ThunderPeel2001

Phaedrus' Street Crew
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    8780

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ThunderPeel2001

  8. Posted

    Argh. I had to look it up on the TTG forums and people are saying you had to kill her because she was bitten... WTF? Did these people not play episode 2? Being bitten doesn't do anything. Everyone who dies is zombified. /frustrated

  9. Posted

    Can someone explain something to me... I'm at the beginning of Episode 3. I decided to try and...

    Help the girl who's being attacked by zombies... by shooting the zombies as they're attacking her -- is that even an option? The reason I ask is that I aimed a zombie and shot -- but somehow hit her. What gives? Is it a bug? Freaked me out. About to try again...

    Edit: Argh. It happened again. What's going on? I'm definitely aiming at a zombie, but somehow I hit her. Why give me free control if I can't actually choose who to shoot?

    Edit: And AGAIN. Argggggg.

  13. Posted

    For those who don't want to watch the whole 90 mins, here's the four steps those turn obesity around in kids (and presumably adults):

    1. No sugary drinks -- Only milk and water. Juice is no good for you.

    2. Always have fibre with your carbohydrates -- this helps your body counter any bad effects from eating carbs.

    3. Wait 20 minutes for second portions.

    4. Equal every minute at the screen, doing exercise (pretty damned tough to maintain, he admits).

    Fructose is the same as ethanol, but without the buzz. All the same side-effects and damage to your body.

  14. Posted

    From what I hear, technically the structure of the crown places her at the head of the government and the church for some silly bullshit historical reason. What I meant was less that she had direct control, which she doesn't, and more that you actually have living people representing the crown which your whole government is historically based on, going back for centuries upon centuries. You even have the queen's face on your money. All we have is very stately portraits of 200-years-dead statesmen and rebels.

    And... what's her take on gay marriage? I'm intrigued.

  15. Posted

    I think it helps that you have a queen who can wave her royal scepter and tell both the government and the church that dudes marrying dudes is totally okay.

    The Queen doesn't interfere with our government, we're a democracy, not a fascist state.

  16. Posted

    Um, maybe it's just me, but giving birth to a genetically engineered baby of a species that is 1. not actually human and 2. went extinct eons ago, is not only scientifically unethical, but also incredibly immoral, since you're purposefully creating an intelligent life (some might argue more intelligent than human life) to study as a science project.

    Completely agree.

    (Also, wtf Luftmensch? Was that an attempt to troll or what?)

  17. Posted

    This is kind of a weird fascinating thing, for me. Apart from the "America got democracy too early" explanation posted earlier, can anyone provide an explanation of this phenomenon to me?

    It's something that seems to basically be unique to America. For example, when I someday meet the Lara to my Skipper Croft, I'll be able to get married because the major gay marriage debate in my province lasted for four months (with one month of that being a waiting period for paperwork and such), even with a conservative premier who opposed the idea.

    Yeah, same here. I don't recall gay marriage being that much of a big deal here in the UK. I mean it was cool when a lot of gay celebs started getting married, but I don't recall it being all that controversial.

  21. Posted

    Sigggh, me too. They shaped my knowledge of not just Amiga games but films, music, literature, fashion, attitude and even fucking diet (that one page about what to have on toast or something). Reading them digitally just isn't the same.

    It's almost worth buying a tablet device just to be able to read them :)

    Speaking of which, I was reading the first issues of Your Sinclair (actually Your Spectrum) from 1984 last night (so much fun) and stumbled across this doozy:

    Untitled-13_zps9539dde9.jpg

    I'm now more convinced than ever that immature men essentially pushed women away from computers -- most of the hardcore techy articles in the same issue, including machine code programming tips, were written by women. 10 years later and women would only be doing the art layouts for computer magazines.

  22. Posted

    But shooting people is illegal, too. The point is that by banning drink driving, you're not denying the public the ability to drink drive, you're merely telling them not to. If they want to, people can still do it, and countless do. They might get caught, they might run someone over, or they might get to their destination safely. The argument for banning guns is that people shouldn't even have the opportunity to shoot anyone, because obviously its being illegal isn't deterrent enough for everyone. To deny people the ability to drink drive, you'd have to restrict their access to one or other of the necessary components. A better analogue for drink driving law would be for guns and bullets to be legal, but for it to be illegal to load your weapon. It's probably easier to catch people driving drunk than loading weapons, though.

    Fair enough. If anything, it seems like the drink/driving analogy doesn't work at all. You'd have to ban cars and/or alcohol to stop drink driving completely, and neither of those are feasible solutions because of the problems they would cause. So what's left? Well they can make it illegal to have an open container of alcohol in the car -- even if it's being drunk by a passenger. They can stop drive-throughs from serving alcohol. They can allow police to issue breathalyser tests. They pretty much do everything they can to prevent/discourage it except banning cars and alcohol -- which would be worse than the problem they're trying to solve.

    With weapons, it's difficult to believe that banning them would create more problems than they would solve -- although pro-gun owners often try to claim that that's exactly what would happen. I'm surprised no-one has mentioned it so far, but I'm glad they haven't: I've seen folk make statements like, "they banned weapons in Australia, and now home invasions have gone through the roof!" -- except the stats don't support that at all.

    The bottom line is that people will believe what they want to believe, regardless of what the facts state. We're irrational beings :) Which just brings me back to the idea that change can't happen until the society in question is ready for it. And America isn't ready for it yet, if you ask me.