Sorcerers are particularly noted for their arsenal of destructive spells there by wielding the most powerful Tibia Cheats attack and Rune magic in the game eg.

Posted by: Tibia Cheats at August 26, 2008 11:49 PM

On the Second life game, if you have more Second Life gold, it will make you wonderful and interesting on virtual world. You can do everything allodiality by no limit.

Posted by: Second Life gold at August 26, 2008 11:47 PM

Even this pathetic pharmaceutical division, produced the drug have to give, make a paste of money, I would like to be a soldier diverted！As I will get more mabinogi gold and mabinogi money.

Posted by: mabinogi gold at August 5, 2008 09:14 PM

We can also maplestory.io this site to buy, cheap and safe. It was so non-stop the escalation, in order to satisfy their desire to want things, the upgrading of non-stop!

Posted by: maplestory.io at August 5, 2008 09:13 PM

But this also can not stand the feeling of virtual test, because we have feelings, and equipment can be wear by everyone, number is also. And the issue was coming, the number was stolen, the equipment and the RS gold were stolen. Perhaps the feelings of the game were greater than the reality of the feelings of the problems.

Posted by: rs gold at August 2, 2008 02:50 AM

But this also can not stand the feeling of virtual test, because we have feelings, and equipment can be wear by everyone, number is also. And the issue was coming, the number was stolen, the equipment and the RS gold were stolen. Perhaps the feelings of the game were greater than the reality of the feelings of the problems.

Posted by: rs gold at August 2, 2008 02:49 AM

nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 14, 2008 09:53 PM

Dear sir with respect to i want to say some words of your advertisement
blogs your blogs is very nice,and i also give a small types of a seagation-
http://www.cityfly.net

Posted by: jansenkoe at November 16, 2006 06:40 AM

You, uh, been drinkin'? I can't understand half your post.

Posted by: Brian at August 18, 2006 05:43 PM

Good Morning Brian,

Sorry to see you so worked up. But I couldn't let your example of the WWII Batt project go.

Althought Naplm and other technolgy made the concept obsolete the idea is alive and in use today it is known as the "Cluster Bomb Unit" or the CBU.

Your arguments are fun but are little more then sport. Unmanned Military is losing ground at a rate the even it strongest advocates only a couple of years ago couldn't imagine.

Wars have a way of unmasking the obsolesance of old thinking and smashing it, not only is the question of manned vs. unmanned being examined but air combat and it's value to the ground war in general is in question.

The big losers here of course will be the Military IndustralComplex. The current estimate of the buys for the F-22 will be a money loser for the industry. Using the Rule of 72 and assuming that the buy won't increase nore the price in real terms and a ten production the last F-55 just based on a 2.5% inflation rate over it's production life will cost about $50 Million more then the first unit. On the back side the net profit per unit will decline by 30%.
These are not good numbers Brian.

The F-35 is the last hope for industry but even at $256 total project cost it is likely that the F-35 over it's projected 20 production life will shop a profit.

There are currently more Predators bought or on order then the likely number of F-22's that will ever be made. The Predator C that is in development will more then like be able to trap on a carrier, right now Predator's can take off from carriers but the air frames are not strong enough to land, that will change.

Rotary wing UAV's, this week the Navy placed an order for eight Fire Scouts to start training personal for the fleet. The Fire Scout will be operational by the end of the decade.

You may yell from the highist portal your support all you wish but for manned military aircraft but the battle is over. Maybe the 50K personal dumped from the Air Force and Navy this year can hear you.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at August 18, 2006 12:20 PM

Learn to read, son!!!

I didn't ask you what was wrong with the F-35. I've seen enough of your posts to know what you think on that subject.

I asked what was wrong with the Lockheed UAV "Polecat" platform. "Polecat is another word for skunk" you said. So I want to know what is wrong with that program. To which you responded with another attack on the F-35. The Polecat is not the F-35. What is wrong with the Polecat?

For those of you who don't know, the F-35 will be aquired in far larger numbers than the F-22. It will also fill a role the F-22 cannot. It will have a carrier version and a STOVL version. The F-22 can't do that.

The F-35 should save money by eliminating many of the different planes we currently use. By consolidating parts and decreasing maintainance costs, the F-35 will be cheaper than buying more of the same old planes. The reason it's such an expensive program is because we're buying so many of them.

Posted by: Brian at August 17, 2006 08:57 PM

I think the reason Lockheed has being laying low with "UAV talk" is because it would likely make the F-35 seem like a waste of money.

I have nothing against the F-35...But it seems its turning into the ISS (international space station)...and by that I mean: The ISS has several countries from around the world invested in it, which means the US (the main builder) cant back out of it until its built...which is costing many many billions of dollars.

I think the Raptor costs like 120 million...I think they should cut the F-35 now (rather then later) and put there money into a couple hundred more F-22's and UCAVS, I see this being cheaper and making more sense...But the Dozen or so JSF partners wouldn't like it.

Posted by: Murc at August 17, 2006 06:53 PM

What's wrong with the F-35? You mean aside from being yet another taxpayer subsidized multi-hundred-billion dollar weapons program that is without warrant (execpt of course for Lockheed profits)? How about costs on par with the F-22? How about the GAO report critizing the project? How about a system designed to deliver death and destruction that is yet another step removed from human control?

To put it in two easy to remember words: War Corporatism. Ever wonder what happened to the Peace Dividend? It was unprofitable ...

Posted by: Noah at August 17, 2006 06:27 PM

Byron, second verse, same as the first.

It seems there are a crowd of "regulars" here, and after a little while, one can predict the exact content of any particular person's post on any particular subject.

Yes, it's true that technological change is inevitable. But before you jump all over those who failed to embrace the longbow, or those who clung closely to the armored knight, or those Poles who charged their cavalry directly into the German machine guns, make sure you aren't advocating a different kind of fallacy. The UAV hasn't changed aviation yet. Remember, there were those who wanted to release swarms of explosive-laden bats upon Tokyo. There were those who said that the nuclear hand-grenade was the weapon of the future. Some said that the 1960s would see soldiers in rocket-packs dominating the battlefield.

Where are my ray-guns, dammit? I want my battleships made out of icebergs, and my nuclear-powered bombers. All of it supported by laser sattelites raining death from the skies.

Posted by: Brian at August 17, 2006 04:17 PM

Good Morning Brian,

It seems to me that since you chose to address the question with personal attack you really have no response. The fact is the issue of manned aircraft for military purposes is pretty much decided. Manned military aviation is becomming history.

The "Dead Enders" who can't see this are those who have a vested interest in the bucks being spent on this old technology and those in uniform trying to protect careers.

Nothing new here it's all been heard before be it after Angicourt in 1415 when the mounted full armored knight fell to the humble archer, or in 1453 when gun power brought down the walls of Constantinople to the Carrier vs. Battleship wars of the last century. Old must give way to the new or the United States will end up like the French of the 15th. Century, the Christians of the same century or the Germans of the last century.

In Military Avation, an invention of the last century, it must be remembered that from 1935 to 1945 Military Aviation went from Biplanes to Jets, as late as the 1960's there were those in the Pentagon still wanting prop powered aircraft in the Air Force and Navy.

After the recent conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Lebanon even the whole value of Military Aviation in warefare has to be re-examinationed as to it value in conflicts as they are now being fought.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at August 17, 2006 02:01 PM

Noah, you have a problem with the Lockheed UAV program? What's wrong with it?

Oh wait, you tried to make a smart-ass comment about the F-35, but you didn't read clearly and believed that "polecat" was somehow related to that aircraft. I gotcha.

Posted by: Brian at August 17, 2006 09:57 AM

An aptly named project - a polecat is a skunk.

Posted by: Noah at August 16, 2006 09:09 PM

Convert obsolete aircraft into UCAVs - but who would make a pile of the money out of that??

You're threatening the entire aviation industry there. All they'd need would be a few bits of eletronics and they could have a whole fleet of UCAVs. Thinking like that is bad for manufacturers, bad for shareholders and bad for the economy...

Posted by: David Hambling at August 16, 2006 02:10 PM

I got a question that ever since the first talk about UCAV has begun.

Why can’t we use those thousands of Korea/Vietnam era planes lined up in the desert waiting for scraping?

I have seen some refitted as UAV target planes but why not make them UCAV’s? The cost of building a brand new UCAV or putting a brain box into a converted aircraft I would imagine must be a multiple. The new UAV has got to have the brain box anyway + a whole new body engine ect.. I understand long-term maintenance maybe an issue with the old no longer made parts needing replacement but I am pretty sure we have warehouses of outdated spare parts just for those airplanes laid in corners of bases all over the US.

I look at that old stuff and I see why no pilot would want to fly it into combat but a robot hell yeah hell lets call emm the Jehadir.

Posted by: C-Low at August 16, 2006 02:00 PM

Gee, Byron, again you post something completely unrelated to the topic at hand. Why would we want to scrap the F-35? Oh, that's right, because you're a crazy old guy who bitches a lot.

Posted by: Brian at August 16, 2006 01:08 PM

Good Morning Sharon and others,

Gee I thought this couldn't be done. But the bigger question is why?

If the F-35 can be reconfigured as a UCAV what do we need to go on with the largest defense contract ever. Would it not be cheaper just to scrap the F-35 all together, cut our loses rather then to send $265 Billion down a techogolical "Rat Hole"?

Was it not our very own Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld who, when he took office in 2001 said that he was ready to skip a generation or two of technology to get more advanced systems. It seems that here like with "Comache" and "Crusader" this is Rumsfelds chance to back up his rhetoric with actions, again.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at August 16, 2006 12:55 PM