Goodwin 1st MRB

So much good classical out there, that blows a lot of stuff out of the water, and it was written so long ago... More modern stuff? Hasn't been anything worthwhile out by any new band in the past 10 years I'd say.

The lady setup a surprise 'date night' for us last night - a ghost tour of chicago! Our tour guide was hilarious - made it a lot of fun for everyone. Our guide doesn't do many of the tours anymore - so it was cool to get the owner of the tour himself giving us the info... Here's a little bio on the guy: This was the back alley behind the theater where over 600 people died. At the time the building was allowed to pass code without fire escapes, and the front doors opened in - instead of out, so when the wave of people hit the doors because a fire broke out inside, there were too many pushing from behind to open them. The balcony doors up top were chained and locked shut (so the poor folks in the cheap seats couldn't sneak to the good seats downstairs). The fire escape door was still up there and unlocked, and when a teacher went to open it, she fell out and to her death in this alley. When everyone else saw the open door, they followed suit. Over 130 were found dead, stacked about 6ft. high right where this picture was taken. The door was 6 stories up. Also, the parking garage on the left? In the past 50 years +, 80 or so people have jumped to their death in this alley. Many reasonings as to why are because of the fact that the courthouse where custody cases and divorces are handled is across the street (I've actually parked in that garage!). This was the only picture that came out clear, of the 8-10 pictures we took in the alley. Others had similar issues with their cameras. This was where the lady of Guadalupe appeared on a street wall. When it first showed up, thousands of people flocked to see it. The memorial is still there, with a picture of how it looked originally. It was cool to see - and I never knew about it. This was in the Liars Club - a really divey small bar where some celebs come to stay outta the eyes of the paparazzi and to just chill. There have been 4 murders in the room where we were - for a while it was Joe Walsch's studio, while he lived upstairs. Dee took a picture of me sitting down (3 in rapid succession actually), is that an orb above me!??! It sure looks like it! Number 1: Number 2: Number 3: And the murders occurred right in the general area where the pinball machines reside now. We noticed what looks like another orb over his face in this picture. Here is our guide talking about it a little bit: I would agree that more times than not, it's dust/pollen/shit in the air, or lense flare that causes many 'orbs', but who knows... there are some out there that are just unexplainable. Overall, it was a complete blast. If you guys are ever in Chicago - I highly recommend this tour, you can drink on the bus during the 3-hour tour, the guides are hilarious, and you learn a LOT of really cool historical info - regardless if you're there for the ghosts or not. It was a great time.

I think everyone is chill we're just having a fun debate!

Google was around LONG before Bing - look at the basic layout and options... Bing basically took Google and repackaged it and called it 'bing' (that IS their MO after all) They had a different image layout - which Google went to (and not only went to, but made MUCH better!) You want to compare apples to apples, then do that, but don't say just because of ONE SINGLE feature that Bing had, that Google designed something better based off of, that google is 'chasing bing'. That's ridiculous, absolutely absurd even. You talk about 'countless similarities' - but refuse to mention that Bing is essentially 'Google' in a different wrapping. Especially given the simple logic that Bing essentially has shit in the EXACT SAME PLACES as google, and came out AFTER google. Simple logic would say that Bing is chasing Google if ANYTHING, but they had a neat image feature - which Google IMPROVED upon and made BETTER than Bing. How is that 'stealing?' As I said - why would they make the change? They're moving towards a more fluid web3.0 type style - which is coming. There will be a lot more things coming from Google in the future anyway (which can't be said for Bing). Do you really think it makes a huge difference anyway? They took ONE feature and IMPROVED it, while Bing stole, well, basically it's ENTIRE PACKAGE from someone else, and made it the same features, different package - no vast improvements, no better at anything. Also the guy I was speaking of was one of the major players at Google - a 'big mind' if you will behind a lot of things. Also, he's now one of the MAJOR players at Bing, and it's his job to make that thing sink or swim. Sure some Google employee's may have been M$ employees at some point - but do you think Google wants M$'s mindset of just waiting for someone else to do it first, and then basically copy it? No. They went to Google because they wanted a forward thinking company who is okay with being on the cutting edge. So despite you writing it off so casually (if not mocking it) the fact that one of their major players went to Bing, says a lot about how their search engine performs and how it's come around. That's the hard truth. If I can find this article again, I'll link it up so you can have a look. Have you ever looked at M$ history? If anything - they chase other peoples inventions ALL the time. Look at the options that came out in IE8 - that had been fully functional features in other browsers for years? Bing is no different - it's something they created based on other peoples success with it (and based a lot of their design off of other peoples - it's how they work). TLDR Version: Bing is Google in a different package. If you're getting upset about Google IMPROVING and providing a BETTER feature than Bing, then that's ridiculous and petty - given how Bing essentially took EVERYTHING Google did, and repackaged it without making ANY improvements. Why? Windows is the largest platform out there - and there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who hate M$ products, but use Windows. I don't think it's appropriate to cast such a blanket assertion forward without more info. True 'Simple' logic would suggest that they just don't like Microsoft - it doesn't say anything about their OS they may or may not use (although I would even argue if they hate M$ so much, they'd probably use Linux anyway because most people who hate M$ embrace Open Source - which Mac is not). Lastly, Bing is still chasing Google. That's a fact of life.

Click the links Ford gave - he gave links to just the 'search' feature, not the image results. Also regarding the image results? When you click an image in Google - the following page brings up the specific image you're looking for - without having to click the thumbnailed version, or scroll the page - just another ease of use feature that Bing doesn't offer. But I'm sure Google stole that from Bing too - you know, since Bing is killing them and all. Figured I should throw that in there, you know, apples to apples and all that.

Why does Bing suck? Why? Well, it was designed by (or at least helped along by) one of the gentlemen that made Google so good, so it will DEFINITELY have some positive points, for sure. Also, it came out how long after Google had been revolutionizing search engines? I wonder how much code was taken from Google under the hood (especially since one of the main guys behind it came FROM GOOGLE). I can't remember his name particularly, but he left google to help MS with Bing. So if it seems really 'snappy and responsive', from what I've read, it's due to him - and the things he took with him from Google (shocking, MS taking someone elses ideas? Never...) Also - just because someone hates M$ - doesn't make them a mac user. I hate both personally. I'd love a Linux world. We could look at a whole host of other M$ products that are FULL of utter and complete fail, but that's another discussion. The changes aren't that dramatic IMO. and I don't mind them (regarding Google Images) Also, Google images still pulls up a HUGE assortment MORE pictures - with a LOT less duplication than Bing does. For example - search "sexy models" on bing, then search it on GI. Bing in the first page has triplicates of some pictures. Google? None, with a greater variety as well. Bing? Mostly porn, pussies, dicks and the like. Google? What do you know, there actually look like there are some 'model' shots in there. Much more accurate. Bing is okay - it's not terrible, but it certainly isn't 'great or amazing' - and it's certainly not 'ground breaking'. I don't think Google is 'stealing' any features, but moreover beginning to move towards Web3.0 - which is coming... and that's some matrix type shit. Also, regarding the links you posted - look at the results. Google has images right there at the top (in the event that's what you were looking for, you've got a bunch to pick from)... does bing? Nope. You have to go and click "images" at the top (which shockingly, is in the same position as Googles - weird!). They don't give you small previews like google... just in case. They just start listing links. Less user friendly. Your links don't prove anything other than they find the same things - which they are both search engines - they should. If you look at overall ease of use, intuitiveness, etc. - even in my small examples - Google dominates. ...Bing, raping google... that was a good one. I haven't laughed like that in a while

My buddy told me to DL it so we could play together. Can't wait to give it a shot tonight. He said it's like Diablo meets sci-fi. If that's true - I will enjoy. I loved Diablo and Diablo II (still play that one occasionaly)

Been a guitar player (rooted in blues) for... well over a decade. Over half my life actually. I've got one full cd that I recorded w/ a singer from Canada (we recorded it ourselves) - and have had the opportunity to do a little actual studio recording with a couple other bands out of Chicago that was cool. I also play bass, and have been playing bass almost as long as guitar. In fact, most bands I've ever been in, have utilized me as a bass player. Only a few bands have let me get to rippin on some lead blues. There's a few songs from the singer in canada and I's album are up here: www.myspace.com/nearautumn It's like a jazzy/bluesy/light alternative. Some might like it - some probably won't. Again, we did the recording ourselves - if I only knew then what I know now about recording, it would be a lot more crisp/clear. I wrote 95% of all the guitar parts (although the singer played guitar on a couple tracks), and all the bass parts.

I completely noticed that, which is why you lost all map building credibility in my book. J'k, obviously. I doubt anyone ever noticed, but that's a cool trivia fact.

Yes, that is your issue. It's best to connect directly to a router (your own preferably so you can adjust download speeds, port forwarding settings, etc). That's why you have the issue you described - you are correct. Also using 'network wifi' lends itself to dropped packets, limited speed, and a host of other issues which can ultimately affect gameplay adversely. This is because DOD:S kind of 'locks up' the machine when it's getting server info. If you've ever noticed, the cancel button doesn't really work at that time, not a lot works as a matter of fact because it's doing a TON of work - downloading things, sync'ing things, getting everything ready you'll need to play. So it might seem unresponsive, but this is because it's working, hard. You're not alone, but it's the natural course of the game/Steam. Also, you don't have to download things in order to get a virus or a trojan. Malicious scripts ran quietly in the background of a webpage can install things without your knowing. There's numerous ways to get a virus or trojan onto a system these days, and I can guarantee you that virtually all of them are damn near undetectable by the end user. Programmers are good out there these days, and with Web 3.0 starting to come around... it's gonna get even trickier!

The fact people condemn those kind of ads is sad. I'd love to see a major site actually discuss the POSITIVE connotations an ad like that might carry. Too bad they're all afraid to discuss truth.

No orange? Hot damn that sux.

Well, I think they're speaking from experience and just saying "it doesn't work". I'm guessing they're not computer programmers, so they can't say "well, the promixity code module doesn't allow for the internal specs of steams hitbox movement over given terrain, making the mod cause extreme latency and stress network connections in given situations because of the poor API" (or some such other nerdspeak) So it's hard to answer the question "What makes it fail?" I personally don't know. I HAVE seen mods like that before - and for some reason - they just never seemed to work well. I'm guessing that's why you don't see it on a lot more servers - especially considering how long the game has been out, and how long the mod has been around. It's always made sound seem really 'inaccurate' to me. If it could be done right, I agree - it would be cool, but I imagine it's also a programming nightmare to do stuff like that and do it well.

The only hangup is the 3rd person, 1st person. Otherwise it works that there are 2 answers god damnit! I CREATED A KICK ASS SUPER SWEET DIAGRAM THAT PROVES IT!!!! IT MUST BE TRUE!!!!! I HAVE THE POWER OF GRAYSKULL!!!!

Never tried it with egg... but now I'll have to. I just make bacon sandwiches. Little mayo, tons of bacon, two slices of bread, enjoy.

Some peanut butter on one side (white bread) Some jelly on the other Eat!!! Okay, I really don't have any crazy sandwiches but some of yours sure sound DELICIOUS!

There are two correct answers! I proved it!

Same. I told it to my gf and now she is thinking through it. She has also come to the conclusion that it can successfully be interpreted both ways. There are two correct answers here.

Stephen is holding a picture of himself... "This mans father" (he's pointing at a picture of himself) "Is my fathers son" (Stephens fathers son, is Stephen) See? It doesn't mean Stephen is his own father at all. The problem in this riddle lies in two places: A ) the use of "this mans" in one phrase and B ) the use of "my" in the next phrase. Because of this - there is ambiguity and I can kind of see how it could be answered multiple ways, a couple ways being 'right' (sorta). However I still don't think it's his son, because... Hold up a picture and pretend it's of your own 'son' and say "This mans father" (which would be you) "Is my fathers son" (which would be you - not your son - so the photo would HAVE to be of you, not your son) I tried to diagram my logic behind my thoughts here (just for giggles):

I'm not following your logic. The way I see it is: "This mans father" -> Stephens pointing at a photo of himself - which means Stephs father "Is my fathers son" -> Stephen's fathers son is Stephen. The siblings have nothing to do with it IMO. Anyone at any time can be an only child - that says nothing about who's a father and who's a son so it's immaterial.

A picture of himself?

Because ad-hominem attacks are great - especially when once again you fail to back them up with anything other than "you don't know what your talking about". There's not a fact you've put forward yet, not one. At least the others contributing positively to this thread have provided evidence supporting their statements, not mearly saying "you're ignorant, you don't know what you're talking about" without any other shred of evidence. You already said (and I quote) "how do you get through to someone like that?" which implies by it's very essence you wish to persuade ideals on the topic. Nice backpedal, but which is the truth? Either you are, or you aren't - you've said both. Firstly, I didn't say his thoughts are incorrect. I said the 'facts' (which he got from another website) were wrong. Therefore, you're wrong on two accounts - they weren't his ideas, and they were facts, not thoughts. Again, the best comments on this thread have had to do with 1 thing - weed. The other vices are not relevant, and as the most informative posts have already shown - that 1 issue can be discussed without including the other vices in an elaborate, well thought out and intelligent manner. Also, I'm not 'concluding' that other things aren't relevant, I kind of figured it was common sense. It's like this - if we wanted to have a discussion about apples, then wouldn't it be safe to assume that we're going to talk about various kinds of apples, flavors of apples, colors of apples, prices of apples even... but I doubt that there would be much relevance to the conversation to start bringing up pears and discussing them - even though they are also a fruit, also sweet, also come off a tree, etc. That is why I kind of figured it common sense to NOT discuss cigs/alcohol - because they're not relevant. They are not weed, they are not part of the discussion. Simple as that - I'm not concluding anything - just using a little thought about how discussions typically are laid out. Besides, I mearly made an observance that those two vices are something typically brought up and don't need to be. Relax. Also, I'm not a TSgt., nor would I close this thread even if I could. Nor am I shooting down everyone (I haven't responded to Ford's well thought out posts have I? There are plenty of other comments I've not said a word about as well). In fact, I've done nothing but state that the original facts presented are wrong on multiple levels, and reinforced that mostly throughout this thread. I'm sorry if you feel it's disrespectful to not agree with you. That's a shame, and I figured we were all aware the fact not everyone agrees with our own independent ideas.. But I imagine this debate will continue, in fact I hope it does. Outside of comments that state "you guys don't know what you're talking about" with no supporting evidence, this has been a really fun/interesting thread to read/discuss.

I'm glad you're relaxed. You're acting as if I (or others) are not? No one here is really pointing any fingers... What you're saying, and how you're saying it are presenting two different sides IMO, but that's neither here nor there. I'm sorry that discussing 1 topic, and sticking specifically to that topic 'wows' you - as that must mean that you really lack any hard evidence relating directly to the topic. Look at Ford for a great example - he discussed weed ONLY - and made amazing arguments. Arguments that others have really been unable to come back at. Did he bring up the other topics? Nope. He discussed the ISSUE. Not off-topic things that are only relevant in a crude and broad 'comparison', but he just discussed the 1 main topic (for the most part). So why do you feel that there HAS to be other vices brought up? Because as is evidenced, there doesn't need to be. Ford did his homework, he brought tangible items to the discussion table (so to speak) and is ready to debate facts regarding ONE issue. Why can't you do that? Why is it that other people can discuss 1 topic (and just that topic) - yet you sit here and are 'Wowed' when someone say's that's how it should be done? Explain to me why you have to 'get through to someone' rather than accepting their opinion and moving on? The fact you feel you need to 'get through to someone', is the same feeling that drives crazy religious people to preach to people who don't want to hear it. Yep, that statement makes you similar to one of them. So, like I said - either discuss the 1 topic (as Ford did wonderfully) or just relax. We're all adults here (well, most of us) and we're all entitled to our different opinions. Even if our opinions are based on nothing more than "I don't like drugs". Sorry to ruin your day, but that's the way it is. You don't need to 'get through to them', or even discuss it further if they don't want to. Hell, why even bother responding to them if you feel their claims are ridiculous? Laugh it off and move on. My whole original point was that the 'facts' listed were in fact just blatant lies and abuse of statistical evidence (which I can back up). Since then we've seen everything from cigarettes, to booze, to personal experiences brought up, which really makes no one change their mind on the ONE ISSUE that should be being discussed (as Ford so eloquently did). Long and short? In a discussion - it's possible to discuss 1 issue without bringing in other issues. To say that those other vices are brought up out of relevance says 1 of 2 things - A) there's not enough evidence behind your argument that you need to bring in other 'supporting roles', or you don't know enough about your argument to argue that one topic fully. Also, I will probably not go back and read your posts (which basically just say "you guys don't know the truth!" but provide no truth in the statements themselves) because I'm okay with continuing to move forward in a discussion.

Also - there's no need to bring other vices into it. Really - there's not. It's NOT relevant - you're drawing questions relating to OTHER issues, but you're not stating anything related directly TO the topic of weed. If you want to debate MJ, then debate it. Don't bring up booze, don't bring up cigs, debate the ISSUE - not other things. How is it relevant to bring up cigs being legal and weed being not without discussing a WHOLE HOST of other issues that do not support or dissuade the usage of weed? It's not. Those two vices in particular are used by weed smokers to try and justify - no other reason. And they are really NOT relevant. Bring me facts relating to weed, bring me studies relating to weed, bring me evidence regarding weed. Don't bring me a bunch of shit about ciggarettes, or about booze, or about anything else. FOCUS ON THE ISSUE. To say that those other vices are brought up out of relevance says 1 of 2 things - A) there's not enough evidence behind your argument that you need to bring in other 'supporting roles', or you don't know enough about your argument to argue that one topic fully. Either way - those tangents are not relevant to the issue - which is what weed does or does not do, and if it is good or is not good, and the facts relating to such.

I believe the part I bolded was meant in jest. Relax.