top of page

Skupina Radetonarium

Veřejná·35 členů

C C Generals Zero Hour Serials Hack Working


Command & Conquer Return of the Lost Generals is a Command & Conquer Generals Zero Hour mod that plans to add 3 more factions to the current zero hour factions, while keeping the original factions completely untouched. In the first release, the GLA Technology General (Professor Takenik) will be included, giving him powerful vehicles and upgrades from the beginning while diminishing his stealth abilities. In subsequent releases, China Hacker General and USA Covert Ops General are planned.




C C Generals Zero Hour Serials hack working


Download File: https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fgohhs.com%2F2u6WKF&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AOvVaw3yX5d0BtS5gkIYlmuJvT--



problem with hacker general. it doesn't support the air very well. its balanced up to a certain point, however they have no real anti-laser defense, absolutely no defense against any kind of toxins or radiation, and besides the Gatling guns, have nothing that can stop scuds, missiles, or other potential airborne hazards. they are a good faction for gathering $$$ but are slow on building anything, the tech general for GLA runs perfection, but the hacker general is only fast in resource gathering. if the construction speed could be decreased for the defenses and if they were given a bit more in terms of anti-air to air-air capability, then and only then would they be formidable. until that happens, they are pretty much dummy opponents used for testing out the other generals goodies and for getting platinum stars across all of the maps.


The reason is obvious: hackers could access the computer containing this list, either because the site is poorly protected or because the system or processor contains a serious flaw unknown to anyone except the attackers (a so-called zero-day flaw), who can exploit it.


OSHA believes that compliance with these final amendments to reduce the PEL to 0.1 f/cc as a time-weighted average measured over 8 hours will further reduce a significant health risk which existed after imposing a 0.2 f/cc PEL. OSHA's risk assessment accompanying the 1986 standard, showed that lowering the TWA PEL from 2 f/cc to 0.2 f/cc reduces the asbestos cancer mortality risk from lifetime exposure from 64 deaths per 1,000 workers to 7 deaths per 1,000 workers. OSHA estimated that the incidence of asbestosis would be 5 cases per 1,000 workers exposed for a working lifetime under the TWA PEL of 0.2 f/cc. Counterpart risk figures for 20 years of exposure are excess cancer risks of 4.5 per 1,000 workers and an estimated asbestosis incidence of 2 cases per 1,000 workers.


In the proposal, OSHA stated that it believes "that compliance with proposed amendments to reduce the PEL to 0.1 f/cc as a time-weighted average measured over 8 hours would further reduce a significant health risk which exists after imposing a 0.2 f/cc PEL" (55 FR 29714, July 20, 1990). OSHA's 1984 risk assessment showed that lowering the TWA PEL from 2 f/cc to 0.2 f/cc reduced the asbestos cancer mortality risk from lifetime exposure from 64 to 6.7 deaths per 1,000 workers. OSHA estimated that the incidence of asbestosis would be 5 cases per 1,000 workers exposed for a working lifetime under the TWA PEL of 0.2 f/cc. Counterpart risk figures for 20 years of exposure are excess cancer risks of 4.5 per 1,000 workers and an estimated asbestosis incidence of 2 cases per 1,000 workers.


In support of the position that chrysotile asbestos exposure is equivalent in risk to amphibole asbestos exposure, BCTD submitted studies which indicated excess mesothelioma cases in workers exposed solely to chrysotile asbestos (see Ex. 119 C, 1-136, 125, Att.6, 143 Att C, 143 Att. D). In support of the opposing claim that chrysotile has reduced carcinogenic potential, AIANA and SBA submitted additional evidence. For example, AIANA submitted the World Health Organization's 1989 working report which recommended that the exposure limit for chrysotile should be reduced to 1 f/cc or below (8 hour TWA), where it was recommended that exposure to crocidolite and amosite asbestos be prohibited (Ex. 21 A, p. 9). In particular, two papers by Mossman, et. al, are cited as the basis for the claim that a scientific "consensus" believes that chrysotile carries a reduced carcinogenic risk (Ex. 1-153, 151). Thus AIANA states that "since OSHA issued its 1984 asbestos risk assessment, the scientific consensus that chrysotile asbestos poses lesser risks has solidified" (Ex. 142 at 3).


One of the main characteristics of the negative pressure enclosure system is that the air pressure inside the enclosure is less than outside the enclosure. This pressure difference is created by a fan exhausting air, through a filter, from inside the enclosure to outside the enclosure. Under negative pressure, any leaks in the walls of the enclosure will result in clean air coming into the enclosure, rather than contaminated air leaking to the outside. The system is primarily designed to keep asbestos from contaminating the building. As stated earlier, this approach does not appear to improve working conditions inside the enclosure. Negative air ventilation draws clean air from outside the enclosure at sufficient quantities and at strategic locations, so as to provide clean air in the worker's breathing zone. Support for negative air ventilation was submitted by numerous participants. For example, Mr. D'Angelo testified that "negative air ventilation is the single most effective engineering control reducing worker exposure as well as reducing the risk to adjacent bystanders or other operations." Further, he recommended a minimum of 8 and up to 20 air changes per hour to assure appropriate ventilation is maintained (Tr. 3078, 3087). This process, "which has expanded on the negative pressure enclosure, (is) called air flush methodology" (Tr. 3085).


SRI evaluated air monitoring reports from 79 roofing removal operations, 560 personal and 353 area samples (Ex. 9-31). All samples, except 24 were well below the new PEL of 0.1 f/cc. Fourteen samples were collected for 30 minutes or less (and were below the excursion limit). When the remaining sample measurements were calculated as 8 hour time-weighted averages, they also did not exceed the PEL. The remaining samples did not exceed 0.1 f/cc. The contractors concluded, "there appears to be no pressing need for air monitoring at the start of each job, negative pressure enclosures, or wetting. However the use of half-mask respirators is recommended until the source of the fibers in the few samples where concentrations were above 0.1 f/cc can be defined." They added that "exposure to asbestos should be minimized until more (or better) information is available; the use of respirators seems a prudent compromise when working with uncharacterized and aged roofing materials."


(3) In addition to the above requirements, all employers who discover ACM and/or PACM on a work site shall convey information concerning the presence, location and quantity of such newly discovered ACM and/or PACM to the owner and to other employers of employees working at the work site, within 24 hours of the discovery.


N/A F-4-1-LO L222-62-13 5348 41-2130 USAAF History 01/01/42 Received by USAAF19/03/42 Received Long Beach22/03/42 Long Beach.31/03/42 Received Dallas18/06/42 Received Lowry (8 PRS)23/06/42 Received Sacramento Air Depot. 06/07/42 Received San Francisco (Port of Embarkation). 15/07/42 SUMAC (Fifth Air Force SWPA) 12/08/42 Received at Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, Fishermens Bend, Melbourne for erection. 02/09/42 Delivered ex CAC.03/09/42 Arrived Townsville on delivery to the 8th PRS. Served with the 8th PRS as "Malaria Mabel" with squadron number "30". 22/10/42 Photographed at 14 Mile, Port Moresby in bare metal with red and white striped rudders in use as a squadron hack.03/11/42 Condemned by Fifth Air Force, Brisbane. RAAF History08/02/44 Allotted to RAAF by Fifth Air Force HQ along with 41-2139 and 41-2217. (Source: NAA Series A11093 Item 3081559) 31/03/44 Advice from Forward Echelon that three Lightnings are being prepared for flight at Port Moresby. (Source: NAA Series A11093 Item 3081559) 03/04/44 Struck off by USAAF.21/04/44 Advice from Forward Echelon that three Lightnings will be ferried to 3AD Amberley on or about 30APR44. (Source: NAA Series A11093 Item 3081559)09/05/44 Condemned by Fifth Air Force, Brisbane. 15/05/44 Lightnings 41-2217 and 41-2156 arrived at Amberley but were rejected by the RAAF owing to their poor condition. The third Lightning force landed at Rockhampton but its identity is unknown. So, although 41-2130 was allotted to the RAAF, it may not have been delivered. Evidently 41-2156 was substituted for either 41-2130 or 41-2139.(Source: NAA Series A11093 Item 3081559) USAAF History26/07/44 Struck off by USAAF. N/A F-4-1-LO L222-62-13 5357 41-2139 USAAF History 01/01/42 Received by USAAF??/03/42 Received Long Beach06/04/42 Long Beach.31/03/42 Received Dallas20/06/42 Received Lowry (8 PRS)23/06/42 Received Sacramento Air Depot. 06/07/42 Received San Francisco (Port of Embarkation). 15/07/42 SUMAC (Fifth Air Force SWPA) 19/08/42 Received at Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, Fishermens Bend, Melbourne for erection. 02/09/42 Delivered ex CAC.03/09/42 Arrived at Townsville on delivery to the 8th PRS. Served with the 8th PRS as "Pouting Peggy" with squadron code "39". Also carried the name "Doris" on the starboard radiator pod.13/1/44 Condemned by Fifth Air Force, Brisbane. RAAF History08/02/44 Allotted to RAAF by Fifth Air Force HQ along with 41-2130 and 41-2217. (Source: NAA Series A11093 Item 3081559) 31/03/44 Advice from Forward Echelon that three Lightnings are being prepared for flight at Port Moresby. (Source: NAA Series A11093 Item 3081559) 03/04/44 Struck off by USAAF.21/04/44 Advice from Forward Echelon that three Lightnings will be ferried to 3AD Amberley on or about 30APR44. (Source: NAA Series A11093 Item 3081559)15/05/44 Lightnings 41-2217 and 41-2156 arrived at Amberley but were rejected by the RAAF owing to their poor condition. The third Lightning force landed at Rockhampton but its identity is unknown. So, although 41-2130 was allotted to the RAAF, it may not have been delivered. Evidently 41-2156 was substituted for either 41-2130 or 41-2139.(Source: NAA Series A11093 Item 3081559) USAAF History26/09/44 Condemned as salvage by Fifth Air Force, Brisbane. N/A F-4-1-LO L222-62-13 5374 41-2156 USAAF History 17/01/42 Recieved by USAAF, 18/04/42 Received Long Beach Fighter Command. 20/04/42 Received Lowry (8th PRS) 25/05/42 Received Dallas. 10/06/42 Received Lowry. 23/06/42 Received Sacramento Air Depot. 06/07/42 Received San Francisco (Port of Embarkation). 15/07/42 SUMAC (Fifth Air Force SWPA). 15/08/42 SUMAC (Fifth Air Force SWPA) 19/08/42 Received at Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, Fishermens Bend, Melbourne for erection, 03/09/42 Delivered ex CAC, 04/09/42 Delivered to 8th PRS at Townsville. Soon after the 8th PRS moved to Port Moresby. At some stage 41-2156 acquired the name "Limping Lizzie". In addition to the 8th PRS squadron code "56", the aircraft also carried the number "44" on the nose. The significance of this number is unknown. RAAF History 16/08/43 Flown from Port Moresby to Turnbull, Milne Bay. Lightnings 41-2156 and 41-2220 were both loaned to No 75 Squadron, RAAF by 8th PRS USAAF to provide the squadron with an urgently needed photographic reconnaissance capability. 29/08/43 Test flight. August to December 1943 Operational use by 75 Sqn, RAAF. 21/12/43 75 Squadron F-4 operations terminated and 41-2156 & 41-2220 were returned to 8th PRS, 08/02/44 Three F-4 Lightnings, 41-2130, 41-2139 and 41-2217 were allotted to RAAF by Fifth Air Force HQ. 31/03/44 Advice from Forward Echelon that three Lightnings are being prepared for flight at Port Moresby. 21/04/44 Advice from Forward Echelon that three Lightnings will be ferried to 3AD Amberley on or about 30APR44, 15/05/44 Lightnings 41-2156 and 41-2217 arrived at Amberley but were rejected by the RAAF owing to their poor condition. The third Lightning force landed at Rockhampton but its identity is unknown. Evidently 41-2156 was substituted for either 41-2130 or 41-2139. USAAF History 26/09/44 Condemned as salvage by the 5th Air Force.05/12/44 Struck of by USAAF. N/A F-4-1-LO L222-62-13 5435 41-2217 USAAF History 01/02/42 Received by USAAF03/08/42 Received Long Beach06/08/42 Long Beach.19/09/42 Received Colorado Springs23/09/42 Received Sacramento Air Depot. 04/10/42 Received SUMAC (Fifth Air Force SWPA) to04/11/42 SUMAC (Fifth Air Force SWPA)21/12/42 "Old John G. (Rummy) Foster rejoined us today. He almost made the trip yesterday, but got within 40 miles of the coast and was forced to turn back because of a violent tropical storm. Something of a record, 5 hr. and 15 min. of flying, and there still remained 216 gallons in the tanks. He made it today, arriving at 1415 with ship '2217', a new ship to the squadron, but nevertheless a F-4 of the same undependable quality." (Source: "The Eight Ballers" by Stanaway and Rocker quoting from the 8th PRS diary).RAAF History08/02/44 Three F-4 Lightnings, 41-2130, 41-2139 and 41-2217 were allotted to RAAF by Fifth Air Force HQ. (Source: NAA Series A11093 Item 3081559) 31/03/44 Advice from Forward Echelon that three Lightnings are being prepared for flight at Port Moresby. (Source: NAA Series A11093 Item 3081559) 21/04/44 Advice from Forward Echelon that three Lightnings will be ferried to 3AD Amberley on or about 30APR44. (Source: NAA Series A11093 Item 3081559) 15/05/44 Lightnings 41-2217 and 41-2156 arrived at Amberley but were rejected by the RAAF owing to their poor condition. The third Lightning force landed at Rockhampton but its identity is unknown. Evidently 41-2156 was substituted for either 41-2130 or 41-2139.(Source: NAA Series A11093 Item 3081559) USAAF History26/09/44 Condemned as salvage by Fifth Air Force, Brisbane.05/12/44 Struck off by USAAF. N/A F-4-1-LO L222-62-13 5438 41-2220 USAAF History Originally ordered as P-38E, but completed as F-4-1-LO, 01/02/42 Received by USAAF 04/08/42 Received Long Beach 06/08/42 Received Lowry. 19/09/42 Received Colorado Springs 04/10/42 Received Sacramento Air Depot. 29/11/42 "Lt. Thomas arrived at noon from the mainland in a replacement ship, F-4 "2220". The ship, which somebody back in the States was kind enough to send us, was one of the old model ships and had been used for training back home. It is in such bad shape that a 100-hour inspection is needed immediately." (Source: "The Eight Ballers" by Stanaway and Rocker quoting from the diary of the 8th PRS). It is not known if the aircraft was given a name. 08/01/43 Lt. V.E. Murphy of 8th PRS flying "2220" on a mapping mission discovered a Japanese destroyer and freighter between Lae and Salamaua. (Source: "The Eight Ballers" by Stanaway and Rocker quoting from the diary of the 8th PRS). RAAF History Loaned to RAAF 75 Sqn from 08/43 until the end of December 1943. 12/08/43 Familiarisation on type at Port Moresby by FLGOFF P.B. Jones, 75 Sqn RAAF. 13/08/43 Familiarisation on type at Port Moresby by FLGOFF P.B. Jones, 75 Sqn RAAF. 14/08/43 Familiarisation on type at Port Moresby by FLGOFF P.B. Jones, 75 Sqn RAAF. 16/08/43 Flown from Port Moresby to Turnbull, Milne Bay by Flt. Lt. Buster Brown on delivery to No 75 Squadron RAAF on loan from 8th PRS (in company with 41-2156). August to December 1943 Operational use by 75 Sqn, RAAF. 21/12/43 75 Squadron F-4 operations terminated and 41-2156 & 41-2220 were returned to 8th PRS USAAF History26/09/44 Condemned as salvage by 5th Air Force.09/04/46 Struck off by USAAF. The Authors of this page are Darren Crick and Brendan Cowan with special assistance from Ron Cuskelly & Gordon Birkett


O nás

Vítejte ve skupině! Můžete být v kontaktu s dalšími členy, m...
bottom of page