Ginger_Warrior

You need some sort of escape, even when you haven't got much to spend. A book costs more than RS membership these days. There's nothing wrong with buying RS membership on a low income... after all the whole point is that RuneScape is so cheap. I can easily appreciate why some people on low income would feel worried about every pound/dollar right now, with the cost of living rising. I don't see who you are to judge other people's finances.

If I was in Jagex's position, I would rather people report any suspicious accounts and allow me to decide if it was a false positive. I'd rather not encourage players to make that decision for themselves, and potentially not report a botting account.

If you're replying to me (I've no idea if you are, as I'm sure no-one else is), then I am not convinced that paying someone a fair wage for the services they offer you as an employer can be put in the same category as "charity".

Part of this decision is with the aim of keeping current subscriptions active, which is slightly underhand, but even if the prices weren't frozen for current accounts, £5 is a fair price anyway.

Then in that case, if the real issue is that they're not being paid enough, let's talk about basic employment rights for part-time workers. We, the customer, shouldn't be doing through the kindness of our own heart what their employer should be doing through fear of the law. @Veiva, I was replying to riku in the comment about living in an emancipated society, not you.

But by saying that, you concede that if they are paid a decent minimum wage, and don't go beyond what's already expected of them as part of their job description, I shouldn't feel under any obligation to tip them, yes?

I wasn't aware of that fact I was living in Russia under the Five Year Plans. For a moment there I was mistaken for thinking we were living in an economically emancipated society with basic workers' rights, as opposed to feudalistic serfdom. But if any argument, however tenuous, means I should feel obliged to tip waiters, then I guess it's fine.

A trucker gets paid well, doesn't use their own car (most of the time), and are the only option when someone needs a large shipment moved a long distance while you yourself can just pick up your food. And it's never as simple as just refusing the job. People need to work and have to take any job they can get. Newsflash: Same applies to all of us, not just 18-year-old waitresses or delivery boys. I also do what others would perceive to be a crappy, minimum wage job, and I have to pay £3.50 out of my own pocket for the bus trip everyday just so I can have a chance at earning a wage at all. Where's my tip? I don't expect one, that's where. Myself and many millions of other workers on NMW just get on with it without feeling as though people "owe" us something due to proper social etiquette. I think this is where you'll find cultural differences between the US and the UK: as a worker, I expect my wage to be good enough in the first place that customers shouldn't have to pay me tips just to make it 'fair'. For what it's worth, I generally tip £1 or £2, or more just to round up the bill to a multiple of five, even if I know whoever served me will only receive a fraction of it. Same goes for taxi drivers, unless they place "additional charges" for having more than one person in the cab. If they do that, they've already forced me to pay a tip as far as I'm concerned.

The same is true for just about every commuter in the country. Why does the fact they're carrying food, or the fact I'm lazy, make any difference? They're being paid to do it, they can refuse the job if they don't want it. Just like any other job.

Because it's not like that's what their employer pays them to do or anything :roll: Not to mention delievery costs extra money regardless of you leaving a tip or not. Go pick up the food yourself then instead of making another person use their car and gas while risking their lives to deliver your food. Where's this food going to? Somalia? I'm not generally a believer that "doing your job properly" deserves a special reward. It's what should be expected in the first place.

@melvinkooi http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/5393/melvinkooi3.png

You've made yourself seem a little clingy already, and you're frankly out of options. Time to phone up and ask what's wrong. If she doesn't reply, clearly it's not working out.

I suppose theoretically, all things which have a finite life are dying, yes. You know full well I was referring to persistent decline though. Seems pretty daft to declare that a healthy, growing toddler is dying. RuneScape is anything but a healthy, growing toddler, however. This is a subject for another thread. To summerise this one: Jagex beat the bots. Yay. </thread>?

Depends on your definition of dying I suppose. To me, "dying" means the subject is heading towards an inevitable end. Death is terminal. That is, a process which cannot be reversed. I'd address the issue of who that regular content is going to, Sylpheed. Because when you look at the content released over the past twelve months, you really have to question whether it's aimed at attracting new customers, or keeping the ones who are already playing. Any business which fails to do a good enough job at attracting new customers is a dying one, in most people's eyes, and the recent trend in membership numbers speaks for itself.

I smashed my 360 controller once in sheer frustration while playing Halo. Threw it aiming for the couch but missed and hit the floor instead. No serious damage, which is a miracle given the force I put into it, but the RB button's slightly out of place. Usually I buy the standard controller. I don't really buy into the thought that having a special controller would help me skillwise.

I think it's best if you stop making "bets" on the bot situation. I don't think you've been right once yet. I'm always right :) Besides, was only kidding. I'm happy to see Jagex are keeping on-top of the bots, I must admit, I never thought I'd see them stick it out. You also have to consider precedent. Now that a case has been successfully won in favour of Jagex, you have to assume it would be easier to reference said case in future legal disputes.

Can you express yourself through YouTube? Can you express yourself through Facebook? Can you express yourself via a letter/email to your local representative? Can you express yourself by writing in a magazine/newpaper? Can you express yourself with the spoken word? Can you express yourself on a demonstration? Can you express yourself by striking and withdrawing your labour? For Christ's sake, stop with this freedom of expression crap. Go to a Syrian protestor and tell them your freedom to expression is being infringed upon because you can't use a website which was being used by a minority of its users to host pirated material. Bring a camcordor because I would love to the see their reaction. I go back to my previous point too. Magazines and newspapers aren't allowed to publish copyrighted material either; are they censored? Only the most paranoid of folk would argue they are.

You've noticed in both examples, people making silly references to "freedom of expression" or "bad business sense" for pirated music and RS hiscores respectively in order to justfiy them receiving something for free. You're not the only one. I'm willing to bet the majority of people who illegally download pirated music don't give a rat's backside about freedom of expression, they're just abusing a practice which has gone unpoliced for years without fear of ramifications. If you're going to take my analogy to the nth degree, then it would be like Walmart providing a room for you to make those bombs with. MU is providing you an account to upload illegally pirated music from, that's the difference, it's just that because of the sheer numbers of accounts, they usually decide not to vet them. That's what's come to bite them in the arse in the long-run, but just because they've chosen not to care about it doesn't make them innocent of allowing it to happen. Likewise, taking two copyrighted pieces of work, mashing them together, and releasing it as your own piece isn't the fault of the websites you gained the two original samples from. It's yours. Taking two bomb ingredients from Walmart and making something on your own patch isn't their fault either. The crucial word is facilitation. MU, in inadvertently providing a service through which pirated material could be freely exchanged to the public, were facilitating crime, even if they weren't personally doing it themselves.

I might consider going to that RuneFest. There's nothing I love more than sweet irony.

Well, see, that's the grey area of this debate. That excuse washes with you, it doesn't with me. It doesn't matter what service you're offering, if your service is being used by others for illegal purposes, you still have a responsiblity to prevent them from using it when you know they are using it to that end. The real question is this: What counts as a reasonable attempt to prevent illegal piracy from being hosted? But blankly saying "They can't control what others are doing" isn't really a reasonable response, because you could make no attempt at all and still use it. As a landlord, I can't physically stop junkies from lighting up, but it is my responsibility when they're doing it on my premises.As the owner of MU, I can't physically stop illegal piracy from happening, but it my responsibility when they're doing it through MU. See where this is going? The one thing we can both agree on is that MU is being punished too strongly for something that they weren't actually doing. Sadly, the nature of the Internet means that MU and LimeWire suffer whilst the real perpetrators get away with hiding behind anonymity. If people didn't download pirated music, MU could carry on being used the many legitimate uses it does have.

Right... closing down a website guilty of hosting pirated material is "slowly eroding away rights" such that "policies may go unchallenged" a la Hitler et Mussolini. Pirating is a human right now? Whatever. You know the other people replying to this thread actually have decent points, not half-assed comparisons which don't make any logical sense.

Nazi Germany happened because of mass poverty, a political void in elite German society, anti-Semitism and a feeling of injustice following the Versailles Treaty. You're not seriously trying to imply any of those are "minor" things which lead to something more, are you? As you've already been told, comparisons to Nazi Germany are ridiculous, and almost invariably made by people with no meaningful understanding of what German people were going through in 1933. Back to the topic... I'll just say this. You can go through many sections of society where the actions of a minority ruins it for the majority, but it still happens, and action gets taken against it. It remains an offence to broadcast copyrighted material which has not yet been made available for public use by its original author. Just because I'm faciltating that crime, rather than actually committing it, doesn't absolve me of my responsiblity to stop that crime from happening. Do I think it's right Megaupload was closed? If the balance of evidence showed that they were failing to prevent piracy from occuring, then yes, it is right. In such circumstances, they should be deemed incapable of delivering that service in a way that satisfied their legal obligation to prevent crime from happening through that service. Do I think that counts as censorship? Well... even suggesting that requires a slight dose of hysteria. There are similar laws pertaining to the written word (magazines, newspapers etc.), but I don't see them as being "censored", so would the Internet be any different? Not in my eyes. Also, I'm refusing to take any SOPA-related comments seriously. This type of action takes at least days, weeks, possibly months to consult on and plan ahead, yet it happened barely 24 hours after anti-SOPA protests occured. It's like when people blamed London winning their Olympic bid for the 7th July terrorist attacks. It only appears connected, in reality they're two seperate events.

Tif name: Ginger Warrior Runescape Name: Gingy Warr Picture: Url: http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/6425/gingywarr2012.png EDIT: Placed URL in code tags as per Stev's suggestion.

According to the University of York's own employment figures (2007-09), of those who don't further their studies in psychology by doing a post-graduate course, the biggest employment sector they ended up in is healthcare (17%), followed by education (13.5%) and public admin (9.6%), none of which are directly related to psychology. I think the employment rate of psychology post-grads hangs around 66% for the six months following graduation. Put simply, you can spend £27K and three years on a degree, and there's still a third of a chance you won't find a job of any description after it. Also, if you're going to enter healthcare, there's half a dozen better ways I can think of than studying psychology. It is an interesting subject, but also a dead end career path.

Not as annoying as when you're talking to someone, they receive a text message and they start replying to it while you're still talking to them.