JadedWolf

Your mobo will be fine as long as it has a PCI-e slot. As for what 7850 to pick, I'd pick one of the two you linked with 2 GB VRAM.

Unless you want to crossfire two 7950's, there really is no need for a 850w PSU. If you really do need a new PSU, and all you want is to build a budget system with a 7850, all you need is a nice quality PSU in the range of 400-500w. You could go with less, but having a bit of room for upgrades is a bonus and they won't break the bank. There's a nice list of good PSU's here, at overclock.net. Intel don't typically drop prices of their previous gen, and although retailers might do so of their own initiative, it's probably a bonus rather than something to expect to happen. They just tend to quietly phase them out without fanfare. And the RAM should be fine really - technically Intel has lowered the maximum supported voltage for DDR3 on their platforms (since Sandy I believe) to 1.575V (1.5V standard with 5% tolerance), true, but even the 1.65V requirement commonly seen in 'performance' RAM back in the day ought to easily run at the standard 1.5V, perhaps with frequency/timings set to the default rather than the XMP profile. Low voltage DDR is hardly a new thing, my 3.5 year old Lynnfield system was built with 1.35V DDR3. It's a shame that memory prices have spiked lately, since the start of the year. It also seems that Samsung have stopped production of their 1.25V "magic" RAM, which was not only a bargain, but outperformed just about all of the stupid blinged-up "enthusiast" RAM around these days. (I particularly loathe the trend of massively tall heatspreaders) TBH, when he said three year old build, I thought DDR2. I was thinking he probably had a budget build, not the state of the art build he actually has. As for Intel not dropping in price, maybe not that much, but mobo's may drop in price when the new line comes out. Honestly, I wouldn't know for sure, but waiting a few months to find out seems worth it to me. When I bought my current graphics card, and a few months later it had a massive pricedrop, I wanted to bang my head against the wall :/.

Can my 350W power plant actually power the 7850? And will it work with my motherboard DG965WH: http://downloadmirror.intel.com/15052/eng/DG965WH_TechProdSpec.pdf I appreciate the help guys Which of these models? Not all are available even though the prices are listed... These four are available: http://www.itsvet.com/proizvod/sapphire-radeon-hd-7850-2gb-gddr5-11200-07/comp_comp_vga/130/3427 http://www.itsvet.com/proizvod/sapphire-radeon-hd-7850-2gb-gddr5-11200-00-20g/comp_comp_vga/130/3171 http://www.itsvet.com/proizvod/sapphire-radeon-hd-7850-1gb-gddr5-oc-11200-16-20g/comp_comp_vga/130/3327 http://www.itsvet.com/proizvod/sapphire-radeon-hd-7850-1gb-11200-16-10g/comp_comp_vga/130/3319 It would help to know what model power supply you have, some power supplies claim to deliver more than they actually do. A standard 7850 uses about +- 90W, so theoretically it is possible to power your system with a 350w power supply. This has to be a quality power supply though, not some cheap no-name timebomb.

Okay, right. And this is the last thing I'll say on the matter. Of course I do feel people have the right to defend themselves and other people from harm, and if that requires lethal force, so be it. That is something completely different though from putting an unarmed man in a chair and pulling a switch. Or whatever method of capital punishment you prefer. As for the "no matter what", you have to see this in context. "Let me try to explain it using other kind of sentence. "No longer used in most Western countries, flogging or whipping is still a common punishment in some parts of the world, particularly in many former British territories and in Islamic countries under shariah law. Medically supervised caning is routinely ordered by the courts as a penalty for some categories of crime in Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and elsewhere." Now, I am against flogging. I think it is barbaric, and has no place in a civilized justice system. However... Given the choice between a flogging and a life sentence, which would you choose? The pain from the flogging will only last a few months, and you might still suffer from the scars afterwards, but you'll still be free. My point with this example is: my opposition to the death penalty does not have to mean that I think that it's a worse penalty than a life sentence, I just don't think it is an appropriate penalty for a civilized society. It is not because I feel merciful towards murderers and child rapists, but because I do not want our collective conscience to be burdened by something which I consider to be immoral. If you still want to ask why... Well, simply because I feel it is morally wrong. I don't have a holy book I can point at where it says it is wrong, I don't have a belief in some higher justice. But that doesn't mean that I don't still have a moral code that guides me, and one of the things I believe is that it is wrong to kill people, no matter what." My answer was specifically aimed towards the question of why I am against the death penalty. If you want to pull it out of context and claim I meant something else with it, be my guest. Just don't expect me to go along with it. Well, I can assure you that I have no plans of subjugating or destroying anyone's culture. I also already live in a country that doesn't have a death penalty, so I'm a happy camper. You're free to democratically decide what you do in yours. I didn't come here to force my views upon anyone, I just came here to share my point of view. If you don't like that point of view, that's fine, and it won't ruffle my feathers.

You're not even really engaging in a discussion at this point, you're just ridiculing my point of view. Well, you'll excuse me if I don't really feel like wasting my time talking to you, then.

You wouldn't feel guilty, you would be dead: Er, no. If someone dies because someone else took the last life jacket, that's tragic, but not murder. I can even imagine that people who are drowning would, in their instinct to survive, push away people, or even push them under. That is not the same as actually willfully killing someone. But, like I said, if it happened to me I would feel guilty about it. It really feels to me like you are trying to argue on semantics here. I am pretty sure you know exactly what I meant.

As for what I think should happen to the person in the OP. I think this person is beyond rehabilitation, on the grounds of insanity. He should be put in a mental institution/prison for the mentally insane, for the remainder of his life.

Thrashman: to answer your second question: what I think jail and the judicial system are for. I don't think they are meant for vengeance, I think they are meant for keeping society safe. They are useful for the period in which the criminal is locked up, as society is protected; the criminal won't be able to harm anyone again. In that respect, a life sentence serves the purpose of protecting society perfectly well. Whether the criminal enjoys his time in jail, from that perspective, is irrelevant - though of course, the criminal should not be too much of a burden on the tax payers. And yes, you are right, and that was what I was trying to say. You can't argue morality. As for your example: "For example if you ship goes down and you and another man are stuggling in the water and showing eachother for that one life jacket - and he dies because you took it or showed him underwater during the stuggle. This isn't consider murder." It is not murder, but if that happened to me, I would feel very, very guilty for the rest of my life.

Killing people is wrong in my mind because it crosses a line that I do not think should be crossed. Like I said, it is a principle thing. On the other hand, locking someone up is fine with me. Even if the criminal himself might prefer death. I see no contradiction. The contradiction comes in the form of hte question WHY? Why do you lock poeple up in jail? waht is hte purpose of jail and judicial system? Vengance? Punishmnet? In that case waht is correct would depend on what you consider a bigger punishment - death or imprisoment. Rehabiliation? People who are serving life won't rehabilitate. Why do you refrain from death penalty? Mercy? Or a matter of principle? If it's mercy, then it again depends on what you consider more mercifull - death or life in prison. If it's a matter of principle then again it's a question of why. Hypotheticly speaking - you see a man butcher children with your own eyes. He is remorsless and thinks nothing of it, in fact he's been doing it for a while and not just children. Looks forward to prison. His guilt is 100% factual. No possibility of error. You are judge and jury - what do you do? Let me try to explain it using other kind of sentence. "No longer used in most Western countries, flogging or whipping is still a common punishment in some parts of the world, particularly in many former British territories and in Islamic countries under shariah law. Medically supervised caning is routinely ordered by the courts as a penalty for some categories of crime in Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and elsewhere." Now, I am against flogging. I think it is barbaric, and has no place in a civilized justice system. However... Given the choice between a flogging and a life sentence, which would you choose? The pain from the flogging will only last a few months, and you might still suffer from the scars afterwards, but you'll still be free. My point with this example is: my opposition to the death penalty does not have to mean that I think that it's a worse penalty than a life sentence, I just don't think it is an appropriate penalty for a civilized society. It is not because I feel merciful towards murderers and child rapists, but because I do not want our collective conscience to be burdened by something which I consider to be immoral. If you still want to ask why... Well, simply because I feel it is morally wrong. I don't have a holy book I can point at where it says it is wrong, I don't have a belief in some higher justice. But that doesn't mean that I don't still have a moral code that guides me, and one of the things I believe is that it is wrong to kill people, no matter what. And if that means nothing to you, may I then ask, how would you feel if I was religious, and felt this way because it said in the bible "Thou shalt not kill". Would you feel more sympathetic?

Geez, if I'm going to commit a crime, I need to do it in Norway. I've stayed at hotels worse than that. It's a bit of an aside, but organised crime definitely 'shops around' for countries with weak state power and 'good' jails. It's one reason why so many drug smuggling routes go through Holland. I think it probably has more to do with the central location of the Netherlands in Europe, the status of Rotterdam as the largest port in Europe, and the difficulty of checking all the cargo that comes into that harbour.

Killing people is wrong in my mind because it crosses a line that I do not think should be crossed. Like I said, it is a principle thing. On the other hand, locking someone up is fine with me. Even if the criminal himself might prefer death. I see no contradiction.

Personally, I would wait for the new generation of Intel processors to come out. Even if you don't want to buy the latest generation, it is sure to cause a pricedrop. As others here have said, if you are interested in gaming, your most pressing upgrade is the GPU. Considering that your current computer is three years old, you can pretty much forget about reusing your RAM. Also, be sure to check the quality of your power supply. You can buy expensive computer parts for everything else but if your PSU is a heap of junk you risk it all going up in smoke one unlucky day.

Gee, thanks!

While I agree that what was described in the OP would be as close to evil as I can imagine, I do not think the notion of "evil" has any room within a justice system. A justice system based on the judgement of "Is someone evil or not" conjures up the image of a witch hunt, complete with torches and pitchforks. If someone is plain evil, we don't need a judge or jury. We can just lynch him right here and now, and be done with it. I am also against the death penalty, on principle. Even if someone is 100% guilty. Not because I feel sympathetic to rapists and murderers, but because I think killing someone is morally wrong, even if the person to be killed is a real life Hannibal Lector. (And guess what, I am an atheist! Isn't that funny, atheists can have morals too!) But even if I look at it rationally, I don't see the benefit in the death penalty. Aside from the chance that you're in fact killing an innocent person, it's more expensive than a life sentence, and also less of a punishment. I mean... Most people who are in favour of the death penalty consider it to be the worst punishment the justice system can dish out. But personally I would think that compared to spending your life in jail the death penalty is the easy way out. That being said... All of this relies on a working justice system. If the justice system doesn't work, all bets are off. If someone would harm my loved ones, and the justice system would fail to deal with them, I don't know what I'd do.

Mayors in Japan are chosen by popular vote. He's the mayor of Japan's second largest city, with 2,7 million inhabitants. I wouldn't call that insignificant. Having said that, I don't think anyone says we should look down our noses at the Japanese. It's just shocking to hear a man in such a position say these things. And it is not an incident. Just last year another Japanese mayor denied the massacre of Nanjing. You can't make Japan's problematic treatment of its past go away by pointing out that you have ultranationalists everywhere either. Do German schoolbooks deny WW2 atrocities? Are there German politicians in important places of power that deny German atrocities in WW2? This really is a problem that is particular to Japan. Edit: The reason why this sort of thing is surprising to me, is because it is happening in a democratically ruled country, which is basically one of the 'western' countries. I am not surprised when the Russians say such things as that the Baltic states 'chose to be under the protection of the Sovjet union". But when this sort of talk is from a country you imagine you share values with... Also, it is coming from a man who appears to be quite young. Not from some old geezer stuck in ancient history. It is not something to hate Japan for, of course. The whole idea that people in a country are responsible for what their grandparents did is laughable. Denying historical events for the sake of nationalistic pride is something else.

Whenever I think I've seen it all, something comes along to make my jaw drop. 'TOKYO — An outspoken nationalist mayor said the Japanese military’s forced prostitution of Asian women before and during World War II was necessary to “maintain discipline” in the ranks and provide rest for soldiers who risked their lives in battle. The comments made Monday are already raising ire in neighboring countries that bore the brunt of Japan’s wartime aggression and that have long complained that Japan has failed to fully atone for wartime atrocities. Toru Hashimoto, the young, brash mayor of Osaka who is also co-leader of an emerging conservative political party, also told reporters that there wasn’t clear evidence that the Japanese military coerced women to become what are euphemistically called “comfort women.”' http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/osaka-mayor-says-wartime-sex-slaves-were-needed-to-maintain-discipline-in-japanese-military/2013/05/13/4151bac4-bc43-11e2-b537-ab47f0325f7c_story.html This sort of news makes me do a double take. "Did that just happen? ..."

I think we can pretty much forget about Obsidian making a KotOR III now.

There are many ways to make two people in the same armour distinguishable. In the BG series of games, there were black armors, gold armors, red armors... All with a different look and colour to them. Granted, these were only the magical variety, but if you would give such choices at the basic level, I am sure you could distinguish two characters from each other while keeping armour unisex.

Thanks for that, I picked it up as well. Already had all of them on disc, except for IWD2, but to have them all digitally and for pretty much peanuts... It's a steal. Going to give IWD2 a try now. Only took me eleven years to pick it up... SpiritofPower, if you want install some mods for PST, here is a nice guide:http://gamedrone.net/2010/09/29/installing-planescape-torment-with-fixes-and-mods/

So Planescape and ID2 for the 'best of both worlds' as it were? I'm mainly trying to get a decent picture of what the Infinity Engine games were like in both story and gameplay so I know what to expect from PE, and Icewind Dale 2 looks to be pretty fun. Thanks for the suggestion! It really depends on where your preference lies. If you prefer story over everything else, Planescape Torment is your thing. Now, I can't say anything about IWD2 because I haven't played it myself, but I have played the first IWD and that felt to me like they had just almost removed all the story elements in favour of improved combat and game mechanics. If you want a mixture of both good story and good combat and game mechanics, try BG2. Personally my list would be 1) PST 2) BG2 3) IWD in that order.

What an idiot. He got what was coming to him afterwards, looks like.

Communist-Industrial-Socialists? From urban dictionary Short for "cisgender" (opposite of "transgender"), used to describe someone whose gender identity matches their anatomical gender at birth. How does that equal being a scum? Have I missed a subculture somewhere? I think he is being sarcastic. As for the topic, while I do agree that sometimes political correctness can go to far, I find that often the people who complain about political correctness are the ones who start telling offensive jokes immediately afterwards. I don't know if any of you have any interest in darts, but a certain darts announcer by the name of Martin Fitzmaurice was fired this week for making some racist jokes during a lull in a livestream darts event. He started off complaining about how the British Darts Organisation had told him to keep politically correct, and he then made it perfectly clear he wasn't having any of that with such jokes as "What's black and eats bananas? Half of London!" Oh, yes, hilarious stuff. He must not have realized he was still live. Of course, after he was fired people started to complain on forums about political correctness gone mad: http://www.ukdebate.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=29745 <Sarcasm>Oh yeah, you can't even compare black people to monkeys anymore, some people are just being such oversensitive liberals...</Sarcasm>

It is quite well known that she felt little compulsion to fight for women's rights. While I agree that she has become a role model, it's not because she had any desire to be one (not one for women, anyway). Here's a piece from a BBC article: "And Patricia Hewitt, a minister Tony Blair's Cabinet, told the BBC News website: "Margaret Thatcher broke through the glass ceiling in politics. But it is a tragedy that, having become the UK's first women prime minister, she did so much to undermine the position of women in society. " "Margaret Thatcher damaged women's place in the workplace, undermined families and communities, and did nothing for women in public life. It was a wasted opportunity on a gargantuan scale." But the mere fact that Mrs Thatcher was a woman and reached the peak of political power had an impact. Lady Williams says: "Her own achievement of course changed the whole attitude of people to what women could achieve but it was very much a personal achievement... "She didn't see herself as a leader of the women's movement but little girls begin to think they could be prime minister."

Concerning their credibility as an investment country, I think that ship already sailed, and is already halfway around the world.

It was a deal Obsidian agreed to, was it not? Yeah, they did. Not sure what your point is. My point is that there is nothing wrong with paying or not paying according to a contract that was agreed by both sides and has very specific terms (most of which are unknown to the general public). I don't know what the all the rage is about. Yes, it was close, but I doubt "getting close" is often taken into consideration when making a deal. Metacritics is a terrible site, yes, but the same thing could happen if the condition was "sell this many copies in that many months". I think you completely miss what my post is about. I am not "raging" about the deal; not at least to the extent that I am saying that Bethesda not paying was wrong. It was legally valid and a very, very good deal indeed for Bethesda Softworks. They made a lot of money out of it indeed. I just think in retrospect it was a very bad deal for Obsidian and if making another Fallout would depend on another such deal I would rather have them spend their time and energy on something else.