I have rated at least and about 50 songs this  month during this offer period (I could be wrong, though it's close to that and I intend to keep rating). I really enjoy the added feature of music to Vizzed, though I feel like it's missing so many games, especially newer ones. It's nice to see the top music getting mixed a bit, especially with great orchestrated soundtracks.

If everyone or almost everyone, there wouldn't be mass shootings, because people would kill the shooter. 
This problem could also be fixed by having no one have guns.

However, both of these potential solutions have downsides:
If everyone has guns, killings would decrease, but I suspect abuse would occur and go under the radar of law enforcement.
If no one has guns, then if at some point the government oversteps its boundaries and takes control out of the hands of the people, then the people have no ability to fight the government. Also, the black market for guns would thrive, as well as be totally unregulated (similar to the illegal drug market). 

Personally, I have no opinion on whether guns should be universal or banned or regulated. I don't own guns, I would own a gun to keep in my house for protection, but I would not be totally disappointed if the government banned guns, though I would be highly suspicious. 

December 3, 2013, 4:27 p.m. Merry Christmas! Loving the Christmas themed background!

I'd already added most of my game collection to my Vizzed profile, so I added the last few. I'm a little disappointed, though, that you can't add PC games to your profile (or write reviews for them, for that matter), though I suppose it makes sense based on the amount of games out there, and the amount of illegal downloading. I really like the wish list function, though odds are, I won't use it much.

First to post again!!!! November 27, 2013, 8:21. O, yeah.

I think it's because they were building bigger buildings and they wanted something faster than stairs, so they made they elevator to go to the upper floors, but to get back to the bottom it needed to go back down, so it happens to be able to go down, though that isn't the purpose, it's just a nice add-on.

sloanstar1000 :

I’m glad you like to think critically, and try to adequately defend your position, but you need more evidence. At a glance, I saw quite a few holes in your argument that show ignorance of even secular sources. I’ve included some sources this time to show that I’m not just saying things.

“The point about the manuscripts, is that they come from an ancient Jewish oral tradition,  that As far as the bible being the "most historically attested book ever", that's simply not true. I can think of plenty of historical contradictions in the bible off the top of my head.”

First off, the most historically attested book ever does not only mean that people don’t think are contradictions in it. It means there are lots of manuscripts, manuscripts written near to the time that the original document was written, and, though I did forget this in my first post, proof from other sources. Below you’ll see some examples of that.

“We know there was no census decreed by Rome”

Not true. There was a census that took place in the Roman province of Palestine somewhere in 6-7 A.D., as recorded not only in the Bible, but also by the Jewish historian Josephus, who was not a Christian, and who would not have followed the Old Testament. Source: A History of the Jewish People by Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson, Harvard University Press.

“there's no historical evidence that anything about the Exodus taking place,”

True, there is no direct archaeological evidence of the exodus from Egypt taking place. However, there is evidence of a huge tablet which tells of the Israelites in contact with Egypt. Just because there is no archaeological evidence evidence for it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, though.  
Sources:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/merenphatvictorystele.htm

“More importantly, most of the things that were claimed to happen in the bible, there’s simply no evidence for,”

That’s not true, but just because there’s no evidence for something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. A lot of things wear away with time. For example, we don’t have any

“like the resurrection.”

There is no direct evidence evidence for the resurrection, but different people that weren’t Christians accepted the resurrection who were living at the time, such as Tertullian and Justin Martyr.  Source: Trypho 108, De Spectaculis 30.

“As for the Grand Canyon, it is NOT evidence of a worldwide flood.”

No, it is, but you’re interpreting the evidence differently from me because of your presuppositions, i.e., creation is wrong.

“More importantly, there isn't even enough water on the entire planet to flood the entire planet, so where did the water come from, and where did it go?”

Oh, please, you’re insulting my intelligence. I would have thought this topic is so widespread by global warming activists that you wouldn’t have even said that. There’s tons upon tons upon tons upon tons of this stuff called ice covering both the north and south poles. Ice is frozen water. There is enough of it that if the north and south polar ice caps melted, the top of Mount Everest Creationists believe that after the flood, which was a supernatural phenomenon, there was an ice age, in which most of the earth was covered by huge chunks of ice, and then it receded to form the oceans and ice. Basically the same thing evolutionists believe about ice ages, except we only believe in one. When you said this I see computer presentations of New York being flooded, courtesy of Al Gore's "An Unfortunate Truth.'

“Then again, if everyone was killed in the flood, you wouldn't expect ANY reports but one. “

Not necessarily true. They could have brought manuscripts on the ark.

“However, China has a well documented history that stretches back LONG before 2300 BC(when the flood supposedly occurred).”

This is probably based on dating using radioactive decay, which I don’t consider reliable because we haven’t actually seen any of the isotopes decay as far as their accepted half-lives say they take. We merely making inferences based on observations of how fast they decay now.

“As far as mount Everest, I'm starting to think that you're simply copying and pasting from a creationist website.”

I don’t copy information from other sources, and I barely even looked at the page I suggested. You’re merely saying that you think those sources are inferior to yours because they don’t agree with your presuppositions.

“I would also like to point out that the big bang theory is not an "atheist theory", in fact, the person who first proposed the big bang theory (George Lemaitre) was a catholic priest.”

Yeah, and Catholicism allows one to believe that the account of creation is a nice story, not fact. Also, Catholicism has a different highest authority than evangelical Christians: the pope. Evangelicals reject the authority of the pope and believe in the Bible as the sole source of religious authority. So saying that a cult member invented the theory of the big bang means nothing to me. Also, I didn’t say that it was an “atheist theory”, I said, “This is the generally held to theory of atheists,” meaning that atheists usually hold to this, not that only atheists hold to it.

“The theory simply explains the expansion of the universe.”

So you don’t know where the universe came from? Or do you believe the universe came from somewhere else?

“"Eternal" is not a concept that we can apply outside of the universe. As far as we know, time did not exists, so "eternal" would be a meaningless concept.”

I agree with that eternal is more or less a meaningless concept outside the universe, as God is not bound by time. Eternal is merely the human term for a phenomenon that occurs on Earth, so  I was merely using a human term to describe something not bound by time. 

“Lawrence Krauss did give a talk titled "a universe from nothing", but he makes it clear that by "nothing" he means quantum energy, which is not "nothing".”

So where did the quantum energy come from?

“Much of what you said seems to have been taken right off of the discovery institute website, a creationist organization. They attack science, they are not scientists. There are many actual scientific websites that give extensive substantiated explanations about these subjects. I would recommend talkorigins.org.”

First, I’ve never heard of the discovery institute. Second, I didn’t look at their website for any of my information. Third, the origin of the earth/universe is not scientific in the first place, because it can’t be observed or repeated. Talkorigins appears to be a nice site, but I’m not prepared to read a whole textbook, as I saw over sixty pages in small font under a one topic I was looking for.

maguc :

“There are so many contradictions in the bible, it could even be used as an example of a contradictions. 2 humans (Adam and Eve) could not have populated the entire earth, neither with the Noah's ark thing, God being "all powerful" and the list goes on!

Why couldn’t two humans populate the earth over thousands of years? Two people have eight babies. Each couple of babies have eight babies, so four couples times eight babies equals thirty-two babies, plus the parents and the grandparents equals forty-two babies, and so on and so forth, and you get a big number. (*People can have this high number of babies, but people today choose not to.) If you’re trying to say something about the genes not working, fine, but that’s not true, either. Even in the rememberable past. Also, you, unlike sloanstar, haven’t even tried to back up what you said (about the flood)! “It could not have happened” is the essence of what you are saying. No “because”. Why should I accept it just because you say so? And I don’t see a problem with God being all powerful, either. If you’re trying to imply the whole “free will vs. God’s omnipotence” thing, God can do anything, but at the same time we can choose what we want. Think of it like he’s holding the chain on us, and he can let it go as far as he wants, but if he decides to interfere, he can pull the chain back. (There’s a little more to it than that.)

“Second off, the universe is not in order. if it was, then life could grow on any planet by it self. Right now, we have found less than 10 planets in our entire observable universe that can life can grow on.”

That isn’t true, because that natural order states that life can only live under certain conditions. God’s ordering of the universe says that most if not all planets besides Earth does not support life. Just because one planet supports life doesn’t automatically mean that all planets should support life if they follow the order. There are other patterns for planets to follow in accordance with the natural order.

“Third off, I agree that everything didn't come from nothing, although in the bible they say it does! God just creates THE. ENTIRE. UNIVERSE. out of nothing!”

Yeah, so what? If God is all-powerful he can do anything. He lives independent of the universe. He can create the universe if he likes. The universe didn’t come from nothing; it was made from nothing. There is a HUGE difference between the two. The Bible says: “In the beginning, GOD created the heavens and the earth.” God isn’t nothing. The Bible does NOT say that.

“Everything came from something, which was The Big Bang Theory expanding matter and creating time and the universe. Not from a higher deity.”

The matter that expanded came from where, may I ask?

killer255 : Your response was very relative. If I believe in a God, he’s there, but if I don’t believe in him he’s not there. That’s like saying I believe there’s a big wooden block lying on the ground, but another guy doesn’t believe its there. That guy is still going to stub his toe if he kicks the block. “The sons of the age dies with the age,” as the saying goes.

Overall
Overall, this is a pretty good game for the Gameboy Advance. It lacks in some areas, like graphics and gameplay, but it still is worth it to spend a few hours playing this game. This game version of Tolkien’s classic story (released around the time of the Lord of the Rings movies by Peter Jackson, not the new movies,) is a pretty accurate telling of the story.

Graphics
The graphics of this game are pretty good, especially for the characters and unique locations. However, this game is very lacking in terms of graphics in the dungeons, where it  repeats to the extent that you can find multiple rooms that all look identical, their purpose not being to be a puzzle to a user or to confuse the user, but because they didn’t make enough variety in tiles  in the game for one, or expected the user not to notice. However, other than that, the textures were pretty good, with the game having its own specific feel in terms of textures. The map and the title screen feel very appropriate and well done, finely depicting the feeling of the book.

Gameplay
The battle controls and setup in this game are pretty good, especially with hand-to-hand (close range) combat. The charge and roll with the staff is also a nice gameplay feature. The weapon upgrades are nice, but they don’t really add much to the game. The upgrades in health and shielding are necessary, but the whole fraction thing is a little misleading because at the end of the game you don’t have a chance to go back and get the upgrades you missed after you go on to the next area. Also, it isn’t necessary to get all the upgrades to beat the game, making them seem a bit inane. Boss battles are well done. Most of the puzzles are fairly easy, but occasionally a puzzle comes along that isn’t as obvious. However, after the fact, they usually evoke a “well, duh, why didn’t I think of that?” reaction.

Sound
This game has its own trove of memorable melodies that blow the average game out of the water, with the exceptions of the likes of Zelda and Mario. I sometimes caught myself humming a theme, and after a little thought, realized that it was from this game.  The sound effects are pretty good, but sometimes they become a little cliched or exaggerated.

Addictiveness
This game is moderately addicting the first time through, but the large adventuring regions are hard to keep track of and can become tedious (specifically, the Misty Mountains). Also, the ending is surprisingly abrupt (“I should rest now.”), which doesn’t lead to feeling of, “hey, I want to play that again!”

Depth
This game feels pretty big as you get into it, and has good-sized dungeons, but at the end it feels like it was missing about and eighth. The added scene where you have to get the three pendants before you can give the guy the arkenstone feels tinier than it really is, but despite it feeling like filler, it makes the game’s ending more abrupt.

Story
The story of this game is really good, and it retells it accurately, even bringing up fond forgotten memories of reading the book as I played, as the game quotes the book (or something very near to it) quite frequently. Bilbo the hobbit is taken on a slightly involuntary quest with dwarves by Gandalf the wizard. They set out on a quest across much of Middle Earth to reclaim the treasure lost by the dwarf lords of old to the dragon, Smaug. They get into trouble with goblins in the mountains, resulting in Bilbo finding the Ring of Power, which can turn him invisible, and the goblins on their tails all the way out to the Lonely Mountain, where Smaug lives with the Dwarven treasure. The dwarves are captured by the woodland elves on their way, but Bilbo frees them and they continue to the mountain. They do not defeat Smaug, but they accidentally release him on the nearby town, where townsman kills him with an arrow to a weak spot. The townspeople are now lined up to attack the dwarves in their fortress, but then the goblins and their allies come, and there is a huge battle in which the dwarves are reconciled to the others. Bilbo goes back home and lives in his hobbit hole some more. I just love this story, not as much as Lord of the Rings, but I love it nonetheless.

Difficulty
A few of the boss fights here are harder to beat, and the occasional puzzle takes some looking around, but this game is pretty easy, to the extent that you can beat it without finding all the upgrades.

Thought I should throw my two cents in here-  I voted for Zelda, because I really like the music and the visuals, and the gameplay is pretty good, too, especially on the three-dimensional ones and Minish Cap. I also voted for Bastion, because I really like that indie game, and Assassin's Creed. I didn't vote for Mario or Pokemon, because though I like them, they're not as good so I don't want them to win.

Thursday, November 14, 2013, 4:25. Oh yeah.

I'm trying to earn up for the Netplay so that I can play with my friends (including my brother) online. Some of my friends thought that Vizzed was a cool site, but especially the netplay function, and they'd probably join if we could play together. I think I can get to 19,000 fairly easily, but I still need 6,000 Viz to purchase it. I also want to get the V Machine system and the original PlayStation, but those aren't as immediate goals. I can afford the games I want, so the PlayStation takes precedence over the other one. But then again, those aren't as important, so don't bother yourself about them unless you have tons of Viz (tons meaning greater than 50K).

I believe in the God of the Bible for three main reasons. First, the universe is too ordered to have happened by chance. Second, because if there is a God, then he would have revealed himself to the world, and then I believe that he is the God of the Bible because the Bible is the only religious book without any contradictions that can’t be plausibly explained. Also, the second law of thermodynamics states that nature tends toward disorder, and a planet with intelligent life is not proof of unintelligent muck becoming more disorganized.

sloanstar1000 : The Bible is the most historically attested book ever. There are more manuscripts of the Bible than any other book. Copies of the New Testament exist that were written within one hundred years of the originals. The Old Testament is also pretty well attested for, but not quite as well. The earliest manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, date back to somewhere in the second to fourth centuries B.C.

As for the worldwide flood, there is tons of evidence. A major source is the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon is the deepest canyon in the world, and something like that doesn’t form randomly, like I’m sure everyone will agree. Evolutionists point to the Colorado river carving the Canyon out of the bedrock. However, there is no evidence for rivers causing erosion of bedrock, though I won’t deny the possibility. Also, there are tons of supposedly “missing” layers that evolutionists try to explain by saying that the missing layers were weathered away, but in some places with the missing layers are, instead of the expected flat surface from weathering, we get curved layers of sedimentary rock. This also forms a problem because sedimentary rock only forms wavy layers if it is formed quickly. If it gradually becomes wavy, it becomes metamorphic rock. Quickly resulting layers- quickly moved substances- sounds like something big was moving it. A worldwide flood maybe? Also, lower levels in the Canyon curve up into multiple layers supposedly millions of years older that are on top of them. This is unexplainable by an evolutionary standpoint, because the newer layers would have wiped away the old, and the old layers could not have forced their way up that far (they would have curved over) if the newer layers were already not there. So how could they have formed? A large flood quickly depositing many layers in a short amount of time, and shoving the specific portion of rock upwards.  Mt. Everest is also a good source of proof for the flood, as there are marine fossils on the top of Mt. Everest, which would make sense if the whole earth was covered in water.  For more on the flood, see here. Proof of Noah’s Flood

However, on the other hand, I have a problem with the Big Bang theory. This is the generally held to theory of atheists for creation of the universe, and I haven’t seen any others. The second law of thermodynamics doesn’t allow for an eternal universe, if you don’t believe in the big bang or creation. The big bang theory states that the universe was formed when nothing collapsed on itself and then exploded. Nothing is nothing. It can’t collapse. It can’t explode. Just saying that the nothingness was inconceivable (Richard Dawkins) so that it had the properties to collapse and explode isn’t really changing anything.

maguc : You can’t prove their isn’t a God; you said so yourself:
“I personally don't believe there is a God or higher, almighty deity, but I am not saying it is 100% impossible, just implausible.”
However, while we can’t directly prove that there is or there isn’t a God, then first, think about this: If the tiny chance (in your opinion) that there is a God happens, to be true, then because you decided that by your standard there wasn’t enough proof, you are going to burn in hell for eternity because you rejected God. A major proof of God is the order in this universe. If you haven’t noticed, the whole world around us is organised. Gravity came from somewhere. Moral standards (arguable, I know) came from somewhere. The structure of higgs boson particle came from somewhere. The structure of the sun came from somewhere. The structure of a cell came from somewhere The structure of a human beings with their complexly complementary sexual systems came from somewhere. Logic came from somewhere.
I believe the answer to all these questions is the Bible. I have yet to see convincing evidence to the contrary.

Overall
Overall, this game is pretty good for a racing game of the PlayStation era, and it shows you why Need for Speed is such a respected racing series. This game is fun to play, but the old graphics take a little away from the joy of playing it when you've played newer games. The game performs as a slightly over average game. 

Gameplay
Normal mode in this game has you completing cups to unlock new cars and proceed to the next cup. You race in scenic locations from all over the world. You drive lots of good and famous cars, including Ferrari's, among others. (Sorry, no Lamborghini's here.) Hot pursuit is only available in the traditional version, where you try to win the race, as well as not get caught by the cops. The game takes place in mostly open country. 
There is an upgrade system, but it is very simple, and very underwhelming. There are three upgrade levels for each car (except the last two cars, in which there are only two upgrade levels available,) which are always the same for each car. The upgrade is signified on the car by cosmetic changes. No additional upgrades are available.

Graphics
This game features no special graphics for the time, and its textures are only average, but its models are very well designed. The textures look like they are for the Nintendo 64 because of their lack of detail. However, some of the sights are really pretty, like the stone arches, lighthouse, and more. 

Sound
The music of Need for Speed: High Stakes is very defining of the era that the game was made in. However, the music is not very high quality, and some of the songs aren’t very pleasant to the ears. They can, however, become attached to you after playing the game after an extended period of time.
The sound effects aren’t quite as good as the ones in more modern games, but they stand out as being realistic. The menu sounds, as well, aren’t that bad. I could name some games in which the menu sound effects are the worst part of the games.
Also, the speaking during the Hot Pursuit modes is almost always very clear, so you have no trouble determining what the cops are doing or who they’re after.

Addictiveness
This game is pretty addictive, providing hours upon hours of great gameplay. The prospect of buying a new car, or of earning a new trophy, is always enticing. Some of the tracks are pretty good, too, making you want to race on it over and over again.

Depth
This game is pretty big, but it uses the backwards and night time versions of tracks that were common during the PlayStation era, and are still used occasionally today.  There are lots of cups, and 

Story
There is no storyline in this game. You race in continually harder cups, buying accompanying new cars each time.

Difficulty
This game starts at a good beginner level, but by the end it is extremely hard. If you need practice, you can run a trial race. The hot pursuit mode isn’t especially hard (you can set the level), but it is hard to get all the way to the end without getting a warning.

I never bite my nails because I think they're too hard to chew. I get gunk in them a lot, too, so that'd be pretty disgusting.

I am right handed, as well as right footed, but my left eye is my dominant one. I can use my left arm well, but not my fingers. 

I would be Mewtwo because then I could fly, and I would carry around this awesome looking spoon. I might put my candy in it, but then I couldn't wave it around as a weapon.

No, I usually don't, but every once in a while I actually get bored enough to read the carton, and shake it.

sonic23 : What opens with internet explorer? You click download (any browser), it opens another window (in the same browser), you wait ten seconds, and then download the file. When it's finished downloading, use 7-zip or something of the sort to extract it, and then run the file with the Dolphin emulator.

You can download it from Coolrom.com - they add the games for a new system when the second consecutive system after it comes out, so after the Wii U, they added Gamecube. http://coolrom.com/roms/gcn/40684/Ultimate_Spider-Man.php