Chindie

Hate him. I can't stand his voice, the way he articulates things, the smugness that abounds around him to my mind. He often somehow manages to make himself sound even more dismissive about things than a bunch of older guys who have grown cynical of the whole industry. I don't even particularly like the way he writes - it's clearly a more professional style he writes in but it's also pretty much standard hackneyed intellectual script. I've actually been saved from an increasing urge to send some money WhiskeyMedia's way because of his creeping increasing presence. I used to watch most Quicklooks, even stuff I wasn't particularly interested in I'd watch for the entertainment value and to learn something for work, only avoiding the stuff I know I have absolutely no interest in whatsoever, and I'd listen to the Bombcast each week a couple of times just for the giggles. Now, I find myself clicking a QL video tentatively awaiting his hideous tones that are increasingly common and then having to sigh if it's something I want to watch hoping he just doesn't say much, or just closing it often it's something I'm not too bothered with. And I get a genuine sense of disappointment when he's on the Bombcast. I really, really enjoyed the Game of the Year coverage stuff last year, genuinely it was some of the best stuff GBs done imo. I listened to all the individual podcast deliberations, all the top 10s, all the individual game winner retrospectives, loved every minute. Even the 2 hours over whether Mass Effect really was the game of the year. I'm dreading it this year, because Patrick is going to be all over it and I fear he'll be let off the leash they've had him on knowing that the entire site user base isn't keen on change and Patrick can be fairly grating.

I was supposed to be off round a mates for the Ireland match then heading off to watch Immortals. But I'm so knackered and having to get up early tomorrow for work that I've had to turn it down. I think I'll benefit for the extra sleep not going out will let me have.

I must admit the apparent consummate ease that details are lost by even the best companies out there are beginning to sit uneasy with me. The rise of Xbox hackings that appear to be using a fault at EAs end was what really got me thinking about just how secure things are with my details.

I worked the Black Ops midnight last year at our place, that was bad enough, 90 minutes of constant queue. This year I escaped and got the early shift next day, but I heard that the queue at hours was 2 hours constant customers. Madness, I can only imagine what New St. was like. Anywho, I just sparked up the GiantBomb QL of this to watch, settled down with a drink and a bacon sandwich, all ready to enjoy... 'Jeff and Patrick, welcome to Skyrim!'. ...Eurgh.

I thankfully don't work at New Street , though if I stay long enough in the job chances are I eventually will get a few hours there, Gamestation (and Game) staff regularly get sent out to other stores to cover and the like. It's the flagship store in the country IIRC and is mental at Christmas. I work in a smaller store and thats bad enough when busy, sod doing that in a store with a much bigger potential footfall.

Gamestation mate. Why'd you ask?

Picked it up myself. The deal we were offering customers with the guide was better than the one we'd get had we used discount, so gone for that including a trade 2 get an extra 5 off... except my colleague forgot that I should get the extra 5 off... .

If Lucy was not homo sapien, she was not human. 'Hominid' is the word used to describe the varioud species that have existed that were vaguely human-like, that is walking upright and having some ape-esque ancestry. You could honestly do with reading up on some of this stuff without the scripture glasses on. It'd help with the confusion.

Its been,explained at length before that the scientific term 'theory' means that it is in effect true, as it has been hypothisised and then tested by evidence both supporting and contradicting it to discover its veracity. Its been discovered to, thus far, be correct, and no evidence has stood up that brings it into doubt. 'Theory', therefore, does not represent a weakening of the argument for evolution. It strenghtens it.

I doubt it will ever be allowed to exist to be pointed at anyone.

It's entirely possible for a woman to give birth alone - enough women have done it as many a baby dumped outside A&E will attest. It's just easier and more comfortable to be helped. I think your thoughts on attendants being a requirement for birth are a red herring. I don't know the exact physiology of the Erectus (giggle) pelvis so I cannot say if that is the point that birth became painful (I would daresay birth has always been painful though), but I would trust that the level of pain experienced by our ancestors was directly proportional to the evolution of the pelvis towards habitual upright-ness and also size of the brain, those being the major players in what made birth become increasingly difficult.

How longs a piece of string? One nuclear missile is not like another. The delivery system the North Koreans have developed can barely, just, hit Alaska, apparently. The US has missiles capable of striking pretty much anywhere. It all comes down to what they develop. Chances are it'll be a fairly short range missile but any range is too far for the damage it's very existance would do to that region, which then would shake around the world instantly.

The weight isn't really important, regardless of the babys size you are still forced something very large through a very small gap. The widening of the pelvis during childbirth does happen, as does the widening of muscles in the birth canal, and is fairly obviously painful as they don't usually do that - you're pushing those points of the body to the limits of they will ever be required to do, of course it is painful. It's in theory no different to straining a muscle very badly or severely overextending a very sore joint. The problem is lessened in apes as their pelvises are very different, orientated completely differently as they don't stand upright habitually, allowing for a wider passage. We also can't say for sure what the level of pain they have is. Apes aren't terribly vocal animals in anything other than conflict, really. Who knows what goes through their mind during birth. There is also the problem that pain is supremely subjective. All women will suffer pain during childbirth, but because everyone experiences pain differently and because of the mitigating factors (a larger pelvis, birth canal, smaller child, whatever) the pain one woman might find unbearable another might not find quite so painful.

It's not a particularly difficult question to answer if you know some of our evolutionary past coupled to some of how evolution works at a basic level. It's both a rebuttal to design and an explanation over how evolution is far from perfect in itself.

We aren't 'the pinacle of the evolutionary tree' either... there is no such thing.

Basic answer is we've evolved other areas faster. Our children are born with unusually large heads (an offshoot of the evolution of the brain), whereas the pelvis and birth canal as a whole haven't yet evolved (if they will at all) to make birth easier. (IIRC the birth canal/pelvis in particular have made birth more difficult as the result of evolving to stand upright - basically we evolved 1 feature to our benefit that ended up making something else more difficult). There is an argument that suggests that if we weren't so good at keeping mothers and babies alive, the pelvis and birth canal would evolve faster as the mothers who had difficult births would become unable to reproduce, either through death or damage to the reproductive system. The ones more able to cope would survive to have children to follow in their footsteps. This is an argument against design in itself. A species shouldn't struggle with reproduction like we do.

Well the reports out and as expected, it's not good. The Russians seem to be acting as the balance to keeping the lid on actions that the EU would like - further sanctions, which would just be another step to conflict.

Of course it is, the onl reason it's going anywhere is because the anti-Islamic party thats gained influence in recent years in the Netherlands has thrown it's weight behind it. It doesn't stop the idea having merit however. I just would hold off introducing such an idea here, for example, because it's asking for trouble that ultimately you can avoid occuring when theres more important stuff to worry about.

There is rather a lot of asset reuse from what I've seen from the older games so it's not really all that surprising that it feels a bit half arsed. This is what Activision does. They stumble on something popular, and drive it into the ground till the market grows tired of it and then they kill it, the path to death usually preceded by increasingly half arsed iterations with dumb ideas as the annual release screw turns harder and harder.

Wheres the line drawn then? Ultimately these animals exist to die, extrapolating that thinking would lead to the conclusion that provided the product isn't spoiled you can do what you like to these creatures? I'd rather treat the thing with some decorum from cradle to grave (so to speak), regardless of whether it won't be around to remember it's last moments. I think that matters.

Id have thought that it's fairly simple, really. I'd sooner not be aware of my throat being slashed than being eyes open wide awake for the whole bloody affair. I just can't agree with you Bicks. And vice versa no doubt.

Aye I should have added that, as I've been saying all along the build up for this, it just does look/feel a bit tired. I don't think that helps. You've been playing this game for at least 2 years really. If you're a long term fan 4. For some people that feeling that theres nothing new here will bite. Hence why, once again, I'll say that this is the beginning of the end for COD as the huge franchise.

Replying to him does him too good of a service, give it up gents he's a pathetic troll. Especially when theres someone who actually believes this horseshit ready and willing.

A fair number traded in already. A lot of negative feedback too. I do wonder if thats a bit of the usual different = bad that arises with any annual iteration of a game. Give a week or 2 and everyone will just crack on with it.

That has similar problems to your suggestion of beheading by means of a sword earlier. Wastage, contamination, dangerous. Theres a reason we slaughter like we do. It's the best solution to the issue that takes into account safety, welfare, ease at industrial scale, lack of wastage, minimisation of potential contaminates and allowing for carcass inspection as easily as possible, etc.