Mashiki Amiketo:

Have you ever seen the South Park movie? If not you might find it... insightful.


This comment was edited on Aug 16, 10:47.

The cause of the blackout was still unclear but it appears that something went wrong in Canada, Bloomberg said.

Blame Canada!

As an old BBSer from way back, I only wish I'd had the idea first of doing an entire website in ASCII.

Edit: Oops, double-post. Sorry.
This comment was edited on Aug 8, 19:33.

One step closer to my dream to have id software focus on what they do best by becoming an 'engine only' technology provider.

crispy,

are you talking about the Kamloops a couple three hours north and east of vancouver? i was just there 2 years ago - one of the most beautiful areas i've ever visited...

Yep, that's us.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/americas/08/04/canada.fires.ap/index.html

And Jesus Christ, when are people going to figure out that smoking is really really really bad for you and stop buying cigarettes?

Here's what you do: Forget about making cigarettes 'safer' and start making them as toxic as possible. Pay your celebs to start smoking the suckers, and soon enough two problems will be solved automatically. One, anyone evil enough to take money to promote cigarette smoking will die. Two, anyone ST00PID enough to think that just because they see someone 'cool' smoking, that they should also take up the habbit dies also. Presto, the world is a better (and safer) place!

As an aside: it turns out that the guy responsible for starting the fire near Kamloops here that destroyed at least 70 homes as well as the local sawmill did so with a discarded cigarette butt.

While we're on the topic of annoying sigs, Rigs...

Make no mistake that these attacks are NOT provocation from Al-Qaida, they are retaliatory. Your Administrations of the late 70s/early eighties destroyed Afghanistan. They funded the mujahadeen (The (now) Taliban) so they could fight an indefinite war against the USSR, thus crippling it financially. After the war; after the destruction of north Afghanistan, 1.5 million Afghan casualties, the US deserted the Mujahadeen, and Osama was part of them. For the destruction of Afghanistan, he vowed his life to the destruction of the States... not only did you guys make him, you started a war - September 11 is part of that battle, and part of something you created. It was not at all unprovoked, or meant to provoke the US, it is an act of war. Thank Reagan for that one... and you voted his former cronies back into office with bush jr... hmmmm... Wisdom and Maturity... "Bring em on" is all I have to say.

Aaaarrrrrgh!!!!

MY government didn't do JACK SHIT to provoke Al-Qaida. Nor, did I vote for Reagan, Bush or any American politician. I'm a Canadian you butthead. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY, will you people stop making stupid-ass assumptions and actually attempt to read a post before you start shooting your yaps off?!?!!

Phew! I feel better now.


This comment was edited on Aug 6, 23:15.

So don't go bragging about the "virtue" of the United States just because it didn't nuke a whole country because of a few criminals that may or may not be in it. Besides, the U.S. so regularly bombs other countries one has to wonder at how "lucky" the United States has been not to suffer several full-scale invasions in all that time. But then the U.S. largely picks on, manipulates and bullies weak nations, so this probably lessens their chances for doing so.

Oh, Jesus tap-dancing Christ! Yet another example of someone responding to a post without fully comprehending what they are responding to...

Okay, let me simplify things.

Shane: Mini-nukes as mentioned in the article : Mini-nukes on US agenda, one of today's Wild Science links.

Zar: Nukes, ANY nukes are bad, m-kay? People who use nukes are bad, m-kay? Nobody's bragging about the US's virtues with regards to nukes, m-kay?


This comment was edited on Aug 6, 13:30.

#2. Mini-nukes. *sigh* Just when I think it can't get much worse with this administration, I am painfully reminded how consistently wrong I am on that presumption. No nukes is good nukes.

You're not kidding. After 9/11, I took some comfort in the knowledge that even when provoked to the extreme, the U.S. didn't resort to the use of nuclear weapons; I took it as a sign of wisdom and maturity on thier part. Now it seems that it was only because they didn't have any that were just the right size. Damn!

---
Chris.

Satan is good, Satan is your pal. I want to kill everyone.
This comment was edited on Aug 6, 12:06.

Note to self: Check the LAN hub when the internet goes down, not just the DSL router... the time saved on the occasions when the hub's power supply just needs jiggling will be worth it.

Blue:

Does this happen often? DOes your hub have a flakey power supply/connector? If so send me an email. I've got a slick little Linksys 5-port 10/100 switch here that you can have, if you like.

According to the exit cards, other popular methods of achieving Lopez and Affleck's on-screen demise included car bombs, multiple stab wounds, acid baths, rabid wolf attacks, lightning strikes, and, in one case, a "hammer party."

I'll definately be adding "hammer party" into my vocabulary.

The Truth:

I didn't misread anything.

Subscription Web sites do work, once in a blue moon. The classic example is the Wall Street Journal site, a one-year subscription to which costs $US59.

But just as every buy-things-online site isn't Amazon, every subscription site isn't the WSJ.

If you're not presenting very high value information to a pretty well-heeled readership, charging subscription fees is just a great way to hugely reduce your server load. Your visitors will sprint off en masse to get the same stuff somewhere else.

I'm not disputing the high value of Blue's News' information, but the simple fact of the matter is that if the site were subscription-only (i.e. The Wall Street Journal) it wouldn't last very long. Even if you assumed that every person that posted on the message boards would become a subscriber (they wouldn't), this still represents a relatively small sample of Blue's readership at large.

(Big companies running small websites was PART of what Dan had to say.)

I'm not sure why, but suddenly I feel like a tasty, refreshing Spurt Cola.

Seriously, though. I'm in the 'subscriber model' camp, although I recently read an article by Dan of Dan's Data fame that made quite a convincing case explaining why it doesn't work for smaller websites like Blue's. (http://www.dansdata.com/netmedia.htm)

My suggestion then, is to do both: have an ad-supported, free version of the site, and have an ad-free subscriber version of the site available to paying members. You could offer certain privaleges only to subscribers, but it wouldn't really be necessary.

---
Chris.

EDIT: I would want a special 'subcriber edition' t-shirt out of the deal, though.
This comment was edited on Aug 1, 13:16.

I've owned two dual-processor systems over the years, and I have to agree. Buying a dually strictly as a gaming rig is not worth it. If money is no object, though, I can highly recommend dual systems. There really is nothing like it for multitasking. Back in the day, I was able to write CD's while playing Q3 (on a 400MHz system) without making any coasters. I just wish that more developers would make use of multithreading.

I don't mind hearing about what happens to people in the gaming community, but for some reason that I can't quite explain, this one feels like a hoax. Her friend "inherits" her computer, and just happens to know all her passwords to everything, including obscure forums she may have frequented. And the narrative was almost silly, with all the "omg I have to break now so I can cry... ok I'm back".

Yep, that was the clincher for me to. It's BS. Which leads me to question what kind of sick person solicits sympathy mail from total strangers?

I hate humans.

I guess that’s it, CS just feels right.

Y'know, this comment reminded me of a theory I once had. Basically the theory has it that the original Q1 engine somehow managed to get the 'feel' just right. I base this on the notion that two of my all-time favorite games (Q1 and CS) were both based on that engine, and both games just 'felt right'. I have no idea what makes it so.

It could also be that because Q1 was my first real online multiplayer gaming experience, that my brain thinks every other game should feel the same.

Read the one entitled STOP! It's neat.

That would probably be why he said "more realism than most games of the same era" instead of "more realism than any other game of the same era". You see the difference? That and how he goes on to say that it struck the right balance and didn't try to be too realistic. Maybe read the post next time and then respond.

DUDE!!!

Thanks for saving me time by stating exactly what I would have to that guy.

For the record: "super-anal-realistic simulation" was a thinly-veiled stab at the Clancy franchise; I hated those games.