Guy

It's up to you whether paying 40~ pounds more for 2 inches is worth it. If you're going to use it a lot, I suppose it may be worth it. I would. Can't say I've ever heard of the brand though. With that compaq, my concern would be with the x2 245 CPU - it isn't a particularly powerful model. If you're looking for a computer for around 330 as opposed to 400 quid, I can have a look. edit: Same compaq here on amazon for 20 less.

This doesn't look too bad, although it doesn't come with dedicated graphics so they may be a little slow, especially if you are considering playing RS. Saying that, most computers around your price range don't come with dedicated graphics - although I've heard they have progressed well in recent years. 6GB of RAM on that o.O Here are some others to consider (I'm using a budget of ~400 pounds) http://www.lambda-tek.com/componentshop/index.pl?prodID=B545357 http://www.lambda-tek.com/componentshop/index.pl?prodID=B572525 http://www.lambda-tek.com/componentshop/index.pl?prodID=B547466 Monitor wise, I've heard good things about the BenQ E2220HD (cheapest price here) It seems most computes come with 500GB instead of 1TB as default. You should definitely use www.froogle.co.uk (google shopping) to search for cheapest prices on things like monitors - that Samsung one you linked I could find on an alternative website for 20 quid less. A word on prebuilt computers - make sure you uninstall all of the junk that comes pre-installed, it will only slow you down. As I said, I don't claim to be any kind of expert on graphics, so someone else will have to fill you in on whether you'll want a dedicated card.

The best thing to do would be to send Jagex a billing support message so they can have a look on their end to see if they can help.

I'm not sure if dell are still as bad as they were before, but I haven't heard massively good things about their products. 500GB may be a little small - you should take that into consideration by your self.

You don't need Windows 7 ultimate - windows 7 hope premium will do you absolutely fine. That PC you posted in your OP is a ripoff, and anyway the specs are all muddled (why on earth do you need 16GB of ram, and its an i7 2600 as opposed to the k version, wth?) You probably don't need an SSD, you're being sold tonnes of stuff you don't need. For such a good CPU you would have thought they would include a half decent cooler. I would not advise going for that computer - you're getting way more than you need. On pcmarket.com.au I quickly built a very nice computer for 1.8k. Thats $800 cheaper and better value for money (4GB RAM, 6950, i5 2500k w/corsair h60, asus p67motherboard, antec psu, wd black 2tb, standard dvd burner, thermaltake case). If you want ultimate value for money, then building your own computer is definately the way to go. I don't think you'll be comfortable doing that though.

Kate looks like some girl in my school.. which I found odd. Anyway I prefer her over her sister.

Let's do something new.

wat? Fractional as in second vote 1/2, third vote 1/3? That isn't what is planned at all, and you are agreeing with it..? The point is that if someone puts down a '2' next to a party, it is most definately not full support in any way at all, it is 'fractional' as someone else put it very well. As such, it should most definately not be counted as a full vote, as that goes contrary to what the first round of voting established, i.e. who was the most popular. With AV you will end up with one party with 50% support, but with only 30% true supporters and the remaining 20% people who are represented to no larger degree than people in that situation (ie not supporting the party in power) are now under FPTP. Perhaps there is a small amount of sense in this, but the way it is intended to be carried out is ludicrous and unfair. To your point about people voting tory simply to keep labour out (or vice-versa, I forget). They aren't using their vote to vote tory per-se, they're voting against labour. That brings into question negative voting, so I can vote against labour because I don't like them - but I dont care who gets in apart from that. i can see that becoming very unfair though.

It is all very well and good for you to continually tell me that over and over again. What you need to do to in any way convince me is take a look at mine, as well as other peoples, arguments on this matter and respond to them. This hasn't been done. They are not representitive of the peoples MOST FAVOURED views, so if 40% adamantly want A, 25% adamantly want B and 35% adamantly want C, then A should win because they have a majority of people who would elect them and only them. With AV, B would go out here, and for arguments sake say they all side with B. That way A is 40% and C is 60%. However, that 25% from B do not want C to win as much as they want B to, and so 25% of that support is 'half-hearted', for lack of a better phrase, and not actual true representation of their views. AV is a system whereby smaller parties who get less votes (10%) in inital rounds can beat parties who get 30+% in initial rounds. This seems fundamentally unfair. Again, this thread doesn't really work if the only points being debated are minor points that are debated down right to the smallest little details.

If your laptop is under heavy usage the problem (or one of the problems) could be disk fragmentation. A step up from what hawkxs reccomended - the default windows defragger - get a third party one from www.download.com . iObit or Auslogics do good ones - and they're essentially identical. 80-110oC is massively massively massively high - take that laptop apart and nuke it with compressed air. You could consider taking off any CPU heatsink and reapplying thermal paste, too. Edit: Oh, and this:

Try clearing your brower cache, cookies, and jagex cache, ensure you have the latest version of java. Oh and use chrome or something if you don't like firefox - IE is awful. You could always consider using the RS client - which is just a window with RS in it. Firefox you can press F11 and it goes fullscreen, if none of those other opinions appeal to you.

Worthless a piece of cake!

Let's do something new. Let's do something new. Let's do something new. Let's do something new. Let's do something new. Let's do something new. Let's do something new. Lets' do something old. Let's do something new! Let's do something new. Let's do something new.

No. Your first thing is total bs. People don't vote randomly. They vote for people they support on varying levels. Second one is also bs; getting 30% =/= "most popular". Getting 50% is most popular. Both cases equally have grassroot support, the AV option more so as 50% support them. And all candidates have clear policies and direction. Let's go back to the maths classroom. If A has 30%, B has 25%, C has 25%, and D has 20%, then A is the most popular. B is not the most popular because they got 5% less. C is not most popular because they also got 5% less, and D is the least popular because they got 10% less. Until (if) ground-breaking mathematical discoveries are made, this is true. Yes, perhaps people like you (I mean that in no derogatory manner) will vote tactically. But I would argue that a majority of people do not devote a lot of time to thinking about what happens if x y and z happens. They will vote for the party they want to win, in order that they have more chance of winning. It is an awful and naive mentality not to vote for the person you want, simply because you don't think they will win. This also brings into question how many people really care enough to put more than two options down. It will end up being like FPTP, but with a small number of people using their ability to vote twice (yes they aren't physically voting twice, but the fact that their vote is transferred is fundamentally unfair and means that they have both voted for the party that has lost, and the 'new' party). That now harks back to what I said before, about how the fact that the lib-dems are a middle ground between con/lab, thus will get more more votes, and this is also unfair; leaving us with a system where EVERYTHING is a compromise between what left and right people want (that's not to say the lib-dems are in the middle of the political spectrum).

Regarding the true majority thing. If people can transfer their votes (I know certain people will take me incredibly literally even though that is not my intention) to other parties, which are not their first choice, then it is not so much support but instead a grudging compromise. It also happens that the Lib-dems will benefit hugely from this - someone who sides with labour is incredibly unlikely to side with the conservatives, and vice versa. We can not debate only on the theory of AV, we must look also what impact this will have on the UK as a specific example, and thus this point is vaild. The lib-dems are a mix of the two, so I forsee that a majority of second votes would go to them - thus why Clegg & his crew, as well as lib-dem supporters, are all very happy about the referendum and want it to pass. But under AV its not based on lets keep x out. Thats what FPTP promotes. Similarly to what I said above, while perhaps it is not intentional that x is kept out (although it is easier to use this tactic in AV, and I do not doubt that this will happen), it will inevitably happen because con supporters will not put down lab candidates, and conversely lab supporters will not put down con candidates. FPTP can not really get much simpler - saying that FPTP promotes keeping one party out of power is like saying democracy keeps one party out of power. By voting for one party to win you are simeltaniously not voting for party x. AV will let parties who get a miniscule percentage of the vote in the first round to win. Let us take the Green party, for example. Say they get a 5% vote in the first round. Second round goes through, they get a small number more, as do labour/conservative/lib dem, but no clear winner is announced. Because of the unliklihood of con/lab supporters voting for the opposite party, they will start listing minor parties as their third choices. This means this small party, who only 5% initially wanted, get the seat. This is unfathomably illogical and makes no sense at all.

If that's the best an iMac has, then I guess go for that. eSata has the same speeds as sata 3.0, ie 3Gbps, but Firewire 800 has only 800Mbps - 3.75x slower.

If you are simply looking for extra storage as opposed to a means of transferring files between computers, I would go with eSATA. They operate at the same speed as an internal 3Gb/s HDDs, so they are essentially exactly the same as internal sata, but external. You could always look into getting a caddy and a normal 1TB hard drive, but I doubt the price difference between that and a 'normal' external drive is anything special, or worth considering due to the extra hassle. So, if your iMac has an eSata port, get an external HDD that will support that.

I don't think you actually need the card when you go down there to vote - it just speeds it up.

Sure their numbers may increase a bit, but seeing as both Group B and C hate group A (as is the case in British politics), then it is likely that either group B or C will get a majority of the votes from the other party.

No, just no. Its spilts 45 35 20. Party c is wiped out, their 2nd chocies read. 9/10 put B so we have 47 53 spilt. The redistributed votes don;t count "twice as much" they are only counted once. Its again getting caught up in the fact the first round "winner" doesn't win. Placement in any given round means squat beyond not being last. Winning requires over 50% of the vote. That is the qualification of what winning is in AV. Party A may of been ahead in round 1, but they did not "win" Party C's votes in no way "count twice as much" they are still 1 vote per person. Av is essentially how things are done in day-to-day life anyway. I mean if a group of 10 friends deciding what to do 4 said go zoo, 3 said cinema, 3 said shopping. Everyone I know wouldnt say zoo won we'll go zoo, they'd see well sure zoo got 4, but that's not the majority of ppl here. They'd take that and ask if the 6 objected going to the zoo. Allowing them to say yes or no. Thereby creating a 2nd round Av style where u can end up with 8 saying yes to zoo and 2 saying no or w/e. Then overall majority and go with the plan. [/hide]Party C's votes are counted twice. They are counted when they vote for Party C, and then they are counted again if Party C doesn't win. You should only get to vote once, your "second choice" shouldn't matter. It doesn't make logical sense to count the second choices of one group but not count the second choices of another group. Let's say we have a group of 20. 9 say zoo, 6 say movies, 5 say mall. The mall group decides their second choice is movies, which makes 9 for zoo and 11 for movies. However, wouldn't it be legitimate for the zoo group to say that they favor their second choice after seeing those results, and that their second is the mall, making it 14 mall to 6 movies? But then also wouldn't it be just as fair for the movie group to favor their second (zoo) after seeing that, and make it 15 zoo to 5 mall? Basically AV says that x number of people are allowed to vote again after seeing that they didn't win the first time. If anything, the second choice votes should count as some fraction of a vote. This is put really well. Just because your party of choice has lost should not mean that your vote can be transferred. It is unfair on those people who's votes haven't been transferred. I know someone is going to make a point about you saying To those people - don't take it literally! We know that the votes have been cast before counting takes place, and votes can not be changed after seeing the results. This is what is effectively happening though.

Why do Fiji and Australia want to get rid of it? I am in Canada; we keep getting a minority government that can call for an election at the drop of a budget. I'm not entirely sure, but I can infer from their wanting to get rid of it that it doesn't work.

I like the way you think. I say Anarchism.

Hmm yes. I do agree somewhat with one or two of your points, but I will still stick to my guns. I guess we will just have to wait until the fifth to see what happens.

This is unfair on the said conservative party. They had a majority in the first round, but because labour and the lib dems supporters seem to have the right to group together because the conservatives are not liked. This is not British democracy. Parties cannot selectively combine together - they are all individuals, and that is the way it must stay. In this case, the conservative supporters cast their vote for the conservatives, and the lib dem and labour supporters cast their vote for their respective parties. This is fine. Then the lib dem/labour people somehow have the right to switch their vote AFTER seeing the result. Does this not sound like some kind of cheating? I doubt your figures too - 33%/33%/34% seems very tight. I think very much differently, so I guess we will just have to differ on this.

Could you give a speedtest.net result please?