Lol, I don't see that cartoon's relevance to the discussion, but it sure reminds me of some of the battles in this game. 

Yes, I know these things. I've been trying to hint at this for a few posts now, but please stop talking to me like I'm new to the game. I've been playing this since one month after the original game launched and have followed the dev feedback about new game systems long before they've been implemented on the live servers. I appreciate that you're trying to be helpful, but in this case it's wasted. Don't take it the wrong way though, I'm not annoyed or anything, just trying to steer the discussion somewhere more constructive.

Yeah, I have room for a gem, but I'd rather save that slot until I get a level 5 or 6 gem to use on it. At the moment I haven't got any gems above level 2, I think, which just isn't good enough to even consider using as a temporary buff. I want the freedom to add a more powerful gem in there without losing one I've already placed. Relics are hard enough to build up to a suitable level as it is.

I finally found a legendary weapon worth using!



It started out with 4 very useful legacies right away, and the potential to reach level 40, which is nice indeed for a 3rd Age weapon. It's too bad that it didn't have any gold legacies (only silver), but after getting to level 20, I already have two of those anyway. At the time this screenshot was taken, I hadn't even fought using the weapon. All I had done was to apply item xp I had saved up, which brought it straight to level 26.

The DPS is extremely good on this one compared to what I was using before. I went from struggling to take down enemies to cutting them down like butter. Ah, power!

Of course I know that, but the legendary weapons are also heavily reliant on their minimum level. A weapon with a minimum level of 51 or 53 just isn't going to be able to match quest reward weapons at level 59 (the DPS in particular is very bad in comparison, even when upgraded to its max). I haven't had much luck with Captain halberds so far, so I'm actually much better off using regular weapons until I actually find something decent to use. Hopefully I'll be able to locate a 2nd Age halberd with good stats, but I'm not holding my breath.

Nice coincidence. I hit level 60 this weekend too. The last two levels were spent entirely in Lothlorien, and I still have lots of stuff to do there. I'm almost starting to look forward to heading back into Moria to kick the collective asses of anything that threatened me there before.

Interestingly, I don't own a single legendary weapon at this point. I just haven't found anything I felt was good enough to focus on, and my old weapons both became outdated and were melted down. I now have about 230 000 item xp waiting for my next weapon.

Vista won't run Freedom Force? Oh no, that's one I always meant to get back to!  I wonder if the virtual XP mode in 7 would run it.

Probably not. The Virtual XP mode isn't meant for games.

I would love to see L&D for the PS3, but I seriously doubt that this rumor is even remotely true. Microsoft paid for the development of the expansion, which gave them exclusivity. I don't think there even would have been an expansion if MS hadn't stepped in.

Hit my first glitch with Win 7.  I've been unable to get City of Heroes to run in any way, shape or form.  That's the only glitch I have found so far.  I'm going to try and re-install CoH and see if that fixes it.  (Note that I did an upgrade, and not a fresh install.)

I wouldn't call that a glitch with Win 7, as it's most likely some kind of assumption City of Heroes makes in its code for Vista that no longer applies to Win 7. The devs will probably fix it soon enough.

In related news, LOTRO runs perfectly on Win 7 x64. I can't say the same about Vista x86, where it would crash all the time.

Windows 7 didn't install drivers for you automatically? And are you sure you're installing correct drivers for your OS version (you can't use 32-bit drivers in a 64-bit OS, for example).

Windows 7 is also supposed to be the last Windows OS with a 32-bit version. From there on, you'll only get 64-bit. You might as well go all the way now and get it over with.

I'm really happy about Win7 x64, after having run it on my laptop since tuesday. No crashes, no bugs, no problems at all. It's been a perfectly smooth experience, and the only game I've run so far, LOTRO, runs better than it did on Vista.

Okay, this episode and the last felt like filler for the big finish. I really hope Olivia goes down by the end of the season and that Aaron shoots her. A lot. Then walks away and saves Jack Bauer before disappearing into the sunrise.

I'm wondering if it wasn't Aaron who actually hired the killer or did the killing himself. It would be somewhat out of character for him, but so is the stuff with Tony right now.

I've heard you can use the same key for 3 different computers, so you should be able to use it. On the other hand, the keys are free, so there's no reason not to get another one.

Just out of curiosity, how long should someone play a game to find the fun?  Shouldn't a game be fun (or interesting) within a few minutes of playing? 

If that was the requirement, the first two Fallout games would be among the worst games ever.

Is there any good reason for me NOT to try Windows 7 (other than having to reinstall XP in March at the earliest)?

Yes. You won't be able to go back to XP after trying Windows 7 for yourself. You may consider that a drawback.

Doesn't seem to support 3D acceleration. Without that, it is not that useful for gamers to run games that are incompatible with Vista/Windows 7.

Which is why it isn't even in the Home version of Windows 7. It's not meant for ordinary consumers, it's meant for businesses that need to be able to use their old software that might not be directly Windows 7 compatible.

It's kind of funny to see 360 owners being all mad about this after all the times PS3-owners have had to suffer because of Microsoft buying up exclusivity for game after game. I think buying exclusivity is a stupid thing no matter which direction it goes, but getting all up in arms about this shows a lack of perspective regarding the treatment MS gives players.

I installed Windows 7 x64 yesterday, and it seems to run smoothly so far. Can't wait to get home from work and play around with it some more.

There are some things that have changed a lot from Vista, such as the newly reimagined Taskbar (it can sort of be described as a combination between the old Taskbar and the Quick Launch bar) and the way the Control Panel works. Now if only I can figure out how to force it to use HDMI for audio when available (and only then), I'll be set.

Kagath, the two versions are the 32-bit (x86) and 64-bit (x64) versions. If you've got more than 2 GB RAM in your computer, download the 64-bit version. Otherwise you might want to stick with the other one.

I wonder how long it will take them to crack that.

I don't see why they'd want to. The full OS will be available long before that.

Arrr, matey, there be pirates that shant wish to part with the doubloons said purchase would force them to release from their coinpurse.

Yeah, but they are going to crack the full version, not the RC which isn't going to be updated any more at that point.

I wonder how long it will take them to crack that.

I don't see why they'd want to. The full OS will be available long before that.

I'm seriously considering replacing my Vista install tomorrow with Windows 7, dual boot be damned! I just need to confirm that there are working drivers for my laptop so that I can get all my hardware working on the 64-bit version. Might as well make the jump to 64-bit now. Microsoft says Windows 7 will be their last OS with 32-bit support.

i seriously did not even see that twist coming.

I had read a spoiler earlier in the season and while watching that episode I thought that it was possibly planted misinformation.  I didn't catch on to the twist until about a minute before it happened.  Looking forward to the next episode.

I had the same reaction. I couldn't see how his appearance in this episode could tie into what I had heard, so I believed I had been misinformed as well. Only near the end did things start to make sense, and by the time the twist was revealed, I was waiting for it. Still good though.

In a very recent interview with the guys behind the show, they talked about that video in a way that made it sound like the fans were just thinking they hear Faraday talking. It could turn out to be someone else entirely.

Ah, I see. It has to be mentioned that even though Mr Eko has returned as a ghost, the actor didn't, so the relationship between ghosts and actors isn't exactly strong.

As for the Desmond's son = Charlie theory, take a look at this article. 

That quote above about deaths confuses me. What's the difference between Charlie's and Michael's deaths in terms of their relationship to the show? Apart from Hurley seeing Charlie in his insane visions, that is.

I think there are 3 types of death on Lost:

ghost dead (e.g., Charlie)
resurrection dead (e.g., Locke)
dead dead (e.g., Michael)

I disagree. As far as I can tell, there are two types of deaths: Dead or resurrected by the Island. Hurley is a mental patient and sees things. We know he's seen, talked to, and interacted with several dead people, including Charlie and Mr Eko. That doesn't make them ghost dead. "Ghosts" seem to be more closely related to Jacob and the smoke monster, as we've seen a couple of people manifest and disappear into thin air, such as Christian Shepard. Charlie isn't one of these people.

That quote above about deaths confuses me. What's the difference between Charlie's and Michael's deaths in terms of their relationship to the show? Apart from Hurley seeing Charlie in his insane visions, that is.

Mandy wasn't working for anyone. She's a hired gun available to anyone who can pay. It also doesn't make sense that Nina's organization would be the same as the one we're seeing in this season. Our current evil organization consists of nothing but leaders of US private military groups. Nina's organization was based in Germany.

The group has been too exposed for that, both to us viewers and to the investigators in the show. I suspect Jack is going to take down Tony and the impersonator-chick, plus her contact in the Group by the end of the season. Following their takedown, the rest of the group disassembles and never meets again. Or Chloe manages to bypass the anonymity of the network and traces every computer involved, leading to big arrests.

You posted what you called legal uses of pirates bay to say its only used occasionally for illegal purposes. 

No I did not. Read my post again. I don't deny that The Pirate Bay's main use is as a source of pirated material. What I said was that there was the occasional pirated torrent among the searches I posted ("among the searches above" really should have hinted pretty strongly at this). What YOU said was that you didn't believe that The Pirate Bay is used extensively for legal torrents. I proved you wrong by making simple searches that turned up hundreds of legal torrents, almost all of them with seeders and leechers (ie. uploaders and downloaders). Yet you completely dodged this fact in your replies, hoping that nobody would remember your mistake if you brought attention to something else.

Occasional?!?!?   Ive looked multiple times at the list of the most recent torrents on there, and the vast majority of what is there every time is stuff that is not legal to download.   I think you need to learn and maybe understand the word occasional before you use it in such a wrong way again.

Thank you for illustrating your trolling by not responding to a single point I made in my post but instead going off on a tangent in order to provoke a reaction. That's the end of my discussion with you in this thread.

On a different note, I'm surprised nobody has replied to the post I made earlier in this thread about how the record and movie companies are going to use this trial to escalate their censoring on the internet, initially against ISPs. Is nobody here actually worried about this? Is it just me?

I dont believe for a second that pirates bay was used 'extensively' for legal means, as its just not true.   So no new arguments need to be brought.

Then stop being a knucklehead and go there to search for yourself. The site is up. You don't have to speculate or believe anything. The proof is available to anyone who is actually interested in serious discussion and isn't just participating in the thread in order to be trollish.

But wait! I'll do it for you, since you're obviously going to search for something like "The Dark Knight DVD rip" and complain that you're not seeing any legal results.

WoW patches: http://thepiratebay.org/search/wow%20patch/0/99/0
Game music remixes: http://thepiratebay.org/search/ocremix/0/99/0
Public domain books: http://thepiratebay.org/search/public%20domain%20books/0/99/0
Abandonware: http://thepiratebay.org/search/abandonware/0/99/0 (yes, I know Abandonware isn't strictly legal, but with HotU down, torrents are a very attractive alternative to something that would otherwise be unavailable to anyone, paying customer or not)
Patches in general: http://thepiratebay.org/search/patch/0/99/0
Linux: http://thepiratebay.org/browse/303

These were all generic searches, and with the exception of WoW I didn't search for a particular product. Yet all those search results are overflowing with legal torrents. So much for the "Pirate Bay isn't used for legal stuff" argument, eh?

Yes, you'll find the occasional illegal result among the searches above, just like on Google. If you absolutely have to go for a counterargument, please try to be more clever than using that one.

Gee and I guess the only thing google can be and is ever used for is torrent files.    Cute little thing this person did here, too bad is has zero relevance to what the pirate bay was doing.     

So what you're saying is that torrent files are bad, and that a website that focuses its searches on nothing but torrents should be punished? Did you completely miss the parts of this thread where it was pointed out that torrents are extensively used for legal means?

Let's not repeat the same arguments over and over. Try bringing new ones to the table.

I just hope getting a platinum trophy in Uncharted 2 isn't going to require multiplayer shenanigans. I always hate it when games that are primarily singleplayer force you to jump online just to get some obscure (Kill a Rock Star in GTA4) and often ridiculous (10,000 kills in Resistance 2) trophy.

There have always been solo instances, and you get access to your first before you hit level 10. They are always story instances though, with the exception of the item enchantment quests available in Moria.

[Spoiler]

Sure, psychohistory is theoretically possible in a distant future. It's not an accurate form of prediction though.

Major Foundation spoilers below:

Spoiler for Hiden:

It also turns out even psychohistory's founder didn't believe it would work on its own, so he introduced a society entirely dedicated to "correcting" future events so that they would lead into what he had predicted.

This thread is an oxymoron btw. You're essentially asking: "Please predict if we can ever predict the future".

didnt Richard give Locke a Compass to give back to him(this season) in the past when Locke would leap back in time?..i wonder if that was the same compass from the test?..(in the test he asked Locke to choose which objects were already his)

Yes, it was the same compass. It seems Richard Alpert didn't fully understand how Locke was significant, so he expected him to recognize the compass already as a kid. When he realized that Locke didn't, he left disappointed.

I've been thinking a bit more about this, and remembered more precisely why I'm so disturbed about the whole thing:

This ruling has opened up for other cases to be ruled in the same way. The record and movie companies have already stated intent to use the ruling to go after ISPs and force them to censor websites with illegal material. The consequence could be that pages like The Pirate Bay or even abandonware sites wouldn't even load for customers of the ISPs that have been forced to censor those sites. With the court ruling in hand, the RIAA or MPAA could even go to Google and tell them to either filter out illegal torrents from their searches or remove the possibility to search for torrents altogether.

The question is: Who decides what should be censored on the internet, and are you really comfortable with it?

This is not idle speculation. As I said above, intent has already been stated publicly that they want to force ISPs to censor what their customers can and can't see.

And here's a little headache for you: If you've paid attention to internet traffic, you'll know that more than 75% (at least. I'm erring on the side of caution here. The actual figure may be closer to 90%) of all web traffic is file sharing (and most likely illegal). ISPs know this, and they willfully and knowingly offer their customers faster and faster internet connections, fully knowing that the vast majority of the speed will be used for illegal downloading. When the copyright owners come to the ISPs and ask them to stop a specific IP from filesharing, the ISP tells them no, go to the police instead. With this and the Pirate Bay ruling in mind, would you say that what the ISPs are doing is now illegal? Why or why not? (extra credit: Sweden has some of the fastest private internet connections in the world readily available to anyone, with just as much bandwith available for uploads as downloads. Isn't this encouraging users to set up filesharing servers?)

There are some really scary opinions in this thread, and particularly from you Razgon. I don't think you've really thought through this closely enough.

@Wonderpug - how can I tell the difference? Well, the listings on the frontpage - "Movies", "Games", "Music"...

How does this show a difference? If you choose Movies, you have access to all kinds of movie trailers, game trailers and legal movies. Just because the pirated movies are more popular and thus appear higher in searches is irrelevant. Legal stuff is available, and in large quantities. For music, there's tons of legal music available out there. I should know, some of the music I've composed can be downloaded as torrents. Sites such as OCRemix commonly post their music collections as torrents as well, and these are very popular. Sites like The Pirate Bay give their music greater exposure, something they appreciate. As for games, you do realize there are more kinds of games out there than AAA titles, right? You can find collections of free Flash games, game demos, shareware titles, mods, patches... pretty much anything that is game related and of more size than makes it practical to put on a web server.

I get the impression a lot of you think torrents are by their very nature illegal. This is just a result of your media exposure to the phenomenon. Torrents are actively used for legal means, for example by companies like Blizzard who prefer that their customers use torrents to download patches since it saves them bandwith on their own servers and allows download speeds to remain high even during times of vast pressure (such as a WoW patch release day).

How many movies are shared legally? How many games? through torrents?

Did you even look for legal torrent material before you posted this? You'd be amazed at how much legal stuff is available. Try installing Azureus Vuze for example. They use the start page for their application to promote lots and lots of legal torrents.

and of course, as I mentioned, its very clear WHAT it was used for, if you check out their top 100 downloads...

So what? It's clear that Google is heavily used for porn if you look at their top search words. Should this make Google illegal in countries where porn is prohibited, or even worse, force Google to manually filter all their search results to censor out all porn for that particular country?

You see, as I understand it, its their site, and when people have easy acces to wares from it, they are liable to suffer from it, and if it was never the intent to make these things avaiable, they should remove them. How you say? I have no clue, but then again I dont need to, its not my site.

When you present as strong opinions as you do in this thread, you should at least have a small idea of how your concept of justice should be implemented in real life. I have no idea how a non-profit search engine of any kind could survive if they had to filter their search results to avoid all illegal content. What defines "illegal" anyway? this varies from country to country.

Lets face it: If you're going to demand that all torrent search engines filter out illegal content, you'll end up without any torrent search engines at all. That's like making it illegal to drive cars because most people break the speed limit from time to time.

I oppose all kinds of censoring on the Internet. It always becomes political, no matter how "obvious" it is that content should be removed.

They can't jail them for the piracy itself.

Do you have a link to the law?  I'm interested in reading it.  They weren't convicted for piracy, but for "assisting" in the commission of piracy.

No I don't. I'm basing myself on the stuff I've read in the papers about the case and my knowledge of Norwegian law, which is almost the same as the Swedish one.

There is a pretty big difference. Google = user have to commit themselves - Piratebay = its right there...

No, that's a tiny difference.  Both Google and TPB will get you what you want.  One of them makes it a bit easier, is all.

And....what does the Swedish law say about the distinction?

Nothing, and that's the problem with this case. The only thing you can say for certain is that if The Pirate Bay had the pirated files stored directly on their servers, they would be in clear violation of the law. From what I've heard, the idea has been to convince the court that the people behind the page not only knew that it is used for piracy, but that they actively encouraged it. They can't jail them for the piracy itself.

Edit: Oh, and the most important part is that they tried to prove that the owners actually earned money on the site, thus making them indirectly and knowingly earn money on piracy. That is a very clearly illegal activity by Swedish law.