Saboth wrote on Jun 11, 2019, 14:16:
"result clearly represents a strategic victory for Alex Jones." How does using someone else's copyright without permission then losing in court represent any kind of win? Then again, this is the alt-right, where up is down and black is white, real news is fake, so I guess yeah...in their minds it must be a major victory.

VaranDragon wrote on Jun 7, 2019, 03:55:
Ok, anyone here with an RTX card trying to play this?

I could really use some help with eliminatng the input lag (VSYNC is OFF)

It's terrible, and makes the game almost unplayable. With that said, it really looks and runs nice.

pacbowl wrote on May 27, 2019, 22:01:
Hell yeah, hopefully Zoids, Expert or LMCTF will be compatible.

wtf_man wrote on May 24, 2019, 12:40:

What it aims to do is prohibit specifically “pay-to-play microtransactions” and “loot boxes.” It’s how these terms are defined, however, that will cause game developers and players the most headache. It would limit, for instance, the types of rewards that can be offered when players purchase “Collector’s Editions” of video games. Expansion packs that, aside from additional content, grant players competitive advantages over ones who don’t purchase them would be banned.

Doesn't sound crappy to me. Collectors editions and expansions that grant competitive advantages SHOULD be prohibited.

And here’s the kicker: This new law would also apply to any game that is “not a minor-oriented game” if the distributor or publisher has “constructive knowledge any of its users are under the age of 18.” That term, “constructive knowledge,” is legalese for information a company should be aware of, regardless of whether or not it actually is. (Try to imagine a game developer arguing in court it had no idea its product had ever been used by a minor.)

Again, Doesn't sound crappy to me. If the wording makes it so loot boxes and pay-to-win is banned across the board instead of "just for children"... I'm all for it.

This crap shouldn't be in games in the first place. If there isn't a complete "opt-out" setting in the game where you can't even see loot boxes (and the like)... then yes... ban them alltogether.

RedEye9 wrote on May 9, 2019, 23:19:

NicklePop wrote on May 9, 2019, 22:37:
The population is becoming a low IQ shadow of itself as preprogrammed sex robots and people are mad that a youtuber texts nudes?

Ha

The only ha here is you did not even spend a nanosecond perusing the article before you started vomiting your clueless dreck.

jdreyer wrote on May 5, 2019, 15:02:

Scheherazade wrote on May 5, 2019, 02:58:
VR resolution is really bad. People don't realize that the image is post processed, warped and scaled, and you get effectively 1/2 panel resolution (because image pixels aren't aligned 1:1 with display pixels).



Beyond resolution, VR just needs 'normal' games to put in proper support.
(The games people want to play, not 'VR games')

*FPS games with normal controls, and just add freelook.
No gimmicks.

*Flight-sim/racing games with normal controls, just add freelook.
No cutting features in VR mode(like disabling zoom).

I sold off my VR stuff because I just wanted to play 'normal' games with VR, but there was always something messed up in the VR version/mode - just bad integration choices by the authors. Like as if they just wanted to make a demo, and didn't count on anyone actually trying to play in VR.

-scheherazade

Doesn't the VorpX driver let you play normal games normally in VR?

RedEye9 wrote on May 5, 2019, 12:46:
And now we're off into Conspiracy Mode.
What took that so long?

Beamer wrote on Apr 19, 2019, 14:21:

Scheherazade wrote on Apr 19, 2019, 10:08:

You're projecting. I'm not angry.

You are angry, though. Furthermore, "you're projecting" is the slightly more adult way of saying "I know you are, but what am I?" It serves the exact same function, only you feel slightly smarter about it, so it's again, about your emotions.

I am ideologically an individualist voluntaryist. I can only fault any person for their individual trespasses onto other individuals, on a case by case basis.

Intellectual cowardice.

Your definition of institutional racism is created to satisfy a particular ideology which has no problem blaming the innocent. Precisely because when a person can't point fingers at any guilty party, they blanket blame society (i.e. everyone, guilty or innocent). It's the science of lashing out.

It is not lashing out. It's the opposite. But if there's a problem with society, all of society is at fault, because a solution requires all of society.

You don't seem to even acknowledge that things that are problems are going on, so this is pointless. "There is no problem, but if there was a problem, it's no one's fault" is, well, intellectual cowardice.

But it's funny how many people that refuse to assign any blame at all also refuse to see that there's a problem. It goes hand-in-hand.

Cowardly. True defense of status quo. This is how nothing ever improves, and why some people go "but this is how it's always been done."

Sepharo wrote on Apr 18, 2019, 12:59:

Scheherazade wrote:
1968 ... 1943

You're missing the point again.
But like I said earlier it's pretty pointless for me to keep trying.

Beamer wrote on Apr 18, 2019, 09:19:
Listen, you're misunderstanding a concept, angry at the concept due to your own misunderstanding, and angry at us for explaining.

Here, from Wikipedia:
Institutional racism (also known as systemic racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions. It is reflected in disparities regarding wealth, income, criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other factors.

The term "institutional racism" was coined and first used in 1967 by Stokely Carmichael (later known as Kwame Ture) and Charles V. Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation.[1] Carmichael and Hamilton wrote that while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its "less overt, far more subtle" nature. Institutional racism "originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than [individual racism]".[2] They gave examples.

"When white terrorists bomb a black church and kill five black children, that is an act of individual racism, widely deplored by most segments of the society. But when in that same city – Birmingham, Alabama – five hundred black babies die each year because of the lack of power, food, shelter and medical facilities, and thousands more are destroyed and maimed physically, emotionally and intellectually because of conditions of poverty and discrimination in the black community, that is a function of institutional racism. When a black family moves into a home in a white neighborhood and is stoned, burned or routed out, they are victims of an overt act of individual racism which most people will condemn. But it is institutional racism that keeps black people locked in dilapidated slum tenements, subject to the daily prey of exploitative slumlords, merchants, loan sharks and discriminatory real estate agents. The society either pretends it does not know of this latter situation, or is in fact incapable of doing anything meaningful about it."[3][4]

That's institutional racism. Your own definition differs, and this is a you problem, not a problem with the term or concept. You're like the people angry at "toxic masculinity" while constantly whining about being victim to it, all due to their fundamental refusal to accept the meaning of the term.

It's not worth discussing this with you if you refuse to accept even the basic definition of the term. It's like arguing with someone about whether the sky is blue, because they've decided to define blue as "yellow."

Sepharo wrote on Apr 18, 2019, 00:27:

Scheherazade wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 23:35:
(I also made reference to a 'gangster aesthetic' - the visual appearance of a thug/gangster as established by popular media over the last few decades, re. music videos, movies, etc.)

I linked an image of Denzel Washington in the movie American Gangster. A product of popular media that has substantial influence on what someone would consider a "gangster" look.
He's dressed in a nice suit, and he's black.
Is that what you're going for? If you have a different description or example let's hear it.

I then linked an image of latino youths in LA during the Zoot Suit Riots. Those kids turned themselves over to police custody to avoid being beaten by rioting servicemen stationed in LA. The media indiscriminately characterized latino youths wearing these zoot suits as thugs and often praised the riots as a "cleansing". When Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out the obvious racial aspect to the attacks she was called a communist by the LA Times.

There is a saying : If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

I say you look like a "gangster" therefore you are one.

Sepharo wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 23:12:

Scheherazade wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 23:03:

Sepharo wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 22:30:
https://i.imgur.com/0VcyjnU.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/C8Zs5yi.jpg

All sorts of people have done crimes and been in jail.

Clown

Suit

Judges/Police will still be harder on you if you come across as a "thug".

-scheherazade

You missed the point but explaining it to you would be pointless judging by your earlier nonsense.
Think about who defines the meaning of "thug" and "gangster", what it means in the context that it's being used.

Sepharo wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 22:30:
https://i.imgur.com/0VcyjnU.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/C8Zs5yi.jpg

Beamer wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 09:41:

Scheherazade wrote on Apr 17, 2019, 02:22:

Bodolza wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 15:02:

Scheherazade wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 13:05:
- Black US persons since the ~80's haven't had institutional racism directed against them.

"Black male offenders received sentences on average 20.4 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders...violence in an offender’s criminal history does not appear to contribute to the sentence imposed"

https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-differences-sentencing

That has nothing to do with institutional policy.
Nowhere will you find institutional regulations mandating 20.4% longer sentences for black people.

That's personal bias of persons responsible for sentencing.

I agree that they should get equal sentences for equal crimes.
Same goes for women, since women of all races apparently get let off easy, according to your link.

Frankly, sentencing should be reformed to only allow 1 charge per 1 action (no more stacking charges. One discrete action, one charge max.), and the sentence should be a fixed amount of time for a given offense. Also, sentences should be calculated a monetary value, and the time served should be capped at the value of the damages done in the initial offense (so the punishment does not exceed the crime). This would naturally mean that all crimes that are victimless (nobody for which to assess monetary damage) have zero length sentences.





Side note, Links to actual institutional policy : (quick google)
https://tenderspage.com/government-contracting-minority-owned/
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-195R
https://www.upcounsel.com/woman-owned-business-tax-benefits
School wise, I assume everyone is aware of cases like Fisher v UT, and the Affirmative Action Harvard suit ("Asians" vs Harvard), where colleges assert that they aren't discriminating by using lower SAT thresholds [as a matter of policy] to admit Latino and Black students.
It's ironic for a minority to complain about institutional racism, given what the actual institutional policies are.
It seems like institutional racism has achieved a religion status. I don't know if there even is enough any institution can do to make people believe otherwise.

-scheherazade



p.s.
Care to address the rest of my earlier post? I'm genuinely curious what you think.

I don't think you understand the term "institutional racism." It doesn't refer solely to written policy. There's a social aspect to it. If you want evidence, just look at how black criminals are treated socially. You can't go one article on the internet without seeing the term "thug." You do not see that for white people, who, famously, are more likely to be referred to as "mentally disturbed."

This is institutional racism.

Bodolza wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 15:02:

Scheherazade wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 13:05:
- Black US persons since the ~80's haven't had institutional racism directed against them.

"Black male offenders received sentences on average 20.4 percent longer than similarly situated White male offenders...violence in an offender’s criminal history does not appear to contribute to the sentence imposed"

https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/demographic-differences-sentencing

Beamer wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 08:56:

Slick wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 07:59:

Beamer wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 07:27:
[url=][/url]

Slick wrote on Apr 16, 2019, 04:17:
Oh boy oh boy oh boy. Something completely innocuous to get outraged at! This makes my week!

Dude, fuck identity politics. It's the cultural poison of our time. This person wasn't making a political or racial statement at all, they were dressing up as a fictional character.

I've seen racism, and I've been a victim of racism. Freaking out of this shit is disrespectful and downright cruel to people who experience real racism everyday. It trivializes a real issue in our world, and tries to equate it with benign nothingness.

Fucking outrage mobs are cancer, and they're taking us all down with them.

You're white, right? What racism were you a victim of. S
Did someone call you a cracker?

Having something happen once doesn't really qualify you to understand daily, systematic racism.

Here comes the anger at that, though...

So when someone comes forth and openly shares that he's been a victim of racism, you:

1) Call bullshit, then publicly mock their claim

2) Assume the race/ethnicity/gender, to further question the claim, implying that only certain groups can be the victim of racism.

And this behaviour is okay for the SJWs? But someone cosplaying a fictional character is over the line.

I bet you also harass women who said they've been harassed by men, because A) They're probably male, and B) because they don't REALLY understand what it's like to experience discrimination on a daily basis, so they should basically just shut their mouth.

NICE.

I love it when total strangers on the internet know more about my life than I do.

And for the record I'm not white, not that that matters.

You're a white American. You were not a victim of racism comparable to what black Americans have gone through. Factually.

That you can't elaborate, and are instead playing up being a victim to me, now, is pretty much evidence of this.

Henry Dorsett wrote on Mar 21, 2019, 14:41:

Scheherazade wrote on Mar 21, 2019, 12:42:

(Snip)

I am predicting an invasion of everywhere, eventually. Be it tomorrow, or in 500 years.

It's funny to even have to say this. Since the dawn of time till 50 years ago it was a given that every man woman and child just knew. We had a quiet spell thanks to MAD and everyone picking sides with 1st or 2nd world alliances, and people act like war is over for good.

What good were SKS against the US military in vietnam?

Video games and movies give people the wrong impression. Tanks/Planes/etc are few and far between. They can't be everywhere at once, they break down for repair every few days, and need a steady supply of fuel and parts which is a soft target. Individual infantry is what actually holds land.

Either way, I would rather be armed than unarmed.

-scheherazade

What's the point of having a standing army if not to defend the homeland? If I'm expected, as quite a few lunatics in the US have insisted, to be armed as a civilian for purposes of defending my country in the event of an entirely unforeseen invasion which just so happens to land on my doorstep (Red Dawn is a terrible movie but a strangely effective bit of propaganda), then I'm of the opinion that I ought to be paid and trained in the interim at the expense of those expecting such a thing from me; basically, those people are demanding that we all be conscripted into the nebulous concept-group of "A Well-Regulated Militia". Otherwise, I'll be keen to go about life now and to take up the fight if and when this absurd scenario happens to occur.

If you want to be armed to defend the country in times of attack (assuming you are in the US), then join the National Guard or Army Reserve. You can have your guns and your preparedness and I can have some measure of relief that you're not just some idiot with more guns than brain cells or minutes of training. We both win.