Stackbabbin' Bumscags

Oh yes, "just move to another state"! It's just a "hassle"!
For many people - myself included - moving that far is impossible for one reason or another, primarily money. I mean, at this point all you're saying is "Well, if that's what happens then too bad, it's what The Free Market wants." This could literally leave whole swaths of people with no internet in the likely event that ISPs decide to do what they've done in the past. Just because some people would still have it doesn't excuse the fact that there'd still be people without. "Well, wouldn't you rather have some people be without instead of everyone being without?" Fuck no, I'd rather that nobody be without without their own choice in the matter, and this is taking the choice out of the people's hands. Corporations should not have that much control over something that has become a pillar of the nation's - and global - society. We don't need ISPs deciding they want to create their own "soft" versions of the Great Firewall of China to gate you into content that's only Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/Dish/etc. Approved - Purchase a two-week pass for just $14.99 and get faster speeds!
Dear god, no!
We're already having to deal with the consequences of having so many different sets of laws and regulations - the easiest examples are the wildly varying minimum wages, education standards, and gun laws - we don't need to add more hammers to the cracking foundations! We don't need more individual sets of laws and regulations, we don't need to add NN to the list of state-by-state variances! The "freedom of choice to live where you want" is not so free, Caveson, you cannot honestly expect people to just pack up and move out because of some of the things you just listed about yourself moving. What about those who can't move? Are they supposed to just suffer in silence until they can oust everyone responsible for preventing NN from being established in their state? That would take years, maybe even decades! You can't boycott the major ISPs, you'll find yourself out of options, the smaller ISPs either can't deliver the same kind of service, or get indirectly shut down by the well-established giants and life gets more difficult if you can't get internet in some fashion.

I'll say it again. Corporations should not have that much power over something that's become a pillar of today's society.

Oh yes, "just move to another state"! It's just a "hassle"!
For many people - myself included - moving that far is impossible for one reason or another, primarily money. I mean, at this point all you're saying is "Well, if that's what happens then too bad, it's what The Free Market wants." This could literally leave whole swaths of people with no internet in the likely event that ISPs decide to do what they've done in the past. Just because some people would still have it doesn't excuse the fact that there'd still be people without. "Well, wouldn't you rather have some people be without instead of everyone being without?" Fuck no, I'd rather that nobody be without without their own choice in the matter, and this is taking the choice out of the people's hands. Corporations should not have that much control over something that has become a pillar of the nation's - and global - society. We don't need ISPs deciding they want to create their own "soft" versions of the Great Firewall of China to gate you into content that's only Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/Dish/etc. Approved - Purchase a two-week pass for just $14.99 and get faster speeds!
Dear god, no!
We're already having to deal with the consequences of having so many different sets of laws and regulations - the easiest examples are the wildly varying minimum wages, education standards, and gun laws - we don't need to add more hammers to the cracking foundations! We don't need more individual sets of laws and regulations, we don't need to add NN to the list of state-by-state variances! The "freedom of choice to live where you want" is not so free, Caveson, you cannot honestly expect people to just pack up and move out because of some of the things you just listed about yourself moving. What about those who can't move? Are they supposed to just suffer in silence until they can oust everyone responsible for preventing NN from being established in their state? That would take years, maybe even decades! You can't boycott the major ISPs, you'll find yourself out of options, the smaller ISPs either can't deliver the same kind of service, or get indirectly shut down by the well-established giants and life gets more difficult if you can't get internet in some fashion.

I'll say it again. Corporations should not have that much power over something that's become a pillar of today's society.

I only wanted to add that they can only if you get your internet from their Google Fiber service - which is only out in a few highly populated areas - but otherwise, I pretty much agree with this.

While Amazon, Netflix, and co.'s reasons may not necessarily be altruistic in nature - I don't know how they think, maybe it is for all we know - we've already seen ISPs do things against sites/services they don't like or that potentially cuts into their bottom line. 
- Verizon blocked text messages from pro-choice group NARAL, calling them controversial.
- AT&T limited its use of FaceTime to incentivize people to get more expensive data plans.
- AT&T apparently censored a portion of a live-stream of Pearl Jam's Lollapalooza set that contained criticisms of then-president Bush. 
- Comcast blocked BitTorrent, which was ruled illegal by the FCC at the time - now Ajit Pai says it wasn't a big deal
And there's still more!
And this is just some of the shit we know about, there could be many more instances that haven't been published yet.

Trying to compare ISPs to content producers and providers is stupid.
On the one hand, you have companies whose primary service is to sell you connectivity. They sell you access to the internet through their infrastructure.
On the other hand, you have companies who create content or provide services - shows, streaming, social media, online marketplaces, webcomics, art, games, etc. -  that are delivered to you through the internet.

While I won't discount that the potential for reduced revenue, lower sales/usage, and not having to pay out for "priority" or for higher bandwidth caps is a large driving factor in content providers' push to keep net neutrality, that's a pill I'm willing to swallow compared to letting our ISPs have the power to control what we see and do online. If our market for ISPs wasn't so monopolistic - with most places having only one or two, maybe three, ISPs to choose from - it might not be so bad, there would be some potential for The Free Market™ to finally do something useful. But we don't. So it won't.

The internet is a necessity at this point, even if you're just connected through your phone carrier's mobile network. We need to have some kind of protections in place to keep consumers safe from the predatory practices of the companies that control our ability to access the internet. Full stop. We are far beyond the ability of The Free Market™ to do anything useful in regards to ISPs, the only thing we have left is government regulation.

I only wanted to add that they can only if you get your internet from their Google Fiber service - which is only out in a few highly populated areas - but otherwise, I pretty much agree with this.

While Amazon, Netflix, and co.'s reasons may not necessarily be altruistic in nature - I don't know how they think, maybe it is for all we know - we've already seen ISPs do things against sites/services they don't like or that potentially cuts into their bottom line. 
- Verizon blocked text messages from pro-choice group NARAL, calling them controversial.
- AT&T limited its use of FaceTime to incentivize people to get more expensive data plans.
- AT&T apparently censored a portion of a live-stream of Pearl Jam's Lollapalooza set that contained criticisms of then-president Bush. 
- Comcast blocked BitTorrent, which was ruled illegal by the FCC at the time - now Ajit Pai says it wasn't a big deal
And there's still more!
And this is just some of the shit we know about, there could be many more instances that haven't been published yet.

Trying to compare ISPs to content producers and providers is stupid.
On the one hand, you have companies whose primary service is to sell you connectivity. They sell you access to the internet through their infrastructure.
On the other hand, you have companies who create content or provide services - shows, streaming, social media, online marketplaces, webcomics, art, games, etc. -  that are delivered to you through the internet.

While I won't discount that the potential for reduced revenue, lower sales/usage, and not having to pay out for "priority" or for higher bandwidth caps is a large driving factor in content providers' push to keep net neutrality, that's a pill I'm willing to swallow compared to letting our ISPs have the power to control what we see and do online. If our market for ISPs wasn't so monopolistic - with most places having only one or two, maybe three, ISPs to choose from - it might not be so bad, there would be some potential for The Free Market™ to finally do something useful. But we don't. So it won't.

The internet is a necessity at this point, even if you're just connected through your phone carrier's mobile network. We need to have some kind of protections in place to keep consumers safe from the predatory practices of the companies that control our ability to access the internet. Full stop. We are far beyond the ability of The Free Market™ to do anything useful in regards to ISPs, the only thing we have left is government regulation.

Yeah, gigantic profit-hungry corporations rule the world. Big whoop.
 
The difference is, if the gigantic, profit-hungry ISPs aren't beholden to Net Neutrality rules, they can completely control what you see, hear, and do on the net. They could, for example, bar access to news and social media sites that promote views they don't like. Netflix and Amazon don't have that kind of power over anything outside their own sites and services.
 
(You could argue Google has way too much power over what you see, but at least they can't prevent you from visiting any particular sites)

I don't buy into this one sodding bit.
It's not about being able to produce content and "support", it's just a way for them to make extra cash off of people instead of putting out actual content that people would be willing to pay for. Consumers have shown publishers it's much easier and simpler to just create a micro-transaction or lootbox centered system than it is to create content that gives people a tangible reason to give them their money that isn't "You'll get this thing now instead of in an indeterminate number of hours!" Not only are they getting your $40-$100 - depending on the publisher and what fancy version you buy - they're also getting a few extra dollars here and there from some players, and making double, triple and much more off of others - the so-called "whales". With the amount of money they're drowning in from shit like this, of course they can squeeze out an extra map or two every so often. They could instead spend time to create something that actually adds more to the game to also draw in new buyers. Instead, we're saddled with AAA pricing with an extra monetization scheme in which consumers throw money at publishers to not play the game in some cases, and in others, to unlock content that is otherwise inaccessible for no good reason, and incentivizes the creation of new content just to lock away in loot boxes and/or force the player to spend multiple hours - or even days - to obtain a single item. Overwatch event skins, anyone?

Blizzard skates by on rather thin ice because everything in Overwatch's lootboxes are cosmetic and there's credits to outright buy cosmetics, but they're still on very thin ice. Heroes of the Storm is pushing a more aggressive attitude with lootboxes because the game is F2P, but it used to be that all cosmetic items - save a small few that could be bought with gold, which was also used to unlock Heroes - were cash only until Heroes 2.0 was released and they added a bunch of unnecessary cosmetics to pad out the introduction of lootboxes to the game. Hell, in the upcoming big overhaul of Heroes of the Storm, there's going to be "Gem only" cosmetics - with Gems being the game's premium currency - meaning you cannot buy those items with the secondary currency - Shards - that was introduced in Heroes 2.0 even though the sole purpose of Shards is to unlock cosmetics, in a game that has hundreds of cosmetic items.

Now, as a F2P game, HotS gets away with more simply because there is no entrance fee to it, but pay-to-play games don't get any excuses for lootboxes or micro-transactions. Especially when games decide to double down on a leveling system plus lootboxes/micro-transactions. The game industry was doing just fine without micro-transactions and lootboxes a decade ago, aside from the advancements in technology and game development, and corporate culture evolving, not enough has changed since then to suddenly necessitate the ham-fisted milking of consumers' wallets.

Cubes can die.
 

Can't remember if I've shared this one already. Oh well.
 
My rotation is every 15 minutes.

Maybe there is a god.

I've accepted the fact that rabbids are in the game. Do you really think a dab will scare me away?

New Youtube layout finally showed up for me, and so it broke my video/comment hiding extensions.
 
Looking at all these thumbnails with people screaming, 'prank' videos and comments like 'fuck me daddy', ironic memes and political discussions makes me wish for the cleansing nuclear fire to come sooner.

I still have no idea how to play it.
 
But my legs are ok.

Never fear, Sherlock Cube is on the case!
 

 
My brilliant powers of reasoning have deduced that you're all a bunch of nerds.

War has changed.

The one thing I want in Overwatch is 24, 36, or even 64-player servers. They'll probably need larger maps to make it work, but the best part of TF2 is when there is uncontrollable chaos on the battlefield and nobody feels this pressure to be godly because everyone washes out in the spam.  

We'll bang, ok?

My favorite scene is "Yeah? Go fuck yourself! You shitpiles give chase I will kill your dick." "What?! What does that even mean? You're gonna kill my dick? We-- I'll kill your dick! How 'bout that, huh?"
Which is made better because the character that starts this exchange has the voice actress of FemShep.

I've given Bulletstorm the name "Captain Swearword's Big Fucking Adventure".

Finished replaying Bulletstorm the other day, still as fun as I remember.
Dialogue still as ridiculous as I remember.
 
I think my favorite line is "Here comes Butterdick Jones and his heavenly asshole machine!"

I wish I could tell if I'm the trash player that keeps dragging everyone down or if I just get matched with terrible teams. I am absolutely terrified of playing Comp (or even Quickplay, really) because I usually blame myself for losing and don't want to pass that on to the other 5 hapless players who are burdened with me.
(granted, this comes off of a loss with a Reaper on our team that wouldn't target tanks and then, at the end, claimed "you guys take this game too seriously" when called out on it, so that example probably wasn't me)

Splat2 splatfest is live,
Team Ketchup vs team Mayo.
 
I've almost got Ketchup King with the Blood Bucket.
I mean Slosher.
 

Is this bold enough?

so this?
 

 

Is this bold enough?

Is this bold enough?

Is this bold enough?