SiRaLeX

Well, it's helpful to have options. For the results server you will certainly need some programming language, I'd pick C++. To save the game results, SQL would be perfect. Then you need to display the results, PHP, HTML, CSS, JS would be in order. I'm pretty positive the traffic lights system in your country is written in COBOL.

Soviet isn't my race. I'm Yugoslav. I'm not even sure Tanya costs $1200, it might just be $1000. I haven't played in 5 years... True, the difference is 100. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2+x+550+%3C+1200 True, the difference is 200. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2+x+500+%3C+1200

You won't believe it. There was a red head guy in my class. Obviously, we called him ginger. Then we got this new English teacher and she didn't know our names all too well. But since we all called him ginger, she picked that up too. Whenever she called him, she said ginger and the whole class laughed. She didn't know it was an insult because she was in USA for some time and there was a beautiful woman named Ginger so she didn't associate anything bad with the word.

AWOS does not exist. Did you read the topic? CnCNet is not based on WOL. So they can't just "use" PvPGN and fix the quick match function.

Still, you'd need 20 dogs. 20 dogs = 4000 $ 1 tanya = 1200 $ Just an overpowered unit, it's sad.

Lol, the game is almost as old as me! Not all tanks can fire while driving either. In RA2 only rhinos, war miners and grizzlys can fire while driving. In YR also lashers, gattling tanks and the overpowered allied battle fortress. What I find weird is, Tanya has 1 shot kills using her 2 pistols. Whereas you need like 20 GIs/conscripts with their rifles to even get close and take a shot at her. Unrealistic.

I'd say 0 % to 5 % - very low.

Do you have premium? I'm considering getting premium, because they show solving routes (which they don't in basic). Just wondering if it is worth it?

I'm pretty sure that's something only Rambo can do (he's on steroids). Try to fire an assault rifle while running and hit your target.

Sure. Confusing because it's non-linear! That also means we can never have complete silence because something can only be half as loud as something else - which is bollocks. I guarantee that if you build a bunker 100 meters under the surface with 10 meter thick walls you should technically have 0 dB inside. I don't get that. What does weight have to do with how long it takes object x1 to orbit object y in comparison how long it takes object x2 to orbit object y? Weird. Does not make sense to me. I agree with that. Temperatures are non-linear. I had an argument about this with a friend once. I claimed that it takes a lot higher heat (= and thus more energy) to heat up something that is 30 °C to 35 °C or 1000 °C to 1005 °C than it takes to heat up something that is 20 °C to 25 °C. Although the delta T is the same, namely 5 K and my physics studies would like to tell me otherwise. I still believe I'm right. You can't compare a feather to a steel ball in free fall. This is the real world - try it yourself! Stupid formulas telling me the gravitational force is 9.81 m/s² and the speed in free fall only depends on mass and height are just that, stupid. Honestly, I've got exactly nothing out of my physics studies that I can put to use in my life. If anything, studying physics will make you dumber. Just ignore it - you'll be fine (like me and just use your brain and learn to handle a calculator). Physics on a basic level is just maths disguised with some bullshit formulas that have at best 80 % accuracy and 0 % real life relevance. You're better off with maths alone (I can do maths, even though this topic might suggest otherwise). 0 °C is the freezing point of water while 100 °C is the boiling point. I'm cool with that. Seems natural to me (I'm from mainland, Europe). That's weird. I know that atoms move around and shit thus creating some heat. But what about in a vacuum? Well, my reaction time surely won't go faster when my body temperature is at 47 °C as opposed to 37 °C because I'd be dead by then. Salt has higher density than water (more weight by volume). Liters are a unit used to describe volume - not weight. This is much like saying 1 KG feathers is the same weight as 1 KG of rocks. Logical, but some people will still think that the rocks are heavier. Mass does not equal volume, at all. Obviously this requires 3.2 KG of oxygen to be present wherever you decide to burn that carbon. That requires 8 KG of oxygen to be present wherever you chose to burn that hydrogen gas. I hope I satisfied your curiosity regarding my Dyscalculia. :heady:

Desolators (and generally radiation) not being able to hurt buildings in RA2.

640x400 isn't really used on computers, never was (AFAIK). The majority of computers in 2000 ran 800x600. There was still a lot of people that had 640x480 monitors though. You can't just magically turn up the resolution if your monitor doesn't support it. What makes you think 640x480 is not a VESA mode? You know what I find weird? 1920x1080 - I mean who the **** would use that on a computer and why (other than to save a couple of bucks)?

You mean, like a program with random numbers? I may do that on the weekend and report my findings.

Nylon socks and schoolgirls...?

Very good explanation. You should be a teacher! And no, I didn't actually read the wiki page - only skimmed through it (not that I'd be able to understand it all). Still, I did not believe it. What X3M says, however, makes full sense. But this is not about 100 doors - only about 3 doors and no, I wouldn't switch the door!

The problem with Monty hall is that it is not really a problem - it is a fraud. It's based on the fact that a 50 % chance is better than a 33 % chance - which is correct, but the whole set up is flawed. 1. You pick a door with a 33 % winning chance. 2. The host removes a door - suddenly making your choice a 50 % winning chance (obviously). 3. Now you have the chance of switching the door. They want to make you believe that switching is beneficial because if you switch you have a 50 % winning chance as opposed to your original 33 %. This is the fallacy - because your chance of winning already is 50 % since the last step.

Exactly! For some weird reason the answer is 13.3333333 (as I have proven with my lengthy post and drawing above). From a logical standpoint this does not make any sense. However the calculator says it is so, then it is so (I never question the calculator).

Looking good, bro. Is this a Generals mod?

Pichorra, thank you so much! This shall help me in my quest to master the art of mathematics! But for now... Hilary Duff - The Math xD

I thought Generals was pretty decent, enjoyed Renegade too - the missions were great! :yo:

Thanks, I figured it out. Division sucks and curves are hella confusing! Did you see what happens when you're dealing with negative numbers? x > 0 and dividend > 0 ---> 1st quadrant x > 0 and dividend < 0 ---> 2nd quadrant :ranting: x < 0 and dividend > 0 ---> 3rd quadrant :ranting: x < 0 and dividend < 0 ---> 4th quadrant :ranting: It basically mirrors the graph into any of the said quadrants (pretty sure this is correct, somebody check please). Furter reading: http://zonalandeducation.com/mmts/functionInstitute/rationalFunctions/oneOverX/oneOverX.html

I actually drew the graph of f(x) = 6 / x! :heady: Any math teacher would probably slap me for connecting the dots in a straight line.

Thanks Brian, that's the kind of post I've been looking for! Haha, thanks for naming it "Alex's anomaly" - maybe they'll teach this to first or second graders in school and have some good laughs of how stupid I am in a couple of years time. I'd really love having a math problem named after me! So, if: 6 / 1 = 6 6 / 1.5 = 4 6 / 2 = 3 I really wonder what... 6 / X = 4.5 would be? Let's find out! 6 / X = 4.5 | * X 6 = 4.5X | * 2 12 = 9X | / 9 12 / 9 = X 4 / 3 = X 1.3333333 = X Note that there's actually a period on 1.3 (as if this wasn't confusing enough). :laugh: So: 6 / 1 = 6 6 / 1.2 = 5 6 / 1.3333333 = 4.5 6 / 1.5 = 4 6 / 2 = 3 I extended this with 1.2, too, which is interesting - but completely illogical! Weird as phuck! Damn you, maths!!! :ranting:

Thanks X3M for derailing a topic about weird division rules into a topic about quadratic functions.

Lauren Osborn - Amazing (pretty sure she's Annabelle's voice)