GIVEMEREPLAY

Fool me once, shame, shame on you. Fool me you can't get fooled again.

It's definitely not just an ATI problem. I have a GTX 260 and I am having AWFUL micro-stutter.

And not a single one of them works. I've tried them all and put in 5-6 hours trying to fix the issue. A "fix" in my mind is something that doesn't result in the game being artificially slowed down or sped up, and doesn't ruin the lip syncing. These "fixes" are not fixes at all, they are patches on a major issue that needs to be fixed.

love my FO3, but Jesus do they need to fix the micro stuttering issues. It's killing me.

I loved telltale until they turned on their customers. They sold the Strongbad games individually, until the last one, whereupon they changed policy without warning and made it so that the only way to get the last episode was to buy the whole set. They'll never see another penny from me. That said, I love Sam and Max.

Play it for PC, noob.

The 500 dollar price tag is very misleading. They obviously didn't count computer equipment, the camera or editing software.

I'm sorry but if Blizzard continues to push back SC2 it is just going to end up looking very outdated by the time it arrives, much less by the time they push out the other two campaigns. I think we may find ourselves disappointed with SC2.

"If you haven’t already figured it out, there is a suspicious correlation between the number of guns a country has per capita and the number of crimes committed with them."

Except for when it doesn't, like Switzerland. Or Canada.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2834893820070828

Canada has 30 guns per 100 people, but has a much lower rate of violent crime than England, which has a minuscule amount of firearms. Your correlation doesn't fit the data, drop it already.

"You don’t need a gun to commit a crime. Those stats are practically useless. Look at the murder rate; it’s higher in countries with more guns. People will always commit crimes no matter what weapons are available, but owning a gun makes murder that much easier, hence a higher murder rate."

I thought your argument was that more guns = more crime...

"“Russia and South Africa also have colossal amounts of extreme poverty”
Still doesn’t explain why the US murder rate is at number 5."

Sure does. Most gun crime occurs in impoverished areas of big cities. America happens to have a lot of big, poor post industrial cities. Like my fair Detroit, or Chicago, or Flint, or the slums of LA, or New York, etc. The suburbs and the country have very little gun crime.

"They all did it against divided and weakened authorities and against similar technology. For sake of simplicity, I’ll concentrate on Lenin. He took power from a weak provisional government after the tsar abdicated. It is also notable that it was against early 20th century technology and not against the world’s most advanced/largest military. His guys were also similarily equipped as the other guys."

Did you even read what I said? That division is a key element. If there was a schism in the U.S or any country which results in a civil war, the government will be strangled by a lack of tax dollars and manpower, and will thus be "divided". Secondly, as I said a tiny amount of insurgents has been bleeding the U.S. for a half decade in Iraq using nothing but small arms and bombs. Imagine what 1/10th of the U.S. populace could do against an oppressive government.

"Places with fewer guns are safer."

Tell that to a woman who gets raped because she is physically overpowered by an assailant, when a gun could have made the difference. Tell me that when you get held up at knifepoint and have no recourse to defend yourself. Tell me that when your house gets robbed and you are terrorized in your own abode because you have let the criminals get the upper hand.

"Get your head out of the sand. America’s military has been improving these past 100 years; you wouldn’t last a second against a modern tank/carrier/figher jet/whatever."

And you know nothing of tactics. Jets and tanks aren't very useful in fighting guerrillas, which do not pose big easy targets like opposing militaries do, hence why the U.S. has such a hard time squashing insurgent movements. Might I raise Vietnam? The full power of the U.S., tanks, jets, bombs and all couldn't stop some damn communist guerrillas with their tunnels and small arms.

I ask you to genuinely consider what I've said. Consider what recourse you would have if your home was broken into and your family was threatened. Consider where you would turn if your government began to instate laws which you feel violate your basic human rights, and ceases to listen to the people. People who lived under the Soviet Union know this situation well. Note that the Yugoslavians were the only people who were able to resist the terrorizing power of Stalin and the Soviet Union, and only because his populace was well armed, and the people were well trained guerrilla fighters. Guns can certainly be used to bad ends, but so can knives, and rocks, and cars. They are a fact of life, and they can never be completely (or even mostly) banned from a society, it simply strengthens criminals in their relation to their victims. Allow people to defend themselves: they have a right to do so.

I've said my piece. I'm done.

"That might be true. I live in a place that has gun regulations and I have never read/heard of a gun crime happening in the city."

I bet you've got plenty of muggings and stabbings. Is it much better to get stabbed than shot?

"Except if that criminal has a gun of their own. "

The criminal can and probably will have a gun regardless of your regulations. If you haven't figured it out yet, criminals don't follow the law.

"Lower violent crime rates in areas with fewer guns would seem to contradict that."

I argued about this with some guys on the rockpapershotgun board. London has TONS of stabbings and violent crime, but very little gun crime. Here were my findings

"According to the FBI, in 2005 the U.S. had 469.2 crimes per 100,000 people.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

According to the Home Office, in the september to september (2004/2005) timeframe covered in the report, there were 2,420,000 violent crimes in the UK. There were 60.6 million people in the UK in 2006. That translates to about 3992.8 violent crimes in the UK per 100,000 people.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/uk.html
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0506.html

You could argue that the UK survey reports lesser crimes (like verbal threats) as violent crimes, but that doesn’t account for the colossal figure. If someone can present better numbers, I’m all ears.

That means that the U.K. had 850% more violent crime in the 2004/2005 time period than the U.S. had in 2005. The 2004/2005 time period is not two years, but rather a September to September study, so it isn’t appropriate to cut that number in half. Even if we did, it’s a colossal figure, and much greater than the U.S. numbers. "

"Restricting guns will lower opportunity gun crimes. When someone goes to rob a store in Canada, they (generally) do it with knives and improvised weapons. I have never heard of any store in my area being robbed at gunpoint. I've lived here 10 years and have received the newspaper most every day. When people have greater access to guns they tend to use them."

Strange, since Canada has relatively lax gun laws. It is very easy to procure a long gun in Canada, it just has to be registered. I live 10 minutes from Windsor and I am acquainted with both Canadian and American gun laws. It seems that your correlation doesn't seem to be the causation.

"Strange, isn’t it? I thought South Africa and Russia had loads of guns? Shouldn't they be the most safe? I wonder how those idiot Canucks and Aussies are able to defend themselves at all with all their gun-regulations?"

Russia and South Africa also have colossal amounts of extreme poverty, and are both countries which are not as well industrialized or modernized as European countries, Canada or America. You'll find a much greater correlation between poverty and crime than you will between gun rights and crime. Switzerland has perhaps more assault rifles per person than any other nation in the world, and yet has extremely low gun crime (save for suicide, which again reinforces my belief that culture/society/locational factors have more to do with violence than guns do).

"And I don’t think you and your revolutionaries would last ten seconds against the military. Guerillas may be a thorny bunch, but they’ll never contend with the strength of the military."

Tell that to Lenin, the Iranians who overthrew the Shah, the Algerians, Castro, the French revolutionaries, the American revolutionaries, etc... Don't stick your head in the sand just because the facts don't jibe with your ideology.