Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!




Last Active
Favorite Role
  • So, Where Are YOU on Net Neutrality?

    I would love for everyone to honestly answer a simple question. An abridged response please.

    Who do you think American tax payers have a better chance of influencing when there is something incorrect or unfair? The government or a billion dollar ISP?

    Please think before you answer because the name calling and insult portion of this conversation follows shortly after.
    Actually, neither.

    If the government controls the internet, then you get heavy censoring (just look at Venezuela and recently many Europe countries that ban anything that they don't like because it hurts their feelings and go to prison for saying anything bad over a single twitter post lol. They treat it more of a crime for a negative twitter post than rape and murder). That hasn't happened in the US luckily, but it shows that government should not have access to internet for a free internet.

    However, on the other side of things, billion dollar ISPs have a HUGE monopoly. There is very little choice. In my area, there is only one ISP to choose from if I want cable...many other off-brands are owned by these very few ISPs so even if you have another provider, chances are its owned by the multi billion dollar ISPs.

    Neither choice is good. What there needs to be is more choices and more internet companies to choose from, that are high quality. Like pop up independent providers. I guess google is sorta in their internet thing, but they only chose small rural towns for some reason and haven't done much in a long time as far as I know. But google is again, a huge multi billion company...but at least its sorta another choice.

    Right now however, most people literally get at most 3 providers if they are lucky they can choose from...then a bunch of an illusion of choices most likely still owned by one of the 3 providers. Or in my case, if I want cable, I literally only have one choice of a provider for internet.

    So ISPs controlling the internet is as bad as the government controlling the internet...with the caveat that...government can still control the ISPs anyway so...really it doesn't make a difference at all
    If you think government having control in the internet is good...look at Venezuela or Europe where they very heavily censor everything. If you say anything bad in say UK on Twitter, they can somehow find you in a day or two, but somehow can't find rapists and murderers for years and then the rapist says he doesn't know what "no" means and they let him free and the person who says something bad on twitter spends years in prison.

    If you think ISPs should have control, that is just as bad as well since having a monopoly is never good for competition or making a better internet, though the government still really controls the ISPs so its not that big a difference. 

    So as I said, needs to be a 3rd choice. The internet shouldn't be owned by the government, nor owned by a monopoly of very few large internet companies.
    They heavily censor everything, yet for a while had topless news programs... Still do. Europe is a wild place in parts. 

    If you think the government is out to censor you, perhaps you need to be reminded that YOU are the government in the USA. We all are. And a lack of faith is a reflection of yourself. 

    But no, people are just going to keep drinking the Kool-Aid. 
  • Razer Hammerhead Wireless Headphones Review a Editorials at MMORPG.com

    Gdemami said:
    DMKano said:
    Listen to these https://www.amazon.com/1MORE-Headphones-Earphones-Compatible-Microphone/dp/B01A7G35S0

    And then come back and tell me they don't sound better.
    No need to. Surround headphones is nonse.

    The reason stims from how does sound location work. The brain percieve a direction of incoming sound mainly due time and frequency differences betwen each our ear. That means the surround sound happens at audio processor, how well the sound is generated then is a matter of driver and mostly a shell/housing and the frame the driver is placed in and in that regard, single driver headphones produce superior sound quality.

    Number of drivers is a non-factor when it comes to headphones since it cannot contribute to sound location in any meaningful way.

    Number of drivers has a significant factor in manipulating inaugural level and time difference. Single driver will output the sound, but it will do so in an almost analog manner. Considering the output directly from a sound card is not analog but instead pulse code and direct stream digital, the multiple drivers allow this process to be paralleled and thus working as intended in inaugural differences. Single driver would not and would instead take the virtual output and sound like 2.1.

    You can't just take any signal and make it virtual surround either, you either have to record it with directional mics in a 7.1 plus setting, or be recorded from the get go in surround.

    Listening to shitty pop music that isn't recorded and produced for surround I think is your problem bud. Go pick up a DVD audio album in multichannel for example and compare it to it's stereo CD version, you will absolutely be able to tell the difference. If the recording is garbage, obviously virtual surround is not going to improve that.  
  • This looks like a repeat of Greedmonger sprinkled with StarCitizen.

    I can't speak for, against, or about Ashes of Creation -- I know absolutely nothing about it.

    But I do have to ask. Why they hell is there so much hatred towards independent fundraising? It's been proven effective and you don't have to stand in line to prove to an investor anything that is going to be skeptical and likely not interested in even the subject matter. 

    This couldn't be proven true or false, but mega corporation develops game that sucks but got these investors and no one complains and that company still makes millions/billions. And independent company/team raises a mil just to develop something and everyone freaks out. The difference still is that the fund raised can turn out to be a better game and the artists can get their message across, unlike the bureaucracy game company that is literally only after your money. Sure, it may end up just as bad as the mega corp games, but there isn't some jackass breathing down their neck.  
  • First!

    I don't know, I think it works perfectly. Just gave an example. And got one. 
    Can't WTF myself though. So sad. 
  • First!

    The lack of English comprehension is strong with these ones...

    Agreeing or disagreeing is the basis of an argument. Or what the younguns these days call "conversation." Not the same thing. Difference is in definition two of argument. An argument is formal, a conversation is not. An argument between multiple parties is called a convention. 

    1. 1.
      an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.
      "I've had an argument with my father"
    2. 2.
      a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

      1. the informal exchange of ideas by spoken words.
        "the two men were deep in conversation"