Ginger_Warrior

Didn't know a trailer had been released a few months ago but it's first I've seen with in-play competitive footage. From the looks of the HUD... no Armor Abilities.

I think surely the caveat is that other sites could be used for the same purpose. Although you could easily use that argument to claim the ruling won't achieve anything substantial against piracy either. I was reading a copy of the Daily Mail the other day (might've been the Telegraph actually) which claimed two thirds of the British public want online porn banned, which gave me a slight chuckle to think that two thirds of the British public honestly think this can be achieved. Of course, same applies here. This is more symbolic than anything else. The state needs to be seen to be protecting copyright for businesses. On that basis I have no objections to it, but it won't achieve anything meaningful.

OT: Is that TheStudentRoom? They make the OT board on here look completely uninterested in world affairs.

I have, but asking for my experience may not be that helpful because what suits me might not suit you. One thing I would say though is that, due to the reality of finding employment and progressing your career, you will probably have to move away from home at some point in your life. If you feel you can cope with the transition, it might as well be now when you're receiving student grant and another amount of means tested loan. If I were you, I'd be asking myself these questions instead: How far away from home am I going to be / How often can I come back home to see friends and family?What keeps me sane whenever I'm not working or studying?What place 'feels' right? A common worry among students moving away is whether or not they'll make new friends in the city they're going to. The last thing anyone wants is to be stuck on a course for three years with no-one to enjoy the experience with, but for the vast majority of people, that doesn't happen. Look at the Students Union for each university to get an idea of what activities are available. These societies and clubs are a God-send because it's so very easy to find new friends with common interests there. That's entirely the reason they exist. Furthermore, I found it much easier to make friends at university than I did at college. Everyone on your course is on there because they have a common interest. During Fresher's Week you'll almost definitely be given the chance to meet people on your course before formal studies begin. Sometimes there's even Facebook pages. Then of course there's accommodation. Every September, residential halls are filled with people who've moved away from home, more often than not for the first time in their lives. For everyone in there, it's all very confusing and distressing, and part of that is deliberate, because together you'll learn to live independently. You'll make friendships here. My point is, there's really no need to assume that just because you're shy or whatever, you will go through university living each day as a miserable loner desperately searching for a way out of a spiraling depression. There's just so many purposefully designed opportunities to find friends at university, it barely ever happens that way.

Finished FF XIII last night. Fun final battles but, my god, way too easy. Got the Superstar achievement (Five star rating on final boss) on the first attempt. That's an 80G achievement I barely had to work for. There was no real difference in difficulty between them and every other enemy you faced up until then, they just had gargantuan HP stats. So basically, follow simple battle strategy for a few minutes rather than a few seconds. Disappointing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfJO366AM4 The adrenaline's still pumping.

4-4... well at least Liverpool are losing. Still think we're favourites for the title. City need to win the derby, we can draw against them and either Sunderland or Swansea and we'll win by a point. The media have been going crazy all day saying City are in the driving seat now but I think it's more to do with the fact they've got a story to tell now when they didn't before today's result or the loss to Wigan. As for Dalglish: If it was any other manager, he'd have gone long before now. Why is he persisting in building a team fit for the 1980s? I'll say this about his signings as well. When Liverpool signed Charlie Adam from Blackpool, they thought that was the end of the Tangerines' dream. I was at Bloomfield Road yesterday, when they secured a play-off spot with a 4-0 thumping of Burnley; they didn't miss him, and haven't missed him all season.

If you don't cook the chips properly, they'll either be raw or they'll have a "burned" taste and they're really soggy. I don't like fish anyway, especially cod. As for scotch eggs? Disgusting... a meat 'n' 'tato pie please.

15pts between first and third in the table. People who claim the Premier League is the best in the world because in every other league only two teams can compete for the title are, frankly, deluding themselves.

Jealous, possessive and abusive. God, this guy's sounding more attractive by the second.

"We" being who? Yes, I'm curious. Just how accurate is this test? I should still think that even if you have a couple of very high's (like I did) that it's not necessarily worth having a professional diagnose you. This isn't a diagnostic tool and shouldn't claim to be. However, the chances are that a quarter of all the people who've posted on this thread are currently suffering from mental illness--not necessarily PD, granted--and a quarter more of us are just short of the diagnostic criteria. Simply put, around half of us in the developed world aren't in a 'healthy' way. The test itself isn't enough to establish a diagnosis, but some of the answers to the questions here (particularly concerning sleep patterns, diet, suicidal tendancies etc.) might be indicative that someone needs to seek medical help. My point is, if you're concerned about mental health, you should see a professional anyway, regardless of the accuracy of this test (or lack thereof). I'm not suggesting that people go looking for help everytime they feel a little bit sad, but if there's cause for concern then of course it's worth talking to a professional.

Graphics cards on laptops/notebooks/whatever-you-call-them. God damn they're rubbish. But decent desktops (as in ones that won't be obsolete in 24 months) cost like a grand, and all the good PC games recommend those specs. RAGE.

I was on duty yesterday at the football. Most I had to deal with was a little kid that got his finger caught in the seat. Ice pack and a plaster. Puts it all into context really. I'm just glad that thanks to the early intervention from paramedics, physios, club doctors and the SJA volunteers, he was given a chance to survive, but having gone that long without breathing I'm not sure we should celebrate anything. Brain damage or permanent loss of limb function is an easy possibility. Five against Wolves, and Zubar giving me an early birthday present by getting himself sent off pretty blatently for two bookable offences. Watched the game in Wigan where the rugby team won. Good day.

Hi. Disorder | Rating Paranoid: Low Schizoid: Low Schizotypal: Moderate Antisocial: Low Borderline: Moderate Histrionic: High Narcissistic: High Avoidant: High Dependent: High Obsessive-Compulsive: Moderate Apparently I'm easily lead (histrionic) but I also take advantage of others (narcissistic). Hm... not contradictory at all.

I'd rather have the current graphics than an Rs that looks like that to be honest. [/hide]Reminds me of the Elder Scrolls. On another note: Catherby! <3 But on a serious note, you're [bows] right. Even Nintendo, which for so many years with the GameCube and the Wii dug its heels in over whether it should be graphically competitive with the more powerful PS2/3 and Xbox/X360, has now accepted it needs to join the arms race with the revelation that the Wii U will have HDMI. RuneScape is a part of dying breed when it says, "We don't need graphics because our gameplay makes up for it."

Pile on meaningless examples because none of them have any relevence to the topic? Go ahead. It was pretty obvious my statement didn't extend to humanitarian atrocities in the Middle East or international aid. Next you'll be bringing up Nazi examples in desperation. We're talking about the welfare state. At home. Then you accuse me of thinking socialism is dirty? Go back over my six year posting history on this board and tell me I'm not a socialist. Utterly cretinous.

Of course there is. There's people who deliberately and brutally stand in the way of charitable actions all the time. Point Evidence Explanation. It's not hard, and one out of three ain't good enough. EDIT: Sorry, just noticed from the post after you're an obvious troll. How anyone can comment on the welfare state and not sincerely know the principles of socialism is beyond me.

No, it is on the wrong side of the law since it's concealing income from the taxman. As said, I'm not denying that those people exist, I live in a poor area myself and I can give you the names of people I feel the same about from my own childhood. They're a total waste of time and resources and I've got no sympathy for them, and I wish people every luck in routing them out and bringing them to justice, and giving their unfortunate children a brighter future where getting a job isn't something the government hassles you into doing, it's an aspiration for you to improve your quality of life. But faced between two choices: 1) Slash the 'safety net' so full of holes that, yes, "wasters" don't receive anything but genuine people don't receive enough to get by either; or 2) Keep the safety net so that people who are made redundant/become ill/experience hardship have something to fall back on, and accept the inevitable evil that people will abuse that system. I'll choose the latter everytime, and I'm thankful that two of the three major political parties in this country feel the same way as I do. Carry on giving to those who need it, but become more efficient about stopping those who won't give anything back to society and be more careful about institutionalising people into a life on benefits. I'll ask you though: If the main grievance in the British general public is that taxpayers like me and (presumably) you are paying for "scroungers" to live a life of excess, why is this government increasing the threshold for Working Tax Credit from 16 hours to 24 hours from this April onwards? They are actually working for their welfare, and many of the people who'll lose out on this change have legitimate reasons for not being able to work more than 23 hours a week. What sense does it make to punish them when they have made an effort to go out, get a job and improve their circumstances? What kind of message does that send to the people we both mutually feel are undeserving of benefit in the first place because they don't sincerely want to get a job?

1) I agree with this statement. You're not obligated to look at the stuff, so why get annoyed at it? 2) And while I'm on this thread: I really dislike vague statuses on FB. I don't mind that they're there, but NOBODY KNOWS WHAT YOU'RE ON ABOUT. <_< Trolling... please be trolling.

There isn't a man alive that would stand in the way of charities if they could honestly provide to everyone in need. Where on Earth do you get the impression otherwise? :unsure:

A domain website is easily assessable, Facebook is not. You have to register with a 3rd party to access their business. It's the blunt assumption that everybody has a Facebook and the blunt assumption people LIKE using Facebook. Having a side page on Facebook is fine. Hosting your entire business ON Facebook is pathetic. That's what I meant. Using Facebook alone is counterproductive to making your company approachable. I'm not sure we're disagreeing, or if you think we're disagreeing or whatever. It annoys me that just about every company has a Facebook page. My local pub has a Facebook page and a Twitter page. Why? Apart from their usual deals, they do a deal maybe once a month. The rest of the month's feed is filled with utter crap. That's even with the assumption that I want to know about the pub's promotions... maybe I just want to tell my friends I like that pub.

You can have your taxes go to social security payments (which, god forbid I remind you, you might need to fall back on at some difficult time in your own life), and *shock* give to charities which aim to reduce joblessness. At the same time. It's incredible, I know. But please stop pretending as though there's enough generosity in the world for charities alone to foot the bill when there's mass unemployment, as there currently is. They're having a hard enough time keeping afloat themselves as government grants get slashed left, right and centre, let alone provide for so many other people who just so happen to fit your own personal criteria.

I don't mind Telstra. They used to let us Europeans watch the NRL for free. It was allegedly doubled recently from my previous 10Mb deal to 20Mb... Nope.

I don't understand that at all. Granted, I've only ever worked in care and not business but even so... isn't the whole point to make yourself as easily approachable as possible?

I think if they would only receive the same amount (plus enough to counter the loss of council tax benefit plus everything else social security payments are designed to cover for), then fine, that's a perfectly valid viewpoint. At worst, they're gaining on-the-job experience, they're building skills and gaining a reference so they can eventually aim for a better paid job. But I think honestly, this only applies for a minority of JSA applicants; indeed the contract you sign in order to receive JSA makes the above scenario unpermissable anyway. To claim JSA you have to be actively searching for full-time (defined 42hrs/wk) paid work. The national minimum wage is £4.98 for under 20s and £6.08 for 21 and above. An average JSA claimant can expect only about £55/wk. Council tax obviously varies from area to area, but generally that means about 12 hours of work will see you earning about the same amount as someone receives on JSA if you're above 20 years old. Now, let's take an arbitrary number and say 20% of the adult population are currently on JSA (which is around about the correct figure for under-24s). Am I seriously to believe that a fifth of the adult population would rather sit on their ass all day and do nothing than work 12 hours a week? I live in one of the most impoverished parts of Lancashire and that's a picture even I don't recognise. I'm not doubting there are those in society who would rather do nothing all day, while others toil to improve their circumstances. They're a waste of space and frankly deserve no sympathy. But for the vast majority of people, £55 a week barely covers food, let alone being able to live a life descript of any real value. So I think it's too far to say "the pride of working for a days wage [has] vanished", when the vast majority of people on JSA think a life on JSA isn't a life worth living.