Qwerty the Sir

Reminds me of this song about the Bruins. :D

I think Malkin will be the best player of all three (Crosby, Ovechkin) in 5 years. He will put up as many points as they will 100-120 and he already is much better on defense. Of course he'll have to take his place behind my man Vinny Lecavalier who will sit atop the league for the next 3 years or so! :D

Midseason Awards: Hart/Pearson: 1. Vincent Lecavalier 2. Henrik Zetterberg 3. Daniel Alfredsson Norris: 1. Sergei Zubov 2. Nicklas Lidstrom 3. toss up Vezina: 1. Evgeni Nabokov 2. Roberto Luongo 3. Chris Osgood Selke: depends if the voters vote for best defensive forward, or the two way guy with a good offensive year Calder: 1. Patrick Kane 2. Jonathan Toews 3. Nicklas Backstrom Adams: 1. Mike Bab**** 2. Andy Murray 3. Ted Nolan edit: haha they edit out Mike's name :D

Registry h4x

If I punch them they become unconscious. Quarterstaff was the only way to go.

Realism gets quite boring in games after a while. How many rats are you gonna kill?

A good orange that I like is hard to find:

This thread reminds me of this Baldur's Gate II Mod. Seriously though, there's enough room for "fantasy" and "realistic" games in this world. Different people like different things and some like both, one doesn't have to be 'better' than another.

Heh, Jamie Baker and San Jose 1994... That guy and that team had Bowman yelling ******* prima-donna to Yzerman and was the start of two years of hell for Stevie Y.

It's ok if they make them stupider and weaker and less good at hockey.

Pierre McGuire and Sidney Crosby...

He got the hat trick! :D

HAHA! Lupul with another 2 goal game so far, and there's a period to go. I wish I could catch that game.

Unless it was just sloppy play that led to all those goals, I would've wanted to watch a dazzling display of firepower from the Tampa Bay Big Three and Iggy and the Flames. Still, the Ottawa-Pittsburgh game was pretty fun to watch. A classic case of a goalie giving his team a chance to win when they really floated.

Recchi said he would show the Penguins and he is right now. 2 goals already, and a period to go. Good game, by the way, Atlanta vs. Boston.

I like things from both. I started using a Windows PC since I was young, and have a Windows PC now (XP), so familiarity with it is probably the biggest asset. Also, it runs everything I need it to run and has the largest medium for games which is good for me. That being said, I started to use the Macs at school and they're pretty nice too. They usually have all the software (minus games of course) that Windows PC's have and they have a nice interface, but what I really like is the Mac hardware. They have these really flat keyboards which look great along with everything else that matches great. I've also had to use Linux to do some work at school, and it's probably my least favorite. First of all, it has a stupid name: Red Hat Enterprise...wtf... Also, I hate how opening folders keeps all the older folders open as well, clogging the desktop like crazy (there's got to be a way to change this), but the roughest part is the terminal command line. Still, I saw a friend who uses Ubuntu (much better name) and it does some sweet stuff with the interface that even Vista can't do, and it seems to have gotten rid of all the opening files hassles. I'd probably like that too.

Icewind Dale for me. Super Mario World, Baldur's Gate, NHL 94, Planescape: Torment, and The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past are close also.

That guy on the right is me right there. Especially on nights where there are 10+ games and there are more players than active spots. In fact, I'm much more indecisive in fantasy hockey than I am in Icewind Dale.

I was offered a trade: Lecavalier for Lupul awhile back as a joke...

Fair enough Krezack, but just remember that there are people who view the world through the lens of their separate belief system like you do of science. I think you were curious as to why someone would profess their belief for reincarnation so confidently. I'm just speculating here, but to a reincarnation believer, perhaps the axioms of whatever metaphysical system he/she holds are clear and well established. It is not at all an absurd belief for them, and perhaps non belief is absurd to others. Very subjective stuff, I know, but that's the way it is. I know a couple of people who believe in reincarnation with a quite well developed framework (as far as I can gleam from conversations). Of course, they form most of their ordinary beliefs with the usual, perception test, but these metaphysical beliefs of reincarnation cannot be perceived, and yet form cornerstones of the said persons beliefs. From my experience, most people are like this. They hold some metaphysical, spiritual, or religious beliefs which don't have to accord to the heuristic of perception when the question of justification comes up.

Download it here. Very interesting game, short, but if you take time to read everything, will be fun. Also very hard, make sure you are at a high level (16+).

Hehehe, I plucked Scott Niedermayer off waivers. :D

A principle of plenitude does not have to be mutually exclusive with a principle of parsimony, depending exactly on what is said. That being said, there are principles that state that it is favorable to have more entities for explanation. Frankly, I cannot see how exactly one could pick between the other, or which one is more justified. The issue of parsimony against plenitude in explaining entities has nothing to with the explanatory power of the explanation. If my power goes out, me deciding between the two explanations for the event: 1) that it was because a power line was cut due to a storm that occurred because some weather phenomenon... 2) that it was because a power line was cut due to a storm invoked by the Microsoft fairy for me using Linux at times... ...becomes wholly an issue of personal "flavor". Both have the same explanatory power, and the number of entities required to explain them becomes irrelevant. If I were to take parsimony to it's extreme, I could explain events by saying "stuff happens"... I don't see why a claim must be justifiable by science though, due to any of the razors. Lastly, there is no contradiction involved with a), b), or c). They may be very ridiculous propositions to some, but they involve no contradiction whatsoever.