike Fighter engine. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I'm thinking the production F-35's never going to be able to hover at this rate.

Viagra helps Israeli pilot's performance

Seagate. Specifically, a ST3160021A. 160gig, 7200rpm. Quick question---are faster(RPM) ones noisier?