BlueTear

WoW costs around 13ÃÆââââ¬Ã¡Ãâì a month for me. That equals... Two books, two-three visits to McDonalds, a few trips to the movies (though that's a lot cheaper than Sweden, so you might be able to squeeze in a lot of trips for 13ÃÆââââ¬Ã¡Ãâì)... It's not that much money, unless you're not going to change any other spending habits you might have. Personally, it's more economical to pay for WoW. I can buy two books, but 10-12 hours later both'll be read. In terms of ÃÆââââ¬Ã¡Ãâì/hour of enjoyement, WoW > quite a lot. Nah, WoW has 5 million paying subscribers now, RS has, what, 375 000? 400 000? paying subscribers. Counting "made accounts" is rather silly, as people who aren't playing actively and haven't done so in years will still end up in the statistics.

As the Norwegian prime minister pointed out, freedom of the press means that while the government can always yell at a newspaper *after* they've published something, the paper still gets to publish. The government of the respective countries have had no say in what has been published and holding them responsible in any way is ridicolous. That being said, I still think publishing and republishing these images is moronic to the point of the extreme. Sheesh, show some respect for crying out loud.

Just for the record, the "life condusive" athmosphere Miller used was the one popularly believed to be the real-deal in the 1950's. He used the one belonging to a valid scientific theory, he did not chose them randomly, nor chose one that would intentionally discredit any religious beliefs. Secondly, modern scientists believe Earth's early athmosphere contained considerable portions of free oxygen. Must confess I don't see how an athmosphere already containing oxygen is somehow more abraisive than the one Miller did use; Methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water. (And 2+2=4 is only true under a number of conditions we're all willing to follow but are by no means absolutes; The meaning of + is defined. The way = works is also defined, and we can screw that up by changing the relation it represents to allow a/b where b=0. Even assuming we keep those as they "are" we're also automatically using the base ten, which also isn't an absolute. Counting in base 3, 2+2=11. Maths are many things, but absolute facts is a part rarely mentioned.)

Not sure what I did first (laughing at JAk56 seems a likely prospect though) but I do know I made a post whining about the way new players were being treatened, sometime back in march '01.

Strangely enough, I'll answer that with: Generally speaking, a refusal is an indication of danger. In this specific case... She's pulled over, she'd remained at the location, she's handed over her license and registration, she has been left alone in her car for more than 40 seconds but when the officer walks up he doesn't get his face blown off, he opens the car door without getting his face off blown off while she's talkin on the phone, and he reaches inside without getting shot... How likely - in this specific case - do you figure it is he's going to get shot within the next 60 seconds after he has his taser pointed at her? And is opening the door and reaching inside like that the actions of an officer expecting a concealed weapon? If you were to speculate on whether he [The police officer] considered it likely she was going to pull a concealed weapon on him, what does the imagery tell you?

I - wrongfully - presumed that I could type "speeding" and trust to the context of the discussion to translate that into something a bit more exact. Obviously, that didn't work, so let's replace it with a much longer, but more specifically tailored, sentence; "In fact, anyone speeding, stopping, handing over the correct documentation to the officer, remaining at the scene, and then refusing to step out of the car - and not driving away while the tazer is pointed at you, despite having just as much of a chance to do so as if he had reached inside and tried to pull her out - *MAY* be transporting explosives to be used in terrorist acts, so we should just blow them up! " Am I getting specific enough for you? Refusing to obey direct instructions invokes force. Refusing to obey direct instructions from an officer does not mean you should be treated as if you're armed, because of the sudden refusal (after a few minutes of compliance, albeit not exactly happy, quick or silent). And if it does, which MyPurpleCrayon appeared to believe, what makes this refusal - in this specific situation - equal her having a concealed firearm, and not say, concealed explosives? And if that refusal warrants a response as if she had a concealed weapon, why doesn't the same refusal warrant a response as if she had concealed explosives? I'd say it's because she wasn't -and shouldn't have been - tazed because she *might* have a gun. Disobeying a direct order warrants the use of force, and force should be used to assure compliance. Not to counter the suspect producing a concealed weapon. Which the originial post I responded to by MyPurpleCrayon suggested; Taze her because she might have a concealed weapon.

I'm happy to apologize for any offense that last sentence caused. It was meant merely as a further, extreme, example of how acting on 'might-haves' doesn't work. There's just too many things that "might" be possible. And as general sidenote, after thinking about it for a while, I actually think the first dose was justified. Not because she might have been armed (which I doubt the officer thought), not because it was more 'humane' than phyiscally forcing her out of the vehicle but because she was properly warned. There's a bit more theory behind it, but this was supposed to be a sidenote. (The second dose is questionable to say the least. Police-grade tazers make all the muscles in the body contract, leaving whoever you taze in a foetal position on the ground. Expecting anyone to be able to comply within such a short timeframe is unreasonable; They were not designed so someone who got shot with them could just get up and keep going, they're supposed to keep them down for a while. If she'd been able to roll over immidetly,the tazer's not doing what it's designed for)

But a worst case scenario is instantly appliable? That's what he's saying. After she's handed over her papers (I'm presuming that's what occurs right before the officer steps away and asks "Do you still live...." and walks back to the car), which I'd say is fairly compliant considering all the whining she's doing. The policeman, before producing his tazer, opens her door. He reaches inside. She tells him not to touch her. Suddenly, she *might* have a gun and should be tazered because of it. She's given him her papers, he opened the door without getting shot, he reached inside without getting shot (and as far as I could tell, he did so without hesitation despite leaving her alone in her car for more than 40 seconds, which is ample time to produce a concealed firearm), but because she won't step outside, suddenly she *might* have a gun. Whether she deserved 50 000 volts or not; "she *might* have had a gun" is an argument with holes like a piece of swiss cheese. So much for hoping you'd extend the same courtsey I showed you then?

On the other hand... There's no way of knowing if her car is packed with C4 or Semtex. In fact, since there *might* be explosives hidden in her glove compartment, her purse, strapped to her person, beneath the floorboard, inside the engine. There could be IED's camoflauged as cups in her cup holder! Oh no! Call in the SWAT, clear the road and take her out with a sniper! In fact, anyone speeding *MAY* be transporting explosives to be used in terrorist acts, so we should just blow them up! ... Ridicolous argument. There are cases when shooting first, asking questions later is warranted, and this may very well be a case like that (I mean, cellphone, sheesh?) but c'mon, you can motivate any number of strange and brutal methods by saying "Well, she *might* have...". ("Hey, they *might* have WMD's! Nuke!")

Which hardly is conclusive evidence that religion in some form of all encompassing problem. North Korea is an excellent example that it's quite possible to have both limitations in freedom, being tortured, starved, brainwashed, poor, poorly educated and a source of terrorism without religion. In fact, did you present anything that makes religion in itself a source of the above? Isn't it just as easy to say that what you describe originates from poverty (and fanaticism and fundamentalism aswell), rather than poverty originating from religion? And the current arab nations... The Ba'ath party is/was a panarab nationalistic socialist party. Iran disliked Saddam because Iraq was secularized. As for code of laws... What do you think most countries have based their laws on? 18th century philosophers ideas about human value? Hello, we've had a powerful political entity saying "You shall not kill thy fellow men" for over 2000 years! Did our set of moral beliefs magically appear one day? Are they the pinnacle of some scientific development during the past 2000 years? In part, sure. But would those parts ever have been designed without the moral framework set by religions? Is wealth or technological advancement directly connected to a reduced religious influence? Do they somehow require atheism to appear? The wheel, arguable one of the most important pieces of "technology" in the world was invented while under religious influence. Iran is how far from becoming a nuclear power (and disregarding divine grace, they're obviously doing some form of technological advancement). Flat out saying "religion is bad" and complete shunning it is disregarding thousands of human history. Humanity today is the sum of that history. edit: Writing posts at 7am is leaves sentences that I can't understand, and I wrote them....

The US Center for Disease Control webpage about HIV says there are "trace amounts" of HIV found in saliva.

Well, that's your prerogative. After all, you're the one who's having his posts ignored because peopled can't be arsed with reading 'em.

Why not? Whether the use was justified in this particular instance or not, surely experiencing the use of the weapons allows an officer to appraise the degree of force at his disposal, as well as the effects on a suspect? If I had tazed someone once and I still thought they might be a threat, I'd probably taze them again myself even if some manual claimed the first one was enough. Personal experience as a method of learning older than the written or spoken language. And if it's so safe and non-lethal and harmless as people say, tazing a train̮̩̉̉e under controled medical conditions can hardly harm their health.

I don't have the time to get accurate figures for cardiovacular diseases, obesity related sickness or cancer that can be traced to tobacco or weird undefined, food stuff. But, for the sake of argument, let's agree there's a considerable portion of people in western countries that can relate to these things. So, in my hypothetical police state, I'm going to instigate a mandatory diet and ban all food and consumables not approved by the Secretary of Homeland Nutrition. Completely without factual basis, yet reasonable figures, suggests I just made considerable reductions when it comes to health costs, but public and private. I have also raised the average lifespan of, say, 10 years. Apart from that, several people who will not suffer from the problems mentioned in the first paragraph will live fuller lives as well as longer. "Wait", you say, "did you just decide what we could eat? We can't go to MacDonalds because you say so?" That's right. I've saved you money, I've saved the state money and I've made your life safer and longer. ... I'm with the some centuries old dude who said, roughly "He who gives up liberty for safety deserves neither". There are several ways in which we can be made to live longer and safer; fiddling with speed limits, stronger sentences for breaking them or just making professional drivers the only people allowed to drive. (Look ma, I "saved" people from traffic accidents! *flex*). All we have to do is give up stuff like "liberty" and "freedom". 'course, the real problem of a police state is that the paranoid does not cease to be paranoid; A police state will not relinquish what it has taken and will not stop wanting more.

So... Could someone tell me what you people mean when you say a graphing calculator? I mean, obviously, it could be used to draw graphs, but what other nifty little functions are you forsaking? I'm assuming you do use calculators, just not the advanced graph kind. (We're required to have one and I've been using mine daily for years here in Sweden)

Star Wars Galaxies, does all my frequent online gaming except when I load up Warcraft III and do a Defense of the Ancients run.

Because an MMORPG does not have to be either-or when it comes to real life? Depending on the game, casual play is very possible, in some cases encouraged (For example, I believe WoW has a system that awards you bonus experience gains for time spent logged off at certain in-game locations). You know what the average MMORPG user cuts back on when he/she/it starts playing? TV time. How much TV do you watch per week? MMORPG's, in their current incarnation, may not be for everyone, but they're for a lot more people than you think.

So by definition, stealing a loaf of bread, a magazine, 5 USD's worth of makeup, or a 40 USD necklace are all worse thefts than stealing a virtual item that is worth 1500 USD because the objects in question are tangiable enough to be touched? 40 dollar necklace... 1500 dollar's worth of virtual items. Which is the more serious crime, and should thus have police resources investigating it?

... I have this sudden desire to buy second-hand harddrives. Preferably odd ones that might have been st... I mean... I never said that last!

'Congratulations' is not really sufficient for what I want to express, but it works :D Have fun you two!

Lightning, definitely.

The thing about GW is really that in the end, they have to have a continous income to keep the servers/game alive. They claim to be able to accomplish that by releasing "optional" expansions. Personally, I think that's a clever play on human psychology. The people who bought every single expansion for the Sims might aswell have been paying 10 bucks a month. Pricing and releasing the expansions in a way that will make anyone who buys them pay enough to equal a monthly fee is not hard. If they distribute it via digitial downloads - thus avoiding retailer's fee - they're going to have no problem making money that equals Blizzards income on monthly fee's. The only thing between you paying 10 USD a month and you not paying 10 USD a month is then the "optional" bit. They'll have a hard time balancing the relative powerlevels of completely new classes even if it was in their best interest to do so. Likewise with new areas and items. That being said, GW is more casual player friendly than WoW. If you don't want to touch it for two weeks then play two nights and then not touch it for two weeks, you can. But if you're actually looking to do serious MMOG gaming, the no-fee is not an argument. (... and, IMHO, then WoW wins)

He's a Kaleesh injured in a shuttle crash and then reconstructed by the geonosians on order of the InterGalactic Banking Clan. The SW cartoon is supposed to contain his backround story but I havn't seen it. EpIII as a whole was pretty much as I expected it. Action scenes, bad dialogoue, as well as several reasons why they Lucas should be kept at his ranch and collect money instead of being directly involved. The transition from Republic to Empire, although rushed, was believable but the references to the Death Star made me cringe everytime (as it did when the geonosian in EpII walked of with the "ultimate weapon"). It's a what, 16 year time gap between EpIV and III? During this time, they whip up a Death Star. The second one took them what, five years? And that's ignoring the fact the the EU references to it's conception and construction made a whole lot more sense Anakin's transition was fairly well done aswell, but the jump between warning the jedi and killing young padawans was a bit too much in one go. Meh, could've been worse I suppose.

Heh, Pip, I stumbled across a smaller version of the "Would you consider yourself addicted to the game?" that's from sept. 2003. 'course, the really interesting part of that article is more or less directed at Tigra, quote from that article: "Are there positive factors to playing these games? Yes there are, and I wish people focused on these more often:", followed by links to several articles where, using the Daedalus survey's as a base, he outlines positive effects. For example, this one where he posts survey re[bleep]s indicating that there's people who feel more comfortable communicating in real life after playing an MMORPG. This one, which ends with (quite contrary to Pip's originial posts regarding "social skills" in the game) "This data set demonstrates that MMOGs can, and should be, thought of as potential educational mediums for complex social skills.". Disregarding the misrepresentation that must occur even in their recent studies (For example, since participating pretty much requires you to visit gaming forums to end up with the links, and the people who visit forums more often than not tends to fall into "hardcore" or at least not casual gamers), they're not that bad a source of information. And if they do have a considerable bias, it would actually be in favour of MMOG's rather than against them. You just have to watch out so you don't use outdated statistics =P

Star Wars Galaxies. Star Wars MMOG style with space flight. Love it.