Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 1
I don't want Blizzard to FOAD, I simply want it to return to being Old Blizzard that was dedicated to it's customers as opposed to the New Blizzard that actively hates it's paying customers.
Re:Long term support, removal of security, etc
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 1
Those patches stopped a few years ago because that was the Old Blizzard. This DRM loving company that's been around for the last few years is the new Activision-Blizzard that hates it's customers and wants to punish you for buying their product. It's a real shame, because Blizzard used to make some of the best games and had the best customer service in the industry.
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 1
It's not about the "$60 worth of entertainment", it's about the fact that a scumbag company can flip a switch and destroy your personal property.
Because, sadly, the media has far too much say in who is allowed to run for president. I know very few Republicans who want Mitt Romney and very few Democrats who want to re-elect Obama, but thanks to our absurd system and the media, those two wretched choices are what we'll have.
Republicans are for a smaller government than the Democrats. That doesn't mean that they're for a small government in the slightest - just at least a tiny bit smaller than the one preferred by their opponents.
The difference being that we have evidence collected by the police and eyewitnesses to that confirms that Zimmerman's life was in danger (don't even try to claim having your skull bashed into the pavement repeatedly isn't life threatening) before Zimmerman pulled out the gun.
The cops specifically told him not to follow or get involved in any way. He did it anyways.
False. He was in the process of following him when he called the police, they told him they didn't need him to, he said "OK" and went back to his car. We have eyewitnesses stating that he was pinned to the ground with Martin bashing his head into the pavement. Tell me, if he went up to him intended to shoot him, how the hell did he end up on the ground having his head bashed in calling for help? Why not just shoot him in the first place?
But your version of it doesn't allow for someone who owns one of those "evil" guns to come out in a positive light, so any other one must be a lie.
Zimmerman did not shoot the punk because he was black, he called the police and said there was a suspicious person, they told him not to follow him, he was walking back to his car and got jumped from behind, then after being pinned to the ground having his head bashed into the pavement while he called for help and received none, he shot him to keep from being murdered.
Any reasonable person would qualify attempted murder when a person is pinned to the ground as a valid reason to shoot your assailant. Sadly, anti-gun people keep claiming that he just shot him for being black - the police have released plenty of evidence and he shot him because his life was in danger, proving that they're just lying bastards trying to pressure society to change to fit their views, despite the fact that the facts don't support their story.
Can you understand that such a system actually sounds more desirable to many people, because they consider helping others and their society as a whole to be a higher virtue than enriching themselves?
That is the biggest load of bullshit ever. It's about wanting something for free, not about wanting everyone to magically be friends and sing campfire songs together. You also forget that SLAVERY is not "helping" people. Sure, the plantation owners in the colonies were all better off when they had slaves doing most of the work for them, but it wasn't right to take away one persons freedom for the benefit of others.
It would be nice if everyone did this voluntarily, but unfortunately there are people who think they made it to the top all on their own and so shouldn't have to pay back into the system.
Right, those people who worked hard and got promoted didn't ACTUALLY earn it, it was the lazy fucks like you who really did the work. That kid who got all A's because he spent all his free time studying didn't earn his grades, you earned it for him by playing drinking games. Jesus Christ, get over your greed and accept that you failed because you were lazy. No one owes you anything. If you want a better life, get off your lazy ass and EARN it. I bust my ass working full time and doing grad school full time so that I can have a better life, and you're greedy enough to think that I owe you as a result? Fuck you asshole. The only thing you deserve is a blunt object upside the head for wanting to steal from others.
Those people have to be dragged forward by the rest of society that would rather see every succeed somewhat, than a few people succeed immensely and many fall by the wayside.
Again, pretty bullshit to try to pretend like you're not a greedy little bastard wanting things he didn't earn. If everyone in the world was as lazy as you, we wouldn't have any of the inventions we do because everyone would be sitting around waiting for someone else to create it so that they could steal it for their own use. It was the "evil" hard working people who brought us from the stone age to the modern world, not lazy people sitting around doing nothing.
I try to weigh each policy decision by its merits, rather than attempting to smash it in to the mold of some iron-clad dogma. What will I actually gain? What will others gain? What will I/we lose? Are the gains worth the costs? If the policy closes some doors for us, does it open others?
And you're so focused on what you and your friends might gain that you completely ignore the fact that people have rights. What you're promoting is at best forced temporary slavery on one person for the benefit of others. It doesn't matter if we'll invent warp engines in 20 years and no one will ever say a mean thing again, you do NOT have the right to forcefully take someone's property for your personal gain or to force them to work for you for free. You think it's OK because it's those "evil" hard working people having their rights violated for the benefit of those like you - but you would be foaming at the mouth if you were the one being punished for no reason to make someone else's life easier.
If "socialism" is so bad, how can so many countries that practice it be so well-off?
If by "well off" you mean crippling debt to the point of collapse, a population that think it's entitled to whatever it wants for free so that the slightest notion of them having to take responsibility for their actions sends them into violent riots, a government that almost perfectly models Orwell's 1984, and a complete lack of respect for the most basic of human rights, then sure - you're right. The US is rapidly reaching the point of collapsing because we've been implementing the same failed policies of your ideal countries while they're slowly and painfully realizing that it's not sustainable.
if your goal is to raise the overall standard of living then government-driven solutions seem to be worth a look
Almost every major advancement that has improved the standard of living was developed by private individuals seeking to make a profit - you know, that "evil" capitalism that took the US from a poor colony to the richest country in the world that everyone rushed to come to so that they could enjoy the higher standard of living too. Government driven solutions almost always come with a loss of rights. The main difference between us is that you think rights are privileges granted to us by our masters in the government, whereas I think they are something that no one has the right to take away from you. As such, you'll justify anything you want because rights can be eliminated to suit your goals, whereas I can only justify an action that respects people's rights.
I've heard of a couple and it was in place of work experience / professional certifications (such as actuary exams). If you had the right classes and good enough grades, they'd wave the need for the certificates / experience.
Anyway, statistics show that by keeping a gun around, you merely increase the chances of a family member accidentally getting shot and of yourself being killed in the event of a break-in.
False statistics, yes. It's been debunked countless time, because it's a fictional number that anti-gun people constantly change (just like how most statistics used in arguments are made up on the spot). The majority of the people I know own guns. Guess how many have accidentally fired one? Zero. Guess how many have ever had a kid get ahold of one? Zero. Guess how many are afraid of being attacked? Zero. There are daily reports amongst all sorts of new sources of people stopping / preventing muggings / rapes / murder by having a gun on them. You simply don't have any facts to support your argument.
The civilian doesn't even need to be armed or clearly dangerous; they've shot quite a few mentally disabled people (like a former classmate of mine) for merely running towards them or making the wrong movement -- person's dead on the ground before they could've drawn a gun even if they did have one.
All the more reason to have a gun when we have trigger happy cops who murder people for kicks. But you're afraid of an inanimate object because it makes loud sounds and it scares you. That's fine, just don't blame anyone else if you ever end up in a bad situation where you need one and you don't have one due to your own childish fear of an inanimate object. The police cannot protect you (and don't even have a legal duty to anyways), hence why most police chiefs across the country recommend that people (especially women) get a gun and a concealed carry permit. Just like with an emergency savings account, a fire extinguisher, or insurance - it's better to have it and never need to use it than to need it and not have it.
They don't have that problem because their "loans" are repaid through taxes that are forcefully taken from your paycheck - as opposed to student loans in the US where you have to send them a check / go online and pay your bill each month. It's easy to have 100% repayment when you get to confiscate the person's money before they ever get their paycheck.
The schools were already paid. It's the government / banks that haven't been repaid. The schools gain NOTHING by screwing over students and preventing them from getting jobs.
Same here. Twenty years ago a business would see that and say "Hey, this person is motivated and hard working because they busted their ass working to pay the bills while doing college full time and they have a 3.5+ GPA" and hire you. Now companies see that and say "Oh, you don't know how to use *specific software only someone who's already had the position you're applying for would have used* because you were busy working to pay the bills? Fuck you".
I make no claims about the cost of education one way or another, but you cannot in any way claim that it's just to force someone to pay another person's bills. Would I love to have you get stuck paying the bill for my education? Sure, makes my life easier. However, it's not even remotely fair to tell someone that they have to be made worse off through no fault of their own so that others can avoid taking responsibility for themselves.
Nope, it's long-term thinking. I pay more in taxes now than I did before I got my degree since I'm earning 2.5x what I got when I started school.
Actually it's short term thinking. Sure, in the 4-5 year short term you have no loans, but in the 40 years that you work you'll pay several times more in taxes to pay for other people's education than it would have cost to take out loans and pay for your own education.
I know this is going to sound over-the-top, but there's a scary notion in there.
In a world where warrants are an arcane idea from the distant past, and snatch-and-grab detention of US citizens without justification or trial is entirely legal, words like "resisting" or "taking-a-stand" could have some pretty serious consequences.
I'm not saying you shouldn't, or that you'll necessarily get black-bagged, but do appreciate what you're risking.
While is may offend the sensibilities of the more effeminate members of slashdot, this is exactly why you should own a gun (or more than one) and know how to use it. Better to have a chance of taking some of the bastards down with you instead of being murdered without fighting back.
Instead, find a candidate that will represent your views on this and work towards getting this person elected
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, wow *wipes tears from face*, haha, you truly have no understanding how the US political system works. We don't get to pick candidates - the Republican and Democrat parties pick their choices for our next tyrant and we only get the option of picking who we think will use the most lube while ass raping us. There is no other option because the system is rigged in conjuncture with the media to ensure that no third party candidate will ever get a snowballs chance in hell of winning.
Or the brilliant insight that senile - I mean senior - citizens who grew up when radio was the most technologically advanced thing don't have an interest in those newfangled computational contraptions.
HR has switched from finding the best talent for a position to mean discluding any and I mean any reason not to hire someone and then claim they couldn't find qualified applicants.
Dead on. I work full time and am finishing grad school and looking for a new job and that's the impression my friends and I have had of the majority of people we interact with from potential employers. They blatantly go out of their way to find reasons NOT to interview / hire people instead of finding the best candidate for the job.
Witness the case of requiring experience first? 30 years ago you left college applied for a job and it was understood that your grades and dedication proved trainable. Today, you can even be trained but it has to be percisely what the position requires in the exact same way or they are not interested.
Again, 100% accurate. The overwhelming majority of "entry level" positions won't even look at your resume if you don't have 3-5 years of experience doing the EXACT things listed on the job posting - nevermind that some of them may include specialized software that only someone who's previously held the position would have ever used, you MUST know how to use it for an entry level job.
Doing something for X long doesn't make you good at the job. Someone with the right smarts and work ethic does. HR needs to change their ways
That's why I told a friend the other day that eventually I want to be a hiring manager - because so many of them do it wrong, I want to show people how to do things right.
You're saying a guy should be fired because he said the same shit blacks say, only he switched the words "black" and "white". That means you support their racist bullshit or else you'd have been screaming for the blacks to be punished as well.
I judge people based on their actions - sorry that it doesn't fit into your "whites are evil" ideology, but that's the way it is.
He got fired for writing an article that calls out large numbers of blacks for racist behavior and how he countered their racist propaganda. You know damn well if a black had written that article and it was saying the same thing about whites, people like you would be cheering them for posting their racist comments.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want Blizzard to FOAD, I simply want it to return to being Old Blizzard that was dedicated to it's customers as opposed to the New Blizzard that actively hates it's paying customers.
Those patches stopped a few years ago because that was the Old Blizzard. This DRM loving company that's been around for the last few years is the new Activision-Blizzard that hates it's customers and wants to punish you for buying their product. It's a real shame, because Blizzard used to make some of the best games and had the best customer service in the industry.
It's not about the "$60 worth of entertainment", it's about the fact that a scumbag company can flip a switch and destroy your personal property.
Because, sadly, the media has far too much say in who is allowed to run for president. I know very few Republicans who want Mitt Romney and very few Democrats who want to re-elect Obama, but thanks to our absurd system and the media, those two wretched choices are what we'll have.
Republicans are for a smaller government than the Democrats. That doesn't mean that they're for a small government in the slightest - just at least a tiny bit smaller than the one preferred by their opponents.
The difference being that we have evidence collected by the police and eyewitnesses to that confirms that Zimmerman's life was in danger (don't even try to claim having your skull bashed into the pavement repeatedly isn't life threatening) before Zimmerman pulled out the gun.
The cops specifically told him not to follow or get involved in any way. He did it anyways.
False. He was in the process of following him when he called the police, they told him they didn't need him to, he said "OK" and went back to his car. We have eyewitnesses stating that he was pinned to the ground with Martin bashing his head into the pavement. Tell me, if he went up to him intended to shoot him, how the hell did he end up on the ground having his head bashed in calling for help? Why not just shoot him in the first place?
But your version of it doesn't allow for someone who owns one of those "evil" guns to come out in a positive light, so any other one must be a lie.
Fuck it, I'll undo my mod points.
Zimmerman did not shoot the punk because he was black, he called the police and said there was a suspicious person, they told him not to follow him, he was walking back to his car and got jumped from behind, then after being pinned to the ground having his head bashed into the pavement while he called for help and received none , he shot him to keep from being murdered.
Any reasonable person would qualify attempted murder when a person is pinned to the ground as a valid reason to shoot your assailant. Sadly, anti-gun people keep claiming that he just shot him for being black - the police have released plenty of evidence and he shot him because his life was in danger, proving that they're just lying bastards trying to pressure society to change to fit their views, despite the fact that the facts don't support their story.
Can you understand that such a system actually sounds more desirable to many people, because they consider helping others and their society as a whole to be a higher virtue than enriching themselves?
That is the biggest load of bullshit ever. It's about wanting something for free, not about wanting everyone to magically be friends and sing campfire songs together. You also forget that SLAVERY is not "helping" people. Sure, the plantation owners in the colonies were all better off when they had slaves doing most of the work for them, but it wasn't right to take away one persons freedom for the benefit of others.
It would be nice if everyone did this voluntarily, but unfortunately there are people who think they made it to the top all on their own and so shouldn't have to pay back into the system.
Right, those people who worked hard and got promoted didn't ACTUALLY earn it, it was the lazy fucks like you who really did the work. That kid who got all A's because he spent all his free time studying didn't earn his grades, you earned it for him by playing drinking games. Jesus Christ, get over your greed and accept that you failed because you were lazy. No one owes you anything. If you want a better life, get off your lazy ass and EARN it. I bust my ass working full time and doing grad school full time so that I can have a better life, and you're greedy enough to think that I owe you as a result? Fuck you asshole. The only thing you deserve is a blunt object upside the head for wanting to steal from others.
Those people have to be dragged forward by the rest of society that would rather see every succeed somewhat, than a few people succeed immensely and many fall by the wayside.
Again, pretty bullshit to try to pretend like you're not a greedy little bastard wanting things he didn't earn. If everyone in the world was as lazy as you, we wouldn't have any of the inventions we do because everyone would be sitting around waiting for someone else to create it so that they could steal it for their own use. It was the "evil" hard working people who brought us from the stone age to the modern world, not lazy people sitting around doing nothing.
I try to weigh each policy decision by its merits, rather than attempting to smash it in to the mold of some iron-clad dogma. What will I actually gain? What will others gain? What will I/we lose? Are the gains worth the costs? If the policy closes some doors for us, does it open others?
And you're so focused on what you and your friends might gain that you completely ignore the fact that people have rights. What you're promoting is at best forced temporary slavery on one person for the benefit of others. It doesn't matter if we'll invent warp engines in 20 years and no one will ever say a mean thing again, you do NOT have the right to forcefully take someone's property for your personal gain or to force them to work for you for free. You think it's OK because it's those "evil" hard working people having their rights violated for the benefit of those like you - but you would be foaming at the mouth if you were the one being punished for no reason to make someone else's life easier.
If "socialism" is so bad, how can so many countries that practice it be so well-off?
If by "well off" you mean crippling debt to the point of collapse, a population that think it's entitled to whatever it wants for free so that the slightest notion of them having to take responsibility for their actions sends them into violent riots, a government that almost perfectly models Orwell's 1984, and a complete lack of respect for the most basic of human rights, then sure - you're right. The US is rapidly reaching the point of collapsing because we've been implementing the same failed policies of your ideal countries while they're slowly and painfully realizing that it's not sustainable.
if your goal is to raise the overall standard of living then government-driven solutions seem to be worth a look
Almost every major advancement that has improved the standard of living was developed by private individuals seeking to make a profit - you know, that "evil" capitalism that took the US from a poor colony to the richest country in the world that everyone rushed to come to so that they could enjoy the higher standard of living too. Government driven solutions almost always come with a loss of rights. The main difference between us is that you think rights are privileges granted to us by our masters in the government, whereas I think they are something that no one has the right to take away from you. As such, you'll justify anything you want because rights can be eliminated to suit your goals, whereas I can only justify an action that respects people's rights.
I've heard of a couple and it was in place of work experience / professional certifications (such as actuary exams). If you had the right classes and good enough grades, they'd wave the need for the certificates / experience.
You're also ignoring inflation. 12 years ago, your $1,000 would be equal to around $1,350 today. That's a 35% difference in actual purchasing power.
Anyway, statistics show that by keeping a gun around, you merely increase the chances of a family member accidentally getting shot and of yourself being killed in the event of a break-in.
False statistics, yes. It's been debunked countless time, because it's a fictional number that anti-gun people constantly change (just like how most statistics used in arguments are made up on the spot). The majority of the people I know own guns. Guess how many have accidentally fired one? Zero. Guess how many have ever had a kid get ahold of one? Zero. Guess how many are afraid of being attacked? Zero. There are daily reports amongst all sorts of new sources of people stopping / preventing muggings / rapes / murder by having a gun on them. You simply don't have any facts to support your argument.
The civilian doesn't even need to be armed or clearly dangerous; they've shot quite a few mentally disabled people (like a former classmate of mine) for merely running towards them or making the wrong movement -- person's dead on the ground before they could've drawn a gun even if they did have one.
All the more reason to have a gun when we have trigger happy cops who murder people for kicks. But you're afraid of an inanimate object because it makes loud sounds and it scares you. That's fine, just don't blame anyone else if you ever end up in a bad situation where you need one and you don't have one due to your own childish fear of an inanimate object. The police cannot protect you (and don't even have a legal duty to anyways), hence why most police chiefs across the country recommend that people (especially women) get a gun and a concealed carry permit. Just like with an emergency savings account, a fire extinguisher, or insurance - it's better to have it and never need to use it than to need it and not have it.
They don't have that problem because their "loans" are repaid through taxes that are forcefully taken from your paycheck - as opposed to student loans in the US where you have to send them a check / go online and pay your bill each month. It's easy to have 100% repayment when you get to confiscate the person's money before they ever get their paycheck.
The schools were already paid. It's the government / banks that haven't been repaid. The schools gain NOTHING by screwing over students and preventing them from getting jobs.
Same here. Twenty years ago a business would see that and say "Hey, this person is motivated and hard working because they busted their ass working to pay the bills while doing college full time and they have a 3.5+ GPA" and hire you. Now companies see that and say "Oh, you don't know how to use *specific software only someone who's already had the position you're applying for would have used* because you were busy working to pay the bills? Fuck you".
I make no claims about the cost of education one way or another, but you cannot in any way claim that it's just to force someone to pay another person's bills. Would I love to have you get stuck paying the bill for my education? Sure, makes my life easier. However, it's not even remotely fair to tell someone that they have to be made worse off through no fault of their own so that others can avoid taking responsibility for themselves.
Nope, it's long-term thinking. I pay more in taxes now than I did before I got my degree since I'm earning 2.5x what I got when I started school.
Actually it's short term thinking. Sure, in the 4-5 year short term you have no loans, but in the 40 years that you work you'll pay several times more in taxes to pay for other people's education than it would have cost to take out loans and pay for your own education.
I know this is going to sound over-the-top, but there's a scary notion in there.
In a world where warrants are an arcane idea from the distant past, and snatch-and-grab detention of US citizens without justification or trial is entirely legal, words like "resisting" or "taking-a-stand" could have some pretty serious consequences.
I'm not saying you shouldn't, or that you'll necessarily get black-bagged, but do appreciate what you're risking.
While is may offend the sensibilities of the more effeminate members of slashdot, this is exactly why you should own a gun (or more than one) and know how to use it. Better to have a chance of taking some of the bastards down with you instead of being murdered without fighting back.
Instead, find a candidate that will represent your views on this and work towards getting this person elected
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, wow *wipes tears from face*, haha, you truly have no understanding how the US political system works. We don't get to pick candidates - the Republican and Democrat parties pick their choices for our next tyrant and we only get the option of picking who we think will use the most lube while ass raping us. There is no other option because the system is rigged in conjuncture with the media to ensure that no third party candidate will ever get a snowballs chance in hell of winning.
Here's a radical idea: why not buy stock in your own company? That way you're getting paid twice if you're doing a good job.
Or the brilliant insight that senile - I mean senior - citizens who grew up when radio was the most technologically advanced thing don't have an interest in those newfangled computational contraptions.
HR has switched from finding the best talent for a position to mean discluding any and I mean any reason not to hire someone and then claim they couldn't find qualified applicants.
Dead on. I work full time and am finishing grad school and looking for a new job and that's the impression my friends and I have had of the majority of people we interact with from potential employers. They blatantly go out of their way to find reasons NOT to interview / hire people instead of finding the best candidate for the job.
Witness the case of requiring experience first? 30 years ago you left college applied for a job and it was understood that your grades and dedication proved trainable. Today, you can even be trained but it has to be percisely what the position requires in the exact same way or they are not interested.
Again, 100% accurate. The overwhelming majority of "entry level" positions won't even look at your resume if you don't have 3-5 years of experience doing the EXACT things listed on the job posting - nevermind that some of them may include specialized software that only someone who's previously held the position would have ever used, you MUST know how to use it for an entry level job.
Doing something for X long doesn't make you good at the job. Someone with the right smarts and work ethic does. HR needs to change their ways
That's why I told a friend the other day that eventually I want to be a hiring manager - because so many of them do it wrong, I want to show people how to do things right.
You're saying a guy should be fired because he said the same shit blacks say, only he switched the words "black" and "white". That means you support their racist bullshit or else you'd have been screaming for the blacks to be punished as well.
I judge people based on their actions - sorry that it doesn't fit into your "whites are evil" ideology, but that's the way it is.
He got fired for writing an article that calls out large numbers of blacks for racist behavior and how he countered their racist propaganda. You know damn well if a black had written that article and it was saying the same thing about whites, people like you would be cheering them for posting their racist comments.