room2593

Love is a slippery, wet thing that is hard to get a grip on. Just when you think that you've got someone nailed down, they do something you don't expect.So don't think that you can know for certain if someone loves you or not. Love is ephemeral and variable, based on the mood of the person, their recent experiences, their memories, their expectations, their desires, likes, dislikes, needs, and chemical balances. The "tests" that anwii suggested are . . . ineffectual at best, and disastrous at worst. If you fart on tuesday, they may shrug it off and think "it's okay, I'm down with that." But if you fart on friday, they may freak out and think "I need to get out of this relationship because they're such a pig." It all depends. For example, you may reeeeeeeeeally love the music of a certain band, but it doesn't mean that you ONLY listen to their music. You listen to it sometimes, get tired, and listen to something else. People are the same way with love. You may be in love madly and passionately one night and the next morning you become blase. It's normal.If I had to sum up (and I do) keep in mind that people (and by connection, emotions) aren't constant. You can't KNOW if someone loves you or not.And as a final point, I don't know if anwii was serious or not (I hope not), but you should never, ever test love. If you do, you might find out that the answer wasn't what you wanted.

So, as I am sure that all of you have heard, the Spike Video Game Awards have occurred and transpired and all that jazz. At these prestigious awards, they give out an award for the game of the year, based on impact and immersion and replayability and quality and visual pizazz and all that jazz. Now, I usually don't give a rabbit's fart about these kinds of things, but I just have to speak out against their choice. They gave Game of the Year to Uncharted 2: Among Thieves. Seriously? SERIOUSLY? This is the game that won? Obviously the video isn't gameplay, I'm just making a point. Back me up, internet masses! Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2! Where are the accolades? Where are the pomp and processionals? I quote from The Daily News: Can we all just say HOLY CRAP? How are they going to give the Game of the Year to Uncharted 2 - a game that has made little to no impact, and that people are soon to stop playing - instead of to MW2? Seriously? Does anybody understand the reason behind the madness? I propose that we yell (seemingly) uselessly into the internet void in order to release our discontent. I'll go first. "GRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA WHY DID AMONG THIEVES WIN THIS INANE CONTEST?"

Ja, sorry 'bout that doublejump error. I will fix that if I post this anywhere else.As far as class on class matchups, here are some quick guidelines:Medic: This is the guy you should be killing. I don't care if he's surrounded by heavies and pyros, just jump in there and get off as many shots as you can. You should have six until run out (unless you're using the FaN . . . right?) A medic goes down in about 2 1/2 shots if you're not careful and 2 if you are.Seriously, your main objective is to kill medics and capture points. ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME? KILL THIS GUY!Sniper: Two well-aimed shots and his body sprawls on the floor. Feel good about yourself: you just saved all the heavies on your team.Engineer: Again, 2 1/2. Engineers are usually turtled behind their guns. Don't kill them unless they're actually playing engi the way it's meant to be played (agressively). In which case, it's pretty easy. They're like a scout that doesn't have speed.Scout: Aim better. Jump more. Strafe faster. Use the scattergun so that you don't run out of ammo. And when he's closing on you, your pistol is invaluable. Other than that, just cross your fingers and hope. Scout on scout is hard.Demo/Soldier: These are two very different classes, but the tactics for taking them down are exactly the same. They can kill you in a shot if you're not lucky, so you have to ambush them. Every time. Do not charge a soldier head-on, that's stupidity. I suppose that you could stay at a distance and use your pistol, but it's not as good a plan as just leaving and coming back a different way. Valve has been nice to scouts by providing so many alternate avenues of attack. Just leave and come back.In order to kill a demo/soldier, ambush, close with them before you start firing, empty your clip as fast as you can, and if they don't die, leave to fight another day. I've killed plenty of soldiers, but you have to do it like this.Pyro: This one's scary. One touch of his flames and you're less than half health (more if you're using the sandman). The only effective way to deal with pyros is with your pistol. You have superior speed, so you can lead that pyro back to your team mates pretty easily. Unless you happen to come up on him from behind, in which case, close with him and shoot when you're sure of your shot. Take him down and then run on.Heavy: This is madness. A heavy that's already spun up can take a scout before the scout can doublejump. Just don't do it.Unless you come up from behind, in which case, get as close as you can and start circle-strafing in the same direction as his gun. Try to stay against his back. It takes about 4 or 5 shotgun shells or 4 bat hits to take a heavy, so there's no "better" way to do it. Just hope that you can deal damage fast enough that he can't catch you.Though, that phrase just shows the entire point of scout: to deal damage quickly enough to kill the enemy before they know you're there.Though, I guess that is just the point of the whole game, really. Unless you're a turtling engi, but whatever. I'll save my beef with them for another time.And on an additional side note:Yeah, I don't like the unlockables anywhere except medic (for obvious reasons, they're just replacements [except for kritzkrieg, which I still like]) axetinguisher, jarate, and the cloak-and-dagger.

Yeah, I doubt that any of those cars are going to break the world's land speed record. It was set by a rocket-propelled car on the Bonneville salt flats in America. That car broke the sound barrier, so I doubt that any gasoline/diesel powered vehicle is going to even come close. Wikipedia says that the current land speed record is . So, yeah. There's no way in tarnation that the gas powered vehicle shown above could even come close. What was that, in the 800 km/h range? That's woefully sad. All this is not counteracted by the fact that I would give up my firstborn child to own either of those cars. I mean, to go that fast? Serious speed, man.

Well, there is global warming. Especially since your next statement says that "the earth is going into a warm time" bla bla bla. You should just point out that there is also global cooling. That's the point. Also, all of my innocent hate mongering aside, we really don't have enough data to come to any conclusions yet. Give humanity another two hundred years and THEN I'll believe the trend in the data. Until that day, I think I'll hold off my final judgment, thank you very much. Also, you're totally right. Forums are hotbeds of dissent and al gore hatred.

It's nice to know that science backs itself up.I mean, seriously? There have been climate fluctuations for years - I doubt that humans will have too much impact on the global climate (more than say: the ocean, which produces at least 90 percent of the co2 that the earth makes every year).There was an ice age (of course) but there was also a hot age (which many people may not have heard about) which was recorded in Britain not to long after the ice age ended. So, yes. The world goes through temperature fluctuations. Get over it.Thank you Al Gore.

Mininova is dead.Is this indicative of a larger trend? I think that the government is starting to crack down on the internet, which is just wrong and gross. I hate that they're making it harder for us to steal! How dare they?Okay, so the entire controversy over this is stupid. There is no reason that this should be an issue. Why should we discuss this?Because we're idiots.Let's cry because we can't steal anymore.

It's nice to know about a movie ahead of time.I was thinking of getting Yes Man. I think I will now. The last thing I need to know is this: is the acting good? Because crappy acting can ruin an otherwise amazing movie. I'm really into acting, and I love it.

No, sorry. I don't think it's any of that.I think I just have horrible luck. I might try that wet finger trick though. (ha ha) anyway.I'm just gonna rma it to Coolmax. I think I just killed it, so hopefully they'll change it.

1st: Cheers for taking this so well. Internet flame wars can get so horrid.2nd: You're crackin' me up with your utter disregard. I know you're not gonna read this, but I have to let you know that I find that hilarious. 3rd: I'm glad that you were able to resist any temptation. It's hard for men to think with their brain and not with their wang. The fact that you dumped her immediately means that you're commendable. Don't feel bad about any subsequent actions you've made, since you've proven yourself with that. As for anwiii: You've got me laughin', man. Seriously, that is some really broken internet logic that you think you can change a guy's mind from halfway across the world just by calling him a sicko and haranguing him again and again. Perhaps I should just extricate myself from this thread, but it's just too beautiful to NOT post on. It's amazingly yes. It shows the ideas behind the internet: an infinite number of monkeys yelling loudly into the ether. Amazing.

Anytime you release a massive product, it's incredibly difficult to work out all the bugs before release, especially in software. Video games have had this problem for years. Games, especially PC versions, have had patches to fix bugs. Why can't operating systems? I run OSx, and it's not bug-less. It merely has fewer bugs and far less publicity. For example, today I installed an update to my OS. It's not as major as a service pack, but it's definitely the same idea. Every OS has these problems. Linux doesn't have updates, it just releases a new distribution. OSx has updates too. So your concern with Windows is a bit unfair. Don't be mad at them. They try their best.

I'm gonna go on the record and say that we should separate people's actions from their identities. If kids make bad decisions, it doesn't mean that they are bad kids doomed to be criminals. It means that the decision was bad, not the kid. Alternatively, if a business man makes a good decision, it doesn't mean he's any better than his peers. So to be judging homosexuals is wrong for starters. As for my opinion on homosexuality, I don't agree with it. However, I don't want the government to try to regulate my actions, so I'm not going to suggest that it regulate theirs. Basically, my dislike for homosexuality is based on my conservative christian upbringing. Beyond that, I would have to say that the other part of my dislike is just my natural revulsion at the thought of being with another man. Eawauaobalarrgh. No thanks. My last point: Homosexuality can't be right. Bodies aren't made like that - the equipment doesn't match up. So my point is that this statement is wrong, fundamentally. Drug addiction is wrong, even if your momma was a crack ho and you were born addicted. Society doesn't smile on crack babies. So anything that's unnatural for your body can't be GOOD. Also: they still haven't reached a consensus on whether people choose to be homosexual or have it predetermined. So . . .

Okay, It's plugged directly into the wall (which is my personal favorite for fault of failure [no surge strip, stupid stupid stupid]).There's nothing blocking any fans.Would the heatsink actually cause it to shut off immediately? I mean, nothing even spins up.Bad fans really kill the system? I've never had a fan die, so . . .Update: I tried turning it on a couple more times and nothing happened. Fans wouldn't even spin once around anymore. I unplugged all the extraneous drives (I have three extra hard drives) and then tried it again. The fan started spinning around once again.I think that my power supply is for sure dead.

All of this can be explained away by the modern idea of Romanticism. People enjoy hearing stories about the "anti-hero," a hero who rebels against the norm in favor of his or her own moral code. Indiana Jones is a perfect example: he's trying to save artifacts, but he carries a bullwhip and pistol. He kills people, for crying out loud. So, there's your modern answer. Ned Kelly is a hero.In this culture, we worship the anti-hero as an icon to look up to. For as long as they are a part of our collective mindset, this question will be asked. Sorry, there won't be a consensus on whether or not Ned Kelly is a good guy.However, if you were to go back before modernism and the romantic ideals, Ned would be unequivocally a villain. He disrupts peace and the social order in order to further his own means and methods. He would be seen as selfish and dangerous.Romanticism changed that, of course.So the question of whether he is a victim, villain, or hero is purely subjective. Any definition that can change so radically over time is not a definition of fact, but rather of opinion. Your question is only valid on an individual basis and any answer can be refuted by anyone. What are you trying to accomplish, exactly?

This is the second time I've had a power supply die within the last few months. I'm getting really, really annoyed.My computer is my life. I do anything and everything on it and with it. When it dies, I go ballistic.This morning, I moved my computer to a different spot, and when I plugged in my powersupply and turned on the unit, nothing really happened. I heard a weird sound like a fan or a hard drive spinning up. It happened once every three seconds or something. Anyway, the computer wouldn't turn on, so I did a hard reboot. The whole farking thing just wouldn't turn on after that. Like, the fans would spin once, and then stop spinning.Are there any ideas, or is my power supply for reals dead?

I like all my English language classes. Right now I'm in Expository writing and it's the bomb diggedy. I'm learning how to write papers like nobody's business. Pretty soon I will be all-powerful and I shall rule the world through my convincing arguments!But seriously, it's fun to learn how to articulate yourself clearly. I've got a penchant for winning arguments, and learning about "warrants" or unanswered assumptions really helped me to be able to tear somebody apart.I also enjoyed learning about what people expected from writing - it helps to be able to write the kinds of things that people want to read. I learned, for example, that perfect grammar will drive people away more often than it makes them excited about the article. Sometimes, a conversational tone helps you to make your point.Ugh, but the class is hard.Anyway, those are the reasons I love Expository Writing. I know you don't really care, because you're on the internet and nobody on the internet is literate (or so it seems). So . . .

If you're still taking suggestions, I like for "Doodlebug." It's short, sweet and to the point. Unless you don't want to do that.Ooh, then you could go with a bug-theme for your website. Hee hee.Bugs aren't cute anymore, are they? What was that, the 1900s when they were in vogue? Who knows.

I find it funny that the RIAA can't shut them down yet. I'm sure that someday the government will control the internet like China does and then Rapidshare will be history. Still, they can't do it now.In the past (like, Shakespeare's day) plagiarism was just a fact of life. Even Shakespeare stole at least half of his play's ideas from somewhere else. For example: Troilus and Cresaida was originally a story by Chaucer. Stealing ideas was acceptable as long as you put your own flair onto the project.Now days, we have even less concern over copyrights. We SAY that we're worried about it, but if the government doesn't do anything to stop the kind of copyright infringement that goes on on rapidshare, do they really care? I'd wager a bet that they don't. As long as it doesn't hurt the government's revenue streams, they really don't give a dangblasted hodown one way or the other.

It's hard to know for sure if that was the only evidence that they had - perhaps she assumed that the facebook photos were the clinching evidence. Maybe the company had other causes, I don't know.It comes down to this, for me: decide if you want the internet to see what you post. If you're ashamed of it or scared of it getting out, don't put it online.BUT in this case, the stuff she put online was utterly harmless. Whether you use Orkut or Myspace or Facebook, pictures of your personal life should not bone you at work. They should be separate, different, utterly apart. I don't like it when bosses force their employees to friend them so that they can ensure that the employee is acting correctly and "upholding company values."Oh, joy.

My friend recently went to Rio. When I told him that the olympics were moving to Rio de Janerio, he looked at me funny. Apparently most of the city is in abject poverty. And there aren't any locations for the games to take place. If Brazil is planning on hosting the games in Rio, they're in a pickle.Is it even possible to start from scratch and build an olympic-worthy city in the few years they have?I don't think it is.

@serverphOkay, cool. It's just . . . I have very political friends and I get all reared up and goin' . . .It's a good thing that you're not American. I'd rather be a Canadian, personally, but that's just me.And agreed on the peace prize being premature for anyone. It's too big. Nobody has ever made complete peace. It's just Obama is less applicable than most people.And I'm not willing to stand behind George as a good example of a president. Nor Obama. The last truly good president we had was Ford, and only because he pardoned Nixon. The last one before that was Lincoln.Let's clarify: Stalin vs. Fidel Castro. They're both Communist dictators, so I'm no longer comparing apples and crab apples. My Chinese isn't what it should be.Stalin killed twenty million people. Castro did jack squat in the face of that, maybe 100 thousand. Nothing. So with an intensely negative connotation, I'm saying that just because Castro isn't as bad as Stalin doesn't mean he's good like Obama not having done anything negative doesn't make him better than those who have screwed up. Just because it's a relief to have a change from constant negative doesn't mean he's positive.Just because -2 is more than -5 doesn't mean -2 is a good amount of money to have.We have to take Obama on his own merits, without looking at the past or the future. And I'd say he's one of the do-nothing presidents. Like Taylor, or Garfield. People about whom you never ever hear not in a million years.

First: Even obama supporters will admit that this award was premature. Give the man time to actually do something.Second: No one cares about george anymore. It's been a year, just let dead dogs lie. The fact that you have to try to recall the failures of the recent president is just sad. It's like saying that Yao Ming isn't as bad as Stalin because he hasn't killed as many people. Great. Obama hasn't done anything POORLY because he hasn't flipping done anything. I realize that he has to tread lightly to show people that black people can be presidents too. It's normal. Whatever. But I'd rather that you prove your capability through action, not through inaction. Just because you didn't screw up doesn't mean you did well. We have the classic Calvin Coolidge problem: Calvin didn't do anything wrong because he didn't do anything. I don't agree with Obama's policies, but I wish he would do SOMETHING. He has a majority in both houses, so he could push through just about anything he wants. But he's stagnated by public opinion. We elected him, we obviously support him. So just go do something polarizing. Go down in history as the guy who pulled out of the middle east. Go down in history as the guy who started socialism in america. Don't go down in history as " . . . wait, okay, other than being black what did he do?" Third: Your quote about the peace prize as "a call to action" is priceless. By its very definition, it is a reward for action, not a call to action. It would be ludicrous if the oscar committee awarded an Oscar to a crappy actor to ask them to do better in the future. Last: Your entire post stank of Obama worship. That's either good or bad, you decide. However, you should just know that you don't look like an impartial party, so nobody will take you seriously.

Okay, so I've played a great deal of scoutage lately and I think I'm fairly well qualified to write about it. Everybody writes spy guides anyway, so I'm going to mix up the mold. Scout is one of the hardest classes to play correctly. The people I've watched either suck at it or never accomplish anything. I hope to at least affect a few people and help them realize the power of the scout.Weapons:tertiary:The main question is stun vs. double jump. It should, however, be an easy question. My double jump has saved me so many times, and I don't think I have ever actually stunned anyone, no matter how hard I try. The point is: use the normal bat. You lose nothing by doing so.secondary:Use the pistol. Bonk is only good for extremely limited applications, and even after that fact, you're crippled by losing the scout's only bonus: speed. And you lose your invaluable pistol, so no bonk.primary:This is truly a hard question. Which do you use - the FaN or the normal scattergun? I believe it depends on your style of play. If you like being in the main action and helping out the heavies and soldiers and pyros, use the FaN because it will cripple the opposition's movement speed. If you like playing as the scout is meant to be played, go with the normal scattergun. I'll explain.The FaN is good against pyros and other scouts. Against everything else, it is extremely situational. Plus, if you're trying to kill something by ambush, why would you want it flying away from you? Answer: you don't. The FaN can keep back pyros and stop opposing scouts dead in their tracks. That's the only thing for which it is good.The normal scattergun is good for taking out more enemies in a faster time. With the FaN you're crippled by having only two shots per clip. This means that you can kill most normal classes from extreme close range. Then, however, you have to reload and the other dudes will tear you a new hole. With the scattergun you have six shots and fast reload times so that you can take out massive numbers of dudes in a very short amount of time. I've taken four guys in a row with the scattergun (something I never was able to do with the FaN.) I've even taken heavies. Six shots to the face is a lot to overcome.So I guess what I'm saying is that if you want to be really truly useful to your team, use the scattergun.Priorities:1. cap points (why else would valve have given a 2x cap bonus - and it's the only way to win [something people forget])2. flank (nothing is as satisfying as taking out a medic and knowing that you're absolutely crippling the opposing team.)3. cap the flag (this is lowest because an uberpush is usually more effective, especially when coupled with a spy)People you should kill:MedicsI've also played as medic, and I can assure you that scouts (really good ones) are as effective at killing medics as spies (even really good ones). Medics are constantly on the lookout for spies and are always ducking and weaving back and forth. Scouts make up for that by being fast enough to anticipate medic movement. I played on a server where a scout was dominating me four times over because my allies were too stupid to kill him and the needle gun just isn't that effective.I've also played as medic against scouts that always tried to kill the heavy I was healing (and not me). I can assure you, it was effective 0% of the time. Kill medics, please.ScoutsA scout can be very effective against scouts. In a one on one battle, I usually can come out on top (because I use the pistol). In two on one battles with other scouts, it can be extremely situational, though I'll usually kill one of them.The point I'm making is that scouts flank. If you can keep them from flanking, do so.SnipersThey stand veery still, and they are effective versus your team. You can close on them faster than any other class, so just take them out.All other medium classesIt doesn't matter much after that. Everything has more health than you do. If you try and kill a demoman, you're just as likely to die as if you try to kill an engineer. (pretty much)Heavies/sentriesOnly take heavies/sentries if you desperately have to. I have seen scouts go charging in against heavies who are being healed. It doesn't work. The medic can dish health almost as quickly as you can dish out damage.Strategies:Use your pistol as you're closing with enemiesonce you're there, pull out your scattergun, fire a few shots, peel off and retreat if they're not dead. rinse and repeat.The scout's main advantage is speed. Don't get caught in the idea that a scout can one-on-one anybody. They can't. Just deal some damage and hope that by the time you wheel back around, they'll still be there for you to kill.If on the off chance you get caught in a massive firefight, it's best to have the option selected that your gun will reload whenever there are shells missing. This keeps you topped off and you can break the reload animation at any time to fire. The option is in multiplayer options>advanced.To summarize:Cap points, for heaven's sake.Kill medics (you are their greatest fear)Flank. Don't think you have enough health to attack head-on.

Amen. Seriously, where do people get off suggesting that Obama is any better than previous presidents? He hasn't made a hard decision yet! We can't tell what kind of president he is. When he's done something as hard as lead the United States through a civil war or pardon Nixon in order to preserve peace at the expense of his popularity, then come back and tell me that he's a good president. Not until. The exit polls were ridiculous too. 70% of people who voted for Obama did so because they "identified with him." 65% of people who voted for McCain did so because they "agreed with his policies." There are other examples. Basically, Obama has taken advantage of his race in order to win. It's sad. It's like racism for a good cause. Ugh.

What did he get it for, you ask? That's kind of vague. They say that it's not the same as giving the peace prize to Gorbachev when the big G was trying to take down the wall. Really, it's not? Then what's with this? They're giving it to him because he's america's first black president. He wasn't even one of the front runners. Bono has more reason to get this thing than he does. All of his peace efforts are merely part of his job - nothing extraordinary. They're giving it to him because he represents "peace" and "hope" and "change." Not because of his personal achievements. If I were Obama, I'd feel like crap, honestly. They give me an award for being unusual? Gee, thanks.