Danqazmlp

An under-rated gem of a game. Bit rusty round the edges but has some really cool features.

I recently bought a new laptop for around the same price range (mine ended up coming to around £420). I know it's a Hp pavillion g6, but i'm quite unsure as to which one it was. I 'think' it was this one due to being the only quad core version I can see: http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/hp-pavilion-g6-1220sa-refurbished-15-6-laptop-charcoal-grey-12263581-pdt.html It's quite cheap now even after only a few months and can run pretty recent games on the highest settings. For example, It can run Deus Ex: Human Revolution on near max settings. I think that's a good place to start looking, and just narrowing your search from there.

I've been playing floris for the first time this week. It's so much better than Native Expansion.

Just received a copy of war of the Monsters. Time to break out the PS2. Might even play some San Andreas later.

I thought the ceremony started a bit flat, but it picked up, and everything is made better with some imagine.

Yeah, we did quite well. I'm quite surprised how well South Korea have done tbh. I don't see them as a big sporting nation but they really seem to be up there. Watched the Basketball final today, and as per all Olympics, I had to ask myself why it is even in the Olympics. It wouldn't be as bad if it wasn't that the US was the only country that really plays it in a major way. It really doesn't surprise me at all they they always win it.

My friend has one, and it sounds more hassle than it's worth. It takes him a good half hour to even get it out of his garage due to the bump it has to get over. He can't drive a lot of roads because it can't go over speed bumps, or even some crested bridges.

I'm a huge car fan. I go to a lot of racing events and have done track days, and imo they look so bad it's not even on a scale. Like, i don't understand the appeal at all. It simply ruins what could be a potentially good car by breaking it. That first car looks as if it's been dropped from 50ft and has smashed the suspension. The appeal can't be to make them look fast as it's obvious they can't go at any speed due to scraping on bumps, so what's the appeal? It confuses me so much i really can't put it into words.

It's not. It's extremely relevant to the question/argument. Why go after guns when there are plenty of things out there that do much more harm and, with the aid of the government, be regulated much more easily? Oh, yeah, because guns are only made to kill! The madness! You just don't like guns because the blame can fall on others much more easily than it can for much more important issues. I dislike the regulation because in my opinion it could save lives to change regulation and the culture in the US. Other things need regulation too, and I agree that people are eating themselves to death, and that just as much, if not more effort needs putting into that than gun laws. However, this is a thread about a killing by gunshot. There are so man things that need regulating in the modern world, but in this thread at hand, it is guns that are the topic.

I agree with Faux that bringing up other things that kill is just a fruitless answer to any question. The exact same argument comes up when people discuss legalising Marijuana, compared to alcohol and cigarettes. I will say to this argument the same I say to that one: Make a topic on the regulation of those items and leave them out of this discussion.

Australia have done well today, even though you managed to beat us in one of the Cycling events a little unfairly imo (i think Pendleton was unfairly penalised). UK are really coming along in the medals, and i'm really surprised China and the US aren't doing as well as they usually do. For coutnries with such huge populations and money to put into sports, neither have dominated as they should. Then a tiny country like the UK (and South Korea) can dominate in some of the sports and gain a much higher medal proportion than the population proportions would make you think.

http://www.telegraph...e-to-power.html There's no way to get an accurate picture though. http://www.guardian....don-knife-crime That's not even to mention the number of times someone accidentally cuts themselves. Who knows how high the number might actually be? Knives are IIRC banned in public places now. just like guns, they should only be allowed in the correct places (in the home for knives). Knife crime is also much more reported in the UK than the Us because it is the worst dangerous crime we have (due to low gun crime). The government has been on a very large campaign in recent years to reduce the numbers of knives on the streets. See the difference between the UK and US? Our government actually aim to tackle the problem instead of cowering away from it because it may lose them some power. The government should look after the country and its people first, then personal power second. Also, on your previous statement about how common knife massacres are, you really generalised badly. For a start, most of those were in China, which is has a lot of problems with depression and mental illness' not being dealt with. The situation is completely different there and the rest of the civilised world. None of them however, were in the US. However, the main point I want to bring up is the scale. I may be mistaken, but most of them seemed to be between 2 and 10 people being stabbed, with usually only a very small fraction of that killed. Copare that to these gun massacres. While crime can happen with knives, they usually end up harming a lot less. I also think the comparisons to knives is a lame diversionary tactic. Many things are dangerous, but just because there are other dangerous items, does not mean the most dangerous shouldn't be banned at al. Let's legalise bombs, because guns are just as dangerous?

Bolt was actually tested, slightly. I'm amazed the other guys are still trying sometimes.

The difference is that all of those (except explosives which should come under the same laws as guns) have other, safe uses. Anything can use used to kill, but that is misusing said item. However, misusing a gun is to not kill. Guns were invented for, and are made to kill. Yes, we should ban all forms of weapons except in the right hands. Attacks with other tools will also usually do much less damage. Now hunters and maybe professional shooters should be allowed guns, but that is where strict tests and home visits need to take place. These tests would make sure that the person needs to have the weapon in the first place. People always say that guns are needed for these people, but out of all the gun owners, how many actually use them for them? A guy living in the middle of a city or suburb isn't going to be defending himself from bears any time soon. But stricter laws make it harder. When it's harder, they may try other means or give up. Or, they may get detected while attempting to get them. It also has the chance of changing the attitudes and culture surrounding dangerous weapons, meaning that they ring alarm bells much sooner, possibly preventing attacks before they happen. There are so many possibilities that stricter laws bring, but only one, bad possibility that not acting brings.

Yes, because the gun laws are crap in the first place. If they were made illegal now, there are still hundreds of thousands of guns in circulation which would indeed be easy to get illegally. But, Instead of thinking about the present, think about future generations. With a change of law comes the possibility of a change of culture with future generations, with guns being perceived rightly as bad things tor civilians to have, and the possibility of many being taken out of circulation, making aquiring them illegally much more difficult, stopping many of these shootings from happening.

Welcome to Tip.it. Other amazing Olympians: Carl Lewis: Won multiple Golds, in both sprinting and Long jump. Birgit Fischer: 8 Golds over 6 different Olympics, even missing out one due to the Eastern Bloc Boycott. Aladar Gerevich: 6 medals with two golds 28 years apart. Swimming has so many medals available with 4 different strokes of varying lengths meaning a dominant swimmer can win multiple golds in one games. Other athletes can be just as dominant, but because their sport doesn't have so many variants, they cannot possibly gain as many medals even though they may be just as good if not better. Compare it to the Heptathlon, which is a single event. The athletes there are imo the best in the world (along with triathletes) due to not only being world class in one sport, but in multiple. Now i'm taking nothing away from Phelps, he is a dominant swimmer, but to call him the best Olympian is like calling the american basket-ballers the best footballers in the world. It's comparing apples to oranges. Essentially, read this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/19073234 Obvious Low_Levelled failure is obvious.

Did you watch the 4x2? He was up 2 body lengths and basically swam a victory lap. And if you really wanna play that card, you must not have seen the 4x1. He swam the best American time AND the 2nd fastest time of ANY swimmer, and had us in first while our anchor lost it. The team came through there eh? He has a set INDIVIDUAL world records a total of 27 times. Did you watch the 4x2? He was pretty much that far up when he started due to the rest of the team. He is probably one of the best male swimmers, but other Olympians have done more amazing things imo. Swimming has too many medals to offer. P.s Obvious fanboy is obvious.

I wouldn't call him the greatest Olympian ever. Not taking anything away from the guy, he probably is one of the best swimmers ever, but he competes in an event which has a lot of medals on offer with the combination of different strokes and lengths.

Glad you enjoyed the ceremony. GB finally got a gold medal :D

I feel really sorry for that South Korean fencer. Losing out on a medal by 1 second, especially in those conditions must really kill you. And it showed that it did nearly kill her with how long it took her to leave the arena.

Make it go to the country that wins the most medals per person in the country, then it will never go to 'merica. I agree with Noxx that it may not have been very international, but I don't think any really are. Beijing was basically China doing what it has done for a thousand years, throwing as many people into something as possible. It was large scale but to me was incredibly stale. The opening ceremony here just seemed more fun and lively, with the volunteers looking like they were enjoying themselves. I think the reasoning for the younger athletes lighting the flame is to inspire. It was to make other young people to realise that they are able to do something spectacular if they try, and in the future they might be as good as the athletes competing at the games.They were also not no-names, as they had been nominated by gold medal winners and the like as future athletes. On the games themselves, I'm disappointed Britain didn't win any golds today. The men were really disappointed not to get one in the Cycling as they seemed like the easy favourites. Apparently they were held up by other riders.

Randox, you should have seen it from earlier. the whole affair became very tame after the team procession. The Torch was very good imo. It would be nice if it created a new tradition of having younger athletes lighting the final flame instead of an older one.

Ugh Sir Paul Mccartney. I don't dislike him, but he only has one or two half decent solo songs, and they don't really seem overly international. Should have had somebody else to end the ceremony with a bang.

I shouldn't need to explain much here, if you don't know about it, where have you been? As we don't have a thread for Olympics discussions, hopefully this one will suffice for everything Olympics related (not sport-specific) To kick off: The opening ceremony so far has been great. I wasn't expecting much at all after Beijing, but it's actually been better imo. While Beijing had a lot of people doing impressive things, this one has had so much energy and people looking like they were having fun. Has been really entertaining to watch and listen to (and funny). Anybody else thinking the same? Also, to anybody watching right now. Who do you think will light the final flame? Beckham? Also, what do you think will be with the brass 'petals'? Will they come together to form the cauldron for the flame? P.s. Hopefully as this is not sport-centric, and is Olympics-wide with such a large spectacle and event, it can stay in OT if mods and admins are ok with it.

He had a smoke grenade. Those are illegal to own by civilians. Did the law stop him from obtaining and consequently using one? Furthermore, I can buy just about any weapon I want online, and have it shipped to me discretely (e.g., in parts) without being able to be traced at all. How does making guns illegal stop me from doing this? Oh wait, it doesn't. My morals and sanity prevent me (after all, I do not like guns personally). I would also like to point out that drugs are illegal, yet look how easily obtainable they are... Guns would be no different if they were suddenly banned in the United States. THANK YOU. Trying to make and enforce effective gun control in the U.S. would cause a huge political shit storm, and ultimately would not be effective because people could still get a hold of guns. You'd want a time machine in order to implement effective gun control laws. The reason they are so easy to get in the first place is because of the crap gun laws. Guns are so widespread in the US that they can probably be gotten by anybody at this stage who has a mental illness. The country seems so blasé about guns that it's dug its own grave. With stricter gun laws, the supply chain is cut. Not every gunman would be stopped, as illegal firearms are available in every country. However, when the culture of the country (such as the UK) makes guns into a bad thing, getting hold of guns through illegal channels becomes harder. For one, guns wouldn't be as present in society, so the sight of one immediately rings alarm bells, possibly tipping off police. Two, with less of them being sold legally, there is less chance in them getting into the wrong hands and into the illegal channels. Three, with guns being illegal, children grow up with the knowledge that they are a bad thing and not something to aspire to have (in most cases anyway). Again, as I have said, the US has got itself in such a crap place with guns it will take a long time to sort things out. But the longer the gun laws stay in place, the worse it will get and possible get to a stage where it is impossible to fix.