What if (and this is a big but) - what if people learned how to be responsible around unsafe objects, and if they weren't smart or careful and injured themselves, they were allowed to perish?
I'm afraid most philosophers these days consider utopian societies impossible to realize.
Most kids liked the trips to the Planetarium. It was the other field trips they didn't like, though really just about any field trip was preferable to sitting in class reading textbooks.
Did they have a schedule there of Planetarium programs? That's how the Planetarium at the old Academy worked -- a program would run for a few months and then get replaced. Some of them were quite good, though some were rather lame; I have no interest at all in Fragile Earth and wonder when it'll be swapped out for a new one.
Excuse me mods, but it's neither flamebait nor inaccurate to refer to Sarah Palin as a 'dizzy bitch.' She's pretty much made that her campaign theme as the small-town outsider who is here to teach us city folk that the rural life is more honest, American living. Apparently I don't live in Real America, and I make non-American voting choices.
If there really were no safety nets such as as welfare, unemployment, free health care, etc, you bet the government would be far more aggressive in banning anything "non-safe." The masses would be screaming for it.
It's not really like that at all. It's more like what you said but the judge intercepts all mail originating to and from your address from within the state.
More than that. Let's say the poster lives in Washington. After someone in Kentucky sent him a letter, a Kentucky judge rules that that Kentuckian can't send the Washingtonian mail anymore. Oh, and Californians, Georgians, Europeans, and so forth can't send the Washingtonian mail anymore either, since Kentucky has seized his postal address.
You can't compare a virtual address to a physical one.
You can, it just has to be a better analogy! The above isn't far off, but it's not terrible either. I think you're right in that this is BS that will get sorted out, but the online reaction to it is quite justified. It's a terrible precedent.
Actually, I've never had a big problem switching away from WoW. In fact, it's been far easier for me since the game often doesn't know it's been switched away from. Instantaneous workspace switching.
The key was to have wine running on its own workspace. I quickly figured out that under Gnome, the "switch to workspace on the Right/Left" didn't work anymore, but "switch to workspace 1/2/3/4" did. Once I switched to an absolute workspace, switching to the right/left/up/down workspaces worked again, both in and out of the client.
Yeah, there was nothing like getting blown away in the first five minutes of the game because you had no idea where the enemy was, but he always knew where all your bases were, what troops you had, and he was building whatever was necessary to counter your forces and base layout.
This is the statement I disagree with the most. It varies greatly from ISP to ISP and online service to online service. And it's getting worse, not better, as you start to add more devices to the local network that expect always-on connections to be free bandwidth.. web browsers, PS3s, Tivos (oh God, the Tivo is annoying when connected to a LAN -- there are no controls for specifying the time of day to download subscribed downloadable content).
Yup, same here. It's now pretty much impossible for me to play Starcraft with my friends over the Internet. Same with Heroes of Might and Magic III. Neither game was designed with routers and NAT in mind.
Dammit of all the days to not have mod points. There's no way the parent comment should stay only at score 3. It very well repudiates not only the original anecdote, but also explains why these common stories are of very little interest when it comes to crafting policy.
When the selling point of a competitor's product, such as Warhammer Online, is the fact that it promises less grinding, I think something seriously strange is going on in the MMOG world.
It is? No, 'less grinding' has been a selling point for MMOGs for awhile. Blizzard used 'less grinding' as selling point when World of Warcraft first came out, as you could quest your way to 60 instead of grinding against mobs like some other MMOs.
I'm curious what exactly hooked you so much. A specific activity (raiding, five-mans, alts, arenas, etc) or just everything together?
I believe that to accomodate players in China who aren't allowed to play past a certain number of hours they had a cut-off. I'm not sure if it was in the computer or in the game, but there was a hard cut-off. You play awhile.. then you have to do something else.
The problem with Starcraft was that so much of the content was client controlled. Even on Battle.net, clients were chatting with each other instead of just the server, so there was no way to prevent hacking without the server checking to see if movements or actions were valid. They have mostly (though not completely) taken care of that with World of Warcraft, so I would hope that they would be able to do the same with online Diablo III and Starcraft II.
It could be argued that since the game-making powerhouses behind the Diablo1 era games have moved on, Blizzard has been inadequately clawing to stay at the top of the mountain of excellence
Given how Hellgate: London turned out, I'm not sure I'd agree with the above statement.
Easy. Because it opened up the possibility of playing the game over the net without having a valid CD key. A lot of people counter "well they could have opened up their authenticator to third-party clients," but that's not really a reasonable suggestion either.
I liked bnetd, it was the only way to get a lag-free starcraft game working over the Internet (they didn't have a TCP option like Diablo II did, and Blizzard's Bnet was lagged to the point of unusability for us) too.
Indeed. Almost all of my multiplayer experience of Diablo II was with LAN play for three reasons:
1) Characters you created on the LAN stayed as long as you had the files. None of this "if you don't play for 30 days we delete your character" BS.
2) US West Battle.Net was unreasonably lagged and buggy. LAN play worked fine.
3) Playing with the Battle.Net kiddies makes one want to bang his head on his desk. Seriously, it made me wish they all had Gabe's iChoke-u installed. I wanted to choke them all. Fortunately you could password-protect a game.
Once reading it through, I didn't have a problem with the paladin issue. It worked. It worked just fine. Did the evolve to fit it? Sure it did, but there was nothing in the lore that said that it couldn't. It fits in very well with the motivations of the Forsaken.
Which means that the only method they had of actually putting you in danger/killing you was to do ludicrous amounts of damage in an extremely short amount of time. i.e. MSFELE or even worse MSLE with anti-resist aura, or the necro boss's corpse explosion, and so on. Things that felt extremely cheap, especially because 90% of the time there was no danger whatsoever. I hated e.g. running up to a pack where unbeknownst to me there was a similarly-shaded boss stuck in the middle and click once and *wham* You Have Died "WTF?!"
Unfortunately, I have the feeling they'll still have those cheap/hard bosses, you just won't be able to potion your way out of it anymore.
And the potions were the only way some of us without great gear could actually pass the act-ending bosses.
Side Note: The reason I never tried the online games was because of the immature community on Blizzard.net when playing the older games. Matchmaking just worked way better for me when handled outside Blizzard's scope of control.
The number one reason why it took me awhile to warm up to World of Warcraft was due to the horrible, horrible experiences I had on Battle.Net in Diablo II. Oh god, what a bunch of asses there. So a co-worker suggested I join their guild on a WoW server. I like my coworkers, and the guild was fun. So it's all about getting in with a mature group of friends, and I've had a better time with them all than I ever did in Diablo 2.
Who needs a keyboard in a Diablo clone when you have voice chat?
Because for the most part, I do NOT want to be connected via voice chat with random Internet nerds when I'm PUGging it. With friends? Sure, voice chat it great. We'll hop on Ventrilo and have a great time. With random strangers? No.. fucking.. way.
Slashdot Mirror
What if (and this is a big but) - what if people learned how to be responsible around unsafe objects, and if they weren't smart or careful and injured themselves, they were allowed to perish?
I'm afraid most philosophers these days consider utopian societies impossible to realize.
Most kids liked the trips to the Planetarium. It was the other field trips they didn't like, though really just about any field trip was preferable to sitting in class reading textbooks.
Did they have a schedule there of Planetarium programs? That's how the Planetarium at the old Academy worked -- a program would run for a few months and then get replaced. Some of them were quite good, though some were rather lame; I have no interest at all in Fragile Earth and wonder when it'll be swapped out for a new one.
Excuse me mods, but it's neither flamebait nor inaccurate to refer to Sarah Palin as a 'dizzy bitch.' She's pretty much made that her campaign theme as the small-town outsider who is here to teach us city folk that the rural life is more honest, American living. Apparently I don't live in Real America, and I make non-American voting choices.
If there really were no safety nets such as as welfare, unemployment, free health care, etc, you bet the government would be far more aggressive in banning anything "non-safe." The masses would be screaming for it.
I think Kentucky's chief exports are bad laws and regulation.
Don't forget the good old whiskey the judge was drinking.
So the trick is to host your servers and register your domain in a country where a court order from Kentucky is going to be recycled as toilet paper.
Clearly a way for Kentucky to fight back would be to use paper that would cause as many paper cuts as possible.
It's not really like that at all. It's more like what you said but the judge intercepts all mail originating to and from your address from within the state.
More than that. Let's say the poster lives in Washington. After someone in Kentucky sent him a letter, a Kentucky judge rules that that Kentuckian can't send the Washingtonian mail anymore. Oh, and Californians, Georgians, Europeans, and so forth can't send the Washingtonian mail anymore either, since Kentucky has seized his postal address.
You can't compare a virtual address to a physical one.
You can, it just has to be a better analogy! The above isn't far off, but it's not terrible either. I think you're right in that this is BS that will get sorted out, but the online reaction to it is quite justified. It's a terrible precedent.
Actually, I've never had a big problem switching away from WoW. In fact, it's been far easier for me since the game often doesn't know it's been switched away from. Instantaneous workspace switching.
The key was to have wine running on its own workspace. I quickly figured out that under Gnome, the "switch to workspace on the Right/Left" didn't work anymore, but "switch to workspace 1/2/3/4" did. Once I switched to an absolute workspace, switching to the right/left/up/down workspaces worked again, both in and out of the client.
Yeah, there was nothing like getting blown away in the first five minutes of the game because you had no idea where the enemy was, but he always knew where all your bases were, what troops you had, and he was building whatever was necessary to counter your forces and base layout.
Well, lag is a thing of the past.
This is the statement I disagree with the most. It varies greatly from ISP to ISP and online service to online service. And it's getting worse, not better, as you start to add more devices to the local network that expect always-on connections to be free bandwidth.. web browsers, PS3s, Tivos (oh God, the Tivo is annoying when connected to a LAN -- there are no controls for specifying the time of day to download subscribed downloadable content).
Yup, same here. It's now pretty much impossible for me to play Starcraft with my friends over the Internet. Same with Heroes of Might and Magic III. Neither game was designed with routers and NAT in mind.
Yes, playing over the internet is more convenient for the game maker
It is? LAN play doesn't require as much investment from the game maker in terms of bandwidth and server resources.
It takes a little planning though. All you need is to be a millionaire. If more people did that then the problems would go away, right?
Dammit of all the days to not have mod points. There's no way the parent comment should stay only at score 3. It very well repudiates not only the original anecdote, but also explains why these common stories are of very little interest when it comes to crafting policy.
When the selling point of a competitor's product, such as Warhammer Online, is the fact that it promises less grinding, I think something seriously strange is going on in the MMOG world.
It is? No, 'less grinding' has been a selling point for MMOGs for awhile. Blizzard used 'less grinding' as selling point when World of Warcraft first came out, as you could quest your way to 60 instead of grinding against mobs like some other MMOs.
I'm curious what exactly hooked you so much. A specific activity (raiding, five-mans, alts, arenas, etc) or just everything together?
I believe that to accomodate players in China who aren't allowed to play past a certain number of hours they had a cut-off. I'm not sure if it was in the computer or in the game, but there was a hard cut-off. You play awhile.. then you have to do something else.
The problem with Starcraft was that so much of the content was client controlled. Even on Battle.net, clients were chatting with each other instead of just the server, so there was no way to prevent hacking without the server checking to see if movements or actions were valid. They have mostly (though not completely) taken care of that with World of Warcraft, so I would hope that they would be able to do the same with online Diablo III and Starcraft II.
It could be argued that since the game-making powerhouses behind the Diablo1 era games have moved on, Blizzard has been inadequately clawing to stay at the top of the mountain of excellence
Given how Hellgate: London turned out, I'm not sure I'd agree with the above statement.
Easy. Because it opened up the possibility of playing the game over the net without having a valid CD key. A lot of people counter "well they could have opened up their authenticator to third-party clients," but that's not really a reasonable suggestion either.
I liked bnetd, it was the only way to get a lag-free starcraft game working over the Internet (they didn't have a TCP option like Diablo II did, and Blizzard's Bnet was lagged to the point of unusability for us) too.
Indeed. Almost all of my multiplayer experience of Diablo II was with LAN play for three reasons:
1) Characters you created on the LAN stayed as long as you had the files. None of this "if you don't play for 30 days we delete your character" BS.
2) US West Battle.Net was unreasonably lagged and buggy. LAN play worked fine.
3) Playing with the Battle.Net kiddies makes one want to bang his head on his desk. Seriously, it made me wish they all had Gabe's iChoke-u installed. I wanted to choke them all. Fortunately you could password-protect a game.
Once reading it through, I didn't have a problem with the paladin issue. It worked. It worked just fine. Did the evolve to fit it? Sure it did, but there was nothing in the lore that said that it couldn't. It fits in very well with the motivations of the Forsaken.
Which means that the only method they had of actually putting you in danger/killing you was to do ludicrous amounts of damage in an extremely short amount of time. i.e. MSFELE or even worse MSLE with anti-resist aura, or the necro boss's corpse explosion, and so on. Things that felt extremely cheap, especially because 90% of the time there was no danger whatsoever. I hated e.g. running up to a pack where unbeknownst to me there was a similarly-shaded boss stuck in the middle and click once and *wham* You Have Died "WTF?!"
Unfortunately, I have the feeling they'll still have those cheap/hard bosses, you just won't be able to potion your way out of it anymore.
And the potions were the only way some of us without great gear could actually pass the act-ending bosses.
Side Note: The reason I never tried the online games was because of the immature community on Blizzard.net when playing the older games. Matchmaking just worked way better for me when handled outside Blizzard's scope of control.
The number one reason why it took me awhile to warm up to World of Warcraft was due to the horrible, horrible experiences I had on Battle.Net in Diablo II. Oh god, what a bunch of asses there. So a co-worker suggested I join their guild on a WoW server. I like my coworkers, and the guild was fun. So it's all about getting in with a mature group of friends, and I've had a better time with them all than I ever did in Diablo 2.
Who needs a keyboard in a Diablo clone when you have voice chat?
Because for the most part, I do NOT want to be connected via voice chat with random Internet nerds when I'm PUGging it. With friends? Sure, voice chat it great. We'll hop on Ventrilo and have a great time. With random strangers? No.. fucking.. way.