Jump to content

war ensemble

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by war ensemble

  1. All this ultra techie, isnt necessary especially if you're missing my point. Max's laptop with 3 gigs running office applications and chatting on Jetnation is fine. How about asking Max. I havent seen him say that he's had issues.

    I'll leave it there.

    I'm not arguing that, it's all up to the user. I think I spend more time arguing minor quibbles while agreeing with the same point, which is probably a bad habit because people think I'm disagreeing with their whole premise, which isn't necessarily the case.

  2. I doubt that Max purchased a $350 laptop to run visual Studio or any resource intensive program. You may pay $350 just for 8 gigs of memory alone. In respects to running windows 7's OS, updating a resume, doing a bill breakdown in excel, watching a movie and running his dictatorship on Jetnation ( :o ), I think he'll be fine.

    You can get 2x4gb sticks of RAM for $64, all told. And that was just with me googling and picking the first thing I could find on newegg.

  3. That's my point. Im able to play video games with 2 gigs of ram...and he has 3. If he's not looking to play high end games (which for a $350 laptop I doubt that was his purpose) then whats wrong with 3 gigs of RAM running an OS when I run a smooth Win 7 with 2 gigs?. Though cheap, its an unnecessary upgrade if he's just running office applications, and a youtube vid at the same time. 3 gigs is still alot of RAM, more than enough to run an operating system and to type on Jetnation.

    RAM won't matter at all when it comes to high end games when you're running on intel's integrated graphics. It all depends on the uses, but with the way I multitask and the price point of adding a stick (especially if his is in one slot, which I actually doubt. It's probably 2 gb and 1 gb) I would do it. But I wouldn't be able to get far on a $350 laptop anyways though.

  4. I have a samsung laptop with core 5 processor, 2 gigs of memory and a 400 gig hard drive running windows 7.

    I run games on it and have no hick-ups. I cant run all specs on ultra high, but standard to high. I can run high end games with an OS running in the background with 2 gigs of memory so I think Max is doing pretty damn good right now for $350. I paid $800 for this laptop last year and I've had more problems with the stupidity of the OS in general and a dead battery, but the memory is enough and the HD I cant seem to fill even with fully downloaded games.

    RAM isn't what will bottleneck you when it comes to games. Your graphics card is what matters, and possibly the CPU. Windows 7 is really resource intensive and RAM is super cheap, so it makes sense to upgrade that.

  5. Slickdeals has a rather, uh, slick deal up on a Lenovo. A Thinkpad T420 with an i5 2410, 14" 1600 x 900 (!) screen, 4gb ram (in 1 slot), 500 gb at 7200 rpm for $685. If that's still there in two days time, add something small like bluetooth to bump over $699, and I would get a free 360 with it. That's Microsoft's new student deal by the way, which in my opinion pwns Apple's. Although I have no need for a 360. I could keep it as a DVD player or sell it. Hmm...

    I might want a dedicated graphics card by like junior/senior year though. Decisions, decisions.

    EDIT: Lenovo's not a partner with the whole 360 thing. Bummer.

  6. I have to get a laptop soon for school. I think it's going to be between the Envy 14 and the Vaio SA (if they ever decide to launch that). I would go with the Envy 14 with a Radiance display right now, but of course they decided to get rid of that option. I'm holding out for something above 1366 x 768. 1600 x 900 on the SA would be nice. A non-uber-glossy screen would be cool too.

  7. We're talking 11 and 12 year olds, though. Whatever happened to picking up the phone and calling your friend? Kids seriously can't communicate without facebook? I find that very hard to believe, especially when they see each other in school. Practically all kids have cell phones now. Kids need to be taught not to invest too much in popularity and taking to heart what other people say or do. If the parent gets angry that a kid's popularity is going down, then the parent is a TERRIBLE parent. If they teach the child that popularity does not matter, and there's no reason they should care what others think, it makes all that "oh what if somone's talking about me right now, because of what xxx said on facebook!!!??" stuff disappear. Parents need to teach their kids that the real world is not a place where everyone is happy and trustworthy. People lie and do bad things. The smart people do their best avoid/ignore them and move on with what matters. The stupid people dwell on it forever and instead of teaching their children, they try to hide them from the reality of the world. PEOPLE ARE NOT NICE.

    I didn't have a phone until high school, but I did have a myspace/facebook. AIM and facebook were the main means of communication. Regardless, I agree that kids should be taught that popularity isn't everything--but when it's all they observe because they haven't experienced the rest of the world, it's hard for them to really take the message to heart. I don't think the effects of cyber bullying should be downplayed because the parents understand its true significance, because that's not what the kids go by. They need some sort of limits/protection so they don't get embroiled in some silly cyber conflict that they don't perceive as silly.

  8. :o

    Guys I'm seriously about to kill myself. How could you be so cruel and insensitive!!!

    That's a load of crap. Turn off the computer and you instantly escape it. Walking around school you can't escape it when the bully comes up to you and starts punching you, throwing your books on the ground, etc etc. Don't tell me that an online popularity contest is more detrimental to a kid's life than physical abuse. That's absolutely false. Ask 10 people if they'd rather be beat up in real life or made fun of on the internet and I think it's obvious what the result will be.

    You turn off the computer and you've lost all lines of communication with your friends at that age. Sad but true. I'm not necessarily saying what happens on Facebook is worse than physical abuse, but it is more pervasive. I'd say it's directly related to physical bullying at school, but at the same time you have to deal with the emotional and psychological effects of it continuing at home. Both forms of bullying suck, and as they can take on different forms and degrees of pain, it wouldn't be fair to compare one to the other. Kids at that age don't just see it as an online popularity contest--that it is the extent of their social circle, they have no where else to turn if the parents aren't keeping track of it.

  9. I'm not so sure that's the case. I would think that when this forum was set up, they expected a lot of spirited football discussions, including some where two or more members would be posting every minute. If somebody makes a statement and is contradicted, without the edit notice they could take it out when they belatedly found out they were wrong and then claim, "I never said that!!".

    That's exactly what I meant, lol.

  10. I know what it's like to be picked on, believe me. I grew up being the shortest kid in my school for the entire time I went to school. You know how many short jokes I've heard and how much bs abuse I've had to go through? That's why this cyber bullying is such bs. It's not real. It's not physical. Try getting shoved around and put down on daily basis just walking between classes in school. I learned to just ignore the bs and not take it personally and I feel its made me a better person today. I'm not saying it's silly for kids to be kids, I'm saying its silly to take an 11 year old to court for something like that, or to teach your kids that popularity is actually important. It's superficial and nothing more.

    Yes, 12 year old girls are worse than evil. Do you even know what evil means? You're seriously going to say that utter nonsense and then in the same sentence put ME down and claim I know nothing about children? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds. I'm not trying to downplay bullying or anything like that, but yes, parenting matters, and teenage years are incredibly temporary. Just it keeping real. People can't handle reality these days. That's a problem.

    You're right there, and not for the reason you may think. Those teenage years end so quickly for some because they just can't handle all the bullying and end the shame by taking their lives. Who teaches their kids that popularity is important? You can comfort the kid about the superficiality of all this, but when everyone he or she knows is giving them strange glances and talking about them behind their back, do you think they care how short this period of their life will be? It's worse than physical bullying because you simply can't escape it. Not only do you perceive people as talking behind your back at school, you expect they're doing the same at home, on the internet, etc, with everyone else at your school. You can't just tell your kid "oh, don't take it personal", because that's their whole life that's being ruined. They don't see the bigger picture because their life's experiences are simply what they get at home and in school. Kids can be evil, oftentimes without realizing it, until the effects have already taken place. And by effects I don't just mean suicide, but other subtle psychological stuff like paranoia, shyness, eating disorders, whatever (not a psychologist, ask EY or something lol) that may take years to fully overcome.

  11. I can understand the rationale, in ways. Someone might post something, edit it out, and if there's no message at the bottom saying they edited the post, no one (but the mods) would know that anything offensive or whatever was ever there. I think that the editing message shouldn't come up if you're editing right after posting, but I'm sure it's on the forum software and not the admin side to change that.

  12. this is good for the fans. What is good for the players is bad for the fans. The players want movement and money. that leads to higher costs and the cowboys become the yankees and the bills and jags go under because they can't compete with no draft or cap.

    the next thing we'll see is fractures in the union, then a return to the table, then the owners put the players over their knee and we get football again.

    if the players had won, I honestly feel they would have dragged this on into the season, like a hold out of sorts.

    now the owners have the hammer, and will use it

    this is good for fans

    So let's recap: the players want money. The owners want money.

    And whose money do they all want again?

  13. There's a lot of people that make thousands, hundreds that make millions, and ~32 that make billions. The hundreds are bickering with the 32. Am I the only one that sees no "good thing" with either of the last two parties "winning" this argument, seeing as we all belong squarely in the first category that sees no benefit either way?

    I don't understand how people can take sides here. They're arguing over who gets a certain share of our money--and either way, it's not us.

  • Create New...