roshan

Heres how I see it: Sikhs are human beings, just like anyone else. They aren't better or worse than any other religion (or non religion) out there and therefore deserve no special privileges, particularly in regards to carrying dangerous weapons around. What makes a Sikh more worthy of being allowed to carry a weapon than a Christian, a Buddhist or a Muslim? Also, there are lots of violent sectarian conflicts within Sikhism, particularly between the various "deras" (Sikh sects with living gurus) and orthodox Sikhs. In India there have been riots, assassination attempts and other conflicts between orthodox Sikhs and the various "deras". These conflicts are often imported by Sikhs in other countries. For example, Rama Nand, one of the leaders of one of these deras was assassinated at a Gurdwara (Sikh temple) in Austria last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rama_Nand There are also numerous violent conflicts amongst orthodox Sikhs themselves, mostly to do with certain reform measures that some Gurdwaras have taken. Just look at the results for "gurdwara shooting" and you'll find that these are rather commonplace: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=gurdwara+...mp;fr=yfp-t-701

I've watched the Caprica pilot though, and it was pretty damn good.

Caprica begins airing on the 22nd.

Finally finished the Wire. **** that was an amazing show. Only The Shield has left as big a void. The Mad Men and Dexter season finales were amazing, looks like both shows will be shaking things up for next season. Mad Men's last is definitely one of the best season finales ever. What're everyone's thoughts on Sons of Anarchy and Damages? Surprised not to see any mention of them.... A lot of interesting HBO shows seem to be on the way.... Cocaine Cowboys, Treme, Game of Thrones, Gentlemen of Leisure, Boardwalk Empire, The Pacific.... Add that to already existing shows like True Blood, In Treatment and Big Love and we might just be looking at a new golden age of HBO dramas. Looking forward to the premier of Spartacus. Looks like cross between Gladiator, Rome and 300. Also, am wondering, which of the following shows is most deserving of my time: 1. Six Feet Under 2. Rescue Me 3. Brotherhood ?

Based on the pilot, I'd give the show a C. It's watchable, at best. The story makes no sense thus far. Why has the son become so obsessed with the Vs? How in the world did the resistance get started, and how'd they find out about the history of the Vs? The pilot had no plot, seemed like a sequence of random, disjointed scenes. All the revelations fell flat, from the partner turning out to be a V, to the black hero V, to the V sleeper cell...... Yawn. What a dissapointment, I was hoping that this would at least turn out to be better than Flashforward.

So far its just a cheap BSG knockoff with ridicuous, contrived drama/storylines and atrocious acting. I might watch another episode, but don't see myself continuing beyond that....

So since starting this thread, Ive watched (or am in the process of watching): In Treatment Generation Kill Stargate Universe Carnivale Oz Californication Entourage True Blood Mad Men Breaking Bad Sons of Anarchy Dexter Flashforward Heroes Veronica Mars This was my old list: Battlestar Galactica Jericho Terminator Lost Desperate Housewives 24 (first season only) Prison Break Rome The Shield Firefly The Wire Deadwood The Sopranos The Black Donnellys Weeds Now I'm looking for more shows! Will read through this thread again later looking to see what I've missed.

OK, so the last time I bought anything computer related was when the Pentium 4 was still new. So, now, Im hopelessly uninformed regarding the latest computer hardware trends. I need a new computer, and want the most bang for my buck. I need advice on video cards and processors in particular. Also, is a sound card worth investing in? And is there anything new on the RAM front that I should know about?

Just watched the season premiere. The show is just getting really ****ing dumb. Why in the world would Claire try to stop Peter with a bullet, given the powers that he has? The entire drama nonsense about Claire wanting to feel human and trying to get hit by trains is simply retarded. Claires mom meets her after a long time and what she does is light a fire in her hand? WTF is that about? The entire scene with Peter joining up with the criminals seemed stupid and forced. Why would future Peter opt to shoot Nathan, put the mind reader in the middle of an African desert, and transfer his brother into a criminals body when he could just talk Nathan out of it? Oh, and Im guessing the icewoman is Nikkis long lost twin sister.

Thanks for your help! I cant do the gpedit solution, since the group policy editor is not avalable in XP home edition, and I cant open the registry editor either! I guess some worm or virus has sneaked into my system. Will download AVG and see if that helps, otherwise, will do a reformat.

Ok, heres a question for all you guys out there..... Im trying to open the task manager, but keep getting a message that says "task manager has been disbaled by your administrator". Problem is, im logged in under the administrator account, and have done no such thing. Any clue what to do about this? BTW, Im running Windows XP home edition.

Just completed Carnivale and Oz, and Im feeling pretty pissed off at HBO now. They keep creating awesome shows and then cancelling them.

Im not sure Buffy is my thing.... Ive seen some episodes (back when I was a teenager), and it seemed immature to me even then. Also the acting didnt seem to be any good. Ive watched all of 24 (except half the last season), but didnt mention the other seasons because they basically sucked, a lot. Season 1 was amazing, season 2 was still alright, but after that.... Jack Bauer turns into a superhero who can withstand anything (and can even teleport), the writing becomes so bad and the characters so cliche and stereotypical that most scenes make me cringe. Even the plot lines are absurd and ridiculous, such as the season where Logan is involved with the terrorists. They dont even show the CTU personnel getting tired as the day progresses as in season 1, theyre just bouncing about all day long. The split screens in season 1 helped to give viewers a sense of how time is progressing in different places, in the new seasons, theyre just there. Season 5 was particularly ****ty with Jack going after the "random bad guy of the week", with no explanation at all of what that person has to do with the terrorist plot, or how that person is linked to the one before him. They dont even depict the motivations of the weekly terrorist. The acting in the last season was so bad (with the president having a sister who talks like she popped out of the ghetto) I couldnt get through it. Whats Babylon 5 like? Its not one of those shows where theres an alien of the week, a planet of the week, or a new technology of the week? Jeremiah sounds cool.

House is repetive like sex is repetive. If you don

I forgot to mention Dexter, Veronica Mars and Californication, all shows I already watch and enjoy/enjoyed lots. I think Im gonna start with Oz and Carnivale. I saw the first season of House, but struggled to get through it. Tried watching the second, but was way too bored by the time. The show sucks, its completely repetitive. Pretty much the same thing happens every episode. Moonlight isnt a good show, but its alright for passing time if youve really got nothing else to do. Its strongly geared towards female audiences.

So Ive run out of good shows to watch.... Im basically looking for heavily serialized shows (nothing episodic), with great stories, sets and acting. Shows Ive watched and enjoyed a lot include: Battlestar Galactica Jericho Terminator Lost Desperate Housewives 24 (first season only) Prison Break Rome The Shield Firefly The Wire Deadwood The Sopranos The Black Donnellys Weeds So what else is good on TV?

I dont believe it was fiberoptics. It was something else, mentioned by the number 2 model Adama encounters in the miniseries.

Natalie All in all, really good and dramatic episode. Its great that the show is finally returning back to the topic of the visions. The drama building up between the humans and the rebel cylons is great too.

Season 4 has been great so far. Theyve turned around the series completely.... In season 3, it was in the dumps.

I dont think it has anything to do with the original series. BSG when it started had almost universal acclaim. The first season, as well as a big chunk of the second season was a masterpiece. It was heavily serialized, the plotlines were rich and woven together, there was a strong atmosphere of survival and tension. Somewhere in the second season, the whole thing turned into ****. Lots of absolutely boring, self contained stand alone episodes, lots of decent characters killed off with no new ones being introduced, the same characters with the same issues (normally inane love stories) again and again, skipping time which ruined the survival feel and tension of the series, budget cuts led to the removal or skipping of space battles and so on. I think with you it was a case of the sheer awesomeness of the beginning of the series that might have propelled you through the later parts without noticing that the quality had drastically dropped. A similar thing happened to me, where I watched the first two seasons in a row without realizing that a large chunk of the second season wasnt up to par with the first. But watching the third season week by week was a different story altogether. Seeing three totally boring episodes in a row, all of which had absolutely nothing to do with the main plot, and no impact on the characters or overall story was tedious and frustrating.

This for example (and really only one of many!): What's the meaning of "under Bhutto"? It is implied that she helped forming "the Taliban" (as if "the Taliban" were a couple of people coming from Pakistan that later emiigrated to Afghanistan), but it could just as well be "during her time as prime minister" and not being related with her personally all. I dont see how that is innacurate in any way. Under Bhutto clearly refers to her administration. This is only speculation on your part - and that too a far fetched one. I read the article and in no way did it imply to me that she had any sort of connection to Bin Laden, although her sympathy and her administrations support for radical Islamism was made clear. Can you show where this was implied by the article? "May have been killed by" refers to the fact that she "may have been killed by" anyone - we do not know who killed her. That is a statement of fact - why does stating this fact mark the article to be read with great caution? If anything, it shows that the author draws a clear line between what is known for a fact, and what isnt. I think you are trying to read much more into the article than there is.

If you read the article carefully, its much more than just her stirring up anti India sentiment. It deals with her perspective on a lot of issues, such as nuclear weapons (the ultimate weapon for asserting the moral superiority of Islam? WTF? Is this woman insane?), denial of the genocide in Bangladesh, sacrificing the welfare of the Pakistani people in order to maintain the conflict with India, her bigoted views of history (Pakistan and India were never one country), her incompetence and corruption, her desire to ferment terrorism in India, her role in the formation of the Taliban, encouragind jihad and radical Islam and so on. But you are free to gloss over all these things if you wish.

What inaccuracies?

Why?