They're not ignoring the cheating in Diablo 2, as others have pointed out they're still banning cheaters from there. However I don't think it's a priority for them since it's already a lost fight. The game itself is flawed because it trusts the client too much which makes all kinds of exploits possible.
I don't see how their current anti-cheating attitude when it comes to Diablo 2 will cost them any significant Diablo 3 sales though, anyone fanatical enough about Diablo 2 to still play it and care about the cheaters will be more then enough fanatical to buy Diablo 3 on release day even if it's an empty box(Exageration).
Back when I played Diablo 2 on closed battle.net there was barely any cheaters at all (Open battle.net was obviously ludicrous since you could edit your character).
I don't think Diablo 2 is their priority as far as anti-cheating is concerned. I think they kinda quickly after release noticed they had done some basic mistakes that enabled cheating, like usual they trusted the client with too much.
I suspect that closed battle.net for Diablo 3 will have more information on the server and less cheating.
Since the computer shares room with my bed I prefer it to be turned off when I'm sleeping. Whenever I'm upgrading my computer again I'll try to get it quieter.
I love faster startup time, really hate when I boot my computer in the morning, go off to make breakfast and it still hasn't finished booting when I'm back .
This is the red alert style of gameplay and has always been(or well, I have some vague memory of RA1 supporting turtling more).
Anyhow, so far in the campaign atleast (Finnished soviet and done half of allies) I havn't had any problem doing my usual turtling and then assaulting with a silly amount of aircraft.
I have to say they could work a bit more on the AI, seriously trying to counter massive air forces with heavy tanks is a bit silly.
"Also, any news laws ought to (in my view) extend to Unions, which have also been a major burden on industry and are helping to break the remaining corporations. I realize this may sound like blasphemy, but they have made the system wasteful and woefully inefficient that unbalances the need to protect workers' rights. If there were bankruptcy laws built into Union contracts as well, Union workers would have a personal incentive to make the company efficient and productive so that they continue to receive benefits."
At least in Sweden the unions are very aware they have to be careful, if the company collapses thousands of people become unemployed. It's rather common they agree to even lower wages to make sure the company can survive. What more incentive do they need?
"Not yet they have not. I have my say next Tuesday like the rest of em and I will definitely be voting my displeasure. Hopefully enough fellow voters will agree with me ( if not then at least by voting I will have earned the right to Beyotch about it)."
The thing is, you listed "The goverment of anyone else for that matter", that includes all the previous governments not just the one that might be elected on tuesday.
"Not that it has helped Europe any. After just being there (within the last month) the same bailout crap is going on and the same inflation pressures are being felt (so socialism and nationalization hasn't helped them much either!) Add that to the taxes already being paid for the socialized medicine and the rest of the taxes Europeans pay 3,35E (4.39usd)for a 20oz diet soda I pay 1.49Usd. In other words, don't try and sell me how much better a system it is when I have seen first hand."
Nationalizing the banks and bailing them out will obviously have the same net effect in the short term, that is stopping them from crashing. The differences are mostly long term and it's to early to tell if it's better or not. However the main point is that they did what you said, that is seizing the banks property.
And about that diet soda, you were ripped off. You probably bought it in a tourist district.
"I will agree we probably did not have much choice in saving the banks (or Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac), but Lehmann's? Bear Sterns? AIG? Wall Street? Gimme a break.... I also said in an earlier post someone needs to go to Jail!"
I think the problem is that there is no law against what they did and you have laws against making people go to jail retroactively.
Isn't the whole point to make the world more fair? What would be the point of a government trying to make the world less fair...
"who the hell died and appointed Obama, the democrats, the government, or anyone else for that matter to tell me what I should do or not do with the regards to the fruits of my labor or if I have enough"
I think you and your fellow voters did
"BTW - to answer this I wrote to each of my democrat representatives / senators (since Michigan is overflowing with these people) basically pointing out it is not Government's to bail out a damn thing and in fact should be using the mother of all anal probes to find out who is at fault for this calamatity and HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. Fines, seizure of assets, whatever within the law to make them pay - HOWEVER - to not give any bailout spending my tax dollars on people who criminally and fraudently bilked the American public. I also sent a letter to committee chairman(s) and the president."
In Europe most countries decided to just take over and nationalised the banks that failed. I don't really get why you in the US decided to give them free money with no accountability.
The thing is though, if you don't save the banks then the entire economy comes crashing down.
I don't think that word means what you think it does.
Person A: states that he dislikes a candidate for thinking the Constitution is flawed Peson B: responds that the makers of the constitution were aware that the constitution wasn't perfect so they made sure it was possible to change it
That is neither a logical fallacy nor a statement that lacks meaning relative to the comment it follows.
Leaving linguistics for politics, 1) Do you have a quote of where he said that? 2) I see many people on slashdot treating the constitution like a religious document so at least some people care.
The problem is that when a cooperation screws up they take a lot of people with them. There needs to be a way to specifically hurt the ones responsible and not the innocent bystanders.
>On the other hand, a lot of countries (cough in europe cough) have such high protective tariffs and such restrictive labor laws >that their economic growth is weak, stagnant, or negative, and their unemployment is high. It doesn't really benefit anyone if 80% >of the country has guaranteed (overpaid) work, but loses 60% of their income to pay for the 20% who can't get jobs.
I don't know what universe you've been living in but in mine the social democracies of Europe have had stable growing economies with low unemployment.
>And my point was that lowering the incentives to achieve will have a horrible effect on everyone. People will not reach their full >potential because they will not have as much of an incentive to. The government has always put in more social programs to >continually "help" people, while handicapping them because they are not being forced to provide for themselves and reach their >full potential. This is a slippery slope we have been sliding down for as long as our country has existed, I am just doing >everything I can to stop it. It looks like we are shifting into a different country than as we were founded. I believe it was best >said by Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813)
I don't know about in the US but around here the idea is that the social programs make the individuals able to get work and they have to prove that they're trying to get employed to continue to get help(Unless they're incapable of working because of medical reasons and such)
>"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote >themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the >most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always >followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
To be perfectly honest, I think he pulled all of that out of a dark place located in his nether regions. Did Alexander bring a single data point to back that up?
I don't live in the US so I couldn't care less what Thomas Jefferson thinks in general. I am however still trying to make up my mind on what I think about inheritance.
On one hand I like the idea of being able to create a better life for your children, on the other side I don't like people getting a free ride.
First off, remember to post as "Plain Old Text", all your posts are horribly formated and really annoying to read.
>Why do 50% more work if I am only going to make 10% more?
>Socialism is un-American, and if you are not insulted by being called a socialist, you either don't know what it means, or are a radical. "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." Alexis de Tocqueville
I couldn't care less if Socialism is un-American, I'm Swedish, gee. We've been socialist since the 1890's and a strawman doesn't stop being a strawman just because it's a quote. Sweden ranks better then the USA on many freedom indexes
>. Luck is where preparation meets opportunity. So you are saying the government should confiscate all of the deceased's belongings and them pass them out as they see fit? That is the epitome of taxation without representation, one of the main reasons our ancestors left Europe. While our ancestors left Europe for America, it seems many Americans now want to leave American values for Euro ones
It's just something I've mused about, don't think it's very realistic in the real world. As far as I know very few people left Europe because of taxation of all things, I've always heard they were escaping religions persecution and generally seeking opportunities.
>and no wealth is able to be completely hoarded, good salesman can get a big sale out of the stingiest of penny pinchers.
Ofcourse it's not completely hoarded, they're paying for food and whatnot after all. However the fact remains that hoarding money is bad for the economy.
The question is however, how much of their fortune is luck and how much is skill. If you removed all their money today would they be able to replicate the feat?
Almost all the success stories I've read have been about being in the right place(luck) at the right time(luck) while making the right thing(skill).
>If you are going to tax the hell out of anyone making a certain amount of money, then what would be the incentive to be productive >and innovative, other than just being able to say "Hey everyone, look what I did!" ?
Because you'll still earn more money then you would if you weren't productive or inventive.
>On top of that, giving tax rebates to people who don't pay taxes is socialist, and if you are being given money that has been >taken from someone else, because they make too much, why would you ever want to make a lot?
What's wrong with socialist, I keep seeing Americans throw it around like it's an insult. The cold war is over.
The thing is, no one wants to be unemployed living on welfare.(Expect people exploiting the system which should be dealt with). It should always be beneficial to work harder.
>Rich people are rich because they have made themselves that way. Sure, there are some who live off of family fortunes, but if >you made yourself a millionaire, wouldn't you want your kids to be taken care of after you are gone?
The majority of the rich either inherited their fortune or were lucky. Becoming rich through hard work is really rare. Sometimes I've mused about the possibility of a 100% inheritance tax making everyone even at the start of their lives.
>Ever since the New Deal, we have been creating a group of people that is reliant on the government, and pretty much is a >permanent voting block for the Democrats. Taking away incentives by punishing those who create wealth is simply un-American and >anti-capitalistic. That is my economic argument on why to choose McCain over Obama.
How exactly is creating wealth useful if it's hoarded? You might aswell just chuck it all into an incenerator for what it does to the economy.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not ignoring the cheating in Diablo 2, as others have pointed out they're still banning cheaters from there. However I don't think it's a priority for them since it's already a lost fight. The game itself is flawed because it trusts the client too much which makes all kinds of exploits possible.
I don't see how their current anti-cheating attitude when it comes to Diablo 2 will cost them any significant Diablo 3 sales though, anyone fanatical enough about Diablo 2 to still play it and care about the cheaters will be more then enough fanatical to buy Diablo 3 on release day even if it's an empty box(Exageration).
Back when I played Diablo 2 on closed battle.net there was barely any cheaters at all (Open battle.net was obviously ludicrous since you could edit your character).
The only "cheat" I'm aware of for Warcraft 3 is maphack and afaik Blizzard can detect it if you use it in ladder games(they host).
I don't think Diablo 2 is their priority as far as anti-cheating is concerned. I think they kinda quickly after release noticed they had done some basic mistakes that enabled cheating, like usual they trusted the client with too much.
I suspect that closed battle.net for Diablo 3 will have more information on the server and less cheating.
I think you're seriously exaggerating the potential for a real war.
Since the computer shares room with my bed I prefer it to be turned off when I'm sleeping. Whenever I'm upgrading my computer again I'll try to get it quieter.
I love faster startup time, really hate when I boot my computer in the morning, go off to make breakfast and it still hasn't finished booting when I'm back .
The point is I think, that information is information and you have always had the option of transmitting and displaying it however you like.
I agree, I have no plans that involves paying for sex, but I think the prostitution laws are counter productive.
You seem to have a tradition of trying to use really old hardware with new operating systems.
You could argue that a lot of the white voters voted for McCain because he's white.
This is the red alert style of gameplay and has always been(or well, I have some vague memory of RA1 supporting turtling more).
Anyhow, so far in the campaign atleast (Finnished soviet and done half of allies) I havn't had any problem doing my usual turtling and then assaulting with a silly amount of aircraft.
I have to say they could work a bit more on the AI, seriously trying to counter massive air forces with heavy tanks is a bit silly.
"Also, any news laws ought to (in my view) extend to Unions, which have also been a major burden on industry and are helping to break the remaining corporations. I realize this may sound like blasphemy, but they have made the system wasteful and woefully inefficient that unbalances the need to protect workers' rights. If there were bankruptcy laws built into Union contracts as well, Union workers would have a personal incentive to make the company efficient and productive so that they continue to receive benefits."
At least in Sweden the unions are very aware they have to be careful, if the company collapses thousands of people become unemployed. It's rather common they agree to even lower wages to make sure the company can survive. What more incentive do they need?
"Not yet they have not. I have my say next Tuesday like the rest of em and I will definitely be voting my displeasure. Hopefully enough fellow voters will agree with me ( if not then at least by voting I will have earned the right to Beyotch about it)."
The thing is, you listed "The goverment of anyone else for that matter", that includes all the previous governments not just the one that might be elected on tuesday.
"Not that it has helped Europe any. After just being there (within the last month) the same bailout crap is going on and the same inflation pressures are being felt (so socialism and nationalization hasn't helped them much either!) Add that to the taxes already being paid for the socialized medicine and the rest of the taxes Europeans pay 3,35E (4.39usd)for a 20oz diet soda I pay 1.49Usd. In other words, don't try and sell me how much better a system it is when I have seen first hand."
Nationalizing the banks and bailing them out will obviously have the same net effect in the short term, that is stopping them from crashing. The differences are mostly long term and it's to early to tell if it's better or not. However the main point is that they did what you said, that is seizing the banks property.
And about that diet soda, you were ripped off. You probably bought it in a tourist district.
"I will agree we probably did not have much choice in saving the banks (or Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac), but Lehmann's? Bear Sterns? AIG? Wall Street? Gimme a break.... I also said in an earlier post someone needs to go to Jail!"
I think the problem is that there is no law against what they did and you have laws against making people go to jail retroactively.
Didn't he say specifically that the court is not the right place to handle it?
All he says in that interview is that the constitution puts restraint on redistribution of wealth.
"NEWSFLASH! - The world is not fair!"
Isn't the whole point to make the world more fair? What would be the point of a government trying to make the world less fair...
"who the hell died and appointed Obama, the democrats, the government, or anyone else for that matter to tell me what I should do or not do with the regards to the fruits of my labor or if I have enough"
I think you and your fellow voters did
"BTW - to answer this I wrote to each of my democrat representatives / senators (since Michigan is overflowing with these people) basically pointing out it is not Government's to bail out a damn thing and in fact should be using the mother of all anal probes to find out who is at fault for this calamatity and HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. Fines, seizure of assets, whatever within the law to make them pay - HOWEVER - to not give any bailout spending my tax dollars on people who criminally and fraudently bilked the American public. I also sent a letter to committee chairman(s) and the president."
In Europe most countries decided to just take over and nationalised the banks that failed. I don't really get why you in the US decided to give them free money with no accountability.
The thing is though, if you don't save the banks then the entire economy comes crashing down.
I don't think that word means what you think it does.
Person A: states that he dislikes a candidate for thinking the Constitution is flawed
Peson B: responds that the makers of the constitution were aware that the constitution wasn't perfect so they made sure it was possible to change it
That is neither a logical fallacy nor a statement that lacks meaning relative to the comment it follows.
Leaving linguistics for politics,
1) Do you have a quote of where he said that?
2) I see many people on slashdot treating the constitution like a religious document so at least some people care.
The problem is that when a cooperation screws up they take a lot of people with them. There needs to be a way to specifically hurt the ones responsible and not the innocent bystanders.
>On the other hand, a lot of countries (cough in europe cough) have such high protective tariffs and such restrictive labor laws >that their economic growth is weak, stagnant, or negative, and their unemployment is high. It doesn't really benefit anyone if 80% >of the country has guaranteed (overpaid) work, but loses 60% of their income to pay for the 20% who can't get jobs.
I don't know what universe you've been living in but in mine the social democracies of Europe have had stable growing economies with low unemployment.
I agree with you, I just wanted to point out that the constitution isn't an infallible holy document. I don't like the idea of politics as religion.
>And my point was that lowering the incentives to achieve will have a horrible effect on everyone. People will not reach their full >potential because they will not have as much of an incentive to. The government has always put in more social programs to >continually "help" people, while handicapping them because they are not being forced to provide for themselves and reach their >full potential. This is a slippery slope we have been sliding down for as long as our country has existed, I am just doing >everything I can to stop it. It looks like we are shifting into a different country than as we were founded. I believe it was best >said by Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813)
I don't know about in the US but around here the idea is that the social programs make the individuals able to get work and they have to prove that they're trying to get employed to continue to get help(Unless they're incapable of working because of medical reasons and such)
>"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote >themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the >most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always >followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
To be perfectly honest, I think he pulled all of that out of a dark place located in his nether regions. Did Alexander bring a single data point to back that up?
I don't live in the US so I couldn't care less what Thomas Jefferson thinks in general. I am however still trying to make up my mind on what I think about inheritance.
On one hand I like the idea of being able to create a better life for your children, on the other side I don't like people getting a free ride.
First off, remember to post as "Plain Old Text", all your posts are horribly formated and really annoying to read.
>Why do 50% more work if I am only going to make 10% more?
>Socialism is un-American, and if you are not insulted by being called a socialist, you either don't know what it means, or are a radical. "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." Alexis de Tocqueville
I couldn't care less if Socialism is un-American, I'm Swedish, gee. We've been socialist since the 1890's and a strawman doesn't stop being a strawman just because it's a quote. Sweden ranks better then the USA on many freedom indexes
>. Luck is where preparation meets opportunity. So you are saying the government should confiscate all of the deceased's belongings and them pass them out as they see fit? That is the epitome of taxation without representation, one of the main reasons our ancestors left Europe. While our ancestors left Europe for America, it seems many Americans now want to leave American values for Euro ones
It's just something I've mused about, don't think it's very realistic in the real world. As far as I know very few people left Europe because of taxation of all things, I've always heard they were escaping religions persecution and generally seeking opportunities.
>and no wealth is able to be completely hoarded, good salesman can get a big sale out of the stingiest of penny pinchers.
Ofcourse it's not completely hoarded, they're paying for food and whatnot after all. However the fact remains that hoarding money is bad for the economy.
The question is however, how much of their fortune is luck and how much is skill. If you removed all their money today would they be able to replicate the feat?
Almost all the success stories I've read have been about being in the right place(luck) at the right time(luck) while making the right thing(skill).
>If you are going to tax the hell out of anyone making a certain amount of money, then what would be the incentive to be productive >and innovative, other than just being able to say "Hey everyone, look what I did!" ?
Because you'll still earn more money then you would if you weren't productive or inventive.
>On top of that, giving tax rebates to people who don't pay taxes is socialist, and if you are being given money that has been >taken from someone else, because they make too much, why would you ever want to make a lot?
What's wrong with socialist, I keep seeing Americans throw it around like it's an insult. The cold war is over.
The thing is, no one wants to be unemployed living on welfare.(Expect people exploiting the system which should be dealt with). It should always be beneficial to work harder.
>Rich people are rich because they have made themselves that way. Sure, there are some who live off of family fortunes, but if >you made yourself a millionaire, wouldn't you want your kids to be taken care of after you are gone?
The majority of the rich either inherited their fortune or were lucky. Becoming rich through hard work is really rare. Sometimes I've mused about the possibility of a 100% inheritance tax making everyone even at the start of their lives.
>Ever since the New Deal, we have been creating a group of people that is reliant on the government, and pretty much is a >permanent voting block for the Democrats. Taking away incentives by punishing those who create wealth is simply un-American and >anti-capitalistic. That is my economic argument on why to choose McCain over Obama.
How exactly is creating wealth useful if it's hoarded? You might aswell just chuck it all into an incenerator for what it does to the economy.