It doesnt work in or out of browser, ive tried re-installing java and mc EVEN my OS still no luck. btw has this been reported before? it could be a problem with just me.
Well I have seen others with this issue on the forums anyway. Worth emailing notch or tweeting him.
There seems to be a number of java related issues floating about so I would not necessarily think it is on your end. However, have you tried reinstalling the game? Does it work in/out of browser? Re-installed java?
Those are some things I would try, but you may be SOL till Notch fixes these problems.
This game was working for maybe 30 minutes to an hour, but now it freezes every 5 minutes and sometimes crashes. A few times it said something with my graphics card failing or something the resolving the problem, but the game was still frozen.
PC Specs:
AMD Athlon II X4 630 Processor ~2.8GHz
4096MB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX+
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
Not going to lie to you, I used to use the same graphics card and got the same error on random games. I suspect it's an issue with the card itself. Honestly, I bought a new one.
However, it may be worth updating drivers (or, if you are using current ones, try rolling back). Furthermore, have you tried adjusting the graphics in game? Does turning them down help?
(I cut down most of the post for space-saving reasons, it's a matter of courtesy seeing as it's right above this one)
I wouldn't read a book if it weren't formatted in paragraphs and chapters and the like, it becomes unreadable. The same goes for an excessively long post. I mean I've seen long posts before, but DAAAAAAYUUUUUUUMN.
Anyway, believe what you want. Men aren't more violent than women, that is my belief and I have more than enough first-hand evidence to solidify that belief.
Wait a minute where did all the gun discussion go?
Text wall, got bored halfway through and didn't quite understand some of your arguments.
Keep the fingers in the ear.
It's a fallacy that women are less violent/criminal than men, I'd almost wager they're moreso.
Simply wrong and proven so. Not my fault if you don't acknowledge facts and evidence and still think you're right.
Men get pissed, fight, and then forget it ever happened.
Not that simple.
Women brood over it, and when they do finally act on it it'll usually be a lot more dramatic than a male-male fight.
Not that simple.
This is all through social observations at my school. We've had two male-male fights in school this year, neither resulting in any significant injury or bloodshed.
In other words; all through your own personal opinion and bias. I cited actual scientific journals, but you know more right?
dude/dudet, a public notice: by many that is considered midly sexist.
It is as sexist as it is to state gender and sex differences. It is as sexist as saying men drink more than women and women have more cases of breast cancer. It is simply fact that men cause more crime than women.
Actually, i am all for this, minus the fact that men would obtain guns illegally, and go shoot someone.
Right, men always can do this - just as women have also had the same capability to obtain illegal arms. However, if culture and society encourage women to arms and ban men, it sets a societal image that would most certainly deter violence on women by men.
FOR THE REST OF THIS FREAKING THREAD I WOULD LIKE PEOPLE TO REALIZE THAT PEOPLE CAN AND WILL GET GUNS ILLEGALLY FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES, AND THAT PEOPLE NEED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES WITH GUNS FOR THAT REASON.
My previous point stands to this. If women are encouraged to arms and men are banned, any criminal would have to face the persecuation of firearm acquisition in addition to the fact that women are all encouraged to be armed.
Quote from odiedodi »
I've seen plenty of guns explode due to a round getting stuck in the barrel, and the next round hitting it. The pressure from the expanding gases of the second cartridge overwhelms the mechanism since they can't escape through the barrel fast enough because of the blockage. This usually results in one or more of the stress points of the firearm exploding, since the pressure has to be released somewhere. I looked it up myself though, and the company uses a patented barrel pressure relief valve system. The video did not state this, which is what lead me to my previous conclusion.
Although this may have been an initial issue with metal storm weaponry, the problem has been resolved via sequential barrel firing. If you really did look into it, you would have seen that the issue has been rectified.
In short, the sequential firing system propels any possible misfire and residue leaving no remnants in the barrel. If anything, the misfire makes the next fire more dangerous.
Of course, I am not saying the gun is perfect, but certainly superior than mechanistic weaponry.
You also fail at basic reading comprehension, as nowhere in my post did I say bullets explode from electrical input.
If I fail at reading comprehension it is due to reading a sentence formed with ambiguity and ubstantiated context.
"That seems dangerous to me anyway.What if the first cartridge doesn't go off, but the one behind it does?
Instant kaboom, that's what."
There is no indication of what you are saying is "kabooming" and what is causing the "kaboom". Of course, I have to assume you didn't read into the article at all because you provided no substantial insight into the subject matter. Instead, you just provided a very simplistic sentence open to a lot of interpretation. How can one be surprised to be misunderstood when you state things in such terms?
My previous statements still stands. I fail to see what it does significantly better than traditional firearms. It certain roles, it may be advantageous, but I'd prefer a weapon that doesn't have to rely on computer chips to function, Especially considering that EMP weapons are quickly becoming the weapon of choice for modern countries.
Well, in one perspective, the metal storm are practically superior in all means. Except for that fact that you are right about EMP technology receiving drastic funding. In this case, I think we would both agree that combining the two would be most ideal (akimbo desert eagle and metal storm ftw?). Agree?
Quote from Dforce »
The major flaw in your argumentation is that you speak as everything you say is a fact and dont present any proof, while I openly admit its purely speculation and my personal thoughts. I would be extremely happy if you would provide decent sources for your claims or say you are working on speculations or unreliable sources.
I will provide proof following my responses to you here.
I think you are forgetting the fact that feminism and womens rights in general is a very modern phenomenon. Still in the 50's and 60's women were considered widely to be the lesser sex. This still happens within large precentage of non-western cultures, which also happen to include most of earths inhabitants. Thus your argument is crippled a little as its pretty clear that women are not "blessed" with the same possibilities to commit crimes. How can you claim its not culture related if most cultures consider men to be the ruling sex? You most likely understand that cultures (islam, most catholics, traditional asians etc.) do govern what a woman should do and thus men are left to do whatever they wish to do. Like I noted in my last paragraph, this is changing now but still applies widely around the world. Using plain statistics without counting cultural and possible other relations to this is pretty dumb in my opinion.
I find it interesting that you will use the argument that making arms illegal/legal doesn't stop the acquisition of the weapons but it seems to prevent women somehow. Women have always had the ability to use weapons, firearms, etc. for as long as humans have existed. It is most certainly undeniable, in this light, that men have been more violent than women. I am not saying women are not violent at all, but certainly significantly less. Your argument is bunk in this very light because you neglect the accesibility in thinking that modernity somehow encourages women to be more violent.
http://www.optula.om.fi/4913.htm
Check figure number 5. Why do you think causes the amount of female victims killers to be sexual partners? I dont think its just because "men are men and are violent", rather a strong cultural and also social factor and disrespect/hatred against the "weaker gender".
Are you seriously trying to make rationlizations for mens violence? You cannot possibly take this article, which clearly shows that men are more violent than women, and say that it isn't mens fault.
I just want to clarify.. you are saying that it isn't mens fault but it is the circumstances of being in a sexual relationship that causes men to be violent? Pray tell then, why arn't women as violent considering they are in the same relationship?!\
Again, how large precentage of females in general have access to guns compared to men? I'd actually say the contrary to your last sentence. Its far more common for women to have emotional outbursts (externalize, did I understand your terms correctly?) and its men who internalize in bottle their emotions and possibly end up in violent outbursts. While this only applies to sudden outbursts, I dont think testosterone and estrogen has much to do planned cold blood murders and their execution. We can possibly see a connection with bottling rage and such but cold blooded murderers are (usually) completely sane and not raging testosterone barbarians or estrogen monsters.
Again, you make the bias argument that illegal/legal acquisition of arms somehow deters the actual acquisition of arms. A criminal doesn't care if firearms are legal or not - they will acquire them. Do you really think women have somehow magical barriers that prevent them from acuiring firearms alternative to men?
Furthermore, the very article you quoted proves yourself wrong - men are more violent to women in domestic relationships (ie. emotional outbursts).
I find it insulting and embarassing that you keep trying to excuse mens violence and have the audacity to say that women are just as violent. It is seriously a symbol of the ignorance of society to the precedence of male-instigated violence. How does it feel to be a factor in that? Because I think it's dispicable.
With one glimpse on my profile you would have seen that Im not from a English speaking country. Thus picking on my grammar is pretty much the same as if I would diss you about not speaking Swedish, Finnish, German and Russian like I do. Kinda low to concentrate on grammatical errors, you most likely understood very well what I ment with a matriarchal group.
Firstly, sorry, I wasn't picking on you; I was being honest. I didn't understand what you were saying.
Secondly, I have no remorse over it even if I was because I too have learnt English as a second language. My mother language is German.
Thirdly, I honestly still don't know what you mean by matriarchal group. I'm being serious. What are you talking about?
I dont see gender as such an large factor as you seem to. While there are differences, I do believe that they have a bigger impact on sudden violent outbursts than cases of planned extreme violence. Silly and wrong, why? You again prove no other facts than your personal opinion (its an opinion until you can prove it, then it becomes a fact).
I will prove it, in addition to the proof you have provided to (which does support my claims and not yours).
If you dont wish to discuss your opinions its fine, but refusing to understand other factors than pure statistics makes the case open until proven otherwise.
It's not an opinion - it's fact. I will discuss it and provide you the evidence following these replies.
Why do you think women seek more help than men? Can you see a link between prominent macho-I-can-handle-my-own-stuff culture and seeking help to mental problems that are for women and weaklings? If you dont see a link here you should take studies in sociology too in addition to your psychology studies.
Ok, let me get this straight.. firstly, yes, men are socially encouraged to deal with issues on their own and, yes, it is a stigma for men to seek mental help. However, those that do seek it are mentally more fit and cause less violence than those who do not.
So.. are you saying, again, that it is societies fault for causing the violence? Just who exactly do you think it is that is causing that social stress you are mentioning? I will give you hint; the majority of women support men and women seeking mental help. Guess what option that leaves you with to blame?
Do not take these answers as an personal insult. I see you struggling with the same prolem as many of my friends who have graduated from psychology. Theoretical psychology is really a mess and cannot be used per se to judge phenomena like male and female crime statistics. You need to have field experience to understand different cultural specialities and how stuff actually works outside theories. My problem is the contrary as my knowledge is quite narrow and specialized so I rely only on field experience and speculation. Thus I think we both are most likely wrong in our theories and "facts", and the reality is something in between.
I think it is a bit insulting and ignorant to simply presume that, because your friend has no "field" experience, that must mean I do not. You do not even know my name yet alone what my gender is - how can you make personal judgments? You're going to try and attack my personal history to deter my arguments? Grow up.
As for the evidence, here we go:
Homicides can be broken into four categories by gender of offender and victim. Here is the breakdown for murders committed in 1999:
Male offender /Male victim 65.1%
Male offender /Female victim 22.4%
Female offender /Male victim 10.1%
Female offender /Female victim 2.4%
Murder is, of course, the most extreme of violent crimes. Is the gender gap for all violent crimes as large as it is for homicide? No. Based on the average annual number of offenders reported by victims during the five-year period 1993-97, the following gender breakdown by type of violent crime was found.
Average Number of Violent Crimes Committed Annually, 1993-1997
Offenses Female Offenders Male Offenders Women as % of Violent Offenders
Homicide Total 1,468 14,196 9
Sexual Assault 10,000 442,000 2
Armed Robbery 157,000 2,051,000 7
Aggravated Assault 435,000 3,419,000 11
Simple Assault 1,533,000 7,187,000 18
Total 2,136,468 13,113,196 14
Only cases that involved victims aged 15 years or older were included. Persons killed during law enforcement activity and cases in which the victim's gender was not recorded were excluded. A total of 215,273 homicides were studied, 77% of which involved male victims and 23% female victims. Although the overall risk of homicide for women was substantially lower than that of men (rate ratio [RR] = 0.27), their risk of being killed by a spouse or intimate acquaintance was higher (RR = 1.23). In contrast to men, the killing of a woman by a stranger was rare (RR = 0.18). More than twice as many women were shot and killed by their husband or intimate acquaintance than were murdered by strangers using guns, knives, or any other means. Although women comprise more than half the U.S. population, they committed only 14.7% of the homicides noted during the study interval. In contrast to men, who killed nonintimate acquaintances, strangers, or victims of undetermined relationship in 80% of cases, women killed their spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a family member in 60% of cases. When men killed with a gun, they most commonly shot a stranger or a non-family acquaintance. When women killed with a gun, the victim was five times more likely to be their spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a member of their family than to be a stranger or a person of undetermined relationship.
This study compares the patterns of homicides committed by women and men. Classic comparison studies of homicides by men and women suggest that each group kills in ways that are reflective of socially approved gender role behavior. More recently, however, research on women who kill suggests that they frequently do so in response to threats of violence by men. In contrast to the gender role and self-protection models of women's homicides, the liberation hypothesis suggests that patterns of women's violence will increasingly resemble patterns of violence by men. Based on our analysis of court records of 158 cases of homicides by men and women over a six-year period, [/u]we find little support for the liberation hypothesis and considerable support for the gender role and self-protection models. Compared to men, women more frequently kill intimates and kill in situations in which their victim initiated the physical aggression.[/u]
Results: 28.9% of 6,790 women and 22.9% of 7,122 men had experienced physical, sexual, or
psychological IPV during their lifetime. Women were significantly more likely than men to
experience physical or sexual IPV (relative risk [RR] =2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1,
2.4) and abuse of power and control (RR=1.1; 95% CI =1.0, 1.2), but less likely than men to
report verbal abuse alone (RR=0.8; 95% CI = 0.7, 0.9).
Survey findings are presented on the prevalence and incidence of rape, physical assault, and stalking; the rate of injury among rape and physical assault victims; and injured victims' use of medical services. Physical assault was found to be widespread among adults in the United States, with 51.9 percent of surveyed women and 66.4 percent of surveyed men reporting they were physically assaulted as a child by an adult caretaker and/or as an adult by any type of attacker. Of the 17.6 percent of all women surveyed who said they had been the victim of a completed or attempted rape at some time in their life, 21.6 percent were younger than age 12 when they were first raped, and 32.4 percent were ages 12 to 17. Stalking was more prevalent than previously thought, as 8.1 percent of surveyed women and 2.2 percent of surveyed men reported being stalked at some time in their life. American Indian/Alaska Native women and men reported more violent victimization than did women and men of other racial backgrounds. Hispanic women were significantly less likely than non-Hispanic women to report they were raped at some time in their life. A relationship was found between victimization as a minor and subsequent victimization. Also, women experienced more intimate partner violence than did men, and women were significantly more likely than men to be injured during an assault. The risk of injury increased among female rape and physical assault victims when their assailant was a current or former intimate. Approximately one-third of injured female rape and physical assault victims received medical treatment. This study makes it clear that violence against women, particularly intimate partner violence, should be classified as a major public health and criminal justice concern in the United States. 35 exhibits and chapter notes
During the study period, 1860 homicides occurred in the three counties, 444 of them (23.9 percent) in the home of the victim. After excluding 24 cases for various reasons, we interviewed proxy respondents for 93 percent of the victims. Controls were identified for 99 percent of these, yielding 388 matched pairs. As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
The survey stated that males were twice as likely to be dependant or have a drug abuse or alcohol abuse problem than women. Men also had much higher rates of dependence on alcohol or an illicit drug for every age group, except the 12 to 17 year olds. They also had higher rates of alcohol abuse and drug abuse for every age group except the 12 to 17 year olds.
I always get ninjad by creepers... Buuuuuut most of the times it's not next to my house and i won't die (if i'm lucky)
also, we need some tracking device thing for mobs... seriously, something like a compass that will point to the nearest hostile mob so you know where they are.
Make a 3x2x2 hole in the ground.
Weaken a creeper. (1 diamond sword hit + 2 arrows on normal)
Lead creeper into the hole.
Find a skeleton. Lead the skeleton into the hole.
Skeleton shoots creeper.
Collect record.
p.s. Bow -> walk backwards -> collect loot.
Wow.. that is actually so simple.. why didn't I.. forget it. Thank you, will use. lol
What does that do that traditional firearms don't, other than use a battery and stack the cartridges in the barrel?
Did you even watch the video? It's significantly different than traditional firearms. Most notably in the mechanistic vs electrical convention. How is that not different?
That seems dangerous to me anyway.What if the first cartridge doesn't go off, but the one behind it does?
Instant kaboom, that's what.
Ok, so you didn't watch the video. This is evinced in the fact that he says, in the video, that if that ever happened, it would just fire off the other bullets. Also, bullets don't explode with electrical input. Are you retarded?
Quote from Dforce »
I used male gender just because most of the readers on this board are male and can well relate to the examples. By my experience gender does not matter in cases of extreme violence, its more of a cultural phenomena that in a (still) mostly masculine culture men will perform these acts of stupidity, in a mathriarcal society probably women. We dont have access to any data about this so its pointless to argue to one side or another, its purely speculation from both of us. Atleast here young girls for some reason prefer suicide over mass murders, but we still count the probability of next school/mall/whatever shooters gender to be 50/50.
First, let's be honest - you used male references because of their availability, not because of who you are talking to. Don't be silly.
Also, it is not speculation nor conjecture on my part - I can summon the evidence for you and it is abundantly intuitive. Men cause more crime in general. When it comes to gun related crimes, men are even higher. You really think 50/50? That is just plain ignorance. Furthermore, it is not even culturally related - it is evinced in nearly all cultures (I say nearly only because we may not have data for some cultures that are isolated, like tribes).
If we want to go to the more black and white view, I'd say that if men are more aggressive with testorsterone women are alot more openly emotional and this leads to a conclusion that women in their rage and wider gun ownership ratios would show a larger amount of women in home homicide statistics. Women are still minority in general gun ownership so again we hardly have enough material to make any assumptions from. I'll ask my colleagues if they have any (trustworthy) data about gun crime commited by women compared to total amount of female gun owners and compare that to male owners. I'm quite positive that the statistics will indicate that both sexes commit precentually quite similar amounts of gun related crime.
Your arguing is really messy here.
Firstly, you've actually proven yourself wrong in something you've said; women, even when given the rights, do not buy guns as much as men. That right there is evidence against what you are saying.
Furthermore, estrogen doesn't induce violence even close to the amount that testosterone does. To say that estrogen levels is just as violent as estrogen is flat out wrong. Women do get more emotional than men, but they internalize it where men externalize it.
Female hard level criminals arent as common as male ones due to the organisation models of most older organisations. I'd not be surprised if in a few years we will start to see more and more female criminals. Thus your argument is true at this point, but may not be in lets say five years. Still pure speculation from my side, if you have any knowledge to prove against it please show it. I generally dont label by genders and I think its just a way to derail the real conversation and deliberately trying to find "reasons" for these things. Your profile says you study psychology (my profiency and studies from this field are from crisis, trauma and human manners/habits field) so you know that these things stem from a persons head and thoughts and not whats in their pants. Im not going to deny the possible link here, but within a mathriarcal control group Im pretty sure we would see about 50/50 results on a long run.
You're right about one thing - these things do stem from their heads and thoughts. Also, what is in their pants is a contingent of that! Are you going to argue that sex and gender do not make a difference in personality and behaviour?
Also, what are you referring to as mathriarcal? Do you mean matriarchal? Mathematical? I've googled the word (that you mispelled twice) and I have no guess as to what you mean. Either way, in control groups, men are more prone to touching weapons than women where women are actually more prone to deterring the behaviour in the first place. This clearly shows that 50/50 results is just silly and wrong.
Men are more violent than women. Case closed.
As a curiosity from my _personal experience_, 2/3 of the most mentally ****ed up and shattered people I have seen are female.
This is right and wrong in different ways. Women are prone to more prominent mental disorders but women are also more likely to seek help. Men are still very high in prominent mental disorders. However, they are significantly lower in seeking help. In fact, men are more likely to turn to substance abuse. Where do you think that leads?
Quote from Josrence44 »
Honestly what makes me sick is that if some ******* breaks into your home and attempted to kill or rape your wife, if you shot him, you could be charged with murder. If you catch someone stealing your bicycle and beat them up on your own property, you can be charged with assault. The stupid **** who made that law is the one who needs to be beaten with a baseball bat. When Law works for the criminals, yes, life is good for them.
I have to agree - those laws are infuriating. It is the result of very manipulative lawyers. Ugh.
Anybody who has made any preparation for the minute possibility of an earth-changing event in 2012 knows that there definitely are going to be stupid people out there looting and going nuts, just because they feel they can. We're heading up north and plan to ride out whatever happens. After a while, I plan to come back down and see what's what.
Aw come on, 2012 stuff? Bunk bunk bunk. I wonder when the world will apparently end after this date..
Its good to have opinions, but you really need to think things deeper than claiming facts. As a starting note I myself am also a gun owner AND have faced guns in security jobs I've done, so I've been on the both sides of the barrel.
Bill is a father of two and happily married. He lives a normal middle class life in a quite suburbia of a larger city. However, working in sub management he has a stressfull job and its somewhat depressed and has some bottled anger. One day he goes heavy drinking with his best buddies and emotions start to bubble. He is shattered and angry when he comes home at night still heavily drunk. Bill's wife is waiting for him and nags about drinking, coming home late without any message left to indicate where he is. They fight and Bill, being drunk and angry gets totally fed up and shoots his wife. He regrets it immediately, calls 911 himself and explains it all to the police admitting guilt but the damage is already done, its a gun related homicide.
Oh look at that.. another MAN related gun homicide.
You might say that its a nice story, but its sadly a very common scenario here.
The combination of firearms, drinking, and men is not uncommon anywhere.
Criminals rarely shoot other people than eachothers, its the "normal people" who do. We have had three very serious cases of mass murders here in the past few years and in two of them a LEGAL gun was used to kill people in cold blood. Im of course talking about Jokela and Kauhajoki school shootings (links as sources in the end of this post),
Both boys.. along with all the other boys that had school shootings..
Psychology and stress reactions is our next subject. Stress reactions are always present and cannot be avoided. The most important thing here is that they are very personal and you cannot know how you act under extreme stress before you experience it a few times. As a thumb rule only 5% of people are actually capable of doing something usefull when stress reactions kick in, about 10% freeze totally and are unable to do anything, 60% flee aimlessly even directly towards the actual danger and 25% do not even notice that something has happened before they get a clear sign, for instance someone yelling "get the **** out of here!". Stress reactions might/will include following things: Tunnel Vision (you cant see things outside your narrow field of focus), Adrenaline Rush, Shaking of hands/legs, crying/laughing/stuttering and many other numerous physical and mental things. The thing Im most concerned about in allowing free gun carriage is Tunnel Vision. Lets think about Sello shooting, which happened in a convenience store with quite alot of customers inside at the time. Shkupolli (the shooter) could have been shot by customer X after killing his victims. Now customer Y in high adrenaline and tunnel vision comes behind the corner and shoots customer X who has a gun in his hands. Security Guard Z sees customer Y shooting customer X and shoots him. Now we have two extra victims and a badly traumatized guard with life long traumas. Dead people and mindless violence DOES cause traumas to everyone including the police, its justa fact. I sadly know this too and still see nightmares of brains literally spilled to floors.
This is all true. Except that men, in the presence of a gun, with higher testosterone, will more quickly utilize the weapon than run. More technically, the higher hormonal levels cause a fight response in the amygdala than flight (the stress reactions you are referring to).
Criminals however will get their guns illegally if the need some, there is little to do against that. Tightening gun and especially handgun laws is a very good PROactive measure however. I'd guess a great deal of currently illegal guns have formerly been legal ones and thus tightening gun laws would most likely decrease the amount of illegal guns on the market in five to ten years. This would lead to guns being rarer, spares harder to come buy (machinery breaks at some point you know) and most importantly alot more expensive on the black market, which would lead to small level criminals being unable to just get a pistol for a few hundred bucks. Tighter gun control would also most likely cut the amount of drunken rage homicides done by us "normal people".
I find this content in a completely different context if you take sex and gender into consideration. Maybe you didn't consider it..?
What do you think...?
Quote from crazybeast2 »
Strange, I am a man.. and I practice extremely strict gun safety and discipline. I think human kind is the highest correlation with gun related crimes..
Well then, you think wrong, because men are significantly higher in the correlation. Just look through all the references and articles you want, it will be intuitive. It is undeniably true and I could easily summon a plethora of resources to prove it if you would like to argue something so redundantly obvious.
0
~
0
Hopefully that quiver is put to use soon because carrying so many arrows at once is a nuisance..
~
0
Well I have seen others with this issue on the forums anyway. Worth emailing notch or tweeting him.
~
0
There seems to be a number of java related issues floating about so I would not necessarily think it is on your end. However, have you tried reinstalling the game? Does it work in/out of browser? Re-installed java?
Those are some things I would try, but you may be SOL till Notch fixes these problems.
~
0
~
0
Not going to lie to you, I used to use the same graphics card and got the same error on random games. I suspect it's an issue with the card itself. Honestly, I bought a new one.
However, it may be worth updating drivers (or, if you are using current ones, try rolling back). Furthermore, have you tried adjusting the graphics in game? Does turning them down help?
~
0
Not a belief - fact.
But yeah.. back to the guns..
Love the barret .50 cal something model lol
~
0
Can we have killstreak rewards?
~
0
Keep the fingers in the ear.
Simply wrong and proven so. Not my fault if you don't acknowledge facts and evidence and still think you're right.
Not that simple.
Not that simple.
In other words; all through your own personal opinion and bias. I cited actual scientific journals, but you know more right?
~
0
It is as sexist as it is to state gender and sex differences. It is as sexist as saying men drink more than women and women have more cases of breast cancer. It is simply fact that men cause more crime than women.
Right, men always can do this - just as women have also had the same capability to obtain illegal arms. However, if culture and society encourage women to arms and ban men, it sets a societal image that would most certainly deter violence on women by men.
My previous point stands to this. If women are encouraged to arms and men are banned, any criminal would have to face the persecuation of firearm acquisition in addition to the fact that women are all encouraged to be armed.
Although this may have been an initial issue with metal storm weaponry, the problem has been resolved via sequential barrel firing. If you really did look into it, you would have seen that the issue has been rectified.
In short, the sequential firing system propels any possible misfire and residue leaving no remnants in the barrel. If anything, the misfire makes the next fire more dangerous.
Of course, I am not saying the gun is perfect, but certainly superior than mechanistic weaponry.
If I fail at reading comprehension it is due to reading a sentence formed with ambiguity and ubstantiated context.
"That seems dangerous to me anyway.What if the first cartridge doesn't go off, but the one behind it does?
Instant kaboom, that's what."
There is no indication of what you are saying is "kabooming" and what is causing the "kaboom". Of course, I have to assume you didn't read into the article at all because you provided no substantial insight into the subject matter. Instead, you just provided a very simplistic sentence open to a lot of interpretation. How can one be surprised to be misunderstood when you state things in such terms?
Well, in one perspective, the metal storm are practically superior in all means. Except for that fact that you are right about EMP technology receiving drastic funding. In this case, I think we would both agree that combining the two would be most ideal (akimbo desert eagle and metal storm ftw?). Agree?
I will provide proof following my responses to you here.
I find it interesting that you will use the argument that making arms illegal/legal doesn't stop the acquisition of the weapons but it seems to prevent women somehow. Women have always had the ability to use weapons, firearms, etc. for as long as humans have existed. It is most certainly undeniable, in this light, that men have been more violent than women. I am not saying women are not violent at all, but certainly significantly less. Your argument is bunk in this very light because you neglect the accesibility in thinking that modernity somehow encourages women to be more violent.
Are you seriously trying to make rationlizations for mens violence? You cannot possibly take this article, which clearly shows that men are more violent than women, and say that it isn't mens fault.
I just want to clarify.. you are saying that it isn't mens fault but it is the circumstances of being in a sexual relationship that causes men to be violent? Pray tell then, why arn't women as violent considering they are in the same relationship?!\
Again, you make the bias argument that illegal/legal acquisition of arms somehow deters the actual acquisition of arms. A criminal doesn't care if firearms are legal or not - they will acquire them. Do you really think women have somehow magical barriers that prevent them from acuiring firearms alternative to men?
Furthermore, the very article you quoted proves yourself wrong - men are more violent to women in domestic relationships (ie. emotional outbursts).
I find it insulting and embarassing that you keep trying to excuse mens violence and have the audacity to say that women are just as violent. It is seriously a symbol of the ignorance of society to the precedence of male-instigated violence. How does it feel to be a factor in that? Because I think it's dispicable.
Firstly, sorry, I wasn't picking on you; I was being honest. I didn't understand what you were saying.
Secondly, I have no remorse over it even if I was because I too have learnt English as a second language. My mother language is German.
Thirdly, I honestly still don't know what you mean by matriarchal group. I'm being serious. What are you talking about?
I will prove it, in addition to the proof you have provided to (which does support my claims and not yours).
It's not an opinion - it's fact. I will discuss it and provide you the evidence following these replies.
Ok, let me get this straight.. firstly, yes, men are socially encouraged to deal with issues on their own and, yes, it is a stigma for men to seek mental help. However, those that do seek it are mentally more fit and cause less violence than those who do not.
So.. are you saying, again, that it is societies fault for causing the violence? Just who exactly do you think it is that is causing that social stress you are mentioning? I will give you hint; the majority of women support men and women seeking mental help. Guess what option that leaves you with to blame?
I think it is a bit insulting and ignorant to simply presume that, because your friend has no "field" experience, that must mean I do not. You do not even know my name yet alone what my gender is - how can you make personal judgments? You're going to try and attack my personal history to deter my arguments? Grow up.
As for the evidence, here we go:
+ http://social.jrank.org/pages/1253/Viol ... nders.html
+ http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstrac ... fic.1.aspx
+ http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/s ... 4/art00001
+ http://people.cas.sc.edu/daviske/nvawajpm.pdf
+ http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/Abs ... ?id=183781
+ http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... 0073291506
+ http://www.alcoholaddiction.org/men-vs- ... nce-abuse/
Do you need more evidence? There's certainly a heck of a lot more I could provide.
~
0
Perhaps similar to fallout compass??
~
0
Great, more panhandlers. Go live in a dirt hole, yah bum!
~
0
Wow.. that is actually so simple.. why didn't I.. forget it. Thank you, will use. lol
~
0
Did you even watch the video? It's significantly different than traditional firearms. Most notably in the mechanistic vs electrical convention. How is that not different?
Ok, so you didn't watch the video. This is evinced in the fact that he says, in the video, that if that ever happened, it would just fire off the other bullets. Also, bullets don't explode with electrical input. Are you retarded?
First, let's be honest - you used male references because of their availability, not because of who you are talking to. Don't be silly.
Also, it is not speculation nor conjecture on my part - I can summon the evidence for you and it is abundantly intuitive. Men cause more crime in general. When it comes to gun related crimes, men are even higher. You really think 50/50? That is just plain ignorance. Furthermore, it is not even culturally related - it is evinced in nearly all cultures (I say nearly only because we may not have data for some cultures that are isolated, like tribes).
Your arguing is really messy here.
Firstly, you've actually proven yourself wrong in something you've said; women, even when given the rights, do not buy guns as much as men. That right there is evidence against what you are saying.
Furthermore, estrogen doesn't induce violence even close to the amount that testosterone does. To say that estrogen levels is just as violent as estrogen is flat out wrong. Women do get more emotional than men, but they internalize it where men externalize it.
You're right about one thing - these things do stem from their heads and thoughts. Also, what is in their pants is a contingent of that! Are you going to argue that sex and gender do not make a difference in personality and behaviour?
Also, what are you referring to as mathriarcal? Do you mean matriarchal? Mathematical? I've googled the word (that you mispelled twice) and I have no guess as to what you mean. Either way, in control groups, men are more prone to touching weapons than women where women are actually more prone to deterring the behaviour in the first place. This clearly shows that 50/50 results is just silly and wrong.
Men are more violent than women. Case closed.
This is right and wrong in different ways. Women are prone to more prominent mental disorders but women are also more likely to seek help. Men are still very high in prominent mental disorders. However, they are significantly lower in seeking help. In fact, men are more likely to turn to substance abuse. Where do you think that leads?
I have to agree - those laws are infuriating. It is the result of very manipulative lawyers. Ugh.
Aw come on, 2012 stuff? Bunk bunk bunk. I wonder when the world will apparently end after this date..
~
0
Oh look at that.. another MAN related gun homicide.
The combination of firearms, drinking, and men is not uncommon anywhere.
Both boys.. along with all the other boys that had school shootings..
This is all true. Except that men, in the presence of a gun, with higher testosterone, will more quickly utilize the weapon than run. More technically, the higher hormonal levels cause a fight response in the amygdala than flight (the stress reactions you are referring to).
I find this content in a completely different context if you take sex and gender into consideration. Maybe you didn't consider it..?
What do you think...?
Well then, you think wrong, because men are significantly higher in the correlation. Just look through all the references and articles you want, it will be intuitive. It is undeniably true and I could easily summon a plethora of resources to prove it if you would like to argue something so redundantly obvious.
~