Sarex

It works! XD I ended up taking apart the laptop (Toshiba L750) to change the paste and clean the cooling system. I literally had to remove/disconnect the motherboard from everything else to be able to take out the cooler/heatsink. I regret not checking the temps beforehand, but audibly it's better. When the computer is idling the fan is at the lowest setting, as opposed to almost always running on max before. The only thing I'm worried about is that one core is heating up with a max 10 degree © difference. Either way the cooling system is inefficient as it cools the NVIDIA chip and the CPU with the same heatsink. I was able to push the CPU to 99 C with 2 instances (at the same time) of Furmark stress test. Now the only thing I'm kind of worried about is that I used the line method for CPU and dot method for GPU (didn't spread the paste my self), but I'm pretty sure the spread is fine because I screwed in the heatsink and then removed it to check if it covered the whole chip and it was fine (I cleaned it after that and reapplied the paste with the same amount). I think the system will throttle it self as I suspect it was doing before and if not I'll just redo the processes if the laptop starts crashing under load. The only way I'll find out is if I get any complaints. :D I also started hunting for spare parts for the laptop and surprisingly there are plenty out there. I was looking for the rubber feet and the rubber spacer for the lid as one of each fell out and was lost. Haven't ordered the parts yet but will soon, wonder what the shipping will cost me...

Yeah, I ended up getting a Samsung 850 pro.

Do you guys know what the 4 pins on a SSD are used for? I'm getting a new drive for a Toshiba laptop and I was going to go for a Samsung 850pro, but I noticed that all Toshiba drives have these 4 pins (even ssd). So I'm wondering if it's maybe better to go for a Toshiba drive? I tried searching the net for what they are used for, but I got no definitive answers. To even add to the confusion the answers implied that it's different from manufacturer to manufacturer.

The remaster does not strike confidence in me.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/quantum-break-will-be-exclusive-to-windows-store.html Quantum Break also Windows store exclusive, go figure...

Seeing as it's directx 12 only I think it's obvious why it's being pushed on PC.

It's news.

The game is buggy as hell.

Ah, I misread the B scenario, sorry about that. Well I don't know why it doesn't make sense to you, you seem to be somewhat idolizing the scientist involved in the project, they are not as all knowing as the PR department would have you believe.

Because you seem to be under the impression that everyone working on it had to have know, which simply isn't true. I didn't know about there being trips with a biological payload done before it. As for why they would have done it, I would guess that the public was losing confidence because the Soviets were doing everything first. It's interesting that today it's considered more important that a man landed on the moon that the fact that man went in to space at all, it's like the end of the race was who landed on the moon first. As for why they don't reveal it, I mean why would they? They gain nothing by it and only invite people to look closely to every other event that happened.

Situation D: It's "working" but can't get past the Van Allen belt, though we will tell everyone that it can. Situation E: It's "working" but we know that micrometeorites will make Swiss cheese out of it. Situation n: It's ''working" but we can't get past some problem so will stay quiet about it. I don't know how the moon landing program worked but it wouldn't be a stretch to say that it was compartmentalized, going by previous operations done by the US. Everyone would do their part and know about their part only.

Wanna bet that before half a year is over some other group will crack it and take over. We already had this before with Starforce.

In that case it would be "working". The Chinese already have one up there. I hope they send it there.

I would agree with you partly (a lot of the claims are far fetched), but the facts remain that some parts of the moon landing were very sketchy. The biggest culprit being the videos and pictures. The fact that the what you saw on TV when watching the moonlanding was the press filming the canvas on which the the footage was projected, or the fact that to this day none of the original film rolls were ever shown to anyone (which would do a lot to disperse the claims), the fact that there are so many inconsistencies in the pictures/films to some of which there are no answers and for the others the answers are more far fetched then some of the claims by the conspiracy theorists. I am of the opinion that the moon landing did in fact happen, but that either the film footage and pictures were all unusable and thus need to be recreated for the public or a more far fetched theory that the astronauts were very sick upon return and needed to be replaced. I am more inclined to believe the former. The question to ask would then be why didn't the Soviets go to the moon? I mean every first that was made in space the other one recreated (mostly the US) but when it came to the moonlaning suddenly the race stopped. What about the triangular pocket that was opened in the picture, but the film footage of the moment the picture was being taken showed it as buttoned up? But as I said it really didn't need to be thousand of people that were in on it, they just needed the astronauts (who after the landing gave very few interviews), the people who helped fake it and the people who ordered it. The guy who made the screws for the Lunar module would believe that they were going to the moon, as would the guys who worked on everything else.

Should I believe in god because some books tells me to? It's better to question everything then question nothing.

Some of the answer are really weak and boil down to no it isn't. Also it doesn't address the differences between the video and pictures and doesn't cover the issue that the moon doesn't reflect the light on rocks (as they can be seen to have a pitch dark side as opposed to the astronauts that are lit). Guess the Chinese will have an opportunity to take some picture then. Also 35 minutes in to the video There is still the theory about the astronauts arriving with radiation poisoning, and being replaces by Neil Armstrong and the bunch. As far as I know that Neil is very religious. That is a good point and one I have been wondering my self. The Soviet union would have for sure been all over it.

Again ok, but why would the pictures be of such a low quality when we have older pictures from Mars that are better.

Oh, I'm not convinced it was faked, this is simply a discussion. As for your answer, well they could have done all of that and launched the rocket, to have it just stay in the orbit around earth. That would still mean that only the astronauts, the people who helped fake it and the people who ordered it would need to be in on it.

But what about the difference between the video and the pictures taken, one example from the video being the famous astronaut jumping while saluting. On the video the triangular pocket on his backpack is buttoned up and on the picture taken of the same jump it can be seen over his head being unbuttoned (12 minutes in on the first video I linked). Also the links you posted don't explain the inconsistency about the reflection of the moon dust, wouldn't it then be logical to conclude that everything would be lit up and that there would be no black spots in the pictures.

Ok, I'm not forcing you to do anything. No, only the astronauts, the people who ordered it and the people who faked the material. The rest of them could have well thought that they were helping the Moon lading. Why are the pictures such a low quality? Especially considering this was taken in 2009. We have much higher res pictures of Mars that are older then that. Then why is the lighting so inconsistent? Why do small rocks have black unlit sides but at the same time the much larger astronauts don't? Also why don't the videos and the pictures match? Watch the video guys, it's really interesting.

@kgambit and Gromnir But that still wouldn't explain the pictures/videos inconsistencies, or how they survived the Van Allen belt and the massive solar flare that happened on their trip to the Moon.

But then the question is, why was there even an arms race at all? The point was that the Russians had up till that point gotten all the firsts in the space race, the US public was loosing confidence, as such the moon landing "race" began. Also the purpose of the rocket was to show that a nuclear warhead could be delivered anywhere. Also for the people who bother to watch the videos that I linked, they will see that what is argued is that the pictures/videos were fake. As for the moon landing it self, the opinions range from there being no moon landing done by humans, to some US astronauts landing on the moon but because of severe radiation poisoning (from the Van Allen Belts), they were replaced by other people for the public (the Soviets had a similar set up prepared for Yuri Gagarin).

But does the presence of the mirror really mean that it was placed there by a human hand?

Now, now, let's watch the videos. Keep an open mind, I always say. edit: My question to you guys would be, why do you believe it happened? What makes it an undeniable fact?

I was wondering what is the consensus of this forum on the topic of the Moon landing. Recently I have been watching a couple of documentaries and I must say they made me wonder. A lot of good questions are raised. So share your opinion. Lets make this a fun one.