~Di

So I guess that's confirmation that one does have to download and install Steam before playing this game. I'd hoped it was a false rumor.

Oh, lord, my sincere sympathies to the Brits of the board. From what I've heard, this is the most massive government austerity plan since post WWII, and it's going to flat ruin the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Seriously, my heart aches for them.

How is this different than our movie rating system, which prohibits minors from viewing certain movies without an accompanying adult? Or am I missing something sinister here... and I could be, because I only gave it a cursory read. The "violent games cause violent behavior" crap is just that, crap. We've had violent movies and violent books for decades, which kids eat up with a spoon. I've never understood the level of hysteria that video games cause in otherwise rational sentient beings.

Thanks to everyone who has been so helpful! When I get up my nerve and actually upgrade, I'll let y'all know what happened. Technologies just keep forging ahead, and I'm stuck in the 1990's. I couldn't make a call on a "smart" phone or Blackberry if my life depended on it. Thanks again!

Gawk. Can no one answer my questions about upgrading to IE7-8? There's no way I'm techno-literate enough to change browsers, when I don't even know how to upgrade the one I have. Y'all are assuming I have average techo-intelligence. I do not.

I'm technically ignorant and so is my husband. I'm having trouble accessing some web sites with my old IE6, so I have to upgrade. My husband wants to unhook the entire computer and take the 2-hour round trip to have our computer guy do it, but surely it can't be that difficult. When downloading the upgrade, does it actually upgrade my current IE 6, keeping the favorites list in tact, or will I have to delete IE6 and install the new IE7 or IE8? I'm kind of scared to delete something as huge as my internet browser. If anyone can give me some basic information about how this upgrade is done, I'd be ever so grateful!

I may regret this post, but I must say that I'm kind of taken aback by the tone of posts in this thread. I get that most of you don't identify with the parent in this topic... and appear not to like cops much, since they are apparently not allowed human emotion or mistakes ... and that's okay. Our perspectives change with life experiences, including our own growing years, whether we had siblings, whether those siblings were younger and we were protective of them, whether those siblings were older and we were protected by them, whether those siblings were male or female, or both... by our own gender (yep, boys and girls see life through differing prisms), and by our own parental status. I get that. I would actually have thought that everyone would get that, but this thread appears to imply otherwise. What has disappointed me are the personal insults being issued because Hurlshot and I and one or two others simply do not share your viewpoints about this particular situation. While railing about the bullying and verbal abuse levied at the boy by the parent/cop, some posters are doing exactly the same thing to those in this thread who hold an opinion they disagree with. This forum usually can discuss controversial topics and differing opinions without the vitriol being expressed here, and I flat don't understand it. It's almost as if the simple act of us understanding that distraught and angry parents can make bad decisions that they later regret makes us legitimate targets of contempt. Perhaps it's time to take a step back, agree to disagree, and go back to being civil, courteous posters sharing a forum that most of us have frequented and enjoyed for many years. Please?

I'm sorry, but no, just... no. The boy was put in handcuffs by a fully uniformed officer in front of his parents and all were told he was being arrested for a sex crime. Now explain to me how being told "Your son's future just went to hell because I'm a vindictive daddy who is going to make it so people automatically lump your son in with child molesters when he's older and he won't be able to get a job worth a crap because of it!" isn't out of line? I'm sorry, but people at any age, when encountering a uniformed police officer, will in general not get in the cops way. After all the guy A) has a gun B) can make your life a living hell C) has all of society viewing him as an infallible hero due to the culture of hero worship going on. As to the whole "ruined a girls life while the guy just has high fives" I call bs. Have you seen what a woman can do to a guy who accidently knocked her up financially? That girl could make him be paying her for the next 15ish years (until the kid gets out of college...) due to the bias courts have towards women in these situations. Also most times a cop uses their position like this, both sets of parents are in agreement about it and "conspire" to do it, rather than one single parent taking unilateral action. And while the cop didn't physically harm or threaten to physically harm, he certainly threatened the hell out of the kid (if you bothered to watch the video, the cop is a complete jackass regarding both the boy, and his daughter who he talks about almost as if she was a pig in terms of hygiene) with probably more severe consequences (or did you miss the "if you go near my home, near my daughter, near my neighborhood, I will arrest you for real and charge you as a sex offender, and with assault" bit?) And hurlie, I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of not being able to parent my own kid. Sure, he can have sex, I can understand his want to, but I'd A) make sure that he knew about and at least pushed him to use protection and B) make sure he wasn't being a completely stupid git about it. I would HATE any parent that tried to butt in and do my job with my son because they thought I was being to lax or whatever. The cop was out of bounds as a police officer, and as a parent. Completely, and utterly out of bounds. If that was my son, that officer would probably have been kicked out of the house with a threat of legal action related to trespassing, and if he laughed that off I'd have beaten the tar out of him for being such a presumptuous **** about his position. My kid, my rules, my punishments. Well, we disagree. This is not a woman out to ruin some poor bloke's life because he did what guys do, which is have sex as often as possible. This is a very young girl, a child... and yes, a 14-year-old is a child dispite your attempt to raise the bar in that regard. Someday you may be the father of a young girl, one you love dearly, and might be able to identify with the risk to her future as much as you now identify with the this boy. The consensus here seems to be that hey, the boy had sex, that's what boys do, he did nothing wrong. As a parent and as a once 14-year-old teenaged girl pressured to have sex or be a boyfriendless wallflower, I can see the other side. *shrug* So we disagree, and suspect that we will continue to disagree for at least the next decade or so.

First, I know humans can reproduce at 14. Humans can reproduce at 12... and 11. My point is that children... and these are children... becoming pregnant can ruin their lives, and potentially damage their health. And yes, bad effects can come from the act itself. As I've pointed out, females experience the sexual act much differently than males, both physicially and emotionally. Second, I've raised both children and stepchildren and I'm here to tell you that yes, stepparents do indeed feel that attached to the child they have raised, just as adoptive parents do. What the officer did was a lapse in judgement caused by his own fear and anger over what could potentially have happened to his very young daughter. Nothing more.

I agree with you completely. Having raised five teenagers, both boys and girls, we made it quite clear to all of them that sexual activity was a risk that could potentially ruin the rest of their lives... including jail time if the age differences in their sexual partners was sufficiently illegal. We never ignored the aspect of sexuality, but we made damn sure our kids unstood the ramifications, and that "safe sex", most definitely necessary, was not always "safe." I'm on your side here. I can totally see where the police officer was coming from, and can almost taste the fear, anger, and panic he must have been feeling. Fourteen is really, really young.

Wow. It seems that most users of this forum identify more with a sex-hungry boy than the father of a potentially-impregnated 14-year-old girl. Big surpise, given the average age and gender of the board! Seriously, sex with a girl that young is a very big deal. It could potentially damage her health and ruin not only her life, but her family's life as well. The boy? Bah, he'd just change girlfriends, get a few high fives from his friends, and go on as if nothing had ever happened. I guess one has to actually be the parent of a young teenaged girl to understand the potential ramifications of a sexual liason at that age. It's not the first time cops have used their position to scare youngsters straight. The boy wasn't actually placed under arrest, or even taken out of his own home. The boy's parents were right there. The officer didn't physically harm the boy, or threaten to physically harm him. And the officer also put the fear of God into his stepdaughter as well. Boys and men in their hormonal youth don't see sex as a big deal, but females, especially young females, experience sex much differently. Because the stakes can be so high for females, they have much more of an emotional investment in the sexual act. And their parents know this. I think a minor reprimand in the officer's file is enough. Some of you are acting like he whipped out his baton and taser and put the kid in the hospital. He didn't do anything of the sort.

the mako is mindless and frequent tedious, but it is harmless. the hammerhead, on the other hand, adds genuine gameplay. the problem for some folks is that the gameplay added is closer to the adventure or platformer end o' the spectrum. we don't mind the hammerhead missions too much, but we don't feel that skipping over rivers o' lava with a bouncing car is particular fun neither. as for the sentinel... it is unfortunate, but tech armour becomes useless at higher difficulties, so the sentinel has a potential pointless power. on the other hand, warp and overload is near essential powers. we almost always play the infiltrator, but if bio balanced out tech armour for more challenging difficulties, we would have a tough choice 'tween infiltrator and sentinel. HA! Good Fun! Once I figured out the hammerhead tricks, I could scoot through the missions on the first try fairly quickly. I just didn't enjoy them, and the vehicle was so unstable that I practically dented my keyboard trying to keep the thing in one place while drilling. At least the mako stayed where I put it when I stopped. You are quite right, Warp and Overload are incredibly helpful powers. Reave, however, is my ultimate weapon and the power I always choose for my "extra" choice. Between Reave and Overload, there is nothing my Sentinel can't handle, despite the lessened effectiveness of tech armor in the later games. Also, unlike you and the brave folk of your ilk, I rarely play the challenging difficulties. I'm not that patient, and have just as much fun when I'm not being frustrated. I didn't like playing infiltrator because I honestly didn't care for being a sniper. Ridiculous, I know, because I thought it would be my favorite weapon. In practice, though, I just preferred the more ham-handed approach! I'm not a particularly subtle person...

Since nwn2 isn't a bioware game... I know that, genius, but since the NWN2 manual comments on page 10: "The Neverwinter Nights 2 Configuration Utility, nwconfig, runs automatically the first time you play Neverwinter Nights 2. It is also available from the game launcher by clicking on Configure..." Then I was, stupid me, actually looking on the game launcher for Configure, just like the BioWare game launchers. But the manual lied, there is no such option on my game launcher. I thought I'd fill you in since the only reason for your snide post was to unnecessarily ridicule me, and I wished to return the favor. To those who actually tried to help, thanks again!

I've played almost all the classes, and Sentinel is by far the most fun for me! Vanguard was the least fun, me not being suicidal and all. Ick. Oh... Mako rules, Hammerhead drools. I hate that thing.

Yes, y'all are right, and I figured it out for myself by experimenting with higher resolutions until the characters weren't squashed into stumpy-legged dwarfs! For some reason I was fixated by the "configuration" options on BioWare's game launchers, and when I couldn't find one on NWN2, I had a brain fart. Well, I have a lot of those. I'm not exactly the brightest technogeek on the block!

Okay, Bio forums are down and my googles have not yielded results. I decided to run through NWN2 once more, but since the last time I played it I've upgraded to a widescreen monitor. Now all the characters look like fat dwarfs. I had the same problem with a re-run of Jade Empire, but BioWare has a configuration utility that can be accessed with the beginning menu where you can simply change from normal to widescreen. I can't find anything on the NWN2 options menu. I am NOT going to run all over the realm with a bunch of fat-headed dwarves. Please... any help would be appreciated.

I love British TV. I love their dry humor sitcoms, although I don't see them as often over here as I did 10-20 years ago. But the series Spooks or as we yanks call it, MI-5, is one of my favorite tv dramas of all time. Husby and I just bought the boxed set of all eight seasons, and are treating ourselves to popcorn nights watching it several times a week now! Yum!

*shrug* Threatening the president is not covered by freedom of speech. Trust me. Besides which, Obama has had more death threats in two years than any other president has had in an entire term... or so I've heard... so the Secret Service tends to be a bit testy about them. This kid wasn't singled out. He was just proud enough of his actions to contact the media and hit the front page. Most folks who do this kind of thing end up in an interogation room, or in jail, and they aren't looking for publicity afterward.

Hahahahaha... No. Double No. I dearly miss my mako, and would dump hammerhead out an airlock if I could.

Did you play Risen? Just the online demo. Never bought the game.

Yikes, what a disappointment. I'm a real Gothic fangirl, and have been waiting for this game for eons. No way will my machine handle those requirements, and to upgrade that much would mean a brand new computer from the ground up. Bah.

We cannot impose our own cultural morals on others just because we don't share those morals any more than we can force our religion on others just because we don't share their religion. We may not like it, but it's frankly none of our business. We may think our beliefs are the right ones, but I can guarantee that others disagree, and think their beliefs are the right ones. I agree that a culture of pedophilia is revolting to me... but there are a lot more revolting things about Afghan culture, such as their dispicable treatment of women, that bother me more. Sadly, we can't change the way they treat their women, either. Only they can do that, and only through the evolution and maturity of their culture as it has more contact with societies outside of its own. Since we're talking about a tribal nation, that's not gonna be happening any time soon.

"These people" are Americans. They are being asked... more of a demand, actually... to give up their constitution protections and property rights so that some of their fellow Americans won't be offended? Offended by the demonstration of religious tolerance on which our nation was built? This entire episode has gone viral in this country, whipped by hate-speech, misinformation, disinformation and outright lies. I'm stunned and ashamed by what I've seen. The organizers have been villified and slandered, fueled by bigotry and religious intolerance. Here. In America. The whole thing has been deliberately blown up by politicians for political reasons, to divide Americans and paint Muslim Americans as people who should be looked at with suspicion, and who should not exercise their own constitution freedoms and property rights because doing so would offend others. I mean, cripes. What the hell could be more unAmerican than that! Fact: This old Burlington Coat Factory is already being used as a mosque, and has been for some time. The overflow from the congregation's current location uses it. Fact: The building is two blocks from the outside perimeter of the WTC cordoned area, but it's six blocks from the North Tower, the closer of the two towers. Fact: There is a mosque already built and in use five blocks from the North Tower, and nobody thinks that it is encroaching on hallowed ground. Fact: There are Muslim prayer services daily inside the Pentagon. Is that sacrilege to those who died there on 9/11? Fact: Many Muslims lost their lives on 9/11, including the entire staff of the Arab Chamber of Commerce, the WTC offices of which contained... a mosque. Can't you people see that those pandering to this horrible religious bigotry are trying to bring out the worst in us as a nation, bring us back to a place where we as a society felt it okay for some people to be segregated, treated as second-class citizens because of the color of their skin? To recreate this vitriolic atmosphere using religious intolerance rather than racial intolerance as a lynchpin is... is... an abomination. I'm really dumfounded by this, and by the reactions of good people, reactions that I cannot understand on any level.

You could be right, I'm not a constitutional scholar. I do know, however, that it's not the state constitution at issue this time, it's about the federal constitution. The issue is whether a state has the right to enforce statutes which are federally unconstitutional. At least that's my understanding of the situation. It'll be at least a year before it hits the 9th Circuit Appeal Panel, longer if it then goes to the full 9th Circuit Appeals Court, and a year or two after that before it hits SCOTUS. By then we'll all be more clear as to what the Pro-Prop 8 folks are arguing... so far they've said basically nothing of substance... and what the anti-Prop 8 folks will be arguing to the Supremes. But if by some chance SCOTUS does agree that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, then it's my understanding that it will apply to all 50 states, not just California. I have lived through times where segregation and institutionalized discrimination was accepted as fact. I know it when I see it. Thankfully, the courts have guided us through decades of change, and things are much better now. But it's not over until everyone has the same protections and due process, and I believe that this case just might be the one to make the difference. Or not.

Yes it will and I think you will be disappointed by what happens. The question before the SCOTUS will not be "Should gay marriage should be legal?" This question will be "Does California have the right to recognize, or decline to recognize gay marriage?" And you can be sure they do. My prediction it will go 6-3 with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito ruling in favor of California. Ginsburg does not give a hoot in hell what the law says, she will do what "feels" right. Kagan is a nutjob who thinks the federal government is our God. Who knows where Sotomayor will come down. She may even join the majority. Oh, it's a conservative majority now, no doubt about it. But I want them to actually say that descrimination against sexual orientation is constitutional. There's no doubt in my mind that at one point SCOTUS would have ruled that descrimination against blacks was constitutional. The time has come, in my opinion, to make certain that constitutional rights and protections are applied to all people equally. I may not live to see it, but someday it will happen here in the USA. Also, I found something in the BBC today that better describes what I was trying to say about civil unions not giving spousal rights in most states. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10956033 If you look at the map, you'll see that only one state, Iowa, recognizes gay marriage. Three states offer full spousal rights for gay couples. The rest offer either limital spousal rights or have outright banned gay marriages. And of course, the federal government does not recognize gay couples at all. So as a society, we've got some work to do in order to end the last bastion of legalized discrimination.