McPhee

Are we talking real-time video editing here? Or just splicing videos together, adding title screens etc.? If it's the latter then it should just about be possible. If you're looking at real-time editing using something like Sony Vegas then you've got not a hope in hell of getting a laptop that'll do that for less than £800, you'd likely be looking at a grand. Real time editing pretty much needs a Quad Core CPU and they are pretty new (and expensive) to the mobile arena. You also need a good video card (mobile 9600GT at the very least). For £400 you could pick up a desktop that'll do the job though.

You guys do realise that the RRP of most 360 titles is £49.99, right? It's only a £5 price hike. I'm not saying i like it, but it's hardly the end of the world.

That's how i took it. Are you sure he realised he was a terrorist though? Maybe he just saw a lone Asian and thought to himself "Here we go! Game time!"? It is Glasgow afterall! :p

What point? The one that says you're trolling the thread with one sentence "arguments" that are usually inane, baseless and grown out of a complete lack of knowledge of the war, the tactics, the history of the region and the regional and global politics surrounding it? If we're staying on topic i really can't see how anyone can justifiably think the armed forces shouldn't have this equipment. The current stuff is obviously pretty useless against bombs which basically means either A) We send the equipment or B) These soldiers keep dying in greater and greater numbers as the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Laskar-e-Taiba and various other Pakistani militant groups realise just how easy it is to kill British soldiers using this tactic. To make matters worse and greatly more embarrasing we're not the only nation fighting this war. Having our soldiers blown up in pimped out Land Rovers while the French (as an example) sit happily inside their armoured APCs is an embarrasment, we're showing the world that we clearly don't value the lives of our soldiers as much as they do. And Jay, while i can't speak for others I personally haven't bothered to argue with you over your points because to do so would involve me writing an essay. Your posts make it very clear that you have little understanding of the situation outside of the basic awareness that most of the country shares. I'm avoiding facts again here simply because it's too much time and effort. To argue against this point, for example; I'd have to go in to detail about what is known about the NATO and UIF strategies to secure the country and what steps are being taken to ensure minimal bloodshed. For this to make sense i'd also need to go in to Afghanistan's history and the history of some of the surrounding countries including political and military alliances of past and present. That alone would likely take me well in excess of an hour. Then one of two things would happen. Either you'd go away and find out facts to counter my argument or you'd fight back with an inane comment like "But... war is BAAAAAD!". Basically i see it winding up like this; As for my opinion on your point, i do think the war will end. I don't think it will mean peace for Afghanistan though. While the UIF are all buddies right now it's very much a case of "my enemy's enemy is my friend". There'll be a civil war within 5 years of us pulling out. Who knows though, after that they might finally get some stability. Either way, at least they won't be under the rule of a facist regime like the Taliban any more.

If America didn't go in to Afghanistan then the same al-Qaeda infrastructure that launched the 9/11 attacks would still be in place. Can anyone honestly say that they'd have gone "right, 9/11 is done, lots of Americans are dead, lets go home!"? Are you that deluded? There'd have been more attacks. Who knows, maybe they had plans that would even overshadow the events of 9/11? As for our part in the war, who's to say that these attacks would only take place on US soil? Even before these wars we were already al-Qaeda's public enemy #2. The war in Afghanistan effectively protected us, the people of Great Britain. It wasn't just about US vengance or the protection of US liberties, it is about out liberties too. If we didn't join the war i'd feel ashamed to be part of this nation, our government would have let our allies down and they would have let us down.

While i agree with you there isn't a great deal that can be done with that one. The government needs to support those who can't work and by doing so it's very difficult to stop people from exploiting the system. The only way it's going to change is if these people are made to feel incredibly guilty about doing it. I'd love to see the PM come on TV and blame people like that for the death of every soldier in Afghanistan. The difference is the people in the army choose to be there. They choose to risk life and limb for this country. They could have had a different (and much safer) future but they made the decision to represent this country and it's interests by signing on to the armed forces. If the government isn't doing everything in it's power to ensure the safety of the men and women that make up our armed forces then that is disgraceful. Does a few hundred/thousand/whatever civillians dying every day in Africa somehow make the unnecessary deaths of our troops less tragic? Or are you simply hiding behind these people so you don't have to face the FACT that people are dying in Afghanistan to protect your sorry, ungrateful ass? You say that you're sick of seeing this stuff all over the news? Well sorry, but i'm pretty sure there's a few hundred men on the front lines in Afghanistan that are "sick" of seeing their buddies body parts flying through the sky in a shower of blood, guts and shrapnel. At least be greatful for their sacrifice if you can't find it in yourself to be disguisted that the sacrifice has to be made in the first place.

I'd expect the reason why the army is short on funds is because there isn't any money to give them. Cutting costs elsewhere would cause more damage to the country than allowing ~20 soldiers a year to die in Afghanistan. It's a horrid thing to admit, but very likely to be true. The lives of the soldiers dying over there are far cheaper than the equipment that would be required to reduce those casualties.

We've got two plasma screens in our house. Both are made by Panasonic, a 2005 model and a 2008 one. I've never had any problems with image burn on either. I did get image retention on the 2005 model once but that was after leaving a TV show on pause, nipping up to my room to get something, falling asleep, getting up the next morning, heading off to work and stopping off at the pub for a few on the way back. Easily 20 hours of the same image displayed on screen. I completely freaked out when i realised and was pretty much in panic because the image was still on screen. A few hours of TV though an it faded, the image was retained but it didn't burn in. Other than that little incident i've had no issues. I wouldn't say i only game for a few hours at a time either. I've completed both Devil May Cry 4 and CoD:WaW in a single sitting each on the newer TV without any problems from it. Personally i'd go for a Plasma. The blacks tend to be deeper resulting in more accurate colours and they don't suffer from the ghosting you get on cheaper LCD sets. LCDs do tend to have brighter, move vibrant colours and a sharper image but i can't say i see either as an advantage. That said i have heard mixed reports about Samsung plasma screens. Their technology isn't up to the same standard as Panasonic or Pioneer (or rather just Panasonic now as Pio left the TV game). The TVs generally aren't as good and you do still hear the occasional horror story about burn-in on Samsung/LG/Hitatchi models. If you can't grab a good deal on a Panasonic then it might be better to get the Samsung LCD set. This. Was about to say the same thing.

Pop the Windows disk in, reboot and follow the on-screen instructions. There should be an option to do a "repair install".

I can't say i really see the point to be honest. It sounds like the sort of thing i'd dual boot with Windows (like i did with Sabayon/Ubuntu Linux when i had Vista) to give me a cleaner, quicker to boot OS for simple web tasks. To that end i'd rather have seen the Netbook edition of Android pre-installed on motherboards (ala Asus MagicGate) instead, it'd fill the same tasks and be a darn site faster. On the little info available i'm pretty skeptical. With Windows incompatable with Tegra, Snapdragon and ARM processors i can see it being successfull in the netbook market, but i'm not quite sure what advantages it offers this market over Android. I can't see it ever becoming an OS X/Windows competitor either, the initial release to the netbook market will define it and the apps made for it.

The last thread we had on this was locked, that's why there "isn't one". As for the upscaling debate i'm really not sure where any of you are going with it? Wii games are designed to be played on TVs at a resolution of 640x480. Try playing it on a TV with a resolution of 1920x1080 and you'll get an image that's been (rather crudely) upscaled by the TV. This emulator should yield better results because it's able to apply Anti-Aliasing, Anti-Filtering and Bloom Lighting to smooth over the jaggies created by the upscaling process. The result is that while Wii games will likely look better on a small screen 480p CRT the emulator (and with it any prospective HD-enabled Wii) will do a better job of displaying Wii games on high defenition sets (sets that are always going to highlight the flaws in the original game anyway). As most people aren't going to keep a "Wii TV" along with their shiny new HDTV it does make sense to move down this sort of direction, it's making the most of a bad situation. Anyone care to argue that i'm wrong? Or can i lock this thread now?

If you've not bought yet then get this; http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?BB-786V2G Along with this; http://www.ebuyer.com/product/168023 Two different stores ain't ideal, but you can't beat those prices

If he bought him a jacket from a charity shop there's no reason this guy has to know it's from a charity shop. He doesn't know for sure that the jacket that Flink had was his jacket yet, could be interesting to see if he admits that it isn't his or if he would just take it...

I'd say the toughest games i've ever played are Ikaruga, Alien vs Predator, Battletoads, Alien Hominid and Metal Slug 3. Every one is nails! Of those AvP is probably the toughest.

The mistake you made is agreeing to get the jacket back to him in the first place. You should have left it to the person who took the jacket. If you agreed to this guy that you'd get this jacket back to him then i can kinda see how it's your fault that he hasn't got it, you didn't make sure that he got it back. If you left it in the care of other people after agreeing to get it back to him then that is your problem really. I wouldn't say you're the one owe him the money back though, the responsibility for it going missing is with the people you left it with.

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/blu-ray-software-general-discussion/81007-new-tier-system-blu-ray.html Worth a look. Pretty good list so far, though it needs updating. I buy Blu-Rays because the colours are so many times better than on DVD. Black, for example actually is black (or pretty close to it) rather than the grey found on DVDs. Every colour is just a lot more accurate and vibrant than on DVD. The resolution is talked about a lot but i find it secondary.

O2 are determined to push the UK to US style mobile phone pricing. Tis all about the profit, the US market and the iPhone in the UK are both proof that people will pay through the nose for their mobile contracts if they feel they have to. Moving the market towards 24-month contracts and reducing handsets subsidies is vastly boosting the profit that the networks are making. The next step is to get rid (or control) companies like The Carphone Warehouse and Phones4U (there's already a rumor of a P4U buyout by the networks) to reduce competition. At the rate things are going next year could be teh suck for buying phone contracts, especially for O2 customers. Then again if Vodafone succeed in buying T-Mobile then it'll be them dictating the direction the phone market moves in rather than O2, they'll have a 45% share of the UK market.

Um... yeah. It's not exactly a new feature, the first phone i had that could manage this was an N91 about 6 years ago now. The reason why it hasn't replaced broadband is because of cost. Most mobile networks limit your downloads over mobile internet to 512MB/month. They're tolerant about it, i've used a couple of GB before without any trouble. If you used it as your sole internet connection there is a good chance you'd run up enough GBs of downloads to get slapped with a ruddy huge bill.

Will be me tomorrow, can't wait! Really can't think of many things better than seeing Blur in Hyde Park on my birthday with the sun shining! (I know the weather forecast says it's gonna piss it down but it's wrong. It's wrong until the moment i get caught in a thunder storm, until then it's gonna be the hottest day of the year tomorrow! )

The Nokia 5800 has hit that price point a few times. Same goes for the E71, Both cracking phones, best ones Nokia has put out since the N95. Might be worth looking at 2nd hand though, you'd be suprised what you can pick up sub-£200 on AVForums or What Mobile. Seen mint condition Blackberry Storms, Xperia X1s, Touch HDs and T-Mobile G1s all go at bargain prices!

How did you lot manage to pick the one weekend this month that i'm not in London? Curse yooos!

One day, not in my plans for a long time though! If it happens, it happens i guess. I did get someone pregnant once but she freaked out, tried to commit suicide and ended up aborting the baby instead. Oh what a fun week that was, nearly lost my job through it all as well. True story. The psycho bitch actually thinks there's a chance of us getting back together too, a year on and she still hasn't given up despite the fact i'm seeing someone else. Rez, any chance on some advice on restraining orders? :p

Sony do a good range of sound kit. My Dad got a HT-SF1300 for Christmas (now discontiued) and it's pretty good for what it is. Other than that it's either all-in-one kits (probably worth getting one with Blu-Ray as you're looking at buying a player anyway) or seperates (AV Amp + Speakers + BD Player). Going with seperates can be expensive and there's a bit more set up required than in the all in one kits but the results are generally better.

For the DVD player and Gamecube your best bet is to hook them up by component, Scart will look terrible. Then it's a case of tweaking sharpness until you're happy (but bare in mind it'll probably need turning back up for Blu-Ray and other HD stuff).

It'd make sense to go Panasonic seeing as you're already using a Panny TV, you can control both devices through one remote and the TV will switch itself on when you put a disk in the Blu-Ray player. As for models i'm not really sure what the more expensive ones buy you. I know that when i bought mine the only significant difference between the BD35 and BD55 was a few extra connections on the 55 (stuff for connecting to older amps, not really usefull if your kit uses HDMI). Picture quality was supposedly the same on both and on all but the most expensive players.