Danqazmlp

7/10

I think this is going down a path which Phd's are produced on. I don't think it's something any of us can give the full consequences and reasons fully to be honest.

That's photoshoped right? Legs cannot be that sickly and skinny on a man.

I go for Either Aloha Babel, Aloha TOW or the highest British hosted server so I don't get much lagg.

Common sense.

And extremely unfair to slash funds to certain programs based on stereotypes and assumptions. I have yet to see a recent post of yours that isn't unsubstantiated, hypocritical claims that speaks more of yourself than it does others. I'm talking about the economic benefits here, a statistical and quantifiable thing. They aren't assumptions - it's based purely on average earnings of graduates. Did you not learn of the straw man fallacy? Yet you have shown how many statistics thus far? You claim others arguments are unsubstantiated yet show no proof of your own. Hypocrisy 101. When calling somebody hypocritical, don't be it yourself.

How do we have a prosperous society if the arts and humanities are heavily restricted? We could 'logically' live perfectly in a robotic society without them, with everybody working to further the human (or robotic) race, but society would be much much worse off. High earning graduates earn much more? I think you must have meant something else but i don't know what. Does anybody have figures on which courses lead to the highest wages? Without that, the question on who adds the most to a country is null, as taxes would be the same. Just because somebody has a degree, does not mean they will add more to a country than another other than a higher chance of them earning a decent wage. This also counts for people who have a certain degree not having any more effect than other degrees. You can't honestly believe that all degrees have equal potential and provide equally paying jobs. They simply don't. Some degrees will provide, on purely statistical averages, a higher paying job, and therefore a higher amount in taxes. We could even factor in the likelyhood that the degree encourages job creation, which will also not be equal across degrees. Not all degrees no, but the ones I'm talking about are those which people assume will have the best benefit, such as the sciences, mathematics, engineering etc. Can you give me the statistics which say they earn more than those who have degrees in the arts and humanities? Degrees such as law, medicine and business will make more, simply because they are more specific in their career paths. However, apart from Law and medicine, most of the big money gained from a degree can be gained from simply getting into work from school, skipping higher education. I've tried to avoid naming individual degrees because I don't have any comparative data for them. All I'm saying that it's just common sense that, no matter what configuration, they aren't equal. I'll break that rule to say this: Travel and Tourism is just as specific in its career path as Law, Medicine and Business, so why is that commonly accepted to lead on to a career with a lower salary? I actually removed that because afterwards I realised it was bad to name them individually. All jobs need doing, just as we need lawyers (unfortunately) modern society also needs people do do the other jobs degrees can lead to. Just having government funding for some will mean less qualified people in others, as the best people won't be able to afford to do them.

How do we have a prosperous society if the arts and humanities are heavily restricted? We could 'logically' live perfectly in a robotic society without them, with everybody working to further the human (or robotic) race, but society would be much much worse off. High earning graduates earn much more? I think you must have meant something else but i don't know what. Does anybody have figures on which courses lead to the highest wages? Without that, the question on who adds the most to a country is null, as taxes would be the same. Just because somebody has a degree, does not mean they will add more to a country than another other than a higher chance of them earning a decent wage. This also counts for people who have a certain degree not having any more effect than other degrees. You can't honestly believe that all degrees have equal potential and provide equally paying jobs. They simply don't. Some degrees will provide, on purely statistical averages, a higher paying job, and therefore a higher amount in taxes. We could even factor in the likelyhood that the degree encourages job creation, which will also not be equal across degrees. Not all degrees no, but the ones I'm talking about are those which people assume will have the best benefit, such as the sciences, mathematics, engineering etc. Can you give me the statistics which say they earn more than those who have degrees in the arts and humanities?

How do we have a prosperous society if the arts and humanities are heavily restricted? We could 'logically' live perfectly in a robotic society without them, with everybody working to further the human (or robotic) race, but society would be much much worse off. High earning graduates earn much more? I think you must have meant something else but i don't know what. Does anybody have figures on which courses lead to the highest wages? Without that, the question on who adds the most to a country is null, as taxes would be the same. Just because somebody has a degree, does not mean they will add more to a country than another other than a higher chance of them earning a decent wage. This also counts for people who have a certain degree not having any more effect than other degrees.

A job is a job, and will still benefit the economy the same through taxes as another job. (as long as they earn the same). If you want to be in a job that can actively effect the economy past taxes, skip university and go work on an oil rig, down a mine or in commerce straight from school. Just because you have a degree in engineering doesn't mean your money will have a better effect on the economy than somebody who works in a design studio. The freedom of education is what makes a country great, not the driving force behind it's economy. Yes we should discourage people from going to university if all they are doing it for is to put off getting a job, but people who are actively interested in doing something a a career should be just as free to get higher education in the arts as in the sciences, or the humanities as the technologies.

8th of March.

This change has come in this year, meaning that last year students who went for PGCE's could either get more money for some courses and less than other. For the one I went to, the maximum grant was higher, meaning that it effectively cost less last year. This hasn't made less people go for it though. And this is a History PGCE. Making it cost more doesn't mean that people will change their plans.

It isn't hard to be a little considerate. Pretty much following the normal forum rules are the main thing. As I don't have anything atm:

I get too annoyed on the babel server. I'll be building on my own, and would expect my team to be attacking the enemy as they aren't helping me build, yet the enemy is right in my face destroying my towers. Makes me wonder what the team are actually doing.

If the money goes up for arts courses, who is to say they will go into the 'academic' courses as you say? Would they simply not go to university at all, leading to them contributing even less to society as you would say? The English government already does this in a way, and it has pissed off a LOT of people. PGCE courses in England will give grants base on course taken and grade received. For example, the sciences and maths students can receive up to £20,000 in grants, which a History student with the same degree level can only get up to £9,000. Then non-GCSE course students with the same grade can't get any grant whatsoever. Has this changed who does what? From what I've seen, not a single bit, as 180+ people were interviewed for 24 places at a university I had an interview at, more than previous years, and that isn't including those who didn't get an interview. So while that isn't a normal degree type (PGCE=Post Graduate Certificate of Education, so you get it after your degree), it still shows that making it easier for those in the sciences doesn't work, and only benefits in royally pissing people off.

Congratulations. Have fun, try not to let the bad times get to you (there will be some trust me)

I mainly take issue with things like this: http://imgur.com/a/nim37#38 http://imgur.com/a/nim37#39 http://imgur.com/a/nim37#44 Where you can see clearly that the heraldic symbols aren't actually a part of the armor, but instead look like they're ... a pin or some cheap press-on. To put so much work in redesigning the base kit itself and then slap on the symbols seems really strange to me. I agree that they look more "worthwhile" but that's really because of the fantastic work put into the basic kit itself. I agree with those, especially black H1, which I had to look at 3-4 times to figure out what was going on there. The others however do looks good to me.

Having a chance to properly see it (and up close too!), heraldic armor really looks horrible. The markings aren't actually ON the armor and they just look placed over top of the original models. It looks shoddy to me. Really? I thought they looked pretty impressive and much better than the older versions. they looked much more worthwhile that the older ones too. I don't quite see why people don't like Torva, I think it looks pretty epic.

The above pretty much proves my thoughts that while awareness is a good thing, this campaign is nothing great, and will do no good. Should we not be campaigning to stop the violence, not a single man? And what about the other war-torn countries?

To me though, the funny pictures isn't spam. The point of it is to post funny pictures, which it does. Last one to post wins however had no point, no aim, it was simply turned into a chatroom, and therefore Spam. While the funny pictures thread may not be the most thought provoking, it does have a point, and therefore isn't simply a spam thread. Now if you wanted to replace LOTPW with something along the lines of a chatroom thread, I think there would be more of a case. However, it wasn't a forum game and was spam, so was simply locked.

Basically it's a computer solely dedicated to playing PC games. So instead of forking over $1000 for a nice gaming desktop you could essentially get the Steam Box instead and hook it up to a monitor or TV and play games. I can see their target audience as those with laptops/netbooks that want to play games but don't have the power to do so. Sounds worse than I thought; just sounds like a money gimmick to me. You might as well buy and modify your own PC and you can update it accordingly. Plus you can use the PC for other software not just games... This sounds like console'ing the PC - and the console business is a milking one. The difference is that 'apparently' they are planning to make it powerful enough to last 3-4 years before even becoming the norm, and then when it gets to that stage it would be updated. It would mean people who haven't got the best spec PC's and who can't upgrade them readily (such as those with laptops) can buy something to play the best PC games. This would be perfect for somebody like me, who hasn't been able to buy a new PC game for a good 3-4 years, stopping a company like Valve making their money. I've had to use (arguably) inferior console versions of games simply to play them, whereas with this I would have the ability to play the game the same as others. They haven't said it would be limited to gaming, but that it would be geared towards it. If done correctly, it could essentially make consoles redundant except for their exclusive games. It would make top line PC gaming accessible for the masses (which at the moment I don't think it is), while still keeping the versatility of a normal PC.

I'm sure I had an idea posted in the staff forums somewhere around last years April fools. I can't remember what it was though, but you should use that, because it was obviously very good. Or I may actually be imagining it.

I like how dragon boots look much less like red socks with a horn and much more like realistic medieval foot armour.

http://www.gamesradar.com/valves-steam-box-why-it-would-change-gaming-drastically-positively-ps1-did-could-also-tank/ http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/2/2840932/exclusive-valve-steam-box-gaming-console Too much to explain, so I'll let you read Gamesradars summary: [spoiler=Failure or Success?] In short - Valve are making software to be used on gaming systems halfway between PC and consoles. (I think) This is probably the most exciting gaming new I've heard in a long time. I love PC gaming but the costs of keeping up with hardware (as well as knowhow on doing it) aren't something readily available to me, so a way of playing PC games, like they should would be incredible.

I played it once but my team was utterly atrocious. I was the only person building our tower, while being constantly attacked by enemies. My team were building forts at our base for some odd reason, so the enemy just kept getting to me straight away. The Aloha servers are the best at the moment as they have 4 different game types. Not tried their zombie server yet though, as TOW has been taking my attention. I'd love to see my k/d ratio, as at the moment I seem to be getting 3- kills per life with the smg. The strategy is to crouch and use sights then let off a small burst at their head.