oDDity

That's ignorant flamethrowing, and you know it. I had many friends in my teens and early twenties when I was a 'lad' and never really thought about anything, but I have deliberately distanced myself from them, because I simply have nothing in common with them these days, and their company irritates me, as does the company of my family members. The irony is that the sort of people I do have things in common with tend to be people who aren't bothered about being socially 'normal' or friendly, so they're not the sort of people who hang around together. What you mean by 'grumpy', is that I actually question things, things which have become so normal to you that you don't question them, you just do them. I don't just accept social norms and traditional responses and actions as being correct for that reason alone. I don't go through life on autopilot. The fact is that ignorant, thoughtless people are the happiest in the world, and 'grumpy' people tend to be people who think about things, because when you actually think about things, and see things for real, and don't just float though life ignoring everything you don't want to see, you realise it's all a big heap of shit. And don't talk to me about ZylonBane, he's just someone who pretends to be grumpy and sarcastic in front of noobs. Whenever a mod warns him, he rolls over and bleats like a sheep. I've been banned from many forums because I don't give a shit, and do not hide my views to become more acceptable to people.

Depends. You'd have to give me a summary of your entire outlook on life, what your views are on 100 different subjects, to see if they are the average socially programmed ones. I'm talking about your thought processing at a fundamental level here of course, not which brand of jeans or software OS you choose, these thigns are trivial and irrelevant and are the sorts of things the puerile and rebellious fret over. Of course, you are quite young I think, and we all do more socialising at your age. You don't tend to develop really deep thoughts about these things until you are older (most people never develop them, or just ignore them in favour of social norms)

That's partly true actually. I don't hate (some) people, but I certainly don't like to waste time on them or have any interest in them. I'd be quite happy living ion a desert island by myself. You guys used to love hanging around IRC for hours talking shit to each other and enjoying the company, but it's not something I could ever do or enjoy. This is a common trait of people who are strongly individual. I generally do not behave in the same way, or even think in the same way as others. I despise the very idea of behaving in the same socially programmed way as the masses. You may see this as a bad thing, but to me, being one of the sheep is a much worse fate. Most people get to the point where they not only cease to question what they're thinking and doing, but WHY they're thinking and doing it.

What fucking use is empathy to someone with Alzheimer's. Some new cure I haven't heard of? IF you really cared, you'd volunteer to actually help people who have it, rather than making posts on forums saying how terrible it is. There isn't a town in the country where you couldn't go and volunteer right now to help someone. The truth is, you don't give a shit, at least not in any way that might impinge on your life or cause you the slightest inconvenience. SO don't give me this crap about how caring and empathetic you are. Selfish AND hypocrites, and you wonder why it irritates me so much.

No, I genuinely hate this shit. So, are we going to make posts about the other 500,000 people who have Alzheimer's in the UK alone, or is it just this guy, because he happens to be famous? Pathetic. 'Oh noes, he won't be able to write any more books for me to read or posts on Thief newsgroups' Selfish bastards. It's all about how it relates to and affects YOU, it's not about him at all. He has real friends to do this sort of thing for him, he doesn't need, or know, about you. I dislike the way everyone reacts and behaves in the same socially hypnotised way, like performing monkeys, and of course, you assume you are right because there are many of you, so anyone else who doesn't is a weirdo, even if they are logically correct. I recommend you guys actually have a serious think about your feelings rather than just letting them run riot.

Anyone who feels sad about the death or illness of someone they don't know and never will know. It's ridiculous. You don't have to have a psychology degree to know that the sort of grief surrounding mortality is entirely selfish, even the death of a close family member. It's 100 times worse when it's someone you don't even know.

Don't be so bloody selfish.

Well there's your answer then, it's just that those people are stupid, period, its nothing to do with the OS they are using. If they can't even use a noob-friendly OS like Windows, they'd be even more fucked if they tried Linux.

Lol, you just installed XP you twat, so that makes you more of an idiot than the people who installed vista, because XP is an even worse MS product than Vista. If you are an XP user, there's nothing stupid about downloading vista and installing it for free. Everything to gain and nothing to lose. The idiots are the ones sticking to XP because of all the scare stories they've read about Vista, none of which are true.

* the time - 30 minute install? * the HD space - 20 gigs? * a vista license - nope * the patience - nope (see above) * the skills - oh yeah, the leet skillz required to put a bootable vista CD in your drive and restart your computer.

Lol, 'time and patience' to install vista. Download the bloody thing and stick it on another HD, It hardly requires time or patience. I thought it was common practice for developers to have several OSes to test on, like web designers having several different browsers to test on. Vista is soon going to be the most widely used OS.

It's not so much about 'action', it's more that too many fights are mismatched, because 'named' guys are going in against career boxers they know they will beat, or one guy isn't really trying, he's there for the money. It's actually quite rare in pro boxing to see two equally matched opponants really giving it their all. In that respect, I prefer to watch amateur boxing.

Nah, I'd never pay for it (boxing or sex) 9 out of any 10 boxing matches are actually quite boring. Only the occasional one really takes off.

Greebo, wouldn't be easier for you just to install a partition with vista on it?

That doesn't make any difference. Vista 64 runs any 32 bit app anyway. You only need a 64 bit version if you wanted it to be able to use more than 2 gig of ram.

It doesn't break any applications, at least Dark Radiant is the first I've known to crash on it, and I use a plethora of graphics apps. The only problem would be for people with really old hardware, who probably couldn't get Vista drivers. People have been getting Vista with their new hardware for almost a year, so a year from now people will have been getting Vista on new computers for 2 years, plus the smaller number of people who upgraded, or were sold upgrades when getting repairs etc That's a significant number of people. also you need to factor in that a lot of people have been, and will be upgrading their hardware anyway, to take advantage of the dual and quad core.

Current XP users who choose to stick with Windows (the vast majority of them), will be upgrading to Vista within the next year. People tend to wait a year or 18 months when a new OS comes out, but they all get there eventually, and there's no doubt that Vista is superior to XP, so there's no reason not to do it, unless you plan on running an ancient machine forever.

Considering how many people will be using Vista in a year's time, it's something that is quite important. 7 year old XP already has cobwebs hanging off it as it is, so there's no point developing it for that OS.

Yeah, it crashes on me as well when I try to draw something on the grid. vista ultimate x64 quad core 4gb 8800gtx All latest drivers etc

I haven't installed the latest version though. I'll update it now.

Surely the voting refers to finished mods though.

I don't know why I bother, you are the wost debater on these forums, no better than a child at times. This isn't about any grand anthropological conclusion, I'm simply backing up my initial statement, whch was challenged, that the urge to have kids is not instinctual, does not occur in animals, and therefore cannot be instinctual in humans. The conclusion is that it's an intellectual process, caused by a mix societal brainwashing and tradition, the realisation that new generations are a necessity, and as an inevitable consequence of the the fact that sex is so desirable. Yes, nature makes sex desirable to make us do it so evolution can happen, but it does not give us an innate desire TO HAVE KIDS, only TO HAVE SEX. A desire to have kids, and weighing up all the pros and cons that go with it, is too complex a thoght process to have evolved, it's something that only human brains can think of.

Animals don't have wants, only needs. You're deliberately misunderstanding just to be obtuse. You always do this. It's the most pathetic way of trying to win an argument. The reason sex gives a reward is so they'll do it. They don't want offspring, just sex. For animals, having babies has no reward at all. They just get in the way, become a safety hazard, mean the animal has to find even more food than usual, and generally make existence difficult. Animals cannot see the greater good for their species. It's only for humans that having kids can be rewarding, because we have developed an easy safe existence, we have free time and excess supplies, and we can look into the future to see the rewards we can have by using them for various practical purposes I mentioned before. This is all intellectual decision-making though, it's nothing to do with instinct. We have an instinct to have sex like all other species, and like all other species, we have a complete lack of instinct to have kids. Nothing kills your sex life more than getting married and having kids, so you'll know all about that. There are monks living in remote Tibetan monasteries who get more action that a guy who's been married for 10 years and has 3 kids.

Try reading what has been written before making a reply, otherwise you look foolish. They do not have an urge to have babies, they have an urge to have sex. It is NOT the same thing, since they have no way of knowing that sex causes babies, they are unconnected everts to them. Only humans know that sex causes babies, and now some of the less intelligent ones confuse the two things, as can be seen in this thread...

A 33 year old nympo is exactly what you need as a teenage boy. A perfect match. I had to make do with girls who might give you a handjob if you begged for 3 weeks, it was your birthday, and said you had a terminal illness and might not make it to the next one. To get an actual shag would have required at least imminent nuclear holocaust.