pap

It's not just about gaming; although Football Manager will partially benefit. The greater benefit is having a load of independent VRAM which is purely there for your graphics. A lot of other solutions involve sharing your main RAM, which is typically slower, and of course, takes memory away from other tasks. As soon as you run out of physical memory, your computer will start pretending your hard drive is also memory, making access to applications that much slower ( they have to be streamed back in to physical RAM, other tasks need to be streamed out to disk, etc ).

One hundred and fifty quid isn't a lot of money. Assuming you mean 150M, if they really do have that to spend, then they're not going to get the same 150M worth that a bigger side might get. Like us, most of the players that they sign in the first season will be something of a gamble. And besides, we've seen it all before. Leicester were red-hot favourites to be up there during our champ season, due to all the money and Sven, etc. Didn't happen. CL football in their first season back in the Prem probably won't happen either.

Not causing beef. Resurrecting beef. See it for the miracle it is, ya heathen.

I am pleased to see some offers of beef reconciliation doing the rounds, and have already removed the Tokyo-Saint vs norwaysaint beef from the OP. I will be happy to remove the Tokyo-Saint vs Ludwig one if they can get it sorted. Without taking sides; there's a lot of conflicting information going about. Bit of mod intervention might flush this beef through the intestinal tract once and for all. Release the files!

Ok, report. We quibble on terms. There isn't much detail to go on, but that's one of them - and one of the few things that it claims is that Schmeichel would be ahead of Boruc as first-choice keeper. Boruc can be excellent, but we missed out on his services for ten games this campaign which has left us in shít shape for victory. Schmeichel is guaranteed a spot on the team sheet if he signs a new deal at Leicester, Premier League exposure guaranteed. If you were in his position, would you swap that for a place on the bench at St Mary's week-on-week, even if you had assurances of being a long-term replacement? With him being out of contract, he has a lot of options. He can afford to hold out for first team football, and if he's coming here, I think that's what he'll get. Under those circumstances, Boruc may leave. He's a journeyman player who doesn't let the grass doesn't grow under his feet. That's my reasoning. Now let's hear some more about how an article isn't an article. Everyone was fascinated.

The article says he'll replace Boruc as first-choice keeper, if signed. Boruc may be on his way. Cassillas is quality, but he's under contract until 2017 so we'd have to find a huge amount of dough for both transfer and wages, assuming of course, he fancies making the switch from Madrid to Southampton, a proposition I find a little far fetched. Forster is definitely gettable. Davis and Wanyama were both from the Scottish leagues - Boruc played there too at one point; both have been quality, contradicting the conventional wisdom that transfers from Scotland are a bit of a gamble. Jos was good for the level we bought him at - but I have special concerns about goalkeepers from Scotland. The only worry I'd have over Forster is the quality of opposition he's faced. Schmeichel would be an excellent fit. Just beginning his international career, recently part of a winning culture and looking to establish himself in the Premier League. Newly promoted teams are always amongst the favourites for relegation, so we'd be a safer bet for him if he fancies hanging about. Relegated goalkeepers have a taint about them.

Just out of interest, was this an insta-ban or just enough points to push him over the edge?

Played out of his skin at our away Champ trip to Leicester. Would have him in a heartbeat.

Go to Chillblast, Col. Very highly rated by press; got my PC from them last year and they're great. This kicks the shít out of it, has a very nice GFX card and is £100 more expensive. http://www.chillblast.com/Chillblast-Fusion-Asgard-2.html

Bear; I have made you a badge in honour of you bringing this important matter to our attention. Wear it with pride. Everyone else; sorry for OT - Bear started it.

Big balls, there Tokes. £60

Seeing as you got all shirty, I feel perfectly within my rights to offer an even more derisory opening bid for your remaining £200 worth of John Lewis vouchers. £50

Bit of a bunfight going on up here. One of the local Labour councillors has allegedly conducted a homophobic campaign against an openly gay Liberal Democrat. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-liberal-councillor-steve-radford-7122909 I presume that this means the Labour Party are all homophobes now?

This is where we differ then; I've seen nothing but banditry in Parliament and the slow transfer of power into non-democratic structures such as private industry. They've done little but sell the national legacy to private interests, Labour governments included. They're collectively a f**king disgrace and have nothing to teach me about being a person.

It'd be nice to get an answer to one of my points. "How many governments in your living memory would you say have the moral right to tell you how to live?"

For someone that is picking your battles, I'd suggest a bit more ammunition. This is a really naive statement, backed up with nothing and entirely dependent on your definition of the word terrorist. Now I'll admit, if you're constraining yourself to brown people in the desert, then the actions of the US and UK won't appear anything like terrorism. If you broaden your definition, and go with terrorist as "anyone that terrorises people, or supports those that do, for political gain", suddenly the US and UK are right back in the frame. Operation Gladio, Vietnam, collusion with loyalist forces in Northern Ireland, the 1953 overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran, the training of death squads there to suppress the Iranian people, pretty much the same thing happening 50 years later in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That's a small list with millions of victims. The only way you can pass this off as mere "dastardly" is by being entirely delusional/ignorant about post-war history. Putin is perhaps the greatest failure of US/UK foreign policy. Anyone that makes him look statesmanlike is doing something incredibly wrong. The US is supporting fascists in Ukraine and Al-Qaeda in Syria. It invades countries without provocation for the gain of its corporates, particularly those in the military industrial complex. The system is rife with lobbying, special interests and corruption. William Hague is an inveterate liar who uses polysyllabic language to obscure the truth. A member of CFI at the age of 16, he is the last person you'd ever want to trust on foreign policy issues. I'm glad no-one did during the Syrian crisis. Well, it has been a nice post, but this largely unsubstantiated diatribe falls a little flat when reviewing 40 years of Pilger's material. I still value his opinion more than yours.

So now you're arguing that the government should have power to affect an individual's behaviour? I'd disagree. Governments are there to ensure the integrity of the realm, not to fleece money from people with addiction problems. How many governments in your living memory would you say have the moral right to tell you how to live?

Theoretically, I'm proposing that you put some meat on the bones of your ideas. Practically, I can see that you're asking questions to which I've already given the answer to. Twice.

Bastards

To what end? How many people do you know that just pay income tax? If these people exist ( they don't ), then great, your argument is relevant. If not, then you have to consider the overall burden of taxation, which you're not. The panoply of tax legislation is a big part of the problem. In practice, this means that progressive tax doesn't really work (anyone that can afford an accountant gets out of it), corporations get away with paying way under the corporate tax rate. Not your argument, but DuncanRG seems to think that progressive tax is key for beating down the deficit. I'd disagree. Simplify the lot, take it at source and make everyone pay. Binman, lawyer or multinational - you all pay the same proportion of your income, but whatever you have left is yours. That is fair, imo. Mollify yourself as much as you like with ideas of fairness in progressive taxation, but remember that the notion of the rich paying more is just a fantasy, and while it theoretically might be "fairer" for those on low incomes to have a lower percentage burden on their income tax, the wider practice doesn't bear this out.

Similarly, if you have such problems with flat taxation, maybe you'd care to enumerate them keeping a holistic view of the tax burden situation. Narrowing your argument to what you can defend doesn't solve your problem; it just shows you weren't thinking comprehensively in the first place.

On the same page? We're not even reading the same book. I am talking about the overall tax burden, which is what actually matters when considering taxation. You're defending the one fluffy bit that exists as if it matters, and isn't a smokescreen to hide all the other money we give to the government.

Can we kill this? I know you've both said you want it done, but I'm feeling unresolved tension here. Still feels very beefy. I'd like to see a cyber-hug or something before closing this one out. You don't want untracked beef, y'see.

I don't bet that often.

Ah, the fantasy of lower income families doing alright on progressive taxation. I suppose you two lads have forgotten all about the various methods of indirect taxation, many of them regressive, that everyone has to pay. VAT, tax on fuel (which increases the cost of everything), beer, cigarettes, council tax and the like. Also, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the less fortunate are being left to suffer at the expense of the super rich. Most of the super-rich got richer during the recession. Most normal people didn't. The panacea of progressive taxation hasn't delivered the social change you're after chaps, so what does that make these posts? Cheerleading for tax accountants? None of your points have any substance behind them. Given your apparent blindness to the huge amounts of regressive taxation the poor have to pay, is it safe to say that neither of you have lived under a flat tax system? You seem to have both fallen for the huge con that progressive taxation is somehow good for people and the economy. I suspect the real tax burden is somewhere approaching 50% for low earners. Progressive tax isn't about helping the poor, it's about obscuring that tax burden figure. It is entirely defensible in isolation, which is probably why you've such strong views. However, it's just a component of a wider taxation system in which the poor are shafted elsewhere. I would rather just pay the burden, whatever the fúck it really is, and know that everything else is mine.