There was a suggestion of the ability for information to leave the matrix, and a potentiasl that Zion (is that the right spelling?) to be a matrix in it's own right. Agent Smith infected a guy who in turn left the matrix, but was (at least in part) still agent smith. Since the agents are only software, you would imagine they could not leave the matrix. The conclusion is that either A) it is possible to transfer informational abilities to your actual self which means Neo is capable of fighting outside the matrix, but just doesn;t yet realise it, or B) Zion is part of the matrix, and was created as a control mechanism to separate the difficult entities in the matrix that wanted free will (Neo et al...) damn, thought about that too much.....

Unless of course the law states that there will be a change, and in turn can define the change in mathematical terms...

The 50" is a better center-piece. A Center-pieces level of center-piece-ness is related to it's desirability, rarity, or some other level of preciousness....not it's size.... HD Quality is no doubt decernably better, i don't think that can be argued (unless you've never actually seen one) you are right though, worth the money? the choice is for everyone who thinks about buying a TV! Is it necessary? I don't think so....but then i don't watch a lot of telly.....

El Corazon wrote:

SDTV is not suffient, never has been

I disagree... If SDTV was not sufficient, we would turn of the SDTV signal now, because it has been superceded. In fact it hasn't. If you want a higher quality picture, thats fine. I personally don't care that much about the picture quality. in an earlier post i mentioned that i am generally happy with B&W on a 14" CRT screen.....so why go for anything else? Don't get me wrong, I do accept that HDTV is better, but does it actually need to be? People go to the Cinema/Theatre for more than just the picture. Otherwise can we assume you (with your big plasma HDTV) will never be returning to the Cinema? If you do, is that an omission that your TV is not as good as it should be?

Wjousts, i think on a technically inclined board, you're not likely to win this argument! Personally i agree, although i love IT, i also love avoiding IT where it's not necessary. In my opinion, black and white TV is still perfectly acceptable on a 14" screen. I am sure i'l get shot down in flames for saying so, but like you, i don't want my TV to be the centerpiece of my living room, and i don't want to sped £1.5K on a TV which is roughly equivalent to one for around £40 (no 'k') but not quite as detailed.... as a matter of interest to the general populus, do you all also get your eyes tested? I read an article somwhere that said (and i don't kinow how true it is!!) that most peoples eye sight at the recomended viewing distance of a 50" TV is not good enough to see the full quality of the picture.......so thats a lot of money for something you can't even use without extra equipment!!!!

it might not be his fault as such, but he still has some level of responsibility!

Red, Your wrong-ness is actually impressive. I would argue with you, but to be honest, i have paint drying, and i'd rather watch it than listen to you.....

Bryce, i am suprised your ability to read is so bad. Did you read the word "Benevolent"? Did you understand it's meaning? check out http://www.thefreedictionary.com/benevolent[^] Do you actually know anything about hitler? wow, i am suprised you have such a sad attitude. I guess you're the kind of guy who thinks Anarchy should reign. you have managed to ignore my whole post, and just reply in an offencive and immature way. well done! Seriously, while i accept critisism, i do at least expect you to bother trying....

In some case, yes, i certainly am. The ideal political situation to be in would be (i believe this is the name for it...) a benevolent dictatorship. Someone who tells you what to do, but only when it's for your own good. I know people don't like to hear it, but governments and ismilar organisations should make decisions for the good of their members, and the world. not because i want them to make a particular choice. People call it a nanny state but think of it this way... Some people say we should all be able to do whatever we like without the government telling us what to do...i disagree. My government forces me to wear a seatbelt. Partly this is becuse i am more likely to survive a car crash. Partly it's because without one, some poor bugger has to clear up the mess made when i make a mistake and crash..... my choice to wear a seat belt was taken away from me. the only loss is my choice. the benefit is to me, the guy who scrapes me from the pavement, the people who have to try and identify me, my family, my friends..... sometimes taking away our choices is best for us and the world around us.... the real trick is to work out where to draw the line.....

1. As said in another post, it reverses front and back, not left and right or up and down 2) since the answer is already decided, the actual probabilities are 1:1. What about the classics of... 1) which came first: The Chicken or the Egg? 2) If a tree falls in a forest, and no-one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? The answers are simple really.....

It's kind of like the lorries and trains that carry nuclear wepons around america. They never stop long enough to pin poin them, so they can't be attacked. If they do get attacked, there's a deniability that they were even weapons! If you want an invoice updated, they guy is out on holiday, and if the invoice is wrong, the guy isn't there.....

ah, the lo-fi version of counter terrorism..... no wonder half the UK wants to relocate to oz!

Actually Bryce, I completely disagree. If wealthy nations want to give money to poorer nations from the goodness of their hearts, thats great, but what are the chances? If the UN can con wealthy nations in to giving money to poor nations, then well done UN, great for poor nations! The sad fact is that rich nations are often so far removed from the realities of the poorer nations (while also using them as slave labour) that they don't even really understand why we should give them money. They also control the global economies that are causing the problems in the first place. You say "if" and "as such" in a way that suggests you do not believe in things, and will not participate until you do. My point in the last mail was that you cannot prove GW either way, so we should do what we believe to be right. If that means lying, then thats the way it should be. Rich countries have lied to poor countries for years......after all, why did we invade Iraq?.....

wow, that shows how little you understand the subject your apparnetly involved in.... (Sorry everyone else, but i really love C/C++. to me C# is just a re-write of visula basic, which i didn't like when it came out, and still don't like, but get forced to use by idiots who don't understand anything development related.)

Wow - chinese is not only a beautiful language, it is beautiful to look at too! Can you tell me what "I Love You" is in Chinese?

I have an old pc, Celeron 800 with 128Mb RAM running Kubuntu. OK, i could do with more memory, but it runs fine for what i need (web browsing, email, the basics....

bryce wrote:

If there is a false premise such as man made global warming

How do you know this is false? do you have information the rest of us don't? To my knowledge there is no definitive evidence either way as to whether Global Warming is or is not man made. What we do know for sure is we are having an impact on our biosphere which is unmatched by any animal in history. We also have an issue in that our predictions show that, global warming or not, the planet will eventually become unsuitable for human habitation. One way or another we need to be able to manage and control what we do, the polution we create and the damage we do. If we don't, I have to agree with Agent Smith. Our closest resembling organism is a Virus. We consume and desroy until there is nothing left. I do hope thats not the case....

it's a good point, but i really hope they do. I think it's wierd and cool, but you see life several times, each time from a different perspective. First as a kid, Then as a parent, Then as a Grand-Parent Each time you see the same things, but each time you have an appreciation for the times that went before. I don't know about other people, but i love having kids. they really defined my reason for being if that doesn't sounds too cheesey. Before kids i just hung out, got stoned, worked eat and slept. In the few years i have had kids my career has excelled because i have a reason to try harder, I have more to gain from putting the effort in, and a reason not to get in trouble! It's strange, work things i tried so hard to do before seem so easy now.

cool, but not cool at the same time... the vapour trails common to LSD actually had their own vapour trails....hard to look at anything at times! I was at one point sat on a duvet that was black and white striped, every stripe edge had a trail, every trail had it's own trail.... And for a hallucinagenic, it's the only one i've met where i could have sworn the TV was talking to me, but every time i looked directly at it, it wasn't!!! wierd.... They were called "Get-a-fix's" and they had a picture of obelisk from the Asktrix comics on them.. It's apparently one of the fastest acting ones too, and i can certainly agree with that! The girl who bought them placed one in my hand, i went off to the toilets to take it in secrecy (didn't want to get kicked out of the club we were in) and by the time i had walked there (about 30-60 seconds) i could already see little dot's wizzing past me.... that was a wierd night......

1. Not Married, living in sin i suppose! 2) British 3) Male - although isn't this a rather gerneralised question? 4) Agnostic/Buddhist 5) Yes 6) No, terrorism brought us all to where we are, but we call it history now..... 7) Yes. It is a sign of true civilisation to care about your fellow man. 8) no. 9) Yes, in fact i don't believe in marriage. 10) Yes. 11) No 12) No 13) N/A 14) Yes 15) Yes 16) no. no need unless it's for tax. 17) neither. 18) drug use is a result of the current situation, not the cause. 19) no. to US for my liking... 20) no, freedom of speech dude.... 21) yes, freedom of thought, freedom of religion.... 22) Yes 23) No, (unless they liked it ;-) ) 24) no 25) no 26) no 27) no 28) no, an eye for an eye is wrong.... 29) yes, if it was truely required 30) surely the same question as above? 31) only in his own country 32) no, they are only the united american nations, and america shouldn't ahve any more power, no one should 33) no, thats free speech. The responsibility that comes with it requires i accept they are offended and keep it to myself. 34) less than an hour ago. I didn't find it offensive, just mis-guided...