Yep, just like the carebears who think the color of their armor name translates to personal worth. The difference being I don't have to grind the same dungeon 20 times a week hoping something will drop to complete my "set." I just go out and smash faces.
WoW's PvP is terrible because it's so cheesy. Heavily CC-dependent with little design for group PvP. For instance, tanks have no role. Warhammer feels more fluid and less frustrating. The trade-off is that if you're a squishy class, you will go down very quickly if you don't have the support of your allies. At the same time, if you're a Bright Wizard, you'll OBLITERATE people if left alone. There's no resilience stat in this game to reduce crits...
That's what the whole game is based on. They call it RvR. The fact you call it "WoW version 2.0" in an earlier post makes me think you haven't even read up on the game...
Sheesh. The rules for the primaries don't have any frigging thing to do with popular vote.
They have everything to do with delegates.
Clinton won the Democratic popular vote. The Democratic party, desperate to nominate Obama, disenfranchised voters to ensure his victory. Period.
It's not like Clinton was hoodwinked into thinking she needed to win the popular vote and just stumbled onto the fact that she had to win delegates. She knew from the start.
She talked up how she'd win the delegates - at least she did until she was losing on the race for delegates. Then she (and STOOPID people like you) began harping on the "popular vote."
You can call people "STOOPID" all you'd like--the fact is that Clinton supporters were disenfranchised by the DNC and are now turning to McCain, who has actively reached out to them.
BUT! Hillary most certainly didn't get screwed by the party ignoring the "popular vote," That's just the sound of a loser reaching for another set of rules that favors them, when they're losing by the rules they agreed to play by.
Jesus Christ, the only reason I mentioned it was to point out what the DNC did to Clinton supporters by not counting all their votes, which was hypocritical of them. You seriously don't think that it upset her voters just a tad or that it affected female support of Obama?
P.S. And even if you want to play a loser argument...exactly how do you count popular vote in caucus states? Hmmm. Just another huge, gaping, enormous hole in your inane, bullshit postulation that "Clinton won the Democratic popular vote, but higher-ups disenfranchised her supporters anyway"
You're mad that you can't dispute a fact, so you're trying to bombard me with paragraph after paragraph desperately attempting to convince me that the voices of millions of voters don't matter, using words like "bullshit."
And I'd bet you are REALLY PISSED that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, and the WHOLE FRIGGING NATION was disenfranchised. Right?
Sheesh!
The 2000 election just makes the disenfranchisement of Clinton's voters all that more comical. You're delusional if you don't believe this is a real problem for the DNC. They latched onto Obama and turned on Clinton, as did the media. You may want to ignore the desires of millions of Democrats like the DNC did, but that's not going to do your party any good, nor does it make your foolhardy decision look any better. Obama doesn't exactly have the election in the bank, does he? Why do you think Obama has lost the support of female voters?
You and the DNC may want to pretend that there wasn't a major voter disenfranchisement that occured, but you'll be reminded of it come November. I think it's fairly obvious at this point that McCain-Palin has an excellent chance of winning the election--especially with Biden running around telling people that Hillary Clinton would have been a better choice for VP...
Obama's got as many scandals around him. If a Republican had been a patron of Reverend Wright's church for 20 years, his candidacy would have been over. The media would never let anyone forget it.
However, Obama's a Democrat. Even more, he's a black Democrat. They were so desperate to elect him that they turned on Hillary Clinton (even Matt Drudge got in on the act) and disenfranchised her millions of supporters, even though she won the popular vote!
It was two things: a thirst for power and a desire to disgrace Bush's exit from the White House by electing a Democrat. So Republicans chose the most un-Bush Republican and a woman for VP. Democrats found out Obama had gotten a free ride of hype for two years and had never been challenged--now he's no longer the celebrity.
For crying out loud, even the Senate has tightened up for Republicans. I don't know why Democrats always assume the public is going to flock to them just because they're Democrats...this is usualy the point in the election where they start getting bitter and insulting Americans for being dumb because they're not voting for THEIR guy.
Democrats never do anything bad. It's not like one is currently being investigated for his taxes, or that another got re-elected despite having $200,000 in his freezer.
This is really just another incredibly lame attack on Palin--the most popular politician in the country, and a woman Democrats are VERY afraid of because she represents a future presidential candidate after Democrats screwed over their own first female nominee (Clinton won the Democratic popular vote, but higher-ups disenfranchised her supporters anyway).
Fox News doesn't wish people would die of cancer or refer to dead soldiers by saying "screw them." In fact, media studies show Fox News as the most centrist news media. What you and other lefties object to is that they dare have conservative commentators hosting their opinion shows (the horror!).
I work with a co-worker whose retired husband reads DailyKos all day and calls her with every left-wing conspiracy theory, which she parrots as fact to the rest of the office. Today she said that Palin and McCain wear an earpiece during interviews so that someone can tell them what to say (Obama, of course, doesn't). It obviously came from some comment on the Kos, but this the kind of goofy crap that the pro-Obama half of the nation actually believes thanks to such loony websites. It's all emotional hatred and vitriol.
Very, very few people run Linux to play games, and besides that, Linux is an always-changing, unstable platform that doesn't even have a defined ABI. Why should they waste their time on it? Not even Blizzard bothers with Linux.
The game has system requirements. Those requirements state Windows. How can somebody complain that something doesn't run properly on a system that is not in the system requirements and get +5 Informative?
Also, absolutely no surprise my comment got modbombed into oblivion by the drooling college retards who spend all day pirating everything under the sun using their broadband connections. You're not opposed to DRM because of consumer rights--you just don't like that it attempts to stop your freeloading.
If freeloading college morons and other imbeciles didn't pirate the fuck out of everything and claim they have a "right" to rip game developers off, DRM wouldn't be necessary in the first place, now would it?
It's incredibly amusing to see people on a pro-piracy website like Slashdot whine about their rights when it's the violation of artist rights that leads to DRM in the first place. It's typical of the "GIMME THAT, IT'S MINE!" attitude of Slashdotters and the rest of pirates in general.
If the system requirements clearly state that Windows is required to play the game, and you instead choose to run it in Linux using some buggy third-party Win32 API, that's your fault.
I know you don't think artists should ever get paid for anything, but DRM is going to stay to make sure that, on some level, you freeloaders are forced to actually pay for somebody's work. Crazy concept, I know.
The only reason Napster and those other services were allowed to sell DRM-free was because the industry was trying to shake up iTune's dominance a little. Didn't work, of course. Nobody uses Napster, and it's amusing seeing pirates trumpet it as some kind of anti-DRM victory.
...is one guy who returned to Microsoft, the price of an employee service was raised, and the stock price is lower than it was at a point in the past.
I don't think that's enough to declare that Google has lost its mojo. Think of how many times Apple was "dying" according to the press. I think this author is just bored with Google and wants to cause a stir.
You mean the position of criticizing the RIAA for ethical and moral reasons even while pirating some band's entire discography in a 250MB RAR file? The pro-piracy position has merits?
Congratulations! Your post uses the following tired Slashdot cliches
1.) "outdated business model." According to Slashdotters, making money by selling something you created is outdated. No alternative is given, of course. 2.) "crime against humanity." Making money is bad! Capitalism is bad! Socialism rulez because I read Chomsky in college! 3.) "media cartels" The usual scapegoating of the RIAA to distract people from the fact you're ripping off artists and making sure they don't get paid for their work.
Meanwhile, there are real human beings who write music, go to a studio to record it, and sell it to make a living. YOU DON'T WANT THOSE PEOPLE TO MAKE MONEY. You can't escape this argument--it's the direct consequence when you pirate somebody's music...they don't get paid for their work. You don't care, and to absolve yourself of guilty feelings, you crusade against the RIAA. They're the bad guy, not you! Right?
Yeah, they're so "greedy" for wanting to get paid for their music. The nerve!
The RIAA have turned what should be a cultural commodity and property of the people into a liability. Fuck the RIAA and everybody associated with them.
"Cultural commodity." I guess that's the latest pro-piracy propaganda used to justify not paying artists for their work I'm assuming if you ever work a job and your boss doesn't give you a paycheck you because he calls your work a "property of the people," you'll be fine with it.
Rules of Slashdot:
1.) An albums is a "cultural commodity" instead of what it actually is, a product created by humans put up for sale to make a living. 2.) The RIAA is a convenient scapegoat to distract everyone and make them forget you're ripping off the humans who made the music. 3.) If anyone brings up the artists you're ripping off, start into the usual spiel about how artists are the oppressed victims of their evil record labels even though artists willingly signed their contracts with those labels. Record labels distribute and advertise your music so that you can make a living off of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, just like the carebears who think the color of their armor name translates to personal worth. The difference being I don't have to grind the same dungeon 20 times a week hoping something will drop to complete my "set." I just go out and smash faces.
Have fun.
Or, we could question your motivation as an Obama supporter defending the removal of information, especially the net neutrality positions. Wheee.
WoW's PvP is terrible because it's so cheesy. Heavily CC-dependent with little design for group PvP. For instance, tanks have no role. Warhammer feels more fluid and less frustrating. The trade-off is that if you're a squishy class, you will go down very quickly if you don't have the support of your allies. At the same time, if you're a Bright Wizard, you'll OBLITERATE people if left alone. There's no resilience stat in this game to reduce crits...
Yes, it is worth it.
When you die, you get a stat debuff that stacks up to five times unless you go and claim your corpse or pay off a healer NPC to remove the debuff.
The penalty of death in an MMO is time.
No, it is not a game for PvE carebears who want to slay internet dragons at 3 in the morning.
That's what the whole game is based on. They call it RvR. The fact you call it "WoW version 2.0" in an earlier post makes me think you haven't even read up on the game...
PvP XP.
Clinton won the Democratic popular vote. The Democratic party, desperate to nominate Obama, disenfranchised voters to ensure his victory. Period.
You can call people "STOOPID" all you'd like--the fact is that Clinton supporters were disenfranchised by the DNC and are now turning to McCain, who has actively reached out to them.
Jesus Christ, the only reason I mentioned it was to point out what the DNC did to Clinton supporters by not counting all their votes, which was hypocritical of them. You seriously don't think that it upset her voters just a tad or that it affected female support of Obama?
You're mad that you can't dispute a fact, so you're trying to bombard me with paragraph after paragraph desperately attempting to convince me that the voices of millions of voters don't matter, using words like "bullshit."
The 2000 election just makes the disenfranchisement of Clinton's voters all that more comical. You're delusional if you don't believe this is a real problem for the DNC. They latched onto Obama and turned on Clinton, as did the media. You may want to ignore the desires of millions of Democrats like the DNC did, but that's not going to do your party any good, nor does it make your foolhardy decision look any better. Obama doesn't exactly have the election in the bank, does he? Why do you think Obama has lost the support of female voters?
You and the DNC may want to pretend that there wasn't a major voter disenfranchisement that occured, but you'll be reminded of it come November. I think it's fairly obvious at this point that McCain-Palin has an excellent chance of winning the election--especially with Biden running around telling people that Hillary Clinton would have been a better choice for VP...
Obama's got as many scandals around him. If a Republican had been a patron of Reverend Wright's church for 20 years, his candidacy would have been over. The media would never let anyone forget it.
However, Obama's a Democrat. Even more, he's a black Democrat. They were so desperate to elect him that they turned on Hillary Clinton (even Matt Drudge got in on the act) and disenfranchised her millions of supporters, even though she won the popular vote!
It was two things: a thirst for power and a desire to disgrace Bush's exit from the White House by electing a Democrat. So Republicans chose the most un-Bush Republican and a woman for VP. Democrats found out Obama had gotten a free ride of hype for two years and had never been challenged--now he's no longer the celebrity.
For crying out loud, even the Senate has tightened up for Republicans. I don't know why Democrats always assume the public is going to flock to them just because they're Democrats...this is usualy the point in the election where they start getting bitter and insulting Americans for being dumb because they're not voting for THEIR guy.
Democrats never do anything bad. It's not like one is currently being investigated for his taxes, or that another got re-elected despite having $200,000 in his freezer.
This is really just another incredibly lame attack on Palin--the most popular politician in the country, and a woman Democrats are VERY afraid of because she represents a future presidential candidate after Democrats screwed over their own first female nominee (Clinton won the Democratic popular vote, but higher-ups disenfranchised her supporters anyway).
Did you even read the blog entry? About how they had a guy implement a whole new DLL in a week so they could access HTTPS sites?
Fox News doesn't wish people would die of cancer or refer to dead soldiers by saying "screw them." In fact, media studies show Fox News as the most centrist news media. What you and other lefties object to is that they dare have conservative commentators hosting their opinion shows (the horror!).
I work with a co-worker whose retired husband reads DailyKos all day and calls her with every left-wing conspiracy theory, which she parrots as fact to the rest of the office. Today she said that Palin and McCain wear an earpiece during interviews so that someone can tell them what to say (Obama, of course, doesn't). It obviously came from some comment on the Kos, but this the kind of goofy crap that the pro-Obama half of the nation actually believes thanks to such loony websites. It's all emotional hatred and vitriol.
Very, very few people run Linux to play games, and besides that, Linux is an always-changing, unstable platform that doesn't even have a defined ABI. Why should they waste their time on it? Not even Blizzard bothers with Linux.
The game has system requirements. Those requirements state Windows. How can somebody complain that something doesn't run properly on a system that is not in the system requirements and get +5 Informative?
Where did I say it did?
Also, absolutely no surprise my comment got modbombed into oblivion by the drooling college retards who spend all day pirating everything under the sun using their broadband connections. You're not opposed to DRM because of consumer rights--you just don't like that it attempts to stop your freeloading.
Incoming modbomb by more retards.
If freeloading college morons and other imbeciles didn't pirate the fuck out of everything and claim they have a "right" to rip game developers off, DRM wouldn't be necessary in the first place, now would it?
It's incredibly amusing to see people on a pro-piracy website like Slashdot whine about their rights when it's the violation of artist rights that leads to DRM in the first place. It's typical of the "GIMME THAT, IT'S MINE!" attitude of Slashdotters and the rest of pirates in general.
If the system requirements clearly state that Windows is required to play the game, and you instead choose to run it in Linux using some buggy third-party Win32 API, that's your fault.
Um, if their product is so bad, why are people pirating it?
I know you don't think artists should ever get paid for anything, but DRM is going to stay to make sure that, on some level, you freeloaders are forced to actually pay for somebody's work. Crazy concept, I know.
The only reason Napster and those other services were allowed to sell DRM-free was because the industry was trying to shake up iTune's dominance a little. Didn't work, of course. Nobody uses Napster, and it's amusing seeing pirates trumpet it as some kind of anti-DRM victory.
...is one guy who returned to Microsoft, the price of an employee service was raised, and the stock price is lower than it was at a point in the past.
I don't think that's enough to declare that Google has lost its mojo. Think of how many times Apple was "dying" according to the press. I think this author is just bored with Google and wants to cause a stir.
I think the news is that a classic sci-fi writer is still alive and with us. 88 is up there (I don't even want to live that long).
You mean the position of criticizing the RIAA for ethical and moral reasons even while pirating some band's entire discography in a 250MB RAR file? The pro-piracy position has merits?
Congratulations! Your post uses the following tired Slashdot cliches
1.) "outdated business model." According to Slashdotters, making money by selling something you created is outdated. No alternative is given, of course.
2.) "crime against humanity." Making money is bad! Capitalism is bad! Socialism rulez because I read Chomsky in college!
3.) "media cartels" The usual scapegoating of the RIAA to distract people from the fact you're ripping off artists and making sure they don't get paid for their work.
Meanwhile, there are real human beings who write music, go to a studio to record it, and sell it to make a living. YOU DON'T WANT THOSE PEOPLE TO MAKE MONEY. You can't escape this argument--it's the direct consequence when you pirate somebody's music...they don't get paid for their work. You don't care, and to absolve yourself of guilty feelings, you crusade against the RIAA. They're the bad guy, not you! Right?
Yeah, they're so "greedy" for wanting to get paid for their music. The nerve!
"Cultural commodity." I guess that's the latest pro-piracy propaganda used to justify not paying artists for their work I'm assuming if you ever work a job and your boss doesn't give you a paycheck you because he calls your work a "property of the people," you'll be fine with it.
Rules of Slashdot:
1.) An albums is a "cultural commodity" instead of what it actually is, a product created by humans put up for sale to make a living.
2.) The RIAA is a convenient scapegoat to distract everyone and make them forget you're ripping off the humans who made the music.
3.) If anyone brings up the artists you're ripping off, start into the usual spiel about how artists are the oppressed victims of their evil record labels even though artists willingly signed their contracts with those labels. Record labels distribute and advertise your music so that you can make a living off of it.