When you die, you lose your ship right? What on earth would compel a team to enter a tournament unless they were sure they were in range of the top 4 spots?
Ships are not irreplaceable. If you play Eve, you WILL lose ships.
How isolated are these tournaments? Can random people just fly in and start messing stuff up? Can you run away if you're about to be killed?
The GMs move the teams to a specially isolated system where there is no way in and no way out. If you leave a certain radius from the center of the arena you are automatically destroyed. You can't return to the field after fleeing, so there's never anything to gain from running before doing as much damage as you can.
What are the limitations of the team? What's to stop a really rich team from having a better loadout? Or a really big team? Can you have a large team of cheap ships?
Different ships are assigned a point value, with a hard point limit imposed on each team. You can have a few expensive ships, quite a few cheaper ships, or some mix. It should be noted that both in terms of tournament points as well as in-game cost, the ability of a ship does not scale linearly with price. A ship that is 50% as expensive as another will probably be more than 50% as effective.
How many human players are involved in a battle.
Not sure what the hard limit on participants is, but I imagine that usually the limit is ship value as stated earlier.
Don't you think for streaming purposes they should remove the red/blue overlay which makes a cool space battle look like just a bunch of squares standing around if you don't know the game?
Doing so would ruin the value of the video broadcast for those who DO know what's going on. It would be reduced to a seemingly random video of shooting and explosions.
Until a company can come to my house with guns and take away my freedom for choosing to not do business with them, the Bill of Rights should continue to apply only to the government.
He signed a credit card reform bill that had a guns in parks provision pasted into it. He didn't want to veto the entire bill on the basis of one sneaky addition, so he passed it. He's hardly a friend of the gun-owner. In his campaign, he promised to renew the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 that expired in 2004. He hasn't said a word about guns since the election.
So which is worse: That he said he would be anti-gun, or that he failed to deliver on his promises once elected?
What about the rights of Walter Sedlmayr, who the duo tortured, mutilated, and killed because he was gay? He apparently doesn't matter anymore, you know, because they murdered him.
Everyone makes mistakes, right? Hogwash.
So these men should have a chance at a normal life again? What about Sedlmayr's normal life?
Do you think that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world?
If you're a programmer, and you create some nice iPhone app, 200,000 people buy it, and you use the proceeds to buy a nice Prius, then did you, in your greed, "take" the money from the less fortunate.
All these things are good things, but they have a cost. If *you* decide that I need to recycle, so you come and rob me at gunpoint to get the funds for your recycling program, then you go to jail for aggravated robbery. But if you convince your senator to inflict a tax upon me (a tax which, if not paid, will result with men holding guns on my front porch) in order to get your recycling program, then it's called "social change".
This is why environmental socialism is bad. It's not that mass transit, clean energy, conservation, and recycling programs are bad things, but that you are essentially saying that we should pay for the solution you propose, or else be carted off to prison.
Hold up alarm? For less than $100 every four years, you can get a carry permit, which will not only keep you from being held up at home, but equip you to protect yourself away from home!
Also, from my personal experience and the word of many cops, the authorities will dispatch a unit faster to a homeowner reporting a break-in than an alarm company reporting that an alarm has been tripped.
So though I'd never rush home to try and stop anything myself (we pay young guys who really want to catch burglars for us), being notified and calling the cops myself probably has a better chance of getting an officer there within 45 minutes.
I pay something like $13 a month. If you buy one month at a time it's $15. If you're somewhere with an oppressive VAT added on, it's something like $16 a month via ETC vendors.
The posted warning: WARNING: ANGRY RANCHER NEIGHBOR WITH SHOTGUN at the sight of a gun mounted in a truck wasn't worthy of just a *little* condescension?
I read XKCD and shop for groceries with my wife while openly armed with a pistol. I'm a church secretary.
The other day I met another non-cop open carrying, we shook hands and talked for a while about how to fix his car, which had thrown off a serpentine belt right there in the parking lot.:)
I never had the need for a gun, as nobody here has one. I'm in a wheelchair, you insensitive clod. How exactly do I deal with the thug with a wooden plank who wants my wallet and my infant child? Maybe I should just run away? Oh wait...
"There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly." - Marko Kloos
It should be noted that in every mass school shooting that has occurred in the US, it has either been school policy or state law that no guns are allowed.
Hmm. Maybe the laws only prevent the law abiding from having guns. Perhaps that gives the person about to commit a crime the monopoly on force?
"Weapons are the tools of power. In the hands of the state, they can be the tools of decency or the tools of oppression, depending on the righteousness that state. In the hands of criminals, they are the tools of evil. In the hands of the free and decent citizen, they should be the tools of liberty. Weapons compound man's power to achieve whatever purpose he may have. They amplify the capabilities of both the good man and the bad, and to exactly the same degree, having no will of their own. Thus, we must regard them as servants, not masters, and good servants of good men. Without them, man is diminished, and his opportunities to fulfill his destiny are lessened. An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
Where did I say anything about detaining/shooting them? Taking pictures is legal, especially on your property. In almost every state one can go armed without any sort of permit, provided one is on one's property.
"Two vehicles later drove on property, first truck with two rifles or shotguns in plain sight."
Egads, the ranchers had firearms mounted in their trucks! OH NOES, THEY MUST BE FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF MURDERING US, THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION!
Please, PLEASE take note that nobody said that threats were ever made, or that firearms were ever presented in a menacing way. For anyone that works with livestock, having long guns mounted in vehicles and handguns on one's person is absolutely normal, routine, and safe.
If I were running a ranch and a bunch of 20-somethings showed up on my private property, I would be taking pictures and making sure I had a weapon at hand, too.
I'm a fan of XKCD and love the idea of Geohashing, but these folks really should make an effort to notify landowners and get permission before entering private property.
Nintendo, as a post-war japanese company subscribes fairly heavily in the "war is bad: look what it does" philosophy. I'd think their policy is the far more pragmatic "attacking the US is bad".
Your losses are horrible, but they don't make you an authority on either security or my rights.
Please explain to me how searching hard drives is "securing the border" when we live in the age of the internet. I don't mind a customs agent making sure that my laptop is, in fact, a laptop, but asking a marginally-trained TSA employee to examine all the data on a computer within the few minutes is like asking someone from your lawn service to do a five-minute inspection of a 2" square patch of vinyl siding to determine whether you have a mold problem in your basement.
In both cases you're asking the wrong guy to look at the wrong things, giving him no time or tools to do his "search", and then wondering why it didn't do anything to actually improve the situation.
If it's illegal, then the problem is totally different and you have no right to complain about it. We have every right to complain. Since when have law and morality been linked in this country?
Slashdot Mirror
When you die, you lose your ship right? What on earth would compel a team to enter a tournament unless they were sure they were in range of the top 4 spots?
Ships are not irreplaceable. If you play Eve, you WILL lose ships.
How isolated are these tournaments? Can random people just fly in and start messing stuff up? Can you run away if you're about to be killed?
The GMs move the teams to a specially isolated system where there is no way in and no way out. If you leave a certain radius from the center of the arena you are automatically destroyed. You can't return to the field after fleeing, so there's never anything to gain from running before doing as much damage as you can.
What are the limitations of the team? What's to stop a really rich team from having a better loadout? Or a really big team? Can you have a large team of cheap ships?
Different ships are assigned a point value, with a hard point limit imposed on each team. You can have a few expensive ships, quite a few cheaper ships, or some mix. It should be noted that both in terms of tournament points as well as in-game cost, the ability of a ship does not scale linearly with price. A ship that is 50% as expensive as another will probably be more than 50% as effective.
How many human players are involved in a battle.
Not sure what the hard limit on participants is, but I imagine that usually the limit is ship value as stated earlier.
Don't you think for streaming purposes they should remove the red/blue overlay which makes a cool space battle look like just a bunch of squares standing around if you don't know the game?
Doing so would ruin the value of the video broadcast for those who DO know what's going on. It would be reduced to a seemingly random video of shooting and explosions.
Hope I've helped.
Until a company can come to my house with guns and take away my freedom for choosing to not do business with them, the Bill of Rights should continue to apply only to the government.
[Sweet, you go do that so I can retire and have my needs met while I do nothing.]*n
Where n=the population of the planet.
He signed a credit card reform bill that had a guns in parks provision pasted into it. He didn't want to veto the entire bill on the basis of one sneaky addition, so he passed it. He's hardly a friend of the gun-owner. In his campaign, he promised to renew the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 that expired in 2004. He hasn't said a word about guns since the election.
So which is worse: That he said he would be anti-gun, or that he failed to deliver on his promises once elected?
What about the rights of Walter Sedlmayr, who the duo tortured, mutilated, and killed because he was gay? He apparently doesn't matter anymore, you know, because they murdered him.
Everyone makes mistakes, right? Hogwash.
So these men should have a chance at a normal life again? What about Sedlmayr's normal life?
"Domestic Terrorism: It's funny. Laugh."
Do you think that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world?
If you're a programmer, and you create some nice iPhone app, 200,000 people buy it, and you use the proceeds to buy a nice Prius, then did you, in your greed, "take" the money from the less fortunate.
You're a moocher.
All these things are good things, but they have a cost. If *you* decide that I need to recycle, so you come and rob me at gunpoint to get the funds for your recycling program, then you go to jail for aggravated robbery. But if you convince your senator to inflict a tax upon me (a tax which, if not paid, will result with men holding guns on my front porch) in order to get your recycling program, then it's called "social change".
This is why environmental socialism is bad. It's not that mass transit, clean energy, conservation, and recycling programs are bad things, but that you are essentially saying that we should pay for the solution you propose, or else be carted off to prison.
You haven't met many pimps, have you?
Hold up alarm? For less than $100 every four years, you can get a carry permit, which will not only keep you from being held up at home, but equip you to protect yourself away from home!
Also, from my personal experience and the word of many cops, the authorities will dispatch a unit faster to a homeowner reporting a break-in than an alarm company reporting that an alarm has been tripped.
So though I'd never rush home to try and stop anything myself (we pay young guys who really want to catch burglars for us), being notified and calling the cops myself probably has a better chance of getting an officer there within 45 minutes.
$20 per month?
I pay something like $13 a month. If you buy one month at a time it's $15. If you're somewhere with an oppressive VAT added on, it's something like $16 a month via ETC vendors.
Too bad that in the UK, the authorities and the criminals (but I repeat myself) are the only ones with guns.
Not much to be afraid of when you can just shoot the dissenters.
The posted warning: WARNING: ANGRY RANCHER NEIGHBOR WITH SHOTGUN at the sight of a gun mounted in a truck wasn't worthy of just a *little* condescension?
I'd love to know how they knew that the vehicles were unfriendly. Do trucks emote?
That's funny, because a buddy of mine lives in Argentina and tells me that armed carjackings and home invasions are a regular occurrence.
http://deconsumption.typepad.com/deconsumption/2006/04/stories_from_po.html
I read XKCD and shop for groceries with my wife while openly armed with a pistol. I'm a church secretary.
:)
The other day I met another non-cop open carrying, we shook hands and talked for a while about how to fix his car, which had thrown off a serpentine belt right there in the parking lot.
"An armed society is a polite society." -Heinlein
"There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly." - Marko Kloos
It should be noted that in every mass school shooting that has occurred in the US, it has either been school policy or state law that no guns are allowed.
Hmm. Maybe the laws only prevent the law abiding from having guns. Perhaps that gives the person about to commit a crime the monopoly on force?
"Weapons are the tools of power. In the hands of the state, they can be the tools of decency or the tools of oppression, depending on the righteousness that state. In the hands of criminals, they are the tools of evil. In the hands of the free and decent citizen, they should be the tools of liberty. Weapons compound man's power to achieve whatever purpose he may have. They amplify the capabilities of both the good man and the bad, and to exactly the same degree, having no will of their own. Thus, we must regard them as servants, not masters, and good servants of good men. Without them, man is diminished, and his opportunities to fulfill his destiny are lessened. An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
-Jeff Cooper
Large groups of strangers can result in death, as well. The rancher knows this, and factors it into his decision to keep a rifle in his truck.
Notice that no threat was made, much less actual harm inflicted by either party?
This explains it. I'm sure the rancher's shotgun was loaded with birdshot.
Where did I say anything about detaining/shooting them? Taking pictures is legal, especially on your property. In almost every state one can go armed without any sort of permit, provided one is on one's property.
Yep.
"Two vehicles later drove on property, first truck with two rifles or shotguns in plain sight."
Egads, the ranchers had firearms mounted in their trucks! OH NOES, THEY MUST BE FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF MURDERING US, THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION!
Please, PLEASE take note that nobody said that threats were ever made, or that firearms were ever presented in a menacing way. For anyone that works with livestock, having long guns mounted in vehicles and handguns on one's person is absolutely normal, routine, and safe.
If I were running a ranch and a bunch of 20-somethings showed up on my private property, I would be taking pictures and making sure I had a weapon at hand, too.
I'm a fan of XKCD and love the idea of Geohashing, but these folks really should make an effort to notify landowners and get permission before entering private property.
Please explain to me how searching hard drives is "securing the border" when we live in the age of the internet. I don't mind a customs agent making sure that my laptop is, in fact, a laptop, but asking a marginally-trained TSA employee to examine all the data on a computer within the few minutes is like asking someone from your lawn service to do a five-minute inspection of a 2" square patch of vinyl siding to determine whether you have a mold problem in your basement.
In both cases you're asking the wrong guy to look at the wrong things, giving him no time or tools to do his "search", and then wondering why it didn't do anything to actually improve the situation. If it's illegal, then the problem is totally different and you have no right to complain about it. We have every right to complain. Since when have law and morality been linked in this country?