ivan134

Also the price comes from the fact that Asus always charges a premium for their name. 

Just now, lmeneses said:

Oh HA, did not know that, but why is it near the same price when its more powerful? And I've never heard of Power Color, so I'm just cautious 

Power color is a decent brand. They're AMD exclusive

Get the red devil. Asus dual cooler is terrible

12 hours ago, ZacoAttaco said:

Greed and Money twisted their thinking. They became more focused on the shareholders than their customers.

I have a feeling that it's going to be like every other game in it's genre, fun but lacking end-game content and probably littered with micro-transactions. And this is coming from a fan of both The Division and Destiny.

Borderlands and Warframe are the better games in this genre, and I'm hoping Anthem is closer to those 2. From the little bit I've seen, it seems closer to those 2. I'm fine with no end game if the normal playthrough is really good, like Borderlands.

Game is fun. I can't compare it to others because the last BF I played was bfbc2

Smash Bros 64

Smash Bros Melee

Borderlands 2

Transistor

007 Goldeneye

Perfect Dark

Power Stone 2

WarFrame

Far Cry 3

Halo 1 PC

Gears of War 1 PC

I reaaaaally wanna buy Anthem, but if EA keeps this up...

12 hours ago, fasauceome said:

The twin frozr cooler can't handle even a little overclocking. I got the 100 million edition, supposedly better with high clocks. Couldn't take a 100 Mhz bump. My friends Mobo is just my only other personal experience with bad MSI products, because I'm not inclined to purchase any more myself.

Losing silicon lottery =/= twin frozr is bad

13 hours ago, fasauceome said:

I had a twin frozr 970 and man does that cooler design ever suck. It never died but my friend's motherboard fried pretty easy when he had an fx 8350 on it.

What makes is suck? and I'm not sure how your friend's motherboard is related

38 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

It might be because 

 

twin frozr sucks

33 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

Depends on what conditions the card was used under before. Since fans are the only mechanical part of a graphics card, they have the highest failure rate.

On the other hand, MSI makes really crappy stuff, so it could just be bad controller. Try unplugging and replugging the fan headers

One of their cards die on you or something?

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

If you have to resort to mockery and comedy in an attempt appear correct, you've already "lost".

Yup 

4 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Most news outlets in the US are owned by entertainment companies though.

I know that, but it doesn't matter who owns them. If it's not govt owned, obviously a person or corporation owns them. They still register as news. For example, Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post. That doesn't mean they're registered as a retail company.

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

Again, I've said repeatedly that those organization should be regulated to some extent. Resorting to insulting the argument only makes you look desperate and incapable of intelligently refuting the points being made.

 

Maybe because you know you're wrong and can't admit it? Saying "that's not the law" is not a good argument in a discussion of what the law should be. It's a pointless statement of currently standing fact.

 

You blatantly just said they didn't ban him for his politics, they banned him for his politics on the behalf of others. Thanks for making my point.

Yup. That's definitely it. You got me. You win 

2 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

I'm just repeating the stupidity that's being put out. Obviously I know its illogical, but hey... Fox doesn't have to use logic when they have "entertainment shows" instead of "news shows". (Actual quote from Hannity)

Fox News is registered as an entertainment company and not a news one, so even their "news" shows don't have to abide by that.

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

Yeah that's not a good argument. My tax dollars don't fund any other private companies, but they still have to abide the laws we decide on as a nation. At least if you don't consider tax subsidies funding.

LOL. I don't even know how to respond to this.

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

Thank you for saying exactly what I have been saying. IT SHOULD APPLY.

 

Regulation of the people administrating social media, not the people on social media. Don't misconstrue my arguments.

No, it shouldn't, and it never will. Your tax dollars don't fund them.

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

I absolutely think those things should be regulated to some extent.

 

Freedom of the press, should have some limitations, as does freedom of speech.

They already do have well defined limitations. The problem is, freedom of speech doesn't apply to social media.

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Which they have the right to do as they are not part of the government, and what you're asking for is the government to censor them.  So, basically what you want is to have the government violate the constitution over your own fears.

The cognitive dissonance levels are over 9000.

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

I assumed there was a hell of a lot of nuance to this, but I was simply trying to correct the statement "they are privately owned companies", which they are not, by legal definition.

 

They are not government owned companies, like Virginia ABC, as an example. That would be a more correct statement, to which my counter is:

 

Because of the extreme level of power they stand to gain over the national discourse, the ability to effect what the population sees and hears, they should be limited to some extent by the government. They should be required, by law, to abide free speech. They should not be allowed in any way shape or form, to ban people simply because the people who run the company don't like that persons politics.

 

While they may have had a good excuse here, in that he did violate their terms of service, it is blatant that they are also doing it because they don't like his politics. My example is that they have not banned the college professor who called for "white genocide" several times. Nor have they really taken any action against things like Antifa, which is now accurately considered a domestic terror group.

 

It's the bias we take issue with. If a social media company is going to claim to have rules, they must be applied objectively and without bias.

 

That is not the law as it currently stands, but we are arguing that it should be. I would make a distinction between them and the likes of the LTT forums, because these forums have a clearly stated purpose, that being Technology. Whereas the likes of Facebook and Twitter, are more generalized to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.

Please, spare us your faux outrage. Why aren't you people calling for heavily regulating Fox News, BreitBart or National Review if you claim to care about "media affecting what the population sees and hear"?

4 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

I don't trust these companies, and don't wear their brand asa way to define my own individuality.

 

I would expect these companies to act somewhat ethically, but all the capitalism gets in the way of that. And nothing gets in the way of Big Data (or any other corruption for that matter) and their need for revenue and stic stock earnings.

I'm not a free market guy. It was a tongue in cheek comment. I'm all for heavily regulating and taxing corporations.

1 minute ago, RorzNZ said:

I'm all for free speech but this is social media, not a protest. You agree to abide by their guidelines when you sign up, so it's pretty fair by them to enforce their rules. This isn't the first time someone with radical views has been removed from twitter. 

They're really having an issue with seeing something like Facebook as basically an extension of Mark Zukerberg's house. You cannot go into his house and do or say whatever you want. If it bothers them so much, they should start their own social media companies and allow all the conspiracy nut jobs run wild.

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

I know that, I'm trying to correct you and Ivan's incorrect statement that they are a private company, because they are not legally defined as such.

 

And as a tax payer, I damned well do have a say in whether or not they receive tax subsidies from my local government, which I am 100% against.

 

I believe that because of the power they stand to gain, and the fact that they offer a broad medium for the general population to converse with itself and will have an extreme ability to determine how the public sees itself, without oversight, they should be required to abide free speech. The privately traded thing and government funding are only tangents.

You're talking about trading, and I'm talking about ownership. A company is either privately or publicly owned. Publicly owned means it's run by the government. Private is the opposite of that. You're correcting a straw man.

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

Its not over an individual. Look at the definition of propaganda and censorship in China and then look how important social media is for news then come back and tell me how it doesn't affect the world. 

Are you saying that China wasn't abusing human rights before the advent of social media?

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

The power to silence you if you express something they disagree with politically. The power to let you see and be informed about only certain things that they like.

 

Again, that's only if you use it. While you may not, many, many others do. That's the problem here.

Okay, and? They're a private company. They can choose to let their users see only what they choose. When I go to BreirtBart or National Review, are they infringing on my rights by not posting factual news?

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

It quite literally does. The ownership of the company is dispersed to the general public. Literally anyone can be called an owner. It is not owned by a private individual or group.

 

Again, read the differences.

 

And tax subsidies mean that, essentially, my taxes are in some way benefiting that company in return for them building a datacenter in my state/city.

This is pointless