Pookiablo

A quick question to anyone and anyone who banks with Halifax in particular! I've been a bit of numpty - I made a big payment for a trip I'm taking in July with my bank card that put me into my overdraft - usually I'm quite careful when it comes to using it but I thought, I'm getting paid on Friday and I'll be getting a good deal if I book it now! Of course, now it might end up costing me more because I went to meet some friends last night, withdrew some money for food and drink, was told that my available balance for the day was £40, assuming that trip money had been taken into account, took out £30 only to realise this morning that 2 transactions for a prescription and some over-the-counter drugs haven't been taken from my account yet, so I'm set to go past my overdraft limit. I really need to check my account a bit more often it would seem! Anyways, will I get a set charge (the usual £30 bullcrap) or something else? Their website seems to suggest that if I go into an "unarranged overdraft" that I end up paying a fiver a day until it's all settle. If it is a set charge, will the two individual transactions I mentioned above mean that I get stung twice on charges? EDIT: Having just spoken to the Halifax lady, apparently there aren't any pending transactions on my account, even though its not showing my prescription and stuff...very bizarre - here's to hoping that there is in fact no charge!

I'm simply expressing my view on the issue - it winds me up that people can be so ridiculous about something so simple. People are so quick to blame anything/anyone other than themselves. The user decides whether or not their information is present on the site, not Facebook - they merely provide them with the platform in which to do it. Did Facebook hold a gun to someone's head and say they must share all their information or die? No. Furthermore, although the site may use the information for monetary gain by gearing ads towards the user (and potentially by doing other things too, I dunno what), can you really blame it? No, it's providing a freaking huge networking site to the user for free. And it's not like it's being completely irresponsible with it - it doesn't, for (a bad taste) example, take take a teenage girl's phone number and directly and knowingly give it to a rapist. Your presence on social networking sites is defined purely by what information you choose to share. If you can't share info, then don't join Facebook - it's an incredibly logical thing, hence my (rude) frustration when people complain about something that is essentially their own fault. Of course, perhaps one important exception to this is children as they may not necessarily understand the potential risks and so on to begin with. But that's a different discussion.

As Moogle neatly sums up, I wasn't knocking someone else's viewpoints and rather it was their actions I was having a pop at.

It's not harsh it's just common sense.

This is why I always take the time to read one of Daft's posts - not only is the guy as smart as fuck but he's also one of the very few people in discussions such as these who actually takes the time to think about what he's saying/believing etc. unlike the person who started this thread and is wasting internet storage space with their mindless drivel in the process. As many folk have already said, it's a useful tool, it provides you with privacy settings that are more than adequate, and if you really still don't like it, just don't fucking use it. It's that simple. I find it ironic that people worry about sharing their information yet use a medium that is designed with that very purpose at its core. Retards.

The original N64 sequel was so much better than the first 64 one though! Don't get me wrong, the first was pretty good, but the second had so much good stuff in it. Excellent 2.5D levels that were pretty damn tough towards the end and a coop mode that also added something to the gameplay. I'd much rather they did the sequel as a sidescroller, with the awesome bot fights and more fleshed out town areas as they were a tad limited in MN starring Goemon 2!

I don't think you read my post - I'm not asking to make tax universally fair - you have to have set certain boundaries because if you tried to cater to every single individual person a) it'd be impossible and b) probably more costly. But like I said, I'm not asking for fairness. And there is a point to complaining, because like I said, it's a democratic system that I pay into and I have the right to say if I think something's a stupid idea. I imagine that yes, the numbers probably add up and there is indeed a positive outcome to it (pretty obvious or else they wouldn't want to do it) - but I'm not evening questioning that. I just don't think people should be given money to encourage them to quit smoking - it's just so pathetic. The fact that people are willing to smoke, knowing full well that there's a good chance that it'll kill them, thus clearly having very little value for their life, yet the minute money is mentioned, suddenly they're willing to stop. It's ludicrous that people need some a materialistic incentive in order to do so - and what does it teach people? Stopping smoking is good not because you become healthier and potentially extend the length of your life and that you should be happy enough with that, but because you can make a quick buck. It just goes to show how utterly pathetic society has become today.

I'm not being short-sighted. I'm all for it. I'm making fun of the fact that many people, for stupid reasons, will have already made up their mind against it.

Exams are over, work was hell, my life has slightly less meaning. But it's goooood.

I think the issue for me is that if someone can't quit without receiving a monetary incentive then their whole character is called into question. In response to the taxpayer argument (seeing as my original post was based in it) - the last time I checked I lived in a democratic society. I don't care how insignificant my taxes may be in terms of how much they actually contribute - I still pay into a system and thus I have every right to complain about things that I feel the system shouldn't be doing - much like how you folk are entitled to the opposite view. If you came to my shop and I sold you something that you wanted because it did X but in fact it did Y and you didn't want or like Y you'd come back to me and complain that it wasn't fit for purpose and demand what you wanted/paid for. In brief, the tax payer argument isn't idiotic, it makes perfectly good sense (unless you don't pay taxes).

True I was and I apologise. But it's a point that has been made umpteen times by the uneducated masses on IGN (not that it justifies it). I just think graphics are something where imagination is not the limit and the technology is. Gameplay is and can be limited by technology, as technology since its advanced progression from 1995/6 onwards, we've seen gameplay altered in many ways. But being inventive is certainly more central.

This may sound like me being a fanboy retaliating to another but you truly are a pretty swell guy. That's like saying DS games should only get a 0.5/10 in graphics because they can in no way compare to the likes of Uncharted on a technically superior console. Sure, Mario Galaxy isn't the 1920x1080 HDR lighting experience that you wish it to be (or judge everything else by because you seem to think that graphics are the most overriding aspect in video games) but in terms of art style, and what they've done with the system resources, it kicks the shit out of a lot of things, even some titles on 360 or PS3 where graphics could have been MUCH better. An interesting point - although I suppose the issues is deciding what rating a Wii game must achieve in order for it to be comparable to another console (if at all possible). The reviews do certainly tend to say its the best game for Wii, and not overall. But there are many areas such as gameplay and sound where you are able to directly compare across consoles whereas graphically speaking, technology is the most significant factor rather than creativity. I would like to say that the 10/10 and 9/10 are directly comparable but is it truly the case in today's gaming climate?

Argos have actually started taking trade-ins, although they're not selling them (yet). It doesn't seem to make sense that they'd offer pre-owned games in store, just doesn't really fit with the whole nature of the shop. They do have side ventures though, pretty sure they have some sort of deal or part-ownership with a games/dvd website or something.

I really can't see any self-appointed "hardcore" gamer bringing themselves to play a future COD with the Move controller, lol! Eat pink Christmas tree bauble, asshole!

The music really is quite incredible - who'd have thought 20 years ago that games would have soundtracks so unbelievably epic!

I personally think that with spoilers, the only thing lost usually is the story in games that require it to be this in depth experience. However, with news stories on the original SMG for example, I doubt that anyone was truly fully prepared for the awesomeness that it was - SMG2 I hope, will be in the same boat as the first in that regard.

I can't wait for this game - I'm gonna play through the original in order to semi-stem my over the top excitement for the sequel :D:D

I do love fanboys giving me a humourous start to the day!

Holy shit! I seriously wasn't expecting that!

No, I really bet they don't.

Or they could just not sell them in the first place? Then they wouldn't have to bother with any of this and I don't have to watch friends I care about slowly kill themselves because they can't sort their own problems out.

Ooooh, good thread. I cry myself to sleep at night wishing for.... A sequel to Body Harvest (N64) - that game despite all its faults rocked serious ass! A new entry in the Goemon series - if they were to take a leaf out of Super Mario Bros. Wii's book and essentially make a newer version of Mystical Ninja 2 Starring Goemon (N64) The 2D level structure, with the 3D towns and RPG/quest elements was awesome. And the original did have a secret 4 player mode! I'm sure there's more but I can't think of any others at the moment!

Oh man, that is funkin' awesome!

Outrageous. What an utter waste of money this would be. They got themselves into it, they should get themselves out of it - why should I have to pay my taxes to help someone who can't muster up the willpower to quit smoking? Fucking ridiculous. If they can't quit on their own accord then they quite simply deserve to die. I would say that treatment shouldn't be available but in some instances with the older generation I imagine the health concerns weren't so prominent when they were younger. Neverthelss, smokers, have chosen that option in life and they're aware of the consequences now. (that and I can see too much potential abuse of the system occurring).

Congrats Flink, that's excellent news! You're a very lucky son of a gun!