metadigital

Unless Catherine (PC) is a narcissist ...

I haven't had a problem, and I'm still riding the first horse ... ... and I've ridden up and down mountains ...

I closed one Gate, and another opened right next to it!

Also, on re-watching Serenity again, the whole Miranda episode looks to be the catalyst for the war of indepence ...

Not to mention replacing the picture of Elizabeth on all the coins... " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, QE2 is actually very popular. Unlike politicians, who are the only people that would be nominated for the Presidency (although Prime Minister Howard received a standing ovation at the Commonwelath Games in Melbourne, last month, after a decade of leadership with almost as many surpluses and consequent tax reductions: an exemplar). And when HRH does pass the batton on, her royal son isn't at all popular. (A bit like George IV.) The point is that the political mechanism is sound, regardless of the figurehead. Australia swung from the apron strings of Great Britain to the USA during WW2, and has stayed there since.

Kaftan, in Britain there is a high awareness for any unatended packages, mainly because the IRA used to blow up things, like tube trains. Be thankful you don't have to worry about it ... except for the odd politician being knocked off by a psycho ...

Absolutely.

I thought you were *disapeared* for chasing down the second KotOR2 patch ... "

Just be aware that the vulnerability won't be patched by Miscrosoft until next week (the eleventh).

Good sportsmanship should be rewarded. Question is, does a surfeit of syrup qualify as a reward ...

It's for da kids!

The biggest hurdle (for Australia) is coming up with a suitable replacement. Who's going to be the President? And how will the system work: just replace the Queen as Head of State with a President? Then what? (Don't forget that about 90% of Australians are British descendants.) At this point all the alternatives fall about in disunion. The current system is stable and it works. Screw around with it and anything is possible: the currency could fall through the floor, for example, as it is subject to the confidence of the stock market locker-room.

Never been interested enough to buy one. If I want to replay a game and find all the secrets, then I have no problem looking at a walk-through. I wouldn't rule out buying one, though, I've just never been in a position to want to.

That ^, and the interface is probably the last thing to be finalised. I know whenever I create and interface, it is the thing I am polishing last, because it is the one element that one can never spend too much time on, so it is strategically best (design-wise) to pour all the extra time, made up in the completion of other elements on time and earlier than projected, onto this task. Naturally it is done after all the other tasks are done, to eliminate the risk that another element isn't finished and extra effort was spent on the i/f.

You could use RAID or striping. ATA (and therefore IDE)

BG2 had enough placed gear that the item creation was a bonus not a requirement. Thats good games design in my book. If I dont pick up the shiny sword of chopping, thats my problem. But if the shiny sword of chopping only appears due to luck and not having it hikes the difficulty significantly. Thats poor games design. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shadowpaladin, meet reality: Ditto for me, too. Also, I would add, that my current character is level 9, about to be 10. I have since experimented with the level up mechanic: the bonuses are allocated as the PC gains a particular level, so there is no reason to not level (i.e. levelling up stats only counts towards the current major level that the PC is gaining). Except if you want to continually beat up rats with your steel sword, because rats are always level one. I have not noticed the game getting proportionately more difficult, either. It has remarkably stayed almost exactly the same as my PC has levelled up. Can't say fairer than that.

Mal, Zoe and River are the central characters. The others are important, but not vital. (JW always wants a teenage girl superhero in his productions. ) I would have liked Book to be there, too, but that avenue isn't going to be explored except in flashback.

Independent countries that have the reigning monarch of Britain (Queen Elizabeth II) as the head of state. Basically the Queen, and in her stead the Governors-General of each commonwealth Country, are the equivalent of the President. They sign legislation passed by the two houses of parliament into law, and (in Australia in the 1970s, at least) are able to disolve parliament and ask for the electorate to vote a new government in. Membership of the Commonwealth is now strictly voluntary: it is the the advantage of those member states to be there (Caribbean neighbours have vastly different tarrifs on their prospective banana imports into Britain, for example). Also, Australia gets to beat England by 84 gold medals to 30 in the Commonwealth Games.

1. The US President does not have carte blanche to create and/or change legislation ("the Presdient has actual power and say on how the country is run"); rather it is a bicameral structure where the legislature (i.e. House of Representatives) create legislation for approval, which must be agreed by the Senate, before the figure head of the President can rubber stamp it into law. Further, it is then interpreted by the judiciary, which makes up the third pillar of the democracy. To illustrate the fallacy in your statement: How many citizens of the US, in 1953, voted to remove from power Iran's prime minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh? This was a plot orchestrated by British and U.S. intelligence agencies to protect their oil interests (dubbed "Operation Ajax"). (The operation was conducted following the Prime-Minister's nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. It reinstated the Iranian monarchy, handing power back to former Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.) Following Dr. Mosaddegh's fall, the Shah's rule became increasingly dictatorial, particularly in the late 1970s. With strong support from the USA and the UK, the Shah further modernized Iranian industry but crushed civil liberties. His autocratic rule led to the Iranian revolution in 1979. An Islamic republic was soon established under the Ayatollah Khomeini. So the creation of the modern day Iranian political scenario was down to the US and UK, trying to increase their hegemony and safeguard their interests. 2. Just because the US elections are a popularity contest between two people who want to be supreme dictator for four years, doesn't mean that other systems don't work in an equal or more democratic manner. I'm not saying that Iran is a perfect democarcy, mind you, but I am suggesting that you take the log out of your own eye before you made a big song and dance about the mote in someone else's eye ... Some background, for all of us: So it is quite simple to make the almost perfect democracy of Iran a perfect democracy. Now, please explain to me how the US Electoral College works, and why there isn't a one-vote-one-value system for federal elections? And how many presidents of the US have been from minorities? Like black, hispanic, jewish, catholic or women? The US has a class system: the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant males are the ruling caste. Useful References Iran Politics of Iran

Just remember not to say anything derogatory about anyone else. Just phrase everything in terms of your own self and experience, so that you emphasise your own advantages (and minimise/don't mention your weaknesses).

Yes, you may be wrong about a few things.

News [security] Monday 3rd April 2006 reference

There is no try. There is only do, or do not. Yoda, TESB, to the whiney Skywalker. That was actually a good review, Motheater. Have several less negative points, for doing a better-than-expected job, than you deserve! -5 TOMBS points.

Yes.

13 years older, hes been doing it for probably 19 years, he actually owned his own business, but i run my own crew also just like he does. We have the same job, I'm faster then he is at what we do, but honestly there are a few things he can do that I can't, vice versa. Hes a better carpenter then i am, but we are not carpenters although we work inthe trades. We are painters/drywallers. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Rule One in sales (read: negotiating): never badmouth the opposition. It sounds like he has been given more remuneration because of his seniority, so I would use that angle when talking to the boss. (As in explain how you are more responsible than it might seem, just look at your work record.) The good news is that your trade is a very portable, so if you are as good as you say, your boss will know you can go elsewhere and will be more inclined to give you a bit more. You might even be asked to take on some more responsibility in order to get the raise, too, so have an idea what your response will be. Also, don't let on that you know how much the other guy is being paid, unless the person already knows that you know.