Assuming the game works without the day-1 update. Most do, but I remember a few stories here a few years back where all savegames were corrupt on creation and things like that.
I believe "Too Human" and a few of its contemporary Xbox 360 titles had major, show-stopping bugs on the shipped disks.
It's been a few years since it was a huge issue, but it's a historical issue that may crop up again. Another example: I never played Half Life multiplayer because the early versions of Steam didn't play well with my computer and a mere dialup connection. Only years later did Steam become robust enough to handle an AOL dialup connection.
Okay, I want a competitive team- and class-based shooter with a good online community and a cartoony art style and no DRM.
Let me put it another way - only one company holds the license for the Battletech franchise at any given time. Old games in the series have glaring gameplay flaws by modern standards. (Fucking laser bullets? Oh, and godawful bad AI.) They just shut down the only big-stompy-robots fan project. What other 'mech sim should I play?
Occasionally, not guided at all. I think the Quassim rockets are entirely aimed by hand, unguided, and don't need to be. As long as the rocket lands within 20 miles of a target region...
North Korea keeps something like 50,000 artillery tubes trained on Seoul at all times, just on the far side of the DMZ. Even if South Korea acted first and hit them with a fairly devastating surprise attack, the remaining NK artillery would be sufficient to overwhelm the SK defenders and flatten Seoul within a half hour to an hour. There's no high-tech solution to that problem that I can think of is dropping no less than 1000 tons of cluster bombs (from orbit?) simultaneously with no warning over the entirety of the NK side of the demilitarized zone, four kilometers deep. As cluster bombs are jokingly referred to by the military as "grid square removal devices", a map grid is 1 kilometer on a side, and the DMZ is about 250 km wide and 4km deep, 1000 of these 1-ton devices should prove sufficient to blunt the initial NK counterattack. Still, additionally you'd have to flatten everything in a 20-40 km radius centered on Seoul that's north of the border, based on the estimated range of NK artillery. During the Korean War, NK had the most advanced military in the world at the time; contemporary American 155mm howitzers have a range of just under 20 km. However, relatively simple technologies have pretty well doubled the effective range of artillery; even North Korean industry can manufacture base-bleed projectiles, and for their uses - flattening their foes capital, a major industrial and population center - any loss of accuracy is irrelevant. They have a very target-rich environment. Therefore, I must conclude there's no really good high-tech solution to a massive, dug-in field army that doesn't involve orbital artillery or nukes.
Most people making that argument just fixate on a couple tools of violence, and ignore the unintended consequences of removing them from society with no other changes. Recent evidence suggests that the human hand evolved specifically for punching, showing just how deep rooted the human nature problem is, however.
If you're considering the subtleties and complexities and practicalities, I withdraw my complaint.
Yesterday, New York banned essentially every modern firearm designed in the last 50 years.
Gun owners have a year to liquidate their property, probably because they figured that was the best they could get away with. On the subject of evidence, I submit mine that you're wrong about the government (of a certain state). Inductive reasoning is risky, but I can see why someone in their position would be worried as of today.
Some, but not most - the line I looked at displayed a strong trend downward in overall violent crime in America.
My best guess is environmental lead poisoning and its reduction following the banning of tetraethyl lead as a gasoline additive; its specific form of brain damage tends to lead to anger management and impulse control problems later in life. The evidence is fairly compelling, but I didn't specialize in neurology.
I'm working from cold-medicine-addled memory at the moment, so please take with a grain of salt.
Point 1: Where private sales are banned at a state or local level, gun dealers tend to charge a three-digit price for a five minute job. I vaguely remember $150 being the minimum price for a transfer.
Point 2: I believe they're not actually allowed to spend money on clearing up mistakes, so they aren't allowed to clear up mistakes. This may have changed; I hope it has.
I'd be the first to agree that the world would be a better place if nobody had guns, bombs, or nuclear weapons.
Fuck that shit. If nobody had guns, we'd probably still be serfs ruled by feudal warlords, because that's how war could be most effectively waged before the gun.
If nobody had bombs... actually, that one may be an improvement.
If nobody had the bomb, the cold war probably would have turned into World War 3, and a billion or two people probably would have died; between conventional and chemical weapons, we'd still be rebuilding what's left of Europe today in 2013 -- or perhaps still fighting in it.
I'd like to live in the sort of world you're imagining, but there's some unintended consequences that would keep us from ever achieving such a utopia trivially.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, not a single firearm has to be used to make the economic calculus so unpleasant that potential aggressors won't want to do what it takes to subjugate the continental US. They just have to be there. Remember "a rifle behind every blade of glass" back in world war 2? It's not the millitia types, it's not the survivalists, it's the fact that there are approximately 315 million guns in safes, sock drawers, and holsters and getting every last one would pretty well be the definition of "statistically impossible". If every SWAT team, beat cop, soldier, and hunter were all fighting some hypothetical external bad guy, the odds get worse - that 315 million is only counting civilian-owned weapons.
Thing is, every state actor knows this. That's why we're so worried about non-state actors who don't wear uniforms announcing their affiliation & c. now. We've made it so expensive in lives and treasure to do things the old fashioned way, the only threats to the US have to cheat simply to be threats at all.
Six wasn't enough to stop him; but the threat of six more (she bluffed that she was reloading the gun) was enough to make him want to leave.
Her accuracy under stress was commendable, and her use of a choke point nearly ideal. Under hypothetical worse-than-ideal conditions, I'd answer your question with "Quite a few more than she had".
His willingness and ability to force open a barred attic demonstrates that he had some kind of force multiplier at hand, and that he wasn't simply there to clean out the jewelry box, otherwise he'd have just grabbed the jewelry box and made a hasty exit. If the article I read was right about the attic having to be forced open, then a pretty solid attempt at "holding him at bay" already failed.
I'm honestly okay with this. If I'm firing a weapon somewhere I didn't expect to need to, I want the police there like five minutes ago and that just saves me a call. I can call in after the immediate threat to life and limb is past, and vector them in, but this way they'll have a head start compared to me, a cell phone, and calling when the situation has become safe. That's also assuming I'm able to summon help - cellphones aren't precisely 100% reliable, and I could be injured and unable to dial.
If they were trying to ban the stuff poor people from the ghetto drink, ("beer", or.38 snubnose revolvers) they'd also be banning the stuff Joe Sixpack in Arkansas drinks ("beer", or.38 snubnose revolvers - also the gun of choice among the law abiding, last I checked).
Yes, this really is like going after expensive scotch, in this metaphor.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming the game works without the day-1 update. Most do, but I remember a few stories here a few years back where all savegames were corrupt on creation and things like that.
I believe "Too Human" and a few of its contemporary Xbox 360 titles had major, show-stopping bugs on the shipped disks.
It's been a few years since it was a huge issue, but it's a historical issue that may crop up again. Another example: I never played Half Life multiplayer because the early versions of Steam didn't play well with my computer and a mere dialup connection. Only years later did Steam become robust enough to handle an AOL dialup connection.
You've never run into games that require day-1 patches to function properly, have you?
Okay, I want a competitive team- and class-based shooter with a good online community and a cartoony art style and no DRM.
Let me put it another way - only one company holds the license for the Battletech franchise at any given time. Old games in the series have glaring gameplay flaws by modern standards. (Fucking laser bullets? Oh, and godawful bad AI.) They just shut down the only big-stompy-robots fan project. What other 'mech sim should I play?
You assume I'm willing to play a console version.
Occasionally, not guided at all. I think the Quassim rockets are entirely aimed by hand, unguided, and don't need to be. As long as the rocket lands within 20 miles of a target region...
It appears to be he's drawing conclusions and extrapolating.
North Korea keeps something like 50,000 artillery tubes trained on Seoul at all times, just on the far side of the DMZ. Even if South Korea acted first and hit them with a fairly devastating surprise attack, the remaining NK artillery would be sufficient to overwhelm the SK defenders and flatten Seoul within a half hour to an hour. There's no high-tech solution to that problem that I can think of is dropping no less than 1000 tons of cluster bombs (from orbit?) simultaneously with no warning over the entirety of the NK side of the demilitarized zone, four kilometers deep. As cluster bombs are jokingly referred to by the military as "grid square removal devices", a map grid is 1 kilometer on a side, and the DMZ is about 250 km wide and 4km deep, 1000 of these 1-ton devices should prove sufficient to blunt the initial NK counterattack. Still, additionally you'd have to flatten everything in a 20-40 km radius centered on Seoul that's north of the border, based on the estimated range of NK artillery. During the Korean War, NK had the most advanced military in the world at the time; contemporary American 155mm howitzers have a range of just under 20 km. However, relatively simple technologies have pretty well doubled the effective range of artillery; even North Korean industry can manufacture base-bleed projectiles, and for their uses - flattening their foes capital, a major industrial and population center - any loss of accuracy is irrelevant. They have a very target-rich environment. Therefore, I must conclude there's no really good high-tech solution to a massive, dug-in field army that doesn't involve orbital artillery or nukes.
The more you know!
Anyone who a: wanted to, and b: had a military.
Hell, you wouldn't even need a military.
"Jailbreaking" or rooting is a prerequisite for unlocking. If I could magically unlock the phone without jailbreaking it first, you'd be right, but...
Most people making that argument just fixate on a couple tools of violence, and ignore the unintended consequences of removing them from society with no other changes. Recent evidence suggests that the human hand evolved specifically for punching, showing just how deep rooted the human nature problem is, however.
If you're considering the subtleties and complexities and practicalities, I withdraw my complaint.
Yesterday, New York banned essentially every modern firearm designed in the last 50 years.
Gun owners have a year to liquidate their property, probably because they figured that was the best they could get away with. On the subject of evidence, I submit mine that you're wrong about the government (of a certain state). Inductive reasoning is risky, but I can see why someone in their position would be worried as of today.
I fear you're ignoring all the non-state actors (polite term for "terrorists") who have actually come pretty close to getting a bomb a couple times.
Some, but not most - the line I looked at displayed a strong trend downward in overall violent crime in America.
My best guess is environmental lead poisoning and its reduction following the banning of tetraethyl lead as a gasoline additive; its specific form of brain damage tends to lead to anger management and impulse control problems later in life. The evidence is fairly compelling, but I didn't specialize in neurology.
I'm working from cold-medicine-addled memory at the moment, so please take with a grain of salt. Point 1: Where private sales are banned at a state or local level, gun dealers tend to charge a three-digit price for a five minute job. I vaguely remember $150 being the minimum price for a transfer. Point 2: I believe they're not actually allowed to spend money on clearing up mistakes, so they aren't allowed to clear up mistakes. This may have changed; I hope it has.
Actually, in Canada, it hasn't. Not a single one, as of when I gave up following the story as too depressing to go on reading about.
You seem to have made an unspoken assumption: "Once the good guy shoots the bad guy, the bad guy stops shooting."
Some times the bad guy is on PCP.
Fuck that shit. If nobody had guns, we'd probably still be serfs ruled by feudal warlords, because that's how war could be most effectively waged before the gun.
If nobody had bombs... actually, that one may be an improvement.
If nobody had the bomb, the cold war probably would have turned into World War 3, and a billion or two people probably would have died; between conventional and chemical weapons, we'd still be rebuilding what's left of Europe today in 2013 -- or perhaps still fighting in it.
I'd like to live in the sort of world you're imagining, but there's some unintended consequences that would keep us from ever achieving such a utopia trivially.
You seem to be deliberately ignoring the argument that the guard reduced the overall body count that day by about a dozen.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, not a single firearm has to be used to make the economic calculus so unpleasant that potential aggressors won't want to do what it takes to subjugate the continental US. They just have to be there. Remember "a rifle behind every blade of glass" back in world war 2? It's not the millitia types, it's not the survivalists, it's the fact that there are approximately 315 million guns in safes, sock drawers, and holsters and getting every last one would pretty well be the definition of "statistically impossible". If every SWAT team, beat cop, soldier, and hunter were all fighting some hypothetical external bad guy, the odds get worse - that 315 million is only counting civilian-owned weapons.
Thing is, every state actor knows this. That's why we're so worried about non-state actors who don't wear uniforms announcing their affiliation & c. now. We've made it so expensive in lives and treasure to do things the old fashioned way, the only threats to the US have to cheat simply to be threats at all.
Six wasn't enough to stop him; but the threat of six more (she bluffed that she was reloading the gun) was enough to make him want to leave.
Her accuracy under stress was commendable, and her use of a choke point nearly ideal. Under hypothetical worse-than-ideal conditions, I'd answer your question with "Quite a few more than she had".
His willingness and ability to force open a barred attic demonstrates that he had some kind of force multiplier at hand, and that he wasn't simply there to clean out the jewelry box, otherwise he'd have just grabbed the jewelry box and made a hasty exit. If the article I read was right about the attic having to be forced open, then a pretty solid attempt at "holding him at bay" already failed.
I'm honestly okay with this. If I'm firing a weapon somewhere I didn't expect to need to, I want the police there like five minutes ago and that just saves me a call. I can call in after the immediate threat to life and limb is past, and vector them in, but this way they'll have a head start compared to me, a cell phone, and calling when the situation has become safe. That's also assuming I'm able to summon help - cellphones aren't precisely 100% reliable, and I could be injured and unable to dial.
If they were trying to ban the stuff poor people from the ghetto drink, ("beer", or .38 snubnose revolvers) they'd also be banning the stuff Joe Sixpack in Arkansas drinks ("beer", or .38 snubnose revolvers - also the gun of choice among the law abiding, last I checked).
Yes, this really is like going after expensive scotch, in this metaphor.
The problem is they're generally very good at influencing voters.