Luckily for M$, their customers have come to expect failures and consider them to be a natural and inevitable consequence of the computing experience, and they don't bat an eyelash. It's sad really.
And more importantly, they have a collection of games which can only be played at the same console so they can either sell them at a loss or get another identical console.
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm simply stating the obvious problem with the money gained from the selling the oil. The linked article says so as well clearly. Of course american people are footing the bill because if they didn't, the invasion would seem like a destroy, capture, and get out. And any higher moral ground would be lost in an instant (as if they had any though). So of course that they went with some reconstruction to keep the moral high ground. And some politicians of course concluded that iraqis should pay with their own oil the reconstruction. This is where my analogy from my original post kicks in. It is "oh so well, but we are rebuilding the country and installing democracy". As the army didn't see that the infrastructure was very well destroyed.
And you may repeat 1000 times that the iraq is totally in control of itself but I just can't believe that. If anything I have learned from history is that when you conquer a country you don't just leave completely. You invade for a reason. And the reason is well known and pretty obvious. And I don't want to defend that point because cubic kilometers are written about it. And not you nor I don't actually know what is going on with the iraqi government but the reality is not so simple and good mannered as you want to picture it.
Concerning your twisted misrepresentation of my example. Firewalls aren't a crucial resource of a country. If say US controlled all the water in China, yes, that would be a great problem for china. And as CIA could approve or stop and action of croatia's military (which is a crucial country's asset), then croatia wasn't really sovereign nation.
Concerning the socialism in jugoslavia under tito, I'm not relevant much because I was born 2 years after he died ('80/'82). But I know the effects which croatian population inherited from jugoslavia. Socialized healthcare is probably the best one. But last couple of years (even more so these days) the government is dismantling it for the "private model" (aka american model, yes the horrible version). Of course the insurance companies are lobbying for them and there is pretty much noone to counterweight them (common sight for any issue). We inherited rampant corruption (one of the most corrupt countries in the world) which is eating the country alive. Add that the biggest employer in the country is the state. There are not only corrupt politicians, but pretty much every government service is corrupted to the bone. Healthcare is one of them. It is not about money strictly, it is about favour for a favour. And this is completely "normal", because well, they are doctors, and they "save lives" so of course one is morally "obliged" to give something to them. I can go on and on, but nobody cares anyway.
Your question was if the socialism under tito was any good? I'll just answer you that the general consensus is it wasn't like in other western european countries, but it was far better than in russia or some other socialist eastern european countries. But well, now we have democracy and capitalism (probably a minimal definition), and pretty much everything is owned by foreign corporations. Big import, no export, no real economy. But croatia gets the loans which it cannot repay so the (foreign) banks just take the villas by the sea, extremely valuable terrain etc. As long as they can get terrain and islands, croatia will get loans. When the banks (an then european rich people) buy out everything the money will stop coming. But you cannot blame the corporations only, the politicians make that happen because I know first hand they are in the pockets of foreign companies.
I don't read newspapers online much, but that theme was hot for couple of weeks on news channels where I saw it. You can probably find quite more sources if you have a little more time then I had. And speaking about cost, that money goes straight in those contractors pockets. Very very little has been rebuilt.
Concerning the conquered country theme. I have a friend who drives oil trucks for big money doing contracting work for a US company there. As I have no reason to distrust a friend he told me that all the oil infrastructure is de facto owned by american companies. And that even is completely logical. When you invade a country, you don't necessary turn the population in slaves, settle your people there or whatever. All you need is to control the heart of the country and in iraq that is oil. Of course, first you have to destroy their army which is already done. Then you install puppet government and take key resources. You don't even need puppet government, you just need to install non-hostile government, and when you still have your troops on the ground, they will not dare to do anything. That isn't something new, this is known from the dawn of civilization. Moreover, you don't even need even troops on the ground, sometimes you require only a handful of people when you can always implicitly threaten with force which can be located on another part of the globe.
I'll give you just one example of this. When my country (croatia) wanted to retake the occupied territories by jugoslav army in 1995, they first had to secretly get approval from CIA for the operation. And that is almost 5 years since the country became, well, a sovereign country. So when you have a country with government who acts in like 99.5% of cases completely independent, but in that 0.5% of cases it needs to ask for permission, then you don't really have a sovereign country, you have a colony (or banana republic, as you wish) masked as an independent country.
Yeah, tell that to the victims of that retarded idea in my country (croatia).
Woman was being strangled by her husband in the kitchen, she somehow managed to get a knife and stab him. Unfortunately for the guy, she hit an artery and the guy bled to death before the ambulance came. She was in prison for 6 years, and completely bankrupted by her morally corrupt lawyer. What was her proportional response option? Strangle the much larger and more powerful strangler?
Another woman was about to be cut to pieces with butchers knife by her drunken, mad and large husband who locked the doors. The woman managed to shoot the husband with his own hunting rifle. She is imprisoned at the moment.
A guy smashed another guy's car window and started to beat him with a bat over some traffic incident. The guy pulled out the gun and shot him in the face after the guy didn't want to stop. The guy with the gun managed to survive with smashed left arm, jaw and skull fracture. The guy is doing time in prison because he had to "warn the attacker that he is going to shoot, then shoot in to the air".
There are many cases like that, not necessary with guns (which are somewhat rare here), but calling for proportional response just isn't fair for the defender because he doesn't have time to prepare the "proportional" weapon and many times that is just impossible.
How am I with my 62kg and some arcane knowledge of taekwon-do going to suddenly defend against 90+kg guy with only my bare hands and legs? There is no "proportional response" when someone is trying to deprive me of my liberty and/or life even by using his own hands. And John Locke said it best; in those cases you have the right to defend yourself with any means necessary. That concept is much more simpler, logical and was making sense then as it is now.
We haven't even touched the subject of comparing the "proportional responses". Is the aluminium baseball bat proportional response to wooden baseball bat? What about a bat with a custom spike? I mean, the theory is so full of holes you could drive aircraft carrier through them.
Completely agreed, I hate that kind of reasoning GP employs.
That "well, don't blame me, blame the company" argument is the reason why so many things today are so screwed.
For example when one blames the policeman for arresting or fining him for nothing, the blame is completely acceptable because that policeman is just a part of mechanism which supports and in most cases influences that kind of laws that come to bite the law abiding and sincere citizens (by deliberate action or silent approval or approval by association).
If those peons at the bottom of the company pyramid say those phrases I just don't have any sympathies for them. In an organization which has many people it is extremely easy to shift blame until it evaporates. Lets say you are on the phone with customer service person (level 0) disputing something. Then the guy says: "don't blame me, blame the company" (as in the policymakers/ceo/management - eg level 7), then he connects you to his supervisor (level 1) which says the same. But then the magic thing happens and he won't connect you to the level 2; he will probably just say you put it in writing and mail it (probably to level 1 person again). So there is this magic barrier which an excuse can pass over (blame the policymakers/ceo/management) but you can't. That is what makes that kind of excuse null and void. True, that excuse can be attacked from another angle ("I don't want to have a circular talk with 10 people in the company, I want to settle the issue with you"), but that is another story.
If they don't like my polite but aggressive criticism then they shouldn't blame the company (as that is like blaming a cloud) but they should instead quit or try to change the company's policies.
Bush was very adamant that Iraqi oil should be protected by military forces, but all oil belonged to Iraq. He wanted to ensure that when it was sold, it was sold by Iraq, and that Iraqi citizens profited directly from it.
How can you explain then the fact that the money gained by selling iraq's oil would be used to rebuild the country's infrastructure destroyed by american forces in the invasion? I mean that is like when an army destroys your house and then sells your backyard and car to rebuild the house. Moreover, saying that Iraqis are in control of their own oil is just showing a very naive view of international politics and a no understanding what "conquered country" means.
At least you still have "your" MP. In my country (croatia) I don't even have one. Sure, the parliament is chock full of MPs but they actually don't represent anyone. The Government is the party(ies) who had the majority in the general elections and all others are just elections losers. But the sad thing is that those people in the parliament only represent the Party, not the voter (they are not even geographically responsible to anyone). So if I want to write to an MP who do I choose? The guys there don't have any ongoing responsibility. If they are atrocious, they will (hopefully) not get elected in the next general elections. But that seems to me quite a bad and slow way to interact with your MP.
You mentioned sending a letter with money, but obviously that wouldn't work because guys like those already have much more lucrative arrangements forged at private dinners. Why would would an MP take money from a complete stranger when he can get much, much more from a buddy he already knows and shares a bond of secrecy with him?
Just an anecdote from couple of years ago. There was an parliament discussion about a then soon to be introduced new telecommunications law. The parliament was then 2/3 empty, and only 3 MPs wanted to speak. Two were completely clueless and I had a feeling that they were parroting some bullshit about another law by mistake, and the only one in the opposition who had any clue and actually suggested some good amendments (which were denied later of course) was a neo-nazi, warmonger and a xenophobe. Of course the law just passed in its (completely ridiculous) original form. And this is what they call western democracy. It is just an oligarchy with 4 year cycles.
And if you don't explain the Rayleigh effect properly (as you did) you actually don't explain why the sky is blue. In other words, your answer isn't explanatory/informative much because you "explained" the explanandum by introducing another one.
And meantime in the banana republic of croatia, we have government telecom watchdog and two large operators and a small one. But the prices are seriously high. And one interesting thing occurred couple of years ago, the ceo of the second largest operator jumped ship straight in to the telecom watchdog mentioned previously. She went from probably one of the biggest salaries in the country to the one just above the national average one. I find it difficult to explain this without using words like power and corruption.
MMS isn't implemented on 1st gen iphone even the hardware is fully capable for such a simple feature. So this is a nice fuck you from apple to all their first customers of the iphone brand.
It is easily explained why the major scientists at those times were priests. Because the Church at those times were very powerful, rich and influential. So it was natural for people of a certain class to enter the Church and later concern themselves with natural and not metaphysical problems. The alternative was to become some warrior or something else (I'm not counting countless peasants who barely managed to live). Only priests had the endless time and resources to do "science". And speaking of Church, if you did science without being a priest you would get on stake faster than you can say "heretic". Moreover, even some of the priests were excommunicated, imprisoned etc just for the same reason. So I do think that you are confusing cause and effect in a way.
I remember the part with the felguard but that didn't last very long. The new talents were introduced and then, few months later BC came. And even in those few months I didn't play with felguard much because I always found demonology builds extremely boring even though I was one of the first to discover all the benefits of reworked soul link in some of the earlier patches;)
I started with a human lock when wow was released in europe but I kinda regretted it much later when I leveled first rogue and then a mage to 60. Both classes were much more fun to play and without the what-the-devs-were-thinking "mechanics" like soulshards (admittedly the mage was a food/water machine but everything was better than shards) and I didn't have to worry about wotf on every other horde player.
You and parent are speaking of different patches. From the time of release and for almost a full year there were no buffs to death coil nor any other spell. DC was on 10 min cooldown, gave you some health (very little) and took some health from the target. And that was it. For that year the warlock was a free kill to any class knowing how to press two buttons. And alliance warlocks were especially weak vs horde because of will of the forsaken which every second horde player had (50% of horde were ud mostly) and it lasted for 20 seconds. For all its drama, roguecraft movie series actually lead to buffing of the warlocks some time later (even though they were from horde perspective).
Dont' get me wrong but warlock was the weakest class for a very long time in "vanilla" wow. They only buffed it much later. You can watch roguecraft series to refresh your memory.
And this is what people just can't get a good perspective on. They are basically sentencing her to be a slave for the rest of her life and that is even more cruel than execution. Moreover when you have nothing it is extremely difficult to make large amounts of money. That 2 million would be very very difficult to pay off even if you are left after the sentence with all possessions you got (job, house etc). But probably they will take everything that woman owns and tell her to pay off the rest. But in both cases the woman is just a slave. She is not a prisoner like in some russian work camp, but all the freedom she has is to live and give everything she gets to some faceless corporation and that is slavery.
I just find it despicable that those monsters (yes, those people should be put to jail) are ready and willing to destroy your life and seriously impact the life of your relatives just for a few shared files which are fucking sold for $1!
Same here. I'm living in croatia and there is a lot of localized software around. Windows, office, freeware, mobile phones etc. But I prefer the english versions because the names are generally unified across all software. And of course, I started with english many years ago when there wasn't any localizations. But I always recommend english versions to beginners anyway. There are several reasons:
1. They learn a useful language 2. Localizations suck.
I mean croatian language doesn't have good pool of words for technical terms like the ones used frequently in IT. So to "translate" words from english to croatian they invent words or cobble together some other words and that looks like frankenstein. So in my opinion it is easier to learn (somewhat standardized) english terms and phrases than completely *new* words which are in "croatian language" but they are not croatian at all.
But don't pirate it. If you do, you're doing what Microsoft considers "the next best thing" - ignoring alternatives.
I understand what you mean but honestly, what are the alternatives? I would gladly fork out $50 or max $100 for windows 7 but I got 5 computer at home and living in europe that sport would be quite expensive considering the article. But to get to your point, so I decide not to pay for it and not to pirate it.
So what I'm left with? Mac OS X which I can only get on macs but I already have good computers and macs here cost at least 30% more than in US (that means *too much*). Naturally it can't be installed on non-mac computers (hackint0shing is out of the consideration).
Then we have linux or more specifically ubuntu. Tried ubuntu and does a lot of stuff right, but here we get to the major problem and that is software. I use lightroom and photoshop mostly. I would gladly use some alternative but there isn't one by a mile. There are tons of software which are just barely developed and do just some core thing. Why there aren't some competitions for like best photoshop clone or best lightroom clone.? I heard that OO is good. Why stop there and rather do some complex software?
Slashdot Mirror
Luckily for M$, their customers have come to expect failures and consider them to be a natural and inevitable consequence of the computing experience, and they don't bat an eyelash. It's sad really.
And more importantly, they have a collection of games which can only be played at the same console so they can either sell them at a loss or get another identical console.
Yeah, judging from the trailer it is a bad breed between SW: episode 2 and some Disney's Pocahontas or whatever.
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm simply stating the obvious problem with the money gained from the selling the oil. The linked article says so as well clearly. Of course american people are footing the bill because if they didn't, the invasion would seem like a destroy, capture, and get out. And any higher moral ground would be lost in an instant (as if they had any though). So of course that they went with some reconstruction to keep the moral high ground. And some politicians of course concluded that iraqis should pay with their own oil the reconstruction. This is where my analogy from my original post kicks in. It is "oh so well, but we are rebuilding the country and installing democracy". As the army didn't see that the infrastructure was very well destroyed.
And you may repeat 1000 times that the iraq is totally in control of itself but I just can't believe that. If anything I have learned from history is that when you conquer a country you don't just leave completely. You invade for a reason. And the reason is well known and pretty obvious. And I don't want to defend that point because cubic kilometers are written about it. And not you nor I don't actually know what is going on with the iraqi government but the reality is not so simple and good mannered as you want to picture it.
Concerning your twisted misrepresentation of my example. Firewalls aren't a crucial resource of a country. If say US controlled all the water in China, yes, that would be a great problem for china. And as CIA could approve or stop and action of croatia's military (which is a crucial country's asset), then croatia wasn't really sovereign nation.
Concerning the socialism in jugoslavia under tito, I'm not relevant much because I was born 2 years after he died ('80/'82). But I know the effects which croatian population inherited from jugoslavia. Socialized healthcare is probably the best one. But last couple of years (even more so these days) the government is dismantling it for the "private model" (aka american model, yes the horrible version). Of course the insurance companies are lobbying for them and there is pretty much noone to counterweight them (common sight for any issue). We inherited rampant corruption (one of the most corrupt countries in the world) which is eating the country alive. Add that the biggest employer in the country is the state. There are not only corrupt politicians, but pretty much every government service is corrupted to the bone. Healthcare is one of them. It is not about money strictly, it is about favour for a favour. And this is completely "normal", because well, they are doctors, and they "save lives" so of course one is morally "obliged" to give something to them. I can go on and on, but nobody cares anyway.
Your question was if the socialism under tito was any good? I'll just answer you that the general consensus is it wasn't like in other western european countries, but it was far better than in russia or some other socialist eastern european countries. But well, now we have democracy and capitalism (probably a minimal definition), and pretty much everything is owned by foreign corporations. Big import, no export, no real economy. But croatia gets the loans which it cannot repay so the (foreign) banks just take the villas by the sea, extremely valuable terrain etc. As long as they can get terrain and islands, croatia will get loans. When the banks (an then european rich people) buy out everything the money will stop coming. But you cannot blame the corporations only, the politicians make that happen because I know first hand they are in the pockets of foreign companies.
New York Times good enough?
I don't read newspapers online much, but that theme was hot for couple of weeks on news channels where I saw it. You can probably find quite more sources if you have a little more time then I had. And speaking about cost, that money goes straight in those contractors pockets. Very very little has been rebuilt.
Concerning the conquered country theme. I have a friend who drives oil trucks for big money doing contracting work for a US company there. As I have no reason to distrust a friend he told me that all the oil infrastructure is de facto owned by american companies. And that even is completely logical. When you invade a country, you don't necessary turn the population in slaves, settle your people there or whatever. All you need is to control the heart of the country and in iraq that is oil. Of course, first you have to destroy their army which is already done. Then you install puppet government and take key resources. You don't even need puppet government, you just need to install non-hostile government, and when you still have your troops on the ground, they will not dare to do anything. That isn't something new, this is known from the dawn of civilization. Moreover, you don't even need even troops on the ground, sometimes you require only a handful of people when you can always implicitly threaten with force which can be located on another part of the globe.
I'll give you just one example of this. When my country (croatia) wanted to retake the occupied territories by jugoslav army in 1995, they first had to secretly get approval from CIA for the operation. And that is almost 5 years since the country became, well, a sovereign country. So when you have a country with government who acts in like 99.5% of cases completely independent, but in that 0.5% of cases it needs to ask for permission, then you don't really have a sovereign country, you have a colony (or banana republic, as you wish) masked as an independent country.
Yeah, tell that to the victims of that retarded idea in my country (croatia).
Woman was being strangled by her husband in the kitchen, she somehow managed to get a knife and stab him. Unfortunately for the guy, she hit an artery and the guy bled to death before the ambulance came. She was in prison for 6 years, and completely bankrupted by her morally corrupt lawyer. What was her proportional response option? Strangle the much larger and more powerful strangler?
Another woman was about to be cut to pieces with butchers knife by her drunken, mad and large husband who locked the doors. The woman managed to shoot the husband with his own hunting rifle. She is imprisoned at the moment.
A guy smashed another guy's car window and started to beat him with a bat over some traffic incident. The guy pulled out the gun and shot him in the face after the guy didn't want to stop. The guy with the gun managed to survive with smashed left arm, jaw and skull fracture. The guy is doing time in prison because he had to "warn the attacker that he is going to shoot, then shoot in to the air".
There are many cases like that, not necessary with guns (which are somewhat rare here), but calling for proportional response just isn't fair for the defender because he doesn't have time to prepare the "proportional" weapon and many times that is just impossible.
How am I with my 62kg and some arcane knowledge of taekwon-do going to suddenly defend against 90+kg guy with only my bare hands and legs? There is no "proportional response" when someone is trying to deprive me of my liberty and/or life even by using his own hands. And John Locke said it best; in those cases you have the right to defend yourself with any means necessary. That concept is much more simpler, logical and was making sense then as it is now.
We haven't even touched the subject of comparing the "proportional responses". Is the aluminium baseball bat proportional response to wooden baseball bat? What about a bat with a custom spike? I mean, the theory is so full of holes you could drive aircraft carrier through them.
Completely agreed, I hate that kind of reasoning GP employs.
That "well, don't blame me, blame the company" argument is the reason why so many things today are so screwed.
For example when one blames the policeman for arresting or fining him for nothing, the blame is completely acceptable because that policeman is just a part of mechanism which supports and in most cases influences that kind of laws that come to bite the law abiding and sincere citizens (by deliberate action or silent approval or approval by association).
If those peons at the bottom of the company pyramid say those phrases I just don't have any sympathies for them. In an organization which has many people it is extremely easy to shift blame until it evaporates. Lets say you are on the phone with customer service person (level 0) disputing something. Then the guy says: "don't blame me, blame the company" (as in the policymakers/ceo/management - eg level 7), then he connects you to his supervisor (level 1) which says the same. But then the magic thing happens and he won't connect you to the level 2; he will probably just say you put it in writing and mail it (probably to level 1 person again). So there is this magic barrier which an excuse can pass over (blame the policymakers/ceo/management) but you can't. That is what makes that kind of excuse null and void. True, that excuse can be attacked from another angle ("I don't want to have a circular talk with 10 people in the company, I want to settle the issue with you"), but that is another story.
If they don't like my polite but aggressive criticism then they shouldn't blame the company (as that is like blaming a cloud) but they should instead quit or try to change the company's policies.
How can you explain then the fact that the money gained by selling iraq's oil would be used to rebuild the country's infrastructure destroyed by american forces in the invasion? I mean that is like when an army destroys your house and then sells your backyard and car to rebuild the house. Moreover, saying that Iraqis are in control of their own oil is just showing a very naive view of international politics and a no understanding what "conquered country" means.
Or "Dead Bay" or "Nothing to see here Bay".
Too bad that the whole final season was a one big filler.
At least you still have "your" MP. In my country (croatia) I don't even have one. Sure, the parliament is chock full of MPs but they actually don't represent anyone. The Government is the party(ies) who had the majority in the general elections and all others are just elections losers. But the sad thing is that those people in the parliament only represent the Party, not the voter (they are not even geographically responsible to anyone). So if I want to write to an MP who do I choose? The guys there don't have any ongoing responsibility. If they are atrocious, they will (hopefully) not get elected in the next general elections. But that seems to me quite a bad and slow way to interact with your MP.
You mentioned sending a letter with money, but obviously that wouldn't work because guys like those already have much more lucrative arrangements forged at private dinners. Why would would an MP take money from a complete stranger when he can get much, much more from a buddy he already knows and shares a bond of secrecy with him?
Just an anecdote from couple of years ago. There was an parliament discussion about a then soon to be introduced new telecommunications law. The parliament was then 2/3 empty, and only 3 MPs wanted to speak. Two were completely clueless and I had a feeling that they were parroting some bullshit about another law by mistake, and the only one in the opposition who had any clue and actually suggested some good amendments (which were denied later of course) was a neo-nazi, warmonger and a xenophobe. Of course the law just passed in its (completely ridiculous) original form. And this is what they call western democracy. It is just an oligarchy with 4 year cycles.
And if you don't explain the Rayleigh effect properly (as you did) you actually don't explain why the sky is blue. In other words, your answer isn't explanatory/informative much because you "explained" the explanandum by introducing another one.
And meantime in the banana republic of croatia, we have government telecom watchdog and two large operators and a small one. But the prices are seriously high. And one interesting thing occurred couple of years ago, the ceo of the second largest operator jumped ship straight in to the telecom watchdog mentioned previously. She went from probably one of the biggest salaries in the country to the one just above the national average one. I find it difficult to explain this without using words like power and corruption.
Software jailbreaking won't trip it.
Followed by lawyers soon after.
MMS isn't implemented on 1st gen iphone even the hardware is fully capable for such a simple feature. So this is a nice fuck you from apple to all their first customers of the iphone brand.
It is easily explained why the major scientists at those times were priests. Because the Church at those times were very powerful, rich and influential. So it was natural for people of a certain class to enter the Church and later concern themselves with natural and not metaphysical problems. The alternative was to become some warrior or something else (I'm not counting countless peasants who barely managed to live). Only priests had the endless time and resources to do "science". And speaking of Church, if you did science without being a priest you would get on stake faster than you can say "heretic". Moreover, even some of the priests were excommunicated, imprisoned etc just for the same reason. So I do think that you are confusing cause and effect in a way.
Ah a typical twisting of a skeptical argument:
"World was made 15 minutes ago."
How can we falsify that kind of statement? There is no way to do it. So it is not science.
Ha! I got both of you because I bought the hair growing and transplant industry! Those bald heads at MS can't afford to lose any more hairs.
I remember the part with the felguard but that didn't last very long. The new talents were introduced and then, few months later BC came. And even in those few months I didn't play with felguard much because I always found demonology builds extremely boring even though I was one of the first to discover all the benefits of reworked soul link in some of the earlier patches;)
I started with a human lock when wow was released in europe but I kinda regretted it much later when I leveled first rogue and then a mage to 60. Both classes were much more fun to play and without the what-the-devs-were-thinking "mechanics" like soulshards (admittedly the mage was a food/water machine but everything was better than shards) and I didn't have to worry about wotf on every other horde player.
You and parent are speaking of different patches. From the time of release and for almost a full year there were no buffs to death coil nor any other spell. DC was on 10 min cooldown, gave you some health (very little) and took some health from the target. And that was it. For that year the warlock was a free kill to any class knowing how to press two buttons. And alliance warlocks were especially weak vs horde because of will of the forsaken which every second horde player had (50% of horde were ud mostly) and it lasted for 20 seconds. For all its drama, roguecraft movie series actually lead to buffing of the warlocks some time later (even though they were from horde perspective).
Dont' get me wrong but warlock was the weakest class for a very long time in "vanilla" wow. They only buffed it much later. You can watch roguecraft series to refresh your memory.
The existence of an offer to settle doesn't change the fact that the original sentence is cruel and despicable.
And this is what people just can't get a good perspective on. They are basically sentencing her to be a slave for the rest of her life and that is even more cruel than execution. Moreover when you have nothing it is extremely difficult to make large amounts of money. That 2 million would be very very difficult to pay off even if you are left after the sentence with all possessions you got (job, house etc). But probably they will take everything that woman owns and tell her to pay off the rest. But in both cases the woman is just a slave. She is not a prisoner like in some russian work camp, but all the freedom she has is to live and give everything she gets to some faceless corporation and that is slavery.
I just find it despicable that those monsters (yes, those people should be put to jail) are ready and willing to destroy your life and seriously impact the life of your relatives just for a few shared files which are fucking sold for $1!
Same here. I'm living in croatia and there is a lot of localized software around. Windows, office, freeware, mobile phones etc. But I prefer the english versions because the names are generally unified across all software. And of course, I started with english many years ago when there wasn't any localizations. But I always recommend english versions to beginners anyway. There are several reasons:
1. They learn a useful language
2. Localizations suck.
I mean croatian language doesn't have good pool of words for technical terms like the ones used frequently in IT. So to "translate" words from english to croatian they invent words or cobble together some other words and that looks like frankenstein. So in my opinion it is easier to learn (somewhat standardized) english terms and phrases than completely *new* words which are in "croatian language" but they are not croatian at all.
If you don't like the price, then don't buy it.
Don't pirate it either. Use something else.
But don't pirate it. If you do, you're doing what Microsoft considers "the next best thing" - ignoring alternatives.
I understand what you mean but honestly, what are the alternatives? I would gladly fork out $50 or max $100 for windows 7 but I got 5 computer at home and living in europe that sport would be quite expensive considering the article. But to get to your point, so I decide not to pay for it and not to pirate it.
So what I'm left with? Mac OS X which I can only get on macs but I already have good computers and macs here cost at least 30% more than in US (that means *too much*). Naturally it can't be installed on non-mac computers (hackint0shing is out of the consideration).
Then we have linux or more specifically ubuntu. Tried ubuntu and does a lot of stuff right, but here we get to the major problem and that is software. I use lightroom and photoshop mostly. I would gladly use some alternative but there isn't one by a mile. There are tons of software which are just barely developed and do just some core thing. Why there aren't some competitions for like best photoshop clone or best lightroom clone.? I heard that OO is good. Why stop there and rather do some complex software?