Pidesco

It's you have to gain entrance to.

01) NWN1 was also linear. 02)I disliked NWN1's UI. 03)The AI isn't any worse than in NWN1. There's just more companions to annoy you with the bad AI. 04) and 05) and 06) and 07) Apart from the spell effects these were all things I didn't like about NWN1 10)Nitpicking 12)you obviously played a different NWN1 than the one I played. 18)Dialog options are not any less diversified than in NWN1 21)This happened to me all the time NWN1 22)This has been explained before 27)What excitement? Was NWN the first game you ever played with fog of war? 28)It's pretty much the same as in NWN1. 33)This is pretty idiotic on your part. 36)Umm... that's bollocks. 37)Who gives a crap? 39)NWN2's minimap is much better than NWN1's minimapo. 40)All my quests were removed on completion. 42)That's not true. I've yet to see what's so great about NWN1's animation. The dragons' little jump when you attacked, perhaps? 43)Camera is the same as NWN1's but with more options 44)No. At all. It was as unepic as a DnD game can be. 45)My performance was fine. 46)You probably haven't played many PC games. Especially RPGs. 47)No. NWN1's ending, like the rest of the story, was barely competent. 48)No. 49)Graphics in NWN1 have never melted anyone's face. Unless you're the Elephant Man, or something. 50)Boring, Linear, Ugly, Non Immersive, Easy, and Annoying are all things I felt with NWN1 on release. What can I say, I was bored.

Omar Faruk Tekbilek - Fly Away

Yes, the point of the movie is that making changes to the past is an incredibly bad idea. Something Mr. Genius Psychology Major should get right off the bat. Yet he doesn't, despite being, apparently, a really smart guy. Also, the movie is, structurally, just a bunch of little skits thrown together, each showing what happens every time the schmuck changes something. When the producers felt they had enough footage to make a movie, they just stopped.

The changes he makes aren't small, he makes huge changes to the past. And those changes affect the present in a very predictable way. What kind of butterfly effect is that?

The simple fact that Butterfly Effect has that name makes it incredibly stupid. Mainly because what happens in the movie has bugger all to do with the actual "butterfly effect".

Choosing Ashton Kutcher to portray an intelligent person is either completely moronic or pure comedic genius.

So which part of "government by the people, for the people" am I not getting? Because what that means is that the states are treated equally but the people aren't. I can see where that view is coming from, I just don't agree with it, at all. It seems like a kind of covert nationalism. If there wasn't an Electoral College, the States would lose power, but the individuals would gain power.

That's stupid. It means that people from smaller states are more powerful in an election than the people from the larger states. How democratic is that?

Would you care to elaborate on the qualities of Butterfly Effect, Volo?

Correct We are a Representative Democracy I never understood the point of the Electoral College. It seems kind of pointless. Why not make the decision of who wins directly through the number of votes each candidate gets?

Why buy a card if you're getting a new one in less than four months?

I believe I've pointed that out previously.

"No one" is the key. Is a country where the majority votes a failure? I think your arguing on a philosophical level here, which is fine, but it's not necessarily reflective of reality. If a candidate, like many incumbents in the US, is almost assured a victory and some of his supports don't go out to vote because they know he is a lock, is that "bad"? There are lots of reasons people choose not to vote. There are a lot of countries where only less that 50% of the population vote. And at this point, it's fair game to argue that democracy isn't the best way to govern a country. What's the legitimacy of government that was only chosen by, say, 20% of the population? It's practically an invitation for a coup and so, turnout is very important for any democracy. And this, of course makes turnout an essential part of measuring a democracy's success.

Meh, not necessarily. High turnout can often mean people are unhappy with their government on some serious fundamental level, etc. Yes, but it also means they are interested in helping decide who gets to govern next. A democracy where no one votes is a failure. And by not voting, they are effectively saying they don't want to live in a democracy.

"Jokingly" is a perfectly good, existing word to use instead of "jokenly".

Indeed.

Don't you just have to go to the loo to get your funds back?

Which European countries are you talking about? Also, turnout is an excellent way to measure the success of a democracy. Low turnout indicates that people don't care about who governs their country. Finally, I advise you to get Firefox 2.0. It can spellcheck your posts. "jokenly" is not a word by the way.

Why?

I also do more or less what you do, except I don't upgrade as often as that. And I still don't think it's worth just upgrading the processor. I'd say wait for budget DX10 cards to come out and then, if you can afford it, buy a budget graphics card, a Sempron or Celeron, a budget mobo and 1 or 2 gigs of ram. It would perhaps cost 300 or 350$ (American). Getting a new processor and more ram, but keeping the graphics card probably won't do much of a difference because the graphics card is most likely, already the bottleneck.

I would advise against upgrading anything until you can afford upgrading the Big Four. A new processor won't be much of an improvement, anyway.

I have just tried the beta patch. I now have the water thingies on and switched to increased resolution. Woohoo!

don't you dare compare Donnie Darko with Butterfly Effect. Butterfly Effect is one big turd of a movie.

Sweden is awesome! And Portugal does better than I expected.