dusqi

They were incorporating the multiplayer games into RS in the game room in P2P. Maybe they aren't hurrying because they think they've already done enough by doing that. Anyway, you can play most(all?) of the games on Yahoo Games can't you? Jagex multiplayer games weren't really special, though they were convenient for rs players.

I'd never want to choose my last words. Surely the spectre of death looming on my horizon would inspire me with much funnier and random last words than choosing them would. I'd like to die, and then be able to look back at my last words and laugh :P

i heard it was more like ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã35 and the bbc website has nothing about the price ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã30-ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã35 is the direct cost that they will charge you for a card (though if you need an 'enhanced' biometric passport the cost will be around ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã85-ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã93), the London School of Economics estimates that the scheme will cost ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã17Bn in total, so you'll pay the final ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã315 through taxes. Though the article suggests that there is some kind of debate going on as to how much the cards will cost, I watched an episode of Question Time this month on which the issue of ID cards was debated, and despite there being politicians from all parties present, including the government, the ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã17Bn price tag was taken as axiomatic. Everyone will also have to attend an appointment to be photographed, have your fingerprints taken and iris scanned, or be fined up to ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã2500. Additional fines of up to ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã2500 may be levied each time you fail to comply until you submit to these procedures. What amuses me particularly is that the Labour Manifesto, which was the basis for the country voting them in, states that ID cards will not be compulsary. Indeed, they won't be compulsary unless you want to rent or sell a home, stay in a hotel, buy a car or mobile phone, open or use a bank account, travel abroad, register with a doctor, get education, work or run a business... or (officially) die. ~~~ Hey dude! Totally surprised to see you post :D I bet Bob Russel voted against it, he rocks :D

Got ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã350? (for US people, that's $525) How about you buy an ID card? Because the UK government just decided that you did [bbc.co.uk]. I like to put things into perspective this way. If the government gave away the ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã17Bn that will be spent on ID cards in prizes of ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã1m, then you'd have a 1 in 3530 chance of becoming a millionaire. Not bad odds really.

Got any examples of your previous work? (I don't want one, but I suspect that that is a question that someone who does want one would ask).

I haven't heard a telemarketer for ages. I think our phone is on a list of numbers that asks not to be phoned. Must work well.

Yes Indy, you can just close the program, or probably just "suspend processing" within the program for a while.

I'm doing a climate change model. It seems rather badly planned though. It takes about 3 months of solid PC time for the average computer to finish a model, and apparently if you don't finish then the data isn't that useful to them. Not to mention that sometimes the program crashes and loses data, so you need to make backups manually. I'm persevering though (4.54% of the way through, after 207 hours processing time - at this rate I will be finished in early 2007), but I don't recommend it for the average computer user.

Maybe there isn't a 'pure' system that is perfect, but there are mishmashes of systems (like we have now) which make the best of an imperfect world. So we're not all doomed. Just not perfectly efficient. The real debate isn't between socialism and capitalism, between black and white, it's instead between the shades of grey. What parts work best where and in what degree.

If you're not willing (or able?) to back up your morals, then you're always just going to come up against people that have different ones. "Abortion is right. Don't try to overcomplicate things. You're an idiot." Actually, I think abortion is wrong. But I think that it's a rational position to take. One that can be justified. Now I don't want to sound too hostile, but this topic isn't really about making a 'good' argument. It's about how you feel about abortion. Which he obviously thinks is wrong. It's not that hard to understand, and he doesn't really need a lesson on how to make a legit argument. I too think that abortion is wrong. I also think that killing people is wrong, it could just be me. Okay, then he can post something like "I don't know why, but deep down I just feel that abortion is wrong". That suggests that his view is personal, rather than "the aspects of this are pure and simple." As if everyone should be able to understand it. And then, he can't go on to insult people that have other opinions, because that's just flaming unless he has some decent supporting reason for disagreeing with a position: Also, thanks for saying "it's not that hard to understand". I don't believe I gave any impression that I did not understand his post. I just thought that it was badly expressed, and given the lack of reasoning behind it, where a personal opinion was generalised to apply to everyone, it was insulting. In short: I don't mind if someone expresses a personal opinion, but don't generalise it to say that everyone else is wrong, without at least putting some reasoning behind it.

I'm currently at Nottingham University in the UK, in my second year studying Psychology.

If you're not willing (or able?) to back up your morals, then you're always just going to come up against people that have different ones. "Abortion is right. Don't try to overcomplicate things. You're an idiot." Actually, I think abortion is wrong. But I think that it's a rational position to take. One that can be justified.

Yeah, all those fourteen year old * victims should have simply insisted their attackers wear a condom. they can still use the morning after pill. Easy to say when you're a man and have no chance of getting pregnant and having to make that choice to sacrifice your life.

mmm.. sad situation.. I'm sorry that people can be such a*holes

It's giving the (potential) baby a chance that I believe is important (we're all going to die, right? :) but that doesn't mean I don't want the chance to live first). That, and killing something that can feel pain is wrong. Use contraception, the pill, the morning after pill - anything - but once the baby can experience pain - it's off limits in my opinion. I do not understand why letting the baby be born and then putting it up for adoption deprives any woman the right to her body. In addition, though I am a man, and the thought of being pregnant isn't a nice one in my eyes, so perhaps I can't empathise very well. I think that women have enough ways and chances to prevent pregnancy and that getting pregnant should be avoidable before abortion is necessary.

How about "funny clip making fun of german accents". That says what it's about without just rewriting the clip. Though the internet might not be serious, some peoples' time is still precious. I like to think about writing or presenting things this way; how many people are in your audience and how much of their time are you taking up? Since perhaps 200 different people at least on tip.it are likely to read this thread, and spend 10 seconds on it each, that means you should be writing something that is worth 2,000 seconds of people's time. So spending 30 minutes writing a decent concise thread is not over the top in this respect. If I wanted to listen to the rubbish that comes out of most people's mouths with no thought behind it, I'd go and start up a conversation in McDonalds.

Yes, government protects the weak and vulnerable in society, that includes babies facing abortion with no say in the matter.

Compared to America... I like how, due to our governmental economic policy, the poor are subsidised and so don't have to work a ridiculous number of jobs just to feed their children. I don't like how our roads are so cramped and in general there's just not enough space to do extravagent things with.

what happened to the biological father?

Suicide is a choice about your own life. Abortion is a choice about someone else's life, which they have no say in. Shouting at a teacher is a choice about your own life, however it affects someone else's life in a negative way and they have no say about it. You have a right to do what you want with your own life, as long as it doesn't negatively affect anyone else's ability to do what they want with their life.

To answer that Nadril, I'd say let the child be born, and then it can decide to end its life if it wants to.

Sorry, I have an awful habit of posting something, and then re-reading it and editing it :x Edit (lol) : Okay, tell me if I have your viewpoint right :) You have no objection to people having sex for pleasure. You just think that sex cannot be removed from its primary 'purpose' (because the purpose was defined by the creator) - and thus if you do have sex for pleasure, you have to accept the risk of getting pregnant - and thus you have to have the baby.

I disagree with you for two reasons, Insane. Firstly, I do not think that 'purpose' is not defined by the user. I think that biological processes have no 'purpose' in the strict sense of the word. They evolved by chance, and they just happen to be something we use to live. I think that objects which have been designed by man can have a 'purpose' that is defined by the creator, but that once something has been invented, its 'purpose' is whatever the user uses it for. Just like literature: the author writes it with something in mind, but once it has been published, each reader gives the text its own meaning and interpretation. An object that was designed to be a calculator that just happens to be round and light, will become a frisbee once people start chucking it about. Secondly, even assuming that purpose is only defined by the user, I find a dissonance between your stance on sex and your stance on other 'primary' purposes, such as eating: Without food we wouldn't be here. According to you, its primary 'purpose' is just to be eaten for sustenance. Do you never eat food when you're not really hungry, just because it tastes nice for instance? Assuming you do like to eat candy from time to time, or drink some soda, why can people not have sex just for the good feelings?

The flip side is in the article In addition, there is no data about girls that get an abortion outside of the medical system, or girls that go to another state to get an abortion (though it mentions that since Texas is so big, it makes it more difficult to travel outside). I'm against abortions from a killing something that can feel pain point of view, but I don't like the reasoning behind the idea of notifying girls' parents. Though in many cases parents can provide support, I should imagine that there are times when notifying a girl's parents makes a difficult situation even more difficult for her.

It was Ronaldinho, dusqi, don't try to pretend that you know anything about sports or other such manly activities :P Edit: The thing that impressed me about that goal was how easily he shrugged off John Terry. For someone who's usually such a physical presence, he sure didn't waste any time hitting the deck, Maybe he's been taking lessons from his mates Robben and Drogba. Meh :P I saw the game on t.v. at least! I remember the commentator specifically saying that he was a midfielder, which made his however many goals all the more impressive.