The reason Starcraft, and Starcraft 2, have sold so well is because of the pro-gaming league.... My point is, instead they are focusing on weird real-id things, instead of trying to figure out a way to make gaming as nice as possible for competitions (while at the same time accessible for the rest of us). They have lost focus of what will bring people in to the game.
This strikes me as very odd. Blizzard isn't in the 'gaming league' business. They're in the video game business. And the whole 'Starcraft selling well for years' thing is utter crap. Gamers raving over a decade-old game from the bargain bin? That's exactly the opposite of what you want when you're cranking out subscription style expansion packs for the foreseeable future.
And note I'm still talking only Starcraft. The elephant in the room is Warcraft, and to a lesser extent Diablo. They want your Real ID tied into those as well, so your Starcraft friends can see you enjoying their other products and feel a little peer pressure to go join you.
That 'pro-gaming league' thing was an anomaly. Please do stop expecting Blizzard to form business strategies around it. It makes me wince. In short, Starcraft is NOT Magic the Gathering, nor was it ever intended to be.
Why the hell would you use the same Bnet account for two games? What if you no longer want one and wish to give it to a friend, or god forbid sell it? I guess people lack more than one email account:(
Magnavox TV's used to do this, if I recall correctly. I tried to find something similar for my Myth setup, but never did. Did that idea just fade away?
Actually, I was in an accident like that. There was a patch of ice. I slid down it, and off the road into two other cars which had done the exact same thing.
In no way was the damage to the other two cars any fault of mine - they simply slid on the same ice that I slid on - yet I was found at fault, due to this feature of the law.
Well, laws do exist merely to establish fault, though. This could remain one of those. For example, in many states a rear-end collision is always the fault of the last car.
No. No exceptions if you are behind the wheel. If you are the driver, you must be fully aware of the environment around you at all times. Your responsibility does not stop when your vehicle is temporarily stopped in the middle of the road at a light.
Don't be a prude. What's that driver supposed to do about the oncoming danger when stopped? Kick in the hoverjets?? I for one am not driving a James Bond car, and would rather be killed by surprise than see it coming...
Your same logic could be applied to people who speed or run redlights.
You're ignoring the data, and it's even linked in the summary above. Similarly, look into the amount of harm that red light cameras cause.
In any case, on the topic, you're going to need to demonstrate why 'punish after' isn't somehow worse than the current laws have made things. Because what you're advocating is reality in many places, and in those places it has made the situation more dangerous, rather than less.
That will be quite a comfort to the relatives of the deceased.
We can't structure our entire society around prevention of and/or fear of death. That's folly. People die, frequently.
Don't take this to far to state that I'm advocating death, because that's not the case here either. I'm merely pointing out that it is akin to air for us. Can't have life without it.
Besides, the legal environment described above would allow such grieving relatives to sue for hefty sums.
Screaming kids, or a fight with the spouse, is another matter. Both should be illegal as well. Maybe the threat of going to juvie for a night will get the little monsters to shut their traps. Same with the wife. 8^)
You seem to be forgetting that automobiles aren't generally driven for pleasure. They're carrying real people with actual lives. Those lives can't necessarily be put on hold because you want to roads to be safer. I suppose you could insist that people pull over until the screaming stops, but good luck getting THAT voted through.
That's at least partially bogus, though. Or are we to believe that texting-drivers aren't capable of pulling out in front of someone, running off the road, straying into the oncoming lane, etc?
I don't think you can make the 'primary use' claim anywhere outside of the Old South. In the Old West, for example, they were often used on rustlers and thieves. Minorities were simply shot and left out on the prairie.
Except that, like in many cases of drunk driving, the person who dies isn't the reckless (or drunk) driver it's the person they hit.
Actually, I don't think you can make that claim. Drunk individuals in an auto accident typically fare better because they are relaxed when it occurs. The rigidity of form causes a great deal of harm. Also there's got to be some factoring of seatbelts that the drunks aren't probably wearing. 'Thrown clear' really does happen in a non-trivial amount of accidents.
There are actual numbers, I'm sure, but I'm confident they'll play out as 'apples-oranges', or at least 'apples-crab apples'.
I've always wondered why there aren't outright bans on people trying to put on makeup, brushing their teeth, eating a meal (I'm talking about cereal with a bowl and spoon or anything that requires two hands), etc.
This. There's an entire industry of drive up food that's certainly caused more accidents than the mobile phone ever will.
Oh, I don't know about the survey. Our efforts have resulted in more than one million Iraqi dead. That's bound to skew things away from your expected result.
In a poll of:
A) Saddam B) The US-led invasion
That's probably not as clear cut as you'd think.
Consider this one:
A) Saddam B) The US-led invasion C) Populist uprising
Don't forget how is gets used in bunker busters as well.
But otherwise, you may well be right. It might not be the chemicals we used in making the bombs we dropped on those civilians, it could just be the fires they caused. There certainly does seem to be something residual in the environment, though, because it is still impacting humans whose sperm cells didn't even exist at the time that smoke went up.
Perhaps you're assuming that the malicious software wouldn't inhibit their ability to respond?
I'm imagining the worst case scenario, to be sure, but it includes software that tampers with the readings on the computer. Readings that look fine and give the operators no reason to check the manual gauges, except as a part of their routine checks. And, if timed perfectly, this could easily be too late to prevent catastrophe.
Not only am I not assuming that Homer is operating the reactor, I'm likewise assuming that Homer didn't design the virus.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason Starcraft, and Starcraft 2, have sold so well is because of the pro-gaming league. ...
My point is, instead they are focusing on weird real-id things, instead of trying to figure out a way to make gaming as nice as possible for competitions (while at the same time accessible for the rest of us). They have lost focus of what will bring people in to the game.
This strikes me as very odd. Blizzard isn't in the 'gaming league' business. They're in the video game business. And the whole 'Starcraft selling well for years' thing is utter crap. Gamers raving over a decade-old game from the bargain bin? That's exactly the opposite of what you want when you're cranking out subscription style expansion packs for the foreseeable future.
And note I'm still talking only Starcraft. The elephant in the room is Warcraft, and to a lesser extent Diablo. They want your Real ID tied into those as well, so your Starcraft friends can see you enjoying their other products and feel a little peer pressure to go join you.
That 'pro-gaming league' thing was an anomaly. Please do stop expecting Blizzard to form business strategies around it. It makes me wince. In short, Starcraft is NOT Magic the Gathering, nor was it ever intended to be.
Why the hell would you use the same Bnet account for two games? What if you no longer want one and wish to give it to a friend, or god forbid sell it? I guess people lack more than one email account :(
THIS!
Magnavox TV's used to do this, if I recall correctly. I tried to find something similar for my Myth setup, but never did. Did that idea just fade away?
Holy crap, that looks like I wrote it! Am I posting to slashdot in my sleep now??
THIS!
Actually, I was in an accident like that. There was a patch of ice. I slid down it, and off the road into two other cars which had done the exact same thing.
In no way was the damage to the other two cars any fault of mine - they simply slid on the same ice that I slid on - yet I was found at fault, due to this feature of the law.
It was known by a different name back then. 'Posse' I believe.
I think you're fixating on the rope, whereas the original poster was focusing more on the mob justice.
That works as well. We can't likewise structure our entire society around the fear of that either.
Well, laws do exist merely to establish fault, though. This could remain one of those. For example, in many states a rear-end collision is always the fault of the last car.
No. No exceptions if you are behind the wheel. If you are the driver, you must be fully aware of the environment around you at all times. Your responsibility does not stop when your vehicle is temporarily stopped in the middle of the road at a light.
Don't be a prude. What's that driver supposed to do about the oncoming danger when stopped? Kick in the hoverjets?? I for one am not driving a James Bond car, and would rather be killed by surprise than see it coming...
Your same logic could be applied to people who speed or run redlights.
You're ignoring the data, and it's even linked in the summary above. Similarly, look into the amount of harm that red light cameras cause.
In any case, on the topic, you're going to need to demonstrate why 'punish after' isn't somehow worse than the current laws have made things. Because what you're advocating is reality in many places, and in those places it has made the situation more dangerous, rather than less.
Pesky summary, I know, I know...
That will be quite a comfort to the relatives of the deceased.
We can't structure our entire society around prevention of and/or fear of death. That's folly. People die, frequently.
Don't take this to far to state that I'm advocating death, because that's not the case here either. I'm merely pointing out that it is akin to air for us. Can't have life without it.
Besides, the legal environment described above would allow such grieving relatives to sue for hefty sums.
Screaming kids, or a fight with the spouse, is another matter. Both should be illegal as well. Maybe the threat of going to juvie for a night will get the little monsters to shut their traps. Same with the wife. 8^)
You seem to be forgetting that automobiles aren't generally driven for pleasure. They're carrying real people with actual lives. Those lives can't necessarily be put on hold because you want to roads to be safer. I suppose you could insist that people pull over until the screaming stops, but good luck getting THAT voted through.
That's at least partially bogus, though. Or are we to believe that texting-drivers aren't capable of pulling out in front of someone, running off the road, straying into the oncoming lane, etc?
I don't think you can make the 'primary use' claim anywhere outside of the Old South. In the Old West, for example, they were often used on rustlers and thieves. Minorities were simply shot and left out on the prairie.
Except that, like in many cases of drunk driving, the person who dies isn't the reckless (or drunk) driver it's the person they hit.
Actually, I don't think you can make that claim. Drunk individuals in an auto accident typically fare better because they are relaxed when it occurs. The rigidity of form causes a great deal of harm. Also there's got to be some factoring of seatbelts that the drunks aren't probably wearing. 'Thrown clear' really does happen in a non-trivial amount of accidents.
There are actual numbers, I'm sure, but I'm confident they'll play out as 'apples-oranges', or at least 'apples-crab apples'.
I've always wondered why there aren't outright bans on people trying to put on makeup, brushing their teeth, eating a meal (I'm talking about cereal with a bowl and spoon or anything that requires two hands), etc.
This. There's an entire industry of drive up food that's certainly caused more accidents than the mobile phone ever will.
Actually the 2nd Imperial Death Star was also almost certainly a complete ecological disaster for Endor...
Oh, I don't know about the survey. Our efforts have resulted in more than one million Iraqi dead. That's bound to skew things away from your expected result.
In a poll of:
A) Saddam
B) The US-led invasion
That's probably not as clear cut as you'd think.
Consider this one:
A) Saddam
B) The US-led invasion
C) Populist uprising
So there's no way whatsoever for the software to keep the reactor operating at an unsafe level?
I'm admittedly not a nuclear scientist, but if this is the case, I'm genuinely impressed.
Don't forget how is gets used in bunker busters as well.
But otherwise, you may well be right. It might not be the chemicals we used in making the bombs we dropped on those civilians, it could just be the fires they caused. There certainly does seem to be something residual in the environment, though, because it is still impacting humans whose sperm cells didn't even exist at the time that smoke went up.
Ah, yes, but there are Soviets in the picture now, too.
Good point, though.
I'm feeding them poison, though, so it's fine.
Perhaps you're assuming that the malicious software wouldn't inhibit their ability to respond?
I'm imagining the worst case scenario, to be sure, but it includes software that tampers with the readings on the computer. Readings that look fine and give the operators no reason to check the manual gauges, except as a part of their routine checks. And, if timed perfectly, this could easily be too late to prevent catastrophe.
Not only am I not assuming that Homer is operating the reactor, I'm likewise assuming that Homer didn't design the virus.
The residual health effects of using such weapons are still not fully understood. Look at the birth defect issues in Fallujah for a recent example.
It's still uranium.