Smokie

Wakka, try searching more obscure articles. Major things, like country articles, World Wars, significant historical figures, widespread political movements, etc. will have thorough, well-researched and well-documented articles, because you often have Ph. Ds doing the editing and writing, usually transposed from another paper they've written, with many many sources to supplement it. However, if you look at less significant things - for instance, search your school. If there is in article, it likely will not have any sources to verify the information. This is the trouble with Wikipedia (and no, they did not disable the option of letting anyone edit it, with the exception of a handful of locked and semi-protected articles) - an immense amount of the information on it may be true, but no one can say with certainty. If you search a lot of the international articles, as well, poor grammar and blatant opinions begin to become more apparent. The opinions are the second problem with Wikipedia - there's a difference between saying "The United States is the most powerful country in the world", or saying "The United States is the only remaining superpower in the world" with the source of Charles Krauthammer (who is very qualified on the subject). But Wikipedia is amazing, no question :)

Hmm yeah that's weird, check your storyboard in Movie Maker, and then try playing the video within Movie Maker itself and see what happens. Not sure what to tell you, though, to solve the issue. The other thing might be file size - if you start to get close to YouTube's 100 MB limit on a file then you start getting weird things happening. Based on the picture you posted of the AVI thing, the file is almost 1 GB :shock: (although I doubt it's quite that large, since YouTube would just reject the video altogether, but when it's shrunk it probably is close to 100 MB). Maybe try compressing it and then re-uploading? This involves using the "Compress to" menu (but since .wmv isn't working for you, go to "More settings" and pick "high quality video (small)" and see how that works.

Yeah if that doesn't work you have a couple of other options: Hope that works for you :)

I would pursue the first option. Unless you've been trying that and it's not working for you. In which case, try the .AVI :P Let me know how it goes

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong (having only used Vista twice, and never Movie Maker), but in Movie Maker 2 for XP, the "publishing" went like this:' 1. Ctrl + P = (Save Movie File in XP, Publish Movie in Vista) 2. Double-click [My Computer for XP, This computer in Vista] 3. Name movie, select output destination (Default name: Movie, Default destination: My Videos) 4. Movie settings - where you should select "best quality for playback on my computer" 5. Click next, and it should save the movie as a .wmv Walk me through how you're publishing it. Thanks :)

Right right I understand that you can only save it as a MSWMM file, I was just wondering if you had options for quality. In the old Movie Maker if you saved it as a "high quality" file, then it'd auto-convert to .mpeg format. Obviously Vista is absurd and doesn't support that option anymore :lol:. Okay, well, we'll just try one more thing (before I tell you to just download a converter lol). Can you post a screenshot of the publish movie menu? Thanks :)

Exactly. It's a fundamental question of privacy vs. law enforcement. I think it's unfair to say that people who don't want to chat with others at every opportunity are defending bots. To use your examples, yes, very frequently I do not want to engage in the conversation that is occurring near me, and when I'm ranging, sometimes I don't care to pick up my arrows because in my mind it's not worth the trouble (lots of wasted time, really, it adds up in the end). In any case Jagex (law enforcement) can pick up on macro algorithms and whatnot a whole lot more accurately than the average player suspicious of anyone who reserves their speech. The problem with your assertion is you assume that everyone who doesn't actively participate in "typical" RuneScape activities is a macroer. The reason that more than half of those comments are "defending bots" is because when you say that anyone who doesn't pick up their arrows is autoing, you're making a blanket accusation that really does cover nearly half the RS population. That's something they're not comfortable with, and that's why you have the backlash.

Ah no actually. Some do, some don't. Depends on the type, that's what I was thinking. I was of the opinion that Movie Maker was publishing your movie as DV Type 1 file, which is incompatible with a lot of media players. I have another question then - when you try to "Save Project As", do you have the option of what quality to save it at? Actually can you just post a full screenshot of the Save As menu (not just the file type box that's in the earlier screenshot). Thanks :)

Ohh you're using Vista... And you said publishing isn't helping the issue... I think I know what the problem is, but I don't want to subject you to an immense amount of information overload. So, just to make sure, when you publish the movie, is it publishing as an .avi file? (Please say no please say no :pray:) (If it is though I have a solution)

I agree. The installed base argument actually works the other way also. Remember that the PS2 sold 120 million units. That's a lot of people who are familiar with the Sony brand and what it can bring to the table. I'm no Sony fanboy myself, and I went out and bought a Wii instead of a PS3, but this is all short term. In the end I will buy a PS3 because it's the superior machine. The thing that Sony has down is that the better technology, assuming you keep spending until people realize it, will always come out on top. Same reason the $299 PlayStation that could play CDs beat the $199 N64. And what did people say then? "Ohhhh it's too expensive no way it can win." Sound familiar? It's the same reason the $299 PlayStation 2 that could play DVDs crushed the $199 GameCube. And what did people say then? Well, you catch my drift. The big difference this time around is that the Wii is a staggering $350 (USD) cheaper than the top-of-the-line PS3. Oh, and it has those beloved controllers (but c'mon, peripherals are easily replicated). Give it time, and you know when the PS3 is down to $350 you'll go out and buy one too. EDIT: If Sony can land Square Enix exclusively, Final Fantasy XIII will save the system! :P

He's right. But if you want to go hard core, you can always download Avid's free program. It only edits up to DV video, but if you're making RuneScape movies and/or home movies with anything except an HD camera, then it will work fine for you. There's a little bit of a learning curve, but there are free tutorials available on the web and once you learn how to use it you'll be making magic. Check it out :)

There was actually a bridge some decades ago that was brand new that ended up collapsing. The way bridges are constructed (although they've worked hard to rectify this since then), the right combination of factors (temperature, wind, etc) can cause air waves to vibrate at the bridge's natural frequency, which causes the whole thing to shake violently and eventually collapse. I was watching CNN and an eyewitness said that the thing had started shaking like so and collapsed shortly thereafter. Dunno if it's the case here or not, but I wouldn't blame the construction team/architect as much as the state board that certified the bridge. There are pretty stringent standards for bridge inspections so I'd be surprised if this is something they could prevent.

The lag might be more related to your network speed, but my friend has a MacBook with similar specs (1.7 GHz processor, 1 GB RAM, nothing special for the video card) and it runs fine for him. You may want to do the free trial and see how it goes.

I don't think the problem is Invalid IP (although that's what the system is telling you for whatever reason). I think it may be your wireless settings or your wireless card. Can you give me more information about your router, your Mac's wireless card, and your PC laptop's wireless card? Also do you think you can take a screenshot of your wireless settings? EDIT: Also, restart your PC laptop, go to Start -> Run -> and then type in ipconfig Run that and tell me what your IP address is (if you're getting an invalid it's probably going to be 0.0.0.0)

Yeah it's the trouble of the times, though. Many Indians are systematically discriminated (Sikhs who wear turbans have been killed and abused several times since 9/11) at airports especially but in their daily lives also. The thing is, if you're a young South Asian or Middle Eastern male (Pakistani, Afghani, Indian, whatever), people can't tell if you're NOT the next 9/11 lead man (not sure if you've seen the security videos - lead hijacker looked like a sharply dressed young businessman, who would've thought?). It's not right and I can't justify it, but that's the way it is, and will be until people gain more exposure to the world and realize that our differences are superficial. Actually the people who claim to be the most tolerant are often the most misguided about race... On a kind of tangential note: contemporary America seems to embrace the concept of 'separate but equal' more than ever - the vast majority of Americans will agree to racial equality (and this is certainly progress), yet at the same time, a staggering 70% are opposed to interracial marriage (some argue this is because of cultural factors but I see no difference between the black girl/boy and white boy/girl who went to the same church, grew up in the same neighborhood, went to the same schools, accept the same values... But in many cases it's not like that so whatever, interracial marriage is quite touchy). An even more interesting representation of this is when you watch commercials - they're everywhere, we see thousands a year, just think about this a little next time you're watching some - with couples in them. Notice that the couples are always of the same race. The one notable exception I've seen since I started thinking about this is the Verizon commercial with the white guy and the Asian girl who don't want to switch back to their old service provider. I'm sure there are a few other examples, but you get my drift; interracial couples are highly underrepresented in commercials (I understand that they're not a large portion of the population, but it's not proportional). That tangential discussion aside, lol, does anyone have any other thoughts about regional impacts besides Indo-Pak war?

Right but if Pakistan fell into instability I don't think it would be able, in the midst of all the internal violence there would be, to mount an effective attack on India. The UN 'backs up' (usually nothing more than diplomatic and political support) nations in situations of blatant aggression. The Korean War was an example of one side leading an unprovoked attack on the other - those situations make it easy to see who the perpetrator is. However, in the situation of internal collapse, you're not going to see a government that could order attacks on anyone (given that this government wouldn't exist). It would, at the worst, continue to be the sputters of terrorism into Kashmir (not to downplay that). Also, as it is, with a military dictator in command, they would still get blown out of the water by India in the event of a full-scale war. The other wars India has had with Pakistan have been ground-war border skirmishes, but a full-scale attack would prompt the use of ICBMs and the quite formidable Indian Navy. And as someone else said, both nations have nukes so attacking each other is not exactly an advisable option for either. Although, come to think of it, if the government collapsed, nuclear arsenals might fall into the hands rogue groups ... :-k :shock:

Well the UN is doubtful to intervene in any full-scale war, as it implicates the rest of the world. However, I'm curious as to why you think an internal collapse of the government would cause violence against India?

I'm not sure what the limits of Andrew and Paul's design talents are (probably pretty high since they seriously considered developing a console version of RuneScape), but the reason RuneScape's graphics are subpar is because it runs in Java, doesn't require a fancy graphics card or lots of RAM, and doesn't take 2 GB of your hard drive. No, the reason RuneScape has so many behavioral problems is because it's free, and low-commitment. The very presentation of the game almost makes you take it less seriously, whereas other MMORPGs require a hefty monthly price tag, a $40+ purchase decision, and lots of your computer's resources. People aren't going to instantaneously squander away that much investment.

Bingo. A lot of people have touched on the fact that there would be overcrowding and whatnot, but the significance of that lies in the fact that this would fundamentally change the game. 10 servers, 20 servers hosting 200,000 people would dramatically undercut the concept of skilling. PKers and combaters would have a ball, but skillers and indeed the general RuneScape population who are not elite PKers, stakers, or duelers would suffer. Even then, becoming an elite fighter would become immensely difficult due to overcrowding. This highlights the primary difference between RuneScape and WoW/Every other MMORPG: RuneScape is skills-based in a repetitious way as opposed to an adventure/achievement way. Massive expansion of the map and a complete revamp of how you gain levels would be necessary.

Well a rather concerning set of developments that hasn't been covered too extensively in the media is the situation in Pakistan - today pro-Taliban forces stormed another mosque as a response to the violence at the Lal Masjid mosque earlier this month where dozens died. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, known Al-Qaeda commander, released a message regarding the Lal Masjid incident and told his faithful that "jihad is the only salvation." While most of Pakistan opposes fundamental radicalism, a few bad apples, as they say, spoil the bunch. So if things weren't bad enough, there's still the aftermath of the Lal Masjid situation - the Times of India reported today that the Pakistani government has issued a warning to its citizens saying that there are still 600 students who haven't returned back to their homes after the Lal Masjid was stormed (these students attended the madrassas attached to the Lal Masjid mosque), and are likely to be armed and waiting to launch suicide bomb attacks. :shock: So, and God forbid this should happen, if Pakistan does in fact collapse (what with on top of this Musharaff losing grip on the whole nation, and the refusal of aid to control these violent outbreaks, and the lawless behavior of the border-area tribal groups) at some point in the future, what impact would it have on the region? How much more de-stablization can the region take before all hell breaks loose? EDIT: It's almost a question of how big a role Pakistan plays in preserving Middle East peace (although Pakistani fundamentalists are known supporters of the Taliban). Does anyone have any numbers or insight on how effective a partner Pakistan has been for the US?

Good deal then. Happy gaming :)

There's no audio when you play the video back on your camera? Try putting them on your computer first and let me know if you can hear the audio then. If not, you'll want to navigate the menu until you can find your microphone/speaker settings and see if you've muted them for some reason. Chances are your mic is turned off by default or something. Let me know how that goes. It's bizarre that they added QVGA video to the CyberShots :o

I would say get a Mac :P Can you be more specific about your specs? Specifically, what model is the Radeon card? And, do you know if you can upgrade the cards on these laptops later? You mentioned that one laptop has a GeForce Go 6150, which is a good card but if you're talking great then you may want to upgrade later to a Go 7800 GTX (or, when you decide to upgrade, whatever the latest and greatest is). Graphics card is really important if your primary use is going to be gaming (but you sound like you know that already, so I won't bother preaching). Next question, what kind of RAM is on these machines? The RAM you're going to want is DDR2 SDRAM. As for RAM amount, if you're willing to spend the little extra, I would throw the Toshiba and the lower end HP out of the picture because 1 gig of RAM is too low for gaming, unless you're willing to upgrade it when you customize. Next question, are these harddrives 7200 RPM? If they're not, nothing to worry about, but if one of them is and the others aren't, that's a point in that laptop's favor. This isn't quite as important as graphics and processor speed (which we'll get to in a second), but it's still a very noteworthy point to consider. It's good that all of these laptops have AMD Turion processors - it's a solid choice for gaming. So how much difference is there between 1.8GHz and 2.0GHz? Well... it depends on a lot of factors within the machine, but it's not a huge loss if you get the 1.8 instead of the 2.0. Many gamers would probably balk that I said that, but as of now, if all of these laptops are under $700 I would definitely go for the HP with 2 Gigs of RAM. Just my two cents :)

No, see, even if he was the worst president ever we'd still be a stable country because of CHECKS AND BALANCES. Thank God for an inept Congress and a rigid Supreme Court (for the most part, although he's been manipulating both lately...) I understand that the media portrays Bush in a negative light all the time (although I don't recall them railing on Clinton every day, Monica scandal aside), but I have to ask what he's done that's positive in his presidency? You and bartoron have insisted that he's not that bad, but I have to ask, is he that good? No Child Left Behind Failed, PATRIOT Act nearly incited riots about our civil liberties, Abramoff pulled a fast one that has just recently been rectified (more Congress' issue I suppose), Bolton has raised cain at the UN, Social Security plan failed, guest worker plan died -- basically Bush has failed to bring about bipartisan legislation since the Iraq war. That's not the mark of a strong leader, or a good president. (Whatever, you've probably already picked a side) To bartoron: Yes, 9/11 was out of his control, but what about the loss in our hegemony? What about our trade relations (I'm referring to CAFTA here) that have brought doom and gloom to American farmers? You make an incredible number of incorrect assertions. I'm trying to stay friendly here, but I'm serious - check your facts, learn your history, and please, please read the news. For one, flights being used to crash into buildings in the US are not unprecedented at all. '79 American Airlines, '85 TWA, and most notably, '94 FedEx mail flight. And, across the rest of the world there have been dozens of 9/11-like attacks in the last thirty years. You, like the Administration, consistently refer back to 9/11 as the causality of our recent economic troubles. It's been six years. Mutual funds and hedge funds are growing at an unprecedented rate, and have been since '04. Even if you don't pay a lot of attention to the news, you may have heard that the Dow reached an all-time high earlier this month. Investor confidence is back, businesses are rolling again, but.... WE KEEP RUNNING A LARGER AND LARGER DEFICIT . Explain that to me, and I'll concede. I try my hardest not to be like other Bush-bashers -- I read the news carefully, I've followed a lot of his policies (as I hope this post shows), I've evaluated them and their success, and there's not much to be found (which is why I take the position I do; against him), and I'm a little angry that you can lambaste everyone who criticizes Bush without even thinking about half of these things. But most of all, as Bush's second term comes to a close, I struggle to find his place in history. If asked the question, "What was the greatest contribution/legacy of George W. Bush?", I will not be able to answer. Maybe it's too early to tell. Or not.

This is a regressive argument. The standard from which morality derives is the same by which religious individuals ascertain the moral absoluteness of God. If it is logically incorrect to say that Christians cannot place faith in a God (we'll get to the existence of that God in a second) because his/her/its workings are invisible to our observation, then morality should not exist either. Morality is predicated on an intangible belief in collective welfare, enveloping such concepts as compassion that are not readily discernible outside of their physical manifestations, which themselves lack a definiteness (subterfuge in human behavior is impossible to detect - which is to say, people can falsely present themselves as compassionate and selectively exploit a moral standard, which undermines the omniscience and relevance of the moral system). (This essentially echoes insane's thought) To finally address the root of this issue - I think it's a bit illogical to propose that the Bible's stance on pre-marital sexuality is necessarily harmful to society at large. I'm referring to this bit: (This is assuming you're imparting on us your brilliantly didactic repertoire regarding contemporary religion to prove a point about the thread. If we're in a Christians vs. rationalists debate then I respectfully withdraw the following statements) I am not a Christian by birth or by practice, but I am not sure it is emphasized in the Bible that the moral code of Christianity should be forcibly placed on everyone (though people have long abused the name of religion for such destructive endeavors as the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, conversions of Native Americans). Correct me if I'm wrong. Which leads us to the question of enforcement. Was it right for sixteenth century fathers to beat their daughters for gallivanting around with the boys in the town? Where does the authority lie on such issues? Some would say God, others would it's an individual choice, no interference needed. Imposition of a moral code in my mind is repulsive because it contradicts the very nature of morality. However, I don't feel that is what our Christian advocates are saying. It seems that they personally find pre-marital sex to be incorrect based on their values, not that this is a value which should be accepted universally. On the contrary, it seems, Evrae, that you are trying to convince them that their moral code is wrong - that it is only accepted because "evolutionary principle" has given their moral code a broad support base. It seems, Evrae, that you are encroaching the precipice of moral disaster, just as the worst missionaries of history did. I guess, really, what's your issue with them finding it wrong?