Hell, just hop in WvW and murder people. You can level up that way.
Sure if you just want to level up, and do so really slowly. However once you hit level cap, there's still a lot of grinding to do. You have to grind faction reputations, you have to grind heroic dungeons, you have to grind professions, and if you want to pvp you have to grind battlegrounds.
WoW is a game full of chores, with you having an assload of chores to do each time there's a new expansion before you can start doing endgame content.
Every new expansion it's "Hey look, some new evil power has taken over and it's time to replace all of your raid epics with shitty mob loot and run fetch three gold clovers and a deer antler for this quest NPC about 200 times until you reach the new level cap. After that run heroics over and over again for 60 hours for the next two weeks, which are just scaled up versions of the regular dungeons you went into while leveling. And then you can start raiding to see a new twist on the same shit you did when the last expansion came out."
I mainly played that game just for the PVP, but in wrath they really dumbed down the talent trees because they failed to balance arenas, and I heard that in MoP they REALLY dumbed them down, and meanwhile they've still yet to figure out that instant heals from 1% to 100% health with long ass CC chains where the objective is to make it so that the other healer can't do anything (either running out of mana or being put in a long CC chain) long enough for somebody to die isn't that fun, nor is grinding the same battleground 40 times to get an epic glove that fun either.
For me it was about world pvp, but they killed that during cataclysm when they made the town guards cc you and then hit like nuclear bombs as evidently they didn't want you doing that either, even in a PVP realm where that's the whole point, so I just quit.
Call me back when the signal to noise ratio isn't so bad that most people vote for a candidate just because "he's a cool dude" or "because my friends are voting for him". I'd bet that half of those who vote for POTUS don't even know who the running mate is when they do so.
If they added some sort of competency requirement to vote then I'd probably take it seriously again, but meanwhile people like you vote in droves for President Camacho, not because he's good for the job, but because you just really like him.
Though on second thought, I'd vote for Camacho over Obama any day. That's just how bad we have it. At least Camacho wouldn't want to throw you in jail for smoking blow just after talking about how it was cool when he did it.
I wouldn't give it up for an ipod, but I could see myself giving it up for a material good. Frankly the US elections just piss me off more than anything, because no matter what you do the same shit keeps getting elected. Politics is just a really cheesy soap opera.
Voting therefore is worth nothing, so I'd trade nothing for something.
You know what's funny is I've actually gone out of my way to deliberately not register to vote, and somehow I've managed to stay registered anyways (for early voting no less, as I keep getting early voting ballots that I just throw away.)
That isn't my experience at all. I have to follow a renal diet so I read food labels religiously. That said, I haven't had any problems avoiding trans fats, even cheaper foods don't really have it. Usually trans fats come from restaurant food.
The worst food with trans fats in it that I've bought is "light" microwave popcorn bags. (I've since bought popcorn by the raw kernels - it's cheaper and healthier to flavor it yourself, tastes better too if you do it right.)
I buy cheap food by the way, and because of my condition I get regular blood work to monitor closely how my diet affects my health. There is no "race to the bottom", rather it's the opposite: food companies know that people like me are increasingly watching what we eat.
Well the EU knows how expensive it is to build a search engine. Jacques Chirac felt that french pride was offended because an American company named Google was getting lots of love from around the world and no french ones were (not joking, he was constantly making public comments disparaging US companies for somehow invading french culture as if it were a precious commodity) so he wanted to build a france centric search engine called Quaero. After spending millions of dollars on it, and eventually realizing the futility in it they switched it to being a "multimedia" search engine, and then his term eventually ended and the project was shelved.
Just a comment about what that quote is based on: When Bush said that he wasn't referring to individuals, but rather foreign governments who harbor known terrorists. Either those governments are with us in finding and capturing them, or they're against us; a middle ground is not permitted. Taking the later option will result in the US government going after them with full military force and will not count as a war of aggression under international laws (whereas previously it would have.) That was the basis for the invasion of Afghanistan who we otherwise had no "valid" reason to invade (because Osama wasn't technically part of their government.) That is also the "Bush Doctrine" and as far as I'm aware there isn't any intention of ending that any time soon, or even any popular support against it.
Most people who rail against those words don't seem to have any problem with the Afghanistan invasion (rather they support it) but strangely enough they have a problem with those words. Either they don't know the meaning of them, or they're willfully oblivious over petty partisan bickering.
I've personally just preferred to enjoy art for what it is rather than pay attention to the man behind the curtain. Somebody like Spike Lee thinks you shouldn't watch Django Unchained for the same reason, though I myself believe Spike Lee is himself a racist asshole, yet I'll still even watch his movies anyways if they're entertaining.
If you boycotted every piece of art with an artist with a warped political view, you'd probably just spend your free time staring at a blank wall.
Except under capitalism minorities and the poor are more empowered than ever.
In America even the poor have cell phones and cars. What communist country can say the same thing? Access to food is so trivial here, yet in those places they'd be lucky if they have more than one meal in a given day.
Or even a local one. Look at what happened to the Icarians in Nauvoo, IL. Basically they had an entire town handed to them on a silver platter, and everything started out nicely. But a lack of motivation caused a steadily declining economy until they had to do the same thing Russia later did: Force people to work.
I don't think they said fuck everybody who isn't me, rather they want more freedom and flexibility in their lives instead of a nanny state. Communism is sort of the ultimate nanny state. It doesn't aim to be that way, but that is how it always ends up. And if everybody doesn't fall in line, it doesn't work either, so you sort of have to deprive them of their heads.
I don't know about NJ, but in my state they do exactly that. Whatever you charge as sales tax above the actual sales tax, whether it is deliberate or by accident, you pay to the state anyways.
I think if it was an error on the part of a coder, then my guess is that this money is also pooled into taxes that they have to pay to NJ, so it is going to be paid to them whether they ask for it or not.
I'm probably one of the few people on slashdot who have never actually done any illegal drugs in my life (it's extremely rare that I even drink) yet I think drugs of any kind should be legal.
That said, even if bitcoin were created just for the drug folks, more power to them, and more power to bitcoin. Drugs being exchanged for real dollars can and have resulted in decapitations, sometimes with innocent bystanders being hit. With bitcoins the buyer and seller never meet, so it is much safer.
Indeed, bitcoins are the peaceful solution to the violence that the US government has created. Really, do we have to throw people in prison just because some derp who is already useless anyways wants to get high? This is coming from somebody who is generally in favor of stricter punishment against lawbreakers.
As far as I'm aware, once the blocks are found and claimed, the only cryptography that happens in bitcoin is signing messages using your wallet keys.
Old coins in somebody's derelict wallet won't be in "blocks" either (that would be like saying all of the dollar bills in your wallet automatically gain sequential serial numbers once they become yours.)
The original bitcoin creators have said that when it becomes necessary, we can collectively decide to increase the number of bitcoins available. It wouldn't be up to them to unilaterally decide that though (they can't,) rather there would have to be enough actual owners of bitcoins who decide to do so. Not quite sure how exactly it is supposed to work, but it sounds akin to amending the US constitution.
Well, I have every material good I want, I'm over weight so I have to much food (I even cycle 12 miles per day just because I can, with no actual need to.) As far as luxury items: Air conditioning, warm running water, a nice car, a gaming PC, 55" TV, a nexus 4, an iPad.
What would make me more comfortable? Nothing, really. Yet you tell me I'm supposedly uncomfortable. What, am I supposed to join OWS and demand more than what I already have? Not even sure what I'd demand.
It's not a supply or demand thing in this case, rather it is a matter of what people actually want. Money can help spread your message (i.e. "vote for me") but it doesn't actually "buy" votes. Go look at how much money the democrats dumped into the anti-recall efforts in Colorado vs how much money was spent by the recall petitioners. It was no contest; the democrats outspent them 11 to 1, yet the democrats lost anyways.
Why did this happen? Pretty easy, actually: A bunch of "enlightened" folks from out of state seemed to think that they knew how to best run their lives. They wanted gun control, but the constituency did not. No amount of money can "fix" that.
I live comfortably on about $500-700 per month in the Phoenix area.
If you watch craigslist it's actually pretty common to find roommates for $300, utilities included. I find I spend less than $200 a month on food, and car insurance costs me $40, T-Mobile is $23 (family plan with discount.)
Honest truth, and the cost of living here is right at the national average. Imagine how much cheaper it can be in other places.
Most slashdotters live in high cost areas (i.e. New York,) so they can't really fathom the idea that you actually can live at a low cost here.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, just hop in WvW and murder people. You can level up that way.
Sure if you just want to level up, and do so really slowly. However once you hit level cap, there's still a lot of grinding to do. You have to grind faction reputations, you have to grind heroic dungeons, you have to grind professions, and if you want to pvp you have to grind battlegrounds.
WoW is a game full of chores, with you having an assload of chores to do each time there's a new expansion before you can start doing endgame content.
Every new expansion it's "Hey look, some new evil power has taken over and it's time to replace all of your raid epics with shitty mob loot and run fetch three gold clovers and a deer antler for this quest NPC about 200 times until you reach the new level cap. After that run heroics over and over again for 60 hours for the next two weeks, which are just scaled up versions of the regular dungeons you went into while leveling. And then you can start raiding to see a new twist on the same shit you did when the last expansion came out."
I mainly played that game just for the PVP, but in wrath they really dumbed down the talent trees because they failed to balance arenas, and I heard that in MoP they REALLY dumbed them down, and meanwhile they've still yet to figure out that instant heals from 1% to 100% health with long ass CC chains where the objective is to make it so that the other healer can't do anything (either running out of mana or being put in a long CC chain) long enough for somebody to die isn't that fun, nor is grinding the same battleground 40 times to get an epic glove that fun either.
For me it was about world pvp, but they killed that during cataclysm when they made the town guards cc you and then hit like nuclear bombs as evidently they didn't want you doing that either, even in a PVP realm where that's the whole point, so I just quit.
Call me back when the signal to noise ratio isn't so bad that most people vote for a candidate just because "he's a cool dude" or "because my friends are voting for him". I'd bet that half of those who vote for POTUS don't even know who the running mate is when they do so.
If they added some sort of competency requirement to vote then I'd probably take it seriously again, but meanwhile people like you vote in droves for President Camacho, not because he's good for the job, but because you just really like him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1bn7cIsJCQ
Though on second thought, I'd vote for Camacho over Obama any day. That's just how bad we have it. At least Camacho wouldn't want to throw you in jail for smoking blow just after talking about how it was cool when he did it.
I wouldn't give it up for an ipod, but I could see myself giving it up for a material good. Frankly the US elections just piss me off more than anything, because no matter what you do the same shit keeps getting elected. Politics is just a really cheesy soap opera.
Voting therefore is worth nothing, so I'd trade nothing for something.
You know what's funny is I've actually gone out of my way to deliberately not register to vote, and somehow I've managed to stay registered anyways (for early voting no less, as I keep getting early voting ballots that I just throw away.)
That isn't my experience at all. I have to follow a renal diet so I read food labels religiously. That said, I haven't had any problems avoiding trans fats, even cheaper foods don't really have it. Usually trans fats come from restaurant food.
The worst food with trans fats in it that I've bought is "light" microwave popcorn bags. (I've since bought popcorn by the raw kernels - it's cheaper and healthier to flavor it yourself, tastes better too if you do it right.)
I buy cheap food by the way, and because of my condition I get regular blood work to monitor closely how my diet affects my health. There is no "race to the bottom", rather it's the opposite: food companies know that people like me are increasingly watching what we eat.
I choose freedom myself.
Or I just don't care for partisan politics anymore. If I wanted to berate, I would have.
You don't necessarily have to wait for the results of a law to be known after it has passed to know that you don't want that law.
Well the EU knows how expensive it is to build a search engine. Jacques Chirac felt that french pride was offended because an American company named Google was getting lots of love from around the world and no french ones were (not joking, he was constantly making public comments disparaging US companies for somehow invading french culture as if it were a precious commodity) so he wanted to build a france centric search engine called Quaero. After spending millions of dollars on it, and eventually realizing the futility in it they switched it to being a "multimedia" search engine, and then his term eventually ended and the project was shelved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaero#Criticism
Just a comment about what that quote is based on: When Bush said that he wasn't referring to individuals, but rather foreign governments who harbor known terrorists. Either those governments are with us in finding and capturing them, or they're against us; a middle ground is not permitted. Taking the later option will result in the US government going after them with full military force and will not count as a war of aggression under international laws (whereas previously it would have.) That was the basis for the invasion of Afghanistan who we otherwise had no "valid" reason to invade (because Osama wasn't technically part of their government.) That is also the "Bush Doctrine" and as far as I'm aware there isn't any intention of ending that any time soon, or even any popular support against it.
Most people who rail against those words don't seem to have any problem with the Afghanistan invasion (rather they support it) but strangely enough they have a problem with those words. Either they don't know the meaning of them, or they're willfully oblivious over petty partisan bickering.
I've personally just preferred to enjoy art for what it is rather than pay attention to the man behind the curtain. Somebody like Spike Lee thinks you shouldn't watch Django Unchained for the same reason, though I myself believe Spike Lee is himself a racist asshole, yet I'll still even watch his movies anyways if they're entertaining.
If you boycotted every piece of art with an artist with a warped political view, you'd probably just spend your free time staring at a blank wall.
The government mafia is the most powerful.
http://www.wnd.com/2008/06/66060/
Except under capitalism minorities and the poor are more empowered than ever.
In America even the poor have cell phones and cars. What communist country can say the same thing? Access to food is so trivial here, yet in those places they'd be lucky if they have more than one meal in a given day.
Or even a local one. Look at what happened to the Icarians in Nauvoo, IL. Basically they had an entire town handed to them on a silver platter, and everything started out nicely. But a lack of motivation caused a steadily declining economy until they had to do the same thing Russia later did: Force people to work.
I don't think they said fuck everybody who isn't me, rather they want more freedom and flexibility in their lives instead of a nanny state. Communism is sort of the ultimate nanny state. It doesn't aim to be that way, but that is how it always ends up. And if everybody doesn't fall in line, it doesn't work either, so you sort of have to deprive them of their heads.
I don't know about NJ, but in my state they do exactly that. Whatever you charge as sales tax above the actual sales tax, whether it is deliberate or by accident, you pay to the state anyways.
I think if it was an error on the part of a coder, then my guess is that this money is also pooled into taxes that they have to pay to NJ, so it is going to be paid to them whether they ask for it or not.
Is that where Geico got the idea for their cavemen?
I'm probably one of the few people on slashdot who have never actually done any illegal drugs in my life (it's extremely rare that I even drink) yet I think drugs of any kind should be legal.
That said, even if bitcoin were created just for the drug folks, more power to them, and more power to bitcoin. Drugs being exchanged for real dollars can and have resulted in decapitations, sometimes with innocent bystanders being hit. With bitcoins the buyer and seller never meet, so it is much safer.
Indeed, bitcoins are the peaceful solution to the violence that the US government has created. Really, do we have to throw people in prison just because some derp who is already useless anyways wants to get high? This is coming from somebody who is generally in favor of stricter punishment against lawbreakers.
I've never heard of this. Source?
As far as I'm aware, once the blocks are found and claimed, the only cryptography that happens in bitcoin is signing messages using your wallet keys.
Old coins in somebody's derelict wallet won't be in "blocks" either (that would be like saying all of the dollar bills in your wallet automatically gain sequential serial numbers once they become yours.)
The original bitcoin creators have said that when it becomes necessary, we can collectively decide to increase the number of bitcoins available. It wouldn't be up to them to unilaterally decide that though (they can't,) rather there would have to be enough actual owners of bitcoins who decide to do so. Not quite sure how exactly it is supposed to work, but it sounds akin to amending the US constitution.
Well, I have every material good I want, I'm over weight so I have to much food (I even cycle 12 miles per day just because I can, with no actual need to.) As far as luxury items: Air conditioning, warm running water, a nice car, a gaming PC, 55" TV, a nexus 4, an iPad.
What would make me more comfortable? Nothing, really. Yet you tell me I'm supposedly uncomfortable. What, am I supposed to join OWS and demand more than what I already have? Not even sure what I'd demand.
You mean we will watch how they died off millions of years ago, right?
It's not a supply or demand thing in this case, rather it is a matter of what people actually want. Money can help spread your message (i.e. "vote for me") but it doesn't actually "buy" votes. Go look at how much money the democrats dumped into the anti-recall efforts in Colorado vs how much money was spent by the recall petitioners. It was no contest; the democrats outspent them 11 to 1, yet the democrats lost anyways.
Why did this happen? Pretty easy, actually: A bunch of "enlightened" folks from out of state seemed to think that they knew how to best run their lives. They wanted gun control, but the constituency did not. No amount of money can "fix" that.
How so? 90% of the world lives on less than that. Are they all uncomfortable?
I live comfortably on about $500-700 per month in the Phoenix area.
If you watch craigslist it's actually pretty common to find roommates for $300, utilities included. I find I spend less than $200 a month on food, and car insurance costs me $40, T-Mobile is $23 (family plan with discount.)
Honest truth, and the cost of living here is right at the national average. Imagine how much cheaper it can be in other places.
Most slashdotters live in high cost areas (i.e. New York,) so they can't really fathom the idea that you actually can live at a low cost here.
I like icebergs, they're like floating snow cones.