I'm excited to see Blizzard do something outside of WoW again. There was a lot of skepticism as to whether they would ever do anything else again, since WoW's enough laurels for any company to rest on.
Seriously, Blizzard has been the most consistent gaming company in terms of quality, it's nice to see them come back. Hopefully they still have the touch.
That's a very touching post, it is, but the mafiaa isn't restricting people's access to fire or food, they're restricting access to something that is made entirely for entertainment. The immorality of withholding free food is that a lot of people don't have enough of it. If you restrict access to Seinfeld episodes, there's not a single person who's life will end.
If you're going to oppose something, oppose patent laws which actually influence what medications and life saving devices people have access to. Fighting copyright law is like fighting the ability for someone to own a.22 pistol while everyone's walking around with an uzi.
Every one of those problems could be worked around without Blizzard having to spend a significant portion of resources to it, be it by limiting the number of bans that someone can hand out to making it so that a person has to be a certain level before they can ban. Is it worth it to Blizzard? No. Is it entirely feasible without Blizzard having to put more than five people per server on the problem? Yes. Right after it was implemented there would be a lot of activity that required attention as people learned what is and is not allowed in the EULA and as people get banned for abuse of the system, but after a few months everything would stabilize and it wouldn't take much effort.
Bullshit. Blizzard logs everything that happens, they could pull all the information from just before the person was banned and see if the reasons they were banned were legitimate. The review would take easily less than an hour per person if set up correctly and as soon as a few guilds lost 20 or 30 guys to abusing the banning system, other guilds would take notice and crack down. Besides, the people who legitimately enjoy the game and worked within the system like they should would easily outweigh those who abused it.
I agree that either comment deserves reprimand and that there's a lot to be said for professionalism. However, the market for video games is dominated by games that lack professionalism is their feel and are often juvenile or appeal to baser instincts. For a game like this to be developed, a highly unprofessional environment could be seen to be conducive to the end product.
I also enjoy the freedom that the internet gives me. While sometimes I don't like what's going on, I find that I can just ignore it (no pun intended) or laugh at it. Maybe I'm just weird like this, but someone being stupid and offensive is more funny to me than anything and, at least for me, it's kind of rare to have people be rude to me without provocation.
Or maybe, just maybe, that woman lead tester was fired because she was assaulting the person she called an "a**hole" whereas the people calling each other hos and bitches were joking with each other. It's the difference between arresting someone for trying to beat someone into submission and arresting a few guys who are wrestling with each other for fun.
But if you had an auto-ban feature on WoW where if you get 10 ban requests from ten different people in a small enough amount of time you'll automatically get kicked. You can choose to e appeal the decision and have it reviewed by three employees of blizzard or three good DMs. Some of the bans will get appealed randomly whether asked to or not. If it was a misunderstanding, reinstate the person and warn the people who voted to ban the character that they should be more careful next time. If it was a deliberate abuse of the system, ban the ten people instead.
If that doesn't work, but it's implemented, maybe get a deposit out of people that won't be returned if they get banned for life.
Windows market share has always been new PCs ever since they took the market from Apple (which, as I remember, means that they didn't convert people from apple, they just made sure the majority of new computers had windows).
Next you're going to tell me that the majority of new cell phones are bought when the provider subsidizes the purchase.
Two packages aren't even necessary, just make the standard version come with all the functionality (other than browsing) installed as an addon that can be deleted at will.
Actually, if itunes would just make it so that I could re-download my music if I accidentally delete it, move computers, etc, I'd probably buy all my music from them. If a service promised me that I'd never lose my file after I'd purchased it, I'd be their customer for life.
Wind Waker and Majora's Mask didn't do so well at OoT or TP and weren't as enjoyable to play for the majority of people that I've talked to. The general consensus was that they needed to move away from those games.
I agree with what you're saying. While reinventing themselves every time works well for a lot of games, evolution in gameplay works well for others. Zelda's the latter. There were huge differences between TP and other Zelda games, including the expansion of special attacks, the difficulty/types of enemies, the gameplay (I don't remember playing a wolf in ocarina...), etc. Maybe starting over every time works for final fantasy, but I like my zelda changes to be slow and steady.
I agree with you to a certain (small) extent, but that doesn't mean that religion as a whole should be cast aside. Just because a system is flawed doesn't mean it's worthless. Couldn't you say that religion as a whole is a collection of morals and teachings gathered for centuries? Is that something you want to get rid of anyway? I think the flaws people see in religion could just be flaws of the human race in general.
I would also like to add that, given the power of legal precedent and the legal system in general, having just a few judges ruling on every case of a certain type would leave the system open to abuse (knowingly or unknowingly). It's better to have a lot of different judges with a lot of different values and knowledge judging cases, that way the effects of a single judge's opinion are mitigated.
A good religion doesn't require evolution of thought so much as it requires an evolution of behavior. It's not about making you a better thinker or a more knowledgeable scientists, it's about making you a better person overall. While it's been used otherwise in the past, usually religion is used to try to better a person. Critiquing religion for not adding to our understanding of science means that you misunderstand what religion's role should be in a person's life.
science is a never ending inquiry into the unknown. there will always be the unknown Out of curiosity, what makes you say that? Assuming the universe is a finite size with a finite number of physical laws and a finite number of state, it's possible for humans to know everything there is to know about the universe and, thus, leave nothing unknown to science. Or am I wrong?
Actually, the author never said that all mothers are inept technologically, just that HIS mother was.
While discrimination may be wrong, being overly sensitive to remarks that are true just raises the amount of discrimination and prejudice in the air. I don't know anyone that thinks women should be second class citizens, but I also know very few people who don't hate feminists.
From the US Constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Assuming computer programming is a science (which it is, f**k all you elitist people who say programming isn't CS), then providing protection would advance it through allowing someone who does something really ground-breaking an exclusive right, just like it would someone who invents a new refrigerator.
Also, for those who say that computer programming is an algorithm and therefore unable to be patented, a program could easily be considered writings.
While I personally think the patent system is deeply, deeply broken, I do think that really innovative things should be protected. Just my two cents.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm excited to see Blizzard do something outside of WoW again. There was a lot of skepticism as to whether they would ever do anything else again, since WoW's enough laurels for any company to rest on. Seriously, Blizzard has been the most consistent gaming company in terms of quality, it's nice to see them come back. Hopefully they still have the touch.
That's a very touching post, it is, but the mafiaa isn't restricting people's access to fire or food, they're restricting access to something that is made entirely for entertainment. The immorality of withholding free food is that a lot of people don't have enough of it. If you restrict access to Seinfeld episodes, there's not a single person who's life will end.
.22 pistol while everyone's walking around with an uzi.
If you're going to oppose something, oppose patent laws which actually influence what medications and life saving devices people have access to. Fighting copyright law is like fighting the ability for someone to own a
Every one of those problems could be worked around without Blizzard having to spend a significant portion of resources to it, be it by limiting the number of bans that someone can hand out to making it so that a person has to be a certain level before they can ban. Is it worth it to Blizzard? No. Is it entirely feasible without Blizzard having to put more than five people per server on the problem? Yes. Right after it was implemented there would be a lot of activity that required attention as people learned what is and is not allowed in the EULA and as people get banned for abuse of the system, but after a few months everything would stabilize and it wouldn't take much effort.
Bullshit. Blizzard logs everything that happens, they could pull all the information from just before the person was banned and see if the reasons they were banned were legitimate. The review would take easily less than an hour per person if set up correctly and as soon as a few guilds lost 20 or 30 guys to abusing the banning system, other guilds would take notice and crack down. Besides, the people who legitimately enjoy the game and worked within the system like they should would easily outweigh those who abused it.
I agree that either comment deserves reprimand and that there's a lot to be said for professionalism. However, the market for video games is dominated by games that lack professionalism is their feel and are often juvenile or appeal to baser instincts. For a game like this to be developed, a highly unprofessional environment could be seen to be conducive to the end product.
I also enjoy the freedom that the internet gives me. While sometimes I don't like what's going on, I find that I can just ignore it (no pun intended) or laugh at it. Maybe I'm just weird like this, but someone being stupid and offensive is more funny to me than anything and, at least for me, it's kind of rare to have people be rude to me without provocation.
Or maybe, just maybe, that woman lead tester was fired because she was assaulting the person she called an "a**hole" whereas the people calling each other hos and bitches were joking with each other. It's the difference between arresting someone for trying to beat someone into submission and arresting a few guys who are wrestling with each other for fun.
But if you had an auto-ban feature on WoW where if you get 10 ban requests from ten different people in a small enough amount of time you'll automatically get kicked. You can choose to e appeal the decision and have it reviewed by three employees of blizzard or three good DMs. Some of the bans will get appealed randomly whether asked to or not. If it was a misunderstanding, reinstate the person and warn the people who voted to ban the character that they should be more careful next time. If it was a deliberate abuse of the system, ban the ten people instead.
If that doesn't work, but it's implemented, maybe get a deposit out of people that won't be returned if they get banned for life.
Windows market share has always been new PCs ever since they took the market from Apple (which, as I remember, means that they didn't convert people from apple, they just made sure the majority of new computers had windows). Next you're going to tell me that the majority of new cell phones are bought when the provider subsidizes the purchase.
You sound like a PHB who thinks to himself, "XML is a buzzword, I'll bet it'll get the job done."
It stores the rendered page, not the html, which is why it takes so much memory. 500k is small for a rendered page.
Two packages aren't even necessary, just make the standard version come with all the functionality (other than browsing) installed as an addon that can be deleted at will.
Actually, if itunes would just make it so that I could re-download my music if I accidentally delete it, move computers, etc, I'd probably buy all my music from them. If a service promised me that I'd never lose my file after I'd purchased it, I'd be their customer for life.
It means that the devices that get revoked have to be replaced.
Wind Waker and Majora's Mask didn't do so well at OoT or TP and weren't as enjoyable to play for the majority of people that I've talked to. The general consensus was that they needed to move away from those games.
I agree with what you're saying. While reinventing themselves every time works well for a lot of games, evolution in gameplay works well for others. Zelda's the latter. There were huge differences between TP and other Zelda games, including the expansion of special attacks, the difficulty/types of enemies, the gameplay (I don't remember playing a wolf in ocarina...), etc. Maybe starting over every time works for final fantasy, but I like my zelda changes to be slow and steady.
You're right, he wasn't criticizing religion, just criticizing the mention of religion in the post. My apologies.
I agree with you to a certain (small) extent, but that doesn't mean that religion as a whole should be cast aside. Just because a system is flawed doesn't mean it's worthless. Couldn't you say that religion as a whole is a collection of morals and teachings gathered for centuries? Is that something you want to get rid of anyway? I think the flaws people see in religion could just be flaws of the human race in general.
I would also like to add that, given the power of legal precedent and the legal system in general, having just a few judges ruling on every case of a certain type would leave the system open to abuse (knowingly or unknowingly). It's better to have a lot of different judges with a lot of different values and knowledge judging cases, that way the effects of a single judge's opinion are mitigated.
A good religion doesn't require evolution of thought so much as it requires an evolution of behavior. It's not about making you a better thinker or a more knowledgeable scientists, it's about making you a better person overall. While it's been used otherwise in the past, usually religion is used to try to better a person. Critiquing religion for not adding to our understanding of science means that you misunderstand what religion's role should be in a person's life.
They'll apologize for the technical issues for a beta but not for UAC on Vista? Where are their priorities?
He didn't say that they had the same views as Albert Einstein, just that they could both agree that the universe is deterministic.
To extend your analogy, he's not saying that driving a train is like driving a car, he just said they're both vehicles.
Actually, the author never said that all mothers are inept technologically, just that HIS mother was.
While discrimination may be wrong, being overly sensitive to remarks that are true just raises the amount of discrimination and prejudice in the air. I don't know anyone that thinks women should be second class citizens, but I also know very few people who don't hate feminists.
Also, for those who say that computer programming is an algorithm and therefore unable to be patented, a program could easily be considered writings.
While I personally think the patent system is deeply, deeply broken, I do think that really innovative things should be protected. Just my two cents.