>The Direct X version supported by GeForce 4 couldn’t even display the real pretty water textures at that time, or at least mine couldn’t on my GeForce 4 + amd64 laptop.
If I remember correctly you needed Shader model 3.0 support to get those fancy graphical effects which required GeForce FX series & 6th Series (6600/6800 etc).
My dad bought me HL2 back in Nov 2004. At the time my PC spec was:
P4, 512 RAM, GF FX5900XT, HDD 80Gb, Dial up 56k, LCD BenQ 1280x1024, Win XP.
The game was in English and I didn't speak it at all at the time so had to download the translation (700Mb audio files). Took me a couple days. With constant disconnects as dial up wasn't really reliable. Luckily, Steam allowed you to resume the download.
Still using that Steam account.
The game ran well. Although, my friend had Radeon 9600 Series and it performed noticeably better on his PC (or maybe I'm confusing it with a different game - Far Cry).
Ahh I had a lowly fx5200 and dreamed of the day of being able to afford a better card. But that meant skipping 6 months of lunches and by then I’m sure the better card would not be compatible with my motherboard anymore anyway.
Note, this is exactly as true of Chinese media/propaganda (CGTN etc). They are all over Tiktok, Twitter, Youtube, Facebook etc... but if you see someone posting from there, you can assume that it is likely state sponsored. It is illegal for a national to use a VPN to access those sites, and dangerous to do so if it upsets anyone in power.
Pretty sure Russia took responsibility for the hospital but my understanding is Russia claims their intelligence was 1.) it was no longer a functioning hospital and 2.) used as a base of operations for the fascist Azov Battalion... not that it didn't happen.
I'm very sorry for the situation you're in. Could you elaborate on your fears for Romania?
Putin's attempt to annex Ukraine has been very damaging to Russia's economy and (I assume) its conventional military strength. Putin's actions also placed the rest of Europe on high alert.
So even if Putin manages to secure control of eastern Ukraine, I assume it would take many years before Russia is strong enough to attempt another expansion. And I expect nearby countries would use that time very productively.
Typically if the economy is collapsing during a military action like this, the gov’t has only two options:
1) stop (which in this situation would mean admitting that it was a bad idea/defeat, and almost certainly lead to Putin’s death and the collapse of the gov’t)
Or
2) double down and switch to a military economy, using outside sanctions as proof that they were right and everyone else WAS out to get the country.
Guess which one they seem to be doing?
And if they successfully switch to us vs them’ing the entire world, they can’t let peace happen or folks will start thinking. They need a constant enemy.
Wow, Russia has messed up really badly then. I guess their navigation wasn't working since they ended up on all accessible sites of Ukraine, including next to Kyiv. While announcing an operation in Donbass
When Crimea was annexed, there were many articles on Azov Battalion and the implications that it was the best thing (capable fighters who will defend the country) and the worst thing (they're Fascists) and how that would play out if Russia invaded.
Since the invasion, I haven't seen any articles on the topic and the US media have gone suddenly silent on their involvement. I find it kind of odd considering there is such a preoccupation with Nazi's in this country, they would just ignore this part of the narrative.
"Since the invasion, I haven't seen any articles on the topic and the US media have gone suddenly silent on their involvement." that's just not true pick your favourite search engine and you see articles on this topic from every major outlet.I checked for this Nyt, WP (US) , der spiegel(ger), guardian(uk). You see articles coming up the last 2 weeks, another spike was 2017 and before 2014. I guess if ran an analysis for I'd see spikes mentioning Azov, whenever the Ukranian topic was in the media
You're right, and yet I disagree with your main point. For every article about Azov or other far-right nationalists, there are like 100 saying Russia is spreading misinformation about Nazism in Ukraine (which can of course be true too). The ratio is not appropriate in my very subjective opinion.
Another point about you mentioning The Guardian- I've always found before, specially so during this conflict, British media presents comparatively balanced narrative than American ones. Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" is being staged right in front of our eyes.
What ratio is appropriate once Russia has used this excuse to invade a sovereign nation? The time for having concern about Azov battalion seems well past. There was never such ultimatum as "get rid of Nazis or we will do it for you". It was never a real concern, but a pretext, their own manufactured consent.
It's curious as to why we don't treat western govt / media sources as "propaganda" but everything Russian is. I fully agree with the label, but its not being applied to the west. How long were western media just regurgitating that "biolabs" was "Russian disinformation" and writing "fact checks" which just parrot the official government narrative until they realized the Russians were going to capture them then they just admit it in an open hearing? I don't believe a word of what either side says. The moral superiority gap has shrunk to next to nothing.
Here you are perpetuating more western propaganda and potential misinformation. First of all the difference between a "biolab" and a "bioweapons lab" is a semantic difference without actual substance. If covid was released out of the wuhan lab, the now predominate theory, this wasn't a "bioweapons lab" but just a "biolab". What is the practical difference? Fact is, anyone performing research that could be used as a bioweapon doesn't actually call it a bioweapon. They just in practice do all the same things a bioweapons lab would and pretend its just "for defense". You say potato, I say potato.
The line coming out of the US gov't no longer even makes sense, IMO.
They've claimed, like you, that the labs were just general biolabs you'd find at any university, and anything related to WMD is just Russian "disinformation."
But they've also claimed that these labs were old Soviet-era weapons research labs the DOD was helping to close down.
So which is it?
If they're closing down old weapons labs, why'd it take 17 years? If they're not weapons labs, why are they so afraid (as Nuland from State Dep't claimed) of the Russians seizing or destroying them?
If they're just research labs for the good of humanity, the gov't needs to explain to us taxpayers why they continue building up infrastructure and subsidizing research and jobs in foreign countries with money borrowed from China and / or printed up, which is now exacerbating inflation. How many underemployed PHDs in the US could be doing some research here at home with the hundreds of millions of dollars we've just handed out to Ukraine?
' explain to us taxpayers why they continue building up infrastructure and subsidizing research and jobs in foreign countries with money borrowed from China and / or printed up '
This is a good example of why government spending should be constrained. Fiat currency allows crazy spending and financing endless war. In the medium and long term this harms everyone. In the short term, bio-researchers get grants and toys to play with, and war profiteers get to make more munitions.
It takes 17 years to shut down Frankenstein labs because it costs government nothing to print funds.
"So which is it?"
Most likely a complicated mix of many things.
Why would the ukrainians destroy the soviet labs just to build new ones?
It does seem prudent to destroy dangerous substances that might get involved in combat situations. There is also the possibility of false flag operations.
I think there was a release of docs about using humanized migratory birds to carry disease to specific places. Possibly as a blurred line between studying such mechanisms for defense as opposed to offense. I can’t speak to accuracy of such claims but it does appear that info is being released.
I got it from Russian sources on Telegram, but you did ask what their claim was. You’ll have to go looking for the claims as they’re unlikely to get much airtime in the west. I think it’s to early to tell and if the Russians want me to believe their claims he’ll need to drop a whole lot more docs. AFAIK that hasn’t happened yet, I just was a PowerPoint and some docs that someone had translated, but I have no idea if the translation presented was correct.
Depending on which way the Chinese go with this we could end up with covid was created by the USA in a Ukrainian lab and then sent to China via migratory birds.... which would tie things up in a neat little bow. (Edit: should mention I'm not saying that's what happened - but I'm interested to see if it'll be claimed to have happened)
Yes, although it will "go down on your permanent record". As long as you don't post anything identifiable online or upset anyone, you probably won't be arrested.
Voice of America, RadioFarda, RadioSvoboda and RadioFreeAsia all are by law prohibited to publish their "news" to US public because these disinfo operations are aimed to foreign audiences
I don't need to be specific. I don't know what exists in all places. That's not my area of expertise. But I do know that there are other systems apart from the two you mention, Mir and Union Pay, that do work in countries other than Russia and China. Those Chinese tourists I see are using one or other of them.
And anyway, who's to say that there won't be another half a dozen new ones tomorrow that also do?
Too many in the West don't think other people can have any other choices than the ones that Westerners have. Reminds me of when the Japanese cars started arriving on the market. "Toyota? Mazda? What a funny name for a car! Mazda make lamps and lightbulbs, don't they?"
Yes. You can purchase dollars in exchange of Rubles.
Previous week it was aprox. 80 Rubles per U.S. Dollar.
Now due to the White House's statement that there will be sanctions against the Russia's central bank (they shouldn't able to use the reserves to keep Ruble stable) it is predicted that Ruble will collapse tomorrow.
How extremely odd. Wonder why the values haven't converged? Do people inside the country not have access to this information? What's stopping someone from buying 150 rubles for a dollar and then buying $1.40ish for those same 150 rubles?
I see, the friction is in doing the reverse transaction. I guess you could find a buyer outside the traditional markets to complete the arbitrage transactions but that's going to be risky. Thanks for the clarification.
It's far from the first time rouble has plummeted. Just a reminder that 10 years ago, before this whole Crimea thing, 1$ was around 30₽. In the 90s and early 00s rouble was unstable enough that cellular carriers billed in dollars and many stores had prices in "у.е." that were also dollars just with a different name.
I find his contribution to the discussion adequate and interesting. The U.S absolutely had a hand in what's happening here, it's been evident since 2014. I wish this community would take a moment to reflect and try to adopt a more nuanced view of the factors that led to this and of their country's foreign policy.
For all the talk of wanting peace and democracy, the U.S topples regimes like it's the national sport and calls for blood at the slightest opposition. You really don't have the necessary track record to claim moral superiority here, so a more nuanced take than "Putin is evil" would do everyone well. This time Ukraine and Europe will pay the price of your belligerent behaviour, maybe that will teach us to build a stronger leadership (... especially Germany) that doesn't follow whatever Washington says all the way across the Atlantic.
> Is that what I said? I'm just saying that everyone's hands are not clean here. Putin's are the filthiest and bloodiest, no doubt. But, maleficence is everywhere.
My understanding is that no one (serious) is defending Russia, but claiming that Ukraine is a new battleground for the West vs. Russia and that the NATO membership proposal/the 2014 coup was antagonistic like the annexation of Crimea. What is wrong with that claim?
Of course what is happening is tragic. We can all agree it should have been avoided, and I am curious if it could have been avoided.
1) Some parts of the Ukraine (the Crimea and Southern regions of the Ukraine) have a significant pro Russian population, e.g. they wouldn't protest a lot against Russian influence.
2) On the other hand the Western parts of the Ukraine are more EU/Western aligned, hence they don't want to do anything with the Putin's regime.
From Putin's perspective an independent Ukraine is no-no.
And the West isn't willing to start WW3 over the Ukraine.
All of that seems sensible, but I am not sure it clears up my confusion: if Putin never would have allowed an independent Ukraine, why would NATO reject his demands to reject Ukraine's NATO application? If Russia was going to invade anyway, why not at least try to de-escalate and negotiate for a sovereign Ukraine?
I think that this is the primary argument of people claiming that the USA MIC is partly to blame here. I do not have a good response to it.
Ukraine has made no NATO application (they last had a membership action plan in 2009). They've been told that they would not succeed or meet the criteria currently.
Yah. One can't really let Russia make NATO promise to never let a certain country in. But NATO wasn't really eager to admit Ukraine.
Of course, Ukraine really wanted to be in NATO, for obvious reasons...
Here's the deal, from my standpoint. Russia is declining in relevance.
* Demographically, they're shrinking and aging.
* Economically, post-Crimea sanctions have blunted any growth.
* Trade / exchange--- petroleum becomes less relevant with time.
* Diplomatically, they're already pariahs from many past misdeeds.
* Culturally/socially, they've stagnated as well.
Clawing for land around them-- through proxy conflicts in Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, etc-- offers them a small chance of continued relevance. It's probably not a winning strategy, but it's at least one which could be winning. When you're in a bad situation, if you want to keep playing the game, you need to make the moves that at least could lead to a win.
>if Putin never would have allowed an independent Ukraine, why would NATO reject his demands to reject Ukraine's NATO application?
Euromaidan happened 2013. Putin already lost the Ukraine back then. By annexing the Crimea and sending Russian troops now he is taking the Ukraine back.
I may be mistaken but I think whether the Ukraine was actually joining NATO or not wasn't really relevant in this conflict IMHO.
>If Russia was going to invade anyway, why not at least try to de-escalate and negotiate for a sovereign Ukraine?
For the couples months there were negotiations. Was there a possibility to avoid the current conflict?
I think unless you're the U.S./Russian diplomat it's impossible to answer this question.
We then openly backed the 2014 putsch in Kiev, an open act of aggression just as irresponsible as a military incursion. CIA John Brennan, Senator John McCain, and Diplomat Victoria Nuland were there in Ukraine when Yanukovych was being overthrown. There is also evidence to show that we were involved through NGOs in overthrowing and promoting an atmosphere desiring the overthrow of Yanukovych.
"F* the EU" said Diplomat Victoria Nuland -- knowing full well that the Germans and French would be against a coup in then-neutral Ukraine.
Meanwhile, once again, soon after the Iraq debacle: here we are getting dragged into another "war for democracy".
Russia and America turned Ukraine into a "if we can't have, burn it to the ground" situation. Further American intervention in Ukraine will just turn it into another Syria.
I imagine a number of people with Apple Cinema display connected to their PC would be really limited.