Sheikah

lol, it's ok. :p I understand that many people have had wonderful upbringings from single parents. I just think that if there is a chance to relieve some financial stress for couples, perhaps so they can focus on repairing a relationship; and given that children would often prefer to have both of their family members with them, it's surely a good thing to give people a break? Although Pancake's initial thought sums up politics really. It's all about voting for whatever party does something that favours exactly you, or not voting in a party that does something against you. We're all so selfish. Screw voting in the green party. The environment can burn. :p

Sadly I don't see society changing. Although I don't think it's entirely society. Men are genetically predisposed to be more aggressive, which in many cases allows them to strike a little sense of fear into children. In many cases, mothers can do this. But again, I'm dealing with averages. On average, men are typically more aggressive, more prone to occupying a dominating role, and therefore more likely to 'rain hell' on a child that started smoking at, say, 13. Although, I feel the need to say this in every sentence now- I'm talking averages, and you may well know different. I made a statement that my comments reflect the average, not every case, particularly after factoring in those from poorer backgrounds where antisocial behaviour is rife; likely to be none of the people frequenting these boards (purely speculative, but this hardly seems like an antisocial person's hangout of choice). Lack of education also falls under the banner of upbringing; it's all interconnected. Truency and failure to complete homework is something I believe could be combated by stricter parenting, and is also more commonly performed by youths of poorer backgrounds (which are, again, more likely to have separated families). It's one big, interconnected mess. I don't see how that is the case. In poorer single-family upbringings, the father is even less likely to play an active role in any upbringing (sometimes entirely absent), but that outcome is significantly reduced in richer separated families. So, yet again, the increased absence of a second parent, on average (remember, in many cases this will not apply), can be partially attributed to an increased chance of developing an antisocial tendency. The decision to have a child for many teenage girls is because they understand that there is the potential to eventually acquire your own council house, and get financial support. While many teenage prenancies are unplanned, it's undeniable that the fact many have their children as opposed to an abortion reflects their decision that they actually want to have children and know that there is a system in place to support them. If there were so few benefits to assist raising a child, do you honestly think there would be anywhere near the number of girls having children?

Well society will always think that...because in reality it's true. I'm not trying to knock single parenting, as there is every chance that you will grow up to be a well-mannered person, but having two responsible parents is the ideal. Statistically it is true (proportions of antisocial youths from single-parent backgrounds) and I believe this is because there is evidently an absent family figure, typically the father. And I think I can realistically say, on average it would be the father to nip potential antisocial behaviour in the bud; or at least there may be an even response from both parents, meaning that a child living with both parents would be subject to additional lecturing. In fairness, what I'm saying usually applies to those from poorer backgrounds. I'm not referring to separated partners where both are considerably well off. It's sad that it's attributed to poorer families, but true. Partners may come and go, and often a partner won't be able to have anywhere near the same amount of influence on a child once they are past a certain age. Trying to lecutre a child that isn't your own when it has a father that it knows about would mean the child probably would object to your lecturing - "You're not my father", and what have you. Fathers are commonly known to play an active role in discipline and lecturing; that is why single parent (usually mother) families are more prone to antisocial behaviour (again, going by averages), to which I see no fix other than assistance in keeping families together. As you said, it's not always feasible for a family to stay together, so I'm not saying that they always should. But in circumstances where additional help could help keep a family together, it's certainly worthwhile. By wrong attitude I was referring to teenage girls with the aspiration of becoming a single parent to acquire a council house and a future without working. Which I'm sure most would agree, is not a very good attitude to have. No, but the option to have your own council house and a jobless future is certainly the basis for why they would do it. My point was that breaks for couples can relieve financial difficulties, which in turn can reduce stress in a relationship to promote couples staying together. Which can, ultimately, reduce the number of single parents where there was a possible chance of intervention to save the relationship. If you didn't love your partner but stayed with them for tax breaks, I could only imagine that the person was an idiot. Or a sadist. Obviously the tax breaks are an aid to family living, and certainly relieve some financial burden, but I could hardly imagine they'd be sufficient to continue living a life with someone you didn't love.

But as I said, if it reduces the financial burden there's a higher chance couples stay together, thus a child has a reduced chance of becoming antisocial. I think it's more important to tackle that rather than increase single parent handouts or breaks, as Labour are known to do. If anything, I think it promotes the wrong attitude and is a very easily abusible system (some teenagers see becoming a single mother with a council house as a life focus).

Well, relieving financial burdens can help at least reduce some stress, thus slightly increasing the chance of couples staying together. And it's known that at a glance, having a father figure around can help reduce the chance of children growing up to be antisocial. Now before anyone flames this, such as people from single parent backgrounds, I am not directing this towards you since you obviously have the competency to turn on a computer and type coherent sentences. I'm talking about Britain as a whole, and the average picture.

They do cheaper discounts for uni students buying Win7 link Legally, one computer per license.

Your future fridge will be able to hold all kinds of things. The only difference will be that when you cook something in a saucepan, you'll need two saucepans; one for meat, and one for the meat alternative. Or just meat alternative if she brainwashes you into becoming vegetarian. :p

In all seriousness; if you're considering breaking up with her because of her beliefs then that is actually quite callous and immature. My ex-girlfriend, the heartless woman, would constantly pressure me into becoming vegan/vegetarian and on a number of occasions threatened to dump me if I didn't. If you're in the position where you could consider breaking up with someone over their beliefs then I can only say that you don't truly love that person. If you love someone, things like that shouldn't matter.

Exactly; you don't differentiate. By their way of looking at things, they couldn't care less if they include people in this bill that wouldn't have purchased what they downloaded anyway. Why would they? They are, after all, still stealing. As long as this bill serves its primary purpose; scaremongering people into not illegally acquiring their media - rather paying for it (which as I detailed in my last post, will encompass a large number of piraters), then it's doing its job in their eyes. Whatever happens regarding the second hand market, there would still ultimately be a huge increase in actual purchases. Even if 99% of piraters who were coerced into legally acquiring media through fear of prosecution then went to buy second hand goods (which I'm not entirely sure is possible; surely demand would outweigh supply), that 1% who went to purchase new titles would still generate more profit for the people involved in the production of the media. But we all know it would be larger than 1%; people often want titles on release, which rules out second hand. What options this leaves, therefore, are pirating (ruled out in this scenario, due to fear of prosecution) or legal purchase. Figures. Well that is undoubtedly not the norm for most. Most people's collections, I would imagine, contain a lot more newly purchased titles, either by themselves or gifts from other people. It's hard to avoid receiving them as gifts anyhow.

Sorry, I still don't understand what the problem is. Why are you considering breaking up with her? If it's the fact that she's a vegetarian then I can only apologise that the nightmare that was Dynastygal has deeply scarred everybody mentally into avoiding vegan/vegetarian partners for life.

What is the issue? I kept waiting to read what the issue was in your post but never saw it.

Yes, some situations call for this more than others. Gizmo and Lost on Sky1 for instance- he's never going to subscribe to Sky just for the show, so they'll never lose money no matter what he does. This bill aims to get people who fall into every one of these categories to pay for copyright material: - People who obtain music/films/games without paying, and; - People who (perhaps just about everyone) would cease an activity when they believed arrest was a genuine possibility (perhaps having known real life persons affected) and; - People who, after feeling pressured into ceasing illegal acquirement of copyright material, still wish to have their own music collection, watch DVDs and play games. That really does cover quite a lot of people who currently pirate. People in this country who currently pirate do so because they can acquire vast amounts of games/music/video that they could not normally purchase all of. And, because they can save money or spend their money on other things that they cannot illegally acquire. That said, if these people were scaremongered into ceasing the acquirement of copyright material they would most probably still want to have their own music, watch films and play games. Thus, it's certainly likely that it would lead to an overall increase in the legal purchase of media and thereby paying the people involved in their manufacture.

Actually, that's not true. People who pirate (at least in this country) can often afford to pay for at least some of the things they obtain for free or for a much cheaper value (knockoff). I know many such individuals. So many people have an R4 or some sort of DS flashcard alternative. So it's rather the other thing you said; people don't want to. If something can cost money or be free, many people opt free. But if they were coerced, such as through fear of being disconnected or sued (perhaps due to knowing friends who had been disconnected/sued) then it's quite possible that they'd avoid downloading for fear of prosecution. And since people do actually want to listen to music at some point in their life, they may well take the risk-free option of buying it.

I'm going to sound like a DVD...but if you stole a car, you'd be 'forced' into a prison cell, and have your hotwiring/whatever tools confiscated. In this case, if you steal films, music or games, you'll have your 'thieving tool' confiscated/banned and be fined. We've always been 'forced' to cease breaking the law when found out, regarding various things. It's not really any different.

Isn't this really just common sense? Banning IPs or websites that are, basically, breaking the law? I know some people flip over 'being controlled' and all, but as much as I'd personally hate the bill I can see why they'd pass it.

Ok, so: If you come back to the game and start another playthrough, and play the exact same segment of a level as previously, with the exact same types of weapons, number of grenades, and number of NPCs saved you will still have a different outcome. I think we can agree that that is about as exciting as sugared almonds. You're likely never to have the exact same loadout, so things would vary in any game anyway. Just in the off chance that you do replay the same level, somehow with everything else constant, you would see something different. Which to be honest, still happens in a lot of games. Sometimes it's as simple as randomisation of AI actions, so you'll never really see them do the exact same thing.

Ok then, varying which weapons you decide to use, when you use grenades and whether you save backup NPCs or not affects fights down the line. :p Just like nearly every FPS there is. :S

No you didn't. You merely said that you could save/switch ammunition, grenades or NPCs to witness variances in gameplay. To be honest, I found the campaign of Halo 3 to be pretty poor, at least relative to online play. No matter how close to a human's intelligence the AI becomes, it will never be human, which is why I find the online combat to be far more variable. Same with most FPS games. Like I said, it's the same level of variation as in many games. Choosing to save weapons, ammunition or NPCs can be the case in so many titles...really. Just because one mainstream title that you've mentioned might be completely set in bricks, it doesn't mean that the same kind of variation isn't present in loads of other FPS games. I've never played a Call of Duty game, but I have played quite a number of other FPSs to make that statement. While you are absolutely correct that it was a corridor shooter, and that the level design was absolutely uninspired, it still captured the essence of fun and was an incredibly polished title. It also made the two player co-op what it is today.

Actually, he never said that: I just find it odd, since those variables exist in most games (basically deciding whether to keep hold of ammunition until later, and whether you cover NPCs earlier on so they can continue to assist you).

How on Earth is that any different to any other game? You can choose to kill enemies with any number of different techniques in many games, too. In Half Life 2 I could choose to use the gravity gun to pick up any random metallic object, each with different properties. Or I could use one of many weapons, or grenades. You can also manipulate turrets to work for you. I'm just surprised, since you always knock Final Fantasy for being linear and basically leading you down a narrow path and story. It's the same with Halo, really. Although they're two different genres, I would go as far to say that FF is less linear since there are optional characters, sidequests and alternate endings. If you can appreciate something so linear, surely you can see why people appreciate RPGs that are also linear? And why the majority of people prefer JRPGs to often less linear WRPGs?

So mean...

I'm sorry, but...Halo is seriously one of the most linear titles I have ever played. Determining whether you save ammunition or not is hardly having control over little details; no more than any other game. And I don't remember the marine NPCs ever being good for anything other than being portable ammunition. :p Doesn't stop it being a good game though. I particularly loved the campaign in Halo 1 (it's perfect 2 player Friday night material), and the multiplayer of 3 is good. If it weren't for the majority of the people playing it online, anyway.

I really dislike too much choice, too. I guess that's why I like more linear games...too much choice can be incredibly distracting. The same goes for having so much choice that you practically determine the entire story...you're usually left with a piss poor plot as a result.

Black up. :p

Thanks for all the warm wishes everyone. Today has been quite fun, went to see Shutter Island with my girlfriend and some friends, then went for a nice meal afterwards. Had to hand in a precis but that didn't take long, and right now I'm relaxing watching classic episodes of Scrubs and eating cupcakes. All is good. :p