Sharpe

No one denies that you put a ton of effort into the mods over the years. You talk of arrogance in one sentence and then insult others saying "supposedly self-proclaimed good players wanted their cheat gun". Pot kettle black? We had an extensive back and forth over this a year ago. Your unwillingness to even try to compromise over the guns and insistence that anyone who wants very accurate guns somehow wants "cheat guns" is incredible. You talk of "toxic people around" but to be honest whenever this subject is brought up you refuse to see others perspective and instead cast aspersions. You try to make it out as if this tiny minority held the server hostage but in reality enough people spoke up and you were asked to reverse the change on the smr and you went off in the huff. Quit trying to make it out as if you are some kind of victim in this.

Haxor! Played a bit more last night. Don't really see too much difference. Just need to be a bit more mindful of where you are coming out of your killstreak.

Congrats

The fact no other game is affected suggests something specific to cod4 itself obviously. We really need to see what kind of frames you are getting. You could also look at doing a trace route to the cod4 servers and looking for issues there but looking at frames first is easier. Before that you could look at your ping in game and tell us roughly what it is and does it jump around at all, or is it reasonably stationary?

I take it back, I didn't really notice much difference.

Cpu/ram/graphics card should be more than adequate for cod4, unless one of them has developed an issue. What size is the television in inches? What resolution? Weird ethernet issue. So what exactly are you using for internet at the moment? Ethernet still or wireless? Let me know what fps you are getting with that command, /cg_drawfps 1

Hey Bazza, Not sure if you have been in contact with anyone yet. First thing I'd do is open up the console and type in "/cg_drawfps 1 " without quotations so that we can see how much fps you are getting and if you are having any major drops. Can you give a list of your computer specs as well? Ram, cpu, graphics card and monitor specs.

Pretty big change but this is how changes should be approached I think, few in number to get a general feel and then reverse course quickly if appropriate. For the love of god though, could the issue of turning into a killstreak finally be solved? Literally everyone I say this to has agreed (although maybe there are those who disagree?) that it is very frustrating when you try and turn into an rcxd and it takes away your gun, someone appears out of nowhere and you are left defenceless. Sometimes the screen even goes black and you still get killed.

Hdmi 2.1 supports a lot higher than 60 hz, it depends on the resolution. There are some tvs that support gsync through hdmi 2.1 as well. Here is a lengthy article on some of this https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/features/displayport-vs-hdmi-better-for-gaming The conclusion is that display port is still needed for gsync monitors but it isn't a bandwitdth issue. Hdmi 2.1 currently has higher bandwidth than display port 1.4 with display port 2 set to take the lead later in the year.

Welcome

Welcome

Here is a good website to check that you are getting the full 240hz : https://www.testufo.com/ It could be a cable issue, do you know which type of cable you are using (and which version, eg hdmi 2.0? 2.1?) Not sure if the card is an issue or if the issue has been fixed. Here is a discussion on this albeit a different monitor: https://us.community.samsung.com/t5/Monitors-and-Memory/2020-Odyssey-G9-G-sync-not-working-at-240Hz/td-p/1388291 If you have the appropriate cable and are running at 240hz maybe try turning it down to 120/144hz and seeing if gsync appears?

Been listening to Jordan Peterson for years, lots of great stuff. He had a really bad time of it the last two years but he has turned the corner and is getting back in the game.

A good discussion which delves into why just giving people money won't solve the problem. It is certainly a very complex topic. The NHS in the UK may be underfunded, it may also be overfunded. It most certainly is horribly run with a huge amount of resources squandered in many areas. At a certain point the healthy productive members of society can only do so much if the system is overburdened. Of course this is where the judgement aspect that Dr. Anthony Daniels mentions comes in to play. It has become increasingly difficult to point out harsh realities in society. One point of view may be that "we must spend an ever increasing amount of money on the NHS, until everyone's needs are taken care of". Unfortunately there are other realities such as limits on number of qualified staff which simply can't be overcome by spending more. You then overwork the staff you do have, leading to a poorer standard of care.

30 minutes into this at the moment Rob which is on this topic : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ET7banSeN0

I must have read news from hundreds of sources at this point. There are enough Doctors that are fully licensed and on the medical registers and other experts in the field with verifiable credentials to give me reasonable pause. If you are so sure the vaccines are 100% safe, why was the blood clot issue only picked up after they started giving it to millions? What other potential issues are there? There is zero statistical chance of any more serious side effects? The point is I am not fearful for my life over coronavirus, I've probably had it already (fever that peaked at 103f, dry cough etc, didn't get tested, mostly went away after 5-6 days). I am certainly fearful of potential long term complications from a rapidly developed vaccination program, even if the technology itself has been around for a long time. Anyway starting to go round in circles with this. Good day!

It most definitely does massively discriminate by age. If the vaccines are proving to be very successful and older patients have massively declined, then it would follow that new patients would come from those that are younger. However, the total number of patients will be much fewer in number. The younger cohort will also be far more likely to survive. This doesn't mean that coronavirus is now much deadlier for those that are younger. You can see this in the updated cdc data I posted in this thread. My question on whether you drive is because when you drive you put others life at risk. It can certainly be debated as to what extent, but your chance of killing someone driving a vehicle is higher than if you take a train for example. Is this a poor comparison to taking a vaccination to protect others? Perhaps. The fact is though that the vast majority of the elderly can receive a vaccine, and they have generally been first in line to do so. Trying to guilt or coerce others into receiving a new medical treatment is dangerous thinking. It may very well be that the vaccines are safe for the vast majority and on balance a good idea. However, caution is warranted in those that are of particularly low risk, especially when negative side effects will potentially disproportionately effect healthspan. As an example, a 20 year old with a very low risk of coronavirus gets a vaccine and then hypothetically develops a serious autoimmune condition from said vaccine. They will then potentially have to live with this for the rest of their life, on average another 60 or so years unless they developed a condition that shortens lifespan. Conversely, an 80 year old at very high risk from coronavirus takes the vaccine and develops the same autoimmune condition. They are already near the end of their life - the cost benefit analysis is completely different. There have been numerous experts and doctors voicing caution about the vaccines. I posted an example in this thread. There are certainly enough to be more than just a few fringe lunatics. Many have full medical licenses. The do you drive question boils down to acceptable risk. We can't save everyone from everything. Life has inherent risk built in. Do we know what percentage of people have been told not to receive a vaccine? How does this weigh up against people that already have died from a vaccine after their government told them it was safe, only to then change recommendations after said deaths? It is still possible that new side effects will come to light? Such questions need to be approached with reasonable, level headed analysis.

If the input lag is noticeably less than his last monitor he might have some improvement. There is also the being able to see more/better factor - particularly at distance. Mine is a 24" and I'm only about 1 foot away lol. @IceLizard Not sure if you know about it but always worth checking to make sure you are getting the full frame rate : https://www.testufo.com/

There was a virologist I read about recently who had some major concerns about the current vaccination campaign. Managed to find him again. Yes his degree is in veterinary medicine, however his phd is in virology and it appears he has extensive experience in the field. https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/ This is again well above my ability to even begin to question never mind refute. This is the type of stuff that gives me pause. I actually nearly posted a link a while back to Bret Weinstein and his wife discussing potential vaccine concerns, they aren't against vaccines they were just voicing concerns about the potentiality of long term side effects. I see he has coincidentally had Geert Vanden Bossche on his podcast 4 days ago. I haven't had the time to listen to it yet but will give it a watch and see what they say. I've known about Bret Weinstein for a few years now and he has always come across as a thoughtful, intelligent and reasonable person. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNyAovuUxro&t=1s

I can't believe the bbc actually did what appears to be a fairly balanced article on vaccine concerns : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-56665396 I think overall it paints a similar picture to the one I was trying to make. I would add that I am still concerned about new side effects emerging, however the longer the vaccines are rolled out the less likely they are to appear. It would be great if they could work out why a very small minority are prone to these clots. I think that that, along with further individual analysis of a persons own unique risk factors and how that may tip the scale in regards to likely severity of symptoms, would be useful in making a choice about whether to get vaccinated, particularly in the young. Protection of the few unable to get vaccinated would potentially remain an issue. In lieu of vaccination to protect others you could look at other measures for this, however this should be proportional to the overall risk in my opinion. Viral prevalence, advancements in treatment, etc., would play a role in determining potential reasonable measures to be taken. That is a whole other can of worms though.

I get it. I do hope the vaccines on the whole are a major success with minimal side effects. Keep in mind that there are people out there who have experienced iatrogenesis, this can make you extremely hesitant to receive any medical treatment, not just vaccines. If I knew for certain that I wouldn't experience ill effects, yes I would take the vaccine to protect the few that are unable to receive it themselves. I don't wish ill health and death on strangers.

Sorry but no, they are fucking awful and need to go. I'm not accustomed to shit. At least in America you have the choice of moving to a mask or non-mask state depending on your preference.

You started the post with "Some of you are silly" which is pretty condescending, as if there aren't legitimate reasons for concern. I replied jokingly as we had had a reasonable, lengthy debate about a month ago and didn't think we were on the level of needing to start throwing ad this and ad that around if we didn't provide evidence for every remark. You already knew where I stood. Just try not to talk in such absolutes. I get it, you think the vaccine is a good for you and for most people. Fair enough. You think any potential risks are worth it. You think those risks are extremely minimal. You can't say with 100% certainty that there aren't possible unknown side effects, not including those that have already come to light. I'll be honest, having to sit and look up all the information I have processed on this issue to provide links etc is time consuming and I can't really be fucked anymore lol. I think I said it in the last thread, we agree to disagree. I thought we were able to poke a little fun at each other perhaps in place of further discussion to the point of ad nauseum, but perhaps you feel too strongly about this issue for that.

Your post above isn't filled with links and citations? I need to provide links to every idea/statement I make but you don't? Also clearly ignoring the several well thought out posts I responded with in the previous thread and now smugly trying to make it look like I can't present any kind of an argument when your own post is filled with conjecture. You are clever and write well, better than me I would say - but don't try and use latin to make it look like I am not saying anything of substance, just because you don't like it. Part of my argument is that we don't know - thus it can't be proven. It should be up to the individual. The vaccines may very well be worth it for the vast majority. The cost benefit analysis greatly improves the older you become. We do have evidence, from the past and currently, about potential harms of vaccines : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix Here is my last post in the previous thread which you didn't respond to :" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56665517 "Under-30s in the UK are to be offered an alternative Covid vaccine to the AstraZeneca jab due to the evidence linking it to rare blood clots."" https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html Current best estimate ifrs from the cdc - although we don't know to what extent the death count has been inflated. In the UK as an example all deaths within 28 days of a positive test are counted in the official tally. 0-17 years old - 0.005% 18-49 years old - 0.05% - Although I think this one will be weighted heavily towards 40+ 50-64 years old - 0.6% 65 + 9% - Would like to see a bigger split here, 65-75 will be noticeably less than 80-90. "I believe that people that don't want to get vaccinated should be barred from public venues, so they don't kill others with their inconsideration. Their attitude is 'fuck them.' So, fuck them. Many have blood on their hands just as surely as if they walked-up & shot someone in the head. Worse actually, because at least that'd be a quick death compared to protracted, cascading multiple organ failure or a nice, slow suffocation due to pulmonary interstitial fluid accumulation. But let's go with the 'I'm being a dick' premise, since it's more convenient." I actually thought you were arguing reasonably sanely in the previous thread but this is unhinged. I find it sad if you actually think this. If you are this far gone, there is nothing I can say that you will find reasonable and vice versa to be honest. Maybe this is why it appears you are becoming more aggressive, as you find most of my viewpoints abhorrent. I'll state this clearly for you. Even if this was the black plague with an ifr of 50% I wouldn't force or coerce medical treatment on anyone, and still wouldn't have mandatory lockdowns or masks etc. I wonder where such posts were with the flu all these years (which actually kills more young people) and other various maladies. How about traffic fatalities? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year "For 2016 specifically, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data shows 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes, an average of 102 per day.[1]" Looks like we better get rid of driving immediately - wait no that would be ludicrous. You could make the argument that you are a brilliant driver, that you have never been in a crash. Unfortunately humans are error prone. Didn't sleep well last night? Better not drive the next day as your risk of killing someone has definitely gone up. Life is inherently risky. You are going to die. It would be better to live in as free a world as possible not run by tyrannical loons trying to control everything you do.

Please see the many previous replies in the last thread we had a debate in. "The chances of contracting COVID & it fucking you up are WAAAY higher than any danger the vaccine presents." Across all age groups? We definitely know for certain all possible side effects, there are no possible further surprises that could appear like the blood clot issue with astra zeneca? To reiterate what I think my main point in the other thread was - there is a vast continuum of risk from young to old and I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty that if you are young and healthy the potential risks of a vaccine outweigh the benefits. The cost benefit analysis improves the older and unhealthier you get. I don't think if you are young and healthy with a minute risk, that it is worth taking the chance at this moment in time. 70 with high blood pressure and obese? Probably worth it. This leaves aside the moral aspect of "protecting" others which is a separate issue. "a surprising number are going to be living with long-term or permanent damage to various systems of their body" What percentage is "a surprising number"? How does this stratify across age groups?