James

[color=#737373]I wouldn't be so fast to declare that PS3 is the automatic winner, but it's impressive so far. Also, PS3 will support two screens/monitors. So you could play a two player game from one system, on two TVs or computer monitors. Since the controllers are wireless, that eliminates the need for a link cable and two consoles. You can also have two TVs together for a 32:9 aspect ratio (one game covers both screens, for a panoramic view). In addition, you can move status elements and stuff to a seperate screen...so you could have one screen for all your readouts and menu, one for the game itself (very DS-esque). And finally, a seperate screen can be used for live video chat, while the first screen displays the game itself. As for memory, Xbox cards are fine. They store 64MB at minimum. Remember that this is primarily for game saves. The PS3 might suffer by not having a standardized memory format, although the flexibility is nice. The cards aren't of much importance though; they are not designed to function like the hard drive. [/color]

[color=#737373]I like the console's design. Nothing amazing, but a whole lot prettier than Xbox 360 (not that it says much, lol). I have no idea if that font is final, however, I agree that it looks very Spider-Man. As for the controller...check it out here: [url="http://www.loudnoises.org/E3/PS3.jpg"]http://www.loudnoises.org/E3/PS3.jpg[/url] It does look a bit freaky, doesn't it? Hoepfully it has some sort of new feature other than Bluetooth. I'm disappointed that the Xbox and PlayStation controllers are essentially remaining the same. However, this controller looks like it might be more comfortable than the palm-breaking PS1/PS2 controller. Let's hope so, anyway.[/color]

[color=#737373]Sony's E3 press conference is now over and today brought the news that everyone was looking for; the unveiling of PlayStation 3. [center][img]http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/news/05/16/ps3_screen004.jpg[/img][/center] The new system is set to arrive in Spring 2006, although Sony hasn't yet provided any specific dates. Only recently, Microsoft revealed Xbox 360, which has a pretty impressive list of technical specifications. Put simply, it's significantly more powerful than any current generation systems. However, PlayStation 3 appears to one-up Xbox 360 by a pretty reasonable margin. So that it's easy to browse, I'll just create a bullet list of all the features and specs announced thusfar. [b]Media Format[/b] [list] [*]Blu-Ray disc (holding up to six times more data than current DVDs) [*]CD-ROM [*]CD-RW [*]DVD [*]DVD-ROM [*]DVD-R [*]DVD+R [/list][b]Memory/Other[/b] [list] [*]Memory Stick Duo [*]SD slot [*]Compact Flash Memory Slot [*]Detatchable 2.5-inch HDD [/list][b]Peripherals[/b] [list] [*]Support for up to seven Bluetooth game controllers [*]Six USB ports (four at the front, two at the back) [/list][b]Hardware Specifications[/b] [list] [*]Cell processor, running at 3.2 GHz (2.18 teraflops overall performance) [*]26MB XDR main RAM at 3.2GHz [*]256MB GDDR VRAM at 700MHz [*]nVidia graphics chip RSX "Reality Synthesizer", capable of 128bit pixel precision and 1080p resolution [*]512MB graphics render memory [*]100 billion shader operations and 51 billion dot products per second [/list][center][img]http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/news/05/16/ps3_screen005.jpg[/img][/center] During the conference, Sony showed an Unreal 3 tech demo. Tim Sweeney from Epic Games mentioned that PlayStation 3 is "easy to program for". Various other games were confirmed. Metal Gear Solid 4, Devil May Cry 4, Tekken 6, Gran Turismo 5, a new Killzone and a new GTA game are all in the works. The next GTA is scheduled to launch with PlayStation 3 itself. Finally, PS3 is to be backward compatible with both PlayStation 2 and the original PlayStation. [center][img]http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/news/05/16/ps3_screen003.jpg[/img][/center] [center][img]http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/news/05/16/ps3_screen006.jpg[/img][/center] [center][img]http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/news/05/16/ps3_screen002.jpg[/img][/center] [left]Edit: Please excuse the size of the pictures. I'll see about putting thumbnails in here instead.[/color][/left]

[quote name='Bloodseeker']There's an idea. I've been looking for an excuse to try out the Eye-Toy.[/quote] [color=#737373]Yeah, this is actually a really good idea. A way to make exercise fun. ~_^ Actually, I have recently taken to wrestling my two siblings using bean bags. That definitely keeps me active. :animesigh [/color]

[color=#737373]The only thing I still do at the moment is sit-ups. But I have to say, it's probably not good enough. I certainly felt better when I was exercising more often. I find that motivation usually comes from other people. My sister has said that she'd like to go to the local gym with me, which is great, because it means we'll be there to spur each other on. Plus, it kind of becomes a social thing then...the time always goes faster when you have someone to talk to. ^_^ This was also true in high school when one of my friends was my gym buddy. We pretty much used to just talk the entire time, while we were exercising, which really helped. It's great when someone else is going through the same thing, it really gives you added motivation. So I think that is a big recommendation for those who want to exercise more often; see if you can find someone to exercise with you![/color]

[quote=Azurewolf] don't know how to make it any clearer than that. Murder is something where everyone agrees that it should be illegal. If there is a comparison, it is seeing how your "it can't be enforced" argument stands when applied to anything else. Your argument works equally well with both murder and incest - that is, not in the least. The only difference is that the silliness is clearly shown when you apply it to something as extreme as murder, but is well-masked when you talk about incest. [/quote] [color=#737373]I know what you're saying, I am just pointing out that you presented it incorrectly. You drew a comparison between incest and murder. You implied that I was saying nobody should investigate murder if it occurs in the bedroom. It's not my fault for reading it as you wrote it, lol. If you are only talking about something that "everyone can agree should be illegal", you should have said that at the very beginning. In addition, you made an implication that is false. I specified that violent crimes that involve an unwilling participant should be illegal and should be prosecuted. You implied that I was saying murder (or insert any other crime here) happening in the bedroom shouldn't be approached by the authorities. So I am merely clarifying my point, which you misinterpreted. You shouldn't even be using murder as a point of comparison. It doesn't work, even under your blanket idea of "illegal is illegal". If we aren't even going to establish that incest (between consenting adults) is different to murder, then there is nothing more to say on that subject. The fact that they are different is critical - especially in regard to enforcement. [/color] [quote=Azurewolf]There is no similarity between the two (I never said there was!), except that one is illegal and another is a candidate for becoming illegal. If there is a linking thread between the two, it is merely how poorly your argument about "it can't be enforced" works. [/quote] [color=#737373]No, there's no similarity between the two. But let's be clear; you made an implication about the point I was making. And that implication was wrong and misunderstood my point.[/color] [quote=Azurewolf]I'm surprised at how complicated my murder analogy seems, lol. Maybe being abstract would be better so no pointless tangents can be made? How's this: an event exists that all people find horrid and unacceptable in society, and everyone agrees it should be illegal. However, it's (seemingly) impossible to enforce. This is a more simplistic hypothetical example, and we'll call the event "Event X." [/quote] [color=#737373]What on earth are you talking about? And you're telling me about pointless tangents, lol. I understood your point. I am trying to explain that a) it's a redundant point and b) it misunderstands what I've been saying, [i]especially[/i] when it comes to taking the term "in the bedroom" literally. Your point isn't difficult to understand; it's just that it's all-too simplistic, for a situation that isn't quite so.[/color] [quote name='Azurewolf']I'm going to assume you mean consentual sex in this case, as (again, whether you like it or not) rape is indeed a form of (forced) sex. [/quote] [color=#737373]Whether I like it or not? Geeze, Azure. Blood pressure...rising. lol I am not arguing that rape isn't forced sex. I am saying that rape is forced, while consentual sex is not. Therefore, the critical and fundamental difference.[/color] [quote name='Azurewolf']Yes, the distinctions are important, but in this case, you are only using one leverage point to make something illegal or legal: consent. Everything you've stated hinges on consent (and "harm to another"), with no support as to why that should be the determining factor. Well, you use the current state of sex-related legislation as support instead of meaningful reasoning. Legal and right are not synonymous, though, so I actually look forward to bringing up STDs when you supply some foundation. [/quote] [color=#737373]No, legal and right are not synonymous. But [i]your[/i] version of "right" isn't necessarily someone else's. That's the first point. In addition, consent and age are all very valid reasons for suggesting whether or not something should be illegal. What is the fundamental reason for rape being illegal? No doubt the fundamental reason is that the act hurts someone - it has a victim. It's about forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do. The [i]only[/i] grounds where I'd be inclined to make incest illegal would be serious health grounds. But this assumes that two people are going to give birth; as I said earlier, that's a somewhat seperate debate. Although I would grant that it presents a problem. Don't forget, Azure, earlier on in this thread you said that sex between cousins isn't as serious as sex between siblings/direct family. So you have been drawing distinctions on the subject yourself. When it comes down to it, I basically agree with you in the sense that I think incest has several potential problems. And I [i]personally[/i] don't support it. But as I've said, if two people are having sex somewhere, it's really none of my business (again, provided that we aren't talking about something like rape).[/color] [quote=Azurewolf]This is what the problem is. You keep bringing up enforcement, and even talked about degrees of punishment. I'm glad you believe they are instrinsically linked, but again, all these arguments bear their pointlessness (in this discussion) when you look at something like Event X. You are saying, just because it seems like people's private lives are going to be invaded by enforcement (which it doesn't have to be), that it shouldn't be illegal. On the other hand, if (as you have said) that is not what you mean, then drop this very moot (and poor) point already. [/quote] [color=#737373]Azure, you're the one who is turning enforcement into a debate. I'm simply responding to your points. If you want to talk about enforcement, we'll talk about it. If you don't want to, we won't. I understand what you are saying - that if something is wrong, it should be illegal regardless of the difficulties of enforcement. I am pointing out that a) there are problems with simply making something illegal (other than enforcement) and that b) enforcement is a relevant issue. That's all I'm saying.[/color] [quote=Azurewolf]And people's private lives don't have to be invaded for something to become illegal! Things like Event X (which can't be enforced) should still be illegal, even if there is no way to enforce it. [/quote] [color=#737373]Then what's the point of making it illegal? If nobody can be punished for having sex with their cousin, why put the law on the books? Just to say "this is wrong, don't do it"? I'm merely asking the question.[/color] [quote name='Azurewolf']You have yet to provide any reason why incest should remain legal aside from your enforcement complaint (which just doesn't work and should be as good as dead now). The only other reason you supply is that the government should not interfere in people's private consentual sex lives: [/quote] [color=#737373]Now, now, pay attention, Azure! :animeknow My primary reason for saying that incest shouldn't be illegal [b]is not[/b] enforcement. lol I am simply saying that enforcement is a relevant issue that should be considered. I am not saying that something shouldn't be illegal simply due to enforcement questions.[/color] [quote=Azurewolf]This reason is a bit more sound. If this is your claim, though, back it up with support. Why should the government have no input (!!! NOT ENFORCEMENT - INPUT aka LEGISLATION !!!) on the affairs of people's sex lives? I'll reiterate it: we are not talking about enforcement, but merely acts that already should not be practiced. In my eyes, making incest illegal would just be common sense being written up. To others, I guess it's not so obvious and paranoia sets in, lol. [/quote] [color=#737373]Calm down with the enforcment thing, Azure. I'm really starting to wonder how much attention you're paying. lol Okay, so, we're talking about putting something on the books for the sake of what? To tell people that it's wrong? I don't know why that requires legislation. As I have said, what you are talking about is legislating sex between consenting adults. I don't know why that needs any kind of government input whatsoever. People who are going to commit incest are probably going to do it anyway. If you're only wanting to put it there as a simple statement of "this is wrong, don't do it", there are probably better ways to handle that. The fact that it would be illegal would also mean that people could potentially be prosecuted for it. And I view that as questionable, for the reasons I've already mentioned. Theoretically, I could call the police on two cousins who have had sex once. If it's illegal, then there must be some kind of penalty, right? Do you really think it's right for that to be the case? I mean, do you think it's acceptable for someone to be able to call the cops and have two cousins arrested because they had sex? Again, I'm only posing the question. I personally think that it's an inappropriate use of the government's power. I think there are more important things that government should consider. I don't think that government has any business being involved in such a matter. You do. That's the difference between us, pure and simple.[/color] [quote name='Azurewolf']Not with that attitude and the arguments you supplied. Also, there are similarities between homosexuality and beastiality (and heterosexuality and rape and...), but that's going off-topic. [/quote] [color=#737373]Not with what attitude? Azure, maybe you haven't noticed, but you've had a pretty rude attitude yourself throughout this discussion. Take note. As for the second point, the fact that you're even saying that makes the whole thing null and void. For you to even go there...no. That's something I won't entertain. lol[/color] [quote name='Azurewolf']You've said "I don't care about other people and future generations" in other threads before. How many times are you going to post "oh what a silly thing for anyone to care about? lol"? I find it both rude and hypocritical, so I would appreciate it if you didn't do it anymore. [/quote] [color=#737373]When have I ever said that I don't care about other people and future generations? It's rude for [i]you[/i] to make such a comment. I am simply saying that what two consenting adults do privately is none of my business. You are making it your business. Again, that's the difference between the two of us. Does this mean I somehow don't care about people or their welfare? No, of course not. Not only is that a pretty far-out statement, but once again, it totally misunderstands my perspective.[/color] [quote name='Azurewolf']If you really don't care, you don't have to post for the sake of belittling a topic. Afterall, how many ground-breaking, revolutionary, or influential threads are there at OB? Absolutely zero, as this is a place for discussion and leisure, not for useful material and world-changing widgets, haha.[/quote] [color=#737373]Belittling a topic? Even though you have just said that I don't care about anyone or future generations? That's quite a lot of gall right there, lol. I'm simply having a discussion with you; there's no need to get hot under the collar because I'm challenging your position. You frequently take topics on OB way too seriously. Just look at your comments about linking to a private thread, lol. You went on and on and had to be told to settle down. So, chill. Quit throwing around insults and make sure that you just enjoy yourself. I do welcome discussions, but not if they're all going to go in this direction. I don't mind heated discussions either, but [i]not[/i] when people are insulted in this way. What you said about me in the previous quote is pretty nasty and spiteful. I'm not taking it personally - because it's clearly a low-blow - but I won't warn you about that type of language again. [/color]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]"Those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss. I really love that little quote; it says so much. I saw it in the AIM info of a fellow N-Sider staff member and it got me thinking. So I put it up on myOtaku a little while ago and a few people have already quoted it. I definitely tend to like simple quotes that are also quote provocative and thoughtful.[/color][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]I have three younger siblings (from 12 to 17). It's been an interesting experience, hehe. Yes, there have been times where I've wanted to kill them. They've all been through those very difficult stages, which every kid usually goes through (although I was an abnormally good child, embarassingly enough). But I have to say, as you get older, those things get ironed out. Your siblings mature and your relationship really improves and becomes stronger. My sister (who is 17) and I used to argue constantly. Now, we are the very best of friends. And we're very similar people, too. So I think it worked out really well. The same is true for my younger brother, who is 14. He does still get on my nerves at times - in some ways we are both quite different people - but our relationship is generally incredibly good. We're great friends, we share everything and we make each other laugh a lot. My youngest sister (12) is probably the one I'm least close to, largely because of the age difference. But having said that, we are getting closer all the time. And we have a lot of shared interests, which is nice. So I'm happy with that. But yeah, in general I think that there's always going to be arguments and stuff. But in time you get over that and when you become adults, everything really changes. You mature and you start to get over the small niggling things.[/color][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]I do drink occasionally, but it's rare. Usually only at major social functions. But there's a lot of stuff I don't like. I don't like beer or anything close to it; I still don't know what the appeal of a bitter drink is, lol. If I drink at all, it's usually either some sort of vodka or scotch-and-whatever (cola, lime, whatever else). But that's about it really. Scotch is nice...but if you have it on its own, it does taste remarkably like petrol (or what I imagine petrol to taste like). So drinking it raw is something that doesn't appeal to me very much, although I do very occasionally have some without anything mixed in. I've never really had an addictive personality though, so things such as alcohol and cigarettes have never really been all that appealing to me. I mean, I've tried both, but I've never found either to be appealing enough to do regularly.[/color][/font]

[quote=AzureWolf]You are reading more than what I wrote, James. In fact, you missed the entire point of my murder analogy. In a similar misunderstanding, you are assuming that I said you agree with rape and murder. Please, do not read beyond what I have said. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]Okay, let's take another look at what you said:[/color][/font] [quote=Azurewolf][i]The current logic you are employing is that if a murder happens inside a bedroom, there should be nothing done about it (or there can't be anything done about it). Afterall, it's their bedroom and the privacy of their bedroom is certainly impossible to circumvent. If you are going to bring up missing people - well, there you go: going into the bedroom by proxy and not directly invading privacy. In the same sense, things like incest can be discovered by equally indirect means. [/i][/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]By using the example of murder, you're trying to draw a comparison here. I have gone to great lengths to explain that incest and murder are two very different things. Therefore, they shouldn't be held to the same standards. Many things are "illegal", but this is why we have different penalties for different types of crimes. The problem is that you're using the "slippery slope" mentality. You're assuming that if private sexual relations can't be prosecuted, that other crimes also can't. That line of thinking is highly simplistic and it fails to recognize the distinctions I've been making.[/color][/font] [quote=Azurewolf]If you truly are not confusing law with law enforcement, then why bring up the latter at all? How something gets enforced should be a concern after something becomes illegal. Enforcement, ideally, should not be a determining factor in whether something becomes illegal. See my murder analogy for further elaboration - inability to enforce should not stop something from being illegal. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]Again...we're going around in circles here, lol. First of all, you are making blanket comparisons. Yes, murder and incest might both be illegal. Jay-walking and rape are illegal, but nobody would argue that the two are at all in the same ballpark, which is why there are noteably different penalties for both. In regard to enforcement, yes, enforcement is a factor. I am not confusing the law with enforcement, I am saying that the two are intrinsically linked. My argument isn't that we shouldn't make something illegal because it's difficult to enforce (read: virtually impossible to enforce, thus making the law itself somewhat redundant). My argument is that [b]you[/b] have no right to tell two consenting adults that they can't have sex. That is none of your business, nor should it be the business of the state.[/color][/font] [quote name='Azurewolf']And again, illegal is illegal. You fail to explain the relevance of making a distinction between types of crimes. And this whole notion about keeping the government out of the bedroom is still trite unless you can explain how your double standard can be implemented (i.e., if it's rape, then you are allowed to know about someone's sex life, but if it's not, then you are not). [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]I haven't failed to explain anything; I have just gone to great lengths to point out the key differences between consentual sex among adults and a violent crime. This is the standard through which many laws are written and applied. It's not illegal, for example, to cheat on a spouse (although many would argue that it is immoral). But it [i]is[/i] illegal to go and rape someone. What is the difference between the two? In the first case, you are talking about two consenting adults having sex. In the latter, you're talking about one person violently attacking another. The distinctions [i]are[/i] important. The entire legal system is based on these distinctions.[/color][/font] [quote name='Azurewolf']You also fail to explain what is so wrong about legislating sexual acts. You keep talking about how it's some sacred, above-the-law situation, but at the same time, you wave a banner against rape. Whether you like it or not, rape is a sexual act, which has been forbidden by law. Sexual acts have been legislated. You can put rape in other categories as well, but again, one of the categories it falls into is a sexual act, regardless of it's "harm to another" element. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]Hang on a moment, you're comparing rape (as a sexual act) to consentual sexual acts? Nuh-uh. You're missing the point. Rape is a violent crime. It is a crime that contains an [b]unwilling participant[/b]. That is the key distinction that defines rape. Incest among two consenting adults is fundamentally different. Whether we think it's morally right or wrong, it shouldn't be illegal. It involves two adults having consentual sex. It does not involve an unwilling participant or a violent crime. So that's the key distinction that I've been repeatedly making.[/color][/font] [quote=Azurewolf]This is what I'm talking about. If the government is to not interfere in sexual behaviors of people, how are things like rape going to be discovered? Do they check and then forget about things if they aren't rape? When you answer that question, it goes back to something I said earlier about murder:[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]You're taking "in the bedroom" far too literally, though. lol I am saying that sexual acts between consenting adults are not the business of the government. [i]However[/i] acts of violence, or acts perpetrated against unwilling participants (ie: rape) require legal action; in these cases we're talking about situations where people are actually being hurt and are not consenting. When I talk about "in the bedroom", I'm speaking metaphorically. I am saying that the government doesn't have the right to get involved in people's private lives, so long as they aren't actually commiting violent crimes (of which rape is one).[/color][/font] [quote=Azurewolf]While it's certainly great incest doesn't do harm to another person (but to society as a whole), I still see no reason to NOT make it illegal. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]The point about going in by proxy seems silly to me. So...what, the government is going to go in under different circumstances and hope that they find something related to incest? Or...people are going to spy on their neighbours and call the cops if they think incestual sex is going on? C'mon now. As I said, in regard to incest...I am not even talking about having children and what that would entail. That's a whole other area that I haven't commented on (other than my brief comments earlier on). What I am talking about is something that isn't hard to understand. I am saying, simply, that the government has no business getting involved in people's private and consentual sex lives (if they are adults). You, on the other hand, are saying that the government has the right to legislate the private relationships of adults. Earlier on you mentioned the "slippery slope" argument in reference to my comments on enforcement. So, let's do the same with your argument. Where does the government stop, when it comes to legislating sexual relations? Do we start arresting same-sex couples who are doing no harm to anyone? Do we tell those with disabilities that they can't have sexual relationships? Do we stop interracial intercourse? Really, how far does it go? I don't view the slippery slope argument as being logical in any sense. So obviously, the questions I'm asking above are only to point out that this approach can be taken with almost any argument that relates to almost any subject. The bottom line is that you want to police the private and consenting relationships of adults. I don't. I only want to police these matters when someone is actually the subject of violence or force (that includes both rape and pedophilia). But if two cousins at a farm are having sex in the barn yard? Why is that any of my business? It isn't; it has nothing to do with me. I'm not interested in their sexual practices, lol. Please note, though, that I'm not trying to change your opinion here. I'm just pointing out the various misinterpretations that have been made, so that my point is that much clearer. I [b]know[/b] that I'll never convince you that it shouldn't be illegal, in the same way that I'll never convince Mnemolth that homosexuality and beastiality are totally different. We are coming from two very different angles, which I understand.[/color][/font] [quote=Morpheus] Though I am not a theist, I am well versed in christianity. Wouldn't the children of Adam and Eve be guilty of incest? After having children, there would be only immediate family members to all. The sons had do have sex with someone, mother or sister. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]Funny, isn't it? I haven't even touched on that particular subject; far be it for me to point out rabid hypocrisy. lol[/color][/font] :animestun

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]They aren't going to unveil anything different; this is the final design. The console is launching at the end of this year, so they really don't have time to change the design now. lol The actual console is pretty medicore looking, I think. I personally just think that it's cliche and unoriginal, mostly. It's bland. I wouldn't say that it's actually "ugly", but by the same token, it isn't inspired in the slightest. If I'd drawn that design myself, I would be angry at myself for not being more original. The controller seems fine though, I mean, it [i]looks[/i] a lot more comfortable than the original Xbox controller. Shape-wise, it reminds me of something Sega would make (which isn't helped by the colouring and buttons, which are very Dreamcast-esque). But that isn't really a bad thing. Overall I think that Xbox Live is going to be impressive, but that's probably the only major draw-card. None of the games announced so far interest me very much. I'm mildly curious about Perfect Dark Zero, although it's still in development and little can be said about it so far. I'm also interested in Kameo. But my interest for those games is only pretty mild; I'm far more interested in current generation stuff right now, like Okami and the new Zelda.[/color][/font] [quote name='Morpheus']I think I know why Microsoft has named it 360. They are taking a completely different aproach: XBox was all about the power, and this one isn't all about the power (obviously). This will most likely hurt Microsoft's game division even more than XBox did, as people that didn't buy Xbox probably won't buy 360, and 360 doesn't cater to the current xbox crowd.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]The name comes from the idea of "putting the gamer in the center" (of the Xbox universe). I'm not sure how you came to your second conclusion, lol. How is it that Xbox 360 will hurt their gaming division more than the original system? I can understand that logic if you're talking about something like manufacturing cost (even though we don't know what the retail price will be yet). But your comment about non-Xboxers not buying Xbox 360 makes little sense for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, Xbox 360 will be the first next generation system to launch. A lot of early adopters are going to have an interest in that. Secondly - and partly due to the slump in the Japanese market during the last four years - quite a few Japanese studios are going to be supporting the new system from day one. This is noteable for two reasons. Firstly, it means that they acknowledge the weakness in the Japanese market and therefore, they're building games that will have broader appeal (ie: games that will help to generate sales in western markets). But also, their support will help to put Xbox 360 in a much better position at launch (in Japan). If you look at everything from Xbox Live, to the added functionality, to the actual raw design, you have a system that is obviously being aimed at a more mainstream consumer than the previous model. I don't know how anyone can say that people who avoided Xbox will avoid Xbox 360. I don't know what you're basing that assumption on.[/color][/font]

[QUOTE=Delta][COLOR=#95005E][SIZE=1] But please do not confuse "delaying the study of History to a riper age" with "altering histories for students". I am very much against the latter. It's a factual recording of events! A wrong interpretation may stay with an individual, especially the lazy-types who do not bother to read other books, for life. He'll be like a walking idiot in the eyes of other people, much more to those like him but believe the opposite. [/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]I don't think anyone is making that confusion other than Lady Dust, lol. At issue is the [b]altering[/b] of text books. By "altering", we are talking about omitting a little event called World War II. Most young people in Japan know that atomic bombs were dropped on their country, but most do [i]not[/i] know that their country attempted to violently conquer the asia-pacific region. The whole idea that this stuff should be delayed until University level is ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned. I was learning about World War I and II in both primary and secondary schools. It's quite possible to teach kids about war without getting into the gory details. And certainly, it's very possible to discuss the subject of war at the high school level, when kids are easily capable of digesting such information. I strongly doubt that many Japanese young people (including adults) are even aware that Japan attacked both Darwin and Sydney. For Americans, that'd be like someone attacking New York City and Los Angeles with submarines and heavy bombers. It's something that leaves a mark on a country forever; underwater mines still wash up on Sydney beaches from time to time. It's always a reminder of a very frightening time. Unfortunately Japanese students (and the population as a whole) get a [i]very[/i] deliberately distorted view of the war. That doesn't help anyone.[/color][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]Yeah, this is starting to get into the territory that I've been talking about - not outlawing a specific consentual adult relationship. Whether you outlaw reproduction or not, I don't know. And again, I don't know how that would be policed. I also don't really know about the whole genetic defect thing...I suspect that none of us here are experts on that subject. So that's a big question mark, which in turn places a question mark over the whole question of how else you'd legislate this type of thing. But still, my intention isn't even to argue that there should be no laws relating to this type of thing (ie: health or reproduction laws). My only point is that the government has absolutely no business policing the relationships of consenting adults.[/color][/font]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=blue] The current logic you are employing is that if a murder happens inside a bedroom, there should be nothing done about it (or there can't be anything done about it). Afterall, it's their bedroom and the privacy of their bedroom is certainly impossible to circumvent. If you are going to bring up missing people - well, there you go: going into the bedroom by proxy and not directly invading privacy. In the same sense, things like incest can be discovered by equally indirect means. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]You are still fundamentally misunderstanding my point, though. You're telling me not to confuse "law" and "law enforcement" (and I'm not confusing them, I'm saying that they are intrinsically linked), but you are confusing "sexual relations between consenting adults" and "violence perpetrated against an individual". Your example there is absolutely ridiculous. And it's extreme. I have just finished saying, over and over again, that I am [b]not[/b] talking about a crime perpetrated against someone. I am talking about sexual activities between two consenting adults. There is a key difference there. This is why I would still keep things such as rape and pedophilia illegal - if a father rapes his daughter, I'm thinking that he's a rapist and a pedophile. And those are the laws under which he should be prosecuted. But if two adult cousins are having sex in their own house, am I going to go in there and prosecute them? I think that's ridiculous. You are taking two adults and you are telling them that they don't have the right to make a choice about their sex lives - you are effectively legislating sexual acts. Again, I'll reiterate, just so that there is no confusion. I am [b]not[/b] saying that a father raping his daughter should be legal. I am drawing a distinction between two consenting adults participating in a sexual act, versus one party preying on another. There is a fundamental difference there - the difference between "sex" and "rape". Nobody is saying that if a murder occurs in a bedroom that it shouldn't be prosecuted or investigated. That's just asenine. And it totally misunderstands everything I've been saying here thusfar. When I talk about "in the bedroom", I'm talking about sexual acts between two consenting adults. I am [b]not[/b] talking about murder or rape or any other crime where one person is preying on another.[/color][/font]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=blue] "You know what, it's wrong for people to strut around society naked, but who are we to stop them?" or "You know, it's pretty messed up for people to fling dung everywhere, but who are we to stop them?" How silly! There's no logic supporting "we have no right as a society that maintains each others' existence to make any compromise" (the statement itself even, I hope you realize, isn't logical in the least).[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]I think you're misunderstanding the angle that people like me are coming from, though. First of all, how on earth is this law going to be policed? Are you going to have cops in people's bedrooms or what? Secondly, what right do you have to legislate people's sex lives? As I've repeatedly said, I don't think anyone here is actually agreeing with incest. But many of us acknowledge that it's literally impossible to police people's individual sexual activities. Conservatives frequently have this backward notion that people's bedrooms should be somehow controlled by legal standards. That's utter nonsense. Not only is it impossible to police, but it's a massive invasion of privacy - isn't the whole idea to keep Government [i]out[/i] of people's private homes, so that it may deal with issues that actually matter? I think doukeshi actually summarises the point pretty well. There's a key difference between incest among consenting adults and, say, rape or pedophilia. In the latter cases, we are talking about unwilling participants being forced into an act of violence. In the former case, we're talking about two adults having sex. I may not have an interest in incest, but I have no right to literally stop those two adults from having sex. It's none of my business what they do in their bedroom. I don't know why people are so interested in people's sex lives, honestly. lol[/color][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]Yeah, it sucks that our government has to make these requests of Indonesia all the time. It annoys me, because it's like we have to second guess their extremely weird judicial system. lol Still, it's reasonable I suppose. Third world countries are infamous for having highly severe judicial systems like this...the fact that they still have the firing squad even seems a little odd to me, honestly. Although I think Australia is right to have some intervention, I can't imagine how it must look to local Indonesians. They are no doubt very tired of us "butting in" all the time...even though we've always had more than enough cause to do so.[/color][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]Yeah, I can't imagine her being prosecuted for it...the whole thing seems illogical (ie: the idea that she's actually responsible for it herself). But who knows. I am highly suspicious of the judicial system in Indonesia, lol.[/color][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]I don't know why anyone would suggest that keeping history secret in Japan is a good thing. Make no mistake - during WWII, Japan was a murderous, horribly cruel country. We aren't just talking murder with a gun, we are talking insane and bizarre torture methods. At the very least, the people who survived that war have the right to be respected; teaching young people about their country's past is part of that, as far as I'm concerned. Japan has no right to see itself as some kind of culturally elite country in the region, when it has visited unimaginable terror on those around it in the past.[/color][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]Can we please just stick to the one thread for now? Thanks.[/color][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]shrebaby, please don't double post. And please watch your post quality - your posts are incredibly difficult to read. It wouldn't hurt to take more care with things like spelling. Please read the rules if you wish to continue posting here (you can find them on the left navigation menu).[/color][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]I think the point is, none of us can set an artificial limit. Nobody can tell you you're having too much or too little sex. That's [i]your[/i] decision to make. If you are uncomfortable with the amount of sex you're having (regardless of the reason), then obviously you [b]are[/b] having too much. It's as simple as that. Sex shouldn't be forced; don't do it out of obligation. Do it because you want to do it. If you both want to, then there's no problem - the problem is when one (or both) of you is having doubts. And clearly, in that situation, you have to consider what the reason is and see what you can do about it. Despite your posts I'm still not quite sure what you are wanting to do here. Are you wanting to slow down so that you can develop a more emotional bond between the two of you? I mean, so that he [i]will[/i] love you? Or do you feel that too much sex is hurting the relationship because you spend no time doing other things? Again, if that's the case, it's very easy to fix. You don't need a lot of time to do something else. You don't need to go out and do elaborate things all the time; there's nothing wrong with having a conversation over dinner, or watching a film together, or something like that. Usually it's those little things that help to build bonds in a relationship anyway. ^_^[/color][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]The problem appears to be gone now, for some unknown reason. I have no idea what it was about, maybe Bravenet themselves were having an issue. But I have no idea. Seems to be okay now though, so hopefully we won't get that issue again.[/color][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]Also, Germany shouldn't really be compared to Japan in a modern context. Where Germany repeatedly remembers the lessons of the past, Japan does not. Prime Minister Koizumi (for all his positive points as a reformist) continues to visit war shrines to remember fallen soldiers - soldiers who died while aggressively invading every last nation in the region. [/color][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]I don't know why this is even an issue. If you feel that you are having too much sex (for whatever reason), then have less sex. lol Too much sex is only a problem if you perceive it as such. If you'd rather talk or go out with your boyfriend, then do that instead. I don't think there is any rule about how often you should do it or what the circumstances should really be. In the end it comes down to what you are most comfortable with.[/color][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium][color=#808080]Basically, nobody really knows the answer to this question. I will say though, that it's impossible to "learn" sexuality. A straight male doesn't wake up one morning and simply [i]decide[/i] to be straight. This implies that you can logically choose who you are attracted to or who you fall in love with. If that were true, break-ups would never hurt - because you could "turn off" your attraction or love for someone. So it's obviously not a choice. And it can't be taught. I can't "teach" you to change your fundamental desires/impulses. Whether it's genetic or not is unknown. I have only recently read a report which seems to lend more evidence to the genetic explanation, but obviously it's still a subject where very little is known. But then again, think of what we're trying to quantify here. We are trying to scientifically quantify love. And for anyone who has been in love or experienced any kind of attraction, I think it's obvious that quantifying something like that in cold, hard terms isn't easy. Anyway, Chibi...yes, you should have asked about this thread before starting it. You [b]know[/b] that this has no clear answer and you [b]know[/b] that it'll turn into two groups trying to justify their own points of view endlessly. So I'm not going to leave it open. If you [i]really[/i] want to discuss this subject, I welcome you to voice your opinions on myOtaku or something like that. At least let's go a few solid months before we get back into this cycle. lol[/color][/font]