Red

[quote name='Heero yuy']"Dump her either way, you're too young to be committed with anyone, especially one that's so far away..." [/quote] I'd suggest that. Part of the long distance relationship package is stress, and at your age (I feel flippin' old for saying that one) it's unnecessary. The second guessing you've already done is only going to carry on when you get another 'feeling'. You won't know if you're right, either. End it either way, you'll be happier in the long run. Give that level of commitment when you need a zimmer!

I'm here now 'cos in between sticking to a number of commitments I never thought I'd have, I like to lurk/blast an incoherent argument into a thread/see if certain people have popped their heads in to say hello. There's also nothing like a bit of Jeh-stalking to get the ol' steak & kidney pie going. Previously, it was out of curiosity. Back in those days, not every site you landed on had it's own forum or an equivalent! Shortly after that, it was down to the friends I'd made here and the responsibilities James had given me.

[quote name='John']Because the internet is associated with younger generations, and younger generations on the internet are associated with Myspace (both general but still existant and somewhat true perceptions). So since the general userbase is influenced by the site itself, and Myspace is (strongly) connected to society's perception of the internet as a whole via the younger generation, Myspace dictates much of society's perception of the internet. I've already told how the impression that it gives off is a bad one, but even if I hadn't, the lambasting of it--or quiet disdain at the least--in the popular media that we see every several news stories says enough.[/quote] This is just generalised gibberish. Or your opinion. Either way it has no foundation in fact, beyond the correct point that the media quite often lay into myspace when something 'socially unacceptable' happens there. As they do games, violent movies, music; rather than the parent who is doing a poor job, or the person who just has a few screws loose. To say it has a detrimental effect on society or "dictates society's opinion on the internet" is beyond silly. Rather, it highlights what is already wrong by giving people yet another open, easily accessible and mass connected place to express themselves. Even then, one man's dirty shack is another man's palace - so what I consider wrong by stating the above could seem perfectly acceptable to another group. Also, please remember that myspace was launched in 2003... far from when the popularity of the internet skyrocketed. If a group of people can't read between the lines in sensationalist media, then there's no doubt myspace will contribute to their opinion (mentioning society as a whole entity is treading on thin ice considering the degree that opinions vary, isn't it?). But it's a country mile from what you make it out to be, since there's plenty else for them to go on and oodles of other stories and supposedly morally questionable things from the internet. Hope that made sense, it was hard to interpret and respond to what you'd written.

[QUOTE=John]But the users [i]do[/i] get mixed up with the sites they use. How a site and its userbase are established, managed, and related to has a direct relationship with how the users behave around the site. And when the site is like Myspace and revolves around social networking and commmunication, usually with people you know in real life, it even affects how you relate to those people. And it's run by terrorist factions too. Forgot about that part.[/QUOTE] But what about: "It has a detrimental effect on the internet and its relationship with society." How is that?

[quote name='James][font=arial']Considering all the development/production issues with PS3, I will be surprised if we don't start seeing reports of significant issues with the first couple of batches. This certainly may not happen, but I just get the feeling that Sony has had its hand forced - it's been very rushed to get the system out on time. And being in that rush seems to be evident in the hardware.[/quote] Yep! One of the main things I've heard is creation & yield issues with that new blue laser they're using for blu-ray - makes me wonder if those problems will translate into something akin to the "disc read error" issues the PS2 faced. [quote]That's partly why I'm waiting before I even think about buying one. I want to really see how things go for the next year or so, as they move into higher production numbers and we start seeing how the machine really performs in real-world circumstances.[/font][/QUOTE] Same here, although if MGS4 was to become multi-platform I'd almost run out of reasons to get one. The most attractive point for me is being able to rip it to pieces and possibly use it for something else. Linux, maybe :D

[quote name='John']It has a detrimental effect on the internet and its relationship with society.[/quote] Haha. Don't get users mixed up with the sites they use!

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']I'd say more than likely it's just a problem with a small patch of the first production run, I can't imagine Sony would risk the PS3's reputation by releasing an entire run of consoles with thermal problems. Wii is the media darling at the moment, so it would definitely not being in Sony's interests to make a screw up like that one.[/SIZE][/quote] Aye, that's true. At the same time I doubt they wanted to be the ones who had to recall 10m potentially explosive batteries, or the company who took DRM too far via using rootkits, etc. Sony have made a right dog's dinner of their 2005/6 - which is why I said I wouldn't be surprised if it went beyond a few of the consoles.

[QUOTE=NashvilleDream]As a side note: One of my friends who is usually an exceedingly good source of right information, but also rather anti-PS said that the PS3s are overheating and not working anymore... does anyone know if that's true.[/QUOTE] There could very well be the usual batch of defective consoles that'll be under a lot more light considering the limited release. The processor the PS3 uses runs extremely hot, so if the (bloomin' enormous!) fan was to be slightly misplaced or not working the console could easily fry eggs. I wouldn't count on it being widespread as thermal problems would've been high on the testing list. Then again, I'd wouldn't put botching something else this year past Sony, either!

It's pretty darn likely your parents know you're smoking because you stink - unless they smoke themselves, that is. Regardless of how you go about it you're going to be told to stop, because you shouldn't be smoking. No one should ;) So just tell them and get it over with!

Bloody fantastic idea! The posts by Charles & Shy certainly brought a lot back instantly. Will see if I can think of anything to write in a half-decent manner. Something about the horror that was the introduction forum springs to mind, along with Charles' long fight to get it deleted with that wonderful thread ;)

[quote name='Dodeca][SIZE=1]I believe that it was to point out that the only country to ever use nuclear weapons outside of testing is the United States, regardless of the situation. And whatever you might say, I personally believe there [i]must[/i'] have been a more humane option than nuking two cities, but that might just be me.[/SIZE][/quote] Then I'd recommend looking at some of the reasons why Hitler never went through with the invasion of England as an initial example, and then the rest of America/Japan's WWII history in general - paying careful attention to the casualty figures. It was clear what the statement pointed out but the situation at the time did play an enormous part in why those bombs were dropped, and it is a situation none of us is close to facing today. And don't listen to what I've said - grab some history books. If you're going to have those personal beliefs, you need to take a look at the facts and at least partially understand why they couldn't be considered during that time. There's also the fact that during war, there are an incredible number of factors to weigh up before making a decision. [quote][SIZE=1]I'm going to side with Retribution here. Unless we had someone who knew firsthand at what stage of development the North Koreans are, we can't assume anything about their nuclear capabilities. Fact is, we don't really know if their delivery methods are 'nothing close to viable' as we've only seen [i]one[/i] test. It could've been a dud, it could be one of several prototypes - we just don't know.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] We've seen two tests - one that had the explosive power equivalent of a cod farting in the ocean, and the other being an awful display of ballistics research. It speaks volumes. There's also that lovely little nugget called mutually assured destruction - so we do know their delivery methods are nothing close to viable. Nuclear war is[i]not[/i] just about getting the things to their targets. Again, it seems all he's done is use the western world's boogeyman image against them. Very effectively, too.

I'd recommend Avast ([b][url=http://www.avast.com/eng/free_software.html]here[/url][/b]) or AVG ([b][url=http://free.grisoft.com/doc/1]here[/b][/url]). Avoid norton like the plague.

[QUOTE=Sandy][B]Popquiz:[/B] What country is the [I]only one[/I] in the history of Earth to ever use a nuclear weapon against another nation? Pot calling the kettle black here...[/QUOTE] What in the world was the point in that statement? Yeah, America dropped nukes, during [i]World War II[/i]. It was a strategic decision during a time of war by a democratic government. That's not to justify it - but consider the facts of the time and what options were available. [quote=Retribution][size=1] Perhaps you're right. On the other hand, N. Korea would collapse without provisions, no matter who Kim blames.[/size][/quote] You might kill a lot of people, but you can't be assured that N. Korea will collapse in that sense. Kim has been blaming nigh on anything going wrong internally on external sources for a long time, with a healthy amount of spin from the various departments that control media outlets, etc. A good number of the people turn [i]to[/i] Kim when things go wrong, not away from him. [quote][size=1]You can't shut your ears to the possibility of a nuclear attack, no matter how unlikely.[/size][/quote] No, you can't - but you can look at the facts. How can they attack when they have nothing close to viable delivery method? Nobody is even sure they're capable of creating working nuclear weapons, for crying out loud! [quote][size=1]He cares, which is why he fabricates that information. If he wants to bolster his popularity, he can have the press write whatever he asks them to, with or without outside action. The public is being forcefed whatever information Kim wants them to consume.[/size][/quote] Aye, that's what I meant. Probably should've put it better, but can't help being brain dead ;)

[quote]So then what course of action do you propose? Honestly, he's been a child long enough, and it's time he paid for his idiocy. What's he going to do if China stops selling them food? Cry about it?[/quote] No, he's going to let his people go without food and continue to blame outside sources for the problem, with a view to stay in power. I didn't propose a course of action. Just said that maybe restricting millions from the basics isn't necessarily going to effect his regime when the 'facts' in N. Korea point the blame at others. [quote]He's still not insane enough to bomb S. Korea or any other country (IMHO), because he knows it would bring about the immediate end of his country.[/quote] Exactly. [quote]Well, didn't they have that mid-range missile test (failed, true, but regardless) that could carry a nuclear bomb?[/quote] Not sure if it could carry a nuclear bomb, but they had a failed missile test. That doesn't mean they're anywhere near a viable delivery method. And even if they did, what bombs are they going to launch? It's not even been proven they have any, and a kiloton is hardly world ending. [quote]And who cares what the N. Korean public think? He could fabricate any news he'd like and they wouldn't know the difference, so outside actions have reduced effect.[/quote] Does he not care? There I was thinking his government [i]does[/i] fabricate or twist outside actions/news/statements to benefit him, such as the always imminently invading Americans sitting on the border. [quote]And what will they do at that point? I think Kim would have a hard time with himself going to war. Let's be honest here... it'd bring about the collapse of his country, and I don't think he's willing to do that. China & Co. just need to put him in place. Edit: Where's Europe during this? They seriously need to get involved in putting pressure on N. Korea if they're not already.[/QUOTE] What? The paragraph I wrote had nothing to do with him going to war - it was about how Kim is hardly the first person to use fearmongering methods at home. Just like it worked for the US/UK governments, it could work entirely in his favour. To me it seems his ideals are at home and there alone.

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']Perhaps, but in the process he's completely destabilizing the region with his stupidity. We can't act like it's another one of his bluffs, because what if it werent?[/size][/quote] I wouldn't call getting the entire world to play right into your hands stupid, but each to their own. The man wants to stay in power, I don't think there's much else to it. Having the American army right on your doorstep allows you to convey the same fear western governments do of terrorism: that there's a big bad monster just waiting around the corner to [i]get you[/i] unless certain steps are followed. [quote][size=1]Basically, I think the world's doing basically all it can at this point. Multilateral talks and sanctions seem to be the best we can do. Although if China were to stop selling N. Korea goods and open their border to people wanting to immigrate, I'd say N. Korea would collapse.[/size][/QUOTE] Sanctions seem like the worst possible thing anyone could do, as at the end of the day he's still in power. Stopping sales of goods in China would be worse. Whatever is taken away will be blamed on the foreigners imposing the restrictions, not Kim, as he will appear to be the one trying to help. The detonation of the 'nuke' was estimated at one kiloton, and even if N. Korea had a gajillion Tsar Bombas, they'd have no way to attack with them. It seems like Kim wants the Americans to stick around, maybe bolster numbers & introduce some influence from other countries, so he can bolster his position at home. The wonderful tag team of Blair & Bush have found the latest scary man who's plotting to kill us all, so they still get something out of it. As I said up there, the US/UK are prime examples of how fear is used to justify anything - the huge wiretapping project that went on in America & EU banks giving financial information to US intelligence agencies comes to mind. All justified by the war on terror. Just like Kim can sit there and say the big bad just-about-to-invade foreigners are the reason for everything go down the drain domestically.

'lo, Just in case anyone else has a problem similar to this one, there's a lovely little freeware app called treesize (located [url=http://www.jam-software.com/freeware/index.shtml][b]here[/b][/url]) which gives you a size breakdown for all folders on your computer. Far better than right clicking and hitting properties for every single one!

Nothing on Wikipedia can be called accurate unless it's been permanently locked after being checked by accountable experts. Wikipedians will swear otherwise. Can't say I haven't sat there clicking "random article" with glee though, as it's a great site for information and can be a lot of fun to boot; especially when you want to find out about something totally random. What irks me is the swathes of people who claim it's some sort of knowledgeable resource. AJ put it best ;D

Pagan - your supposed research seems to extend only to adding a few young girls on myspace and implying them handing over personal details is some form of exploitation or trickery. What were the criteria for judging when someone was "exploitable", for example? How many was "a few"? Why did you not extend any of your research into other areas of the internet, acquiring information by phone or just plain old talking to the child in a park? If the age-restricted profiles statement is true, how does that make [i]anything[/i] more secure for a child on myspace? It's a knee-jerk reaction to shut technophobic officials and parents up; the ones who are too afraid to educate children about the internet, or learn themseleves in the first place. Accepting someone as a friend on myspace has all the effect of accusing bran muffins of conspiracy. Yes, you allow whoever it is to view the personal information on the page, but who put it up there? Is it the responsibility of the largest social networking site in the world to check each and every poorly educated child's profile? It is purely the fault of the parents if children include "too much" information, nobody else. They should know what their child is up to on something so uniquely huge yet anonymous. The same goes for giving information away to strangers, how is this the fault of the website or child? It's physically impossible for the former to check all private communication, and the latter is only acting on what they have learned. Using a search engine, publically available databases etc. and something so simple as a message board username it's possible acquire far more information about a person than a website like Myspace will tell you - phone numbers, previous & current addresses, friend names, family members, photos, videos, you name it. It's there; along with anything else you've ever done on the internet. And let's not forget that each individual isn't the only one putting information up there - and the 'net itself isn't the only place this information can be acquired from! Yes, myspace provides a vast network where you can browse through the profiles & pictures of many, many young people. However, the entire internet can be used in this fashion. Myspace just hands you a place to put it all together, make it look pretty & have fun with it, responsibly. It's down to the parent to teach the child (or schools, if they can do it properly, but from experience with government IT education plans in the UK, every kid would be taking candy from bearded hobos) what that last part means, nobody else. The "problem waiting to happen" is, once again, thousands upon thousands of adults bemoaning the internet for not offering enough "protection" for children, when in reality they're just being far too lazy to do their jobs as parents.

Know sod all about North Korea - but just wanted to point out that there is huge difference between brainwashing and acceptance. In fact, there's no solid proof that brainwashing (in the utterly implausible, common definition that it's possible to have absolute decisive power over what a person holds in their head) is actually possible. Even if it was, doing it on that scale would mean no manpower for wickle missiles. It [i]is[/i] possible to coerce, use propaganda, and generally swamp the populus with misinformation. Especially within a dictatorship. It's up to [i]them[/i] to decide whether or not they're going to question what's put in front of them; there's no Kim Jong hypnotoad replacing advert breaks on television to force every North Korean into thinking he's God. They have a choice, it's just whether or not they bother making one (or know that it exists in the first place).

[quote name='AnimeHeroX']Yeah it's has all of those extra but do you still think that justifies a 600 dollar price tag. i mean think about when you were little would you ever think you'd pay that much for a gaming system? personally i'm from the SNES and Sega genesis decade so the highest i would ever go is $300 for any game system brand new. At least half the price of a PS3 and also think about this if the games aren't cheap either.so then alot of those features will go to waste.[/quote] If you're 'from' the 16-bit era you may fondly recall the rather hilarious asking price of both the Saturn & the PSX. Over here it was £600 - more than the PS3 will be. The price [i]is[/i] pretty much justified by the components inside the machine, Sony just made a boo-boo by going in the complete opposite direction to Nintendo & Microsoft. You might note Nintendo gave up trying to shove as much power into a machine as possible after the N64; MS never bothered doing it in the first place. Both have asked IBM (and other companies) to adapt existing technology for use in their machines, a very cost effective measure. Blu-ray isn't even selling in volume yet, with Cell only being sold to enterprise and datacenters; so how can you possibly expect the console to even approach the prices offered by Ninty and Microsoft? The price will come down once the early adopters snap up enough units, until then Sony are probably trying to limit their losses, as it seems unlikely they'll break even on the PS3 initially.

[quote name='Adahn']Fighting for your life and fighting because you're angry are different. I'm speaking of the former, where (for whatever reason) the situation involves my opponent's intent to kill me.[/quote] Not really. It still boils down to the fact that you'll be hitting someone and vice versa. Fighting is normally the byproduct of anger, the situation is irrelevant until you have to explain or justify your actions. [quote]As 'male-biased' and 'judgmental' as my statement is, I believe it to be true. The point is that women are constructed to be weak in our society. If I had things my way, my future wife and my sister would be as strong as I am. I see women as vulnerable because American society forces them to be vulnerable. They cannot survive socially in our country if they do not succumb to feminine ideals.[/quote] Believing it to be true is precisely why I called it those two things. American society does not force anybody to be anything. There are people who still hold certain values to do with family living far too close to heart, and some women are pulled into that way of life through experiences of their own family units; but succumbing to feminine ideals? Who decides what the feminine ideals are? The individual woman! There's not a lifestyle trap that every single woman in America will fall into - they can choose to sidestep it should they so wish. A person does not have to conform to a view they may regard as backward, even if it's held by a grand majority. And what in the world do you mean by survive socially? It seems to me that they do just fine. The idea that there is immense pressure for a woman to fulfil a certain role is one that is still holding society back. [quote]If this obsession with feminine weakness were not a part of our culture, I would estimate that no less than 25% of women my age would be able to hold their own against me. Genetics plays a role in the construction of women as weak, but our society's role is much more potent.[/quote] Er, no, it's not. If society put it's hand in the fire, would you do it too? Nobody [i]has[/i] to do or become anything. What obsession with feminine weakness, by the way? The only place where I've seen even remotely similar is back home in Ireland - a very small town where nigh on every single elderly woman has been the housewife for 30 years plus. Even among a population that still regards the 50's as the good ol' days, their views on women have rapidly changed due to events over recent years. In 19 years, I've met maybe three people who to the core, think that women are naturally weak. I could make a grand statistic out of that and pass it off as fact, but I won't, because I can't tell what the entire countries views on women are at this particular moment. [quote]Those girls that can kick your backside are the exception. It is easy for [i]exceptional individuals [/i]to overcome the gap, but the vast majority (~99%) are trapped in the ways I have stated above.[/quote] O_o; dear monkeys. I really hope I'm reading what you're saying the wrong way. How exactly do you know all this, and where is your evidence? Pulling what seem to be entirely random numbers out of thin air doesn't make a cohesive argument for your point.

[quote]No, it's a good choice of words. The only situation where I would engage a woman would be if that woman intended to kill me. That's the only situation where true fighting can take place.[/quote] 'True' fighting? Fighting is fighting, there's no true kind. [quote]I explicitly stated that the woman would have to be roughly my age (19). While your statement about martial arts and steroids [i]may[/i] be true of the entire female population, I believe my estimate of 1% is fair for my age group, if not a little generous.[/quote] From where I'm sitting, it looks incredibly male biased & very judgemental of a woman's physical ability. My 'estimate' would be far beyond that, but neither of us can really know until you line up every 19 year old woman in your country and fight them one by one. Due to the fact that I can't pull random statistics from the air, I would place a rather large bet on more than 1% being able to win instead. I used to regularly spar with girls many years my junior, and they kicked my backside all over the place. Fighting ability is not decided by your physical prowess, nor sex. Yes, men & women are born with certain genetic attributes that initially seperate them, but that 'gap' has been proven easy to overcome. As a man,being a man to me means having a dangly bit to worry about when naive young relatives decide to kick me somewhere, whereas the opposite sex doesn't. There's nothing I can do that a woman couldn't do better, or the same.

Their views are disgusting according to [i]opinion[/i]. Just as ours condemns the idea of a white supremist pop group, theirs justifies its existence. I really don't see what all the fuss is about. If people don't want to hear what they have to say - don't listen! This isn't 1930's Germany, where propaganda exists everywhere and the state has control over what it force-feeds us. You can choose to believe what seems to be yet another horrendously ignorant blast at multiculturism, or you can continue forming your own views on the world and act accordingly. I can suppose that parents are in uproar, just in case their child flicks to the white supremist music channel and is subsequently brainwashed? Please. Part of parenthood is passing on knowledge; a refresher on what happened the last time part of the world embraced these beliefs should suffice. It's hardly like their creations are going to start appearing in the mainstream, is it? Free will & freedom of expression doesn't mean everybody is going to stick to what's considered a 'morally acceptable' path, some will go down a road that seems incomprehensibly stupid... but that is their decision. Society without a variety of cultures, opinions & beliefs can end up stifling & restrictive - if people choose not to believe that (and sing about superiority complexes), they can go right ahead and do it.

I would say iPod, just because the big difference between the iPod and every other mp3 player on the market is, wait for it, functionality! It's no surprise when it's Apple. They might have a gigantic bucket labeled [i]design ideas that should never have been[/i], but they made a killing with the clickwheel. It might sound like a potato that's far too small to focus on, but track selection and menu navigation is what you do most with the things - having something that's intuitive & easy to use is of paramount importance. It breaks away from the age-old tradition of fiddling; someone who has zero experience with technology can pick it up and play with no real repercussions. The amount of times I've had to reset a Creative player when somebody accidentally sets it to record in the worst format possible can become quite a pain, and it only leaves them not wanting to use it anymore in case they do something wrong again. All that does mean Apple have a huge accessory market rather than extra features built in, and I suppose deciding whether that's for the extra profit margin or to keep the 'pod simple is down to opinion. Bundling things such as a microphone would increase the price & size, though. Creative have learnt a lot of lessons and pushed some of their newer players, but I completely fail to see the advantage (besides cost) over the 'pod. I found the 'stick' on their older players to be an incredible annoyance, the vertical trackpad being an improvement but still requiring too much effort to do simple tasks. The bundled microphone leaves much to be desired in terms of quality & until recently, they've always been huge! They do, of course, have the file extension support - a godsend for someone who's ripped their entire collection in .wma. iTunes, though, will change them into AAC on the fly if an iPod was your purchase of choice. They do still blow iPods out of the water in terms of battery life, but Apple have hardly been resting on their laurels; every new generation that comes out extends the time by just a little bit more. The idea that iPods alone suffer from battery problems is a myth. [i]Any[/i] portable technology utilising a Li-ion battery will suffer from charge longetivity issues after a certain number of cycles - the initial lifetime (~8 hours) decreasing in what seemed like such a drastic manner is what brought scrutiny to the iPod. With the release of the video iPod, it seems that Apple are beginning to wonder what to do next. They have (somehow) pushed the design into a further state of anorexia, which is all well and good, but I really would love to meet someone who liked watching TV on the way to work in the morning, especially on a half-VGA screen. For a few funny clips or a music video here and there I can see it being used, but other than that it just seems a novelty; rather than a competitor to players developed by companies such as Archos (as it has been touted). The Nano is a beautiful little machine despite all the [b][url=http://discussions.info.apple.com/webx?14@823.1UXDaaTXUpD.0@.68b94d61]complaints[/url] [url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/24/apple_sued_over_nano/]about scratches[/url].[/b] Although, unless you're desperate for a screen the Shuffle could be the way to go for most. I personally have a 40GB photo iPod, and am waiting for companies like Hitachi to push the[b] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpendicular_recording]perpendicular recording[/url][/b] technology so we can have ickle 80-120GB drives in our players. For anyone else I will continue to suggest Apple purely for the ease of use.

[quote name='Desbreko][color=#4B0082']Nope, there's no monthly fee for Guild Wars. After you purchase the game (which is $50 most places) you can play as much as you want with no additional fees. New expansions will also cost $50, however, unlike the cheaper expansion packs of other online games, so there is a trade off. (Assuming you want to buy the expansions, anyway. Word is that they won't be required to continue playing the original version of the game.) If you're going to be playing for more than a couple months, I think it's definitely worth it though.[/color][/quote] $50 each? Well, I suppose that answers my question of how in the world they can afford all of this. I'm assuming they'll be trying to get a snowball effect of new members with that one, I still fail to see how it's possible to keep that much running with no stream of revenue.