Good! Because you should once you take reality into account. In all of the democratic examples, in no case could any of those leaders actually launch nukes without lots of additional involvement from lots of additional people. Its not like in the movies where some crazy leader can say, "nuke everyone", and the world explodes.
Basically, if your cited examples scared you in the least, its only because you're ignorant of the subject matter. Best solution is to educate yourself rather than attempt to scare others with paranoia, ignorance, and misinformation.
Number of World Wars prior to the 20th century: 0.
I think you might have a problem with your statistical sampling.
Depending on your definition of "world war", taking technology into account, the number could technically be far, far higher than zero. At different points in history, England, France, and Spain owned most of the world, and even fought each other, both directly and indirectly.
Generally speaking, most agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with his sampling.
You're conflating several things here. The true leaders of Iran are zealots. The people are pragmatic and do not want the zealots. Ahmadinejad is little more than a figure head. He does weld some power but its strictly at the whims of the zealot clergy.
The clergy walk a careful line because they know it would not be too difficult to trigger a serious uprising, costing them their leadership to the pragmatic population. Just the same, that should in no way be conflated to say the leadership is pragmatic. Furthermore, Iran has many ties to extremists groups, directly funding many of them. In fact, much of the bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan directly and indirectly leads back to Iran. Its easily within the realm of plausibility that a nuclear device might find its way to some of these groups which would not hesitate to use it on a mutually offensive group.
Under no means should Iran be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.
Hiroshima wasn't nearly as bad as people thought it would be.
Worth noting, by todays standards or modern nuclear devices, those dropped during WWII are considered very dirty devices. Remember, the more dirty the device, the larger and more inefficient the device. Greater efficiency from smaller devices has been a long term trend.
The fact of the matter is, Iran, when they get nukes, will not use them unless they are attacked, and even then that's an iffy proposition. Both (or more) of the countries involved know what will happen when the nuclear genie is used. And it ain't pretty.
That's extremely iffy logic at best. Democratic nations who assign high value to life are extremely unlikely to use the nuclear option unless in some form of retaliation. Any nation with nukes which do not fall into the above category is a huge question mark.
Now combine nukes with a totalitarian nation ruled by zealots with a well known blood lust for ideologies foreign to their own, and its a complete crap shoot. Made worse, are the empowered zealots with direct control over such weapons. Frankly, your odds are likely to match that of a coin toss, given the right geo-political and economic environment. Any other assessment is hippie-flower-power speak at best. Which is exactly why the majority of the world very much does NOT want Iran to become a nuclear nation.
Basically, anything short of being against Iran become a nuclear power is just short of being pro-nuclear war.
The recent torpedo incident seems to indicate the central government there isn't completely in control.
Or given who is in control, it seems to indicate they are in control. Realistically, I doubt anyone knows if this was a rogue captain or a lawful order from an idiot named Kim. Given the country, flip a coin.
You need to keep in mind, North Korea constantly provides false navigation signals to aircraft in hopes of creating an international indecent. They constantly attempt to incite troops. And occasionally, they do have weapon malfunctions which seem to land in the general proximity of troops located in the south. No shit and no exaguration.
Given Kim's several decades of doing exactly this type of shit, it would be far from surprising to learn it was ordered. Then again, given the environment and known internal conflict for power, it may have been been a rogue captain or higher up in the military. Who knows.
Hopefully someone with deeper knowledge can answer.
I don't believe it has good application for space travel, in of itself. But doesn't this open the door for dramatic electric motor efficiency improvements? With many traditional motor designs, you wind up with a stagged NSNSNS design. And when the stator is half way between poles, resistance is naturally introduced, requiring an electrical impulse to offset the natural repulsion imposed by like poles. With these magnets, can you minimize the repulsion as the like poles close and maximize the attraction created by the electric pulse feed into the system? Seems like with the right arrangement of these magnets and a complimentary impulse controller, efficiencies can potentially be dramatically improved for brushless motors?
You've entirely missed the point. If you're purposely projecting an irritant into the face/eyes of someone else, you have committed assault. Period. End of discussion. Simply touching a police officer is assault.
If you don't like the laws, attempt to change them. I fully support your right to do so! Simply whining about enforcement of well established laws makes you, well, a whiner. Whining about a police officer rudely explaining the law to a rude, confrontational, passive aggressive bitch, is pathetic. To make excuses for her behavior is as rude and bizarre as anyone suggesting the police officer's approach is an ideal solution.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but it doesn't change the fact that she was a nut job going out of her way to create confrontation with police.
Assuming they can actually come up with the money to launch it, I wonder how long it will be up there before it "accidentally" gets hit with a "stray" surface-to-air or air-to-air missile. It'll either be that or incentive to clean up some space "junk." Maybe this is what it will take to get NASA a bigger budget.
Not likely in the least. Shooting down a satellite requires special equipment, including special, anti-satellite missiles. A traditional air-to-air doesn't have a chance. Its doubtful any ground to air missiles have even close to the require ranges. You're basically talking about an ICBM.
Traditionally, to shoot down a satellite, you use a high altitude aircraft, flying near its service ceiling, firing a purpose built, anti-satellite missile at a target whos intercept trajectory has been pre-calculated. Maybe a dozen countries have such capabilities - and that's being very generous with that count.
Now then, most satellites traditionally have some sort of course/orbit correction capability. But, without someone to monitor for debris and then correct orbit/course accordingly, such capabilities are completely useless. Course corrections to avoid debris, even for the shuttles, is actually fairly common. Without such a capability, any satellite is going to quickly fall from orbit or be fairly quickly be disabled by some for of debris.
So basically, unless the Pirate Party can afford to create, launch, monitor, and navigate their own satellite (extremely doubtful), its either going to fall back to earth or be struck by debris in fairly short order - no conspiracies or evil gubberments required.
So your telling me a bubble assault warrants that police and legal assault an extremely violent and threatening assault,
If the bubble has struck an eye, absolutely she would be arrested for assault - as the officer warned.
Re:Whether a file has changed = complex?
on
Linux 2.6.36 Released
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Is this a case of linux kernel developers copying features that are in the Mac OS X darwin kernel?
Doubtful. This is really an area of natural evolution. Meaning, first to market, if that is in fact really the case, hardly means everyone else is copying what is really an obvious and extremely simple idea.
For example, planes needed to go faster. Solution, make them more aerodynamic. When everyone started making planes more aerodynamic, does that really mean everyone copied the first to do so? Hardly. It means, they all understood the problem and someone was simply first to market.
Now if you have something which indicates the APIs on OSX are particularly clever in exposing this feature and that everyone is copying those APIs, you might have a point, but I don't see you arguing that position.
Believe it or not, humanity frequently, independently, suffers from a natural progression of ideas. The fact that this occurs more or less validates no one is copying.
Case in point: I want to know when a file changes. In what ways can a file change? Those are natural progressions in seeking a solution to an extremely common problem. If you answer my question, does that you too are copying?
Not only that, but as the officer pointed out, the bubble is a detergent. Detergent is an extremely well known irritant. Pepper spray is another form of irritant. He warned her of the fact that if it landed in someone's eye, it would be assault. Legally that's absolutely correct.
I'm hard pressed to imagine any police officer getting an irritant thrown into their eye who wouldn't arrest you for assault - and rightfully so.
His message was coarse but it was likely in response to a dick hole of a human (the girl). It was pretty clear the girl was going out of her way to be passive aggressive and confrontational with the police; while attempting to walk a line.
Bluntly, the girl is a fucktard and the policeman was rude in response to a dick hole continuously being rude.
Without greater context I can't say I'm angry with the policeman. What I am disappointed to see, is his suit rather than just laughing it off - as should be the case.
"Rural folks would have to put them down in order to defend themselves."
LOL.
You like rural folks don't you? Even in your twited anti-city mindscape, they'd be quickly overwhelmed by urban zombies.
Really doesn't matter what he likes. What was said is basically true. Those that tend to survive tend to be rural. Most people from urban areas typically how now idea how to survive if food and energy isn't spoon fed to them. This is more typically not true for rural people - especially those who still practice old world living (hunting, fishing, canning, preserving, farming, ranching, etc).
Statistically, in WWII, those from rural areas had the highest kill rates; sometimes 2x-3x higher than their urban counter parts. The majority of Ally fighter pilot aces lived rurally, typically learning hunting as children.
Regardless of the fact "you like urban folks", it doesn't change the fact that most urban dwellers are completely unequipped to survive in a real rural world. The inverse is also true as those currently living the rural life, are likely already equipped to continue doing so.
Such methods actually are taught in a few remaining schools in the US. Part of the curriculum is to start with nothing and end up with advanced smelting and smithing tools - which you've created. This includes smelting your own ores, creating your own your own furnace, so on and so on. From what I understand, its a dying art with fewer and fewer students every year. IIRC, one of the schools teaches it as metallurgy as part of an engineering degree.
Sorry - saw it in TV a couple years back and I don't remember much more in the way of details.
I do recall hearing someone talking about a book which walks you through pre-industrialized technology to creation of modern tooling, smelting, manufacturing, etc...or maybe it was a series of books. IIRC, the author's only requisite is limited knowledge of common ores and concrete. From there, he guides you through industrialization of the 1900s. Sorry, don't remember the name of the book(s) or the author, but I imagine with a little digging on the Internet, it can be had.
There is lots of information out there to be had which addresses this very problem. The real problem is, its simply not been widely disseminated and most people don't even know of its existence.
If you have used it once and then never used it again you probably don't know much about it...
Which my comment made clear. So in stead of posting a sane, reasoned comment, you trolled and some other idiot moderator, troll moderated. Regardless, none of that invalidates my comments. The comments were reasonable and far from inflammatory.
The fact that you posted as you did and idiot troll moderators posted as they did seems to validate no one is missing anything with Opera as the user group is simply so ashamed of it they can't sanely discuss it. Furthermore, it attempt to invalidate absolutely valid point of view simply because your own shame is trollish in of itself....and if you're not ashamed, then why troll on an absolutely reasonable comment? Exactly.
Not only is this patent extremely obvious, its predated by decades of prior art. So no bones about it, it absolutely was obvious in the 1990's - which strangely enough, is exactly why they explicitly allow for mouse over actions.
Yes. GUIs have been doing this sort of thing for a very long time. We're talking about the 1990's here. Users have long expected an interactive GUI of some type.
I don't understand you basis of comment in the least unless you're being a dick and trolling.
So your saying any user experience is invalid unless its YOUR user experience?
What are the reasons to switch to Opera? Just because I don't see a reason doesn't mean there are not. I never asserted I was representing every user; which your comment seems to imply you believe you are.
So rather than troll and troll moderation, why should people switch when firefox is plenty good for loads of people?
At least I was honest about my view - which is seemingly more than you've been - unless I've completely misinterpreted your post. If so, clarify.
Why is a statement, which up front made it clear its opinion, moderated flamebait when its absolutely not? I guess its safe to assume, if you have an opinion, you are a troll or flamebaiting...wish moderators would actually read the guidelines and learn how to do such a simple task.
But blaming the low adoption on extensions is insane.
Its the primary reason I wouldn't reconsider using it. Extensions directly translate into features. Lacking features which are important to users is far from, "insane."
Its unfair, but years ago I tried Opera. It crashed shortly after using it. It was uninstalled and I've not tried it again. Since Firefox does everything I need, plus lots of extensions, which are not even available on Opera, I really understand why I should give Opera a second look.
Now that Opera is to support extensions, I know the no-extensions complaint isn't valid, but I still don't see a compelling reason to switch.
I've never understood that. "Why not use this browser that does everything you say you want?" "Because it doesn't have EXTENSIONS!"
You didn't realize that those two are in conflict? Why not use this browser? It doesn't have extensions! Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Which means the initial question is wrong and loaded.
Come on, if they had waited until it was finished, it would have been good. Just look at Duke Nukem Forever.
When you have a company constantly missing deadlines, its a sure indicator something is amiss. And yet EA seemingly did nothing other than demand a release - all the while continuing to infuse money to fuel the missed deadlines.
What should have happened was a hard look at the project, removing certain features, long before it got that bad. Then, they could have released a complete, functioning game with slightly fewer features. They could then continue to develop and add those features back in, which continues to drive interest in their existing subscriber base while grabbing new subscribes with those very same features.
This is a classic story of what is a typically mismanaged project in the software industry. The real pie in the face is that EA should have known better and actually been pro-active in protecting their investment. The fact they didn't seems to hint of incompetence and mismanaging at EA too.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, I feel better know...
Good! Because you should once you take reality into account. In all of the democratic examples, in no case could any of those leaders actually launch nukes without lots of additional involvement from lots of additional people. Its not like in the movies where some crazy leader can say, "nuke everyone", and the world explodes.
Basically, if your cited examples scared you in the least, its only because you're ignorant of the subject matter. Best solution is to educate yourself rather than attempt to scare others with paranoia, ignorance, and misinformation.
Number of World Wars prior to the 20th century: 0.
I think you might have a problem with your statistical sampling.
Depending on your definition of "world war", taking technology into account, the number could technically be far, far higher than zero. At different points in history, England, France, and Spain owned most of the world, and even fought each other, both directly and indirectly.
Generally speaking, most agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with his sampling.
You're conflating several things here. The true leaders of Iran are zealots. The people are pragmatic and do not want the zealots. Ahmadinejad is little more than a figure head. He does weld some power but its strictly at the whims of the zealot clergy.
The clergy walk a careful line because they know it would not be too difficult to trigger a serious uprising, costing them their leadership to the pragmatic population. Just the same, that should in no way be conflated to say the leadership is pragmatic. Furthermore, Iran has many ties to extremists groups, directly funding many of them. In fact, much of the bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan directly and indirectly leads back to Iran. Its easily within the realm of plausibility that a nuclear device might find its way to some of these groups which would not hesitate to use it on a mutually offensive group.
Under no means should Iran be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.
Hiroshima wasn't nearly as bad as people thought it would be.
Worth noting, by todays standards or modern nuclear devices, those dropped during WWII are considered very dirty devices. Remember, the more dirty the device, the larger and more inefficient the device. Greater efficiency from smaller devices has been a long term trend.
The fact of the matter is, Iran, when they get nukes, will not use them unless they are attacked, and even then that's an iffy proposition. Both (or more) of the countries involved know what will happen when the nuclear genie is used. And it ain't pretty.
That's extremely iffy logic at best. Democratic nations who assign high value to life are extremely unlikely to use the nuclear option unless in some form of retaliation. Any nation with nukes which do not fall into the above category is a huge question mark.
Now combine nukes with a totalitarian nation ruled by zealots with a well known blood lust for ideologies foreign to their own, and its a complete crap shoot. Made worse, are the empowered zealots with direct control over such weapons. Frankly, your odds are likely to match that of a coin toss, given the right geo-political and economic environment. Any other assessment is hippie-flower-power speak at best. Which is exactly why the majority of the world very much does NOT want Iran to become a nuclear nation.
Basically, anything short of being against Iran become a nuclear power is just short of being pro-nuclear war.
The recent torpedo incident seems to indicate the central government there isn't completely in control.
Or given who is in control, it seems to indicate they are in control. Realistically, I doubt anyone knows if this was a rogue captain or a lawful order from an idiot named Kim. Given the country, flip a coin.
You need to keep in mind, North Korea constantly provides false navigation signals to aircraft in hopes of creating an international indecent. They constantly attempt to incite troops. And occasionally, they do have weapon malfunctions which seem to land in the general proximity of troops located in the south. No shit and no exaguration.
Given Kim's several decades of doing exactly this type of shit, it would be far from surprising to learn it was ordered. Then again, given the environment and known internal conflict for power, it may have been been a rogue captain or higher up in the military. Who knows.
That's great if your USB device is a drive. There are many other types of USB devices than just drives.
Hopefully someone with deeper knowledge can answer.
I don't believe it has good application for space travel, in of itself. But doesn't this open the door for dramatic electric motor efficiency improvements? With many traditional motor designs, you wind up with a stagged NSNSNS design. And when the stator is half way between poles, resistance is naturally introduced, requiring an electrical impulse to offset the natural repulsion imposed by like poles. With these magnets, can you minimize the repulsion as the like poles close and maximize the attraction created by the electric pulse feed into the system? Seems like with the right arrangement of these magnets and a complimentary impulse controller, efficiencies can potentially be dramatically improved for brushless motors?
Crazy talk or viable?
Whoosh!
You've entirely missed the point. If you're purposely projecting an irritant into the face/eyes of someone else, you have committed assault. Period. End of discussion. Simply touching a police officer is assault.
If you don't like the laws, attempt to change them. I fully support your right to do so! Simply whining about enforcement of well established laws makes you, well, a whiner. Whining about a police officer rudely explaining the law to a rude, confrontational, passive aggressive bitch, is pathetic. To make excuses for her behavior is as rude and bizarre as anyone suggesting the police officer's approach is an ideal solution.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but it doesn't change the fact that she was a nut job going out of her way to create confrontation with police.
Assuming they can actually come up with the money to launch it, I wonder how long it will be up there before it "accidentally" gets hit with a "stray" surface-to-air or air-to-air missile. It'll either be that or incentive to clean up some space "junk." Maybe this is what it will take to get NASA a bigger budget.
Not likely in the least. Shooting down a satellite requires special equipment, including special, anti-satellite missiles. A traditional air-to-air doesn't have a chance. Its doubtful any ground to air missiles have even close to the require ranges. You're basically talking about an ICBM.
Traditionally, to shoot down a satellite, you use a high altitude aircraft, flying near its service ceiling, firing a purpose built, anti-satellite missile at a target whos intercept trajectory has been pre-calculated. Maybe a dozen countries have such capabilities - and that's being very generous with that count.
Now then, most satellites traditionally have some sort of course/orbit correction capability. But, without someone to monitor for debris and then correct orbit/course accordingly, such capabilities are completely useless. Course corrections to avoid debris, even for the shuttles, is actually fairly common. Without such a capability, any satellite is going to quickly fall from orbit or be fairly quickly be disabled by some for of debris.
So basically, unless the Pirate Party can afford to create, launch, monitor, and navigate their own satellite (extremely doubtful), its either going to fall back to earth or be struck by debris in fairly short order - no conspiracies or evil gubberments required.
So your telling me a bubble assault warrants that police and legal assault an extremely violent and threatening assault,
If the bubble has struck an eye, absolutely she would be arrested for assault - as the officer warned.
Is this a case of linux kernel developers copying features that are in the Mac OS X darwin kernel?
Doubtful. This is really an area of natural evolution. Meaning, first to market, if that is in fact really the case, hardly means everyone else is copying what is really an obvious and extremely simple idea.
For example, planes needed to go faster. Solution, make them more aerodynamic. When everyone started making planes more aerodynamic, does that really mean everyone copied the first to do so? Hardly. It means, they all understood the problem and someone was simply first to market.
Now if you have something which indicates the APIs on OSX are particularly clever in exposing this feature and that everyone is copying those APIs, you might have a point, but I don't see you arguing that position.
Believe it or not, humanity frequently, independently, suffers from a natural progression of ideas. The fact that this occurs more or less validates no one is copying.
Case in point: I want to know when a file changes. In what ways can a file change? Those are natural progressions in seeking a solution to an extremely common problem. If you answer my question, does that you too are copying?
Correct.
Not only that, but as the officer pointed out, the bubble is a detergent. Detergent is an extremely well known irritant. Pepper spray is another form of irritant. He warned her of the fact that if it landed in someone's eye, it would be assault. Legally that's absolutely correct.
I'm hard pressed to imagine any police officer getting an irritant thrown into their eye who wouldn't arrest you for assault - and rightfully so.
His message was coarse but it was likely in response to a dick hole of a human (the girl). It was pretty clear the girl was going out of her way to be passive aggressive and confrontational with the police; while attempting to walk a line.
Bluntly, the girl is a fucktard and the policeman was rude in response to a dick hole continuously being rude.
Without greater context I can't say I'm angry with the policeman. What I am disappointed to see, is his suit rather than just laughing it off - as should be the case.
pfff - did a fairly recent show also rip that off?
"Rural folks would have to put them down in order to defend themselves."
LOL.
You like rural folks don't you? Even in your twited anti-city mindscape, they'd be quickly overwhelmed by urban zombies.
Really doesn't matter what he likes. What was said is basically true. Those that tend to survive tend to be rural. Most people from urban areas typically how now idea how to survive if food and energy isn't spoon fed to them. This is more typically not true for rural people - especially those who still practice old world living (hunting, fishing, canning, preserving, farming, ranching, etc).
Statistically, in WWII, those from rural areas had the highest kill rates; sometimes 2x-3x higher than their urban counter parts. The majority of Ally fighter pilot aces lived rurally, typically learning hunting as children.
Regardless of the fact "you like urban folks", it doesn't change the fact that most urban dwellers are completely unequipped to survive in a real rural world. The inverse is also true as those currently living the rural life, are likely already equipped to continue doing so.
Such methods actually are taught in a few remaining schools in the US. Part of the curriculum is to start with nothing and end up with advanced smelting and smithing tools - which you've created. This includes smelting your own ores, creating your own your own furnace, so on and so on. From what I understand, its a dying art with fewer and fewer students every year. IIRC, one of the schools teaches it as metallurgy as part of an engineering degree.
Sorry - saw it in TV a couple years back and I don't remember much more in the way of details.
I do recall hearing someone talking about a book which walks you through pre-industrialized technology to creation of modern tooling, smelting, manufacturing, etc...or maybe it was a series of books. IIRC, the author's only requisite is limited knowledge of common ores and concrete. From there, he guides you through industrialization of the 1900s. Sorry, don't remember the name of the book(s) or the author, but I imagine with a little digging on the Internet, it can be had.
There is lots of information out there to be had which addresses this very problem. The real problem is, its simply not been widely disseminated and most people don't even know of its existence.
If you have used it once and then never used it again you probably don't know much about it ...
Which my comment made clear. So in stead of posting a sane, reasoned comment, you trolled and some other idiot moderator, troll moderated. Regardless, none of that invalidates my comments. The comments were reasonable and far from inflammatory.
The fact that you posted as you did and idiot troll moderators posted as they did seems to validate no one is missing anything with Opera as the user group is simply so ashamed of it they can't sanely discuss it. Furthermore, it attempt to invalidate absolutely valid point of view simply because your own shame is trollish in of itself. ...and if you're not ashamed, then why troll on an absolutely reasonable comment? Exactly.
Exactly.
Not only is this patent extremely obvious, its predated by decades of prior art. So no bones about it, it absolutely was obvious in the 1990's - which strangely enough, is exactly why they explicitly allow for mouse over actions.
"Patent Troll" is an understatement.
Yes. GUIs have been doing this sort of thing for a very long time. We're talking about the 1990's here. Users have long expected an interactive GUI of some type.
I don't understand you basis of comment in the least unless you're being a dick and trolling.
So your saying any user experience is invalid unless its YOUR user experience?
What are the reasons to switch to Opera? Just because I don't see a reason doesn't mean there are not. I never asserted I was representing every user; which your comment seems to imply you believe you are.
So rather than troll and troll moderation, why should people switch when firefox is plenty good for loads of people?
At least I was honest about my view - which is seemingly more than you've been - unless I've completely misinterpreted your post. If so, clarify.
Why is a statement, which up front made it clear its opinion, moderated flamebait when its absolutely not? I guess its safe to assume, if you have an opinion, you are a troll or flamebaiting...wish moderators would actually read the guidelines and learn how to do such a simple task.
But blaming the low adoption on extensions is insane.
Its the primary reason I wouldn't reconsider using it. Extensions directly translate into features. Lacking features which are important to users is far from, "insane."
Its unfair, but years ago I tried Opera. It crashed shortly after using it. It was uninstalled and I've not tried it again. Since Firefox does everything I need, plus lots of extensions, which are not even available on Opera, I really understand why I should give Opera a second look.
Now that Opera is to support extensions, I know the no-extensions complaint isn't valid, but I still don't see a compelling reason to switch.
I've never understood that. "Why not use this browser that does everything you say you want?" "Because it doesn't have EXTENSIONS!"
You didn't realize that those two are in conflict? Why not use this browser? It doesn't have extensions! Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Which means the initial question is wrong and loaded.
Come on, if they had waited until it was finished, it would have been good. Just look at Duke Nukem Forever.
When you have a company constantly missing deadlines, its a sure indicator something is amiss. And yet EA seemingly did nothing other than demand a release - all the while continuing to infuse money to fuel the missed deadlines.
What should have happened was a hard look at the project, removing certain features, long before it got that bad. Then, they could have released a complete, functioning game with slightly fewer features. They could then continue to develop and add those features back in, which continues to drive interest in their existing subscriber base while grabbing new subscribes with those very same features.
This is a classic story of what is a typically mismanaged project in the software industry. The real pie in the face is that EA should have known better and actually been pro-active in protecting their investment. The fact they didn't seems to hint of incompetence and mismanaging at EA too.