Danqazmlp

WiiU WiiU and WiiU

You can't judge AT ALL without being from here. Anonymous may not be doing things that are "right", but they have a noble, legit and a good goal behind this. Your paragraph almost really made me facepalm, it's all just so wrong... Sorry Dan, for all the respect I have for you, I have to tell you that you don't live and haven't been affected by everything that has been going on in Québec for the last 3½ months! The issues here are FAR bigger than just the students protest against the tuition hikes or the Bill 78, trust me. It'd take me hours to write as much as I'd like to here, but I won't since nobody would read it anyway. Please just don't comment when you have no idea of everything that's been and is still going on... If you don't explain, then there is no point in commenting. As I say, I don't know much about the Bill other than it apparently infringing rights. Anonymous getting involved however, and targeting a large sporting event that can make millions for the region is what I can safely say is idiotic. From everything I have read, the protests sound quite similar to the London riots last summer. The province is riddled with debt due to the financial crisis which has hit the whole world. The tuition fees are the lowest in the country, and lower than many other countries. The Bill from my eyes (although not having the full information), seems quite logical, all except the dis-allowance of protests within 50m of a university. Giving notice of a protest is a common process here in the UK and has done no harm. However, it isn't the protests, but the involvement of Anonymous which is the sticking point. They are attacking something which could greatly increase the money in the area, which is gravely needs. They are also threatening people who enjoy the sport. They do not seem to want to aid the protest, but do damage to those in power.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iYwZN0DzqDzc2jDl-s2KQX7nSAPQ?docId=N0048251338376680284A It's been a while since we last discussed anonymous' activities around here, so what are your thoughts on this? Personally, I don't know much about the student protests or the Bill 78, however, I think it's another example of anonymous attempting to bully people, without fully being involved in what they are 'fighting' for. It's a stupid idea to attempt to disrupt an event which can make so much money for an area, especially in this economic climate. It seems to show an incredible amount of idiocy, and shows how removed from reality anonymous are. It also seems to be a terrible idea to outright threaten not only people in power, but everyday people and fans of an event. If they carry on doing so, public opinion will very rarely ever be on their side again. Even now, I've seen so many comments calling anonymous out. What's also funny to see is that they think they disrupted the Bahranian GP. The only success of their campaign was to raise awareness. They managed to take down the F1 website during the race, when all the people who would use the website were watching the television. The website was up and running shortly after. And the websites they took down to start with are not ones widely used, except F1.com.

Huge congrats to the both of you.

Well.... Look at history. How many rulers have demanded loyalty from their subjects? You misunderstand me. I'm saying why does this all-powerful being have insecurities that big. Isnt he supposed to be the greatest thing in the universe? A dictator can be killed by a gun, or in a car accident, I get them demanding loyalty. But why the most powerful form of life in the universe; what does he have to be scared of? If nothing else, that is at least a legitimate question. It wouldn't be a fear of anything. isn't it more of a test to see if they are truly worthy of entering heaven/afterlife.

23

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w04i9zGL9ss Carmageddon reincarnation kickstarter. Great way to pre-buy the game and needs you money!

I use a combination of Microsoft Security Essentials and Malwarebytes. Obviously, by the reactions here, Kaspersky is the one to go for if you want to be paying, but MSE seems to do the job for most for free.

Welcome!

I'm confused, I don't think anyone was saying that it had to look like skyrim? >_>' Not here, but I've seen comments on some gaming websites about it not looking like Skyrim.

To me they look like a cross between Morrowind and Oblivion. Skyrim was only a single game in the series, so it doesn't have to look anything like it tbh.

It's really cool. Unfortunately, I can't see the man being found, as he's much smaller than a plane and much harder to detect.

I think the problem is that they often want to keep thing secret too, to stop people being able to benefit from price changes which may occur due to an update. And to be honest, the RS community isn't one I would exactly trust with a secret.

It's a shame the fires don't get bigger at all, could have been a really nice graphical update.

Will cooking on player-made fires now be better exp overall, counting the time to get to them and possibility of them going out?

I agree. They may look similar, but there is only so much you can do with some creatures.

That article is pretty much all a load of opinionated crap. very little of it is based around actual information we have on the game. The author even says he dislikes MMO's, so will obviously have gone into it with a negative mindset, and extrapolated anything negative he could find. The Engine doesn't make the game, so that point is null for a start. The claims that it is doing nothing different is also null, as not enough information has actually been released to actuall state that. Very few games out there actually want to imitate WoW. The problem is, WoW took some of the core elements of MMO's which were far from original, and did them well in the beginning. Many features which are key to MMO's, and have been way before WoW are now apparently trying to imitate it, when in fact they are not. It's like when games are apparently COD clones when they have some of the same features, even though COD did very few original things. Things like classes and third person aren't copying WoW at all, but are fairly key to how an MMO works. The only legitimate gripe from that article is the lore, which we actually know very little about. There is the real possibility that there is some way of explaining how it all fits together.

What? We know next to nothing about it so far, so how can you say bad execution?

I said scrutiny, not enforcement. You're allowed to ignore any and all evidence and argument presented by the opposition and hold fast to your personal beliefs. That is your choice. The problem with religion and belief however, is that criticism and scrutiny come across as identical to enforcement. Enforcing the viewpoint of one side on the other. You may simply be pointing out a single flaw, but to the other side it can come across as enforcing your view. That is one of the reasons these threads always end badly,

You are perfectly welcome to hold your own beliefs, and I would fight for your right to do so. However... if you want to take your beliefs beyond the personal and into the public forum, be prepared to have your beliefs eviscerated and scrutinized from every possible angle. In other words, subjected to the same level of scrutiny as any hypothesis. If you lack the maturity to remain composed under the fire of peer review, it is not the fault of the atheist. Why? And what do you deem public? I see no law, written or unwritten that gives anybody the right to attempt to enforce their belief on another. (At least in a civilised society) EDIT: A definition of the word belief isn't the same as the concept of it. It is a hard concept to grasp I understand, and I'm finding no other way to express to you what it is. Explain to me what a favourite colour is. What is the basis for this and what it entails. The answer to that is a tiny fraction of the size of belief.

Only you, responses from you are pointless, yet you do so anyway. Belief cannot be quantified, it cannot be described in a simple forum post. It isn't something which can be laid out, as every one of the 7 billion people on the planet will believe different things. That is what you are not understanding. Yes there are themes through some of them, but on the whole you would be hard pressed to find a group which have the same opinions and beliefs on every subject the same. Belief comes in as many shapes and sizes as human personalities. Science knows very little about how the human brain truly works, which means there is no scientific reason as to why humans believe certain things, they just do. You may as well be arguing over which colour is the best. It's very hard for one to take an objective look at themselves, especially in consideration of the 'enemy'. That is why many atheists tend to not see that they are being the same as those they seem to oppose. I on the other hand, am in neither camp, and can see a clearer image of both sides and the annoying as [bleep] bickering that ensues every time this thread pops up. Oh, so it seems to be a personal attack on my character then? Or am I misunderstanding you? I never assert, claim, or suggest that belief can be quantified - just explained in layman's terms. If that's too much of a job for you, I don't know what your role is here. Your monologue about beliefs tell us nothing of their nature - e.g. what it's founded upon, whether it matters, etc. The analogy is flawed at best, but that's trivial - reading on. I'm not sure what your other paragraph of sweeping generalizations are really for - explain how its relevant in any way, shape, or form? 'I can see a clearer image of both sides' - of what? It's far too ambiguous to be of any meaningful context, and it's irrelevant at best. Please, if you're going to engage in this discussion, tell us why you think there is/isn't a God. The point just went straight over your head. Belief cannot be explained because there is such a wide variety of it. It is not something even scientists can pin down, just like personality. Stop asking for anything more specific because short of God turning up, linking directly into your brain and displaying the thoughts of every human on this planet, you will not find the answer. Nobody knows exactly where beliefs lie, their origins and bases, because there are too many of them. The idea of a God, Gods, no God etc all lie within this.

In other words, your experience and beliefs are more important to you than truth. I find it ironic that theists often accuse atheists of arrogantly relying purely on their own understanding while they base their own worldviews firmly on their own narrow perspectives. I recognize that my experience and beleifs often do not reflect reality, which is why I instead place my trust in the collective body of knowledge amassed by scientists over the centuries. I am not a theist. I'm not a believer or an unbeliever. It is human nature to take the information they have at hand to form their views. Experience is the truth as seen through your own eyes. Humans cannot be expected to have the collective knowledge of the world, and are not robots. Humans are organic lifeforms which grow and are moulded by their surroundings and the events that occur around them. My view boils down to the following statement: Let religions be religious, let atheists be atheist. Be tolerant of the other side and don't try to infringe upon their thoughts. Live and let live.

Only you, responses from you are pointless, yet you do so anyway. Belief cannot be quantified, it cannot be described in a simple forum post. It isn't something which can be laid out, as every one of the 7 billion people on the planet will believe different things. That is what you are not understanding. Yes there are themes through some of them, but on the whole you would be hard pressed to find a group which have the same opinions and beliefs on every subject the same. Belief comes in as many shapes and sizes as human personalities. Science knows very little about how the human brain truly works, which means there is no scientific reason as to why humans believe certain things, they just do. You may as well be arguing over which colour is the best. It's very hard for one to take an objective look at themselves, especially in consideration of the 'enemy'. That is why many atheists tend to not see that they are being the same as those they seem to oppose. I on the other hand, am in neither camp, and can see a clearer image of both sides and the annoying as [bleep] bickering that ensues every time this thread pops up.

I don't care is basically my reply to you. I don't like most of the atheists I have ever met because they have almost all been incredibly pushy on their unbelief, which they are being influenced by. On the contrary, the religious people I come in contact with are almost the complete opposite. While the atheists have always got offended at something or another, the religious people I know have barely ever even identified themselves as it, let alone pushed it on others. It could be a tiny sample size, but I don't care, it's my personal experience and my beliefs. Scripture may as well not be mentioned at all. You don't need scripture to believe in something. Hell, you don't even need solid belief to believe in something. Two people going to the same church/mosque may believe completely different things, and both may never know anything about scriptures. Religion is taken with a pinch of salt by many people who believe, yet even you yourself want to hark back to scriptures. As I have said before Assume, you seem unable to grasp the basic concepts of belief, so will never truly understand it. It is pointless for you to even try at this stage. A lot of athiests remind me of the hardcore nationalists who dislike immigrants due to a few bad eggs. They have very little knowledge of them, yet try to judge them and what they should be able to do.

I'm on the fence on religion, but man I hate many atheists with a passion. They are some of the most bigoted people I know. They can often be so blinded by logic and not understand the concept of belief, that they will be just as offensive, pushy and intolerant as they claim religious people to be. From personal experience, atheists are actually even more pushy and offended by the subject of religion than theists are by the topic of atheism. Atheists will often take their misunderstandings of a religion to an extreme, without actually knowing what they are talking about. I'm not on either side, but hell, if I support any side in arguments it's usually the theists simply because atheists can be such arses. In reply to bedman, I actually see non beleivers who get offended more than believers. Apart from extremists which are such a minuscule minority, I find atheists often so offended any time anything religious happens in public. Just as athiests can express their views, so can theists.