On top of that, the father is a stay-at-home-dad, so one has to wonder how the kid goes unsupervised long enough to rack up that kind of bill over a couple of months.

Armengar wrote on Aug 21, 2020, 11:29:
They also revoked keys of regular people, to which they have refunded and told them to repurchase at the higher price.

They haven't reinstated them or offered a key back.

Right at the bottom of that statement they tell people to contact them to get their key back.

Cutter wrote on Jul 27, 2020, 13:04:
No, I don't recall when TVs weighed that much, and I doubt anyone else does as well. CRTs in most homes were heavy but not 200 lbs heavy. Probably more like in the 50lb range. What they were like in the 50s I have no idea.

I definitely had a heavy TV growing up, I don't think 200 pounds is an unreasonable guess. It wasn't just the weight of the CRT and components, but it was a console TV so it was an entire piece of furniture. The "wood" was MDF/Particleboard so it was a hefty beast. When it died and couldn't be resurrected, it remained in place as a TV stand for it's successor, although it was gutted and turned into a backlit liquor cabinet so not quite stereotypical redneck of TV on a broken TV, but it gives the general Idea. When I finally dragged that thing out of my parents house for them, I did it in pieces as even without the electronics it was too much for 1 person to carry. This was in the mid 80's.

It was similar in style to this console TV, but the center TV was "built in" where this looks removable:

Flatline wrote on Apr 11, 2019, 13:02:

Will W wrote on Apr 11, 2019, 09:05:
I'm all for another place I can buy games. Most of what I get these days doesn't even come from steam, but I will pay extra for a game with a steam code so I can keep it all in once place. I'm 100% against exclusives though and won't buy from the Epic store as long as they are using their money to reduce my options.

In my opinion, there are a couple of ways they could have gone about this without doing exclusives.

• If developers/publishers are saving 18% by putting the games on Epic's store, why not give the consumer a 9% discount and keep the other 9% for themselves.
• If developers/publishers put the games up on steam for 17% more, they will make the same money on each sale and let the consumer decide if Steam's interface and features are worth the extra premium

So you're blaming Epic for publisher decisions? Seriously? Epic doesn't set the price, the publisher does. If you want a discount, go bitch at the publisher.

No, I'm stating that I won't purchase from a particular reseller (Epic) due to that businesses's practice of using large pay-offs to secure exclusive rights to distribute a game and thus preventing me from purchasing that game from my preferred reseller. I understand the confusion based on my switch from the first paragraph to the bullet points where I focus first on epic and then on the developers/publishers. I could have worded that differently. Thank you for the constructive criticism.

I'm all for another place I can buy games. Most of what I get these days doesn't even come from steam, but I will pay extra for a game with a steam code so I can keep it all in once place. I'm 100% against exclusives though and won't buy from the Epic store as long as they are using their money to reduce my options.

In my opinion, there are a couple of ways they could have gone about this without doing exclusives.

• If developers/publishers are saving 18% by putting the games on Epic's store, why not give the consumer a 9% discount and keep the other 9% for themselves.
• If developers/publishers put the games up on steam for 17% more, they will make the same money on each sale and let the consumer decide if Steam's interface and features are worth the extra premium

Orogogus wrote on Apr 11, 2017, 00:53:

Kxmode wrote on Apr 11, 2017, 00:09:

Will W wrote on Apr 10, 2017, 23:54:

Kxmode wrote on Apr 10, 2017, 23:36:

Emotion and not logic are driving the majority reaction to this situation. People forget that there are no civil rights when you're dealing with a business transaction, just like there are no civil rights when you order a Big Mac from McDonald's. The airlines, while under the jurisdiction of the TSA, FAA, and NTSB, are private businesses. Please don't confuse public civil rights with private companies. Also, resisting the orders of a police officer can result in a felony or misdemeanor depending on the state. It is no less different than a person resisting arrest. Being seated on an airplane is completely irrelevant.

Civil rights include such things as not being denied service based on race (or other protected status) . They certainly do apply to private companies.

The only time civil rights apply is if the TSA, FAA, and (or) the NTSB were to imposed some law that discriminated against a group based on whatever (e.g. race, religion, gender, and so forth). The airlines would have no choice but to comply with the law. People wouldn't go after the airlines, they would go after the government who created the law that violates civil rights in the first place. Do you get it now?

This situation is Civics 101-level stuff. You should know this. Teachers taught it in high school alongside Sociology and History.

This is false.

Link

§40127. Prohibitions on discrimination
(a) Persons in Air Transportation.-An air carrier or foreign air carrier may not subject a person in air transportation to discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or ancestry.

It's not part of the Civil Rights Act, but that act does provide the exact same protection to public facilities, including but not limited to hotels, restaurants and theaters.

===

The idea that being bumped from an airplane is upsetting because it's cramped also seems incorrect on the face of it. It's upsetting because you were expecting to get from point A to point B at time C and if you had any plans, they're shot. People are upset when their flights, trains or buses are unavailable even if they're still at home.

Also, I've never heard of a cinema overbooking except for free advance screenings.

I'm going to leave all the quotes this time because deleting them on mobile is a pain.

I agree that the discrimination is also prohibited in the law you quoted. However.... The airlines provide a place to sleep (uncomfortably), food (even if no more peanuts) and entertainment (even if you have to pay extra for the tv) . Any one of these make it a place of public accomidation, and combined together I think they clearly meet the requirements. Of course, I'm not a federal judge.... And an airline would never let a court case get far enough for us to get a ruling. Either way... Back to the topic....

Civil rights regulations do apply to private businesses, which was the original point.

[EDIT] (I just realized this was to a different person)

Kxmode wrote on Apr 11, 2017, 00:09:

The only time civil rights apply is if the TSA, FAA, and (or) the NTSB were to imposed some law that discriminated against a group based on whatever (e.g. race, religion, gender, and so forth). The airlines would have no choice but to comply with the law. People wouldn't go after the airlines, they would go after the government who created the law that violates civil rights in the first place. Do you get it now?

This situation is Civics 101-level stuff. You should know this. Teachers taught it in high school alongside Sociology and History.

OK.... So you think McDonald's can deny you service based on race? For example... You do know about "42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation"

I literally pulled that from Cornell with a quick Google search. Maybe you use a different definition of civil rights then the average person? The civil rights act of 1964 is fairly clear about discrimination in public accommodation...and it's been expanded on since then adding additional protected classes.

I'm not saying there's any civil rights issue in this United Airlines example, just that civil rights don't only apply to interaction with the government. Do you think that UPS can tell people they don't accept packages from handicapped people but the USPS can't?

Kxmode wrote on Apr 10, 2017, 23:36:

Emotion and not logic are driving the majority reaction to this situation. People forget that there are no civil rights when you're dealing with a business transaction, just like there are no civil rights when you order a Big Mac from McDonald's. The airlines, while under the jurisdiction of the TSA, FAA, and NTSB, are private businesses. Please don't confuse public civil rights with private companies. Also, resisting the orders of a police officer can result in a felony or misdemeanor depending on the state. It is no less different than a person resisting arrest. Being seated on an airplane is completely irrelevant.

Civil rights include such things as not being denied service based on race (or other protected status) . They certainly do apply to private companies.

Bumpy wrote on Apr 10, 2017, 21:04:
It's United's plane, they can do what they want for the safety of everyone.

It's in the fine print that no one reads that anyone they choose can get removed for overbooking.

The guy was an ass to everyone for not cooperating.

I assume you're talking about this:
Section 25 of United's contract of carriage

Problem there is that entire section applies to situations prior to boarding. That plane was already boarded... So one would think a competant lawyer could argue that once boarded to a plane this section no longer applies based on United's own language.

I do agree with you that United is within their rights to free up that space. At the same time United has had a long history of being horriblely rated for their treatment of customers and even brought on a ceo lauded for his communication skills to improve those customer relations. People also have the right to think the move by United was scummy. You may not, but many vocal people do. United now has a huge PR problem... Not only from this incident but also from the dragging out of previous PR issues like how they deal with pets or the now rather well known "United Breaks Guitars" song. So yes.... They *may* have the right to deplane a passenger for business reasons, but is it worth it to the business when....

1) Anyone involuntarily denied transport in this situation is entitled to 4x their ticket price in cash. The cheapest ticket I could find for at least a month away on a Sunday was $170, so that's $680 in cash they're legally required to pay. This is also a Huge travel week due to spring break for many kids/teachers, so I'd assume the price is probably even higher.

2) For $700 I assume United could find a car service who would drive the 4 employees who needed to be in Louisville the 5 hours, and that's just what it costs to decline 1 person. $2800 for all 4 unless they got tricked into taking the "vouchers", again most likely even more based on time and fare differences.

3) After the man informed the flight crew he was a doctor and had to be in Louisville to see patients in the hospital in the morning, they could have chosen another person.... Or simply offered the cash instead of vouchers (the "compensation" offered) and may have had a person offer to deplane. They didn't even try based on reports.

So I feel like United had plenty of opportunity to stop this chain of events at any time if they had properly trained their employees. Instead, they took a huge PR hit.

Did they have the right to deplane the passenger? Maybe.... But suspect based on wording of their contract of carriage and stated reason for declining his travel (need it for employees) . Is it worth the PR shit storm and likely legal action? Possibly not so much in hindsight.

I get there are folks like you who don't care. There are also folks like me who would rather spend more money to fly another airline with less risk of a bad experience. Which will cost them more? I don't know, and I doubt anyone can... Doubtful the long term effect with hurt them much, but there's now significant risk of exponential bad PR if they have another issue in the near future.

Grimoire might be posted in the wrong section.... Even though it can feel like a competition to deal with Cleve at times.

I'm really excited that this game may actually see the light of day.

Cool, thanks. I loved the original series in all their cheezy glory. I'm talking old SKOOL highlighter on the $10 hint book versions, no voices and whatnot. Rumplestiltskin's name backwards still is a thing for me to this day (as is a "jar of land" I thought the cursive in the KQ3 book said for "Jar of lard").

Was hoping for the nostalgia.....I'm afraid they're "Ghostbuster"ing it...that's why I was looking for the advice.

Has anyone here played any of these? If so, do they have any of the feel of the original Kings quest 1/2/3 games?

But beware, the labyrinth takes a heavy toll – each time your hero dies, they lose a year of their life!

Compared to death, I don't think losing 1 year of life is a heavy penalty. Almost sounds like a life counter.

Darks wrote on Feb 4, 2016, 09:55:
Funny, their steam forums are dead. they only have pined topics, no other topics can be created. its like they are trying to start over and removed all older post.

Probably because it was all negative.

They actually turned off the General Discussion forum entirely, so the landing page is "announcements". Everyone is being directed to "Off-Topic" even if their comments are on topic to the game and would be in a "general discussion" forum anywhere else. The mods tried to make a reason for it in some of the threads in off topic, but it was a really flimsy excuse.

I was excited when I thought this could be another Populous or Black and White style of game. All of the messing about they're doing with PR damage control has firmly put this in the "never buy" bucket for me though.

It's that time of year again....

I just ordered 3600 AA batteries and 30 cisco sfp's. The batteries say they were an amazon product but the sfp's were from some guy in TN.

I'm not sure if the batteries will show... They were in my cart already and I didn't think to remove them before I closed out the browser, reopened, and clicked through the banner. I added the sfp's after I reopened (and increased the battery order from 30 to 36 sets).

Do you get credit on non amazon sold items? And do you get credit for stuff that's already in my cart before I hit the referral link?

I'm not sure, I don't have speakers at work (or at least can't turn them on). I tried clicking on the icon for audio and it did get an "x" through it, so I would guess with confidence that they are not auto playing audio.

I started getting some autoplay video adverts. I can selectively block video.sekindo.com but figured I'd let you know:
curl 'https://video.sekindo.com/uploads/video/food_myths_eating_late_mini.mp4' -H 'Referer: http://www.bluesnews.com/' -H 'User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/46.0.2490.80 Safari/537.36' -H 'X-Requested-With: ShockwaveFlash/19.0.0.226' --compressed

curl "https://video.sekindo.com/uploads/video/seasonal_depression_mini.mp4" -H "Referer: http://www.bluesnews.com/" -H "User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/46.0.2490.80 Safari/537.36" -H "X-Requested-With: ShockwaveFlash/19.0.0.226" --compressed


Seems like there are a few different ones from there.

Maybe they can take some of those profits and finish up the Miner Wars MMO.

You can pick it up on green man gaming using this code:

SAVE23-WITHGM-GSEP15

for 23% off. Brings the $59.99 US price down to $46.20 I don't know if this will work for Canadian purchases, but figured I'd mention it.

As it is, $60 is a bit steep for me, which looking at the exchange rate is $79.99 Canadian, so I feel the same way you do.

dsmart wrote on Jul 9, 2015, 11:26:

Thanks. The usual clowns (see: nin) who only attack me, instead of having a discussion, are still here though.

I have no opinion of you personally, nor nin, but calling someone a clown isn't exactly the best way to NOT pick a fight IMO.