The problem isn't the occasional outbreak of common sense. The problem is that common sense tends to lose momentum (or is sabotaged by those with personal investment).
Sometimes it's not God who did it... Sometimes it's the Devil. I've seen video clips of fundies that claim that dinosaur bones were placed in the earth by the Devil in order to mislead man regarding the truth.
You jest, but have you ever experimented with Google's Auto-Complete function for searches to start in the form of a question, such as "How do I..." in order to see the types of things people commonly search for?
You get some interesting results... and I found out that a huge number of them had to do with questions regarding becoming pregnant. It made it pretty obvious that there are a lot of people who are asking how this works. You'd think that with at least 6 billion people on Earth that have resulted from the process, that mankind would have a pretty good understanding of how it works by now.;-)
ID and creationism isn't in the realm of science. It's not scientifically testable. People can believe what they want, but this isn't science.
There may be ID biologists, but anytime they are bringing in ID into their work, they aren't being scientists, because they aren't applying scientific principals.
Evolutionist is a term to politicize the issue, because if you said "scientists" or "biologists" have a certain opinion, it carries too much weight. Dismissing them as "evolutionists" is used strategically in order to separate them from a position of respect and authority on the subject.
It also doesn't have the same bite as saying "non-creationist".
Really, the way the term is used in arguments, "evolutionist" is to "non-creationist" what "heathen" is to "non-christian".
My understanding is that both Rogers and Bell are also trying to persuade the CRTC to government regulated download limits of 60 GB for all ISPs. This of course would allow them to protect themselves from customers going to another ISP.
It's possible that you also might be making assumptions as to what constitutes this. There are some things that fall into this category that you might even be surprised by (I couldn't *quickly* find the links to examples of all the stories I've heard of in the past, but did include some)
I've heard stories of people being prosecuted under cp laws for: - Cartoon porn (such as sexually explicit Simpsons images). Hey, technically, isn't Maggie over 18 by now? I kid! - - Photos by parents or a grandmother of their kid running around nude or taking a bath. - Photos of legal over 18 women, who look like (or are portrayed as) being under 18. - Teen girls taking pictures of themselves in their bras. - Legal images of minors held by people that prosecutors convinced the courts that they had the images to fuel their perverse fantasies (thought crime). - Probably some other dumb things that I'm not even aware of.
I have no idea how many are involved in images that involve real abuse of real kids their are out there. I wish I could be as optimistic as you and believe it was that rare... but I don't. I expect it's far more common, even if for the curiosity factor.
However, the thing is you bring up an interesting comparison with serial killers. Could there be people who have had "killing fantasies", maybe even had materials (books, movies, magazines) that related to the subject, but never actually harm a living person? Does this ever happen? Could it happen with other crimes too? I honestly don't know, but it doesn't seem to be a far fetched idea.
I'm in favor of protecting our children from actual predators, but I'm not so crazy about catching innocents in the overly large net and ruining lives with overzealous prosecution.
Even with no evidence? Even when the accusations are false?
Are you one of the masses that keeps their head up their ass, only to pop it out long enough to watch highly sensationalized news stories warnings us about all the pedophiles and terrorists out to get you and your children.
Maybe it's time that you actually become informed and apply some critical thinking. The person who said that it's the equivalent of yelling "fire" is dead wrong. It's more like yelling "witch!" Terrorists and pedophiles are our new boogeymen. The US has a long tradition of making "witches", whether they were legitimate concerns or not. Communists, homosexuals, socialists, satanists, drugs, illegal aliens, rock 'n' roll, and now the sex criminals and terrorists.
I hate to say it about my fellow Americans, but we're a bunch of paranoid, over-judgmental, overreacting, intolerant, lynch-mob forming loonies sometimes. In the names of protecting freedom and protecting our children, we're on a path of insanity.
Don't get me wrong here, I believe in protecting the children from abuse, but what I don't believe in is making this issue so emotionally charged that it becomes absolutely devastating for someone to even become *falsely* charged with it.
It's like "sex criminals" in general. Whenever you hear stories about sex offenders, the media always tries to blow it up to be that sex offenders are a bunch of child rapists. It's bullshit. They completely gloss over the fact that the whole sex criminal registry system is broken, and does not make any distinction between the real dangers and those guilty of minor offenses that should have never gotten them on the registry! Where are the sympathetic news reports about what a rough time sex offenders have in today's society? Nowhere, because people would revolt at such an idea. They'd have a hissy fit about sympathizing with the offenders, even when these are sex offenders who were put on the list for things like mooning someone during an argument, public urination when they were drunk, being nude in a place that they believed they were not being observed, having consensual sex with a minor who had misled them into believing they were older than they were, having consensual teen sex with someone 2 years younger than them or sexting eachother. We don't want to believe that though. We want to believe that they are a real danger that we've on the a leash. Now we can sleep soundly.
Sadly, similar things happen in the realm of child pornography. I've read of a grandmother who was prosecuted for creating child pornography when she took what she thought was a cute picture of her grandchild who happened to have been nude at the time. People have been prosecuted for having works that courts previously had determined was legal, based not on the legality of the work, but what the court *believed* the person was a pervert based on other legal behavior such as owning a copy of the novel Lolita.
And don't get me started with the fear of terrorists and prosecuting prankster kids for making "bottle bombs" now....
So, yes, some things are so horrible they deserve a stigma, but not everyone that has been a victim of this stigmatization has done something horrible. Did the people in this story do anything horrible, or could these cases be exaggerated and essentially be a witchhunt. Honestly, I suspect it's a little of each, but that really doesn't matter because our justice system likes to apply as much punishment as we can to people.
We seem to be stuck in the mindset that all of our problems can be solved if we just cast a bigger net.
I have to agree. I remember having this exact same idea 5 or 6 years ago. I considered looking into whether this was patented or not already but, I assumed that someone would have thought of this already.
Honestly, it's really the same thing as existing technologies. Instead of building shutters for 2 eyes, you build them for 4. It seems like patenting putting an extra seat in a car to me.
The above post may have a score of zero, but I think it brings up an interesting point (though I wouldn't have brought in the America vs China sentiment).
We live in a very disposable culture. Our goods (and even our entertainment) tend to be replaced constantly either due to lack of reliability, industries constantly pushing for cycles of obsolescence (either technological, or social) in various products, or even as an intentional feature of the product!
One of our problems is that stagnation, and conservation of resources are enemies to profit and capitalism. It's more profitable to make disposable goods, disposable entertainment, and disposable consumer electronics.
Conserving resources, making cheap and renewable energy, and making products that can last a lifetime are in direct opposition to the interest of businesses and could eventually lead to slowing down the economy in general.
People are talking about red herrings, and I think they are right. The real issue isn't even whether we are causing change, or whether the change even exists.
The real issue is how much money is it worth sacrificing in order to live in a sustainable and clean way. Really, that's what it's all about. Industries don't want to change because it cuts into profits, and conservatives don't want changes forced on them because they feel it takes away their rights (to make more profit).
I'm reminded of a line I vaguely recall from a Kurt Vonnegut novel, where he describes a future message left by an extinct mankind for any possible future alien visitors of Earth.
"Welcome to Earth. We could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap."
I didn't mention it in my regular response, but that word choice bothered me as well... Not just in the context of what was written, but because of the fact I keep hearing that word being thrown around in these types of discussions.
I can only assume that some conservative radio or television commentator is responsible for injecting this specific word into the topic, and fans have latched onto it.
I really don't know the answer to how much of climate change is man-made. I tend to think that it's possible we have had some impact, but I can't say to what degree. However, I do have a few thoughts on the matter:
Even if our impact on climate is minimal to none, we certainly do have impact on our habitats and environments. Even if we aren't creating a greenhouse effect, I think it's a very good idea to pursue renewable resources and cleaner living so that we can prevent discomfort, health problems, and harming ecosystems (that again might have long term and indirect impacts on us all). I may doubt that a household can shit enough on their lawn in order to make it uninhabitable, but I think they can make it unpleasant and unhealthy.
You say that it is hubris to suggest we could have an impact on the environment. I say it is hubris to think that we are so smart that we won't screw things up by accident. Not only that, it's in contradiction to history. By accident (or unintentional side-effects), we have created acid rain, we have brought many species to the verge of extinction (without even including those that may be victims of climate change), we have caused diseases and birth defects, we have ruined ecosystems, and we have many small areas uninhabitable. You question whether all the industry and waste of the world in modern times combined could have a negative impact on our environment by accident, when single industrial facilities in one city have been proven to be able to greatly harm local environments by accident.
There may be a question of whether we are doing it, but I honestly do not think there is any question of whether we could. I guarantee we could (if we tried), and it's in the realm of possibility that we might without even trying.
Man has split the atom, left our planet and returned, and mapped code of life. We have imagined strange and amazing things, and then have proven them to exist millions of light years away. We are currently researching ways to not only build artificial intelligence, but even recreating the spark of life itself, and the most incredible thing is that we've gotten to the point that those possibilities don't even seem absurd anymore! Man has done great and terrible things. We will very likely continue to do so.
I don't think you give man enough credit in what we accomplish, or how badly we can botch things.
If you take the first and third answers individually and without context, then you would be right.
However, if you read all three in context with one another, it paints a pretty clear picture that is directly contradicting what was said.
At the very beginning you'll be able to play all three races fully, with everything that is released *at the beginning*. More stuff will be added, which will add to both the single and multiplayer experiences. Only those with the expansions will be able to use the additional expansion content in a multiplayer game.
I'm really just rephrasing exactly what I already quoted from the FAQ and I really do not understand how you came to your conclusion. Would you care to elaborate?
Wait a minute, you were being sarcastic! Damnit, I guess I can't get a "whoosh" now that I've caught that.:(
Anyway, It's not just the #1 RTS of all time... it's the #4 Top Selling PC game of all time (according to this article on Wikipedia.
You bought up a point that's really bothered me. When the original was published, they were smart enough to allow for Spawned copies, so that only a certain number of players had to even own a legitimate copy. They didn't need cracks, just spawned a LAN only copy and they were good to go for a LAN party. Hell, I know that half of the people I played with would have never bought StarCraft, if they had not got hooked on it off the completely legal and Blizzard authorized (and provided) copies of the game, myself included!
The game industry is losing their way, and that includes Blizzard, who at one time were one of the most respected, appreciated, and admired video game companies out there.
I'm sure they are putting money into marketing, sure. Also, I have reservations about what I've heard about this game's DRM and I'm waiting to see how this will be handled at launch.
However, there is absolutely no denying that a lot of work went into this game. A tremendous number of man hours and assets were involved. If you truly believe that this is nothing but marketing hype masking a shallow cheap production, then you are either delusional or have your head up your ass.
Does it? I have zero interest in online play for StarCraft. It's also worth noting that Blizzard is planning two standalone expansions, neither of which will be necessary for a complete online experience. That is, they're single player-only expansions. Blizzard apparently thinks, probably correctly, that most of their money is coming from people who are primarily interested in the campaigns.
Q: Will we still be able to play multiplayer matches of StarCraft II with all three races?
A: Yes! From the beginning, StarCraft II will be a fully featured multiplayer game, and all three races will be available for competitive play.
Q: How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?
A: The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.
Q: If I buy StarCraft II but don't buy any of the expansion sets, will I still be able to play online?
A: Yes. This will work similarly to Warcraft III and the original StarCraft, which maintained separate online gaming lobbies and ladders for expansion set players and players with the base Warcraft III or StarCraft.
Oh, Good products sell themselves! Someone get the word out that the advertising business is a needless sham!
I'm not sure where you got MBAs from my comment either. I was talking about an actual person drumming up business, such as outside of an establishment, street vendors, and the most simple, low-tech and traditional type of advertisement known. A guy standing outside a building, or beside a booth or cart, calling out to people to try to try to entice them into buying. Or maybe a flower lady, trying to get a guy to buy flowers for the girl he is with.
Such people will regularly adjust their pitches in order to get customers, and they most certainly will employ their eyes and common sense.
I haven't seen many MBA's doing these types of jobs.
So my question (still) is why is acceptable for just some guy to take into account such things, but it's not ok for a fancy computer to do so? And again, I wouldn't want them to identify individuals, track them, etc, but is it really such an awful thing to target someone using extremely general traits that could easily be observable by any human?
Is this any different than hiring a real person to try to drum up business for an establishment, who can (as a human being) recognize things like race, gender, and age and give different pitches to members of different demographics?
Why is it ok for a human to do it, but not a machine?
Now if it's programed to identify specific individuals and track or reference data on you in order to target you, then I could see you getting upset... then we're moving into Amazon and Google territory!
Please, oh Great Punctuator, tell us exactly what number of players does it take to go between "multiplayer" and "massively multiplayer". 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000?
The first MMO style games had less than 100 players online in a given server. They grew to hundreds, and even thousands in some cases. The vast majority of the time, games support even more than this, but they are doing it by breaking up the player population into tiny fractions (world servers, shards, etc). World of Warcraft might as well be called Worlds of Warcraft, given the segmentation of the game based on world servers.
Now my example of a game that had potential and traits of a "small scale MMO", Neverwinter Nights can support 75 players per server (as I said earlier). Each server can connect to other servers to create a large network of servers, where each could represent an area or a zone, just like is done in many MMO's. This has already been done in that community, in fact.
So enlighten us, what is the magic number where it goes from "multiplayer" to "massively multiplayer"?
Just because you can't conceive of the idea, does not mean that it does not, or cannot exist.
In fact, their earlier game, Neverwinter Nights, showed a lot of potential for such a game. The server could support up to 75 players in theory. Many people set up their own "small scale MMO's" using that engine. And before someone starts in to argue the semantics of "MMO", and how it "implies a persistent world", some of these actually did use techniques and software in order to make them into persistent worlds. They were no WoW of course, but it was still pretty impressive what the community manage to cook up.
I personally think that MMRPG makers have been stuck in a rut in how they think of MMO's (in regards to the impact that a number of players has in a game, how those players are partitioned from one another, and how many can coexist in a small area). A small scale MMO could find a niche and try new ideas.
Though I think this already exists, based on some of these supposed Office freak-out videos where some bloke goes crazy and tosses a monitor, which mysteriously does not have any cables connected! One might assume that it was staged, but it's wireless power and wireless graphics!
When it's not quite enough to have a fanboy war over just your consoles... that's when it's time to bring in the fanboy and anti-fanboy wars over your source! Seriously?
I don't care about VGChartz, but what source is supposed to be more accurate? When I look at information that I quickly gathered that is either directly from the companies, or from an article citing direct information, the sales totals look to be pretty damn close to the numbers of VGCharts.
Are these fanboy numbers? Just who should people trust for sales numbers? I don't really care which console wins this imaginary war, but if people are making up numbers then bring in some sources to dispute then, rather than try to feel like a big boy by insulting strangers over the internet.
And who the hell cares who "wins"!? In fact, let me enlighten you a little here.
A clear winner emerging that shuts out the others is a *bad* thing for you. Competition is what drives innovation, quality, and fairness to consumers. Each of these companies brings something to the table for gamers, and each offers a choice. Without this competition, the industry would become destined for stagnation and complacency. What we have this generation are 3 consoles that all bring something to the table, and can all file a niche. This is a good thing for the industry as a whole, even if the competition isn't filling your particular niche.
Seriously, is your need to somehow have your choice in video game validated that important to you?
Slashdot Mirror
Sudden outbreak of common sense.
The problem isn't the occasional outbreak of common sense. The problem is that common sense tends to lose momentum (or is sabotaged by those with personal investment).
Sometimes it's not God who did it... Sometimes it's the Devil. I've seen video clips of fundies that claim that dinosaur bones were placed in the earth by the Devil in order to mislead man regarding the truth.
You jest, but have you ever experimented with Google's Auto-Complete function for searches to start in the form of a question, such as "How do I..." in order to see the types of things people commonly search for?
You get some interesting results... and I found out that a huge number of them had to do with questions regarding becoming pregnant. It made it pretty obvious that there are a lot of people who are asking how this works. You'd think that with at least 6 billion people on Earth that have resulted from the process, that mankind would have a pretty good understanding of how it works by now. ;-)
ID and creationism isn't in the realm of science. It's not scientifically testable. People can believe what they want, but this isn't science.
There may be ID biologists, but anytime they are bringing in ID into their work, they aren't being scientists, because they aren't applying scientific principals.
Evolutionist is a term to politicize the issue, because if you said "scientists" or "biologists" have a certain opinion, it carries too much weight. Dismissing them as "evolutionists" is used strategically in order to separate them from a position of respect and authority on the subject.
It also doesn't have the same bite as saying "non-creationist".
Really, the way the term is used in arguments, "evolutionist" is to "non-creationist" what "heathen" is to "non-christian".
Oh God! I think I once I admitted to have programmed in COBOL somewhere on the internet! Now it will be remembered forever!
Shit, I did it again!
My understanding is that both Rogers and Bell are also trying to persuade the CRTC to government regulated download limits of 60 GB for all ISPs. This of course would allow them to protect themselves from customers going to another ISP.
Also, before shrinking download limits, they've also doubled overlimit fees.
They've began to offer on ad supported on-demand video online, except this "free" video is still subject to their usage limits.
It's possible that you also might be making assumptions as to what constitutes this. There are some things that fall into this category that you might even be surprised by (I couldn't *quickly* find the links to examples of all the stories I've heard of in the past, but did include some)
I've heard stories of people being prosecuted under cp laws for:
- Cartoon porn (such as sexually explicit Simpsons images). Hey, technically, isn't Maggie over 18 by now? I kid!
-
- Photos by parents or a grandmother of their kid running around nude or taking a bath.
- Photos of legal over 18 women, who look like (or are portrayed as) being under 18.
- Teen girls taking pictures of themselves in their bras.
- Legal images of minors held by people that prosecutors convinced the courts that they had the images to fuel their perverse fantasies (thought crime).
- Probably some other dumb things that I'm not even aware of.
I have no idea how many are involved in images that involve real abuse of real kids their are out there. I wish I could be as optimistic as you and believe it was that rare... but I don't. I expect it's far more common, even if for the curiosity factor.
However, the thing is you bring up an interesting comparison with serial killers. Could there be people who have had "killing fantasies", maybe even had materials (books, movies, magazines) that related to the subject, but never actually harm a living person? Does this ever happen? Could it happen with other crimes too? I honestly don't know, but it doesn't seem to be a far fetched idea.
I'm in favor of protecting our children from actual predators, but I'm not so crazy about catching innocents in the overly large net and ruining lives with overzealous prosecution.
Even with no evidence? Even when the accusations are false?
Are you one of the masses that keeps their head up their ass, only to pop it out long enough to watch highly sensationalized news stories warnings us about all the pedophiles and terrorists out to get you and your children.
Maybe it's time that you actually become informed and apply some critical thinking. The person who said that it's the equivalent of yelling "fire" is dead wrong. It's more like yelling "witch!" Terrorists and pedophiles are our new boogeymen. The US has a long tradition of making "witches", whether they were legitimate concerns or not. Communists, homosexuals, socialists, satanists, drugs, illegal aliens, rock 'n' roll, and now the sex criminals and terrorists.
I hate to say it about my fellow Americans, but we're a bunch of paranoid, over-judgmental, overreacting, intolerant, lynch-mob forming loonies sometimes. In the names of protecting freedom and protecting our children, we're on a path of insanity.
Don't get me wrong here, I believe in protecting the children from abuse, but what I don't believe in is making this issue so emotionally charged that it becomes absolutely devastating for someone to even become *falsely* charged with it.
It's like "sex criminals" in general. Whenever you hear stories about sex offenders, the media always tries to blow it up to be that sex offenders are a bunch of child rapists. It's bullshit. They completely gloss over the fact that the whole sex criminal registry system is broken, and does not make any distinction between the real dangers and those guilty of minor offenses that should have never gotten them on the registry! Where are the sympathetic news reports about what a rough time sex offenders have in today's society? Nowhere, because people would revolt at such an idea. They'd have a hissy fit about sympathizing with the offenders, even when these are sex offenders who were put on the list for things like mooning someone during an argument, public urination when they were drunk, being nude in a place that they believed they were not being observed, having consensual sex with a minor who had misled them into believing they were older than they were, having consensual teen sex with someone 2 years younger than them or sexting eachother. We don't want to believe that though. We want to believe that they are a real danger that we've on the a leash. Now we can sleep soundly.
Sadly, similar things happen in the realm of child pornography. I've read of a grandmother who was prosecuted for creating child pornography when she took what she thought was a cute picture of her grandchild who happened to have been nude at the time. People have been prosecuted for having works that courts previously had determined was legal, based not on the legality of the work, but what the court *believed* the person was a pervert based on other legal behavior such as owning a copy of the novel Lolita.
And don't get me started with the fear of terrorists and prosecuting prankster kids for making "bottle bombs" now....
So, yes, some things are so horrible they deserve a stigma, but not everyone that has been a victim of this stigmatization has done something horrible. Did the people in this story do anything horrible, or could these cases be exaggerated and essentially be a witchhunt. Honestly, I suspect it's a little of each, but that really doesn't matter because our justice system likes to apply as much punishment as we can to people.
We seem to be stuck in the mindset that all of our problems can be solved if we just cast a bigger net.
I have to agree. I remember having this exact same idea 5 or 6 years ago. I considered looking into whether this was patented or not already but, I assumed that someone would have thought of this already.
Honestly, it's really the same thing as existing technologies. Instead of building shutters for 2 eyes, you build them for 4. It seems like patenting putting an extra seat in a car to me.
But where are the driverless *flying* cars? You know that's what we're all really waiting for!
The above post may have a score of zero, but I think it brings up an interesting point (though I wouldn't have brought in the America vs China sentiment).
We live in a very disposable culture. Our goods (and even our entertainment) tend to be replaced constantly either due to lack of reliability, industries constantly pushing for cycles of obsolescence (either technological, or social) in various products, or even as an intentional feature of the product!
One of our problems is that stagnation, and conservation of resources are enemies to profit and capitalism. It's more profitable to make disposable goods, disposable entertainment, and disposable consumer electronics.
Conserving resources, making cheap and renewable energy, and making products that can last a lifetime are in direct opposition to the interest of businesses and could eventually lead to slowing down the economy in general.
People are talking about red herrings, and I think they are right. The real issue isn't even whether we are causing change, or whether the change even exists.
The real issue is how much money is it worth sacrificing in order to live in a sustainable and clean way. Really, that's what it's all about. Industries don't want to change because it cuts into profits, and conservatives don't want changes forced on them because they feel it takes away their rights (to make more profit).
I'm reminded of a line I vaguely recall from a Kurt Vonnegut novel, where he describes a future message left by an extinct mankind for any possible future alien visitors of Earth.
"Welcome to Earth. We could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap."
I didn't mention it in my regular response, but that word choice bothered me as well... Not just in the context of what was written, but because of the fact I keep hearing that word being thrown around in these types of discussions.
I can only assume that some conservative radio or television commentator is responsible for injecting this specific word into the topic, and fans have latched onto it.
So.... how many of you are be willing to take the very hard steps to limit population growth?
C'mon, you're talking to a Nerd site! Reproduction is the least of our worries! ;-)
I really don't know the answer to how much of climate change is man-made. I tend to think that it's possible we have had some impact, but I can't say to what degree. However, I do have a few thoughts on the matter:
Even if our impact on climate is minimal to none, we certainly do have impact on our habitats and environments. Even if we aren't creating a greenhouse effect, I think it's a very good idea to pursue renewable resources and cleaner living so that we can prevent discomfort, health problems, and harming ecosystems (that again might have long term and indirect impacts on us all). I may doubt that a household can shit enough on their lawn in order to make it uninhabitable, but I think they can make it unpleasant and unhealthy.
You say that it is hubris to suggest we could have an impact on the environment. I say it is hubris to think that we are so smart that we won't screw things up by accident. Not only that, it's in contradiction to history. By accident (or unintentional side-effects), we have created acid rain, we have brought many species to the verge of extinction (without even including those that may be victims of climate change), we have caused diseases and birth defects, we have ruined ecosystems, and we have many small areas uninhabitable. You question whether all the industry and waste of the world in modern times combined could have a negative impact on our environment by accident, when single industrial facilities in one city have been proven to be able to greatly harm local environments by accident.
There may be a question of whether we are doing it, but I honestly do not think there is any question of whether we could. I guarantee we could (if we tried), and it's in the realm of possibility that we might without even trying.
Man has split the atom, left our planet and returned, and mapped code of life. We have imagined strange and amazing things, and then have proven them to exist millions of light years away. We are currently researching ways to not only build artificial intelligence, but even recreating the spark of life itself, and the most incredible thing is that we've gotten to the point that those possibilities don't even seem absurd anymore! Man has done great and terrible things. We will very likely continue to do so.
I don't think you give man enough credit in what we accomplish, or how badly we can botch things.
The second one most certainly did!
If you take the first and third answers individually and without context, then you would be right.
However, if you read all three in context with one another, it paints a pretty clear picture that is directly contradicting what was said.
At the very beginning you'll be able to play all three races fully, with everything that is released *at the beginning*. More stuff will be added, which will add to both the single and multiplayer experiences. Only those with the expansions will be able to use the additional expansion content in a multiplayer game.
I'm really just rephrasing exactly what I already quoted from the FAQ and I really do not understand how you came to your conclusion. Would you care to elaborate?
Wait a minute, you were being sarcastic! Damnit, I guess I can't get a "whoosh" now that I've caught that. :(
Anyway, It's not just the #1 RTS of all time... it's the #4 Top Selling PC game of all time (according to this article on Wikipedia.
You bought up a point that's really bothered me. When the original was published, they were smart enough to allow for Spawned copies, so that only a certain number of players had to even own a legitimate copy. They didn't need cracks, just spawned a LAN only copy and they were good to go for a LAN party. Hell, I know that half of the people I played with would have never bought StarCraft, if they had not got hooked on it off the completely legal and Blizzard authorized (and provided) copies of the game, myself included!
The game industry is losing their way, and that includes Blizzard, who at one time were one of the most respected, appreciated, and admired video game companies out there.
I'm sure they are putting money into marketing, sure. Also, I have reservations about what I've heard about this game's DRM and I'm waiting to see how this will be handled at launch.
However, there is absolutely no denying that a lot of work went into this game. A tremendous number of man hours and assets were involved. If you truly believe that this is nothing but marketing hype masking a shallow cheap production, then you are either delusional or have your head up your ass.
Does it? I have zero interest in online play for StarCraft. It's also worth noting that Blizzard is planning two standalone expansions, neither of which will be necessary for a complete online experience. That is, they're single player-only expansions. Blizzard apparently thinks, probably correctly, that most of their money is coming from people who are primarily interested in the campaigns.
Incorrect sir.
From the Official StarCraft II FAQ:
Q: Will we still be able to play multiplayer matches of StarCraft II with all three races?
A: Yes! From the beginning, StarCraft II will be a fully featured multiplayer game, and all three races will be available for competitive play.
Q: How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?
A: The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.
Q: If I buy StarCraft II but don't buy any of the expansion sets, will I still be able to play online?
A: Yes. This will work similarly to Warcraft III and the original StarCraft, which maintained separate online gaming lobbies and ladders for expansion set players and players with the base Warcraft III or StarCraft.
Oh, Good products sell themselves! Someone get the word out that the advertising business is a needless sham!
I'm not sure where you got MBAs from my comment either. I was talking about an actual person drumming up business, such as outside of an establishment, street vendors, and the most simple, low-tech and traditional type of advertisement known. A guy standing outside a building, or beside a booth or cart, calling out to people to try to try to entice them into buying. Or maybe a flower lady, trying to get a guy to buy flowers for the girl he is with.
Such people will regularly adjust their pitches in order to get customers, and they most certainly will employ their eyes and common sense.
I haven't seen many MBA's doing these types of jobs.
So my question (still) is why is acceptable for just some guy to take into account such things, but it's not ok for a fancy computer to do so? And again, I wouldn't want them to identify individuals, track them, etc, but is it really such an awful thing to target someone using extremely general traits that could easily be observable by any human?
Is this any different than hiring a real person to try to drum up business for an establishment, who can (as a human being) recognize things like race, gender, and age and give different pitches to members of different demographics?
Why is it ok for a human to do it, but not a machine?
Now if it's programed to identify specific individuals and track or reference data on you in order to target you, then I could see you getting upset... then we're moving into Amazon and Google territory!
Are the extra periods a substitute for a point?
Please, oh Great Punctuator, tell us exactly what number of players does it take to go between "multiplayer" and "massively multiplayer". 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000?
The first MMO style games had less than 100 players online in a given server. They grew to hundreds, and even thousands in some cases. The vast majority of the time, games support even more than this, but they are doing it by breaking up the player population into tiny fractions (world servers, shards, etc). World of Warcraft might as well be called Worlds of Warcraft, given the segmentation of the game based on world servers.
Now my example of a game that had potential and traits of a "small scale MMO", Neverwinter Nights can support 75 players per server (as I said earlier). Each server can connect to other servers to create a large network of servers, where each could represent an area or a zone, just like is done in many MMO's. This has already been done in that community, in fact.
So enlighten us, what is the magic number where it goes from "multiplayer" to "massively multiplayer"?
Just because you can't conceive of the idea, does not mean that it does not, or cannot exist.
In fact, their earlier game, Neverwinter Nights, showed a lot of potential for such a game. The server could support up to 75 players in theory. Many people set up their own "small scale MMO's" using that engine. And before someone starts in to argue the semantics of "MMO", and how it "implies a persistent world", some of these actually did use techniques and software in order to make them into persistent worlds. They were no WoW of course, but it was still pretty impressive what the community manage to cook up.
I personally think that MMRPG makers have been stuck in a rut in how they think of MMO's (in regards to the impact that a number of players has in a game, how those players are partitioned from one another, and how many can coexist in a small area). A small scale MMO could find a niche and try new ideas.
I saw that headline and logged in to make basically the same joke...
"I hope they hold they hold it properly, or else they may find they get a poor reception from the press."
Now all we will need is wireless power!
Though I think this already exists, based on some of these supposed Office freak-out videos where some bloke goes crazy and tosses a monitor, which mysteriously does not have any cables connected! One might assume that it was staged, but it's wireless power and wireless graphics!
When it's not quite enough to have a fanboy war over just your consoles... that's when it's time to bring in the fanboy and anti-fanboy wars over your source! Seriously?
I don't care about VGChartz, but what source is supposed to be more accurate? When I look at information that I quickly gathered that is either directly from the companies, or from an article citing direct information, the sales totals look to be pretty damn close to the numbers of VGCharts.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6261400.html?tag=recent_news;title;1
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2010/jan10/01-06CESKeynote.mspx
http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps3_sale_e.html
Are these fanboy numbers? Just who should people trust for sales numbers? I don't really care which console wins this imaginary war, but if people are making up numbers then bring in some sources to dispute then, rather than try to feel like a big boy by insulting strangers over the internet.
And who the hell cares who "wins"!? In fact, let me enlighten you a little here.
A clear winner emerging that shuts out the others is a *bad* thing for you. Competition is what drives innovation, quality, and fairness to consumers. Each of these companies brings something to the table for gamers, and each offers a choice. Without this competition, the industry would become destined for stagnation and complacency. What we have this generation are 3 consoles that all bring something to the table, and can all file a niche. This is a good thing for the industry as a whole, even if the competition isn't filling your particular niche.
Seriously, is your need to somehow have your choice in video game validated that important to you?