Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for WaltC

Real Name WaltC   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname WaltC
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Jan 31, 2003, 04:03
Total Comments 449 (Amateur)
User ID 16008
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ] Older >


News Comments > Shroud of the Avatar: Forsaken Virtues Early Access
12. Re: Shroud of the Avatar: Forsaken Virtues Early Access Nov 24, 2014, 23:10 WaltC
 
Cannot understand the entire "Early Access" sucker-bait approach...it's admittedly only barely alpha-progress in the development schedule--and I'm just not interested in wasting dozens of hours--some record even hundreds of hours(!)--playing a "game" that is NNRFPT (Nowhere Near Ready for Prime Time.) And paying for it, to boot (double entendre is intentional.) Why would anyone want to *pay* for alpha-testing loads of content that may all wind up on the cutting-room floor...?

The "Episodic" statement is immediately a huge disappointment--meaning that the development progress is so gosh-awful slow that the only way they'll ever actually finish the game is to break it up into five installments over--what?--a decade? The raw fact is that if #1 stinks there won't be a #2, let alone a #5. Very poor choice of excuses thus far.

Besides that...all of the noble chit-chat about "community involvement" will only serve to slow the game's development way....down...Massively down...

As many years as Garriott has in the biz and he's saying he now needs the guidance and direction of a generation of n00bs because he's forgotten how to make a great computer game...? Please. Maybe what he means to say is that he never quite got the "great" part down early on and can use all of the help he can get. Sorry if this sounds overly critical--but I expected much more out of this game by now. It's looking more and more like Ultima IX development, with Garriott endlessly vacillating between changes and additions...again! Anything to avoid shipping the final product.

I'm looking forward to *Completed Game* not Early Access to testbed material. Wake me when the game ships--and, oh, gosh, on the single-player side of things I sure hope "Episode One" (ugh!) will allow me to clock a lot more than forty hours of great game play. (Garriott ought to be able to deliver that by now--or he'll never be able to do it.)

No publishers to blame this time, Richard...you're going to own this game 100%. I hope my gut vibes about this are all wrong...and I'll gladly eat my own words! I'd like nothing better than for Garriott to deliver a fabulous game...!

 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Elite: Dangerous Goes "Gamma"
54. Re: Elite: Dangerous Goes Nov 24, 2014, 07:45 WaltC
 
Generally, the whole *idea* between an off-line and on-line mode is that they offer differences, often major differences, in play.

They are not supposed to "mirror" one another, else there'd be no sense in supporting both modes of play from the start.
 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Legal Briefs
14. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Nov 22, 2014, 09:54 WaltC
 
jdreyer wrote on Nov 21, 2014, 19:07:
At least Tom Wheeler is saying the right things:

"We are going to be sued," he said in a Q&A after the FCC's monthly meeting. "That's the history. Every time in this whole discussion anytime the commission has moved to do something, one of the big dogs has gone to sue... We don’t want to ignore history. We want to come out with good rules that accomplish what we need to accomplish, an open Internet, no blocking, no throttling, no fast lanes, no discrimination, and we want those rules to be in place after a court decision. So we want to be sure we’re thoughtful in the way in which we structure them and we're thoughtful in the way we present what will ultimately be presented to a court."

The road to hell is often paved with the best of intentions...;)

I'll wager that 99.9 out of every 100 people on the Internet who has tried to download from a server that is slow or down believes they've been "throttled" or in some sense screwed by the nasty ISPs. Man, are they going to be pissed when nothing changes. Same for the ones who think their bandwidth is going through the roof (for free, of course) just because the mean, nasty old ISPs don't want them to have it--but political blowhards like Al Franken do, of course, "because they love us" (uh, provided it gets him votes here and there and provides some free publicity)! But, hey, they're surely going to love all of the new taxes that come rolling in--and all of the rate hikes that take place because somebody's (that's you and me) gotta' pay for the lawsuits that will come crashing down like Tsunamis once the restraints are removed! Yea, what's not to like?...;) Let's just go ahead and take a great thing and *really* screw it all up...

Seriously, the FCC is five (5) unelected, appointed guys (last I counted) trying to tell 300,000,000 of us what's best. 'Scuse me for questioning whether any of them can think their way out of a wet paper bag on these issues...;)

(That's why I think that Europe would be much better off breaking up the EU and leaving Google alone...! Compared to the unalloyed power of the EuC, Google is microscopic and utterly inconsequential.)


 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Legal Briefs
5. Re: Evening Legal Briefs Nov 21, 2014, 04:41 WaltC
 
Shutting off Congress' water supply would be enormously more effective, and far more satisfying. "No more H20 for the blow-hard do-nothings in Washington!" Sounds like a plan!....  
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
3. Re: Evening Metaverse Nov 21, 2014, 04:27 WaltC
 
Ars Technica promises to stop wasting your time asking you to read inflammatory hit-pieces on Comcast, written to garner page hits, just as if >75% of the US Broadband market is not actually delivered by Comcast at all, and just as if three-quarters of US broadband customers are not even Comcast customers! Honest Injun.

*From the "I'll believe it when I see it," Dept.
 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Elite: Dangerous Refund Policy
130. Re: Elite: Dangerous Refund Policy Nov 20, 2014, 17:42 WaltC
 
NegaDeath wrote on Nov 20, 2014, 17:17:
WaltC wrote on Nov 20, 2014, 17:05:
This sounds like much more worry about online DRM than it is about technical feasibility.

It does seem odd that there's all this work supposedly being done on the server that would be too time consuming for them to move to the desktop on a forked offline version of the client, yet only a tiny mount of data is actually being transmitted and received during solo mode. Too early to declare SimCity style shenanigans on that though imo.

You know...it's funny...I learn a lot about myself this way at times...;) When Microsoft took away the start menu I thought, "Big deal--I hardly use it, anyway!" And then, I absolutely hated the fact that they'd attempted to take it away! Went right out and tacked on another one. LoL...;) Guess I used it more than I thought--or maybe I just like it there--comfortable--like an old shoe...;) I have a great Internet connection--practically bumped right up against a fiber node--it's great--and it;s fairly inexpensive, too! Yet, I want my darn *off-line mode* of play for my games! It's the principle of the thing, you know? And it makes me seethe when companies start laying out lines of thick PR gobbledegook to explain why it is "necessary" to take something away from me that I'd prefer to keep!

(I'm no xBone customer--computers only, of course--but when they started that stuff about Great server Farms in the sky making local computer hardware resources meaningless--I blew a gasket over that crap! OK, hang on while I down another beta-blocker...! People getting hoodwinked has always set me off the wrong way--I don't like it and I don't think it's either clever or admirable. That's me...;) Dying breed? Sometimes I wonder...)
 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Elite: Dangerous Refund Policy
125. Re: Elite: Dangerous Refund Policy Nov 20, 2014, 17:29 WaltC
 
DangerDog wrote on Nov 20, 2014, 17:10:


They're using the "cloud" argument, in that they need the power of the "cloud" to make the game function - or at least work in the way they envisioned it.

Thanks for the clarification, DangerDog! Shades of the xBone's "Great Transistors In The Sky" Maj. Nelson flim-flam...this is worse than I thought. Or, how about EA's "SimCity" flim-flam as to online-only, which later turned out not to have one shred of truth to it?

Good grief, what malarkey...the "cloud" is just a bunch of servers on the ground...:D (Which is where they've always been.) 100 out of 100 games with both on-line & off-line modes differ from each other in many respects. Saying you don't want them to differ, so you are axing the off-line mode, is saying nothing at all except you have no desire to offer an off-line mode for the game. Period. It doesn't mean a single other thing. There's never been an online game coded that could not possibly have an off-line mode of play unless it is by way of the express will of the developers.

This is the kind of screw up any developer wants to avoid. I hope they handle it correctly by refunding 100% of the retail price of the game from now until the game ships. After that, the refunds should stop--and people will have paid to play the part of the game they claim not to have wanted--the online portion. Seems the only fair way to do it--but even then it isn't a perfect solution.

I wish I could think of a good reason to go "online only" aside from DRM concerns, but I can't.

 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Elite: Dangerous Refund Policy
123. Re: Elite: Dangerous Refund Policy Nov 20, 2014, 17:12 WaltC
 
Squirmer wrote on Nov 20, 2014, 17:01:
Wish these gamers would just take it to court instead of insisting it's illegal but never doing anything about it.

Court is no answer at all--unless you like lining the pockets of scurrilous lawyers leeching off the dissatisfaction of the world...;) The answer is: never pay for *anything* until the seller can provide what he promises for your cash. Very simple. Promising A for up-front cash but delivering B is the oldest scam there is! A little common sense goes a long way (no lawyers needed.) (IMO, people who count on lawyers to do their thinking for them deserve whatever rip-offs come their way, and the odds are excellent they'll not only have to live with the scams--but pay their lawyers on top of it!)

 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Elite: Dangerous Refund Policy
120. Re: Elite: Dangerous Refund Policy Nov 20, 2014, 17:05 WaltC
 
Creston wrote on Nov 20, 2014, 12:39:
PunkiBastardo wrote on Nov 20, 2014, 09:53:
Even though I don't like these offline-scraping news, at this point they've put themselves against a wall. They can't really refund the people who have played already or massive amounts of customers are just gonna ask for a refund to their overpriced alpha/beta purchase and get the much cheaper release version in a few weeks.

That's actually a very good point.

Not really...in that case, the refund people *should* be the price of the "much cheaper release version" purported to be released in a few weeks. That's it. That way they've paid for the *beta* software they've played and not for the final release software they have yet to receive. That would be the way to handle it: partial refunds for those who have paid & played but are disappointed in the no off-line mode, out-of-the-blue unpleasant surprise. Seems 100% fair. Those who don't care about off-line won't care about the partial refund.

IMO, the whole thing about "no offline mode" is just plain silly. When you add to the online mode, you simply add what of that that you can to the offline mode and make it available as an off-line-mode only patch. What's the big deal? You are going to make it available online, so you have the data, so just put it into a patch. They know it is possible else they'd never have mentioned it from day one. On-line things that are are *only possible online* won't be available offline--but nobody who is playing the game off-line will expect them to be, will they? OF COURSE the online game will be somewhat different from the offline game--they always are! Red herring Alert!


This sounds like much more worry about online DRM than it is about technical feasibility.

 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
10. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Nov 17, 2014, 14:22 WaltC
 
As usual with something the Democrats want that involves government regulation, the only reason anyone supports it at all is because he thinks he'll be getting something for free (that somebody else will have to pay for--"fat cat, 1%", etc)...;) But, of course, it never works out that way. Take the AT&T Long-Distance telephone company for instance--the one service company regulated "like a utility." It wasn't a "regional" monopoly, it was a national monopoly, and the US Government passed laws to the effect that it was illegal to compete with it--even regionally. The idea was that if the government regulated the cost of long-distance phone service, handling it just like the post office, and protected it from competition--the idea was that service would be great and rates would stay very low and everyone would be happy. Didn't work well at all, as everyone knows...;) Long-distance service in the US has taken thirty years to recuperate. The government had to dramatically reverse itself back in the '80s through deregulation of the industry in order for things to progress to where they are today. Regulation paralyzed the long-distance business in the US for decades.

The Internet, however, is much different from a national long-distance phone service--the Internet is a bunch of decentralized servers all over the world. The ISPs don't own the servers, either. So, a slow/down server before "net neutrality" is still going to be a slow/down server after net neutrality...;) Most people who talk about this issue don't know that, though. They think that net neutrality is going to bring them, personally, a big bunch of goodies and benefits that they don't have now, and that's exactly why they support this thing they call "net neutrality," even though they don't know what it will *really* bring: taxes, lawyers and lawsuits, and ever-degrading service.

Many of these people are too young to remember how bad the old AT&T government-protected monopoly got--just how bad things got and how long they stayed bad before the government finally said "Uncle! OK, we admit we screwed it up and so we're going to deregulate." I for one sincerely hope the Internet is spared the fate of being run by politicians, *shudder*. If that happens you won't have to be satisfied with stories and homilies about "killing the goose that laid the golden egg"--you'll get a ringside seat!


 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Refunds Demanded as Elite: Dangerous Offline Mode Scrapped
157. Re: Refunds Demanded as Elite: Dangerous Offline Mode Scrapped Nov 16, 2014, 21:18 WaltC
 
walrus1 wrote on Nov 16, 2014, 20:37:

In this case he might be very well right. This is a case of fraud and might very well end up in court.

The only people class actions help are the attorneys who bring them...that is, if they can wrangle a settlement out of the company. The only certain thing about it all is that the bilked people wind up with little to nothing at all. Best plan: just don't put yourself in a position to get bilked. But if you've already paid, and you feel the company defrauded you by being less than honest--that is only true if they refuse to refund your money. If they offer you a refund then they haven't damaged you, but you can still sue--just be prepared to lose and eat a big lawyer fee at the end of it...;) Suing is a sucker's game all the way around, imo.

Oh, yea: a "Pledge" to pay is not the same thing as paying. Nor is a "Pledge" any sort of legally binding contract to pay, etc. If you've pledged but haven't yet paid you've lost nothing and certainly can hardly "ask for a refund"...Lol...;)

Only reason I brought this up is that some people are talking about having "pledged" as if they'd paid--once you pay, then the "pledge" is no more...;) If you've paid, then saying you've "pledged $5,000" is using exactly the wrong word--people pledge *before* they pay, and so on.

Anyway--I won't buy an "always-on" game. It's a matter of principle for me. Blizzard lost a D3 sale to me because of that--I'm just not buying the game if I can't play single-player off-line. No sale. Some people won't play a game if it's single-player and *offline* and I suppose I can understand that--but that isn't me.





 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Assassin's Creed Unity Patch 3 Preview & Tips
14. Re: Assassin's Creed Unity Patch 3 Preview & Tips Nov 16, 2014, 20:48 WaltC
 
Creston wrote on Nov 16, 2014, 15:59:
...
AC4 was also done by Ubisoft Kiev. They basically do ZERO effort when they port shit to the PC. It's the laziest, most comically inept port you can possibly imagine, and Ubisoft keeps handing their games to these fuckers for the PC versions.

I keep scratching the ol' cranium over these things...is everyone at Ubisoft asleep at the switch...are all of them in marketing...don't they care about their products...or like the US Democrat party, do they think we are all too stupid to notice or care?...;)

I'm still marveling at the Uplay-over-Steam thoughtlessness...

 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Game Reviews
1. Re: Game Reviews Nov 15, 2014, 13:42 WaltC
 
There's nothing quite like reading a review of an RPG on an adventure-game site...;)  
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Cinemaware Anthology: 1986-1991 Released
20. Re: Cinemaware Anthology: 1986-1991 Released Nov 15, 2014, 09:32 WaltC
 
subx wrote on Nov 15, 2014, 05:48:
Creston wrote on Nov 15, 2014, 00:49:
now I want someone to re-release the Amiga version of Paradroid 90.

You can get Paradroid from most of the Amiga game archive sites out there, and WinUAE is a pretty slick and easy to use thing these days (especially like the simulated floppy access noises in the latest versions :))

As an aside, Cloanto's Amiga Forever is a nifty little collection and includes the ROMs & the latest version of UAE...;) Still, I think it's worth it to download UAE separately, too, as it provides a wider range of configuration options.
 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
15. Re: Op Ed Nov 13, 2014, 15:35 WaltC
 
Locked content is nothing at all except a gimmick--like achievements and checkpoint saves (opposed to save-anywhere, anytime)--that strives to artificially make a game more tense or difficult or challenging, etc. Instead, it just adds a lot of lame frustration to what is already a poor game design that cannot hold the player's interests and attention without resort to such gimmicks. I completely agree that when you buy a game you should not ever expect to have to "unlock" several parts of it--nor should there be any *need* to unlock it from a design standpoint. You've already paid for the whole game, after all, and you expect to be able to access it.

As far as Ubisoft is concerned, however, this seems to be a company growing ever more stupid each day. It is almost as if they are looking for ways and methods to piss off their customers instead of to delight them. Why, for instance, when buying a Ubisoft title through Steam, should the player have to put up with Steam.exe & Uplay? It doesn't appear that anyone in Ubisoft has asked that question, or many other common-sense "If I was the customer, how would I like this or that?" questions.

I still remember their short-lived "No more PC games" announcement. To their way of thinking, if they release a PC title and it doesn't sell as well as they'd like it to then it's because the game was vigorously pirated (of course.) The notion that it simply isn't a very good game by PC standards is one that doesn't occur to Ubisoft. It's amusing to read the "It runs as good on the PC as it does on the consoles," Ubisoft developer chit-chat made in response to criticism of this or that PC version of one of their games. The truth is that Ubi would *prefer* to only have to deal with consoles because the standards are much lower and much less is expected out of a game, etc. I agree that Ubisoft's public statements and actions are fast approaching the ignorance-level of EA's.
 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Passes $61M
15. Re: Star Citizen Passes $61M Nov 13, 2014, 09:19 WaltC
 
InBlack wrote on Nov 13, 2014, 06:20:
Slick wrote on Nov 13, 2014, 04:27:
i vote my 2 cents that we never see another bullshit thread like this again on this site. it's not news. it's marketing.

HEADLINE:

"did you know that eating this new miracle berry will lower stress, increase vitality, and give you rock hard erections? more at 6!"

you're providing free advertising. fuck em.

I vote that Blues keeps doing what he does best. I for one am interested in what new stunts CR and Co. will pull and the development of StarCitizen in general. I dont subscribe to self-censorship, it kind of defeats the purpose of staying informed on a subject.

I visit gaming-oriented sites because I want to hear about the release of new products and because I enjoy weighing in on the occasional topic now and then (so that I can vent my highly opinionated opinions...;))

People these days (some of them) are warped & mangled on the subject of economics. All of the ignorance is being fueled by political airheads like Elizabeth Warren telling successful business people that they actually didn't build their own businesses simply because they used the highways that everyone paid for (and thus everyone has *the same* opportunity to build a business if he wants to), and sycophants like Billary Clinton telling people that corporations don't create jobs, and that sort of thing. Warren and Clinton are just pandering to the wacko wing of the Democrat party in the US in order to get votes (OK, well, yes, most Democrats these days are thoroughgoing wackos, I'll admit...;))

Advertising allows people like Slick to pull up a site on the Internet and peruse the topics without Slick having to pay for the privilege of doing so himself. It allows entrepreneurs like Blue to be able to spend his time making Blues News an attractive destination for the audience he wishes to reach. The reason we can pull up Google or Bing and run Internet-wide searches is advertising--without advertising, neither service would exist. You can stick an antenna out of your window and pick up at least one television station that you don't have to pay to receive--strictly because of advertising. Ditto, radio in your car. The list of seemingly "free" things that we all have access to without paying for them ourselves is almost endless. But there is *no free lunch*--somebody has to pay for it. Enter advertising.

Am I willing to suffer the slings and arrows of advertising in order to be gifted with free goods & services? Oh hell yeah...;) Wouldn't have it any way else. But that's really a moot point, because without advertising there wouldn't be "any way else" to get these things short of paying through the nose for them.

All product news is "marketing" to an extent. If people do not know products exist they certainly won't buy them, right? People visit Blues to read up on gaming products, services, and events--but if Blue doesn't provide gaming product news then few if anyone will visit his site, which means he cannot stay in business for long because the advertisers that fund his efforts will drop out because he'll have no readers for them to advertise to.
 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
53. Re: Evening Metaverse Nov 11, 2014, 09:07 WaltC
 
People are so silly on this issue. You cannot have a decentralized Internet (what the Internet has always been and what we have now) and at the same time try to treat it as one giant "common carrier" with a raft of centralized rules and regulations. You'll destroy the Internet as we know it and transform it into yet another government organ. You'll wind up with *exactly* the kind of "common carrier" the government created when it sanctioned the old AT&T long-distance monopoly in the US. The regulations ruined the long-distance phone system in the US such that only its *deregulation* by the government, decades later after enormous harm, put it back on a competitive, innovative track. Even so, it has taken almost 30 years to reverse the disastrous course begun by "benevolent" government control.

When will people clearly understand that this government--the Obama administration--has been the most restrictive of individual and press liberties of any government in living memory? When will they see that the current FBI, the NSA--all of them--have been screaming about getting a "back door" into the Internet so that government entities can further usurp the *private* control of the Internet as a whole?

Basically, it works like this...if you want to destroy the Internet as we have come to know it, and you think that private companies cannot be trusted but your government can...if you think that government alone is the saint among the rest of us sinners...then you'll want to support this raft of sheer nonsense called "net neutrality."

People were duped into supporting Obama because they believed they'd be getting something (lots of things, really) for nothing...and now they see how horribly wrong they were...but it's the same with net neutrality. People have this list of freebies they think will magically happen with "net neutrality." But none of them will, of course. What will happen is only increased and heavy-handed government control within the Internet--more for the bureaucrats and less for the people. That's the way government works, if you hadn't noticed.

Seriously, how many net neutrality supporters could discern the difference between connecting to a slow/dead server, or a web site with download caps, and being "throttled" by an ISP? Not a damn one of them, is my guess...;)

They will be among among the most bitter when they discover that, no, net neutrality did absolutely nothing to dramatically raise their bandwidth connections; nothing to lower prices but rather the opposite; created new "regulatory taxes" for Internet service where none existed before, provided government agencies with back doors of all kinds where none existed before, and ruined the Internet as a private, decentralized communications system for everyday people. After decades of "common carrier" abuse of the nation's long-distance telephone service, it has taken decades longer after the government "allowed" companies to compete as long-distance providers for the phone service to come back to a degree. If you want the Internet to go through the exact same process then go ahead and keep on mindlessly supporting net neutrality and you'll get your wish.

The Internet isn't perfect, of course--no man-made organization ever is or ever will be. But opening the door to government control of the Internet is no solution at all--it's actually quite the opposite. Only fools expect that letting the government do to the Internet what it did to long distance phone service with "common carrier" rules prior to the 1980s will fail to bring about the very same catastrophic results with today's Internet.





 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > AMD Catalyst Beta Drivers
3. Re: AMD Catalyst Beta Drivers Nov 11, 2014, 01:15 WaltC
 
Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Nov 10, 2014, 23:23:
Wonder if they fixed the firefox menubar corruption problem in these that were present in the previous beta cats.

Hmmm....haven't seen that in several months of Ff updates, and I run with hardware accel enabled. I last saw that in the 13 Cats, I believe, but at the time it always struck me as more of a Ff problem because it cleared up by disabling hardware accel in the browser preferences and I didn't see that anywhere else. Hope it clears up for you...I'm running this beta and Ff 33.1.
 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Tech Bits
21. Re: Morning Tech Bits Nov 5, 2014, 22:41 WaltC
 
The amusing thing (only in hindsight) about Al Gore's naked attempt to steal the election from Bush in Florida through lawyering deals cut in smoke-filled back rooms (instead of at the ballot box) is how transparent Gore's attempted theft was at the time:

1) Nowhere in the US where Gore *won* through the use of so-called "hanging chad" voting machines did the Democrats challenge or see anything contrary about the results. When you consider that Gore's complaint supposedly was about voting machines *in general*, the scam quickly reveals itself as Gore didn't actually care whether voting machines did their jobs so long as he won the counts!....;) It was only in *one state* where Gore lost narrowly that the use of voting machines was questioned at all, and in Florida itself only in *select* counties, too--those counties where Gore lost most narrowly.

The Gore lawyer camp even *refused* a state-wide Florida recount, and here's the really funny part: the Gore camp didn't even want a *recount* done in those select counties it picked--what it wanted to do was to *keep* the original Gore vote tallies from the former count and then *add* the recounted Gore votes to the *old* Gore vote tallies! What the Gore lawyer camp demanded was guaranteed to topple the lawful election results in Florida and give Gore the win! It was no wonder Gore was laughed out of the Supreme Court and his attorneys put down hard.

2) While Bush had no less than three (3) officially, lawfully certified vote recounts to his credit in Florida, Gore never won a single vote count in Florida out of four total counts (The original election results & the three recounts.)

3) Worst of all, and one of the reasons Gore picked on Florida, was because Gore *lost* his home state of Tennessee to Bush by some 800,000 + votes, a margin of victory far too large to question. The fact is that no one has ever won a US presidential election without carrying his home state--no one! Had Gore won his home state of Tennessee, Florida's electoral votes would not have mattered at all and Gore would have honestly won the election even with Bush carrying Florida as he did! People want to talk about how badly Obama has screwed the Democrat party--but even Obama's monumental travesties against common sensibilities and logic pale in the face of what Gore did to the Democrats--imo, the Democrat party has yet to recover from the essential damage Gore did it. The arrogant, lawless, narcissistic spirit Gore ignited in the national Democrat party by way of his naked lust for an Office he could not win honestly is still very much with us to this day--more's the pity.

Transparent to anyone with the eyes to see, it's no wonder that Gore's attempt to steal a presidential election permanently ended his political career. He had no regard whatsoever for what he put the country through--but as we know from Obama, that's what narcissists do--they come first and no one else matters at all unless he is of some immediate material benefit.
 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > X-Wing & TIE Fighter on GOG.com
87. Re: X-Wing & TIE Fighter on GOG.com Oct 29, 2014, 07:28 WaltC
 
Krovven wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 18:30:
Reposting this as I edited my last post.

Just came across this this guide here to get the Collectors Series CDs installed on Win7 64bit systems.

I just went through the instructions for installing Tie Fighter and it worked without issue. So if you own the Collectors Series CDs, you are better off installing that than buying the GOG low res release.


I've found older game compatibility actually better with 8.1 than with 7, which was a bit surprising. And under Win10TP, I have found it even *better* with the 1-2 games I had a problem with in 8.1...!
 
Avatar 16008
 
It is well known that I do not make mistakes--so if you should happen across a mistake in anything I have written, be assured that I did not write it!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
449 Comments. 23 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo