Can anyone answer these questions?

Welcome to Nintendo 64 Forever. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Can anyone answer these questions?; Or post some more yourself
Tweet Topic Started: Mar 30 2007, 01:57 PM (552 Views)
Kerr Avon	Mar 30 2007, 01:57 PM Post #1
Senior Member Posts: 560 Group: Senior Members Member #52 Joined: December 13, 2006	Just some more things that I wonder when I can't sleep... 1. What's the highest score anyone's ever achived when playing snooker? I mean, yes there are only 147 points on a table, but what if one player commits a foul, so the second player gets four points, and then the second player gets a 147 break? Then he'll have scored 151 points, so 147 is not the highest possible score. What is the highest recorded score in a snooker match? 2. What's the highest score in a football (English, Soccer, not American) match? 3. What's the highest number of own goals scored in a football match? Has any player ever scored more than one own goal in a match? 4. What do Americans call chips? I believe that they call crisps "chips", and chips "French fries", but to us "French fries" are very thin chips, so what do they call very thin chips? 5. What's the highest hand in Poker? I don't know the rules of Poker too well, so it is all Kings and an Ace, all Aces and a King, King-Queen-Jack-Ten-Ace of Spades, or what? 6. Why does any commercial games company make PC games? I mean, when you consider the difficulty of having to take into account every version of Windows and it's inherent bugs and flaws, every driver for every possible piece of relevent hardware, the fact that piracy of PC games is so much easier than console piracy, not to mention the computer-illiterate users who play so many PC games (whilst a console is comparetivly very easy to use, even for a total beginner), then it seems to me that any commercial company would find it far easier to write for a console. I mean, constant, documented hardware, no multi-tasking O.S. stealing all of your resources, a machine that's easy to use for the end user, much less piracy, and the games you write will run fine on the console, without the user complaining that the game runs too slow (on a PC) because he read the minimum specifications but got the CPU speed confused with the RAM needed, or whatever. 7. Has anyone ever replied to spam? I mean, even if you did want a R@re replica solid gold copy wristwatch, or a date with Cindy (hot and gagging for it, in your area), or a mortgage, or anything, would you even consider buying it from a badly written e-mail where each word is either spelt wrong, divided by spaces mid-word, or contains zeros and other numbers in place of letters, in an obvious (and futile) attempt to bypass your spam checker? I'm never going to reply to any form of spam, and I doubt that any sane person would, so why bother bombarding us with the crap? 8. Why is Star Trek and it's spin-off's so successful, when Blake's 7, the best science-fiction program ever (just overlook the "special effects" - they probably had a budget of about Ł1.20 per episode), is either considered inferior, or even unkown, by so many people? There is talk of creating another series, but I really hope not. As a fan, I'm afraid they'll ruin it, as they have with Doctor Who. 9. Why is George W. Bush president of America? I mean, alright, so he's just a figurehead, but surely a figurehead should be charming, convincing and able to earn your confidence. Or at least not openly mentally handicapped. I mean, I hate Blair, and wouldn't trust him an inch, but at least he's charismatic (if only he'd gone into acting instead of politics (he does have the ego for acting)) and can put a speech across. Bush can't even do that. 10. Eastenders (an English soap opera). I HATE HATE HATE that program. Alright, so I don't watch much TV (I've watched Life on Mars, Harry Hill and a couple of comedies on satellite this week, I think that's it), so maybe I'm not a judge of the current standard of TV, but Eastenders is sooooooooooooooooooooooooo bad. I don't like soap operas as I don't see the point; they are supposed to be real life, but surely we watch TV to get away from real life (apart from documentaries, of course, and we do get some great ones on TV), and anyway, how realistic are soap operas when everyone knows everyone else in the same street, and non-one ever goes more than a hundred yards away from where they were born? But fair enough, soap operas are popular, and they might even serve a useful purpose, by teaching people the dangers of everyday life. But Eastenders is so, so, so depressing. I don't watch Neighbours, Corronation Street, Emmerdale, Brookside, or whetever, but I've got nothing against them from what I've seen. But Eastenders... I honestly can't find the words to describe how utterly wretched, depressed and suicidal is makes me feel just by seeing fifteen seconds of it when I'm seeing what's on TV. You don't even have to know that it's Eastenders when you first turn onto the channel. That's what I don't understand. You don't have to recognise the characters. It just looks so miserable, and it's the only program like that I know of. You turn onto it and straight away you know it's Eastenders, two people you've never seen before walking past some railings, or some bloke selling something from a market stall, or a scene of delapidated shop fronts, or whatever. The scenes could be from any number of programs, be they fact or fictional, but you know, you just know, that it's Eastenders. I mean, do they treat the film with something to make it look slightly off colour, something that only your subconscious recognises? Or do they have subliminal messages flashing for one fiftieth of every second, saying "Life is futile", "You are going to die", "This is your future", etc? Whatever, Eastenders is so, so, so depressing. And yet it gets massive viewing figures. Women especially love it. Why??? Thanks for any answers, and feel free to post any questions yourself, it'll give us somethings to discuss.



Deleted User	Mar 30 2007, 02:21 PM Post #2
Deleted User	1) Pass. Try Wikipedia. 2) Same as 1. 3) Same as 1. 4) Don't some fast food chains call them fries, regardless of the thickness of the end product? 5) ? 6) Huge installed userbase=cash. 7) Maybe. Dunno. Star Trek is better than Blake's 7. Fact. 9) Oil companies + powerful father + US "friendly" policies. 10) It really is total crap. Sorry, no answer to this one.
Deleted User


StYoung	Mar 30 2007, 03:30 PM Post #3
Elite Posts: 2,734 Group: God Member #17 Joined: July 13, 2006	1. What's the highest score anyone's ever achived when playing snooker? I mean, yes there are only 147 points on a table, but what if one player commits a foul, so the second player gets four points, and then the second player gets a 147 break? Then he'll have scored 151 points, so 147 is not the highest possible score. What is the highest recorded score in a snooker match? A: What the **** is a "snooker". It sounds something that comes out of my nose. Or onto Ragedy's mom. 2. What's the highest score in a football (English, Soccer, not American) match? A: Try learning about a good sport, like, say, American football. 3. What's the highest number of own goals scored in a football match? Has any player ever scored more than one own goal in a match? A: An Eagles quarterback threw either 7 or 8 tds in one game before. 4. What do Americans call chips? I believe that they call crisps "chips", and chips "French fries", but to us "French fries" are very thin chips, so what do they call very thin chips? A: Small, thin slices of potatoes that are crunchy = chips. Large, weiner shaped soft slabs of potatoes = french fries.
	dagoss,Nov 17 2007 05:13 PM OMG, this is the best topic ever made. I nominate Steve for God!


Mop it up	Mar 30 2007, 09:48 PM Post #4
Forum Urban Legend Posts: 5,802 Group: Staff (Ret.) Member #24 Joined: August 8, 2006	1. 155 2. Try searching through the Guinness world record books. 3. Try searching through the Guinness world record books. 4. French Fries Potato Chips 5. Royal Flush 6. I've been asking myself that for years and can't come up with any logical answers. 7. Sadly, I think the answer to this question is "yes". There are people who research advertisements, and if spam didn't generate any business, companies wouldn't bother sending it out. I also think it's dirt cheap to produce. 8. Star Trek came first and was more widely available. 9. There are many Republicans who will vote for a republican president no matter who that person is. There are also many female Republicans who are sexually attracted to Bush, and voted for him based solely on that (I know several people who did this). I understand how he got elected the first time, but what I can't figure out is how he was re-elected. I guess it just goes to show how Republicans will believe anything a republican president says. 10. Women who can't find drama in their daily lives seek it out on daytime TV. That's why any soap opera is popular.



Ragedy	Mar 30 2007, 11:53 PM Post #5
Veteran Posts: 1,021 Group: Members Member #7 Joined: May 4, 2006	StYoung Mar 31 2007, 09:30 AM A: Try learning about a good sport, like, say, American football. How about not being, like, say, a moron. Gale Sayers once scored six TDs in a game. How can a player that awesome play for a franchise so crap? Same with Barry Sanders... Why is Eric Cantona so awesome?



dagoss	Mar 31 2007, 02:00 PM Post #6
Smarty Pants Posts: 2,884 Group: Senior Members Member #29 Joined: September 20, 2006	The reason developers still make PC games? PC games are sadly declining year by year. There are things that PCs can do that consoles can't. -Far superior multiplayer. No need for extra equipment, you can chat easily in game, far more efficient than some of the slow matching making services I've seen on XBox Live or Nintendo's Wifi service. -Graphical superiority. PC's are expandable, consoles, for the most part, are not. Consoles are replaced every 5 years or so and thus games must run on hardware that is already out of date when it is released. PC games can take advantage of the latest technology, hence why the PC version of games always looks better. -Modablity. PC games can modified, with developer consent or not. This includes minor things like updating textures to fixing bugs to completely redesigning the game. Games like Neverwinter Nights can be potentially played for years without seeing the same thing twice. -Downloads, including patches (depending on the developer), maps, etc. The wealth of maps for a game like UT2004 compared to console shooters is absurd. -Versatile control scheme. Imagine playing Baldur's Gate on console and you'll see what I mean. And how many times have you heard someone say "this game is great, but I could aim better if I had a mouse and keyboard"? -Cost effective development. Console games are not cheap to make because you're dealing with very proprietary hardware. To develop a PC game, all you need are a few guys that can script and use C++ or whatever. -PC gamers already own a PC. We use our computers from an assload of things: as a TV, a radio, a DVD player, as the dominate mode of communication, for school work, for professional work, for news, for checking the weather, for large number of facets for our everyday lives. The only thing an Gamecube can be used for is as a Gamecube. If PC games didn't exist, I would still own a computer. If Gamecube games didn't exist, I wouldn't own a Gamecube. Developing for a platform that is already in nearly every home in industrialized nations is rather practical, wouldn't you say? The number of consoles in homes has gone up exponential with the increase in "casual gaming". A number of people complain PC games require a high end machine and thus cost more than consoles in the long run. I build my PC for about $600 in June of 2004, but it wasn't a high end machine. In fact, most of the hardware had been out for about a year. And yet I could play pretty much every game at max settings up until the release of Oblivion. I am just now finding games running at mid to low settings -- and yet those games still look nice (Oblivion on medium is still very attractive!). My PC will have pretty much lasted just as long as a console generation, yet my PC received at least 100x more use than my Gamecube or PS2 (and that is no exaggeration -- think about how much we use computers today). The cost argument really doesn't work because it compares one thing that has a singular use to something else that has a multiplicity of uses.



Mop it up	Mar 31 2007, 04:38 PM Post #7
Forum Urban Legend Posts: 5,802 Group: Staff (Ret.) Member #24 Joined: August 8, 2006	Far superior multiplayer. For online multiplayer, I agree, but I prefer playing with people who are in the same room as me. You can't really do that on the PC... unless you get 4 PCs in the same room. Graphical superiority. PC's are expandable, consoles, for the most part, are not. Expandable = buying a new graphics card every year. Graphics don't really change how the game plays, so I don't care about having "up-to-date" graphics. Modablity. PC games can modified, with developer consent or not. This includes things like possible viruses, creating new glitches, compatibility problems, file errors, unseen error messages, unmovable files, and the dreaded Blue Screen of Death. Downloads, including patches (depending on the developer), maps, etc. These usually end up working if they don't require modifications of the game, but they're still not flawless. Pretty good for a free feature, though. Versatile control scheme. I think this is what divides PC and console gamers the most. I only prefer PC controls in Strategy and Simulation games. Cost effective development. So that explains all of the errors. PC gamers already own a PC. The PC inarguably has the biggest installed userbase. But if I spend so much time working on a ***ing PC, why would I want to play* on a PC? The cost argument really doesn't work because it compares one thing that has a singular use to something else that has a multiplicity of uses. The cost argument was valid back in 1995, but now that PCs have gotten much cheaper and consoles are more expensive, there's little difference between them. Systems like the PS3 and XBox 360 can do a lot of the things that PCs can do, such as surf the Internet, play movies and music, etc. Except a $600 PC could probably out-perform a $600 PS3. The line between PCs and consoles is now mostly separated by the control interface, one of the reasons why I don't like any of the current generation of consoles. If I want a PC, I'll buy a PC! Why is a pure gaming system so much to ask for? I hate multi-task devices; they break a lot sooner and we're only half as good to begin with!



dagoss	Apr 1 2007, 09:56 PM Post #8
Smarty Pants Posts: 2,884 Group: Senior Members Member #29 Joined: September 20, 2006	How dare you disagree with me Mop! Actually those are mostly valid points. Clearly I have a slight PC bias, and you a slight console bias. Oh well.



Mop it up	Apr 1 2007, 11:28 PM Post #9
Forum Urban Legend Posts: 5,802 Group: Staff (Ret.) Member #24 Joined: August 8, 2006	dagoss Apr 1 2007, 11:56 PM Actually those are mostly valid points. Clearly I have a slight PC bias, and you a slight console bias. Oh well. That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me. Now I'm all teary. I think our opinions contrast each other rather well. Anyone on the fence about whether to be a PC or console gamer just got a good rundown of the pros and cons.

Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · Social Board · Next Topic »