You're just plain wrong. Wolfenstein was the first game I bought when I got my 486, and I started playing with a mouse right away. When doom came out in my early teens, I quickly adapted my wolfenstein config to a wasd/mouse style config, and everyone I knew had a similar setup. Fact is, the vast majority of players on DWANGO or BBS multiplayer were using a WASD/mouse style scheme. It was the standard. Period.

Like I said, you seem to be whining about the default controls.

Fact is, the wasd/mouse configuration quickly became the standard among most everyone who played doom. Personally, I played wolfenstein after picking the shareware up at my local grocery, and I played doom from day one. I used my mouse for both games, asdx were my movement keys in doom.

The only thing remotely awkward about a proper configuration was holding down the run key.

What, the default controls? So what? WASD for strafe/fwd/back with the mouse for turning was the standard way to play doom...invented by doom players. There's nothing awkward about that.

I bet you're fun at parties.

I don't care how far down down the wrong fork in the road google has traveled. There's no room, here, for submissions that claim something created by microsoft is "actually really great."

So your counter-argument to my statement about standardizing on an easily recyclable plastic is to show me an easily recyclable plastic.

It's cute the way you distilled your weird pipe dream into a reasonable statement and retconned it as your perspective to make yourself seem more reasonable. At least you seem recognize a radical shift in technology is required for your childish musings become remotely feasible.

Glass jars that use up sand

LOL.. Silicon is the second most abundant element on earth. If it's a choice between expensive sand and poisoning all life on the plant with endocrine disruptors until we come up with better materials, I'll take the former. Besides, glass production is a miniscule share of sand usage compared to concrete, etc...

If we don't use plastic as a container then what would you like to use?

There are a lot of viable options for most of what we use it for. Use your imagination or your favorite search engine.

Plastic has it's place.

What's your point? I never said it should be banned outright. I just think it belongs in a landfill instead of being recycled into cheap and disposable chinese-made trinkets that end up as fish food. Eventually, it'll be replaced by better materials or a better version of itself. Until that happens, the tragically broken and poorly conceived plastic-recycling industry can get fucked.

Why is this idiot just now discovering noise cancellation? It's old tech, and any self-respecting tech writer has known how it works since it first came into the market TWO DECADES AGO. This is written by either an out-of-touch luddite who doesn't deserve a second of your attention or as an apple hit piece for clicks. Actually, based on the premise of this shitty blog/column, it's definitely both. Don't bother.

That's not better. First, it's a pipe-dream. Second, improving the recycle-ability of the existing harmful crap is a terrible idea. We need to completely rid ourselves all this petroleum-based plastic that's infused with endocrine disruptors, and the sooner we start...the better. It's only a matter of time before we develop materials that have the same benefits but don't harm living organisms when they unintentionally enter the food chain, and hopefully, we can make them out of something other than petroleum.

All of that aside, your pipe dream idea is already on the verge of being deprecated by new technology:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com...

When I see something made of plastic, I see an object that will eventually disrupt the endocrine system of something or someone I love. It doesn't need to be recycled more often. It doesn't need to be produced in a way that makes it easier to recycle. It only needs a permanent resting place six feet underground so it can take its place in history next to lead and asbestos.

The biggest time suck at my office is definitely the presence of excessive and mindless multi-taskers who burden both their computers and colleagues with their totally unnecessary and unbearably scatterbrain BS.

shit... "mettle" I knew that didn't look right.

Nope, I don't. You specifically stated that your complaints were directed at your political adversaries who are "thinking" about the popular vote, "petitioning" to influence the electoral college, and "protest-marching" against the results. You associated me with those folks when you followed that statement immediately with "so boohoo yourself." Do you want to pretend it was a generic closing statement with no direct line to the previous statement? That's fine, but even in this most recent comment, you've made a sarcastic quip to suggest that I'm aligned with these loons in response to me explicitly stating my position. No direct argument from you, though....just a bunch of rambling BS about Obama. What a surprise... I guess we know where you stand.

Can you read? I've already told you when and why civility went out the window. I'm more concerned with helping you understand the flaws in your position, at this point. You're welcome.

That's not interesting. It's not even intelligible. What deluded thread of logic is does this wild tangent of an idea even represent? Actually, I take it back about the delusion. Even though you've already demonstrated your meddle, I'll give you an opportunity to explain yourself in clear language. Good luck. I'm waiting.

First, you've demonstrated your political bent in oh so many ways that I won't bother to list them out here. You and everyone who reads your comments know exactly how you're aligned and how belligerent you are towards anyone who doesn't sing the same tune. Let's not pretend.

Second, I've already explained how the rules defined by our nation's constitution encourage faithless electors. No one is changing rules by "challenging" the constitutionality of state laws. It boggles my mind that you can't grasp this. Are you familiar with cognitive dissonance?

Haha, ok, I take back the bit about cognitive dissonance. Good job... It really looks like you're starting to grasp it. You get a C+ for this paragraph.

Seriously, though, unconstitutional laws are almost never challenged until they are broken, enforced unfairly, or until someone is planning to break them. That's just how it works. It's also how it SHOULD work because court cases like this cost tax payers and plaintiffs a lot of money, and there are enough shitty laws to fill 20 libraries of congress. Your candidate ran on that rhetoric in case you've forgotten.

Also, those people are in court for more than just the idea that their candidate lost. They're there because the winning candidate is just as much of a loon as the losing candidate is a crook. It's a scary situation for folks to be in, and some of them have deluded themselves into thinking they know one person or the other is actually REALLY better. Others are just as crazy or crooked as the candidate they supported. I haven't decided which category you fall into, just yet...

And just in case you haven't figured out where I stand... They're both trash, and I'll repeat it: I love watching the system chew them both up. It would be neat to see it spit one of them out in dramatic fashion so we could get some traction for actually fixing the broken system that even *your candidate* has spent an inordinate amount of time complaining about.

Haha, you did. There's no question you did. Go back and read it. Also, I'm not unhappy that you've directed your anger at the other commenter towards me. On the contrary, I'm ecstatic that you've revealed yourself as the unreasonable buffoon that you are. When you chose not to acknowledge your lack of civility, I chose to match it out of respect for your communication style. I did it out of love...not anger or unhappiness. hugs

So you checked his username to align it with his post history...whatever. There's very little difference. I'm sorry you were insulted by the idea that you'd make the extra click to look at someone's post history. I didn't intend it like that, and there's no reason to feel that way about checking someone's post history. This entire shitshow is a waste of time and getting to know someone through their comment history doesn't make it any more-so... What an insignificant inference to choose as an example... I guess it's fair to assume the rest of what I've "inferred" is too far beyond your capacity to argue.

Finally, I've already made it clear that I replied so that I could correct your failure to understand our electoral process....or at least help those who might be misinformed if they were to believe the nonsense in your comments. There's really no inference required to understand your perspective and position. It's all there in your comments plain as day, and it doesn't change the reality of what you've said when you pick little bits of my comments to take out of context for a one-line zinger. Have a great Saturday.

OK, here's me dealing with it. The actual word "boo hoo" has very little to do with your lack of civility, and it doesn't indicate a lack of civility on my part. When you said "boo hoo," you implied that my complaint against you was based on the notion that I support efforts to foster faithless electors because I am vigorously invested (as you are) in which candidate becomes president. My perspective has nothing to do with which candidate will become president, and it shows a lack of civility that you would presume it does while attacking me. I'd be happy to help you understand other parts of your comments where you showed a lack of civility, if you want, but I'm sure you'd rather just continue behaving like a buffoon. I mean, seriously.. Ripping my 'advocating respect' line out of context like that for a sarcastic quip? Grow up kid.

That's not what our founding fathers had in mind when they designed this system. They intended for electors to lose faith in their pledge if the circumstances called for it. If you can't accept that, and you don't have the gumption to suggest the system should be amended, then you never belonged in this country in the first place.

Those laws were knowingly enacted in direct contradiction with our constitution. If you hadn't already demonstrated your meddle when you dragged this discussion into the gutter with your political bent, then we could have a meaningful conversation about federalism and states' rights. Suffice to say those electors have an obligation to honor the laws written into our constitution just like those 26 states had an obligation to advocate for a change to the electoral system rather than writing laws that contradict with it.

Changing a law and challenging the constitutionality of a law are not the same thing. Since you've already demonstrated that you're incapable of understanding a simple fact like this, I really don't have much hope for continuing this conversation with you.

It's ironic that you joke about me being able to detect sarcasm while simultaneously failing to recognize that any hope of civil discourse went out the window when you flatly denied your obvious lack of civility after treating me like the political enemy you'd identified by checking the other guy's post history.

Sorry... That wasn't civil and this reply isn't either- Boohoo, myself? Come on, now... Believe what you want, but genuinely and truly, I'm not invested in the results of their efforts one way or the other. Each candidate is bad for the country in their own way, and in my view, it's next to impossible to determine which one is more dangerous at this point. At the same time, some aspects of the electoral college are bad for the country and an alternative or a fix is badly needed. I don't care.

I love watching stuff like this play out, and I'm only advocating respect (including possible constructive criticism) of the process our founding fathers created. You're demonstrating willful ignorance of this process to suit your political agenda. The pledge is not meaningless. The pledge exists so that electors are forced to weigh their options carefully and avoid rash decisions. The fact of the matter is that the electoral college was intentionally designed so that "faithless electors" could influence the outcome of a presidential election. They and those appealing to them are not subverting the process. They are embracing it. You're the one spinning a yarn and spreading misinformation that runs contrary to the laws of our nation. This type of garbage subverts the integrity of our current election and corrupts the way citizens who fall victim to your lies might perceive future elections.

First, look who's jumping down throats... Please keep it civil. Second just the facts my friend... The electoral college was designed to allow electors the freedom to cast votes contrary to the pledge you've mentioned. THAT is the process. Folks trying to influence THAT process in the ways you've described happen to be exercising their constitutionally protected rights. The only thing being subverted is the typical order of electoral business. That typical order of business is not a process that's protected by our laws. It's just what you're used to. So, in truth, the only thing that's being subverted is your desire to follow the typical order of business. Boohoo... If you must complain, I recommend you direct your complaints at the actual process rather than leveling unfounded criticism towards the law abiding citizens who wish to make use of the intended flexibility of its design.