Re:Summary: "Blah, blah, blather blather blah"
on
New Games Journalism
·
· Score: 1
I run into online gaming trash talkers all the time. I asked one of them why they trash talk like that. He said it wasn't personal, just something he did that got him psyched up or some bs.
Maybe I'm being overly harsh, but I couldn't get myself interested in this article. I read (well, skimmed) it. I got the "intellectual masturbation article" vibe: Writers using big words and abstract ideas to explain their grand unified verbal prurience theory, that sort of thing. Reminds me a bit of Jon Katz, actually. I mentally tuned out 1.5 paragraphs in, right after he talked about lusting after barmaids and "discussing the various challenges facing the geek nation." He might have an interesting perspective or two in there, but it's obscured by overeducated, pretentious English major-style verbiage and geek sentimentality. Stupid big words make head hurt. Me go now.
For a split second, I thought McGee was going to adapt the HBO prison series Oz. I found myself wondering how he could possibly make beatings, stabbings and prison rape any darker than they already are.
McGee did something similar with Alice in wonderland. He took a standard children's story, made it "darker" and then turned it into a video game. His adaptations are never really true to the original. Penny Arcade did a spoof of McGee's style involving Strawberry Shortcake.
I just assimilate old hardware into a new/current box whenever I upgrade. I built a NAT box this way. The only problem I've run into is that some of my upgrades are the result of a part failure, so sometimes a machine will sit for months because I lack a video card or a hd. However, I've never tossed a functional piece of hardware just because of an upgrade.
Feeding (instruction) The Player must remember to feed his or her pet every day after the Angel has grown beyond the infancy stage. If this is neglected, the relationship between the Player and the Angel will drop and the Angel would take the Player's life bit by bit until it goes out of control.
I envision a server full of cute, maniacal, life-sucking kittens and frogs.
"Sure, Wiggles may be slowly draining my life essence, but isn't he just the cutesOH MY EYES HE RIPPED OUT MY EYES!"
IIRC, the immunity in Virtual Light was caused by a mutant strain of the HIV virus, not a genetic immunity. The virus did nothing but sit in the body and prevent all other HIV strains from infecting the host.
The game involves getting people to click on the link once every 24 hours for as long as possible, but this isn't the ultimate goal. I played an Outwar variant called Kings of Chaos for a bit, so the following is based on that game.
The actual game works like this: More clickage = more gold = more stuff = higher rank. Every unique click gets you one soldier for your army, and every soldier increases the amount of cash you earn every turn. More gold lets you outfit your army with better armor and weapons. Better armor lets you defend against attacks by other players, which lets you keep your turn-based gold longer. Better weapons let you overcome other players' defense and steal their turn-based gold. The more gold you have, the more stuff you can buy so you can attack and defend better so you can get/keep more gold, ad nauseum. Your ranking is determined by the amount of weapons and armor you have.
As you can imagine, the game is dominated by players who get the most people to click their links. There is little to no actual skill involved beyond that of hidden link spammage or social networking. Unless you hook up with one of the player alliances who trade clicks or have a popular website where you can post your link, the game turns you into a link whore that goes around spamming "PLES CLECK LINK KTHX."
You might look around the room for examples of computing technology. Calculators, cell phones, watches, etc. might be som good, concrete examples of how technology is all around us.
You might also want to explore video game consoles as computers. You could look at the evolution of video games from the Pong days to now. That's a simple, easy way to show the development of computing technology for this audience. Most 10-year olds won't know or care about Linux distros, but they're probably familiar with video games.
The decision is binding only on federal courts in the 6th Circuit. Other courts may look at the decision as persuasive, but are not required to follow the precedent. The big decision, if the case goes that far, is the Supreme Court's ruling.
You COULD stop the watchers, though. You could close the blinds, you could shoot them, you could call the cops and get them off your property. On the other hand, if you didn't stop the strangers from watching and you knew they were there, I think that could be classified as a public showing. The evidence would be even stronger if, say, you started telling people that you're going to be watching a movie at X time.
I suppose that a key issue is whether there is evidence of intent to render your movie viewable to the public. For example, if I built a massive drive-in style screen in my backyard and start showing movies, I think there's certainly an argument that I'm engaged in a public showing. On the other hand, if I happen to leave my living room blinds open and people can see my tv, the situation is closer to a private viewing.
The situation in the article is much closer to the former situation than the latter. First, the showing occurs in a public place. The general public is, if I understand the scenario correctly, welcome to attend if they can find out when and where the showings occur. The people showing the movie are aware of the strangers watching the movie, but do nothing to prevent them from watching. Given those facts, I would say that they're engaged in a public showing.
Personally, I don't think that these people doing anything I'd be willing to have them prosecuted for. It's a creative idea, no one's making a tangible profit from it (AFAIK) and it encourages positive social interaction. Of course, the same argument could be made for file sharing, but I'm tired of that topic so I'll stop here.
The problem is not the in-dash DVD player, it's that the DRIVER was WATCHING A MOVIE while DRIVING. The passenger(s) can watch all they want because they don't have to watch the road. This sort of situation shouldn't require a special law making it illegal to have a dvd player in your dash. The general negligent driving/vehicular manslaughter statutes should take care of this without requiring legislative action.
As someone who's been both a driver and a passenger on long drives through the Midwest, I can say very strongly that an in-dash DVD player is very nice for the passengers. However, I wouldn't be dumb enough to watch a DVD while I was driving the car, especially at interstate speeds. If the driver actually was watching a DVD, he deserves whatever he gets.
I don't consider myself an Xbox fan, but I do have a very simplistic definition of failure. When I imagine "failure", I think of a console that has been out for X amount of time and has no good games currently being released (or planned for release). Xbox currently has games that I would consider "good" being released for it. Thus, by my definition, Xbox has not failed just yet, although I wouldn't consider it the smashing success that MS envisioned. I freely admit that this is a subjective viewpoint and does not reflect what the majority of people consider "failure."
Your definition, on the other hand, appears to be based on either console or game sales. By your definition, I would agree with you that Xbox has failed in that it has low sales in just about every market. On the other hand, MS hasn't seriously distanced themselves (AFAIK) from the Xbox project ("No more funding", etc.), which is why I'm hesitant to say that the Xbox project (I include the Xbox sequel here) has failed.
If I were a DC fan, I would freely admit that the console has failed at this point in time (July 24, 2004). However, when "good" games were still being released for the DC, I wouldn't have considered it a complete failure.
On another note, when I said that the Xbox game list wasn't compelling and chalked it up to earlier PS2 release, I was referring to the fact that the PS2 was released ~a year before to the Xbox. The earlier release gave Sony a year's head start in which to get consumers to buy their product and developers to commit to games for their console. Maybe I'm wrong about the year making a difference. Maybe the intervening three years should have resulted in the Xbox gaining better licenses. I don't know why the DC failed, nor do I know why there aren't more games for the Xbox.
To be perfectly honest, I could care less if the Xbox fails or not. As I indicated in my earlier post, I'm a gamer for the games, not the console. If the Xbox failed, I'd purchase the games for whichever console looked "good" and allowed me to play the games I wanted. If a console didn't look "good", but it was the only console that let me play a game, I'd buy that console so I could play the game. I'd buy games for a Black and Decker toaster if I thought a toaster game would be fun. Mmmmm, toast.
Yeah, I went through a period when I was buying games left and right without really enjoying them before I realized how much money I was spending. My original post was based in part on that period. Lately, though, I've tried to cut back on my purchases.
As far as buying games because they're popular, that's not exactly how it works for me. It's something more along the lines of "People say this game is fun, so I should buy it and see if it's fun." It's a subtle distinction, if it can be called that. I buy games that I think that I might like, and (arguably) one indication that I might like a game is if a lot of other people like it. I've begun to learn, however, that other people's recommended games no longer coincide with the type of games I enjoy playing. You're correct in saying that I should try before I buy, but I don't know anyone personally who plays FPS games and I'm too paranoid in my old age (waveeq:= y''[t] == -w^2*y[t]) and career choice (assistant crack whore) to use "other means."
I actually wouldn't buy an Escalade or an H2, despite their popularity, because I hate big cars (I recognize your jest, and appreciate the polite response =). My parents have always driven big cars, and I've never liked driving them. However, this scenario is distinguishable from my gaming comments in that the number and variety of cars I have the opportunity to purchase pales in comparison to the number of games available to me. If cars cost $50, and were as easily obtained/maintained (no licensing, insurance, gas costs, storage fees, etc.), it is entirely possible that I might own an Escalade or an H2. Actually, I'd probably own one of those bling-bling rap star Escalades with spray-on rubber tires and spinners. I'd never really enjoy driving it, but I'd buy it and pimp it out because there's an off chance that I might enjoy it. Yeeuh. Straight up. I'm staying true to my upper middle-class roots, yo. Word to somebody's mom.
I don't think that the Xbox has failed just yet. AFAIK, popular games (Halo 2, sports games, etc.) are still being released for the system three or so years after its release, although that might just be MS being able to expend huge amounts of money on ensuring development and multiple-platform launches. I do agree that the Xbox doesn't have a compelling list of games, but I've always chalked that up to the PS2 being released first.
Personally, I try to buy games for the Xbox. I'm not a PS2/GC/Xbox-only fanatic, so I own a PS2, a GC and an Xbox. I think that the graphics look "better" on the Xbox. If I thought the graphics were better on the PS2 or GC, I would buy games for the PS2 or GC. On the other hand, there are some games that I can't get on the Xbox that I can get on the PS2 or the GC, so I purchase them for the required platform.
Did you see all the episodes as they were shown on TV, or did you watch them in chronological order? It might make a difference in your opinion. I watched them on DVD and wondered why the series got canceled. Imagine my surprise when I found out that Fox aired the episodes out of order.
Like you said, perhaps you just didn't like the western theme. For me, there was always some tension between the sci-fi setting and the western imagery, but I overlooked them in favor of the character interactions and Whedon's one-liner style.
Perhaps there wasn't enough Buffy-style drama for you? Buffy and Angel were, IIRC, big on relationship drama. That was one of the things that I wasn't a big fan of on, but I can understand why people would enjoy that. For me, I found Firefly to be just slightly more realistic, drama-wise, than Buffy or Angel. On the other hand, Firefly only lasted a single season while Buffy and Angel had multiple seasons to develop the characters. Perhaps, given a few seasons, Firefly would have turned out to be just as relationship drama-based as Buffy and Angel. That's not necessarily a bad thing; I enjoyed Buffy and Angel just as much as I did Firely.
I suppose the tone of my post indicated otherwise, but I did enjoy the few FPS games I could get into. Quake TF was fun, as was Deus Ex and Doom shareware. On the other hand, I find that as I get older my enjoyment of games requiring quick action and thought(multiplayer FPS/RTS, etc.) lessens, but the drive to buy popular games (currently FPS/RTS) remains the same. I don't quite understand it myself. I suppose if I were rich, I'd be one of those people who buy [popular fast/expensive car] but don't really enjoy it.
I still enjoy playing the Diablos and Starcrafts. There was a brief time (~2 weeks) when I enjoyed playing HL, and an even more brief time (~2 hours) when I enjoyed playing Painkiller.
Most FPS games make me nauseous or bored when I play for extended periods of time, with the exception of Deus Ex and Morrowind. Painkiller and the Quakes bored me, I never finished HL, I never played CS or any of the recent multiplayer FPS hits, and the only fun I had in the Dooms was IDKFAing it to the end of the shareware episode. Before you flame, I freely admit that I suck at multiplayer FPS (any FPS, really) and I have no desire to get better.
With that said, I'll probably buy (yes, BUY) Doom 3 when it comes out because It's Something That Gamers Have. At least some of you have to know what I'm talking about. There are games out there that we own/previously owned because Gamers Must Have This Game. I've got a copy of the Starcrafts, HL, and the Diablos for this reason.
Best Buy has stores in states other than those listed. Omaha, NE, for example, has two; I live 10 minutes from the one out west, but somehow I doubt that I'll be able to "pick up Doom 3 faster than anyone else" unless I drive ~6 hours to Chicago. People do live in cities besides Chicago, Washington D.C., Miami, Los Angeles, New York and Dallas.
Then again, I don't know if you can rightly call it "living";)
It's all a matter of perspective, really. You can see things the way you did, which is perfectly valid and probably the way a lot of parents would look at it. You can also simplify it and see the absurdity inherent in it, like I did.
By the way, I wouldn't send flowers and chocolates to my friend in the hospital. I'd go visit them.
There was a US tort case involving some rather painful defenses along the lines of the parent post. In that case, I believe that the holding was regardless of how much warning you give a person, there is a point at which you're using unnecessary force and you're liable for injuries. See, for example, the Restatements of Tort Law here. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. Check the case law in your jurisdiction for what your liability would be.
Disclaimer: Third year law student, worked with criminal prosecution for a couple months. IANAL. I suck.
Reasonable suspicion is NOT synonymous with probable cause. In the jurisdictions I've been in, the standard of proof for reasonable suspicion is generally a lot lower than that of probable cause. The exact definition of reasonable suspicion/probable cause depends on the jurisdiction you're in.
For practical purposes, reasonable suspicion is pretty meaningless. The only time it really comes up is in court, usually during suppression motions. Essentially, the only time reasonable suspicion or probable cause matter is when you're trying to suppress the 37 kilos of weed the cop found in your spare tire as the fruit of an illegal search.
Slashdot Mirror
I run into online gaming trash talkers all the time. I asked one of them why they trash talk like that. He said it wasn't personal, just something he did that got him psyched up or some bs.
Maybe I'm being overly harsh, but I couldn't get myself interested in this article. I read (well, skimmed) it. I got the "intellectual masturbation article" vibe: Writers using big words and abstract ideas to explain their grand unified verbal prurience theory, that sort of thing. Reminds me a bit of Jon Katz, actually. I mentally tuned out 1.5 paragraphs in, right after he talked about lusting after barmaids and "discussing the various challenges facing the geek nation." He might have an interesting perspective or two in there, but it's obscured by overeducated, pretentious English major-style verbiage and geek sentimentality. Stupid big words make head hurt. Me go now.
For a split second, I thought McGee was going to adapt the HBO prison series Oz. I found myself wondering how he could possibly make beatings, stabbings and prison rape any darker than they already are.
McGee did something similar with Alice in wonderland. He took a standard children's story, made it "darker" and then turned it into a video game. His adaptations are never really true to the original. Penny Arcade did a spoof of McGee's style involving Strawberry Shortcake.
I just assimilate old hardware into a new/current box whenever I upgrade. I built a NAT box this way. The only problem I've run into is that some of my upgrades are the result of a part failure, so sometimes a machine will sit for months because I lack a video card or a hd. However, I've never tossed a functional piece of hardware just because of an upgrade.
From the official page:
Feeding (instruction)
The Player must remember to feed his or her pet every day after the Angel has grown beyond the infancy stage. If this is neglected, the relationship between the Player and the Angel will drop and the Angel would take the Player's life bit by bit until it goes out of control.
I envision a server full of cute, maniacal, life-sucking kittens and frogs.
"Sure, Wiggles may be slowly draining my life essence, but isn't he just the cutesOH MY EYES HE RIPPED OUT MY EYES!"
Hilarity ensues.
IIRC, the immunity in Virtual Light was caused by a mutant strain of the HIV virus, not a genetic immunity. The virus did nothing but sit in the body and prevent all other HIV strains from infecting the host.
The game involves getting people to click on the link once every 24 hours for as long as possible, but this isn't the ultimate goal. I played an Outwar variant called Kings of Chaos for a bit, so the following is based on that game.
The actual game works like this: More clickage = more gold = more stuff = higher rank. Every unique click gets you one soldier for your army, and every soldier increases the amount of cash you earn every turn. More gold lets you outfit your army with better armor and weapons. Better armor lets you defend against attacks by other players, which lets you keep your turn-based gold longer. Better weapons let you overcome other players' defense and steal their turn-based gold. The more gold you have, the more stuff you can buy so you can attack and defend better so you can get/keep more gold, ad nauseum. Your ranking is determined by the amount of weapons and armor you have.
As you can imagine, the game is dominated by players who get the most people to click their links. There is little to no actual skill involved beyond that of hidden link spammage or social networking. Unless you hook up with one of the player alliances who trade clicks or have a popular website where you can post your link, the game turns you into a link whore that goes around spamming "PLES CLECK LINK KTHX."
You might look around the room for examples of computing technology. Calculators, cell phones, watches, etc. might be som good, concrete examples of how technology is all around us.
You might also want to explore video game consoles as computers. You could look at the evolution of video games from the Pong days to now. That's a simple, easy way to show the development of computing technology for this audience. Most 10-year olds won't know or care about Linux distros, but they're probably familiar with video games.
The decision is binding only on federal courts in the 6th Circuit. Other courts may look at the decision as persuasive, but are not required to follow the precedent. The big decision, if the case goes that far, is the Supreme Court's ruling.
Obligatory PA link:
:)
M$
It's funny because it's true
You COULD stop the watchers, though. You could close the blinds, you could shoot them, you could call the cops and get them off your property. On the other hand, if you didn't stop the strangers from watching and you knew they were there, I think that could be classified as a public showing. The evidence would be even stronger if, say, you started telling people that you're going to be watching a movie at X time.
I suppose that a key issue is whether there is evidence of intent to render your movie viewable to the public. For example, if I built a massive drive-in style screen in my backyard and start showing movies, I think there's certainly an argument that I'm engaged in a public showing. On the other hand, if I happen to leave my living room blinds open and people can see my tv, the situation is closer to a private viewing.
The situation in the article is much closer to the former situation than the latter. First, the showing occurs in a public place. The general public is, if I understand the scenario correctly, welcome to attend if they can find out when and where the showings occur. The people showing the movie are aware of the strangers watching the movie, but do nothing to prevent them from watching. Given those facts, I would say that they're engaged in a public showing.
Personally, I don't think that these people doing anything I'd be willing to have them prosecuted for. It's a creative idea, no one's making a tangible profit from it (AFAIK) and it encourages positive social interaction. Of course, the same argument could be made for file sharing, but I'm tired of that topic so I'll stop here.
The problem is not the in-dash DVD player, it's that the DRIVER was WATCHING A MOVIE while DRIVING. The passenger(s) can watch all they want because they don't have to watch the road. This sort of situation shouldn't require a special law making it illegal to have a dvd player in your dash. The general negligent driving/vehicular manslaughter statutes should take care of this without requiring legislative action.
As someone who's been both a driver and a passenger on long drives through the Midwest, I can say very strongly that an in-dash DVD player is very nice for the passengers. However, I wouldn't be dumb enough to watch a DVD while I was driving the car, especially at interstate speeds. If the driver actually was watching a DVD, he deserves whatever he gets.
I don't consider myself an Xbox fan, but I do have a very simplistic definition of failure. When I imagine "failure", I think of a console that has been out for X amount of time and has no good games currently being released (or planned for release). Xbox currently has games that I would consider "good" being released for it. Thus, by my definition, Xbox has not failed just yet, although I wouldn't consider it the smashing success that MS envisioned. I freely admit that this is a subjective viewpoint and does not reflect what the majority of people consider "failure."
Your definition, on the other hand, appears to be based on either console or game sales. By your definition, I would agree with you that Xbox has failed in that it has low sales in just about every market. On the other hand, MS hasn't seriously distanced themselves (AFAIK) from the Xbox project ("No more funding", etc.), which is why I'm hesitant to say that the Xbox project (I include the Xbox sequel here) has failed.
If I were a DC fan, I would freely admit that the console has failed at this point in time (July 24, 2004). However, when "good" games were still being released for the DC, I wouldn't have considered it a complete failure.
On another note, when I said that the Xbox game list wasn't compelling and chalked it up to earlier PS2 release, I was referring to the fact that the PS2 was released ~a year before to the Xbox. The earlier release gave Sony a year's head start in which to get consumers to buy their product and developers to commit to games for their console. Maybe I'm wrong about the year making a difference. Maybe the intervening three years should have resulted in the Xbox gaining better licenses. I don't know why the DC failed, nor do I know why there aren't more games for the Xbox.
To be perfectly honest, I could care less if the Xbox fails or not. As I indicated in my earlier post, I'm a gamer for the games, not the console. If the Xbox failed, I'd purchase the games for whichever console looked "good" and allowed me to play the games I wanted. If a console didn't look "good", but it was the only console that let me play a game, I'd buy that console so I could play the game. I'd buy games for a Black and Decker toaster if I thought a toaster game would be fun. Mmmmm, toast.
Yeah, I went through a period when I was buying games left and right without really enjoying them before I realized how much money I was spending. My original post was based in part on that period. Lately, though, I've tried to cut back on my purchases.
:= y''[t] == -w^2*y[t]) and career choice (assistant crack whore) to use "other means."
As far as buying games because they're popular, that's not exactly how it works for me. It's something more along the lines of "People say this game is fun, so I should buy it and see if it's fun." It's a subtle distinction, if it can be called that. I buy games that I think that I might like, and (arguably) one indication that I might like a game is if a lot of other people like it. I've begun to learn, however, that other people's recommended games no longer coincide with the type of games I enjoy playing. You're correct in saying that I should try before I buy, but I don't know anyone personally who plays FPS games and I'm too paranoid in my old age (waveeq
I actually wouldn't buy an Escalade or an H2, despite their popularity, because I hate big cars (I recognize your jest, and appreciate the polite response =). My parents have always driven big cars, and I've never liked driving them. However, this scenario is distinguishable from my gaming comments in that the number and variety of cars I have the opportunity to purchase pales in comparison to the number of games available to me. If cars cost $50, and were as easily obtained/maintained (no licensing, insurance, gas costs, storage fees, etc.), it is entirely possible that I might own an Escalade or an H2. Actually, I'd probably own one of those bling-bling rap star Escalades with spray-on rubber tires and spinners. I'd never really enjoy driving it, but I'd buy it and pimp it out because there's an off chance that I might enjoy it. Yeeuh. Straight up. I'm staying true to my upper middle-class roots, yo. Word to somebody's mom.
I don't think that the Xbox has failed just yet. AFAIK, popular games (Halo 2, sports games, etc.) are still being released for the system three or so years after its release, although that might just be MS being able to expend huge amounts of money on ensuring development and multiple-platform launches. I do agree that the Xbox doesn't have a compelling list of games, but I've always chalked that up to the PS2 being released first.
Personally, I try to buy games for the Xbox. I'm not a PS2/GC/Xbox-only fanatic, so I own a PS2, a GC and an Xbox. I think that the graphics look "better" on the Xbox. If I thought the graphics were better on the PS2 or GC, I would buy games for the PS2 or GC. On the other hand, there are some games that I can't get on the Xbox that I can get on the PS2 or the GC, so I purchase them for the required platform.
Did you see all the episodes as they were shown on TV, or did you watch them in chronological order? It might make a difference in your opinion. I watched them on DVD and wondered why the series got canceled. Imagine my surprise when I found out that Fox aired the episodes out of order.
Like you said, perhaps you just didn't like the western theme. For me, there was always some tension between the sci-fi setting and the western imagery, but I overlooked them in favor of the character interactions and Whedon's one-liner style.
Perhaps there wasn't enough Buffy-style drama for you? Buffy and Angel were, IIRC, big on relationship drama. That was one of the things that I wasn't a big fan of on, but I can understand why people would enjoy that. For me, I found Firefly to be just slightly more realistic, drama-wise, than Buffy or Angel. On the other hand, Firefly only lasted a single season while Buffy and Angel had multiple seasons to develop the characters. Perhaps, given a few seasons, Firefly would have turned out to be just as relationship drama-based as Buffy and Angel. That's not necessarily a bad thing; I enjoyed Buffy and Angel just as much as I did Firely.
I suppose the tone of my post indicated otherwise, but I did enjoy the few FPS games I could get into. Quake TF was fun, as was Deus Ex and Doom shareware. On the other hand, I find that as I get older my enjoyment of games requiring quick action and thought(multiplayer FPS/RTS, etc.) lessens, but the drive to buy popular games (currently FPS/RTS) remains the same. I don't quite understand it myself. I suppose if I were rich, I'd be one of those people who buy [popular fast/expensive car] but don't really enjoy it.
I still enjoy playing the Diablos and Starcrafts. There was a brief time (~2 weeks) when I enjoyed playing HL, and an even more brief time (~2 hours) when I enjoyed playing Painkiller.
Most FPS games make me nauseous or bored when I play for extended periods of time, with the exception of Deus Ex and Morrowind. Painkiller and the Quakes bored me, I never finished HL, I never played CS or any of the recent multiplayer FPS hits, and the only fun I had in the Dooms was IDKFAing it to the end of the shareware episode. Before you flame, I freely admit that I suck at multiplayer FPS (any FPS, really) and I have no desire to get better.
With that said, I'll probably buy (yes, BUY) Doom 3 when it comes out because It's Something That Gamers Have. At least some of you have to know what I'm talking about. There are games out there that we own/previously owned because Gamers Must Have This Game. I've got a copy of the Starcrafts, HL, and the Diablos for this reason.
I'm being trolly today!
;)
Best Buy has stores in states other than those listed. Omaha, NE, for example, has two; I live 10 minutes from the one out west, but somehow I doubt that I'll be able to "pick up Doom 3 faster than anyone else" unless I drive ~6 hours to Chicago. People do live in cities besides Chicago, Washington D.C., Miami, Los Angeles, New York and Dallas.
Then again, I don't know if you can rightly call it "living"
I guess I could always bring chocolate...
Hehe, I guess you didn't get the joke.
It's all a matter of perspective, really. You can see things the way you did, which is perfectly valid and probably the way a lot of parents would look at it. You can also simplify it and see the absurdity inherent in it, like I did.
By the way, I wouldn't send flowers and chocolates to my friend in the hospital. I'd go visit them.
is that he got rewarded for impaling himself while doing something dumb.
There was a US tort case involving some rather painful defenses along the lines of the parent post. In that case, I believe that the holding was regardless of how much warning you give a person, there is a point at which you're using unnecessary force and you're liable for injuries. See, for example, the Restatements of Tort Law here. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. Check the case law in your jurisdiction for what your liability would be.
After doing that, be prepared for the burglar to sue you for the injuries you cause.
Disclaimer: Third year law student, worked with criminal prosecution for a couple months. IANAL. I suck.
Reasonable suspicion is NOT synonymous with probable cause. In the jurisdictions I've been in, the standard of proof for reasonable suspicion is generally a lot lower than that of probable cause. The exact definition of reasonable suspicion/probable cause depends on the jurisdiction you're in.
For practical purposes, reasonable suspicion is pretty meaningless. The only time it really comes up is in court, usually during suppression motions. Essentially, the only time reasonable suspicion or probable cause matter is when you're trying to suppress the 37 kilos of weed the cop found in your spare tire as the fruit of an illegal search.