The lie about his mom singing to baby Gore the "look for the union lable" song
It was a joke. Would make more sense if the press bothered to mention he was speaking to a union at the time........
andio and video of Gore asking who "these guys" are (they were busts of Washington, Jefferson, etc
Like not recognizing a bust and not knowing who "those guys" were are one in the same.....what busts where these, exactly?
This guy just took the "created the internet" (which Gore said, and is in itself a huge exaggeration)
Not really. To borrow someone elses anology, saying the Internet as we know it today was created in the 60's and 70's is like saying Indians started the interstate highway system by clearing brush to make trails. The Internet of the late 90's and today took funding and backing to create, and in that area Gore helped more than any other government official (as another poster pointed out, even Gengrich grugingly gives him kudos). Gore didn't invent tcp/ip or DNS, but he did help create the net we are currently squabbling over.
It's just a liberal reporter frustrated that his candidate doesn't have as much support as he would like, so he tried to find a scapegoat.
You would be frustrated too if the media picked apart every Bush statement for the merest factual flaw but allowed Gore escape the greatest mistatements unscathed, except for the "Gore line of the day" on Jay Leno.
the "I didn't know it was a buddist temple" line
The one actual Gore fuckup out of the whole list. The GOP and the media should go look for some more instead of pulling all kinds of crap out of their asses.
The rating system wasn't intended to be used to agree or disagree with content, but rather to indicate whether a post would generate discussion and debate.
Lets look at his post:
He denounces the linked article as "misguided propoganda" but neglects to provide any evidence that its anything of the kind.
Flames Taco.
Flames Gore for being firmly pro choice, when he might not have always been so. Long as we're being equal here, Bush is a waffler for no longer being a drunk 40 year old frat boy.
Takes an abrubt right turn and blames Clinton for lowering the moral of the military, although he does agknowlege that Congress lent a hand in downsizing it.
Says the president has little impact on the economy.
Now, how is this insightful or informative enough to be worthy of a Score 5, the highest rating a post can achieve on Slashdot?
Geez. So you were subjected to a dissenting opinion. Get over it. And do try to not be a total asshole when you respond to content you don't agree with - it just makes you look ignorant. But if you *are* ignorant, then by all means carry on...
Just how, exactly, was I being either an asshole or ignorant? If I wanted to throw in a few cheap shots, I could have pointed out that there are 10,000 fewer soldiers on food stamps now than there were under the previous president and secretary of defense.
Not that I care, since you are a lamer who flames as an AC.
As does Gore, but they both HAVE put forth some specific plans.
At least Gore can explain his......
Were you watching the same debate? Gore was just as vague, if not more as Bush on this.
That was just *one* issue.....Bush was vauge on *everything*. And aside from this debate, Gore's positions on gay rights are well known; unions but not marriage, openly gay people allowed into the millitary,etc. Bush's responces have generally been a variation of "well, *I* don't distcriminate against anybody." Well, thats wonderful, but what if you aren't working for Bush if he becomes president?
I certainly don't remember hearing anyone whimper. But if we are going to get into childish, immature sounds while debating, I don't think you want to be defending mr *audible forced sigh* Gore.
Funny, I didn't hear any sighs until TV shows increased the volume on the clips by about 500%.
Oh, Gore can be a supremely arrogant prick, but an intelligent arrogant prick has better chances of being a good president than a guy who can't explain his own tax plan or familiarize himself with the state of affairs in Yugoslavia given a couple weeks notice and a running mate like Cheney.
So, how is your post any more relevant today than it was yesterday? Here was Phree'sresponce:
The fact that Philip didn't mention Quayle or Hoover in THIS ONE PARTICULAR ARTICLE has absolutely, utterly, precisely NO bearing on THIS ARTICLE'S accuracy, poignancy, or relevance. He also didn't mention that Josef Stalin murdered millions of Russians; does that mean this article can't be taken seriously? Give me a break.
Basically, if I understand correctly, Darpa created computer networking on a widescale. Sure, it wasn't called the "internet" then, but still, they accomplished something important.
An internet is made up of two or more networks connected to eachother. I can dial up a computer at a friends house, and my 4 networked computers connected to his 3 networked computers is an internet.
To borrow someone else's anology, saying the Internet as we know it today was created in the 60's is like saying Indians started todays interstate highway system by clearing some brush for trails.
The Internet as we know it today took funding and backing by the government, and Al Gore had a larger hand in this than any other public official (as another someone mentioned, even Gengrich gave Gore kudos for his role). So in a very real sense, Gore *did* help create the Internet of the late 90's and today.
The point of the article was to point out that much of the Gore lies/exaggerations are basically urban legends. If you have proof that a clone of Bush is running around with verbal dyslexia, and the real Bush is actually a verbose philosopher, lets have it.
It only included a subset of the "lies" that Gore is claimed to have made.
So what other terrible lies are there. Common, lets have em.
Of course Gore didn't say he came up with the idea of the internet, or actually created it himself. But equally obviously, he worded his phrase to make it seem as if his contribution was much greater than it actually was.
I don't know, his role was pretty damned big. It took more than tcp/ip and gateways to make the Internet, it took stuff like funds and backing, which Gore provided.
Let's see here. Rick Lazio gets smeared by the media when he "encrouched into Mrs. Clinton's personal space". Yet when Gore charges Bush in the 3rd debate, nothing is mentioned in the press!
Actually it was mentioned many times. My theory on why it wasn't a big deal: this was a town hall setting, where both speakers were free to walk around, while the Lazio/Clinton thing happened with podiums. That, and gender did play a big role....if it had been Elizabeth Dole instead of Lazio, it would have been a footnote in the news.
(Bush by the way did a GREAT job blowing Gore's advances off).
The hell he did. All Bush proved is that he would rather do anything than answer a straight question if its the least bit sticky. Look at the first debate...when he was pressed for a straight answer on the abortion pill, he whimpered. Gore, like any other politician, does this once in a while....but not *all the time*.
Next, Bush is slammed by the media for "coccaine use" charges. Did they have an ounce (or gram) of evidence? Not one bit! Meanwhile, they all chucked over Bill Clinton's "I never inhaled" blatant lie. So, is the media biased towards liberals? Are you convinced yet?
Both Clinton and Bush gave flakey answers to drug questions, and both were made fun of in the press and the butt of late night jokes. So, just how is the media biased again?
How about the fact that the AP wire talked about Gore's lead in the polls everyday when Gore was ahead. What happened when Bush was ahead? The AP only talked about how Gore was leading in California and New York. Is the AP hoping that if people don't hear the Bush is in the lead, they will believe the AP's spin?
You must have missed the long (year and a half) period when the media coddled Bush, always referring to him as the front runner and casting a general air of inevibility about his election.
Your "biased liberal media" spend the first two years of Clinton's presidency eviscerating him for waffeling and not being able to get anything done. Then they spent another two years crucifing him over Monica. You should love the media.
95% of the time he talks in vauge, feel good generalities and will avoid specifics at all costs. Does he support the SC's version of affirmitive action or not, does he support gay rights or not. Christ, he whimpered in the first debate when pressed on the issue of the abortion pill.
Gore was a tabacco farmer, and presumably knew many other farmers. Even if he decided that smoking was bad and the cigarette companies are evil, he might have voted for tobacco subsidies to support the agricultural side of the industry.
I'm not trying to rationlize it (I don't know what his votes were on, do you?), just pointing out that raising the crop was part of his life and farmers probably made up a large chunk of his constituency.
He didn't say he created the internet (as if he were the only one responsible), he said he took the initiative in creating the Internet, which was a group effort.
The Romans could have invented a system of gateways, dns's and tcp/ip two thousand years ago, but that doesn't change the fact that the Internet as we know it today took funding, and backing - two things that Al Gore provided.
Did you even read the article? You're a conservative, thats great, if you hate Gore's guts, thats also great.
BUT YOU TOTALLY MISED THE POINT! And the point is that the media and rebublicans have taken statements made by Gore (not even mistatments, most of the time) and turned them into urban legends.
As for the rest of your OT rant.....
I'm a Gulf War veteran and a former naval officer. I left service BECAUSE of the downsizing of the military under Clinton's watch and the subsequent demoralizatoin.
Duh, of course the military should be downsized! We were prepared to fight World War 3 with the USSR, and were in a constant race to have a better military than they did. Now that thats not an issue any more (even if hard line communists regain control in Russia, their military is but a shadow of what it once was) there's no point in spending that much money on it. Fucking Clinton, its all his fault that we aren't in an arms race anymore.
That mid life crisis in the armed forces is a large cause for low moral; instead of being prepared to fight a drawn out, major theater war in Europe, they now focus more on responding quickly to smaller conflicts. And of course, the scandals didn't help moral either - Tailhook, the Admiral (can't remember his name off the bat) who commited suicide rather than be court martialed for wearing medals he didn't earn.
Gore IS NOT "pro-choice". In the past, he has said otherwise. He just changes his views depending upon whatever the populists say he should represent).
What, he's not allowed to change an opinion in a quarter of a century? If he was really pandering for votes, he would be far more cautious about it...he could just tip toe around the issue without giving a strait, like some canidated he debated a couple of nights ago.
I'm not a big Gore fan...I think he's a big, arrogant dick more often than not, but at least he can tell his ass from his elbow.
Personally, I'm sorry McCain still isn't in the running.
It ain't assasination if the target shoots himself and you stand there and point it out. -Jimmie
But Gore hasn't done that yet, or at least if he has, it hasn't been made well known. Creating the Internet, the love story, Love Canal, the girl in the classroom....they've all been debunked.
That there is a correlation between my access to my firearm and my child's was exactly my point, but you took it in the opposite way as it was intended. I see it as "a gun lock may keep my child from having an accident, but it also prevents my from defending myself", you took it as "an unlocked firearm may allow you to defend yourself, but your kid might kill himself with it".
Just because you read to much into things doesn't mean that I do.:-) I was just making the simple point that fast and easy access for you also means fast and easy access for a snooper.
Which brings me back to what I said about firearms education for your children. I was how to shoot and properly handle rifles and pistols when I was seven years old, and got my first gun for xmas when I was 12. Needless to say, I've never killed anyone or accidentally discharged a firearm in any way. I was smart enough to never say to my friends, "I know where daddy keeps his guns!", because I knew that guns were tools and not toys.
Good for you, but this is just an anecdote, and I had enough of those during the first Pres debate.;)
You also *presume* that gun locks actually do reduce accidents, which is far from proven. I was a smart kid, and you probably were too. If knowing it was wrong didn't stop you or I, we could have gotten the locks off those guns no question about it, and we would have had the same chance of accidentally discharging the supposedly "safely stored" weapon. No accident prevented.
Sure, but the same thing could be said if you dissassebled your gun and locked the different parts and ammunition in secret safes spread throughout your house. The point isn't that a gun lock is foolproof, its to make it more difficult to fire the thing accidentatly.
Regardless of that, my firearm is my property, and I have an absolute right to use it in any way that is not an INITIATION of force. Simply storing it a certain way is not a willful act of force, and thus cannot be legitimately prohibited. (also note that using it in self-defense is RETALIATORY force, which is not only a right, but considered by many to be a duty.
What, no rant about the Second Amendment or about liberals pushing you onto a slippery slope? What kind of self respecting gun advocate are you?
Yes I'm a democrat and yes I favor some gun control, but if you wanna quibble some more I wont be able to get back to you for a few days, as I'm going hunting with my dad this weekend.
Little defensive, aren't you? If there's any hypocrisy here, its from the senator, not Jaime.
Face it: kids die every year in gun accidents at home, and thats not likely to change. The faster and more easily a parent can get access to a gun, the more easily a snooping 4 year old will find it and shoot his brains out. Now, name a single person who has died from a computer game.......
We don't even know if Jamie is in favor of gun control or not; he was just pointing out the inconsistency between voting against gun locks which would help reduce accidents (and actual deaths) but railing against video games that have never hurt anyone.
The Linux option's useful if you're using software that you've the source to. Most of the applications out there for Linux are Intel only
How so......most Linux apps are open source, and if you can't find any precompiled binaries for your distro, you can always download source and compile.
What I'd love to see is a true role playing game using all this 3d technology based on the original Star Trek or NG. Surely all the stories and plotlines in those series are enough for a decent roleplayinggame.
Why, so we can have a bland Star Trek meets Diablo game?
Bought Deus Ex and have a GeForce 2? Gotta wait for the patch. Same goes for many games. I want NVidia to get this right, but they're obviously focusing elsewhere.
Nothing's wrong with the Geforce 2 or its drivers, the problem is with the game. Deus Ex is based on the Unreal engine, which is glide-centric and was glide-only when it first came out.
Try playing Dues Ex on a Voodoo under Direct3d or OpenGL and you'd have the same problems.
The game that I bought with it, which I was assured would work with the game, only worked after about three patches. Even then it crashed when the real high level graphics had to be loaded.
If its a bad game its a bad game, the card you're using can't fix bugs in the program. Sin will crash wether you're running a Voodoo card or one from nVidia.
The Voodoo 3 may not have all the features of the TNT2, but at least I can be sure that it will run most of the software that I have without hassle. That is also why 3dfx can continue along with inferior technology...because it is compatable.
The only "compatibility" that the Voodoo has over the TNT2 is glide, which is dying. Even 3dfx have admitted so, and will concentrate on Direct3d and OpenGL, which all games are now designed around anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of them are true
Most of them are based in truth.
The lie about his mom singing to baby Gore the "look for the union lable" song
It was a joke. Would make more sense if the press bothered to mention he was speaking to a union at the time........
andio and video of Gore asking who "these guys" are (they were busts of Washington, Jefferson, etc
Like not recognizing a bust and not knowing who "those guys" were are one in the same.....what busts where these, exactly?
This guy just took the "created the internet" (which Gore said, and is in itself a huge exaggeration)
Not really. To borrow someone elses anology, saying the Internet as we know it today was created in the 60's and 70's is like saying Indians started the interstate highway system by clearing brush to make trails. The Internet of the late 90's and today took funding and backing to create, and in that area Gore helped more than any other government official (as another poster pointed out, even Gengrich grugingly gives him kudos). Gore didn't invent tcp/ip or DNS, but he did help create the net we are currently squabbling over.
It's just a liberal reporter frustrated that his candidate doesn't have as much support as he would like, so he tried to find a scapegoat.
You would be frustrated too if the media picked apart every Bush statement for the merest factual flaw but allowed Gore escape the greatest mistatements unscathed, except for the "Gore line of the day" on Jay Leno.
the "I didn't know it was a buddist temple" line
The one actual Gore fuckup out of the whole list. The GOP and the media should go look for some more instead of pulling all kinds of crap out of their asses.
Lets look at his post:
Now, how is this insightful or informative enough to be worthy of a Score 5, the highest rating a post can achieve on Slashdot?
Geez. So you were subjected to a dissenting opinion. Get over it. And do try to not be a total asshole when you respond to content you don't agree with - it just makes you look ignorant. But if you *are* ignorant, then by all means carry on...
Just how, exactly, was I being either an asshole or ignorant? If I wanted to throw in a few cheap shots, I could have pointed out that there are 10,000 fewer soldiers on food stamps now than there were under the previous president and secretary of defense.
Not that I care, since you are a lamer who flames as an AC.
As does Gore, but they both HAVE put forth some specific plans.
At least Gore can explain his......
Were you watching the same debate? Gore was just as vague, if not more as Bush on this.
That was just *one* issue.....Bush was vauge on *everything*. And aside from this debate, Gore's positions on gay rights are well known; unions but not marriage, openly gay people allowed into the millitary,etc. Bush's responces have generally been a variation of "well, *I* don't distcriminate against anybody." Well, thats wonderful, but what if you aren't working for Bush if he becomes president?
I certainly don't remember hearing anyone whimper. But if we are going to get into childish, immature sounds while debating, I don't think you want to be defending mr *audible forced sigh* Gore.
Funny, I didn't hear any sighs until TV shows increased the volume on the clips by about 500%.
Oh, Gore can be a supremely arrogant prick, but an intelligent arrogant prick has better chances of being a good president than a guy who can't explain his own tax plan or familiarize himself with the state of affairs in Yugoslavia given a couple weeks notice and a running mate like Cheney.
McCain, please run again in 2004.
So, how is your post any more relevant today than it was yesterday? Here was Phree's responce:
The fact that Philip didn't mention Quayle or Hoover in THIS ONE PARTICULAR ARTICLE has absolutely, utterly, precisely NO bearing on THIS ARTICLE'S accuracy, poignancy, or relevance. He also didn't mention that Josef Stalin murdered millions of Russians; does that mean this article can't be taken seriously? Give me a break.
Basically, if I understand correctly, Darpa created computer networking on a widescale. Sure, it wasn't called the "internet" then, but still, they accomplished something important.
An internet is made up of two or more networks connected to eachother. I can dial up a computer at a friends house, and my 4 networked computers connected to his 3 networked computers is an internet.
To borrow someone else's anology, saying the Internet as we know it today was created in the 60's is like saying Indians started todays interstate highway system by clearing some brush for trails.
The Internet as we know it today took funding and backing by the government, and Al Gore had a larger hand in this than any other public official (as another someone mentioned, even Gengrich gave Gore kudos for his role). So in a very real sense, Gore *did* help create the Internet of the late 90's and today.
The point of the article was to point out that much of the Gore lies/exaggerations are basically urban legends. If you have proof that a clone of Bush is running around with verbal dyslexia, and the real Bush is actually a verbose philosopher, lets have it.
It only included a subset of the "lies" that Gore is claimed to have made.
So what other terrible lies are there. Common, lets have em.
Of course Gore didn't say he came up with the idea of the internet, or actually created it himself. But equally obviously, he worded his phrase to make it seem as if his contribution was much greater than it actually was.
I don't know, his role was pretty damned big. It took more than tcp/ip and gateways to make the Internet, it took stuff like funds and backing, which Gore provided.
Let's see here. Rick Lazio gets smeared by the media when he "encrouched into Mrs. Clinton's personal space". Yet when Gore charges Bush in the 3rd debate, nothing is mentioned in the press!
Actually it was mentioned many times. My theory on why it wasn't a big deal: this was a town hall setting, where both speakers were free to walk around, while the Lazio/Clinton thing happened with podiums. That, and gender did play a big role....if it had been Elizabeth Dole instead of Lazio, it would have been a footnote in the news.
(Bush by the way did a GREAT job blowing Gore's advances off).
The hell he did. All Bush proved is that he would rather do anything than answer a straight question if its the least bit sticky. Look at the first debate...when he was pressed for a straight answer on the abortion pill, he whimpered. Gore, like any other politician, does this once in a while....but not *all the time*.
Next, Bush is slammed by the media for "coccaine use" charges. Did they have an ounce (or gram) of evidence? Not one bit! Meanwhile, they all chucked over Bill Clinton's "I never inhaled" blatant lie. So, is the media biased towards liberals? Are you convinced yet?
Both Clinton and Bush gave flakey answers to drug questions, and both were made fun of in the press and the butt of late night jokes. So, just how is the media biased again?
How about the fact that the AP wire talked about Gore's lead in the polls everyday when Gore was ahead. What happened when Bush was ahead? The AP only talked about how Gore was leading in California and New York. Is the AP hoping that if people don't hear the Bush is in the lead, they will believe the AP's spin?
You must have missed the long (year and a half) period when the media coddled Bush, always referring to him as the front runner and casting a general air of inevibility about his election.
Your "biased liberal media" spend the first two years of Clinton's presidency eviscerating him for waffeling and not being able to get anything done. Then they spent another two years crucifing him over Monica. You should love the media.
95% of the time he talks in vauge, feel good generalities and will avoid specifics at all costs. Does he support the SC's version of affirmitive action or not, does he support gay rights or not. Christ, he whimpered in the first debate when pressed on the issue of the abortion pill.
Gore was a tabacco farmer, and presumably knew many other farmers. Even if he decided that smoking was bad and the cigarette companies are evil, he might have voted for tobacco subsidies to support the agricultural side of the industry.
I'm not trying to rationlize it (I don't know what his votes were on, do you?), just pointing out that raising the crop was part of his life and farmers probably made up a large chunk of his constituency.
He didn't say he created the internet (as if he were the only one responsible), he said he took the initiative in creating the Internet, which was a group effort.
The Romans could have invented a system of gateways, dns's and tcp/ip two thousand years ago, but that doesn't change the fact that the Internet as we know it today took funding, and backing - two things that Al Gore provided.
Did you even read the article? You're a conservative, thats great, if you hate Gore's guts, thats also great.
BUT YOU TOTALLY MISED THE POINT! And the point is that the media and rebublicans have taken statements made by Gore (not even mistatments, most of the time) and turned them into urban legends.
As for the rest of your OT rant.....
I'm a Gulf War veteran and a former naval officer. I left service BECAUSE of the downsizing of the military under Clinton's watch and the subsequent demoralizatoin.
Duh, of course the military should be downsized! We were prepared to fight World War 3 with the USSR, and were in a constant race to have a better military than they did. Now that thats not an issue any more (even if hard line communists regain control in Russia, their military is but a shadow of what it once was) there's no point in spending that much money on it. Fucking Clinton, its all his fault that we aren't in an arms race anymore.
That mid life crisis in the armed forces is a large cause for low moral; instead of being prepared to fight a drawn out, major theater war in Europe, they now focus more on responding quickly to smaller conflicts. And of course, the scandals didn't help moral either - Tailhook, the Admiral (can't remember his name off the bat) who commited suicide rather than be court martialed for wearing medals he didn't earn.
Gore IS NOT "pro-choice". In the past, he has said otherwise. He just changes his views depending upon whatever the populists say he should represent).
What, he's not allowed to change an opinion in a quarter of a century? If he was really pandering for votes, he would be far more cautious about it...he could just tip toe around the issue without giving a strait, like some canidated he debated a couple of nights ago.
I'm not a big Gore fan...I think he's a big, arrogant dick more often than not, but at least he can tell his ass from his elbow.
Personally, I'm sorry McCain still isn't in the running.
It ain't assasination if the target shoots himself and you stand there and point it out. -Jimmie
But Gore hasn't done that yet, or at least if he has, it hasn't been made well known. Creating the Internet, the love story, Love Canal, the girl in the classroom....they've all been debunked.
This is the second shill article posted to /. in the last few days.
Live with it.
This is IMHO unacceptable.
Download Slash and start your own weblog then.
If you're going to link to pro-democratic rants
How is pointing out the truth pro-democratic or a rant?
then at least complement it with a pro-conservative one.
If there is an article on how, despite his verbal dyslexia, Bush is a quiet philosopher, then get off your ass and submit it like Taco asked.
Gore can not claim (with any level of truthfullness) that he was even there during the beginning.
As he never said anything of the kind, whats the problem?
Of course you're going to see a big difference when you compare four year old tech (the V2) to todays best (the GF2).
While you're at it, why don't you compare a 900 mhz Athalon to a Pentium Pro.
That there is a correlation between my access to my firearm and my child's was exactly my point, but you took it in the opposite way as it was intended. I see it as "a gun lock may keep my child from having an accident, but it also prevents my from defending myself", you took it as "an unlocked firearm may allow you to defend yourself, but your kid might kill himself with it".
:-) I was just making the simple point that fast and easy access for you also means fast and easy access for a snooper.
;)
Just because you read to much into things doesn't mean that I do.
Which brings me back to what I said about firearms education for your children. I was how to shoot and properly handle rifles and pistols when I was seven years old, and got my first gun for xmas when I was 12. Needless to say, I've never killed anyone or accidentally discharged a firearm in any way. I was smart enough to never say to my friends, "I know where daddy keeps his guns!", because I knew that guns were tools and not toys.
Good for you, but this is just an anecdote, and I had enough of those during the first Pres debate.
You also *presume* that gun locks actually do reduce accidents, which is far from proven. I was a smart kid, and you probably were too. If knowing it was wrong didn't stop you or I, we could have gotten the locks off those guns no question about it, and we would have had the same chance of accidentally discharging the supposedly "safely stored" weapon. No accident prevented.
Sure, but the same thing could be said if you dissassebled your gun and locked the different parts and ammunition in secret safes spread throughout your house. The point isn't that a gun lock is foolproof, its to make it more difficult to fire the thing accidentatly.
Regardless of that, my firearm is my property, and I have an absolute right to use it in any way that is not an INITIATION of force. Simply storing it a certain way is not a willful act of force, and thus cannot be legitimately prohibited. (also note that using it in self-defense is RETALIATORY force, which is not only a right, but considered by many to be a duty.
What, no rant about the Second Amendment or about liberals pushing you onto a slippery slope? What kind of self respecting gun advocate are you?
Yes I'm a democrat and yes I favor some gun control, but if you wanna quibble some more I wont be able to get back to you for a few days, as I'm going hunting with my dad this weekend.
Little defensive, aren't you? If there's any hypocrisy here, its from the senator, not Jaime.
Face it: kids die every year in gun accidents at home, and thats not likely to change. The faster and more easily a parent can get access to a gun, the more easily a snooping 4 year old will find it and shoot his brains out. Now, name a single person who has died from a computer game.......
We don't even know if Jamie is in favor of gun control or not; he was just pointing out the inconsistency between voting against gun locks which would help reduce accidents (and actual deaths) but railing against video games that have never hurt anyone.
The Linux option's useful if you're using software that you've the source to. Most of the applications out there for Linux are Intel only
How so......most Linux apps are open source, and if you can't find any precompiled binaries for your distro, you can always download source and compile.
I just hope they were able to get to use some of the 3D models (even if it was scaled down low poly) from the series.
According to the Firingsquad review, Seven of Nine at least is rendered nicely. *cough*
What a surprise another Star Trek meets Quake.
What I'd love to see is a true role playing game using all this 3d technology based on the original Star Trek or NG. Surely all the stories and plotlines in those series are enough for a decent roleplayinggame.
Why, so we can have a bland Star Trek meets Diablo game?
Unfortunately BeOS has a flawed kernel that prevents real world industrial strength apps from being ported to it.
Thats irrelevant to his post or this story. He was talking about the BFS, not BeOS in general.
With the Detonator 3 drivers, I get 62 fps in Quake 3 at fastest settings at 640x480. If I crank it up to high quality I only lose 7 fps.
And this is on a 450 celeron with a TNT2 Ultra.
Bought Deus Ex and have a GeForce 2? Gotta wait for the patch. Same goes for many games. I want NVidia to get this right, but they're obviously focusing elsewhere.
Nothing's wrong with the Geforce 2 or its drivers, the problem is with the game. Deus Ex is based on the Unreal engine, which is glide-centric and was glide-only when it first came out.
Try playing Dues Ex on a Voodoo under Direct3d or OpenGL and you'd have the same problems.
The game that I bought with it, which I was assured would work with the game, only worked after about three patches. Even then it crashed when the real high level graphics had to be loaded.
If its a bad game its a bad game, the card you're using can't fix bugs in the program. Sin will crash wether you're running a Voodoo card or one from nVidia.
The Voodoo 3 may not have all the features of the TNT2, but at least I can be sure that it will run most of the software that I have without hassle. That is also why 3dfx can continue along with inferior technology...because it is compatable.
The only "compatibility" that the Voodoo has over the TNT2 is glide, which is dying. Even 3dfx have admitted so, and will concentrate on Direct3d and OpenGL, which all games are now designed around anyway.