Balfron

I'm looking for some speakers. They need to be quite compact and quite small, but loud enough to fill quite a big room. I want them to be a reasonably sound quality too, but they don't need to be great. I have an iPod, but I don't need a dock. I'm looking at JBL on stage III but it seems just a little expensive. i was hoping to pay £50 max. Any ideas?

For it not to be rape the girl has to give her "active consent". So if she is asleep that is rape. If you intoxicate her without her knowing then that is rape. If she gets drunk and says yes then it probably isn't rape. However, in the future it may well become rape. Also, in court you have to prove rape beyond all reasonable doubt. In criminal cases in Scotland, you have to corroborate evidence (which means you have to provide two pieces of evidence). It isn't enough to prove intercourse - you have to prove it happened without consent. This is partly why less than 5% of rapes end in convictions in Scotland. It isn't much better in England. Whatever the situation in law though, you shouldn't be doing it!

Quote of the day?

Your window is see through at he top and the start bar is grey rather than black ? Make sure the window you are viewing is maximised. (not just taking up the full screen but maximised using the button at the top right of the window)

Hi all! Long time no see! I'm asking a favour: I want to download a program/configure Windows Vista to password protect a portable hard drive. Ideally I would still like to be able to access the hard drive from a different computer so I can take it to a friend's etc. The security doesn't have to be excellent. A simple password protection will do. The important thing is for me to be able to access it quickly, but for others it should be more difficult! It should be free! Any ideas? Thanks! Oh I posted this in the wrong thread... It was meant to go in tech talk. Too many Firefox tabs!

The South is in general richer than the North. It's a combination of a lot of things. There is a lot of wealth in the South, and the North has got poorer since mining and other heavy industries moved abroad. If you don't think a North South divide exists check an election map, and see where the Conservatives have their seats in Westminster. Include Scotland as the North.

It's interesting that I actually posted my original post on another forum too, and the discussion came up with that point over there as well. I would disagree. I don't think motive is that important in relation to racism. A racist policy is one which discriminates between races, regardless of whether that was it's original purpose or not. Skipping over the fact that ethnicity is not only to do with skin colour... Racism was mentioned in the thread title. As I said in my original post "racism is discrimination on the grounds of a person's... ethnic background". Oh and just to set the record straight, I'm not accusing anyone of being stark raving mad, a member of the KKK, a 'monster' or anything like that!

Racism isn't just based on colour of skin.

Your view is common, but is it not racist to favour people of one race over another, as you want to do here?

I'm very pleased, having just made my second ever post to my blog! http://peterdouglasblog.blogspot.com/ Is it racist to be anti-immigration? An article in the Telegraph by Jeff Randall the other day argues the case that “It’s not racist to worry about immigrationâ€. Net migration to the UK was 235,000 in the year to June 2005. As Britain’s population breaks through 60 million, a public debate is underway as to whether immigration is a good thing or not. Randall argues the debate is being stifled by accusations of racism against the anti-immigration lobby, and that it is not racist to be against immigration. While there may be valid arguments and important considerations against immigration, the basic premise of the article - that it is not racist to be against immigration - is I think wrong. Racism is discrimination on the grounds of a person’s race, colour, ethnic background or cultural beliefs. Therefore, to say that British people are entitled to free education, healthcare or unemployment benefits but foreign people are not is in fact racist. I’m not saying that the entire anti-immigration lobby are Nazis, or that BNP voters should be locked up in jail, but the view that British people are entitled to things foreign people are not entitled to is racist. The rhetoric of the Telegraph article is typical of anti-immigration language and is worrying. Saying “we are already over-crowdedâ€, “they are changing our society†and asking if this is “what we want for our grandchildren?†hints at a ‘Britain for the British’ attitude. I appreciate that journalists do need to pander to their readers somewhat, (perhaps that is the advantage of blogging), but what makes Randall think his article is only being read by ‘British’ people? Again, the suggestion that only British people are entitled to services made in Britain is, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, racist. Randall, the author of the Telegraph article, worries that with immigration “Energy consumption would soar.†Energy consumption would not actually soar. People consume energy wherever they live. What Randall means is energy consumption in Britain would rise. He seems to think that Britain is more important than countries people are migrating from. Again, this is racism. The argument seems especially silly considering the global environmental consequences of pollution. The only way energy consumption would rise is if people consume more energy in Britain than they would in their country of birth. Surely Randall is not suggesting we (and by ‘we’ I mean those of us able to afford time on a computer) must force people to have a lower standard of living than we do? National boundaries do not actually exist. There isn’t really a squiggly yellow line separating France and Belgium, or USA and Canada. People born on one side of the imaginary line are entitled to exactly the same rights as people born on the other side, and to deny people born on the other side their rights is racist and wrong. Being Christian, I think a good thing to do in any situation is to ask what Jesus would do. Non-Christians can do this too. Can you really imagine Jesus refusing to heal someone based on where he was born or the colour of his skin? That’s what the anti-immigration lobby wants to do. Questions to ask * Is it ok to be racist? * Does having more immigrants in a country decrease the home population’s standard of living? * Can we demand British people lower their standard of living by having an increased number of immigrants in the country? * At what stage does an immigrant become a native? * Can a first generation immigrant ever perfectly integrate?

Briefcases seem more suited to having a couple of documents on the go, rather than large amounts of files. It is a solution though - thank you!

I just bought a portable hard drive. I want to automatically back up my My Documents (not including my music, pictures, videos) folder to it every time I plug it in/switch my laptop on. I can already do this by having a program (I use BestSync) run at startup on my laptop, but ideally I would only have the program running when the hard drive is plugged in, and when it is actually syncing. This will save me having a program running when it isn't needed. I think the best way to do this would be to autorun a sync program from the hard drive. How do I do that? What is the best program to use? Will the program shut itself down after it is syncing? I know you guys will come up with an answer to this

I buy from iTunes and Amazon normally, but if you go to HMV on the highstreet, many CDs will cost £16. Maybe I made a mistake though saying it is new releases that cost that, maybe it is actually older albums that cost that.

Four record companies have a monopoly on the music industry. I don't need record companies to tell me what to listen to or not. The Brit Awards is a prime example of the music industry hyping itself up. How many awards did the Darkness win that year? 3, 4? And playing the same song twice on the same show? Arctic Monkeys, Franz Ferdinand, Gwen Stefani... a different band gets hyped up every couple of months, and every 4 months or so one gets hyped up twice as much as usual, while great bands go by virtually unnoticed. Boring clones are hyped again and again, and bands that were interesting are forced not to do anything different because it is too risky, and they become boring themselves. U2 put it best when they said they wouldn't have been around if they started out in the 90s (their second album was atrocious). Record companies do charge way too much for music. Paying £16 for a latest release on the high street is a joke for a start... PS bands like the Arcade Fire, who got famous over the internet pretty much, are the way forward. Not my most structured post in the world but I think it just about gets my point across!

I don't know if it is true or not - it is much disputed right now - but some people claim that Scotland actually gives money to the UK overall. The money from North Sea oil apparently goes straight to Westminster. Anyway the reason Scotland gets more money per head is because 1) scotland is poorer (poorer people in England get more money too) 2) scotland is more spread out (build a bridge in london and 5 million people use it. Build a bridge in the Highlands and 5k people use it, but they still need it and so it still must be built)

Can you please get rid of the adverts for emoticons that shout "say something" etc at you when you hover over them? I find them intrusive and they detract from my enjoyment of the site. By being (needlessly) intrusive they also encourage people to download adblocker programs, which hurts both your site and the internet as a whole. Thanks!

Are you joking? The air hockey game is pretty much impossible for me to control!

Originally Posted by Fields "Nine times out of ten they turn out to be chavs though." The thing is they aren't chavs are they, they're people.

“Really gameplay is more important than graphics.â€- Dante They simply prefer that the resources involved in creating a game have a more even balance between gameplay and graphics. – King Mushroom But Dante and Mushroom we shouldn’t have to choose. I think people have got into this mindset because we have to choose either graphics or the Wiimote (by buying either PS3/360 or Wii). We could have had it both ways if Nintendo had invested a little more. “I'm getting the idea that you don't play games for the fun, and that's a sad thing.†– DCK I don’t know what gives you that idea. I’m at uni right now and don’t have any console with me, but I occasionally play Sim City 4 and my heart warms when the Sun rises (you get day/night) and my city comes to life. It looks beautiful, and gives me a great sense of reward. Of course I play games for fun, when I get the chance. Why else would I play them? “The Wii is seliing, a lot. Since release it has almost halved the sales of the 360, a machine which has been out a lot longer, at a prophit. The differentiation, this 'blue ocean' policy, is working. Sorry mate, you're wrong.†- Lazyboy Lazyboy who are you? A director of Nintendo? A shareholder? I’m a simple person wanting to play games – I don’t care about “prophitâ€s, so long as they have enough money to come and make games again, which Nintendo do. And finally Pit Jr said “im tired of the graphics debate as well. Especially since the Wii has so many other weaknesses to gripe about†Thank you for clicking on a thread specifically to say you don’t want to click on the thread. The mind boggles!

The Wii’s flagship launch title is The Legend of Zelda – a GameCube game. As Sony promise sights never before seen in this world, Nintendo have delivered a game capable of being played on a system launched six years ago. The idea is that graphics no longer matter, and that fun is the most important element of video games. This logic has become a sort of mantra for Nintendo fanboys, who now jump on each other for even daring to suggest that the Wii could have sported graphics that are more advanced. However it wasn’t that long ago that Nintendo themselves were pushing graphics for all they were worth. Indeed the name itself of the Nintendo 64 was a non-too-subtle notice of the power of the console, one that for a while, if I remember correctly, was marketed by Nintendo as “The most powerful games system in the world”. I submit that graphics do matter, and that Nintendo were wrong to ‘sacrifice’ them for better gameplay. Firstly, good graphics matter simply because they are new and shiny. Like iPods, new mobiles, flat screen TVs and Windows Vista, people like having new, technologically advanced stuff. For whatever reason, it makes us feel good. When I first played the GameCube I was in awe at the beauty of the Death Star in Star Wars: Rebel Alliance and the face of Zinedine Zidane in FIFA 2002: Road to World Cup. I came away pleased with my (rather expensive) purchase, happy in the knowledge that I had bought some of the most advanced technology available. I didn’t get quite the same impression when I first played the Wii. The majestic scene of Link riding his horse across a stone bridge was ruined by a black jagged line appearing at a join in the screen, scarring an already fuzzy and simple scene. And this remember was a cutscene, and not even actual gameplay. So with the Gamecube we got cutting edge technology, and with the Wii we get pretty much the same technology, but it’s no longer cutting edge. For some reason it’s just not quite the same. The second problem I have with Nintendo’s ‘fun over graphics’ policy is that the two ideas don’t have to be in conflict with each other. Just as the church, in deciding that the human mind is great, felt the need to make the human body out to be dirty, Nintendo seem to be under the mistaken impression that a fun game either cannot have or does not need good graphics. Part of this idea, I think, comes from Nintendo wanting to make the console a family friendly device. For this to happen, the system needs to be cheap. Now we get what we pay for of course, and so Nintendo’s Wii is cheap and so not all that powerful. But the thing is we don’t always get what we pay for; sometimes we get more than that. Both Microsoft and Sony subsidise their consoles considerably, hoping to rely either on other arms of their companies, or on making money from games and other bits and pieces to do with the console later down the line. Nintendo, despite recently predicting a 28% rise in profits to £700million, for some reason do not do this. Even without any subsidy from Nintendo, the Wii only costs about £30 less than the Xbox 360. I for one would happily pay an extra £30 to get games as beautiful as Gears of War for the Wii. In short then, Nintendo has made two mistakes here: firstly thinking that it is necessary to sacrifice graphics for fun, and secondly that they cannot take some of the cost themselves and make the technology more advanced and keep the price affordable.

why do those pics say "only for gamecube" on the corner. I suppose it's a different game for the Wii?

"I also feel that people , dependent on correct education , should be allowed to make their own decisions about whether they use or not." ThePigMarcher can we take it from that then that you think Heroin, speed and cocaine should also be illegal? But only to people who have, say, got at least a B in A levels? Also what about the children of people who smoke, who aren't looked after. And why should we have to pay for people who abuse their bodies to be fixed, on the NHS?

I find that if I've been studying a lot recently then I go out, I don't have all that much to say because I've been working. Why don't you try and do different things. The more you do and the more you talk, the more you have to talk about (whether it's what people said to you or what you did).

The way I see it, all the batteries are rabbits climbing up a cliff. Duracell is the only rabbit that makes it to the top!

"not buy bamboo" Did you know there are 20 types of bamboo in China but giant pandas will only eat 2 of them? There is no nutritional reason for this... they just seem to be picky! Also mother pandas will hold babies in their paws for a long time after they are born, rarely putting them down. This leaves them very exposed! If a panda has twins or triplets she will either kill or abandon all of them except one. Pandas are only on heat at certain times, and often fail to mate because they can't find another panda when they are on heat. Pandas have been shown 'panda porn' at a zoo to teach them to mate, and it seems to be working! That's all I know about pandas:p