The argument was never discredited, only the application of the argument. We could fire all of our nukes into the sun, with no noticeable, not to mention ill, effects. It's the same argument, still being applied correctly.
Heavy or organic pollutants which radically alter metabolism, and heat, are two completely different things. One can kill a lot of stuff in small quantities, the other is pumped in by the sun, all the time, and is considered part of the status quo.
You can kill all of the bacteria in a pot of water by adding a couple drops of bleach, but you have to add a huge amount of energy to achieve the same effect.
(I worry that you barely read my post, because I did prefix that statement with "when it comes to energy" specifically to keep you from wasting a line on mentioning something like interplanetary travel =/ )
When I said "human scale" I meant, "within human capacity to change." Right now, we could (and have) overheat medium-sized lakes with our coal, nuclear, "hot" power plants. We overcool other bodies of water with the reservoirs of hydroelectric power plants. Chemically, we can take out small to medium-sized ecosystems, physically, we can chop down, drain, or otherwise displace bigger ones. But heat? Even if we dedicated the whole of human activity to (directly*) heating the oceans, we'd be completely incapable of making a dent.
This post makes the basic point rather vividly:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1376893&cid=29497453
5.6*10^24J is not the kind of energy humans, as a species, can hope to move from the land to the sea. And that's for 1 degree.
As it stands, our current means of cooling uses the atmosphere, in a less-efficient process. As the same post mentions, the atmosphere is less massive and has a much lower specific heat. If you're worried about screwing up the environment, using ocean-based cooling is exactly the kind of thing you'd be into, as it is more efficient, and is placed into a system that is very capable of dealing with it.
*Directly, as in the thermal result of combustion or electrical resistance (or giant orbital doom-mirrors), as, indirectly, chemically, it appears to be very much within our capacity (read: atmospheric hydrocarbons.)
This sounds a lot like the arguments about microwave radiation from radio towers and microwave ovens: it seems to overlook the massive amounts of energy arriving from the sun.
Every square inch of ocean (minus those under clouds at a given moment) is constantly absorbing radiation. The fact that there are even oceanic currents- huge, fast-moving masses of water, moving for thousands of miles, is a testament to the kind of energy the ocean deals with all the time. If there's ever a problem with humans overheating a patch of water, it's because they're not spreading the heat far enough, or placing it somewhere where currents can move it off. When it comes to energy, "human scale" and "planetary scale" are still quite different from one another.
I don't worry about it for cost reasons. It's more along the lines of, "they're mine, I'm taking them with me!"
By chance, I happened to buy a set of very "warm" CFs. Someone once compared the light coming from my room, to the light coming from my roommate's room, down the hall, "it's pretty obvious who's using the CF and who isn't, huh?"
To be fair, it wasn't a comparison between CF and incandescent- he thought mine was the incandescent!
My personal recommendation: try it out. Maybe read up on which bulbs produce the best light. A lot of parts of our bodies evolved for things we're currently not subjecting them to- it's not necessarily for the worse.
As someone in a rental situation... when I move in, I replace the existing bulbs with my own, when I move out, I put the old bulbs back and take my bulbs with me.
A player that spends more of their time in the present will regenerate chrono energy faster than one that spends it in the past. Combine that with strong traditional-RTS skills, and you force your opponent to try to make up for it in extremely efficient time travel decisions
In the developer blog, it is mentioned that one of the developers (the guy who came up with the idea) is really good with time travel, and the other (the lead programmer) is a strong traditional RTS player. While their skill types are very different, and they spend their time at different points on the timeline, they more-or-less come out even.
So, while it is a valid strategy to play from as far back in time as possible, it is also just as valid to stay close to the present, and make it tough for your opponent to keep up- especially with the advantage of faster chronoenergy regeneration that can be spent in large bursts.
I think you're basing that assessment on the words of a vocal minority.
The current long-term users are the ones that would have purchased a sequel 10 years ago, and have never stopped itching for one. They're the ones that have kept playing, and have become attached to it. They're the ones that get their friends to play- the ones that make sure copies are still sold, 10 years after the original release.
The ones that feel the sequel will be inferior to the original are usually people that have been jaded by inferior sequels in other games, though they are sometimes just in opposition to some or another new feature.
What confuses me, somewhat, is that the alternative to catering to the long-term users would be catering to the short-term users. The ones that buy the game, play for a month, then move on? I mean, yeah, from a raw $$$ perspective, they give you as much money, without having to support them as much- but they're also less likely, on an individual basis, to ever buy any other game you make. These are the people you cater to by making amazing box art with lots of bullets and reviewer quotes!
Blizzard has actually gone out of their way to support DotA and DotA-like mods in SC2. For example, hero units exist in the editor, even though they do not ever appear anywhere in the actual game.
As a sibling commenter has mentioned, Blizzard is actually in direct contact with the developer of DotA, and have made sure StarCraft 2's editor can do what it needs to do with DotA.
Think of it this way: the SC2 editor can do anything the WC3 editor can do- and a whole lot more.
You'll be robbing trains in the Wings of Liberty campaign- that's a bit like pirates, though perhaps a bit more like western outlaws. And the Protoss have ninjas- Ghosts and Dark Templar. There is also a healthy dose of robots for good measure.
Do you believe the majority of StarCraft players use LAN frequently? If so, why?
What makes you think you are in the majority? That most players will be upset enough to "punish" Blizzard? Blizzard is attempting to do with Battle.net what Valve has done with Steam, in terms of controlling their games. Is there a reason that the backlash will sink Blizzard in the way that it hasn't sunk Valve?
Blizzard is quite open about it being about keeping game matchups in their control, fighting piracy. I personally don't care, as the people affected are massively outnumbered by the people that are not.
Please stop spouting this stuff. Blizzard Entertainment was not directly affected by the merger of Vivendi Games and Activision in the forming of Activision Blizzard. Vivendi Games has owned Blizzard for most of a decade now, and decided to use the popular Blizzard name to make the resulting company look more attractive.
The merger did not result in a change in management within Blizzard Entertainment. What's more, Vivendi had majority control during the merger, so at worst, half of the management of the company that owns Blizzard has changed.
All of the major changes have been decided by the developers at Blizzard, without pressure from above. Yes, that includes splitting the game into three, removing LAN, and centering it around battle.net.
They intend to implement micro transactions- but they've specifically stated that they won't be game-altering ones. They'll be things like adding decals to units, changing your name color, or moving accounts between regions.
As much as it fails to support a cynical outlook, Blizzard has almost complete autonomy as a developer. The buyout, if you remember, was a merger of Vivendi's game division and Activision. The resulting company (a publisher) took Blizzard's name during the merger for brand recognition- it had nothing to do with Blizzard Entertainment (a studio) apart from a minority change in higher-ups.
I can't speak for the WoW changes, but splitting SC2 into three boxes was entirely a developer decision. There was too much that they wanted to do with the campaigns, but they still wanted to release it in a reasonable timeframe.
Slashdot Mirror
The argument was never discredited, only the application of the argument. We could fire all of our nukes into the sun, with no noticeable, not to mention ill, effects. It's the same argument, still being applied correctly.
Heavy or organic pollutants which radically alter metabolism, and heat, are two completely different things. One can kill a lot of stuff in small quantities, the other is pumped in by the sun, all the time, and is considered part of the status quo.
You can kill all of the bacteria in a pot of water by adding a couple drops of bleach, but you have to add a huge amount of energy to achieve the same effect.
(I worry that you barely read my post, because I did prefix that statement with "when it comes to energy" specifically to keep you from wasting a line on mentioning something like interplanetary travel =/ )
When I said "human scale" I meant, "within human capacity to change." Right now, we could (and have) overheat medium-sized lakes with our coal, nuclear, "hot" power plants. We overcool other bodies of water with the reservoirs of hydroelectric power plants. Chemically, we can take out small to medium-sized ecosystems, physically, we can chop down, drain, or otherwise displace bigger ones. But heat? Even if we dedicated the whole of human activity to (directly*) heating the oceans, we'd be completely incapable of making a dent.
This post makes the basic point rather vividly: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1376893&cid=29497453
5.6*10^24J is not the kind of energy humans, as a species, can hope to move from the land to the sea. And that's for 1 degree.
As it stands, our current means of cooling uses the atmosphere, in a less-efficient process. As the same post mentions, the atmosphere is less massive and has a much lower specific heat. If you're worried about screwing up the environment, using ocean-based cooling is exactly the kind of thing you'd be into, as it is more efficient, and is placed into a system that is very capable of dealing with it.
*Directly, as in the thermal result of combustion or electrical resistance (or giant orbital doom-mirrors), as, indirectly, chemically, it appears to be very much within our capacity (read: atmospheric hydrocarbons.)
This sounds a lot like the arguments about microwave radiation from radio towers and microwave ovens: it seems to overlook the massive amounts of energy arriving from the sun.
Every square inch of ocean (minus those under clouds at a given moment) is constantly absorbing radiation. The fact that there are even oceanic currents- huge, fast-moving masses of water, moving for thousands of miles, is a testament to the kind of energy the ocean deals with all the time. If there's ever a problem with humans overheating a patch of water, it's because they're not spreading the heat far enough, or placing it somewhere where currents can move it off. When it comes to energy, "human scale" and "planetary scale" are still quite different from one another.
Somewhat related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion
If deep, cold water is pumped up, you could actually achieve a local net cooling, if you wanted.
Neither. It's all in the microtransactions.
I don't worry about it for cost reasons. It's more along the lines of, "they're mine, I'm taking them with me!"
By chance, I happened to buy a set of very "warm" CFs. Someone once compared the light coming from my room, to the light coming from my roommate's room, down the hall, "it's pretty obvious who's using the CF and who isn't, huh?"
To be fair, it wasn't a comparison between CF and incandescent- he thought mine was the incandescent!
My personal recommendation: try it out. Maybe read up on which bulbs produce the best light. A lot of parts of our bodies evolved for things we're currently not subjecting them to- it's not necessarily for the worse.
As someone in a rental situation... when I move in, I replace the existing bulbs with my own, when I move out, I put the old bulbs back and take my bulbs with me.
A player that spends more of their time in the present will regenerate chrono energy faster than one that spends it in the past. Combine that with strong traditional-RTS skills, and you force your opponent to try to make up for it in extremely efficient time travel decisions
In the developer blog, it is mentioned that one of the developers (the guy who came up with the idea) is really good with time travel, and the other (the lead programmer) is a strong traditional RTS player. While their skill types are very different, and they spend their time at different points on the timeline, they more-or-less come out even.
So, while it is a valid strategy to play from as far back in time as possible, it is also just as valid to stay close to the present, and make it tough for your opponent to keep up- especially with the advantage of faster chronoenergy regeneration that can be spent in large bursts.
I think you're basing that assessment on the words of a vocal minority.
The current long-term users are the ones that would have purchased a sequel 10 years ago, and have never stopped itching for one. They're the ones that have kept playing, and have become attached to it. They're the ones that get their friends to play- the ones that make sure copies are still sold, 10 years after the original release.
The ones that feel the sequel will be inferior to the original are usually people that have been jaded by inferior sequels in other games, though they are sometimes just in opposition to some or another new feature.
What confuses me, somewhat, is that the alternative to catering to the long-term users would be catering to the short-term users. The ones that buy the game, play for a month, then move on? I mean, yeah, from a raw $$$ perspective, they give you as much money, without having to support them as much- but they're also less likely, on an individual basis, to ever buy any other game you make. These are the people you cater to by making amazing box art with lots of bullets and reviewer quotes!
Sorry to ignore your main point, but, a couple of links for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Pardo
-Note the bit where this guy was the leader of a major EverQuest guild.
The first line of a post is very important. It's not a good idea to load it with easily falsified information and logical fallacy.
Blizzard has actually gone out of their way to support DotA and DotA-like mods in SC2. For example, hero units exist in the editor, even though they do not ever appear anywhere in the actual game.
As a sibling commenter has mentioned, Blizzard is actually in direct contact with the developer of DotA, and have made sure StarCraft 2's editor can do what it needs to do with DotA.
Think of it this way: the SC2 editor can do anything the WC3 editor can do- and a whole lot more.
Can somebody explain to me again what I'm allowed to do when I fucking buy a game?
Strictly speaking, that's what the EULA and TOS are for.
They're making the same mistake Valve did when they started focusing on those survey responses.
They're focusing on the people that make up a small percentage of their overall user base, but which might make for longer term users.
I am not really seeing how serving your longer-term users is a mistake.
You will be able to change your account- the'll just charge you a fee for it.
You'll be robbing trains in the Wings of Liberty campaign- that's a bit like pirates, though perhaps a bit more like western outlaws. And the Protoss have ninjas- Ghosts and Dark Templar. There is also a healthy dose of robots for good measure.
Enlightenment [NSFW]:
http://www.wikiporno.org/wiki/Free_Porn_Directory
http://www.wikipornsite.com/Main_Page
What makes you think you are in the majority? That most players will be upset enough to "punish" Blizzard? Blizzard is attempting to do with Battle.net what Valve has done with Steam, in terms of controlling their games. Is there a reason that the backlash will sink Blizzard in the way that it hasn't sunk Valve?
Blizzard is quite open about it being about keeping game matchups in their control, fighting piracy. I personally don't care, as the people affected are massively outnumbered by the people that are not.
Please stop spouting this stuff. Blizzard Entertainment was not directly affected by the merger of Vivendi Games and Activision in the forming of Activision Blizzard. Vivendi Games has owned Blizzard for most of a decade now, and decided to use the popular Blizzard name to make the resulting company look more attractive.
The merger did not result in a change in management within Blizzard Entertainment. What's more, Vivendi had majority control during the merger, so at worst, half of the management of the company that owns Blizzard has changed.
All of the major changes have been decided by the developers at Blizzard, without pressure from above. Yes, that includes splitting the game into three, removing LAN, and centering it around battle.net.
They intend to implement micro transactions- but they've specifically stated that they won't be game-altering ones. They'll be things like adding decals to units, changing your name color, or moving accounts between regions.
What? Screenshots? Where?
Ah, so you've played both? What are they like?
They realized that a while ago, it just took them a while to realize that it was quite a big mess to implement.
You might want to use a different fruit in your example, as apples contain cyanide naturally.
I feel as if they've been digging themselves into a hole over the last few games.
They've fixed that for StarCraft 2. Unlimited unit selection, unlimited building selection, and a generally upgraded UI across the board.
I can't speak for the WoW changes, but splitting SC2 into three boxes was entirely a developer decision. There was too much that they wanted to do with the campaigns, but they still wanted to release it in a reasonable timeframe.