Afaik, nobody is forced to use insim.
Wait, what? Sure, S1 was fun, but to me, it was simply too different to compare. If you're seeking the kind of game that we had back then, then maybe you're just not that much into what LFS plans to be about. You cannot really arrive here and say: "well, screw this whole realism thing, let's make this thing entertaining instead!". Do you develop for NFS?
Not everybody can afford to do this for real.
Are you suggesting that any victory in LFS is currently void and nul as the game is not complete? Or even further, that any sentiment of accomplishment whatsoever (define accolade in the context) is flawed? As long as you have something to compare yourself to, and that you can compete against those things (or persons) in a fair context, then I see no reason why you couldn't get this accolade.
Yes, but not everything is programmed at the same time, hence why the game is in development. Exercise some common sense: we know that the goal of LFS is to be a simulation... to be realistic. Do you think Scavier really don't care about, for instance, out laps and such? They probably do, but as Scawen stated himself a lot of times, he works at his pace, and has his priorities. If, when the game is complete, it still isn't realistic enough, then you may have a point.
This specific problem, is, to me, concerning much more the players themselves than the game. The lack of plug and play servers to race on (say, jump in, and do some 5 laps no pressure race with 30 people online) is not due to what the game is, but rather to the fact that such servers have become pretty rare. The game doesn't make it impossible for such servers to exist.
A while ago, I made the experience of changing only the GPU in my system (I think radeon x700 to x1950pro), and it had next to no effect on the frame rates. Then, when I later changed the whole computer, I gained basically an unlimited amount of fps.
Indeed a lot of the pressure is on the CPU because of all the calculations. You probably don't get any extra fps out of a GPU in LFS beyond a certain card in the hierarchy, and that's certainly not a radeon 5000.
Indeed a lot of the pressure is on the CPU because of all the calculations. You probably don't get any extra fps out of a GPU in LFS beyond a certain card in the hierarchy, and that's certainly not a radeon 5000.
Wait, are those originally Vauxhalls or Opels? Or is it the same thing?
As for the Focus, it's always been better in Europe, as in fact most Ford cars. The European division is usually better. Problem is... the cars don't fit the American buyer! So the American buyer would acquire a crappy car that allegedly fits his needs over a good car that allegedly doesn't? Is the American buyer really THAT stupid?
Sad thing in the story is that we up here in Canada basically get what the US gets; we're not big enough of a market to have much weigh in the balance...
GM likes to please people. Problem is, it's impossible to please everybody with the same car. I guess they could sell all their cars under the same brand, but each of them have become, over the years, viewed as "target buyer specific".
They're trying to change this, but to me, the GM brands go (or went) as follow:
GMC: Trucks
Chevy: General Consumer cars (mostly)
Ponctiac: General Consumer cars (mostly)
Buick: Cars for old people
Oldsmobile (just for the purpose of argument): Cars for old people
Cadillac: Cars for old people that are trying to spend their heritage before it's too late
Saab: Buy European!
Opel: Pontiacs!
Holden: Pontiacs!
Saturn: Cars made out of plastic that would have dominated the market, had they had any other arguments than the plastic body
The way I feel about these is probably not the way everybody feels about them, but I am quite sure that a lot of people associate each brands to the people who buy them, like I do. That's a major problem for GM when they're trying to drastically change the way people feel about their cars. Technically, GM would only need two brands, maybe even one. You could argue that having the trucks and the cars as separated entities is reasonable, but beyond that, it's pretty much useless to divide. You don't need a brand for luxury cars, it's just to fool Cadillac consumers into the false feeling that they're buying something else, better than a Chevy. In most cases, it's just a re-branded car. And it's just not the Americans that do this.
Also consider that the American consumer is very attached to those names. People wouldn't let go off Cadillac easy. A lot of people are already sad to see Pontiac get off the boat.
I think Saab should and could have been saved. To me, Saab cars have always been very good looking, but awful to drive (sloppy) and, mostly because of this, not good value.
They're trying to change this, but to me, the GM brands go (or went) as follow:
GMC: Trucks
Chevy: General Consumer cars (mostly)
Ponctiac: General Consumer cars (mostly)
Buick: Cars for old people
Oldsmobile (just for the purpose of argument): Cars for old people
Cadillac: Cars for old people that are trying to spend their heritage before it's too late
Saab: Buy European!
Opel: Pontiacs!
Holden: Pontiacs!
Saturn: Cars made out of plastic that would have dominated the market, had they had any other arguments than the plastic body
The way I feel about these is probably not the way everybody feels about them, but I am quite sure that a lot of people associate each brands to the people who buy them, like I do. That's a major problem for GM when they're trying to drastically change the way people feel about their cars. Technically, GM would only need two brands, maybe even one. You could argue that having the trucks and the cars as separated entities is reasonable, but beyond that, it's pretty much useless to divide. You don't need a brand for luxury cars, it's just to fool Cadillac consumers into the false feeling that they're buying something else, better than a Chevy. In most cases, it's just a re-branded car. And it's just not the Americans that do this.
Also consider that the American consumer is very attached to those names. People wouldn't let go off Cadillac easy. A lot of people are already sad to see Pontiac get off the boat.
I think Saab should and could have been saved. To me, Saab cars have always been very good looking, but awful to drive (sloppy) and, mostly because of this, not good value.
Bad luck, yes, but the likelihood of being hit by said rally car would go to none if people stood maybe just a bit further off the track. In fact, anywhere not directly on the track would be a great start.
As much as I agree that seeing a live rally race from close must be awesome, somebody who gets hit by one gets no sympathy from me. The deer isn't intelligent enough to make the decision to be somewhat careful. The man that chooses not to be careful is responsible for any bad things that may happen to him.
I'm by no means an expert, but I'd assume that for speed bumps to wear your tires so much you'd have to drive over them quite often; as in every day, back and forth from work, no? Besides, wouldn't the front tires be as worn as the rear tires?
Lucky for us we don't have these around here. We only have the normal road wide ones. Only thing is that they seem to be getting steeper and ''squarisher'' with time.
I'm really unsure about those things. The street in front of my house is a stretch of road maybe 600m long. On this, there's a single speed bump, not in the middle by any means. The thing about speed bumps is that they piss off people, and I'd say that once they go over them, some probably hammer down the pedal to make up for the lost time, which defeats the point of slowing down anybody in the first place.
Still is an interesting fact that they are still the best way to actually stop people. Most drivers only slow down at stop signs, but the fear of material damage is enough to slow them down probably even more with speed bumps. Wouldn't it be logical to put them at every stop sign?
Lucky for us we don't have these around here. We only have the normal road wide ones. Only thing is that they seem to be getting steeper and ''squarisher'' with time.
I'm really unsure about those things. The street in front of my house is a stretch of road maybe 600m long. On this, there's a single speed bump, not in the middle by any means. The thing about speed bumps is that they piss off people, and I'd say that once they go over them, some probably hammer down the pedal to make up for the lost time, which defeats the point of slowing down anybody in the first place.
Still is an interesting fact that they are still the best way to actually stop people. Most drivers only slow down at stop signs, but the fear of material damage is enough to slow them down probably even more with speed bumps. Wouldn't it be logical to put them at every stop sign?
Wow, I've looked around for some time, but I just cannot find it. I guess it doesn't exist anymore, and that it wasn't very big when it did exist. Still weird that there is no mention whatsoever on the internet of AIS l'esprit securite...
Actually I've found a post similar to this one, where the guy just didn't find it either, and ended up making the logo from scratch...
Actually I've found a post similar to this one, where the guy just didn't find it either, and ended up making the logo from scratch...
You know, that's exactly what you were talking about. I guess you're doing some kind of experimentation here, but this is what I'd call an irrelevant request. Everything about this thread is flawed, and will get hate from others.
The almost complete and utter lack of any information regarding the actually demand is again either going to get you a lot of interrogation marks, or again, hate. Realize that people spend time skinning; I'm a reasonably good skinner myself, and a good skin can take hours to create, if not days.
I don't think that you'd really have posted this as such as this been your primary account, and I understand that you're trying to prove a point here, but you can't. I believe the same post by an S2 licensed player would get the same response as one posted by a demo player.
edit: actually I've just realized the whole section is a request section, which is IMO not the good term to use. There's definitely some element of imperativeness in the word request o.O
Depends if you mean those things to be included in the licensed version of the game or in the demo. A demo user requesting in any kind of way more content that requires development (like a new car, whereas a setup would be development-free content) is out of his place, as he is not paying for the said development.
If LFS was an open source project, then it would not be a problem, but it is not, and people are living off of it. For them to make a living out of this thing requires people who get new content to pay for it, or at the very least to have paid for future updates in the past.
I think a good part of the problem resides in the fact that demo users are given much more in this game than it is the norm in other demos. Most demos are limited in some kind of way that will make it impossible to progress beyond a certain point, whether it be an amount of time or a specific moment in the game. The fact that you can keep playing LFS for as long as you like is, in itself, a good enough reason not to have to moan about getting more. Demo users should consider themselves lucky they can play with more than one car, and for more than a few mere days/hours.
Now, this is obviously not all demo users who complain, and again not all licensed players who bash on demo users. There's definitely a good amount of generalization in this issue, and well... that's what usually happens.
All in all, it goes both ways; demo users shouldn't demand anything, and licensed players shouldn't bash on demo users simply because they are demo users.
Personally, I've always thought the demo is way too generous, and should be more limited, either in time or content.
Yes, but the fact that licensed users have actually paid for the game makes it more relevant for them to actually demand things. Of course it's not going to happen if it's a ridiculous or inappropriate request. All ideas are valid. A great idea posted by a demo user will get as much good reviews as if it was posted by a licensed player. It's just that you'll always get the immature response of some licensed players who will say: "what do you care, you don't have S2".
Definitely take those comments as what they are: immature and irrelevant. A great idea is a great idea. Furthermore, if a demo user has a good idea that eventually gets into the game, it will push him to buy the game even more.
Actually this is a flawed idea. You can't respect everybody simply for the fact they're a human being. Somebody who endlessly comes up with bad ideas and is annoying as hell doesn't get respect from most people. If somebody comes on this forum and posts only inappropriate comments and is an ass to everybody, should we all respect him for the simple fact that he's of the same species as us? I think not. Respect is acquired and granted.
Now, this is obviously not all demo users who complain, and again not all licensed players who bash on demo users. There's definitely a good amount of generalization in this issue, and well... that's what usually happens.
All in all, it goes both ways; demo users shouldn't demand anything, and licensed players shouldn't bash on demo users simply because they are demo users.
Personally, I've always thought the demo is way too generous, and should be more limited, either in time or content.
Yes, but the fact that licensed users have actually paid for the game makes it more relevant for them to actually demand things. Of course it's not going to happen if it's a ridiculous or inappropriate request. All ideas are valid. A great idea posted by a demo user will get as much good reviews as if it was posted by a licensed player. It's just that you'll always get the immature response of some licensed players who will say: "what do you care, you don't have S2".
Definitely take those comments as what they are: immature and irrelevant. A great idea is a great idea. Furthermore, if a demo user has a good idea that eventually gets into the game, it will push him to buy the game even more.
Actually this is a flawed idea. You can't respect everybody simply for the fact they're a human being. Somebody who endlessly comes up with bad ideas and is annoying as hell doesn't get respect from most people. If somebody comes on this forum and posts only inappropriate comments and is an ass to everybody, should we all respect him for the simple fact that he's of the same species as us? I think not. Respect is acquired and granted.
Last edited by boosterfire, .
""This footage is like the holy grail. This is the first time anything like this has been filmed so clearly."
What? I mean, it's not like we can clearly see some kind of ship, or the alleged buffalo for that matter. What I see is two lights and a gray line, surrounded by film grain.
Also, how hard can it be to film an unmoving bright shape at night? It looks like the guy is having a heart attack behind his camcorder.
Besides, I still don't understand how aliens would have interest in the three things said earlier: abducting cattle, drawing circles in crops and probing red necks. There's only so many cows you have to dissect to understand how the thing works, right? Also, why no interest in anything else than cows? Hmm...
What? I mean, it's not like we can clearly see some kind of ship, or the alleged buffalo for that matter. What I see is two lights and a gray line, surrounded by film grain.
Also, how hard can it be to film an unmoving bright shape at night? It looks like the guy is having a heart attack behind his camcorder.
Besides, I still don't understand how aliens would have interest in the three things said earlier: abducting cattle, drawing circles in crops and probing red necks. There's only so many cows you have to dissect to understand how the thing works, right? Also, why no interest in anything else than cows? Hmm...
I can't say that I disagree with the force used in the video. Apart from a few well placed kicks, it's nothing overly violent. Sure, they do have a rather unusual way to get to you, but it's damn efficient! You wouldn't expect such a thing elsewhere.
The guys in the first cayenne are just so incredibly unlucky. I don't know about Russian plate numbering system, but I assume that the odds of two cars of the same model bearing the same numbers is quite slim (unless the numbering has something to do with the model of the car, which would be quite stupid: "catch that lada with the plate 100 100!).
The guys in the first cayenne are just so incredibly unlucky. I don't know about Russian plate numbering system, but I assume that the odds of two cars of the same model bearing the same numbers is quite slim (unless the numbering has something to do with the model of the car, which would be quite stupid: "catch that lada with the plate 100 100!).
Thing is, though, it shouldn't 'trash like a fish' at all If anything, SF should keep the disk access down to a minimum, assuming that it's doing its job of reorganizing your files for the applications to launch quickly correctly. You should try to turn SF back on now that this asus thing is uninstalled, just to see what happens...
If anything, SF should keep the disk access down to a minimum, assuming that it's doing its job of reorganizing your files for the applications to launch quickly correctly. You should try to turn SF back on now that this asus thing is uninstalled, just to see what happens...Memory requests by any applications will supersede Superfetch, so even if your cache seems used by SF, it's actually still available. Personally I didn't know of SF, but I went to see and it's actually on. I've not yet experienced any major changes in what I had in XP 32bist. I'm running 7 64 bits now. Obviously LFS isn't a good benchmark, as anyway the FPS was already very high, but in other games where it hangs out much lower, I'm not capable of noting any difference.
SF will not slow down your computer, if anything, it'll make it faster. Basically it remembers what files are used in the first seconds of an application's startup (it also does so at boot). From that, it can work out ways to make the application load faster. It will also interact with the defrag to make sure the accessed files are close to each other, which will make them faster to load. Also, what SF does is that it will remember the applications you most commonly use, and load those in the memory. The more memory you have, obviously the better it works. If you have a daily routine of starting up a specific list of applications at a precise time(most people do), it will daily load these into the memory to make them load faster when they are asked for.
Now, SF should not in any way speed up or slow down an application once it's been started up. It is solely used for start up, and has no other purpose there after. Since the newly opened application's requests supersede those of SF, it will not slow down the application. If you're experiencing problems with SF, it's probably not caused by the way SF actually works, but by a bug or trouble it is somehow causing. On that, I do not know, but definitely try to seek more info on abnormal SF slow down.
(btw, all this learned in the last few minutes as I didn't know of SF's existence an hour ago... if I'm somehow mistaken, then I apologize.)
SF will not slow down your computer, if anything, it'll make it faster. Basically it remembers what files are used in the first seconds of an application's startup (it also does so at boot). From that, it can work out ways to make the application load faster. It will also interact with the defrag to make sure the accessed files are close to each other, which will make them faster to load. Also, what SF does is that it will remember the applications you most commonly use, and load those in the memory. The more memory you have, obviously the better it works. If you have a daily routine of starting up a specific list of applications at a precise time(most people do), it will daily load these into the memory to make them load faster when they are asked for.
Now, SF should not in any way speed up or slow down an application once it's been started up. It is solely used for start up, and has no other purpose there after. Since the newly opened application's requests supersede those of SF, it will not slow down the application. If you're experiencing problems with SF, it's probably not caused by the way SF actually works, but by a bug or trouble it is somehow causing. On that, I do not know, but definitely try to seek more info on abnormal SF slow down.
(btw, all this learned in the last few minutes as I didn't know of SF's existence an hour ago... if I'm somehow mistaken, then I apologize.)
Taking the line that doesn't get you flipped is currently indeed the best solution, but it's a fact that these curbs are far from realistic. They don't leave any room for error, or accidents. If a car is hit by another and goes sliding into the curbs, it IS going to flip, which is something that wouldn't ever be allowed IRL. 
Then I guess wondering how it would be like is the next logical step in the process. At first they blatantly refuse it because it's the gov, then they wonder how it would be? Level of intelligence, maybe.
Those that have got healthcare coverage aren't necessarily ready to give up a part of it, or to have to pay more for it, so that those without healthcare coverage can get it too. Unfortunately getting those 50 million or so uninsured people in the States coverage basically means some kind of government run healthcare, which is something a lot of people disagree with. Every time it's brought up, people against it just have to point towards Canada's healthcare system and shout: look how bad it is (it actually is very bad, but I'd rather keep mine than to get USA's). The big question is whether or not it would work in the USA. To know that... well I guess you can't really know until you try it. All I've seen so far about the matter are projections; possible outcomes of what a government run healthcare might be like. I can't get over the impression that nobody really knows how it would be.
Hence why people are raging about this. They have no clue what it would really be like, and they feel like nobody has. Therefore, they don't want things to change.
Hence why people are raging about this. They have no clue what it would really be like, and they feel like nobody has. Therefore, they don't want things to change.
Last edited by boosterfire, .
Wait, the ballad of gay-tony thing is a joke right, it's not real? Good video, but I was still pondering that preview I was shown there. 
Profile thing does seem like a good idea to me, at long as it's reliable.
Profile thing does seem like a good idea to me, at long as it's reliable.
1999 called, they say they want their graphics back.
More seriously, I guess this is in early stage of development? If so, then it'll be interesting to see how it ends up. To me, even if a game had perfect, and I mean really perfect physics, and that kind of graphics, I would get no fun from it.
More seriously, I guess this is in early stage of development? If so, then it'll be interesting to see how it ends up. To me, even if a game had perfect, and I mean really perfect physics, and that kind of graphics, I would get no fun from it.
How much would you pay for Windows 7?
Well, the pricing isn't out yet, but that doesn't stop us from speculating. The momentum behind Windows 7 is far greater than what Vista had at the same point in its development, and that means probably a lot more users will buy Windows 7 when it comes out.
However, Microsoft is still making our lives rather complicated for no reason by giving us a good amount of versions, most of them announced at a rather high price. The version most people will tend to buy, Home Premium, is rumored to go on sell at around 250$, which I personally find a lot. I've recently acquired a computer that would be rather easily capable of running 7 (actually its in a UPS truck somewhere), but after having spent a good amount on my computer, and especially considering a price tag of 250$, I'm not sure I'd be tempted to upgrade to 7 right away.
Yes, the features look promising, and there's no question that it's a huge upgrade from Vista, but if you're an experienced user who doesn't want to be flooded by apps that do your own job of administrator, and that you don't really care for the visual look of 7, what's the point in upgrading? Yes, 7 will probably be faster than Vista, but XP is still faster, and especially for a gamer, upgrading to 7 would seem to be dangerous. Various drivers will probably be updated much faster for 7 than they were for Vista, but it will still take a while for 7 to beat XP's compatibility.
I have read quite a lot of posts of people wishing that Windows would sell its products like OSX is: two versions, one home, one pro, 130$ and 170$ price tags. Makes life simple and easy. With the level of expectancy 7 has, I wouldn't be surprised if Windows would be able to sell more copies of this OS by asking for a rather cheap price, like 120$ for the mainstream version. At this price, I would buy it, and a lot of people who wouldn't have bought it at 250$ would too, I'm sure of this.
I know there are some other threads about 7 out there, but I just wanted to have your opinion on this: will you buy 7? Or, at what offering price would you be ready to buy it?
However, Microsoft is still making our lives rather complicated for no reason by giving us a good amount of versions, most of them announced at a rather high price. The version most people will tend to buy, Home Premium, is rumored to go on sell at around 250$, which I personally find a lot. I've recently acquired a computer that would be rather easily capable of running 7 (actually its in a UPS truck somewhere), but after having spent a good amount on my computer, and especially considering a price tag of 250$, I'm not sure I'd be tempted to upgrade to 7 right away.
Yes, the features look promising, and there's no question that it's a huge upgrade from Vista, but if you're an experienced user who doesn't want to be flooded by apps that do your own job of administrator, and that you don't really care for the visual look of 7, what's the point in upgrading? Yes, 7 will probably be faster than Vista, but XP is still faster, and especially for a gamer, upgrading to 7 would seem to be dangerous. Various drivers will probably be updated much faster for 7 than they were for Vista, but it will still take a while for 7 to beat XP's compatibility.
I have read quite a lot of posts of people wishing that Windows would sell its products like OSX is: two versions, one home, one pro, 130$ and 170$ price tags. Makes life simple and easy. With the level of expectancy 7 has, I wouldn't be surprised if Windows would be able to sell more copies of this OS by asking for a rather cheap price, like 120$ for the mainstream version. At this price, I would buy it, and a lot of people who wouldn't have bought it at 250$ would too, I'm sure of this.
I know there are some other threads about 7 out there, but I just wanted to have your opinion on this: will you buy 7? Or, at what offering price would you be ready to buy it?
Don't forget Mont-Tremblant, the most awesomest track ever!
Trois-Rivieres would probably be too narrow, though.
I think Gilles-Villeneuve and Mont-Tremblant are probably the best choices in Canada, and I don't say that only because they're in my province! I just like the site in Montreal, it's unique
They've repaved Gilles-Villeneuve recently, like a month ago or something. Basically what happens is that the winter kills it every year (although it's not as bad as a proper road as i t doesn't get salt and continual snow plowing), so to be safe it would need to be repaved every year in April or something. Besides, all that bad asphalt was just an excuse Bernie could use to get the GP out. The real problem was that he didn't get as much money as he wanted.
Trois-Rivieres would probably be too narrow, though.
I think Gilles-Villeneuve and Mont-Tremblant are probably the best choices in Canada, and I don't say that only because they're in my province! I just like the site in Montreal, it's unique
They've repaved Gilles-Villeneuve recently, like a month ago or something. Basically what happens is that the winter kills it every year (although it's not as bad as a proper road as i t doesn't get salt and continual snow plowing), so to be safe it would need to be repaved every year in April or something. Besides, all that bad asphalt was just an excuse Bernie could use to get the GP out. The real problem was that he didn't get as much money as he wanted.
Bump
Recent developments on this. Rumors have been going wild in the past months, but nothing was really credible yet.
Bernie Ecclestone and a potential Canada F1 GP promoter, Francois Dumontier, have met regarding a possible of a 2010 Canada F1 GP. A contract has not been signed, but this is a path to the light!
The provisional calendar for the 2010 season is set to be released next Wednesday, so we should have a good idea of the situation then.
Governments have also allegedly agreed to increase their part in this from 50M$ to 75M$.
Sources: CBC, SRC, F1-LIVE
Recent developments on this. Rumors have been going wild in the past months, but nothing was really credible yet.
Bernie Ecclestone and a potential Canada F1 GP promoter, Francois Dumontier, have met regarding a possible of a 2010 Canada F1 GP. A contract has not been signed, but this is a path to the light!
The provisional calendar for the 2010 season is set to be released next Wednesday, so we should have a good idea of the situation then.
Governments have also allegedly agreed to increase their part in this from 50M$ to 75M$.
Sources: CBC, SRC, F1-LIVE
True dat, I understand Kim Jong-Il is pretty extreme, but even he should have the minimum intelligence required to understand that shooting anybody at all (not even with nukes, just with anything) will most likely bring doom to his country. I mean, launch any attack at all and Japan, South Korea and the USA are very likely to retaliate by declaring state of war. USA have said that it would defend South Korea should it be attacked.
It would be indeed interesting to see what would happen if they launched a nuke at somebody and that it was shot down. I wonder what exactly would be the reaction: immediate response to take down the regime? declaration of war and attacks from all sides? Hmm...
Besides, we have to remember that while China isn't really pro North-Korea, they would prefer it to remain in place. China doesn't want a united Korea, which would be the most likely long term outcome of a North-Korea vs. JP/USA/SK war. Such a united Korea would be very damageable to China's prosperity. Right now, North Korea is not threatening to China, and it makes South Korea accordingly weaker.
Furthermore, with sanctions already in place and more being discussed by the UN, I can't really see how Kim Jong-Il expects his people t- oh no hang on, that's right, he doesn't care about his people.
It would be indeed interesting to see what would happen if they launched a nuke at somebody and that it was shot down. I wonder what exactly would be the reaction: immediate response to take down the regime? declaration of war and attacks from all sides? Hmm...
Besides, we have to remember that while China isn't really pro North-Korea, they would prefer it to remain in place. China doesn't want a united Korea, which would be the most likely long term outcome of a North-Korea vs. JP/USA/SK war. Such a united Korea would be very damageable to China's prosperity. Right now, North Korea is not threatening to China, and it makes South Korea accordingly weaker.
Furthermore, with sanctions already in place and more being discussed by the UN, I can't really see how Kim Jong-Il expects his people t- oh no hang on, that's right, he doesn't care about his people.
Last edited by boosterfire, .
I believe it wouldn't be related to a particular program, but rather an hardware trouble. The problem about these things is that they're hard to pin point. I'd tend to say it's the graphic cards, though.
If you have more than one stick of RAM, try removing one of them at a time and booting up the PC to see if it gets better. If you have any spare parts (spare GPU, or even spare video cables) you should try the switch and see if it makes any difference.
The dead pixels and flicker on the screen doesn't remind me of a RAM trouble, though. It's more likely the GPU (which would be dead, or agonizing).
If you have more than one stick of RAM, try removing one of them at a time and booting up the PC to see if it gets better. If you have any spare parts (spare GPU, or even spare video cables) you should try the switch and see if it makes any difference.
The dead pixels and flicker on the screen doesn't remind me of a RAM trouble, though. It's more likely the GPU (which would be dead, or agonizing).
The Judge Baum said he reckons Balsillie would not only have to pay a compensation to the NHL, but also a compensation to the Buffalo and Toronto franchises for the loss of market as well. I say, yes, but since when have Buffalo and Toronto been in any trouble to fill up their arenas? It's like if they tried to put back a team in Quebec City. There aren't that many people willing to drive 2 hours from Quebec City down to Montreal just to see a hockey game. Yes, there are some people, but those who wouldn't do it anymore because they'd have their team in Quebec City would be swiftly replaced by other habs fans. Same thing would happen in Buffalo and Toronto.
I think Bettman has never thought in terms of fan market, but rather in terms of buisness market. This is why he doesn't want teams to go to Hamilton, Quebec City or Winnipeg. While those cities have a the potential to fill up an arena 41 games a year, they might not have the potential to get the required amount of sponsors or corporate lodges. However, Phoenix certainly does have that... it just lacks the fan base.
I don't see, however, how a buisness lacking Hamilton franchise could be less profitable than a 9000 fans per game lacking Phoenix franchise.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG