search results matching tag: I mode

» channel: nordic

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (400)     Sift Talk (39)     Blogs (30)     Comments (1000)   

I'm on a boat, motherf... no wait, I'm in a Tesla

Jinx says...

Yeah, the battery pack would catch fire if exposed to water, they must have to seal it pretty well.

And yeah, as already mentioned the passenger compartment has a "bioweapon defence mode", presumably because Elon Musk is actually a real life Bond villain and he wants his customers to be safe from whatever doomsday scenario he has planned.

SDGundamX said:

Huh, I would have thought electric cars and water would mix a lot worse than that. Did they engineer it just for the possibility of flooded roads or is it a fluke of the car's design?

I'm on a boat, motherf... no wait, I'm in a Tesla

Mordhaus says...

The S has a biodefense mode option. The cabin becomes somewhat airtight if you activate it. Also, the battery pack is sealed vs leaks or water.

Musk tweeted in response: We *def* don't recommended this, but Model S floats well enough to turn it into a boat for short periods of time. Thrust via wheel rotation.

Days Gone-gameplay video from E3

jmd says...

Yay for made for e3 demos. At first I thought he was ballzy for shooting at a horde he could not win against, but when he did it all the time I was sure it was gonna catch him in the ass. sure enough 2 zombies got to him and not even a scrape, god mode and milking a scenario that was scripted just for the show is lame shit.

Quake: Champions

w1ndex says...

Supposed to have classes, so it's looking like it will have some Overwatch tones to it, but with the Quake/id Software flair. And I believe there will be a "classic" mode with balanced characters as well.

Doom (Zero Punctuation)

ChaosEngine says...

And now I'm starting to wonder if YOU played the original Doom.

There was no reloading in the original doom, and there was no autoaim either (unless you count the fact that you couldn't aim up or down, but that was an engine limitation, it wasn't autoaim).

@Payback, it's well worth your time. I just finished it last week and instantly dove straight back into nightmare mode. It's the most fun I've had in a game for ages. It's just so .... metal. It's as if Dethklok made a game. It ams brutal!

ForgedReality said:

I wonder if you actually played the original Doom. It HAD autoaim. It also had reloading, so I don't get how he says to be really retro, it wouldn't have weapon reloading.

Never turn your back on a cat...

Hodor makes fun of Apple in Samsung ad

RFlagg says...

Yeah, I don't know if most source material will be better here than on the iPad. Wake me when you have a 4k OLED with HDR.

That said, the ending, they show the tablet in portrait mode rather than landscape. After all he said...

Musicless Musicvideo / DEPECHE MODE - Just Can't Get Enough

Depeche Mode - Just Can't Get Enough

Musicless Musicvideo / DEPECHE MODE - Just Can't Get Enough

F-35 Lightning II: Busting Myths

Khufu says...

This is controlled by software, which can be tweaked... the whole point of having test pilots fly the thing. These jets are fly-by-wire as they are bricks-in-the-sky compared to a standard plane so they need automated assistance to fly the plane like 'arcade' mode in a video game. And if you've ever beta-tested a flight-sim you'll know they start off shit and eventually get better as they are refined.

newtboy said:

OK, so this is supposed to be convincing us that the plane works?...but they do admit that it can take numerous seconds between rudder input and response by the plane....my RC glider is more responsive than that.

Three Humvees Fall From the Sky In Failed Airdrop

Spacedog79 says...

Ahh yes, and it was usually followed by some random and unexplained death for no reason.

The fun we used to have trying to complete that awesome but buggy as hell game in coop mode.

artician said:

I remember this map in Hidden and Dangerous.

O'Reilly Can’t Believe Polls: Bernie Crushes Republicans

MilkmanDan says...

I think that the GOP is in full-on panic mode, and doesn't care about legitimacy / shot at winning for this election.

They (the party elites) will do absolutely everything they can to prevent Trump from getting enough delegates to lock up the nomination. Hence Colorado and Wyoming. Those actions make it seem like they prefer Cruz, but actually they dislike him close to as much as they hate Trump.

Although it is still mathematically possible for Cruz (559 delegates) to get enough delegates to lock up the nomination (1237 needed), realistically it is out of reach (826 still available). Trump (756 delegates), on the other hand, could well manage it. So, the GOP strategy is to avoid that at all costs by encouraging people to vote for Cruz or Kasich in primaries, or even better to encourage more state GOP offices to hold a smoke-filled room convention that grants all the delegates to #NeverTrump instead of even bothering to let people vote.

If they manage that, the contested national convention will get ugly. They (GOP elites) would turn on Cruz instantly -- cast aside. In any other election cycle they would have turned on him already, but with juggernaut Trump, they have to use him to get to the contested convention.

So the question becomes who if not Trump or Cruz? Who will the GOP try to push in? I think that right now, they aren't as worried about answering that question as they are about trying to get there. That being said, they have some options:

Mitt Romney was their first thought. He took some tentative steps towards playing along with the GOP plans, failed to generate any excitement, and has since faded back into relative obscurity. But he remains an option.

Next up was Paul Ryan. A lot of the GOP see him as the future of the party; the "great white hope". There was a flurry of activity making it seem like he was going to take up the flag, but has since denied that he would be interested in or even accept getting the nod. However, he was cagey and close to as vocal against getting the nod to be speaker of the house, and then accepted that. You never know.

Kasich would be another option. He's relatively benign, and wouldn't offend many more of the republican base than the GOP is already ready and willing to offend in order to prevent Trump (and to a lesser extent Cruz).


Of those, I tend to think that Romney is the most likely choice for the GOP in the end. I think it would be extremely stupid to foist "future of the party" Ryan into this election, which would certainly taint his political future. Kasich makes a lot of sense, but on the other hand, "in for a penny, in for a pound" -- as long as the GOP is willing to go to these great lengths to keep Trump out they might as well just own the illegitimacy of it, shoot the moon, and hand pick someone that a) they have complete control over, and b) has nothing to lose in terms of political future. Voila, Mitt Romney.


I also don't think that the GOP will just throw in the towel if Trump locks down the number of delegates needed for the nomination. I'm sure they already have some last-ditch, scorched earth preliminary plans in place for that contingency.

However, I think that they essentially already have thrown in the towel with regards to the election in general. At least to a sufficient degree that they don't give a rats ass about the chances for whoever is the republican nominee winning. That's a *distant* priority behind NOT TRUMP, among other things. Which is pretty stupid, because the likely nomination of Hillary on the democrat side gives them what should be a *golden* opportunity to steal the election. IF they could come up with a vaguely tolerable candidate ... which they won't.

Fairbs said:

So who do you think will come out on the Republican side? To me, it seems like it would have to be one of the three for any legitimacy and shot at actually winning. And if Kasich, then the big two have a lot to bitch about. Clusterfuck indeed.

The Most Costly Joke in History

Mordhaus says...

That is all well and good, but the F35 is not just a sniper. It's a multi-role aircraft that needs to be an interceptor, a bomber, and a close ground support plane. You can be a 'sniper' and hide long range in interceptor mode, but bombing and close ground support are not going to be as kind to a plane that relies completely on stealth to overcome it's shortcomings in maneuverability, etc.

Additionally, the sheer cost of the vehicle is going to make it prohibitive for our allies to purchase it, meaning that in NATO combat groups, we will have it and our allies won't. It also means that we can't offset the trillion dollar development cost in ally purchases. Of course, it is likely that we won't even try to export it for the risk of having the stealth breached. We didn't export the F22 for similar reasons and it is dead now.

The simple fact is that we have sunk a ton of money into a pit and for little return. There are still huge long term delays in Russian and Chinese stealth programs, so just like the F22, this plane is going to come into production with no real enemies to fight against. Are we going to risk sending these vs last gen or earlier systems when our older planes are still more advanced than those and cost far less?

We aren't going to stop making this plane, we've gone too far. But it is going to be just as much of a waste as the F22 and probably more of a debacle when the enemy does come up with hardware capable of defeating it's stealth capabilities. Once that happens, we have a plane that is worse than the previous generation facing enemies more than capable of taking it out of the sky.

transmorpher said:

The F-35 can't maneuver as well as an F-16. But F-16 can't maneuver as well as P-51 from World War 2.

There hasn't been a dog fight since the first world war. Even in WW2 it was about strategy, positioning and team work. It had very little to do with plane performance, expect for when there was a huge gap like the invention of the jet plane.

Air combat for the last 60 years has been about situational awareness first and foremost. And the F-35 has this nailed.

It's like saying that modern soldiers don't have any sword fighting skills. It's completely irrelevant. You wouldn't use a sword against a camouflaged sniper. The F-35 is a camouflaged sniper, hiding in the trees. Who would silly enough to run through an open field with a sword? Or even a pistol? The sniper will have killed you before you even know you are being targeted.


Now the people making the F-35 are probably incompetent in delivering a plane on time and on budget(either that or they are milking it). But the plane once finished, will be a winner.


The other thing is, the F-35's will always be part of a force of other planes in a large scale conflict. If for some reason it does come down to dog fighting - e.g. if there are just tons of cheaper planes going against it (with suicidal pilots) that they simply cannot carry enough missiles, then the rest of the enemies would be mopped up by F-15, F-16s , F/A-18s etc.

Reporter passes out on air, Keeps reporting



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon