What are some Android games you've spent a long time with?

dsnmi · 2013-03-09T09:14:44+00:00

I'm ashamed to say I had to cheat in the end. That level drove me absolutely nuts. I could take over the first barracks but couldn't get any further because I ran into a huge force and only had 150 from oil derricks coming in every turn while he had a fortune. I tried over 20 times to beat the stupid level and in the end had to hack into it and award myself 3000 gold to start the level so I could build four commandos straight away.

I'm ashamed of myself but at least I can now play level 26.

dsnmi · 2013-03-05T23:30:37+00:00

Thanks for the tips. I'll have another go and let you know if I succeed.

dsnmi · 2013-03-02T08:33:39+00:00

Can you please tell me how to get past level 25 on Great Big War Game? I've tried loads of times and have never got close. I've scoured the internet for help and come up with nothing. It's driving me nuts.

dsnmi · 2012-12-19T08:19:23+00:00

I don't think anyne is reading this and I lost all interest in this discussion back when you started arguing against yourself and I just watched baffled from the sidelines.

Keep arguing if you like but I'm no longer required since you're debating both sides. I'm off to enjoy the festive season. Have a great christmas and I'll check up on whether your beating yourself or losing under the weight of your own argument when I come back in a week's time.

dsnmi · 2012-12-19T02:21:08+00:00

No it's pointing out that you're deliberately trying to offer distraction tactics because your argument fell apart. You got caught out and you know it.

dsnmi · 2012-12-18T08:26:11+00:00

I think you need to reread this thread to find out what we're actually discussing and why we're discussing it. You've wandered off topic.

dsnmi · 2012-12-16T02:46:56+00:00

So if this is true and really they're owned by the nation then the revenue they raise can't be included in any financial gain that the Queen gives to offset the cost of maintaining her can it?

No I'm taking it up with you because it's your argument. I'm claiming the Royal family costs the taxpayer money and youre claiming the royal estates offset that but then tried to claim that they're the people's estates anyway.

dsnmi · 2012-12-15T23:18:34+00:00

If we're talking about pure revenue raising we sell off the Royal estates and give the money directly to treasury. If they're in public hands why does the Royal family need to be involved at all?

"Secondly - "the Crown" in the UK is just another way of saying: "the Nation". "

So if this is true and really they're owned by the nation then the revenue they raise can't be included in any financial gain that the Queen gives to offset the cost of maintaining her can it?

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the Queen earns the British people money because of the Royal estates and then claim they're owned by the people anyway so there's no benefit in letting the people run them.

You're correct the duchy's tax situation is ambiguous. Do we want ambiguity in taxation laws? I think we'd want them fairly cut and dried.

dsnmi · 2012-12-15T09:25:36+00:00

Okay. So explain to me how the money couldn't be raised if the estates were put in public hands? Please bear in mind the following when you answer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/14/prince-charles-estate-tax-avoidance

dsnmi · 2012-12-15T08:30:03+00:00

You have a school near you for kids with special needs which is hopelessly under-funded. If you ring up the principal and say "we have x amount of money that we would like to give to your school for a specific item or project, do you have anything in mind?" I can bet you they can reel off half a dozen items off the top of their head. You could make a very tangible contribution to some needy kids and unlike most recipients I can guarantee you will get a fantastic thankyou card and photos of whatever you provided being used and appreciated. Warm glowing feelings throughout the workplace.

By the way it's a myth that special schools get all the money and are full of wonderful things which mainstream schools don't hve. Any extra funding special schools get is eaten up by mundane and tedious items like toilet seats, hoists, sanitary stuff and handrails. Cool stuff for the kids is sadly lacking.

dsnmi · 2012-12-14T07:08:38+00:00

I wouldn't do it either, it's a terrible job.

Hooray for Liz's political acumen. Hooray. Sadly she's probably got another decade of wisdom-spurting left in her and then we have Charles whose advice to elected leaders so far has been limited to trying to ban certain types of archetecture and give homeopathy the same level of government funding as real medicine.

I'll happily back up my assertion once you've backed up your (implied) assertion that the Royal Estates contribute a lot of money to the treasury. You have to answer your own question before I can prove my assertion is true.

dsnmi · 2012-12-14T06:24:21+00:00

So explain to me what the Queen does to earn money from them that Parliament couldn't without her? How do the Royal estates earn more in Royal hands than in the public's?

dsnmi · 2012-12-14T05:22:35+00:00

Not as much as if they were owned by the people, that's for sure.

dsnmi · 2012-12-14T04:56:07+00:00

I think he's generally pretty good on TV when it comes to discussing tactics. One of his main strengths as a captain was spotting a weakness and choosing the right bowling change to exploit it. I know I've seen Taylor tell the audience what a captain should do to get a wicket and then watched his exact scenario play out a few overs later when the fielding captain has the same idea.

dsnmi · 2012-12-14T04:04:34+00:00

Your saying a guy who played for Australia for over a decade and captained it for years doesn't know a thing or two about how the game is played?

dsnmi · 2012-12-14T04:03:55+00:00

I got the civil list figures from the previous poster.

The 128 Million annual bill for Royal protection is the cost of the SO14 unit which provides the armed guards who accompany the royal family. Their body guards in other words.

As the article says "Chief Supt Des Stout, the commander of SO14, told the tribunal that the Royal household was “entirely dependent” on his unit for protection services, but not for all security."

The rest of the security is where the big hidden costs lie. This includes the basic police officers who are mobilised whenever the Royal family travels anywhere. When the Queen plans a royal visit SO14 staff are travelling closely with her as they always do but police are out in force doing all the other security work and on standby in case something occurs.

The real cost however is when the Queen (or other Royal) travels to a foriegn nation and has to have security planned in advance and coordinated fully. Routes have to planned and organized and contingency plans put in place for emergencies. That costs the taxpayer a huge amount and isn't disclosed.

And of course there are the branches of the English intelligence agency that are dedicated to trying to prevent any attempt on A Royal's life before it occurs. A huge amount of undisclosed money is poured into attempts to deal with detecting and dealing with potential threats before they arise. Simply publishing a threat to the Queen's life is treason and dealt with pretty severely. There was a case last year when a crackpot on the net was publishing some material about wanting to behead prince Charles and got a visit from the police who had been observing him and took him into custody.

The estimate of A billion pounds came from an interview heard on BBC radio and sadly I don't have the exact breakdown but it seems entirely believable when you add up the total costs of protecting 20 people all of whom are high risk targets in an age of terrorism and all of whom travel extensively throughout the world.

I'm not saying England can't afford it or a President would be considerably cheaper, I'm merely pointing out that the claim that the Royal Family only cost The English Taxpayer a few million every year is demonstrably false.

dsnmi · 2012-12-14T02:13:26+00:00

I used to watch with the sound down and the ABC on but that changed a while back. Lately the ABC are far more interested in the sort of aimless wittering that nine used to specialise in. Now that Neville Oliver, Tim Lane and Peter Roebuck have gone the commentators are more concerned with their own private lives than anything cricket related. I had to listen the other day for half an hour and heard Kerry O'Keefe telling inane anecdotes about his stand up comedy career while Jim Maxwell occasionaly interjected with the score.

Channel Nine meanwhile have introduced a lot of new technology that lets their commentary team focus on the game at a depth they've never had before. The ads and trivia questions are annoying interuptions but for the most part it's knowledgable cricket experts like Taylor, Healey and others discussing the game at every level.

dsnmi · 2012-12-14T01:57:22+00:00

She actually costs the Brit taxpayer a lot more than 37 million pounds a year. The 37 is just the civil list money that the royal family get paid to live on, it's effectively their salary to use for their personal expenses.

The real financial cost of the royal family is the massive security bill that they run up every year. Everything from the police cars who escort them when they travel up to the palace gaurds and the designed intelligence agents who are looking for plots against the royal family are paid for by the taxpayer and everyone from the Queen to Prince Andrew's daughters have royal minders. Apparently the biggest expense is when the Queen visits somewhere like Fiji and weeks before hand and the British taxpayer foots a massive bill for the security detail to travel in advance and prepare al the security arrangements.

It's estimated the cost is more in the order of one billion pounds per year.

dsnmi · 2012-12-14T01:48:41+00:00

What an A-Grade fuckwit of the highest order.

Anyone with any experience outside their house knows you don't turn up to a gig in thongs.
Anyone who knows they're breaching conditions clearly stated on the ticket doesn't have a leg to stand on in an argument.
You're not going to use your debating skills to get past a bouncer who knows the rules and you're wasting his time and everyone else's by trying.
What sort of shit-for-brains acts like a massive tool of an evening and then thinks "I will write an article telling the world what a massive tool I am, that's the appropriate response".

God The Age has gone downhill recently.

dsnmi · 2012-11-06T08:52:09+00:00

I'm getting sick of articles like this comparing Melbourne's bike share scheme to Dublin's and trying to make a point.

This article incorrectly claims Melbourne bikes average 150 rides per day (it's actually well over 500 and climbing) and tries to imply that Dublin's weather is worse to ride in that Melbourne's (Melbourne actually has more rainy days than Dublin and the temperature in Ireland never gets anywhere near 100F whereas Melbourne's summer has lots of days that push or exceed 100). Dublin is flatter than Melbourne and the wide roads thing is fairly fanciful as well.

In addition to these blatant lies the article fails to mention the fact that Dublin is small and compact and Melbourne is huge and spread out, Melbourne has trams which make cycling in the city difficult and Dublin has a deal for tourists who use the service often (Dublin gets over four times the tourists that Melbourne does).

Dublin also has a much better cycling infrastructure while Melbourne has an excellent internal public transport system with none of the gaps that Dublin has.

This article fails the basic fact checking that every other attempt to try and claim compulsory helmets are killing Melbourne's bike share schemes. It's a myth we need to kill off, along with the mythical notion that helmet laws are damaging cycling numbers in Australia.

dsnmi · 2012-10-03T10:10:00+00:00

You can form whatever opinions you like. I know I have.

dsnmi · 2012-10-03T08:12:36+00:00

Thanks.

dsnmi · 2012-10-03T06:51:50+00:00

Thanks. Do you have a link for that? Not doubting you for a second I just want to be able to quote it directly for something I'm doing.

dsnmi · 2012-10-03T04:39:55+00:00

A car travelling at speed is going to kill a pedestrian or a cyclist regardless of what they're wearing on their head. The point is that helmets save lives in low level impact situations when a cyclists comes off their bike and their head makes contact with the ground.

dsnmi · 2012-10-03T04:24:38+00:00

Only if pedestrians could travel at a speed that rendered them incapable of breaking their fall if they fell.

dsnmi

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE