If you want to add realism, make it so that 8 shots from an mp5 to drops someone. Whether they're dead or not is completely fucking moot. They aren't going to be fighting any longer.
The game hasn't been about realism... well, ever. If you want realism, play SWAT or Rainbow Shield.
It changes standard gameplay. A pistol may have gone for 650$ to buy normally could now turn into a 2000$ gun because demand is so high. It's a "feature" that wasn't there before that throws entire match strategy right out the window.
Settle down, chief. If there was a legal avenue to take, then it's our right to take it. If you don't like the laws, either change them, leave, or go hang out with teenagers who bitch about their parents rules but won't get the fuck out of the house.
With that said, there doesn't seem to be. There probably shouldn't be. How do you make "being a fucking jerk" illegal without throwing 90% of the population in jail for breaking it at one point or another?
That's shockingly reasonable of them. I wonder what the FAA regulations are in the States. We probably have to slaughter an albino virgin in the light of a full moon in front of 20 some odd beauracrats, plus fill out 300 10-page forms in triplicate, and the permit is only valid for 28 nanoseconds.
I'm quite intrigued by the abolition of political parties. As I mentioned in another reply to one of your comments, I, as a "liberal", "leftist", "libertarian" (i know, it's a crazy weird combination, but it's what politicalcompass gave me - way to the left on business, way to the libertarian side on personal rights (as an aside, i think that, in practice, I'm more central than left when it comes to business, I just take issue with the "personal rights being sacrificed in the interest of business" or "corporations having similar rights to people without many of the punishments". It's kind of a libertarian stance anyway, but i digress.)), have a serious problem with the Republican party (with regard to their "mission statement" or whatever it's called). It is, essentially, diametrically opposed to my own beliefs. Democrats, however, aren't a whole lot better, but then again, neither are any of the other parties.
In essence, I have no choice, though, because your choices are generally only a shitty democrat and an even shittier republican. If they had no party affiliation, would they even get 5% of the vote? Highly unlikely.
I'm not sure how one could implement your suggestion, short of putting limit on a politician's right to free speech, but in all honesty, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be worth it.
If you're on public property, that's good enough. Going inside the Republican National Convention? A bit silly. Standing outside the door on the public sidewalk, however, isn't.
There's rolling over and pretending nothing happened, and there's running around like a fucking moron screaming the sky is falling every other day.
Honestly, in the giant scheme of things, I don't fucking care about 9/11, I don't fucking care about the two towers, and I don't fucking care about the pentagon. A few thousand people died in a country of about three hundred million. Whoopdifuckingdoo. About 460 thousand people died of heart attacks in 1998 - where the fuck is our War on Candy Bars and Whoppers, huh?
It was a rhetorical question; don't bother answering it. Obviously you try to stop terrorists, just as you try to stop anything that kills people. But we're more worried about a bomb on a subway than we are of dying in a car crash because some jackass is drunk driving. As if that bomb is going to kill you any more dead than an idiot in a pickup truck. It's fucking retarded.
We've lost any and all sense of context with this whole "War on Terror" bullshit. I'm not saying Democrats have the answer, but I know for sure that Republicans don't. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure anyone in a government position does. All-in-all, I find them uniquely suited to be completely incapable of figuring out how best to deal with this. But when given a choice between an asshole dropping bombs and an asshole banging an intern and not doing much of anything else, I'd rather have the latter.
The real sad thing is all I really want is a viable choice. You know, someone who isn't a complete tool. (Note: Don't even bother babbling about the Green Party or the Libertarian Party. I've scoped both of them out. They're just as bad - just in different ways. Think of the differences between giant logs of poop and green mushy piles of poop. No matter how you look at it, you're still shit.)
Abuse... the ability? IMO, I'm much happier with the system that allows anyone to file a civil suit for any reason, than to allow our legislative body determine who should be allowed to file a suit and under what circumstances. That would quickly turn into a case of the rich and powerful tilting the field even further in their direction.
I always rush to find out why. The anatomical location of the defendants sexual organs generally don't matter, unless the "defendant" is a woman who cut off her own penis. In which case, then it *does* matter, as I'm probably going "what the fuck? how? what? was she a woman before or after? was she born a woman, or did she *become* a 'woman' by hacking off her manbits?" Aside from an extremely specific case such as that, gender doesn't matter to me. But we should always find out why. Then we can say "okay, people who have had act X, Y, and Z done to them in their lives are 95% more disposed to break the law in way A, B, and C". Then, if it's possible to reduce the frequency of act X, Y, or Z in a responsible and practical manner, then woohoo! We've learned something. Even if you can't pull something like this off, I would *hate* to kill someone in self defense, but get sentenced to death solely because no one cared to find out "why I did it and if I had an excuse." Honestly, to do anything less is a bit irresponsible. At least in major felonies.
I sent money to someone I didn't even really meet on the internet. I bought Secret of Mana for the SNES on Ebay. Should he then post my personal information? What if, instead of SoM, I bought a quadruple-headed dildo, complete with ground effects, on Ebay? Is it okay then?
Unfortunately for this dude, and any hypothetical person interested in revealing my hypothetical purchase in a hypothetical sex toy with hypothetical accoutrements, it's against the law. Ditto for the Craig's List advertisement. Whether or not it was stupid for me to buy Secret of Mana from some party I didn't know is completely moot. It would be moot if it were a sex toy or a set of monkey bars (playground equipment) or a new duvet cover. It would be moot if I were answering an advert for a local flag football league or for a roommate. A court would probably throw out a frivolous case of me suing you for exposing my need to cover my down comforter with a duvet cover because the fucking cat sheds all the fuck over it and makes it icky furry. After all, a dude owning a duvet cover, while something to possibly snicker about, is not exactly going to have an actual harmful effect on my life. But god help you if you make it impossible for employment because I engaged in conversation, in good faith, with someone advertising for others in a slave/master relationship. That could keep me from getting a job, and, as exposing that information is illegal for you in the first place, and as it probably just cost me a whole lot of money over the course of my life, just cost *you* a lot of money in lawsuit damages to make up for it.
Personally, I hope this dude gets sued for every last cent these guys lose. And if they can make a case for pain and suffering (not too hard to see, since they may lose their marriages -- i agree that they're scumbags, but, just as it's not legal to kill all jerkface fuckers, being a scumbag doesn't automatically preclude you from protection under the law), then I hope he has to pony that up to. All in all, I hope this guy's life is ruined, just like he ruined theirs.
What's the moral of this story? Don't be an idiot. I think we all agree that many (most?) of those responding to the advertisement were being incredibly stupid. But so was the dude busting their balls. Through multiple acts of idiocy, we're probably going to end up with a whole host of guys who just ruined their lives. I don't think it would be a stretch to say a few could commit suicide after everything collapses in on them. Or at least become raging alcoholics. How is that a benefit to us? It isn't. So in the long run, don't be an idiot. Just as a girl who dresses like a tramp, acts like a tramp, then follows a dude back to his apartment from a club and gets raped is an idiot, so to are the men who replied to this posting. But just as the dude who raped the tramp is a rapist who should be shot - repeatedly - in the face, so should the dude who "outted" these guys get kicked straight up in the balls. And in the wallet, for good measure.
As would the oil/coal/natural gas power plant that was burning afore mentioned fossil fuels, as well.
If we require a amount of energy and produce x amount of CO2 and y amount of trash, but have a way to reduce y without drastically increasing x, then I don't see why this is such a bad thing. If the exhaust is scrubbed, and the CO2 is nearly the same, then we've taken one little step toward a cleaner world.
Ideally, there may come a time when our cars don't produce CO2, industry produces minimal amounts, and our power plants are primarily green as well. In that case, dumping *some* CO2 into the atmosphere while reducing the amount of landfill we need for garbage is one hell of a bargain.
I would agree with you about private enterprise, until you realize the market for disabled people is so exceedingly low that you would be *extremely* hard pressed to find a company that would be able to cater to those with disabilities. In effect, you are taking a (small) segment of society and segregating them to a degree that makes the civil rights movement in the '60's look like a bunch of whiners without a cause.
Honestly, if you're going to do that to disabled people, you may as well take them out back and shoot them, or, less dramatically, forcibly move them all into the exact same location so it would make sense for a "specialty" store to be able to cater to their various needs and still expect a profit. I'm pretty sure neither of those would be constitutionally allowable (and for good reason).
Well, just to play devil's advocate - what if the vulnerability fix was, literally, a couple of lines of code? Maybe it was just a tiny fix.
Then again, it could have been a huge effort, where developers weren't allowed to go home, use the telephones, or even use the bathroom, until it was fixed. I sure as hell don't know for sure. I'm just saying, either could be possible.
I would imagine that reasonable expectation of privacy still applies, even if the method to "overcome" it by the shareholders may be different. Still, good point. Maybe somebody else can verify or dismiss this further supposition of mine.
So, as long as you're in a company bathroom, we can video tape everything you do? After all, it's company property.
I'm no lawyer, but I'm relatively sure the law requires notification whenever a person's reasonable expectation of privacy is to be infringed upon. A telephone call is one of those reasonable expectations. As is sitting on the toilet. I don't know if there's a legal precedent for email, but I do know that you usually sign an agreement stating that the corporation can watch anything/everything you do using their workstations, telephones, email servers, etc, etc. Without it, I would imagine the person being watched would have a fairly good case in court. They may not win, but then again, they may very well win, and pocket a lot of the company's cash in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to add realism, make it so that 8 shots from an mp5 to drops someone. Whether they're dead or not is completely fucking moot. They aren't going to be fighting any longer.
The game hasn't been about realism... well, ever. If you want realism, play SWAT or Rainbow Shield.
It changes standard gameplay. A pistol may have gone for 650$ to buy normally could now turn into a 2000$ gun because demand is so high. It's a "feature" that wasn't there before that throws entire match strategy right out the window.
It absolutely is our right under the law. Whether or not it's a "universal right" or not is completely irrelevant.
Settle down, chief. If there was a legal avenue to take, then it's our right to take it. If you don't like the laws, either change them, leave, or go hang out with teenagers who bitch about their parents rules but won't get the fuck out of the house.
With that said, there doesn't seem to be. There probably shouldn't be. How do you make "being a fucking jerk" illegal without throwing 90% of the population in jail for breaking it at one point or another?
That's shockingly reasonable of them. I wonder what the FAA regulations are in the States. We probably have to slaughter an albino virgin in the light of a full moon in front of 20 some odd beauracrats, plus fill out 300 10-page forms in triplicate, and the permit is only valid for 28 nanoseconds.
There's a difference between appointing a dude to the FCC and appointing him to the chair. Clinton did the former, Bush the latter.
Seriously, though, you bring Clinton up as if that's some sort of defense. All it proves is that he was a tool too.
They're on my top 3 list of government agencies to piss on.
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
I'm quite intrigued by the abolition of political parties. As I mentioned in another reply to one of your comments, I, as a "liberal", "leftist", "libertarian" (i know, it's a crazy weird combination, but it's what politicalcompass gave me - way to the left on business, way to the libertarian side on personal rights (as an aside, i think that, in practice, I'm more central than left when it comes to business, I just take issue with the "personal rights being sacrificed in the interest of business" or "corporations having similar rights to people without many of the punishments". It's kind of a libertarian stance anyway, but i digress.)), have a serious problem with the Republican party (with regard to their "mission statement" or whatever it's called). It is, essentially, diametrically opposed to my own beliefs. Democrats, however, aren't a whole lot better, but then again, neither are any of the other parties.
In essence, I have no choice, though, because your choices are generally only a shitty democrat and an even shittier republican. If they had no party affiliation, would they even get 5% of the vote? Highly unlikely.
I'm not sure how one could implement your suggestion, short of putting limit on a politician's right to free speech, but in all honesty, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be worth it.
That's not a war, that's barely economic sanctions.
If you're on public property, that's good enough. Going inside the Republican National Convention? A bit silly. Standing outside the door on the public sidewalk, however, isn't.
There's rolling over and pretending nothing happened, and there's running around like a fucking moron screaming the sky is falling every other day.
Honestly, in the giant scheme of things, I don't fucking care about 9/11, I don't fucking care about the two towers, and I don't fucking care about the pentagon. A few thousand people died in a country of about three hundred million. Whoopdifuckingdoo. About 460 thousand people died of heart attacks in 1998 - where the fuck is our War on Candy Bars and Whoppers, huh?
It was a rhetorical question; don't bother answering it. Obviously you try to stop terrorists, just as you try to stop anything that kills people. But we're more worried about a bomb on a subway than we are of dying in a car crash because some jackass is drunk driving. As if that bomb is going to kill you any more dead than an idiot in a pickup truck. It's fucking retarded.
We've lost any and all sense of context with this whole "War on Terror" bullshit. I'm not saying Democrats have the answer, but I know for sure that Republicans don't. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure anyone in a government position does. All-in-all, I find them uniquely suited to be completely incapable of figuring out how best to deal with this. But when given a choice between an asshole dropping bombs and an asshole banging an intern and not doing much of anything else, I'd rather have the latter.
The real sad thing is all I really want is a viable choice. You know, someone who isn't a complete tool. (Note: Don't even bother babbling about the Green Party or the Libertarian Party. I've scoped both of them out. They're just as bad - just in different ways. Think of the differences between giant logs of poop and green mushy piles of poop. No matter how you look at it, you're still shit.)
As long as they're participating in that pesky First Amendment, it's all good with me.
Abuse... the ability? IMO, I'm much happier with the system that allows anyone to file a civil suit for any reason, than to allow our legislative body determine who should be allowed to file a suit and under what circumstances. That would quickly turn into a case of the rich and powerful tilting the field even further in their direction.
Rioters, a-okay. Protesters, sure, but only as long as I can do it to people coming out of church on Sundays, too.
This is probably one of the most pleasing ideas I've heard in quite some time.
I always rush to find out why. The anatomical location of the defendants sexual organs generally don't matter, unless the "defendant" is a woman who cut off her own penis. In which case, then it *does* matter, as I'm probably going "what the fuck? how? what? was she a woman before or after? was she born a woman, or did she *become* a 'woman' by hacking off her manbits?" Aside from an extremely specific case such as that, gender doesn't matter to me. But we should always find out why. Then we can say "okay, people who have had act X, Y, and Z done to them in their lives are 95% more disposed to break the law in way A, B, and C". Then, if it's possible to reduce the frequency of act X, Y, or Z in a responsible and practical manner, then woohoo! We've learned something. Even if you can't pull something like this off, I would *hate* to kill someone in self defense, but get sentenced to death solely because no one cared to find out "why I did it and if I had an excuse." Honestly, to do anything less is a bit irresponsible. At least in major felonies.
I sent money to someone I didn't even really meet on the internet. I bought Secret of Mana for the SNES on Ebay. Should he then post my personal information? What if, instead of SoM, I bought a quadruple-headed dildo, complete with ground effects, on Ebay? Is it okay then?
Unfortunately for this dude, and any hypothetical person interested in revealing my hypothetical purchase in a hypothetical sex toy with hypothetical accoutrements, it's against the law. Ditto for the Craig's List advertisement. Whether or not it was stupid for me to buy Secret of Mana from some party I didn't know is completely moot. It would be moot if it were a sex toy or a set of monkey bars (playground equipment) or a new duvet cover. It would be moot if I were answering an advert for a local flag football league or for a roommate. A court would probably throw out a frivolous case of me suing you for exposing my need to cover my down comforter with a duvet cover because the fucking cat sheds all the fuck over it and makes it icky furry. After all, a dude owning a duvet cover, while something to possibly snicker about, is not exactly going to have an actual harmful effect on my life. But god help you if you make it impossible for employment because I engaged in conversation, in good faith, with someone advertising for others in a slave/master relationship. That could keep me from getting a job, and, as exposing that information is illegal for you in the first place, and as it probably just cost me a whole lot of money over the course of my life, just cost *you* a lot of money in lawsuit damages to make up for it.
Personally, I hope this dude gets sued for every last cent these guys lose. And if they can make a case for pain and suffering (not too hard to see, since they may lose their marriages -- i agree that they're scumbags, but, just as it's not legal to kill all jerkface fuckers, being a scumbag doesn't automatically preclude you from protection under the law), then I hope he has to pony that up to. All in all, I hope this guy's life is ruined, just like he ruined theirs.
What's the moral of this story? Don't be an idiot. I think we all agree that many (most?) of those responding to the advertisement were being incredibly stupid. But so was the dude busting their balls. Through multiple acts of idiocy, we're probably going to end up with a whole host of guys who just ruined their lives. I don't think it would be a stretch to say a few could commit suicide after everything collapses in on them. Or at least become raging alcoholics. How is that a benefit to us? It isn't. So in the long run, don't be an idiot. Just as a girl who dresses like a tramp, acts like a tramp, then follows a dude back to his apartment from a club and gets raped is an idiot, so to are the men who replied to this posting. But just as the dude who raped the tramp is a rapist who should be shot - repeatedly - in the face, so should the dude who "outted" these guys get kicked straight up in the balls. And in the wallet, for good measure.
As would the oil/coal/natural gas power plant that was burning afore mentioned fossil fuels, as well.
If we require a amount of energy and produce x amount of CO2 and y amount of trash, but have a way to reduce y without drastically increasing x, then I don't see why this is such a bad thing. If the exhaust is scrubbed, and the CO2 is nearly the same, then we've taken one little step toward a cleaner world.
Ideally, there may come a time when our cars don't produce CO2, industry produces minimal amounts, and our power plants are primarily green as well. In that case, dumping *some* CO2 into the atmosphere while reducing the amount of landfill we need for garbage is one hell of a bargain.
I would agree with you about private enterprise, until you realize the market for disabled people is so exceedingly low that you would be *extremely* hard pressed to find a company that would be able to cater to those with disabilities. In effect, you are taking a (small) segment of society and segregating them to a degree that makes the civil rights movement in the '60's look like a bunch of whiners without a cause.
Honestly, if you're going to do that to disabled people, you may as well take them out back and shoot them, or, less dramatically, forcibly move them all into the exact same location so it would make sense for a "specialty" store to be able to cater to their various needs and still expect a profit. I'm pretty sure neither of those would be constitutionally allowable (and for good reason).
Not if they reverse engineered it. That's allowed. It's using all those other pesky methods that gets you in trouble.
Well, just to play devil's advocate - what if the vulnerability fix was, literally, a couple of lines of code? Maybe it was just a tiny fix.
Then again, it could have been a huge effort, where developers weren't allowed to go home, use the telephones, or even use the bathroom, until it was fixed. I sure as hell don't know for sure. I'm just saying, either could be possible.
Don't talk about crap baseball until you come from Pittsburgh.
I can't believe we justified PNC Park for those losers, but we can't come up with a new arena for the Pens. *groans*
I would imagine that reasonable expectation of privacy still applies, even if the method to "overcome" it by the shareholders may be different. Still, good point. Maybe somebody else can verify or dismiss this further supposition of mine.
Yes.
:(
So, as long as you're in a company bathroom, we can video tape everything you do? After all, it's company property.
I'm no lawyer, but I'm relatively sure the law requires notification whenever a person's reasonable expectation of privacy is to be infringed upon. A telephone call is one of those reasonable expectations. As is sitting on the toilet. I don't know if there's a legal precedent for email, but I do know that you usually sign an agreement stating that the corporation can watch anything/everything you do using their workstations, telephones, email servers, etc, etc. Without it, I would imagine the person being watched would have a fairly good case in court. They may not win, but then again, they may very well win, and pocket a lot of the company's cash in the process.