Shakaza

I would but, again, I can't be bothered. Well, my time's not all that valuable at the moment, so it's not really that important. But it's pretty funny, so it's worth it. Good. It's quite entertaining when that happens, at least to me.

And of course, you don't have to bother wasting "valuable" seconds changing the font color to something that only night theme users can read.

I would be using night theme right now, but recently, it's been bugging out on Firefox for me and I can't be bothered to find out why.

I believe when the channels were being shut down, it was based on the names of the groups and channels, not on the content. Also this. ^

At only 33, he managed to garner a huge following and has made a massive impact on the gaming community. If he had lived longer, he perhaps would have accomplished much, much more, but what he has done for us, for ALL of us, cannot be understated. May you rest in peace, John Bain, and myself and all others who care about the state of the gaming industry will continue your legacy. You will be remembered, and everything you stood for will live on in our hearts and minds for generations to come.

Well, we'll probably need more legislation, but I would say this is a good start. People who aren't in favor of net neutrality always act as if it will create a law that will never change. Meanwhile, I'm just here thinking, "Okay, Net Neutrality as a principle is good, and the laws being implemented to uphold this principle are a good start, but ISPs are dickheads, so we probably need some changes in the future to ensure they can't take advantage of loopholes." We just need to get our collective foot in the door, keep it there, and move forward from there. Also, if it never stopped throttling, why are ISPs so opposed to it being implemented? Wouldn't they rather have a useless law in place that placates the consumer? They obviously don't like it, and from what we've seen, it's not because they care about the consumer, so it must be detrimental to them in some way. You know, cutting into their profits, preventing them from taking advantage of the consumer, things like that. Or is there some other reason?

We essentially had net neutrality back then. Not in law, but ISPs hadn't thought of screwing over customers in this way at that point. Also, how the internet has been used has changed drastically in 10 years. There has been a massive shift toward streaming and using other methods of watching hi-res video, meaning ISPs have more of an incentive to do this because it's easier than updating their infrastructure to support the higher demand. It doesn't justify it, but it does help explain why we are where we are right now.

The base clock is the speed the GPU is guaranteed to run at unless it's thermal throttling. The boost clock is the speed the GPU will run at as long as it runs within the thermal (if it gets too hot while boosting, it will stop, and if it's still too hot with the base clock, it will throttle) and power targets. Not sure why the card has the gaming and OC modes, as the difference between them is marginal at best, but if you keep it in OC mode the base and boost clocks are going to be higher.

Well, it could be, but you still gotta prove it. Judging by the utter failure of this, the people involved seem completely out of touch with the topic, leading me to believe that this was nothing more than a shallow attempt to capitalize on something they thought would be popular. If you have some evidence that there might be something more to this, sure, but given what @AshleyAshes posted, I don't think that's the case.

Okay, so you think that the priority of the companies involved with this was to perpetuate some ideology and was not an (idiotic) attempt to make money from advertising? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but companies require money to operate, right? They don't magically pop into existence because politics. So, uhh, prove it?

I mean a citation from an independent, third-party (non-you) source that demonstrates each of these happening and why they are all problems. No offense, but you don't seem to be the most unbiased in this matter. Also, doing things like what you mentioned seems to be more of a series of last resort options and probably only done after providing disclaimers and all needed info to the consumer, and that is my default assumption since it's the one that makes the most sense and you didn't provide any evidence to the contrary. And I would certainly go for a fix from him rather than Apple if they refused to service my machine. If you don't think I should be going for these "substandard" options, why don't you support Apple improving their terms of service?

Citation needed, buddy.

The way I see it is that the point of this was to get people's opinion on this issue, and if it's determined widely that this is a problem with Apple's terms of service and their ideologies as a company, it will raise awareness and hopefully lead to a change that people find favorable. And no one is claiming that this is Apple's fault; this is about what a company is obligated to do for the consumer. If a company's purpose is not to provide goods and services to the consumer, then what IS that purpose? I'm not sure if Apple's terms would stand up in court, but I do know that they violate a moral obligation because they are completely screwing over a paying customer. If they provided other reasonable options, it would certainly be more fine, but this is an utter failure of their policies to satisfy the consumer, and I just don't see how people are okay with that. The stark defenders of Apple are so caught up in the technicalities of all this and aren't considering what a company with better terms of service for this situation would do and the reasoning behind it. Apple is imperfect, just like every other company, and shouldn't it have a responsibility to do better in the name of the consumer? Wouldn't all of you defenders of Apple like if the company provided more options in this situation, if only for the possibility that it might happen to you? It's not like it would break the bank for them, and would give them positive publicity. I can imagine the headlines now: "Apple Goes Out of Its Way to Provide Excellent Service to a Customer, Despite It Breaking the ToS. Fans Everywhere Rejoice, and Even Apple Critics Admit This Was a Good Deal." But, if ya'll are okay with Apple scraping by on technicalities, that's cool too, but I don't think that's a good game plan for a company.

Wow, this thread is derail central. And that's what I love about you lovely moderators. My favorite type of person is one who has proven themselves to be intelligent and reasonable, yet at the same time chill and fun to be around. Lotta you mods hit that mark. Noooooo, who does that? I certainly don't do that, no sir! It's definitely not one of the reasons I still frequent the forum!

What, you mean that being blatantly disrespectful to the opposite sex doesn't make them like you?