RollinThundr wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 22:23:

Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 21:35:
I'm fairly certain RollinThundr has blamed Islam for terrorism.

So, the gun isn't to blame, the person is. But the religion IS to blame over the person?

Extremist aren't the same thing. I never equated the two. Enjoy your strawman though. Personally I think the world would be better off without religion but people have the right to believe in what they want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone elses beliefs imo anyway.

InBlack wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 04:50:
Beamer, you have gone on a tangent. The real question is why you or I as a consumer arent allowed to unlock our celphones/cars/farm equipment/tablets/etc?

I mean since we signed on for a plan, we arent violating the plan are we? We still have to pay our rates so its not like we are defaulting or refusing to pay the contract price.

TurdFergasun wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 20:19:

Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:19:

InBlack wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 10:29:
Thats got nothing to do with production costs though, we are talking about costs right?

From what youve said you are talking about plans which are offered to large carriers because of the large number of phones that they order for their plans. Its a simple bulk discount for large carriers who lower the inital costs of the phone for their end user, but the user ends up paying all of it (depending on the model, sometimes even over the cost of the phone) anyway over the course of the 2-year (or whatever) plan.

Its a ploy, the consumer ends up paying full price for the phone anyway alebeit at a rate like you said.

The phones cost the same to manunfacture, regardless of what the consumer ends up paying.

So why wouldnt consumers be allowed to unlock their phones if they wish to do so??

What the hell does cost to a manufacturer matter? We're talking price to consumer.

Regardless, do you know how much Samsung makes for that Galaxy S3 someone just got on AT&T for $199? Helpful hint: more than $199. They get a chunk of that $100 a month service plan.

And for fuck's sake, I'm not saying that this is the only way to do things or the right way, I'm saying that it's the way we do it for reasons that benefit more than just the person selling the product. Consumers derive benefit, too. Whether that benefit is greater than the benefit they get without it is up for debate.

so why are nexus phones the same price? boom crappy 5 post argument debunked in 1 crappy sentance. back to being a glad handing yes man for you.

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 16:20:

Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 16:11:
RollinThundr, you're the first to get angry when people talk negatively about Republican Culture, but you defend someone talking negatively about Black Culture.
Inevitably you usually come back to "tolerate my intolerance you stupid libs!" or "freedom of speech you tards!"

But whenever anyone says something critical about something you like you pretty well explode. Usually with accusations of someone being a lib, a tard, or a libtard. Because in your world people either agree with you or are a mentally handicapped liberal.

It's fascinating. Please donate your brain to science (tomorrow, if possible.)

Oh now It's republican culture? Wow there's a lot of new cultures apparently. No what I get mad at has nothing to do with skin color, it has to do with logic and liberals general lack there of. What makes me angry is a president that swore to uphold the constitution, hates the damn thing. What makes me angry is liberals preaching tolerance and acceptance ad nauseam when they're the most intolerant, snarky, hateful group there is.

Lets take all the guns away from law abiding citizens! We'll be so much SAFER! Guns KILL! It's the inanimate object "enabling" people to kill! Meanwhile only the criminals are left with guns because they, being criminals don't follow the law to begin with.

Meanwhile ignoring that every time through out history that a government disarms the public usually leads to some serious bad shit.

Look at you in this thread, multiple cries of racist and essentially implying someone you disagree with politically to go kill themselves. You sure seem tolerant to me, yes siree!

Fibrocyte wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 16:20:

Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 10:18:

InBlack wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 10:08:
Huh? I agree with the article and Im trying to make sense of what Beamer said, locked crap makes devices cheaper?

So a cellphone that is locked to a single carrier (or account, person) is somehow magically cheaper than one thats unlocked (something that in most cases can be done with a software hack alone)....

Yes. Yes it does.

I don't get why it's a hard argument for you to comprehend, but then I remember all the stuff you couldn't comprehend in the atheism discussion and wonder why I didn't block you during that massive bout of failure-to-read.

Really struggling with you here. Look at how much it costs to buy a smartphone in Europe. Look how much it costs to buy one here. Do you see a huge difference? Yes, yes you do. The phone is cheaper. The plans cost more. You're saving on one very large upfront fee and instead getting it broken down over time. The phone is cheaper. The plan is not. Like with printers: the printer is cheaper, the ink is not.

Some people benefit from this. Some people do not. It depends on the buyer you are.

Can you link me the atheism thread? That sounds fun!

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:53:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:42:

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:33:
But the original statement from David Starkey said black, not rap culture. Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?

I think both you and I know what he was referring to. But that's ok, write off anything the man has to say because you think he's racist.

I'm not particularly interested in what a bigot has to say but I haven't written anything of his off in this thread.

As for what he was referring to ... that's the point! He referred to all these negative things by stating a race as if these are intrinsic to said race. Can you really not see what's wrong with that?

Verno wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:58:

netnerd85 wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 09:36:
Are you kidding? Have you seen gamers comments and game reviews? If you don't up the ante, you get no sales and a very bad review.

I would ask you the same question. The companies largely ignore user comments and buy up a good portion of their reviews with advertising dollars anyway. Have you seen what development costs have become? It's not sustainable at its current rate of growth, there is no math to support it other than titles moving unrealistic numbers on each platform. That's why the industry is trying to wring every last penny out of DLC and etc.

Creston wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 11:55:

Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 11:30:

Creston wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 11:01:
Okay, wait... So the Supreme Court ruled on something, and now the Feds are taking it to an appeals court?? What? Since when can you take a SCOTUS ruling to an appeals court?

Creston

The SC case was a bit open-ended. They said that the government might need a warrant. They did not say the government always needed a warrant.

The government is now testing when "might" comes into play.

It wasn't a very clear or, uh, decisive decision. They didn't say "you can't do this," they said "you can't do this in this case, and you might not be able to do it in other cases."

So now we have lower courts clarifying what the SCOTUS actually meant? Great.

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:25:

Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:02:
Man, he goes into it RIGHT in this same thread. Annoyed to be called racist, then says something racist.

What are you referring to, anything in particular? I thought that "when he's just calling it pretty much as it is without further intent implied" was pretty racist considering the statement (without any further intent required) was racist.

However, that's just us "playing the race card", apparently. That's not really what that phrase means but I didn't want to confuse him, I know what he meant.

We're just typical lefties, accusing people of racist just because they are.

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 12:00:
Beamer's talking about the cost for us to buy the phone from the retailer, not what the manufacturer pays.

I'm not sure he's right. If I sign up for a 2 year contract, what difference does it make if the phone is unlocked? I'm still either hooked for 2 years, or I cancel the contract by paying the 2 year cost in one go. Whether the phone is locked doesn't matter.

Besides, I think there's a more important things than price; protecting creativity and promoting innovation. I'll not shed many tears for farmers but current copyright laws don't work.

InBlack wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 10:29:
Thats got nothing to do with production costs though, we are talking about costs right?

From what youve said you are talking about plans which are offered to large carriers because of the large number of phones that they order for their plans. Its a simple bulk discount for large carriers who lower the inital costs of the phone for their end user, but the user ends up paying all of it (depending on the model, sometimes even over the cost of the phone) anyway over the course of the 2-year (or whatever) plan.

Its a ploy, the consumer ends up paying full price for the phone anyway alebeit at a rate like you said.

The phones cost the same to manunfacture, regardless of what the consumer ends up paying.

So why wouldnt consumers be allowed to unlock their phones if they wish to do so??

Dev wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 14:19:

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 13:40:
The Sims 3 sold 1.4 million in its first week, selling 1.1 million in 2 weeks doesn't look good in comparison. I hope that's word of mouth hurting it, rather than just a lack of interest.

I doubt they expected as much as the sims initially. That appeals to a much wider audience with many many more copies sold.

Yes I know they are attempting to appeal to much of the same demographic with the dumbing down of the game, so they probably consider 1+ mil sales somewhat a success.

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 14:50:

Beamer wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 14:28:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 14:22:

Cutter wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 13:49:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 13:06:

Creston wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 10:44:
What is this logic you're spewing, Seattle Times. The gun lobby and its bought-and-paid-for assholes Representatives have no time for this kind of prattle!

Creston

Must suck to hate the constitution and to be afraid of tools that do nothing on their own unless a person is using them.

Not as much as it sucks to be a paranoid tin-foil hat wearing bigot and racist though.

Oh Cutter and your strawmen adhom bullshit. At least sweetheart try and be original in the future. I know I know, if you believe in fiscal conservatism and the US constitution, you're clearly racist, a bigot, and insensitive to the awesome benefits of "progress' and cultural Marxism that the left is so fond of. blah blah blah Same ol liberal rhetoric.

Guns don't kill people by themselves, someone has to pull the trigger to shoot. That's fact, you can blame video games, the NRA, whatever, at the end of the day the person using the gun decides to pull the trigger, therefore said person is responsible. There's that big R word that folks like you hate Cutter, Responsibility.

I love that you whine about everyone thinking a fiscal conservative is racist then turn it into everyone thinking you personally, who has made some bigoted posts on this board, is racist, means they're a cultural marxist.

And I love that you always bring it back to "responsibility," but never put it on anyone but the person doing the action. Which is great, let's prosecute all those school shooters to the fullest extent the law allows you to prosecute someone that went on a suicide mission and succeeded.

Wait, he's dead? Fuck, well, let's keep, uh... talking about how only he's responsible because that will make sure these things never happen again...

Let's also get rid of all government protections, ever. If you drink malk that's your fault! You are personally responsible for what you drink! If you die playing Jarts that's your fault! if your kid is shot by a classmate at school that's your fault for not sending them to a better school, or hell, the kid's fault for not being sick that day!

99.9% of your post and cutter's post are verbatim from the DNC playbook. Someone says something that challenges your narrow lib opinion and right to the racecard/intolerant card you guys go. Every single time like clockwork. It's like watching a bad episode of Comrade Maddow on MSNBC.

If someone decides to personally shoot and kill someone how is it on anyone else but them? Are you going to blame the gun manufacturers for that? Seriously? You guys aren't going to succeed in removing the 2nd amendment. You know, that document that Obama swore to uphold? Stop fucking trying!

Lets look at places in the US with the toughest gun laws already, The Shitcagos and Detroits that are pretty much festering shitholes after 40 years of liberal policies. They've actually brought in outside help in regards to Detroit to handle the fact that the city is fucking bankrupt after years of being run by corruption. Obama should be familiar with all this, being Chicago is his home district.

I'd rather be personally responsible for what I drink of course, if I wanted to buy a large coke for example in NY NY, the bastion of freedom! Mayor Bloomberg shouldn't be able to tell me I'm too fat to have the right to buy a bottle of coca cola.

Creston wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 11:01:
Okay, wait... So the Supreme Court ruled on something, and now the Feds are taking it to an appeals court?? What? Since when can you take a SCOTUS ruling to an appeals court?

Creston

Creston wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 11:13:
1 million is nowhere near enough to make EA happy, especially given the fact they had to actually put up more servers. So this is likely the last we've ever heard of SimCity.

Creston

DangerDog wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 03:57:

Asmo wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 01:02:
So to add OR support, you essentially have to create an extra controllable freelook "head" for the character independent of mouselook (ie. where you are aiming/turning)and body movement (WASD for lack of a better term)?

I'm just curious because I can see how this would work for a game like MWO, space games or flight sims etc where you have a fixed seated viewpoint, as opposed to FPS etc where your in game body moves within the environment. I think having your gun slaved to a reticule on the OR would cause some confusion between body movement and head movement. Not to mention that you can snap turn with a mouse but won't be able to turn more 90 degrees from center before your neck starts a lawsuit against you.

Be interesting to see how it turns out.

The main problem will be motion blur which I understand they've improved from the early prototype but not completely. This isn't really a game that can benefit from free-look. Arma games have the detached camera from head and you can go watch TrackIR demos showing off the use of such a system.

You may be able to just lock the camera and use it as a stereoscopic, fixed image display.

I don't think they've solved the depth movement issue which would allow you to zoom in for a closer look at an instrument panel in a flight sim for example. I'm not even sure if they track Z axis - yet.

InBlack wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 10:08:
Huh? I agree with the article and Im trying to make sense of what Beamer said, locked crap makes devices cheaper?

So a cellphone that is locked to a single carrier (or account, person) is somehow magically cheaper than one thats unlocked (something that in most cases can be done with a software hack alone)....