schm0

Actually, we're talking about the Privacy Policy here. All online content-delivery networks such as Steam and Origin monitor your memory and executibles and scan your hard drive. Read up on Valve's privacy policy here. That information is not used for advertising purposes. Instead, they utilize usage data and other non-personally identifiable information. The Origin EULA is pretty much the same, they just don't spell it out like they do in EA's privacy policy. Both companies use the non-personally identifiable information they gather for ads and internal marketing. That's a fact. Valve just doesn't have the nasty reputation that EA does. My biggest concern is whether or not I can play a truly single-player experience without having to worry about being online. There is an "offline-only" mode for Origin, so I am curious to know if this will be compatible with SimCity 2013.

Not to play devil's advocate, but Steam has nearly identical clauses regarding advertising, privacy, and your limited rights in their EULA and has for quite some time. I just did that --> http://www.facebook....76561702436453/. Please join and discuss! To be honest, a group entitled 'People Against Origin's Toxic EULA' is probably not going to go much further than this forum. And Facebook is not the medium you need. If Maxis is truly building this game with the true fan-base in mind, they are reading this thread right now. And I'm sure the mods here will be/have been in touch with the developers. Any movement to demand change should start here. I'm just not seeing a unified message other than "I don't like XXXXX part of the online experience of SimCity 5." My impression was quite the opposite... you play a single city and you are bordered by several other cities, all played by randoms or groups of friends. Those neighbors can influence your city and send workers or pollution your way. Speak for yourself. Some people (ahem, me) have been waiting a decade for a true successor to SimCity4. Technology has come so far since then, and the demos/videos released so far prove that the next version has tons of features we've all wanted to see from the ultimate city-building simulation. Boycotting will do nothing unless a community is united. We just have a bunch of angry voices right now. And to say just to avoid buying it and be satisfied to "live without" is a cop-out, plain and simple. SC4 has long suffered from hardware limitations, memory problems and stability issues when modding, and a UI that has seen its better days. Wax nostalgiac all you like, but a lot of us are ready for an updated version. Unless you want to fiddle with the EXE at all, which limits you to modding only certain aspects of the game itself. Until I know that there will be a dedicated offline single-player mode with regional control and customizable terrain, I am not likely to purchase this. I would tackle the issues of Origin if I didn't know that it will be used as the platform for digital distribution of all of EA's future PC products (and most likely the next-gen consoles, as well) In other words, the issue of Origin is a much bigger one to address. Which is why I am focused on this single product. If I can't play this game unplugged from the internet, then I'm really not interested.

I think knowing that the "offline" single-player mode requires you to be online is enough to be concerned. Again, the multiplayer aspect of the game doesn't bother me so much... as long as I can have a single player mode with a region I control with multiple cities and customizable terrain. (Unfortunately, nobody knows if all or some of that will be in the game at this point.) The multiplayer won't allow other people to modify my city while I'm gone... they'll only be able to interact with me externally. But I should be able to play the single-player mode without having to get on the internet. That's not too much to ask.

Thought I'd drop in to post a relevant article and stop to chat a bit: http://www.1up.com/n...rement-worth-it Every time I scour the gaming sites and see another article about SimCity, I sit down to read it. I'm excited about this game. Thinking about the possibilities of this game gets my mind working in ways that other games just can't do. I've watched all the vids on the blog. I'm interested in finding out more about where this game is going. Except for this one thing. I'm just not buying the online argument. Online for online play, offline for offline play. Period. I just don't understand why the "external" stimuli needed to interact with the city can't be simulated for single-player. It doesn't make sense to me. Can't I use the last downloaded cache of data to represent the global price of coal or whatever else my city needs to grab from the "outside"? Even more disturbing, and not really discussed here, is the potential restriction this places on future modders. SC4 is still going strong after all these years because modders were able to hack the hell out of the guts of that game. Maxis gave us tools that helped provide us with that insight. We were able to override core game files, put in something new, and make the game perform and behave fundamentally different than it was originally designed to do. Sure, there were things we couldn't touch. But modding game us the ability to play SimCity Mars, create amazing road networks with the NAM, play with RULs and BATs and Lots and props. But will we be given the same freedom in this new online age? Similar tools that allow nearly unlimited creativity? Or will our attempts at peeking under the hood result in having us banned from accessing the game we purchased? Will we be limited to creating content that can only be viewed in a specific online storefront on Origin? Will our creations be limited to bits and pieces already found in the game (but rearranged), or will we be free to create whatever we like, perhaps even using 3rd party tools to do so? How will this online requirement embrace or restrict the modding community? And what of these magical online servers that grant us the sacred access to our measly purchase... surely they won't last forever. And when they do shut down, and the plugs are pulled... WIll there be enough of a community left to hack these broken pieces of the game back together? Make our own online global community from scratch? Keep going years after the game has left the shelves and sales have ceased? I have seen answers to some of the more basic questions regarding the game itself, but these fundamental questions remain unanswered. Bottom line: if this game will not let me play on my own without having an internet connection, I may just pass on it. And even if it does, if that online connection represents an effective end date for anyone playing the game, then I am seriously considering passing on it. Maxis says they are developing this game with this community in mind. Arguably (and almost inrefutably so) this is the biggest, if not the only, global SimCity gaming community on the planet. If this community were to speak with one voice, they will listen. We may not change anything, but we can at least get their attention. Problem is, are there enough of us that care?

Yep, this game needs to have an independent, offline single player mode where we can connect multiple cities in a region. Period. End of story.

Hope that's true. Also, I completely agree with this statement here: Its the simple fact that to me SimCity will always be a single player game. I have no interest in the online aspect AT ALL. Then there is the fact that it is both a security and privacy issue. First I have to give information to EA to 'create an account'. Secondly, EA (Origin) knows every time I start the game. Its none of their business when I play the game, now is it? For people like me who refuse to purchase a single player game that requires you to be internet connected to play, all I can say is thank goodness for Independent developers. The big corporations will continue down this path, it is apparently inevitable. Hopefully the smaller publishers and independents will not follow suit. Hey y'all, old time vet returning on this news. I was a bit concerned but after reading the clarification I am a bit relieved. I am interested in multiplayer and the dynamic possibilities it could bring, but single player control is the fundamental gameplay feature of SimCity. Controlling and building an entire region, each city with its own look and feel... this is what SimCity is truly about. Maxis is watching us here in this very thread, mark my words. Let's make sure they listen.

The EPA, like any federal agency, is bound by law to regulate, administer and act according to it's mandate and the laws governing and defining it. In this case, the Clean Air Act and other such legislation provides the means for the EPA to act independently as it's own entity within the executive branch. The same concept applies to the FBI, the FDA, etc. The problem actually lies with legislators, who once involved with climate change issues proceed to lie, distort the facts or intentionally mislead in order to protect the interests of the corporations whose factories, power plants and refineries all reside within their states borders (and provide a significant contribution to their campaign election coffers, I might add.) Add a dash of lobbyist and you've got a corruption casserole. It would be ignorant to think that some legislators could fight so long (and successfully) against meaningful environmental regulation in light of the overwhelming amount of data if there weren't some other factor driving them. The bottom line is, climate change legislation will never advance through Congress until those lawmakers who are ignorant of the science are removed from office. In the meantime, you're left with a patchwork of efforts by the EPA and NGOs to make sure that corporations can't run wild across our environment with no consequences, which is why this group is trying to advance their cause through other means (i.e. the SCOTUS.)

Logged on tonight to find an automatic Windows update for the Database Viewer. I installed it, and miraculously, it worked. Problem solved. I'm still getting the occasional runtime exception error, but I'm going to have to do some more testing to find out precisely when and where it happens. Will let you know.

I'm getting exception errors when loading the program for the first time. I have the 32 bit system fix, .NET 3.5 and the DB viewer installed. I can't view icons and most text fields. Any ideas?

Originally posted by: Ntq$310 So a slow painful bankruptcy of job layoffs, increasing energy prices, and at one point or another closing will be better than it just closing?quote> Your statement alone assumes that the a cap and trade plan on carbon emissions, specifically regarding coal, will actually lead to those things. The reality is there is lots of evidence going either way on the impacts of such legislation, let alone what watered-down version makes it to the President's desk. Energy developers aren’t watching for the price of carbon to pass the magical point at which clean coal or solar or whatever becomes cost-competitive. Rather, they’re looking ahead many years, performing scenario analysis, comparing cash flows, and making investments accordingly, they are not going to invest in a industry that is going to face a end at one point or another.quote> Even more incentive to invest in renewables rather than fossil fuels. The very discussion of the environment itself is what spurred these companies to make the small investments they already have. While at the same time this isn't waiting until we have a easy way to make Coal more friendly to use. Futuregen # a clean coal power plant that puts what little it produces into the ground #, a project very close to me, is no where near starting, and it's years upon years if not a decade away from fully starting. The massive changes in the market that are expected are just not there. So it's expected that coal areas will be hit very hard.quote> There is no such thing as clean coal. It's not even close to being technologically feasible, let along economically so. The DOE has actually pulled funding from the FutureGen project altogether, citing higher than expected costs. http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2014 http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1870599,00.html http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/campaigns/climate-change/climate-impacts/coal/the-clean-coal-myth If there were actually such a thing as clean coal, it's benefits would be echoed across universities, think tanks, and the environmental and scientific communities. The truth is quite the opposite. Even if it were a reality, the energy industry would scrambling to make it work; coal is our most abundant natural fossil fuel resource. The phrase "clean coal" was invented by the coal industry itself. It may even do more harm than good: http://www.awwa.org/publications/MainStreamArticle.cfm?itemnumber=39815 Renewables and/or nuclear are the best case scenarios for energy production in the modern era. Most of the 155 Billion came from a government, and with all western government's so interested in green energy, it's expected. Which thats good, it's good that government's are trying to become cleaner, and that companies are trying to become cleaner, that in itself creates demand for Green jobs. However, like everything, it all comes back to the economy, and employment. That report did not mention much about green jobs. Having such heavy investment and movement of capital on the government's part is not good for the job market at large, and in a cascade effect of cap and trade as well other forces you could expect more job loss than job creation because of this.quote> The only thing I can say in response is that we can not rely on green jobs alone to replace those that may be lost, and I never purported that we should. I just don't think that the idea of green job is "a lie." It does, and we should be going towards a better environment, and more energy efficient buildings and things. How we get there is the 1 Million dollar question.quote> Can't disagree with that! Originally posted by: duack Okay, Ill begin by saying that I think global warming is real and a 4 degree rise is probable. However, I think the words "green jobs" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Its just a political tool that people think is good but really makes no sense economically. Normally I would be for micro-economic reform but not in this case. The point of micro-economic reform is to try and reduce costs, not increase them until environmentally-friendly alternatives are more competitive. (Im against anything that increases costs, short-term or long-term).quote> So people who are for green jobs are for increasing costs? Most green projects that have been undertaken are done so with the idea of saving money over the long-term. Why I think economic reform into *sigh* "green jobs" is a bad idea is because it is not necassary just yet. There's still another 40 years of oil and over 100 years of coal and gas left in known reserves (who knows what unknown reserves hold). quote> Thats another 100 years worth of pollution, too. So, your plan is to wait until the last minute, until the last drop of oil is sold, to start working on an alternative solution? Also, I took a look at the 4 degrees warmer map someone put up earlier in a link and I dont see the negative. Even if this extreme scenario occured, more farming land is created in Canada than is lost in Europe and the US put together. (Being allied, you'd expect Canada would be more likely to allow the US and EU to produce food there than other countries). Basically, its like control is shifting to western countries (and Russia). And you wouldn't need entire citioes to move to the fertile areas, just agricultural production.quote> Are you actually suggesting that the displacement and/or death of millions of people is not a negative? What about increased fluctuations in violent weather patterns? How about the decimation of entire swaths of species?

Originally posted by: Ntq$310 The exact quote is this. "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."quote> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1174672/Barack_Obama_to_bankrupt_coal_plants.html So not only would our Coal industry, one of the most important industries in our country, and our lifelines in many communities, would take a very deadly and hard hit. The effects of this could be disastrous for many areas.quote> It appears this quote was taken out of context and spun by the Republicans during the campaign. The full quote is here: President Obama speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle Emphasis mine I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote -- despite the fact that I’m a coal state and that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical. But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives. But ... let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal -- I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal. The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.quote> http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/republicans-to.html Obama states that t idea of an energy system with no coal is "an illusion" and that the bankruptcy would be caused over time by the "ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year." This money would then be used to fund alternative energy sources, dictated by the market as to what direction to go for alternative energy. He then states that the notion to take coal "off the table" is an "ideological"' one. He compares coal power to nuclear, saying that if there were a technology that "allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it." Green Jobs unfortunately, are a lie.quote> That's a pretty broad statement, and patently false on several facets. I'll take it with a grain of salt and continue... Thats not to say we need them, we need people to put solar panels, make the wind turbines, etc, and we already do have people doing that in many places. That can even be expanded to cover more areas that they are needed, solar can do very good. But such green jobs won't cover a large part of our job losses from the death of our industrial sector. While it is to be expected that once the wind farm is done, there will be nothing left for the factory to do. So in order to keep employment sustainable, we won't see 100 factories popping up.quote> Right, I said "revitalize" and not "replace." The struggling auto industry failed because it stopped making cars that made sense. Our fuel economy standards have not changed in nearly 30 years. Gas prices went up, Hummer sales went down. Foreign competition is what killed a large part of our manufacturing industry, in addition to trade deficits, markets, and financial crises. But the main study I'm looking at, http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf , involves Spain and there Green jobs projects, which our President has praised, is possible losing 2.2 jobs were every 1 green job they make. Or they lose 9 for every 4 jobs. 1/10 of such jobs are considered 'sustainable' in that they run or maintain the power plant or something as such. While at the same time it took Spain and huge amount of money to make such jobs, and subsidies for the wind industry, as well other industries are a lot.quote> The quote you are referring to is this one: Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data, we find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created.quote> Some things to note is that the study extracts it's data from state projects. The study does not factor in the investments of the private sector (of Spain.) Finding positive information about green jobs is easy, such as the 2009 Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment report, that have some interesting facts as well, such as the finding that "investment in the sustainable energy market has in some ways defied the global recession growing by around five per cent—from $148 billion in 2007 to around $155 billion in 2008." (http://sefi.unep.org/fileadmin/media/sefi/docs/publications/Executive_Summary_2009_EN.pdf) Even simple investments by private companies can have a large impact, such as replacing their corporate fleet with electric hybrids, saving money on fuel (and less carbon produced) while supporting the auto industry. We could go back and forth all day, citing contradictory reports, but the fact is that green jobs make more sense than the job creation itself; they invest in a clean, environmentally friendly infrastructure, one that is more energy efficient and saves money in the long run. Now that is not to say we will be exactly like Europe, or Spain, But we could expect a similar effect.quote> Most of Europe is much more socialist than we are, and government funded projects are much more prevalent. They subsidize everything there. There are definitely pros and cons to both forms of government as it applies to environmental policy. The end result would be less jobs, less sustainable jobs, and higher energy and gas prices. Seeing as America is bigger than Spain ( and me having no idea on Spanish mining and energy industry's.) we could expect a huge loss of employment in our surviving industries, such as coal. Many areas will be hit hard, and energy prices will increase.quote> I think that has yet to be seen, and that there is a lot more to discuss on these issues than to assume that failure is the only possible outcome.

Originally posted by: Ntq$310 Most of them would just close down, in which the effect would be a spike in energy prices. Since the average coal mine or town won't be that big company that can afford to suddenly put billions into something other than what it's doing. Obama said it himself, his policy will lead to closings of the plants and a spike in prices.quote> Do you have a link to that quote? And yes, unfortunately people who work at jobs where they dig out the most carbon-producing fuel will have to find other work. The good news is, new green technology comes with new green jobs. Instead of working in a coal mine, they could be getting a tan and installing solar panels on office buildings, for example. However, most of the developing world, and powers like India and China have said there is no way in hell that they would get on board something like the U.S. is doing. They want economic growth, so letting there dirty industry go rampant is there best option. Tax breaks so far have not worked, and Green technology takes time to develop and implement. And even with that, it's easier to just pay the sweatshop worker in china rather than stay in the United States, tax breaks or not.quote> I didn't say there was already global consensus. That was what Kyoto was all about, building towards a gradual reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. You can have growth and environmental progress at the same time, but India and China merely want to be bigger players on the international stage for political and regional reasons. Exponential growth such as has been seen in both of those countries in the last 50 years may not be as prevalent as it once was in those countries. In a perfect world, changes to the way we think about pollution would have no adverse affects. Unfortunately, this is not the case. It's about cost/benefit, when you get down to it. It's a global economy now, and the United States has failed to compete. We've left are industrial sector to die, and now were left with a service economy. It's going to take both time, and a lot of diffrent changes to help our industrial sector. quote> I agree, exporting our manufacturing jobs overseas has destroyed the American worker. Trust me, I live in Detroit, so I know all about layoffs and job migration. We need to revitalize our economy and get more manufacturing jobs back, and green technology is a good way to do that. They have been talking for a couple years now about installing wind turbines in Michigan, and building several factories here to make the parts and assemble them. Such opportunities could revive the industrial sector in a way that helps the economy and the environment. Originally posted by: Barbarossa Nice to see you are still around, Schm0. Barbarossa quote> Thanks! I stopped in with the beta release of CitiesXL. Unfortunately, it does not appear my computer is up to par with running the game much past several thousand people without losing framerate like crazy. So, I decided to poke my head in at the forums and what do I see on the first page?

Originally posted by: hym I'm curious to know exactly why people think taxing dirty industries is actually going to clean up the environment or have any positive impact whatsoever. If the US signs a deal agreeing to limit carbon emissions and place restrictions on it's dirtier industries, those industries will find somewher to operate where they don't have that problem, such as China.quote> Some of the most dirty industries that produce carbon emissions are energy companys, namely coal-fire power plants. Fortunately, there are no electric lines running from China to the U.S., so these sorts of industries will have an incentive to clean up their stacks and invest in technology that can capture and/or filter out the carbon dioxide from their emissions. In the end, all you've accomplished is shifting emissions production from one country to another (not that politicians care as they can play the "we're committed to the environment" card).quote> That's why international consensus is key to any legislation or treaties signed regarding carbon emissions and/or the carbon tax. And the U.S. could do more to curb the exodus of manufacturing by taxing the imports of American companies that choose to produce their goods elsewhere only to sell them here in the U.S. There are plenty of other incentives such as tax breaks to those who stay and federally subsidized investments in green technology, to name a few. Money can be made off creating hysteria. Money can be made off of almost anything if you're interested in profiting from it. Billions of dollars has been made off of the "cell phones cause brain cancer!" scare, and yet there is little evidence to support that claim.quote> As far as I know the communications industry is in good health. Am I missing something here? Who precisely profited from the so-called "scare?" The non-cancer-causing cell phone provider? To offer a relevant example, look at British Petroleum. I've had the opportunity to personally speak with representatives of the company, and the message from them is that BP has positioned itself to profit from the renewable energy shift and is now supporting efforts to speed up the transition. Why? BP is one of the furthest along in terms of switching over to a renewable energy business model and by its estimates, it stands to make over $200 billion in profits over 5-10 years if it can help push the transition through before its competitors are ready. Moral of the story: money can be made off pushing the cap-and-trade policy and other efforts and being more "environmentally friendly" and they have been doing it for years already.quote> And at the same time, they are basking in the joy of winning the bid on one of Iraq's largest oil fields: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200963093615637434.html Nuclear engineers are busy designing 4th generation nuclear reactors and from the current indications, they have probably found a solution. The 4th generation designs are likely going to make breeder reactors commercially viable, and with that, the waste that's been piling up will now be usable as fuel.quote> I'm all for nuclear, and you're completely correct that the next generation of nuclear power plants are safer, more energy efficient and *gasp* renewable!

Holy crap this post is still going? *rolls up sleeves*

Unfortunately, it is Blizzard policy that has directly supported a player like this and made it completely legal for this person to run around with 36 characters and destroy anyone in their path. Multi-boxing (that's what this is called, by the way) is not only bad for gameplay, but has the fortunate side-effect of removing this guy from the pro-creating gene pool(and I say guy, because no woman would ever resort to such behavior). Talk about a silver lining.