Gerard

Vista originally cost £100 in the UK? It's only been out for two days... Remember that £100 is about $300 - and there are four different versions of Vista that you can buy (and a few that you can't) that all have different prices.

My Scottish line goes back to Robert the Bruce. A King, no less.

Yeah I meant to say I can get copies of Vista from MS anyway

Thanks for all your replies (and votes). I should point out that a 360 costs £319 ($640) and I have only a little bit more than that at the moment. I should be earning a fair bit soon though, but slowly. What I'm saying is that I can only afford one of the above list now. If I bought a 360, it would be weeks or months before I would be able to even think about buying anything else. I've decided that I'm going to spend £140 ($300) on a new monitor to replace my ancient 14" CRT. Going for a nice 17" LG, which should be great. After that, I'm probably going to go for a new graphics card and then a bit more RAM. I'm trying to get an Xbox 360 from Microsoft (free) to review for my site, and to review games and accessories for. That would be the ideal scenario. If not, I might still buy one in a few months, but bear in mind I'll be able to use Chris' at uni in about 8 months...

You say you are staying Christian because that is what you were taught - does that mean you aren't going to formulate your own ideas? I hate the thought of just going along with what everybody else says, I like to think things though. Even at college all my teachers keep telling me I need to write all these essays to understand things, and it's not until I get a mediocre mark in the exam that I realise. By then I have experienced it and made my own mind up about it, and that's when I start doing something about it.

The main benefits of consoles are that they are the cheapest ways to get that kind of computing power. It would cost £1000 ($2000) to get a PC with specs anywhere close to the Xbox 360. The PS3 is quite heavily subsidized by Sony to make it remotely affordable. The PC release of GTAIV is expected to be June 2008, to follow the trends of previous games. There's nothing saying that's for certain but it's the best we've got. The specs required for a game for June 2008? No doubt 1gb of RAM being a minimum, but I wouldn't be remotely surprised if the recommended spec was 2gb. Maybe 10gb of hard disk space, maybe a 3ghz CPU minimum (or a 3200+ AMD). Kinda guessing that far into the future though. Maybe we'll see a game that has built-in multithreading capabilities?

"specific intent to kill" - I don't think he actually wanted to end his kid's life, was an outburst in a moment of frustration. What a twat though...

I have about £300 ($600) to spend on something for myself. I was considering a new phone (k800i), a PSP, some PC upgrades or an xbox 360. Most people I have spoken to say get a 360. Problem is my home TV is pretty crap, so I wouldn't experience the best gameplay. The other thing is my home PC is pretty crap too, so I have never played games as good as on the 360. It would also cost maybe £1000 to upgrade my PC to reach the specs of the 360. The PS3 comes out in a couple of months in the UK, weighing in at a couple of hundred more (if you include games). The PS3 has superior performance, but with my crap TV I doubt I'll notice. Advice needed. G.

It's just that in the bible it does refer to God's book, and that our lives are planned and God knows what is going to happen. If that is true, then surely we cannot change that, hence there being no free will. If there IS total free will, then surely that indicates a lack of control...? "I know that I am the first to argue that we are all God's creations and that our lives are planned in advance, but why would he give a life only to take it away." - a christian read this

That's the first proposal - where moderators will effectively decrease your warning level if you do some really good/helpful things. The good thing is that its not just for people who already have bad warnings, people who just do good things and end up positive would get rewards. People who just do bad will end up with punishments - just like what happens now. This was my preferred proposal. The second proposal leaves the warning system alone, and adds a second reputation bar. Elite members can vote on any post you make, and that will add to or take from your reputation. The thing about the rep system is that it does not affect your warning level, and no rewards or punishments are available for high/low rep.

Sorry - both those links are visible only to certain groups. First one is Elites and second is Staff. I'll fill you in anyway - we've been discussing changing the warning system to a -10 to +10 scale, where members are warned down by staff for bad things and rated upwards for good things - so you can earn your warning level back up to the good zone again. Another proposal was to modify the warning system to 0-10 (which has been done) and add a separate bar for rep (like karma) - where Elite members can vote other members good or bad. The technicalities of these are still being worked out, and a final decision on which of these proposals to use has not yet been made.

This has been widely discussed recently - see Warning System Changes and Warning Guidelines

"The" means god (greek). The|ism is belief in god, a|the|ism is not believing in god. Simple. Paganism is a pretty old religion (not a cult) where they worship the earth and things like that. Some see pagans as being a bit weird because they believe in spirits etc.

That's exactly how evolution has always worked for everything. One fish genetically mutates to have stronger fins. When that fish mates with another, that allele gets passed onto the next generation (which can be a lot of fish). This happens a lot, and eventually loads of fish have this one mutation. This reoccurs over millions of years, and amongst many other mutations those strong fins eventually become legs for frogs etc.

Not if the minority of monkeys still had enough monkeys to continue breeding. Sort of like how humans vary in different areas of the world, depending on what they need((like skin color)). Actually it has happened. The apes that didn't evolve into humans are... apes. They kept on evolving, but not as much - they reached the point where they are now, and they will continue to evolve. It's not a case of there being one species which ALL evolve into one other species etc - some of them have allele mutations which, when interbred, is evolution. One thing I really hate about the pro-religion argument is "we can't explain YOUR theory so mine must be true". That's ridiculous - all it means is that it still has to be explained. If someone showed you a really fast computer, and you couldn't explain the technology then obviously that MUST mean that a God exists and had a son called Jesus etc etc etc - all it means is that you don't understand it and you probably don't want to. Maybe the truth is too much to handle...

Been there done that got the ice-cream-stained t-shirt. Physically its not much to write home about (particularly to your mum), but its the sensual feeling of being in someone elses arms that is the powerful bit. That's sex for me in a nutshell.

Well instead of just saying where you don't like.. where WOULD you like to see GTA4 set?

I don't know how the universe was created. I don't know how many litres of water are in the ocean. I don't know how many rhinos there are in Africa. I don't know how to make Pepsi. That doesn't mean a God exists. Yes, of course there IS an argument to say that God does exist, but there are lots of arguments that say it doesn't. The fact that I don't know the answer to everything doesn't mean that somebody has to. What you're saying is that if there is anything you don't know, you should make up an excuse to explain why. That is how stories come about - "mummy where do babies come from?" is a prime example, except religion is a story that people actually begin to believe. For you religious people, answer me this question. EVERY religion on Earth claims to be THE correct religion with THE real god(s) that exists. The Egyptians, the Romans, the Norse gods - they were all entirely believed by their people. Over history, millions of people have given their lives for the religion they believe in. How do you know that your religion is correct?

My parents and grandparents were Christian, and I went to church with them when I was young. But as soon as I was able to formulate my own ideas about the world, the notion of some superior being and intelligent design seems laughable. I was reading an article somewhere about how kids are labelled with their parents' religion. The leaflet for a school play said "The three wise men are Sophie, a Catholic; Ameera, a Muslim; and Ashraf, a Sikh - all aged 8". This may seem innocent enough, but that eight-year-old kid hasn't got the mental capacity to formulate their own beliefs and to weigh up everything they have been taught. It would be ridiculous if you labelled them with more specific things such as "Sophie, a member of the IRA; Ameera, an Islamic Extremist..." etc. Personally I take pride in choosing my old beliefs - the fact that I have overcome the system I have been placed in. I have control over my own life and what I think. Getting to the point - as for my actual religion - I am atheist. I see no reason why there should be an old man in the sky dictating what we do. The Bible is too full of contradictions to be true - I see it as a damn good story. However, I do get the feeling that there is more to life than what we know. Perhaps forces or even something simpler, but we don't just mill around on this planet forever... As for lifestyle, I live in a (decreasingly) Christian country - I follow traditional Christian values and all that. I don't believe the UK (and US) would be anything without its Christianity - that is what has set us apart from the rest of the world.

Don't think kids are for me somehow...

Cookies don't store images... And for future reference, the quick way to clear your cache for one particular site is to press ctrl+F5 - what I referred to as a Hard Refresh above.

The logo works for me after a hard refresh, so it is definitely there. Does it work if you go directly to the image? Do all the other images on the site work? Does the logo on the main site work? Does it work if you use a different browser (eg Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera)? Which browser are you using?

I don't think anybody should be encouraging any sexuality. That isn't how it works. To put it simply - I am no different to any heterosexual male, except that the people who I am attracted to and the people I want to live with and be close to have short hair, wear trousers and have something dangling between their legs. That is honestly how I see it. It isn't a choice, nobody can think "well xyz is gay so I will be too". If I had a choice, I would be straight - simply because its a lot easier and a lot less hassle. I could always have sex with a girl, but that wouldn't make me straight. Just like trying something else doesn't make you gay - and judging other guys doesn't make you gay. However, I DO actively encourage people to find out what it is that they DO like. If someone is gay but they don't know it, it is doing them no favours to push them on the straight and narrow in the direction of females. I don't believe there is anything anybody can do about it, and he would most likely be frustrated all his life. You don't have to TRY it to find out what you like, but you need to be open to all different possibilities.

Well I much preferred the subforums arranged how they used to be - with all the general chat subforums inside the one "general discussion" category. Having every subforum out in the open is too cluttered, and makes things harder to find. Previously I could just scroll down until I saw the list of subforums inside General Discussion, just read that list and pick one. Now I have to actually read all the labels and re-scroll until I find the right one. Just a bit more awkward with no benefit. Also to point out that this is topic 9186 - we're near "10k topics posted ever".

One thing I would like the point out is your use of the words "Life Choice". I haven't sat down and thought "you know what, it might be more fun with guys". There's absolutely no choice going into it. I also don't believe in celibacy. If I may be crude, why should we refrain from a "natural" pleasure just because you don't approve of who it is with. As far as I'm concerned, two consenting adults can do what they like to each other. Something that does frustrate me is people saying they don't want to see gays kissing in the street, or "I don't mind so long as they don't try to come onto me". Since when have you ever seen straight men repeatedly coming onto random women in the street? That just doesn't happen (whilst sober anyway). To be perfectly honest, homosexual relationships are a whole lot more discreet than heterosexuals, simply because of the discrimination and abuse we would receive if we did anything in public. I'm not trying to persuade people to become gay, I'm not suggesting you should suddenly approve or encourage homosexuality, but the concerns many/most people have (theists in particular) are simply not valid. For me, I quite simply LOVE someone of the same gender as myself. That isn't anything to do with sex, and isn't anything to do with a lack of morals - its just that I love that person. I can't understand why someone would be sexually attracted to someone fat or ugly or handicapped or anything abnormal, but I appreciate and celebrate that they love each other - that's all that matters. Well I think love requires sentience (intelligence), which is what we have that animal's don't. It is not uncommon for two male animals to attempt to dry hump, but the relationship aspect isn't there. Although on some occasions, two male penguins can look after a youngster as if they were two parents - even sitting on the eggs.