BadgerFarm

I recently bought a new laptop. While I mostly intend to use it for Uni-related stuff, I was planning on installing one or two oldish games on it.

I asked a question a day or two ago about system requirements, and was helpfully referred to a site called systemrequirementslab. This site told me that my laptop met the minimum system requirements for the game I want.

However, it also told me that my CPU speed is really quite slow. While I easily met the recommended requirements for everything else for the game, my CPU speed is around 2.508 GHz.

I don't understand why my CPU is so slow. I have a AMD Dual Core 2.1 GHz processor (I thought dual core processors were supposed to be better) and 3GB of RAM. There is very little software installed since I just got it. Despite all this, however, my CPU speed is slower than on the old family PC which is inferior in every aspect and filled with software (it's around 2.9GHz on the PC).

So why is the CPU speed so slow on my laptop? Is there any way I can increase it short of buying a new processor or laptop?

So recently I got a laptop. I didn't buy it specifically for gaming (I'm going to use it for Uni), but I was hoping to get one or two old-ish games installed.

However, I'm sort of a techno-tard and I don't really get stuff to do with system requirements. My laptop easily meets the requirements for stuff like RAM for the game I want, but I don't get the processor thing.

The recommended requirements say it wants a Pentium 4 processor 3GHz or better. My processor is an AMD something something dual core processor 2.1GHz. At first I thought "that's that then, I won't get it," but then someone told me that, since my processor is dual core, it should be able to handle it. He said that if a system requirements thing for a game doesn't say dual core processor, then any dual core processor should be able to manage it. Is this guy right? Will my laptop run this game OK (it definitely meets all the other system requirements)?

Oh and one more thing. The game also wants a Directx 9 level graphics card. When I do a dxdiag thing it says my computer Directx level is 11, but I don't know if that means my graphics card is at that level.

Thanks for reading. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

So my mother recently got a broadband bill (we're with BT) and she had to pay an excess of like £130 because we'd exceeded our allowance or something.

Why would such an excess occur. She doesn't really use the internet that much at all, so it must be something I'm doing. Naturally I feel guilty.

I play online games like Counterstrike 1.6 and Day of Defeat, could this affect it? I've heard that the gaming itself shouldn't affect the bill that much, but with a game like counterstrike where practically every server has it's own content to download it could result in an excess.

Secondly, I use the internet a lot. Like, A LOT. In the morning I'll turn my computer on, reset the router (it never connects otherwise) and pretty much leave it on so I can go on it quickly if I ever want the internet. I go on normal sites like youtube, wikipedia, etc., and never download anything bigger than a flashplayer update or whatever. Could the length of time the computer is simply connected to the net affect the Bill.

Thirdly, I have an Xbox and LIVE, and often play online on that. Could that affect the bill? I also download demos and stuff that frequently are around 1GB a piece. Do these demos count as a part of the download allowance?

Also, the games I play are downloaded off of steam. Does the game download count toward download allowance?

Thanks for any help. Me and my mum are both pretty techno-illiterate. I just don't want to cost her any more money if I can help it.

I know European settlers brought diseases with them that badly affected the native population, but what sorts of diseases did they find in North and South America? I mean, there must have been some diseases unique to the Americas, right?

Also, how badly did these diseases affect the settlers?

Every time I visit this section of Y!A all I see are questions like "Christians, how can you defend your evil superstitions?" or "Atheists, where do you get your morals from?" Then, whenever someone actually asks a genuine question instead of pointlessly baiting those they disagree with, the answer thread just gets turned into a atheist v theist debate (and quite a poor one).

For example, I recently looked at a question about passages from the Bible related to hope; the asker apparently wanted to a cheer a friend up. The asker and his/her friend might not have even been Christian. I'm an atheist, but I find many parts many religions and holy books interesting and inspiring. Parts of the Bible can be inspiring and uplifting even if you're not a Christian.

However, while a few people provided some very nice passages, a great many just wrote things like "Why are you offering her false hope, why don't you just be logical like me?" Now, the question was not "Is there a God?" The question was about uplifting Bible passages. This is the sort of question that we hardly ever see in this section, because questions about particular parts of or literature from particular faiths are drowned in "I'm an atheists, I'm so clever, hey did you know I'm an atheist?" and "Atheists, if you don't covnert now you'll go to hell forever and ever!"

Atheists, you don't believe in God, we get it. Christians/others, you think atheists should believe in God, we get it. If a question specifically asks about this issue, feel free to answer it, but don't spoil otherwise friendly and interesting questions with "Who cares, there's no God" or "You've got it wrong, convert to my way of thinking or you'll burn!" It doesn't make you look intelligent, it just makes you look silly.

I think there should be a specific section for skeptics and believers to argue, but until such a section is created, could atheists and theists who want to discuss this please limit the amount of questions on this issue so they don't drown the rest of the section in question after question asking basically the same thing?

Thoughts?

I'm not a Christian and I'm not a Richard Dawkins style hardcore atheist, I'm just curious about this.

I mean, from watching TV shows and hearing things from those around me as I grew up, I thought it was clear Christian thought that when you die you go to Heaven or Hell depending on whether you were bad or good, and that was it. Then I started hearing about the Resurrection of the Dead, Judgement Day, and it all got very confusing and convoluted.

I understand that there will be differences between the thinking of different denominations, but is there a vague outline of what Christians believe happens after death that suits most denominations?

Thanks.

I like to see this particular game not as part of the world cup, but as part of a very special competition exclusively between England and Germany that only counts games where one side gets destroyed by at least 3 goals to none.

In light of this, Germany has failed. When England last destroyed Germany in 2001, it was 5-1. This time, the Germans only managed 4-1.

Don't be too hard on yourselves Germans. You tried your best, it just wasn't good enough. There's always next time.

Remember a few years back, when the England team beat Germany 5-1 in a friendly of something (I was quite young at the time)?

Well how come this 4-1 defeat means that English football is utterly dead according to most people on Y!A, when we can clearly see how well Germany has been able to do after this one game?

Games like this just happen. This doesn't mean the England team can be written off for the next 20 years.

I sprayed a spider that was clinging to the ceiling with a can of fly spray and left the room. When I came back it was writhing around on top of the toilet with its legs scattered around it.

How did this happen? Did it's legs just snap off when it fell from the ceiling and hit the toilet? Can fly spray make spiders' joints dissolve?

Some friends told me to watch some video which they said was real and I said wasn't. So basically, I watched it for a bit and I got kinda shakey after a while and I freaked out a little, so I turned it off after a couple of mintutes.

I still feel a little shakey, and my friends say now that I'm going to want to kill myself in a month.

I know that's probably bull and all this shakiness is either due to cold or I'm making myself feel it, but can hypnosis videos on the internet actually mess you up? Like, warp your mind?

I'm asking this because I saw a thing on TV where people were arguing about life and stuff and a vicar said that God gives a soul to a person at the moment a sperm fertilizes an ovum.

I can't remember the exact counter-argument, but some guy said something about quite a few ovum getting fertilized during sex but only one going on to become a fetus, so by his argument there'd be more souls that had never been born than ones that had.

Is this guy right, or half-right?

Which would you vote for?

The British People's Party

or

The Communist Party of Great Britain.

This is something I am researching for Sociology. The general idea is finding out whether, if forced to choose, most people choose extreme left or extreme right.

I don't want to risk breaking any YA! rules by linking to the parties' sites, but I encourage you to google them before searching. However, if you are on a work computer or are a little squeamish I HEAVILY advise against it. The BPP stuff is pretty "full-on."

If this is the case or you can't be bothered to google them, the BPP is an openly Neo-Nazi Party with emphasis on patriotism and race, and the CPB is a Communist Party critical of the lack of freedom and democratic control of the economy in the USSR and other Socialist States.

Please keep answers simple. Restrict yourselves to "BPP" or "CPB" if possible.

Say a perfectly healthy 20 year old was fixing a roof or something and fell, landing squarely on his head (very tense, so don't say "relaxed makes him more likely to survive).

How high would the building have to be (in feet) for the fall to kill him if he falls like this?

This isn't for a paper or anything, I was just watching "The Dark Knight" and wondering if that gang boss would've died if dropped on his head.

Cos you always hear stories about people who jump after elevators crash and live, and tales of people who fall out of their bedroom window and die instantly.

I am doing my history coursework on Sir Richard Arkwright, and need some examples of what his contemporaries did so I can compare them(I already have plenty on what Arkwright did btw).

My teacher has told me to include details on what they did, but has neglected to tell us what they did. Wikipedia only has a basic outline of their careers, and googling them has been a nightmare.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

NOTE: Don't just tell me to "do my own homework." What do you people think yahoo answers is for if not providing information for people who need it?

Here's a little piece of info that nicely renders your cost argument void:

"The £132.9 million profit of the Crown Estate for the year ending March 31st, 2000 was paid to the Exchequer for the benefit of taxpayers. This sum far exceeds the total cost of the monarchy. The Queen's Civil List has been fixed at £9.7 million per annum until 2011. Full details of royal household expenditure are published. A summary of these follows. The annual cost of the monarchy is approximately £37 million."

What has she done for this country? A fat lot more than you will ever do. Watch the news. See how many trips to other nations she does? See how much work she does for diplomacy?

And does the fact that 80% of the public want the Monarchy to stay not phase you at all?

It strikes me that you have no real argument at all. And just to point out, I am a 15 year old. Basically all my political views are left wing. Just letting you know that not all loyal people are old bumbling men.

I was watching the Trooping of the Colours a week or so ago and feeling particularly proud of my British heritage. I went on the internet, and what did I see on the Yahoo news page?

The UN has recommended we hold a referendum on the future of the monarchy. How bloody dare they!

I'm going to point out now that I'm left-wing mostly. I am totally against war, for a certain degree of socialisation, etc. So now you know I'm not a bumbling old codger. I'm 15.

I respect the UN as a peace keeper, and want it to remain. However, suggesting this when we know 80% of us want the Monarchy to stay, and most realise the amount of money it brings in and work it does... it's just plain insulting, expecially on the Queen's official birthday.

I can't find the link, but I assure you it's real.

So, when genocides are happening in Rwanda, no one cares, but when great institution is loved by the pople it serves, wow! We better sort that one out!

Any thoughts?

What do you personally believe?

I believe that pride and patriotism lies with the land and the flag, not the government. In my opinion, criticising the government should not be seen as anti-American or where-ever.

Surely criticising the government is necessary to maintain a democratic and free society? If we all believed the government could do no wrong, we wouldn't feel the need to replace or challenge it.

And for the love of God, please don't start posting about "libs" and "cons". Just curious about people's feelings on this, not looking for a flame-war.

I don't want this to turn into a flame war/debate, I just need a figure.

I know the official figure is around 30,000, but I read an article about a university that put the number at 600,000. They said their methods were more reliable than simply counting the bodies.

I've also read many different figures from wikipedia, google results.

So, can someone give me the most likely figure please? Thanks.

And remember, NO DEBATING. I don't want a flame war.

I see it all the time on questions here. It could be asking why Buckingham Palace is located where it is, and some attention-seeker will write "don't know but she is a parasite anyway I'm right get ridof her I'm right republic I'm right Britain's wrong, I'm right, Britain's wrong..."

Look. 80% of the people her want a Monarchy. You people are not the men of the people you pretend to be. You would, if you had the chance, remove something the majority of the British people love.

She brings in 4 pennies for every single penny she takes. She improves foriegn relations. She is a link to our past and our ancestors.

Japan has an Emperor, and is the most modern nation in the world.

Basically your argument can be summed up like this: "I'm right and everyone else is wrong, so get rid of a lot of our money and rape the Heritage of the United Kingdom."