Chindie

Funny, I've long thought Pitchford was a tosser. He had that thing a while ago where he raged at critics that just came across terribly. This has just shown him to be a bare faced liar too. Gearbox really aren't that good, and this (and Duke) haven't helped them.

About the only issues I can possibly see you having are whether you can power it (which is entirely dependent on the psu you have, its capacity and ultimately the type of connectors you have from it) and then possibly clearance issues, which comes down to the case and the size of the card. Otherwise the motherboard should be fine and its largely a case of chucking it in.

Graphics card is an immediate issue. You could go up in the graphics card world quite easily for not serious money and see improvement I think. Might want to consider chucking in a bit more RAM as well, it's still cheap and always useful.

I knew someone would pick up on that I think I was thinking 60s onward, basically the point afterwhich a degree of... courtesy died a death in parliament. the petty party politics has been about long before then, of course, but this incredibly tedious 'But you!' stuff is a relatively new thing I think.

You've just described every Tory MP I've heard speak over the last 2 and half years. Every MP in the modern age, more like. Its why all this partisanship is absurd. Absolutely nothing of value is said by either side in any debate because it boils down to 'NO YOU!'.

I'd say a week is about right. Shouldn't take longer than that to dispatch (unless otherwise stated). Should be 2/3 working days really. Yeah... it's actually taken him so long to dispatch it that it's gone past the estimated delivery dates. Might see if I can spur some action with a gentle 'Can you update me by tomorrow evening or I will be considering contacting Paypal'.

How long would you leave contacting a seller on eBay about dispatching an item you've paid for? I've been waiting a week for a guy to dispatch now.

Not made by Rocksteady though. So chances are it'll be shite. The original rumour for the sequel was a Silver Age prequel with some Justice League elements. Latest I've seen is that it may involve some Justice League stuff in the established Arkham universe. Either way, it'll at best be the slightly disappointing second sequel. Or at worst, a pumped out half arsed cash in.

They're more of a threat to stability than they are a direct threat to peace. North Korea isn't going to launch a nuke at anyone, it'd achieve nothing for them, besides a very fast way of the having the entire regime turned to glass and ashen silhouettes on palace walls. They can easily spark a war without using one - they've a ludicrous line of artillery pointed straight at Seoul, for instance. If they wanted a war, they could do it tomorrow, and the outcome would be the same. North Korea is pursuing nuclear armament for other purposes. Mostly, it's a threat to their enemies, a guarentee against invasion - 'try it and we'll escalate things to the final degree'. They know that they've got enemies on their doorstep and not many friends, they want something to assure their position as far as possible. It's also posturing. They've fostered a belief that it's them against the world and they need to keep that in the headlines to maintain the narrative. And of course that extends to prestige - nuclear arms are the crowning jewel of any military system. North Korea getting one lets them pretend their army stands alongside (they would argue above, no doubt) any other. And of course it also is just another stage in the game North Korea plays constantly of basically demanding aid with menaces. They play up, get some sanctions for the effort, and then get a degree of placation aid. They've done this for years. The threat North Korea poses is that, despite all of the above, no right minded state that has any exposure to that region can ignore the fact that, yes, all of the above is certainly true, they might one day do something completely illogical, or make a mistake, or have an accident, with a nuke. So their pursuit of nuclear arms puts the region on tenterhooks. The problem is that that leads to other issues, which is where the threat is - one day this kind of instability caused by one of the players of the game doing something daft is going to change the rules of the game entirely, and that could lead to the whole region descending into war, which would rapidly expand into a global conflict, again. The other threat a nuclear armed North Korea represents is a consequence of their main desire for having one - the safety guarentee. The US (and rest of the world) do not like a volatile presence in a region that is very important, having something that prevents them enacting change if necessary. The US (for arguments sake) know at the moment that, if North Korea really starts to pose a serious, serious problem, they can do something about it. It would not be pretty and they know it would be an absolutely hideous task for years, but they could get rid of the North Korean regime if absolutely necessary. If, on the other hand, North Korea gets a nuke, that task suddenly gets into unfeasible, unthinkable territory, game changing territory. Especially when you consider that if you KNOW that Korea has a nuclear arm, you cannot be certain they don't have more. In that scenario, you may try to incapacitate the nuclear capability, and suddenly find that they've got more stashed in some backwater and a reason to use all of them. So yes, theres a definite threat. But it's not the threat that the rest of the world would have you believe. It's more complex than that.

The headline of the Evening Mail this afternoon seemed to suggest that the Pope spent 2 years thinking about his trip to Brum before it made him quit.

Raised a similar point before now myself. Unfortunately I said it in the Baby Thread. But wholeheartedly agree with you.

I never did watch the last episode of Black Mirror, by all accounts it was great, Toby Kebbell in it too. Looking forward to the new series. First eps story basis sounds brilliant.

**** this **** weather. I'm usually at work by now. I've only just got on the bus.

I haven't got a **** clue who this is but I think she's my perfect woman.

Gearbox have an increasingly patchy record. All the talk on this is that it's hopeless. They couldn't even make it look good.

The general feeling is that Guardians will be used a set up for Thanos as a the villain for Avengers 2, yeah. Thanos is the biggest villain in Marvels stable that they can actually use thanks to rights issues and so on IIRC. I think we can imagine Guardians having a villain ala Loki in Avengers, effectively a puppet for a greater evil, but with that greater evil actually getting some screentime this time around. I just really hope it works...

I spoke to the girl from admin today, we had a quick chat over a broken printer. She's actually really nice. I totally forgot to tell her who the **** I am. Still, I guess thats the ice kinda broken - for once the printer being bust was useful.

It can't really avoid being really silly. It'll definitely be the most 'out there' Marvel film so far (the closest to it to date is probably Thor, the daft basis for that one is pushing it) what with it being a ensemble of weird aliens in a space extravaganza. It's the moment they might jump the shark - it's one thing to say to people 'billionaire comes up with a new power source, wears a hi-tech armour suit/scientist has experiment go wrong and turns into a raging monster when angry/WW2 American wimp with honour is made into super soldier by experiment and frozen in time/Norse gods are aliens, one has brother issues' and another to make them believe in an talking raccoon obsessed with firearms as a superhero, with his best mate, a tree, amongst others. It's that little bit too... weird. Theres a reason it was never a particularly popular comic. But if it works, it'll be absolutely gloriously bonkers. Especially if they do, as expected, use it as a set up for Thanos. Anywho, Star-Lord, as portrayed in the concept art revealed at San Diego Comic-con last year when the film was announced ...and in his more traditional comic garb... He's basically a space copper. There was talk they'd possibly shove Marvels other space copper into this, Nova, because he's been used as a character in some of the newer Marvel cartoons and kids like him. Might be interesting. Seems Marvel are not scared of shoving their less known properties out their. Some rumours came out the other day, from a source that's been bang on every time so far with these films, about Avengers 2. They suggested that the second Avengers film will see the Hulk end up marooned on another planet... which means that they're setting up a Planet Hulk film... All rumours though, and Avengers 2 is 2 years way and 4 films away yet.

My dad made a half hearted attempt at doing our genealogy a while back - trying to do it without paying anything. Didn't get all that far. I think the only thing we got out of it was discovering a distant relative had left us a family bible in their will. The thing looks like the kind of book in a film that would be chained to pedestal and locked down, occasionally violently shaking, and when opened would unleash horrors that would melt any readers face. Bit like every other Bible, really. I think about the only thing I know about our family history is our surname derives from Worcestershire, so we've not gone far.

He's playing Star-Lord, who pretty much is the main man in GOTG. He's a bit like Marvel's version of the Green Lantern, same story but without the imagining things and making them exist, more standard powers via a suit. He'll be the 'in' for the audience, guaranteed. I dunno who Chris Pratt is though and I'm not that up on GOTG, I know the background but that's all really.

Chris Pratt has been cast as the lead in Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy film. I've no idea if that's good or not.

Incredible ko. New series is on ESPN, hogso

Absolutely this. As far as I'm concerned, marriage should be: ( a ) Entirely optional ( b ) An agreement between two or more people which MAY involve mutual legal rights - that's up to them, and if required should be stated in a legal contract specific to THAT marriage ( c ) Not necessarily having any relevance to sexual behaviour at all I don't see why any individual shouldn't marry his/her friend(s) - or even relatives - if they wish to do so. The state should keep its nose out. We've agreed on this point before, but worth reiterating - THIS.

Bingo. That is just a brilliantly done moment, the kind of thing gaming rarely does.

Shakespeare, Measure for Measure. It should say 'oft' rather than often, damn phone.