Grishnakh: "The other big reason America was so oppressive towards Cuba is because American corporations owned a lot of land in Cuba and used it for sugarcane farming. When Castro took power, he seized all this property and nationalized it (just like Venezuela nationalized their oil industry under Chavez)."
I like that "just like under Chavez" is meant to apply *legitimacy* to your argument. Oh, well, Chavez took land from the owners, so Castro did to, so OBVIOUSLY it must be fine GEEZ!
"American corporations whined and the American government acted as their enforcement arm, and tried to oust Castro."
Whined? Like, if a government decided to take your property, would that be "whining"?
"From an objective, moral viewpoint, America is completely in the wrong. That land belonged to the Cubans, not American corporations who had somehow bought it up, and it was the Cubans' right to take it back. "
Somehow? They paid money to the Cubans (who the land belonged to, and who willingly sold it to the highest bidder- in many cases, Americans). Did the Cuban land owners own the land, or not? If they had the right to sell to Americans, then they owned the land. That was everyone's belief, after all- I'm sure that if you bought land in Cuba, you would expect, you know, that the folks selling it to you had the ability to actually *do* that. In your mind, do Cubans not have the *ability* to sell the land to any one but another Cuban? Or something? It doesn't matter, you'll edit your philosophy to suit your needs.
From an "objective, moral viewpoint", the situation is actually, and brace yourself here, *complex*. America acted in an imperialistic fashion, but did so in a nonviolent fashion. The US was prohibited (by itself) from annexing Cuba, and required itself to give Cuba a government representative of the people, upon the Spanish leaving the scene. But years later, phobia about communism definitely crafted how American treated the nation, and the rules that the US expected Cuba to follow definitely did NOT give it the status of an independent state.
To claim the that the US acted as a villain to its neighbor is simply wrong. To claim that the Cubans were the REAL owners of land after freely selling it to others is also wrong. The US definitely did not act purely benevolently, but you aren't even giving history a fair shake.
Back before armory, you were essentially anonymous when posting on the wow forums- you had your avatar, but what you posted was just words. Now I've seen the following:
1- Threads derailed because someone will point out that someone has only killed a boss BLAH times- where BLAH is a couple less then them, or whatever. 2- Attacks to a player's arena team ratings when they have a point to make about getting one shot in pvp- or more comically, when a player is talking about something not related to pvp at all (arena rating is a rated deathmatch series- the idea being, if a player is only better than 70% of other participants, then their viewpoint is discountable). 3- Ad hominem attacks based on a player that gems one stat over another- for instance, plenty of items will have say, 8 AP if you match the blue socket. So, you can not match and get 40 AP, or you *can* match with a 20AP/15Stamina gem, and get more total stats, but even though there are situations where you want the extra health (maybe your healers aren't super pro), you can be fully discounted if you have any of these part blue gems- etc.
Whatever benefit we've obtained from this accountability seems lost in a wash of troll attack posts. Now that we can see who got what items, in what order, and even when people are on?
I really hate armory. They had this April Fools joke where they had a "tinfoil hat" where if you equipped it your armory would not be visible. It was obviously a joke, but the forums were FULL of maxxed out posts asking for it to PLEASE be implemented.
DakotaSmith: "I'm utterly thrilled that I'm going to live to see this change. It's too late for the men of my generation or the one that followed to have a loving, supportive relationship with a woman. The men of my grandchildren's age, however, will inherit a kinder, gentler woman."
Wouldn't the result of gyndroids be that men who are NOT pushovers simply cease reproduction completely? Wouldn't you be "writing yourself out of the gene pool"- not you specifically, but assume one hundred men share your opinion and currently some number of them decide that a family and a wife is worth it anyway- wouldn't less of that crew have children in the future, because some of them would both be able to afford and prefer the gyndroid?
Barring an artificial womb which would act to remove more nature's sexism, of course.
I want two or more authenticators, and I want them both to be recognized as valid. For instance, if I were to buy an authenticator and then try to log in, it would look at my username, my password, and then do the calculation based on the key- if it matches, it lets me in. If not, it does not. I would like to check my username, my password, and then calculate all the keys I have tied to the account (perhaps there would be a max of five, or ten). If the input matches ANY of them, it lets me in.
Currently, I don't have an authenticator because I travel all the time and I normally wherever I go, I at least remember to include my brain. Currently I could:
1- Lose an authenticator. 2- Bash it into a wall while tripping over anything. 3- Fall into a fountain- probably it wouldn't get too wet in that time, but hey! 4- Have it stolen- it wouldn't be useful to a thief, but they wouldn't know that. 5- Have the battery be bad or rot.
I've gone through a few cellphones, and a few days with no cellphone can really be bad. I would definitely not want to be on travel for two weeks and be unable to use my fancy laptop to play WoW! Especially given that with a cellphone I can go to any mall and be chatting again in a few hours if it becomes important, but for WoW you have to call up some hotline and identify yourself using whatever secret question I thought would be a great idea 4.5 years ago. The few times I've tested this hotline (granted, not in the last year), I eventually hang up because I'm bored and I can't talk to a human. I would sure hate to be doing that dance for real.
I also don't like the loss of user freedom- currently I can call any of four RL friends up and give said friend my login info if there's something that needs to happen in game, and a few guildies would also probably work. A single authenticator would shut that down unless I was on the phone with them. Blizzard might see this as a feature: according to their extensive ToS, not even your *spouse* is allowed to log into your account.
I'm pretty sure you would explain the situation to the auditor, and they would find a way to check that you are in compliance without actually having access to the data you are legally obligated to protect. There are TONS of places that can't just go pushing their data around willy-nilly- some have customer data that personally identifies them. Others are running a classified network. Whatever your cause is, I'm sure they can find some way to verify that you are using their stuff with licenses without, you know, making you go to to JAIL.
Note that these folks will actually come TO you, physically. It isn't like some stupid crap where they think that "user=thief" and they require you to go on the internet and phone home every day.
I'm not defending the BSA and their enforcement regime, just pointing out that they don't behave like subrational drones as companies often do with the general public.
Offtopic lol. GOOD MOD JOB BRO
Anyway, the other thing that was great is that they originally claimed not to release the source code because they didn't want Microsoft to patch around them, or some other nonsense. Everyone in the original article who said that they wouldn't trust an anti-forensic tool that was closed source was 100% correct.
You can't ever go wrong with that, this is just one more example.
Shame on slashdot for being fooled. And shame on anyone who trusted a bunch of anti-privacy lunatics with religious motivation. Here's a great quote:
"I would still be with my addictive behaviors; womanizing, pornography, stealing, hacking, lieing, manipulating, and fighting. DECAF would have been a perfect way to feed my addictions."
He's ok with centralization of power. I wonder what he would think if that power was used to detect and eliminate religious people, if having a copy of the Bible was what "computer forensic" tools were used for. These windbags can't see past their own nose.
I don't buy this assessment at *all*. You can still fly around the world, help random people completing quests, find people hanging out ready to go into dungeons, and kill the opposing faction (pvp server). The coolness of dungeons would NOT be possible to implement as "open world content", because in that case you have a big guild, and they kill all the content. If you are in the same faction as them, you can suck up to them, but if they are the opposite faction they'll just roll right over you and aoe you down like so many trash packs.
In other words, the mechanics of the fight would take a VERY distant backseat to political bickering about scarce resources.
Though, I would very much love another Isle of Quel, for the world pvp that happened as everyone did their daily quests. That was very fun.
PETA and pretty much ANY organization that is all about helping animals isn't in favor of helping them because they want *as many cows alive at any given time*, or any such nonsense. They are in favor of *less animal suffering*. This means that if you have X cows alive and you butcher Y every year, and Z new cows are born, and Y+Z=X, that when you reduce the demand for cows, you are reducing Z, the new cows born each year, because you are reducing Y, the cows butchered every year. Sure, X will go down, but maximizing cows alive at any moment isn't how they measure their progress towards their goal- in fact, they will probably let you know, in detail, how many of those X cows are born to suffer.
Basically, to see how they view it, just replace cows with people, and pretend that we had some group of people that we raised and ate. Obviously it would be a moral good to eliminate that, but if you couldn't eliminate it because the laws and the customs dictated that the to-be-eaten caste was born to that and not really human, you'd settle for limiting it as much as possible.
Their goal is to limit animal suffering. Stop modding up everyone who thinks that reducing the number of suffering animals is somehow contrary to that.
If the government wants into your data, they have a copy of the data (presumably because they lawfully confiscated it with a warrant). The last thing they are doing is asking *your OS to unlock itself*. If they are fortunate enough to grab your machine while it is ON and, say, the screen is locked, then they can just read the RAM directly after using the hotplug thing that lets them transport your still-running computer to the lab, from your wall. No need to decrypt anything if the key is in memory.
If instead your machine is deactivated and everything is off, they would run a program versus the actual data on the drive (or rather, on a COPY of the drive that they make). At no point would they run your OS, and obviously if you just have a bunch of data to try to crack, there's nothing to "lock"- the only code running is the cracking code, guessing solutions. However, I wouldn't think that brute force would actually crack any secure passwords ever.
Jefferson WAS a lawbreaker. He participated in a revolution. And the copyright in the constitution was designed to expire- unlike the one we have today, which is unconstitutional.
If some turd law monetized air, arguments to get it out from under the grips of corporations so we didn't have to sign up with a Breathing Carrier or suffocate would all fall under the weight of your same arguments.
Wow. Honestly, the BBC is so slanted I don't know how you can say any of that with a straight face. The BBC is exactly what I don't want to see CNN (which is already slanted) turn into.
Most American news organizations have anything from a mild to a serious leftward slant. They will report, or fail to report, things based on that. They will interview selectively. The big exception is Fox, which commits all the same sins but in the other direction. I know a lot of folks who like having a "different opinion", but really all it means is that they all have an agenda and they will all lie to you. But at least it's not the government doing it.
"Could you imagine what would happen if you told every urbanite that they couldn't bring a bottle of Evian on the plane?"
Said Urbanite is out four bucks, but gets to buy a second bottle on the other side.
"Could you imagine what would happen if you told ever Mom that she couldn't bring a box of apple juice for her kid?"
Said mom is out four bucks, buying a drink on the other side.
"...guy with the fancy cowboy boots or the woman wearing Prada shoes that they have to come off and go through the scanner..."
This one actually sucks the most, imo, but at the end of the day, you still wear shoes on a plane.
If they told me I couldn't bring my laptop, then I can barely do my job. Which is why I'm traveling to start with. Many people *can't* do their job. This is actually an area where it sucks SO much that they can't just ban it or swoosh around it with trickery. Your examples, while annoying and I'll try to vote them away just as soon as someone runs who could fix it (read: never), aren't in the same category as "can't transport a laptop".
Probably. But some nanny-statist will quickly tell you that, like your fully-legal cellphone (in most states), this is something you shouldn't have. After all, why would you want to interfere with the revenue stream?
Blizzard makes tons of money. The number of zones in WoW is based on what they think the game can support, not the desire to train up and employ enough dudes to be putting out more than that. They don't need McDonalds to pay for that- if they took money from McDonalds, it would just be more cash flow for them. If adds were on the loading screens, I would find a way to disable or change the graphics on the loading screens. If adds were in the game, I would cancel my account. I hate ads.
I seriously doubt Blizzard would do that. Currently the only adds you see are on the forums (or so they say, I don't see them because they are ads on the internet and therefore don't load on my browser), and the little intro loader has some wow-related product linked sometimes. I don't really consider those ads though, because they are all wow-themed products.
You could use real ads, but fixed in time. When is the game set? 1995? Then the ads should be from 1995, not updated to today. That's not realistic. Is the game set in 2009 (today as of this writing)? Then it should have those ads, you know, in Times Square. But probably not in some evil villian's fortress, or wherever the game actually takes place.
Some games, novels, and movies are supposed to be set "today" or "a year from now", though obviously these things all look very dated after twenty years. In these cases only could he defend his case.
Since all he's *really* doing is trying to justify a massive cash flow- after all, most games aren't set in times square, or any other heavily-dominated-by-advertising area- it doesn't even matter what he's saying. But even if we take him at face value, he's hip deep in BS.
I won't buy games with ads. I avoid TV because I hate ads. Keep them the hell out games, thanks.
TMNT for the NES has Pizza Hut ads everywhere. Looks absurd. Looked absurd back then too.
Sup, it affects you in pvp. My main is a rogue in plenty of 245 -232 loot, and I'm in a raid guild, and I arena. If you aren't a paladin and I open on you, I'll probably beat you solo- which is fine, the game isn't about 1v1. The issue is that while it's a pretty good fight versus a mage, a lock, a DK, a shaman, a druid, etc.... in equivalent gear, it's friggin ABSURD versus a fresh 80. Fresh 80s don't even get out of CHEAPSHOT, and that's in pure PVP gear- if I wear my raid gear, it's way sillier. The gear ramp up has been crazy this time, and blue is on the record as saying it.
So no, if someone raids or does whatever to get gear, it very much affects every other player in the game- same faction players still have to arena versus you, and everyone on the opposite faction fights you in BGs. If you don't understand how a top tier set of gear can influence pvp, you don't play WoW.
But hey feel free to roll horde on Ursin. We'll see if you can get enough gear to make me press Kidney Shot.
"What researchers did here was to shut off a critical component of the immune systems in a conscious species other than humans. This kind of research should only be done on human volunteers, since it is highly likely to result a miserable death in the subject if successful."
Nice troll. One, it's a mouse. Mice don't count as "conscious", unless you mean "not asleep". Two, concluding that it should be done on humans is obviously trolltastic- it doesn't even manage to be wrong, it's so confused.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is the half-orc circumsized? Hebrew half orc mayhaps?
Grishnakh: "The other big reason America was so oppressive towards Cuba is because American corporations owned a lot of land in Cuba and used it for sugarcane farming. When Castro took power, he seized all this property and nationalized it (just like Venezuela nationalized their oil industry under Chavez)."
I like that "just like under Chavez" is meant to apply *legitimacy* to your argument. Oh, well, Chavez took land from the owners, so Castro did to, so OBVIOUSLY it must be fine GEEZ!
"American corporations whined and the American government acted as their enforcement arm, and tried to oust Castro."
Whined? Like, if a government decided to take your property, would that be "whining"?
"From an objective, moral viewpoint, America is completely in the wrong. That land belonged to the Cubans, not American corporations who had somehow bought it up, and it was the Cubans' right to take it back. "
Somehow? They paid money to the Cubans (who the land belonged to, and who willingly sold it to the highest bidder- in many cases, Americans). Did the Cuban land owners own the land, or not? If they had the right to sell to Americans, then they owned the land. That was everyone's belief, after all- I'm sure that if you bought land in Cuba, you would expect, you know, that the folks selling it to you had the ability to actually *do* that. In your mind, do Cubans not have the *ability* to sell the land to any one but another Cuban? Or something? It doesn't matter, you'll edit your philosophy to suit your needs.
From an "objective, moral viewpoint", the situation is actually, and brace yourself here, *complex*. America acted in an imperialistic fashion, but did so in a nonviolent fashion. The US was prohibited (by itself) from annexing Cuba, and required itself to give Cuba a government representative of the people, upon the Spanish leaving the scene. But years later, phobia about communism definitely crafted how American treated the nation, and the rules that the US expected Cuba to follow definitely did NOT give it the status of an independent state.
To claim the that the US acted as a villain to its neighbor is simply wrong. To claim that the Cubans were the REAL owners of land after freely selling it to others is also wrong. The US definitely did not act purely benevolently, but you aren't even giving history a fair shake.
Back before armory, you were essentially anonymous when posting on the wow forums- you had your avatar, but what you posted was just words. Now I've seen the following:
1- Threads derailed because someone will point out that someone has only killed a boss BLAH times- where BLAH is a couple less then them, or whatever.
2- Attacks to a player's arena team ratings when they have a point to make about getting one shot in pvp- or more comically, when a player is talking about something not related to pvp at all (arena rating is a rated deathmatch series- the idea being, if a player is only better than 70% of other participants, then their viewpoint is discountable).
3- Ad hominem attacks based on a player that gems one stat over another- for instance, plenty of items will have say, 8 AP if you match the blue socket. So, you can not match and get 40 AP, or you *can* match with a 20AP/15Stamina gem, and get more total stats, but even though there are situations where you want the extra health (maybe your healers aren't super pro), you can be fully discounted if you have any of these part blue gems- etc.
Whatever benefit we've obtained from this accountability seems lost in a wash of troll attack posts. Now that we can see who got what items, in what order, and even when people are on?
I really hate armory. They had this April Fools joke where they had a "tinfoil hat" where if you equipped it your armory would not be visible. It was obviously a joke, but the forums were FULL of maxxed out posts asking for it to PLEASE be implemented.
DakotaSmith: "I'm utterly thrilled that I'm going to live to see this change. It's too late for the men of my generation or the one that followed to have a loving, supportive relationship with a woman. The men of my grandchildren's age, however, will inherit a kinder, gentler woman."
Wouldn't the result of gyndroids be that men who are NOT pushovers simply cease reproduction completely? Wouldn't you be "writing yourself out of the gene pool"- not you specifically, but assume one hundred men share your opinion and currently some number of them decide that a family and a wife is worth it anyway- wouldn't less of that crew have children in the future, because some of them would both be able to afford and prefer the gyndroid?
Barring an artificial womb which would act to remove more nature's sexism, of course.
I want two or more authenticators, and I want them both to be recognized as valid. For instance, if I were to buy an authenticator and then try to log in, it would look at my username, my password, and then do the calculation based on the key- if it matches, it lets me in. If not, it does not. I would like to check my username, my password, and then calculate all the keys I have tied to the account (perhaps there would be a max of five, or ten). If the input matches ANY of them, it lets me in.
Currently, I don't have an authenticator because I travel all the time and I normally wherever I go, I at least remember to include my brain. Currently I could:
1- Lose an authenticator.
2- Bash it into a wall while tripping over anything.
3- Fall into a fountain- probably it wouldn't get too wet in that time, but hey!
4- Have it stolen- it wouldn't be useful to a thief, but they wouldn't know that.
5- Have the battery be bad or rot.
I've gone through a few cellphones, and a few days with no cellphone can really be bad. I would definitely not want to be on travel for two weeks and be unable to use my fancy laptop to play WoW! Especially given that with a cellphone I can go to any mall and be chatting again in a few hours if it becomes important, but for WoW you have to call up some hotline and identify yourself using whatever secret question I thought would be a great idea 4.5 years ago. The few times I've tested this hotline (granted, not in the last year), I eventually hang up because I'm bored and I can't talk to a human. I would sure hate to be doing that dance for real.
I also don't like the loss of user freedom- currently I can call any of four RL friends up and give said friend my login info if there's something that needs to happen in game, and a few guildies would also probably work. A single authenticator would shut that down unless I was on the phone with them. Blizzard might see this as a feature: according to their extensive ToS, not even your *spouse* is allowed to log into your account.
I'm pretty sure you would explain the situation to the auditor, and they would find a way to check that you are in compliance without actually having access to the data you are legally obligated to protect. There are TONS of places that can't just go pushing their data around willy-nilly- some have customer data that personally identifies them. Others are running a classified network. Whatever your cause is, I'm sure they can find some way to verify that you are using their stuff with licenses without, you know, making you go to to JAIL.
Note that these folks will actually come TO you, physically. It isn't like some stupid crap where they think that "user=thief" and they require you to go on the internet and phone home every day.
I'm not defending the BSA and their enforcement regime, just pointing out that they don't behave like subrational drones as companies often do with the general public.
Offtopic lol. GOOD MOD JOB BRO Anyway, the other thing that was great is that they originally claimed not to release the source code because they didn't want Microsoft to patch around them, or some other nonsense. Everyone in the original article who said that they wouldn't trust an anti-forensic tool that was closed source was 100% correct.
You can't ever go wrong with that, this is just one more example.
Shame on slashdot for being fooled. And shame on anyone who trusted a bunch of anti-privacy lunatics with religious motivation. Here's a great quote:
"I would still be with my addictive behaviors; womanizing, pornography, stealing, hacking, lieing, manipulating, and fighting. DECAF would have been a perfect way to feed my addictions."
He's ok with centralization of power. I wonder what he would think if that power was used to detect and eliminate religious people, if having a copy of the Bible was what "computer forensic" tools were used for. These windbags can't see past their own nose.
The comments are obviously off the cuff remarks over being frustrated, and she got screwed over by a system that punishes speech.
Anyway, chick sounds hot tho.
I seriously doubt that would have longevity, or be able to appeal to anyone outside of a hardcore subset of players.
I don't buy this assessment at *all*. You can still fly around the world, help random people completing quests, find people hanging out ready to go into dungeons, and kill the opposing faction (pvp server). The coolness of dungeons would NOT be possible to implement as "open world content", because in that case you have a big guild, and they kill all the content. If you are in the same faction as them, you can suck up to them, but if they are the opposite faction they'll just roll right over you and aoe you down like so many trash packs.
In other words, the mechanics of the fight would take a VERY distant backseat to political bickering about scarce resources.
Though, I would very much love another Isle of Quel, for the world pvp that happened as everyone did their daily quests. That was very fun.
Mod parlancex up.
PETA and pretty much ANY organization that is all about helping animals isn't in favor of helping them because they want *as many cows alive at any given time*, or any such nonsense. They are in favor of *less animal suffering*. This means that if you have X cows alive and you butcher Y every year, and Z new cows are born, and Y+Z=X, that when you reduce the demand for cows, you are reducing Z, the new cows born each year, because you are reducing Y, the cows butchered every year. Sure, X will go down, but maximizing cows alive at any moment isn't how they measure their progress towards their goal- in fact, they will probably let you know, in detail, how many of those X cows are born to suffer.
Basically, to see how they view it, just replace cows with people, and pretend that we had some group of people that we raised and ate. Obviously it would be a moral good to eliminate that, but if you couldn't eliminate it because the laws and the customs dictated that the to-be-eaten caste was born to that and not really human, you'd settle for limiting it as much as possible.
Their goal is to limit animal suffering. Stop modding up everyone who thinks that reducing the number of suffering animals is somehow contrary to that.
If the government wants into your data, they have a copy of the data (presumably because they lawfully confiscated it with a warrant). The last thing they are doing is asking *your OS to unlock itself*. If they are fortunate enough to grab your machine while it is ON and, say, the screen is locked, then they can just read the RAM directly after using the hotplug thing that lets them transport your still-running computer to the lab, from your wall. No need to decrypt anything if the key is in memory.
If instead your machine is deactivated and everything is off, they would run a program versus the actual data on the drive (or rather, on a COPY of the drive that they make). At no point would they run your OS, and obviously if you just have a bunch of data to try to crack, there's nothing to "lock"- the only code running is the cracking code, guessing solutions. However, I wouldn't think that brute force would actually crack any secure passwords ever.
Jefferson WAS a lawbreaker. He participated in a revolution. And the copyright in the constitution was designed to expire- unlike the one we have today, which is unconstitutional.
If some turd law monetized air, arguments to get it out from under the grips of corporations so we didn't have to sign up with a Breathing Carrier or suffocate would all fall under the weight of your same arguments.
Wow. Honestly, the BBC is so slanted I don't know how you can say any of that with a straight face. The BBC is exactly what I don't want to see CNN (which is already slanted) turn into.
Most American news organizations have anything from a mild to a serious leftward slant. They will report, or fail to report, things based on that. They will interview selectively. The big exception is Fox, which commits all the same sins but in the other direction. I know a lot of folks who like having a "different opinion", but really all it means is that they all have an agenda and they will all lie to you. But at least it's not the government doing it.
"Could you imagine what would happen if you told every urbanite that they couldn't bring a bottle of Evian on the plane?"
Said Urbanite is out four bucks, but gets to buy a second bottle on the other side.
"Could you imagine what would happen if you told ever Mom that she couldn't bring a box of apple juice for her kid?"
Said mom is out four bucks, buying a drink on the other side.
"...guy with the fancy cowboy boots or the woman wearing Prada shoes that they have to come off and go through the scanner..."
This one actually sucks the most, imo, but at the end of the day, you still wear shoes on a plane.
If they told me I couldn't bring my laptop, then I can barely do my job. Which is why I'm traveling to start with. Many people *can't* do their job. This is actually an area where it sucks SO much that they can't just ban it or swoosh around it with trickery. Your examples, while annoying and I'll try to vote them away just as soon as someone runs who could fix it (read: never), aren't in the same category as "can't transport a laptop".
Probably. But some nanny-statist will quickly tell you that, like your fully-legal cellphone (in most states), this is something you shouldn't have. After all, why would you want to interfere with the revenue stream?
Blizzard makes tons of money. The number of zones in WoW is based on what they think the game can support, not the desire to train up and employ enough dudes to be putting out more than that. They don't need McDonalds to pay for that- if they took money from McDonalds, it would just be more cash flow for them. If adds were on the loading screens, I would find a way to disable or change the graphics on the loading screens. If adds were in the game, I would cancel my account. I hate ads.
I seriously doubt Blizzard would do that. Currently the only adds you see are on the forums (or so they say, I don't see them because they are ads on the internet and therefore don't load on my browser), and the little intro loader has some wow-related product linked sometimes. I don't really consider those ads though, because they are all wow-themed products.
You could use real ads, but fixed in time. When is the game set? 1995? Then the ads should be from 1995, not updated to today. That's not realistic. Is the game set in 2009 (today as of this writing)? Then it should have those ads, you know, in Times Square. But probably not in some evil villian's fortress, or wherever the game actually takes place.
Some games, novels, and movies are supposed to be set "today" or "a year from now", though obviously these things all look very dated after twenty years. In these cases only could he defend his case.
Since all he's *really* doing is trying to justify a massive cash flow- after all, most games aren't set in times square, or any other heavily-dominated-by-advertising area- it doesn't even matter what he's saying. But even if we take him at face value, he's hip deep in BS.
I won't buy games with ads. I avoid TV because I hate ads. Keep them the hell out games, thanks.
TMNT for the NES has Pizza Hut ads everywhere. Looks absurd. Looked absurd back then too.
SMB2 did NOT launch for 60 bucks, you are mistaken.
DON'T TOUCH ME
Sup, it affects you in pvp. My main is a rogue in plenty of 245 -232 loot, and I'm in a raid guild, and I arena. If you aren't a paladin and I open on you, I'll probably beat you solo- which is fine, the game isn't about 1v1. The issue is that while it's a pretty good fight versus a mage, a lock, a DK, a shaman, a druid, etc.... in equivalent gear, it's friggin ABSURD versus a fresh 80. Fresh 80s don't even get out of CHEAPSHOT, and that's in pure PVP gear- if I wear my raid gear, it's way sillier. The gear ramp up has been crazy this time, and blue is on the record as saying it.
So no, if someone raids or does whatever to get gear, it very much affects every other player in the game- same faction players still have to arena versus you, and everyone on the opposite faction fights you in BGs. If you don't understand how a top tier set of gear can influence pvp, you don't play WoW.
But hey feel free to roll horde on Ursin. We'll see if you can get enough gear to make me press Kidney Shot.
"What researchers did here was to shut off a critical component of the immune systems in a conscious species other than humans. This kind of research should only be done on human volunteers, since it is highly likely to result a miserable death in the subject if successful."
Nice troll. One, it's a mouse. Mice don't count as "conscious", unless you mean "not asleep". Two, concluding that it should be done on humans is obviously trolltastic- it doesn't even manage to be wrong, it's so confused.