It definitely doesnt blow. I have been spending huge amounts of time in WvW and that shit gets as brutal as fuck. I have attacks as an engineer that out of thirty people attacking will be the one move that launches the dude being attacked ten feet through the air and then they will be unable to get up, they will probably be down long enough that they are fucked, they can fight back while they are on the ground, if they take someone out they will revive, or they can wait for someone to revive em. But, probably what is going to happen is after I blast them through the fucking air and they are unable to get up someone is gonna fucking stake their ass and they will have to tele back to their starting zone. Dodging is a godsend to a game like this.

WoW would have made you spend months getting to the required level but since it auto 80s everyone you could level from level one all the way to level 80 just by playing WvW. I havent played a game in a long time that is as fun as this game. But, its not all roses... the WvW definitely has problems but I am also not the sort to get bogged down by all the fucking details or to spend every waking hour playing it; I guess I am its targeted audience. Yeah have fun playing as a fucking panda....

That almost must be something to do with your browser, perhaps an add-in, or something you've turned off that the code requires.

What happens when you try it on a different workstation, with a bog standard IE or Firefox or Safari or whatever is standard there?

I have given you the basic template though, if you really want to embed vimeo clips you can use that and just change the clip_id parameter.
In reply to this comment by ant:
Yes, the same one. VS will approve the code (with a different ID and not a dupe), but after it changes it for the final submission, then it gets rejected to say code is invalid.

Not sure if you're trolling or not, but if you'd read the links I posted it's clearly spelled out--with research-backed evidence--how and why Finland's system is one of the best in the world. You show me good empirical research that less government involvement produces the amazing gains not just in academic performance but overall societal well-being (i.e. happiness) that Finland has shown in the past decade and maybe we'll have something to discuss. Otherwise, I'll take well-conducted research over politically-biased speculation any day of the week.
>> ^renatojj:



You guys might want to consider that the right path is not Finland, but going the other direction, with less government involvement in education. This is about putting education and its institutions in a more competitive environment, governments will always bog them down, making it more about teachers or whatever else, turning them into the massive faceless institutions that are like prisons like @dag points out. Instead, we should put on schools the pressure to compete in quality and price for those who'd normally be paying for education, the students or their parents.
Mintbbb points out that bullying does exist in Finland, even though they have a lot less of it. A finnish friend of mine once told me he never saw a fist fight in his entire life, ever, not even as a kid. However, just because they had the decency of adopting anti-bullying measures, doesn't mean letting government educate and make choices for our kids is any better, don't let that fool you. Bullying has been going on for so long it's become an institution in itself, public schools in America and elsewhere have little incentive of stopping or even acknowledging it as a problem.

>> ^renatojj:

You guys might want to consider that the right path is not Finland, but going the other direction, with less government involvement in education. This is about putting education and its institutions in a more competitive environment, governments will always bog them down, making it more about teachers or whatever else, turning them into the massive faceless institutions that are like prisons like @dag points out. Instead, we should put on schools the pressure to compete in quality and price for those who'd normally be paying for education, the students or their parents.
Mintbbb points out that bullying does exist in Finland, even though they have a lot less of it. A finnish friend of mine once told me he never saw a fist fight in his entire life, ever, not even as a kid. However, just because they had the decency of adopting anti-bullying measures, doesn't mean letting government educate and make choices for our kids is any better, don't let that fool you. Bullying has been going on for so long it's become an institution in itself, public schools in America and elsewhere have little incentive of stopping or even acknowledging it as a problem.


For-pay schools exist. Gasp! If you want to send your kids to one, you can do it. Bullying still exists in them.

You guys might want to consider that the right path is not Finland, but going the other direction, with less government involvement in education. This is about putting education and its institutions in a more competitive environment, governments will always bog them down, making it more about teachers or whatever else, turning them into the massive faceless institutions that are like prisons like @dag points out. Instead, we should put on schools the pressure to compete in quality and price for those who'd normally be paying for education, the students or their parents.

Mintbbb points out that bullying does exist in Finland, even though they have a lot less of it. A finnish friend of mine once told me he never saw a fist fight in his entire life, ever, not even as a kid. However, just because they had the decency of adopting anti-bullying measures, doesn't mean letting government educate and make choices for our kids is any better, don't let that fool you. Bullying has been going on for so long it's become an institution in itself, public schools in America and elsewhere have little incentive of stopping or even acknowledging it as a problem.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Definitely some good points raised here. We're open to ideas to reward the quality of a video. What we always get bogged down in is the notion that "quality" is a subjective factor in the eye of the beholder. For the sake of furthering the discussion let's not go down that rabbit warren and we'll assume that quality is a measurable outcome.

Now, bring on the ideas!

Tolkein to me is the Stanley Kubrik of fiction books - to fans he's untouchable; to the few of us who aren't into it, he's long-winded and self-indulgent. People are going to throw things at me for saying this, but he could have written a much better story in two books than three

No one is going to throw things at you. Reading is a very individual experience. Not everyone is going to or has to like the same stuff any more than they have to like the same clothes or food. Your tastes in literature are just different. Nothing wrong with that.

I personally felt that every Harry Potter book (after Azkaban) could be cut in half and it would have made a far better reading experience. But to some people that would be blasphemy. I got sick of JK "The Exposition" Rowling pulling the Scooby-Doo revelation of the "Old Man Jenkins du jour" mystery at the end of every book. She took chapters and chapters to do it - sometimes hundreds of pages - and she's so addicted to exposition that she invented entire plot devices just so she could do more of them (Pensieve, I'm lookin' at you). But to some readers that was good stuff. Me - I skimmed right past it. If Tolkien's descriptions of terrain, histories, and such bog you down then just skim 'em.

Sometimes I feel bad that some folks don't get the same soul-rush I get from LOTR's language though. But there it is. You either appreciate that aspect of a text or you don't. To some people JRR's perfect craftsmanship, literary power, and brightness of theme/setting have no value - just as Rowling's redundant expositions mean nothing to me.

When I walked out of my first showing of the Fellowship of the Ring movie, I was pretty jazzed. I felt the movie (while having flaws) still managed to capture the essence of the story which was loyalty, honor, and sacrifice in the face of temptation and darkness. I heard some gal talking to her friend walking out of the movie saying how boring it was, how stupid parts were, and how the whole thing dragged out way longer than it should. Two different people with totally different opinions about the same thing. One person saw value, depth, and goodness. The other was just bored. Same logic applies to the book.

I'm liking that they put a song into the trailer and fit it to that. The scenery and armor/costuming looks amazing as I ever could have dreamed.

Things I wish were so:
- I really wish that Guillermo Del Toro would have directed this instead of Peter Jackson. I really think he could have done a better job than PJ.
- Mr. Tolkien himself gave up on trying to make a version of The Hobbit a LOTR prequel, so I hope they don't get bogged down in that too much and try to stay true to the original story.

This is a case of one group of alarmists calling out another group of alarmists. The big difference is the cost of being wrong.

If the conservative view is correct and we're riding a natural heat wave that will even itself out, then we're wasting money trying to stop it and we could all be a little more prosperous if we weren't bogged down by recycling and bike lanes.

If the scientists a correct and our consumption is putting us on a path of accelerating climate change on a scale never before seen in the history of our planet, then life on this planet will end. I would tend to err on the side of caution for this one.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The warming alarmists have gone from doctoring data to preachin' propaganda though a children's cartoon? That's about right.

What you're doing is showing your faithiesm

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.

francis collins human genome project

The difference between everything you mentioned and God as a concept is that the idea of God has explanatory power. The question of whether the Universe had intelligent causation is a valid question, and from what we know (that space time energy and matter had a finite beginning), the cause of the Universe would be immaterial, spaceless, timeless and transcendent. These perfectly describe attributes of an all powerful God. We also have evidence of design in the Universe and the fine tuning of physical laws. So, to rule God out as an explanation is simply ignorant. Between evolution and special creation, you have virtually exausted the possibilities of how life came to exist.



>> ^Drachen_Jager:
>> ^Morganth:
No, this just illustrates that you do not understand. If there is a god who created the universe, why then would he have to be wholly provable from inside of it? You're actually having to make a number of assumptions about the nature of god to make your claim.
If there is a creator god, we would not relate to him in the way that Hamlet relates to a character in another act of the play, but rather in the way that Hamlet relates to Shakespeare. He could not find him in the highest tower or prove that Shakespeare exists in the lab. Really, the only way Hamlet could ever know that Shakespeare exists is if Shakespeare writes something about himself into the play.
Seriously dude? Hamlet? That's not a person. He's a character in a play, your analogy is utterly useless other than to confuse the gullible.
I make no assumptions about the nature of God, you are the one who makes assumptions about the nature of God. You HAVE to make assumptions about the nature of God to make your argument work. I'm saying there is no God, so there are no necessary assumptions about his nature, since he doesn't HAVE a nature.
There is an infinitum of proposals you cannot prove to be true or false. Unicorns, wizards and dragons ruled the earth 2000 years ago. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created God. All the matching pairs of socks that go missing are stolen by sock-goblins. The proposal that God exists is, therefore only one in an infinity of unprovable junk. Unless you are prepared to believe that UFOs abduct people and mutilate cows and every other stupid theory people throw out there, you have no reason to believe the Universe was created by some kind of sentient being. One is just as likely as the other. If we believed in unprovable junk we'd never get anything done, the scientists would all be bogged down in nonsense and we wouldn't have iPods and personal computers. We'd still be banging rocks together.

>> ^Morganth:

No, this just illustrates that you do not understand. If there is a god who created the universe, why then would he have to be wholly provable from inside of it? You're actually having to make a number of assumptions about the nature of god to make your claim.
If there is a creator god, we would not relate to him in the way that Hamlet relates to a character in another act of the play, but rather in the way that Hamlet relates to Shakespeare. He could not find him in the highest tower or prove that Shakespeare exists in the lab. Really, the only way Hamlet could ever know that Shakespeare exists is if Shakespeare writes something about himself into the play.

Seriously dude? Hamlet? That's not a person. He's a character in a play, your analogy is utterly useless other than to confuse the gullible.

I make no assumptions about the nature of God, you are the one who makes assumptions about the nature of God. You HAVE to make assumptions about the nature of God to make your argument work. I'm saying there is no God, so there are no necessary assumptions about his nature, since he doesn't HAVE a nature.

There is an infinitum of proposals you cannot prove to be true or false. Unicorns, wizards and dragons ruled the earth 2000 years ago. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created God. All the matching pairs of socks that go missing are stolen by sock-goblins. The proposal that God exists is, therefore only one in an infinity of unprovable junk. Unless you are prepared to believe that UFOs abduct people and mutilate cows and every other stupid theory people throw out there, you have no reason to believe the Universe was created by some kind of sentient being. One is just as likely as the other. If we believed in unprovable junk we'd never get anything done, the scientists would all be bogged down in nonsense and we wouldn't have iPods and personal computers. We'd still be banging rocks together.

>> ^brycewi19:

The more pressing question is, how big of sandwiches does this guy eat?


Lol, huh? It was a bog standard sandwich bag. You could fit about 4 pieces of bread on top of each other in it, as in 2 sandwiches, and a bit at the top to fold over for some sort of seal. I've got hundreds, and fit 2 sandwiches in just nice.

At the end of the line: The Bog of Eternal Stench.

yeah your to far gone no saving you If I was you I would end your life now , you are forbidden from enjoying something I hate so much!

The screen size thing dosen't matter if you have a 1080p tv or hd projector or evan better 2 hd projectors stitched and you sit relatively close to it then the screen size difference interms of what is in your fov will not be that grate ( obviously it depends on what focal range your eyes are comfortable with but sitting withint he range of 2-5m from 70" screen should be fine ) The effective resolution of 35mm film is about 4000x2000 , but now allot of cinimas use digital projectors and many of them project at 2048×1080 , so all in all a $1000 Tv or $1500 projector will likely do a fairly comparable job. the massive advantage with home system is you can set it up to your taste not some arbatrery pre-decided spec some company has come up with and for sound especially everyone has different taste.

also I don't see the piont of a shaired exsperance with people you dont know and will never talk to . I understand watching a film with some friends or a group and then talking about it but with total randoms that you will never interact with dosent make sense. ( it might make sense when you have a cinema full of black people (or one of those special film nights some cinemas do) and they all screem and shout at the film getting involved more and what have you as that is truly an original exsperance (not one I enjoy but I can certainly see how that could be enjoyable and different from watching a film at home).

The only cinema exsperance I ever had that was better than what could be achieved at home was watching a documentary on a proper spec I max screen ( before they did the bullshit I-max licensing) and at a theem park in France called http://uk.futuroscope.com/ where they had a screen below the floor as well as a normal imax one.

Id probably enjoy going to an american outdoors cinima where you park a car , or evan one where its just in a park or something ,



I think what makes me ill with bog standard cinema is its so procedural with you just been a chiken stuffed in a pen and fed bullshit useless advertising and constantly told ITS THE BEST EXSPERANCE YOU CAN HAVE ON THE BIG SCREEN when infact for allot of people its probably not.

Finaly to finish of my waist of time writing !

I concide that if the cinima is


1) empty or near empty to the piont i cannot notice other people or the only people in it are people i know and are firends with
2) set up correctly sound focus screen everything
3) has comfortable seats not sticky shit on the floor smells nice
4) no quing up no bullshit adverts and no trailers that ruin the plot of new films ( or its possible to miss them all some how)

Then it is better than what you will get at home and will be far more enjoyable in general , having said that that scenario has happened to me 3 times in 14 years and from going to over 30 different cinemas in 2 different countries.





>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^westy:
Although I enjoyed your discussion home cinimas are infinetly better than going out to watch a film evan if you only have a 42" 2 year old LCD tv and bog standard surround sound system.
maybe you have super awesome cinemas where you are but in the uk there is always something objectively wrong and not in a "charming way" ( listed above in my other comment )

I can see where you're coming from, westy. There are so many things that can (and do) go wrong with the theatrical experience: inconsiderate jerks, bad projection, bad sound, uncomfortable seats, lighting issues, too many commercials, and so on, and so on. But I just love going to the movies.
You ask why you'd want to watch a movie in a room full of people you don't know. But I think that sitting in a darkened room full of strangers and having a shared experience is one of the things that makes going to the movies so special.
There's also the fact that, no matter how big the screen is in your home theatre, it's still a mere fraction of the size of a decently-sized theatre. The sound will never be as good at home (assuming the theatre is doing what they're supposed to be doing). The image will never look as good as well-projected film. And again, watching alone at home can never compare to being in a room full of people who are laughing when they're supposed to, or who are all thrilled, or scared, or moved at the same time you are.
But then I've been going to the movies on a regular basis since I was old enough to sit in the seats, so maybe, like you said, I can never be truly objective about it. I don't care how good home theatre technology gets, I'll be going to the movies until the day I die.

>> ^westy:

Although I enjoyed your discussion home cinimas are infinetly better than going out to watch a film evan if you only have a 42" 2 year old LCD tv and bog standard surround sound system.
maybe you have super awesome cinemas where you are but in the uk there is always something objectively wrong and not in a "charming way" ( listed above in my other comment )


I can see where you're coming from, westy. There are so many things that can (and do) go wrong with the theatrical experience: inconsiderate jerks, bad projection, bad sound, uncomfortable seats, lighting issues, too many commercials, and so on, and so on. But I just love going to the movies.

You ask why you'd want to watch a movie in a room full of people you don't know. But I think that sitting in a darkened room full of strangers and having a shared experience is one of the things that makes going to the movies so special.

There's also the fact that, no matter how big the screen is in your home theatre, it's still a mere fraction of the size of a decently-sized theatre. The sound will never be as good at home (assuming the theatre is doing what they're supposed to be doing). The image will never look as good as well-projected film. And again, watching alone at home can never compare to being in a room full of people who are laughing when they're supposed to, or who are all thrilled, or scared, or moved at the same time you are.

But then I've been going to the movies on a regular basis since I was old enough to sit in the seats, so maybe, like you said, I can never be truly objective about it. I don't care how good home theatre technology gets, I'll be going to the movies until the day I die.