DanJW

Yeah, have to say I prefer the filter as well. It makes me feel like the air and upper atmosphere is still thick with radioactive dust. It might be nice to turn the filter down a little bit, but not off completely.

meh, I was just using that as an example. And pest control is a massive part of food production and only increases the impact it has on our environment. I guess my point was that something can be organic and still be bad for the environment (but at least it will be healthier to eat!)

I meant education about nutrition more than about animal welfare. You and Spaff don't count (low income means over a period of years and decades, not months) but your mum does. But having made the decision to be vegetarian your mother has had to be aware about balancing food groups so that her children don't become malnourished (not all vegetarians are good at this even so - hence the stereotype about them being ill and pasty) . Most low-income families don't know how to do this, and that is what I meant by education. Before they give up meat, they have to be utterly confidant that they can make meals that won't give them nutrient-deficiency diseases in the long run. A lot of people by all accounts have very little in the way of cooking skills and don't know where to start. Those people might not even be aware that they have a choice. Understand that I am not trying to justify mass produced meat, I am just trying to show why it still sells. You have to understand the problem before you can begin to fix it. Simply saying "they shouldn't buy it, so there" doesn't actually get us anywhere.

Yufster, the reason people on low income buy cheap meat is because, firstly meat is a "high nutrition" foodstuff, in that even a small amount contains nearly all the minerals you need and several vitamins. If you are on low income for a number of years then cheap meat is at least a reliable source of nutrition and you are unlikely to start suffering from things like rickets (which is common in times and places with no easy access to meat). Secondly, a lot of people in Britain are poorly educated about food and don't feel confidant about making nutritious meals without meat. That's a problem with the education system, really, "home economics" lessons have been failing for years despite diet being on the national curriculum. So you are right, of course, that a small amount of quality meat is better than larger amounts of poor meat (some people can only afford small amounts of cheap meat though). The problem is educating people to that fact. Despite my mixed feeling about Jamie Oliver I do respect the efforts he has made in that direction.

Digital Experience.

I was, of course, being sarcastic about the sarcasm

I was thinking more in terms of survival of the species, rather than the individual. Not everyone puts equal value on biodiversity of course. I see your point though, and indeed it becomes very thorny down that route. An ecosystem without predators would have incredible competition for resources. The herbivores would be forced to evolve all kinds of vicious natural weapons and behaviours with which to fight over food, territory and mates.

Well, they remade MGS1, so it's not impossible. I must find a way to play number 4, I've become a big fan of the series. (Also, friendly tip, but be careful about throwing around scores for games on these forums. They are a bit of an anathema for Thumbs.)

Well, the site has been going since 2004, and had precursors before that. We have been, if you like, in a state of eternal decline. An orbit, in fact - falling forever but never hitting the horizon. Just circling around the great black hole of *********. Also, hallo to all the new folks! Ramp up your sarcasm shields and pull up a place by the fire of previous newbie corpses. Seriously though, welcome

One point to take into consideration with animal rearing, is that those species would probably be extinct if we didn't eat them. Things like sheep, cows, even chickens, would have gone the way of the European bear, beaver, or sloth wolf. Secondly, remember that animals in the wild also suffer and die. More so than domestic animals. Quality of life for domestic livestock has the potential to much, much better than their equivalent in the wild. The reason we should care about animal quality of life while simultaneously eating them is; (a) because we can perceive and empathize with the suffering of other creatures and ( because we can. Other than that it is just a choice. In the end a lot of ethics comes down to just having to choose one or the other. AS for the natural/organic thing, yeah that field (!) is filled with a lot of bullshit, which muddies the water of what is actually trying to be achieved. For instance, an organic solution to pests is 'biological control', such as introducing natural predators. Unfortunately introducing a non-native species can have terrible results (such as rabbits and cats in Australia and New Zealand). If you introduced a non-native carnivorous insect into your field in the hope that it would eat the pest insects, chances are it would also it every other insect in the area and then keep spreading. At the extreme end this could wipe out pollinating insects like bees and all the flowering plants in your region would die off. So 'organic' can be devastating if not applied with proper knowledge. Also note that 'Natural' is not a term used much in natural science. The common meaning of the word is normally replaced with 'wild'.

WTF why did I get a namecheck? I'm the most likely person to agree with you. Maybe you are getting me confused with that guy you live with. Also Marek makes a good point, in addition to which you should only buy fruit and vegetables that are in-season. Now, because this thread is much too serious for Thumbs:

I'm generally on the side of PC, but the podcast definitely reminded me that people are more likely to prefer whichever they learned first. I'd say the mouse probably has a steeper learning curve at the beginning, but ultimately gives more precise control. You are more able actualise your intent, as they current jargon goes. Scribl, the jerking the thumbstick thing is not something I've tried. I think that might be a more advanced technique - most people have to hold the thumbstick to the side until the view reaches where they want. Is tapping it an intended gross control mechanic, or is that just your personal style? Things like the analogue speed, trigger and control scheme are good points. 'Weight' has been simulated on PC with things like weapon drag. Soupface has it right about the mouse giving both gross and fine control at the same time. rather than tapping and then using fine movements, you can turn and aim in a single movement. Halo is indeed designed for consoles, and was the first game to do that properly, which is why it became so popular. But a console FPS can be ported to PC and still be playable, whilst going the other way requires more tweaks to allow for slower reactions. But yeah both platforms are totally justified. I always get my arse kicked on console shooters, whereas I can hold my own on PC. It's just what I have more experience with. One other interesting thing; I was playing CoD4 with my teenage cousin over christmas and he had the edge over me. What I found most frustrating was that my sense of navigation was dulled. I felt less immersed and had less awareness of my surroundings than when I play on PC. I'm not sure, but I think it might be that on PC I can flick my view around anywhere in the sphere, much in the same way we flick our eyes around in real life without even being aware of it. What this did though was make me think more strategically. Not being able to rely on twitch skills I started thinking ahead, causing diversions and throwing grenades at where I predicted my cousin would run to in reaction to them. Once I started playing cat-and-mouse mind games with him I started winning more, and perhaps this is something the slower pace of console FPS encourages.

Father Ted and Father Dougal were simply funny characters. If they had just been stereotypes of catholic priests then it would have been a sitcom about a bunch of paedophiles. I do actually like the IT crowd, but I was initially put off by it's apparent reliance on lazy stereotype.

I really enjoyed Opposing Force, even if the "Race X" stuff seems to be non-cannon.

Steve! Where's Steve? We need an man on the inside. A man on the inside with a sock filled with gravel.

It can be done well... but the Moss character, for instance, I find pretty offensive and not very funny or accurate. He's a grotesque. The Irish guy though I can relate to better, even though I'm not really like him. At its best it laughs with geeks rather than at them. For instance this clip from series 3.

I was dubious about the IT crowd at first. However while the whole "computer people are funny and socially awkward" concept is hateful, the series does have snippets of brilliant writing and very funny jokes scattered throughout. Series 2 was also a big improvement on series 1 (probably because they could start moving away from stories about computer people being funny and socially awkward).

The cake episode is maybe my favourite. It's even funnier when you know that the MP really did bring it up in the House of Commons (which lead to the enquiry into Chris Morris which lead to the delay of the TV Special).

Totally with you about the first Tomb Raider Chris, with the whole finding it pretty lame after playing PC games and whatnot. But I too have been tempted by the look and feel of the last couple of new ones. Also I was one of those fans of Terminator: Future Shock and the follow-up, Skynet. With the post-apocalyptic open world setting they are pretty comparable to Fallout 3, now that I come to think of it. They did a great job of making you feel constantly hunted - if an eyebot found you then you knew a hunter-killer jet had been dispatched to you location already. Good stuff.

On the other hand non-gamers probably feel the same way about an evening with players of any game. There are times when I have to try and end a game-related conversation quickly, before the bystander's eyes actually dissappear into her skull (yes it is likely to be a girl). Or at least there used to be times. I haven't been out much lately

What makes you think the rest of us don't like them? Like Brkl and Chris said, their apparent sincerity makes them only more awesome.

Sweet! I might try and get one also. It's not just the slogan, it's the Art-Deco style of illustration that goes with it. It looks like something out of Rapture. Fantastic!

I have no idea really. Neither would surprise me.

I'd tell you to steal one off the wall in a tube station, but they might see you...

Also, ooh people discriminate and make assumptions about gamers. ooh ooh ooh what else is new?