My name is very rarely in use by another, which just added to the annoyance in this case. I'm sure if I had been allowed to choose the server I transferred to I could have found one where the name was not already in use, but they decided to prevent that option, and so I decided to stop doing business with them.
1) The RPG element of a MMORPG. A character's name is a key facet of any character, especially in a MMORPG where it's the only element a player has complete control over, all other factors being essentially chosen from a list provided by the devs.
2) More importantly, there's the social factor. People online know me by that name. As I said, I've used it for a decade now, and people looking for me in game look for that name.
Most other games doing server mergers have had a system in place where the oldest character kept the name, as long as that character was over a certain level to ensure that it wasn't just a place-holding alt. Another popular alternative is to allow players to check a server for naming conflicts before doing a transfer and to select a server where a conflict doesn't exist. SWTOR's forcing all transfers to go to a single server prevented this as an option, but they could have still done the first one.
Even when they do the right things, they do it the wrong way. I left as a result of the server consolidations My main, created on day 1 of the pre-release period, was stripped of its name because of a combination of a lack of choice of servers to move to, and no attempt to implement reasonable rules regarding character naming conflicts as a result of the merger. So because somebody's alt had the same name as my main, and my server was the one being merged into the other, I had to lose the name that I've used in every online game I've played for the past decade.
Up to that point I had been the main driving force in getting my friends to stay with the game. I quit that day and everyone I know that hadn't already left, did so soon after.
You'd have to ask a lawyer, but I believe there does have to be at least one or two legitimate plaintiffs in order to get things started. In the case of the Netflix suit, there are six "named" plaintiffs.
Good point. So, the attorneys in this suit are effectively removing the rights of everyone in the "class" to sue over this issue in exchange for absolutely nothing. Further, they emailed me the notice, but in order to opt out I need to send a letter to a post office box in Minnesota. This information is not listed on the page the email links to, rather I had to search a moderately lengthy FAQ to find it.
Valve is doing their customers a service by including this in the EULA.
Most class action suits are scams anyway. Just today I received notice of one that I'm included in being filed against Netflix for alleged privacy violations. The lawyers are seeking $9 million. I won't list the whole breakdown of the proposed settlement, but the lawyers are keeping $2.25 million (not including expenses), while the plaintiffs get a whopping $30,000 to split between however many thousand there end up being.
If Valve screws you over, you can still sue them as an individual, this just limits the ability of glorified ambulance chasers to make outrageous amounts of money in exchange for getting their supposed clients a settlement worth less than the cost of a good meal.
At the risk of getting modded down again: No, they are not. Pledges are a financial agreement between backers and project creators to exchange X amount of money for whatever reward was promised. Yes, you can back out prior to the ending of the Kickstarter Drive period. That's part of the agreement both parties enter into, but once that period is over that is no longer the case.
"Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill."
That's the agreement project creators enter into when they begin their Kickstarter campaign. That's in addition to the common legal protections people have in any agreement made with or without a contract.
You misunderstand the Kickstarter model. Pledges are NOT donations. The project has promised physical consoles in exchange for most of the pledges. If they do not deliver then they would be subject to all applicable fraud laws.
Of course, they could provide a console and then never support it, but that would make them no different than a lot of other gaming platforms over the years.
Can't speak to all of the points you made, but they do go into more detail about "free to play" in the FAQ. They mean that every game must include some free content. In practice that means you might get a completely free game, but it's far more likely you'll get a demo with unlockable content, or a "freemium" model game.
"Or you do it right, and let states decide what, when and how they should do it. Instead of faceless bureaucrats in washington."
Where does this delusion that the states are better at handling things than the federal government come from? The bureaucrats in my state capital are just as faceless as those in Washington, and are far more susceptible to corruption than federal employees because they're under far less scrutiny.
Any movie that focuses on non-combatants dealing with the results of war has the potential to be an exception to Truffaut's statement, but I think it's still true of just about any depiction of combat on the screen
The irony is that it doesn't take an idealized portrayal to increase recruitment. Full Metal Jacket may or may not be considered an "anti-war" film, but it's certainly not idealized. Yet, I've seen Marines cite it as an influence on their decision to join the Corps.
As François Truffaut said, "there is no such thing as an anti-war movie because it will invariably look exciting up on screen."
I used to play a lot of games on my Xbox 360, but when we got Netflix a few years ago it moved from my study to the living room and now my wife monopolizes it to watch Netflix, and I'm playing my games on the PC. A console can only be used for one thing at a time, and when you keep adding more things it can do, it ends up spending less time being used to play games.
The UN as a whole does not work the same way that the UN Security Council does. Veto power only works on decisions of the Security Council. Decisions of the ITU would not be subject to veto should they gain power over the internet.
They failed to found the Film Industry Association of America, which could have then lobbied Congress to either outlaw digital photography, or attach a special tax on all digital cameras that would be used to subsidize companies that provide traditional film cameras and supplies.
I wish I had some mod points, because this should be +5 Insightful! Locking the cabin doors would have prevented 9/11 and will prevent further 9/11s from happening should someone try again. The most anyone could do now given pre-9/11 security measures combined with a locked cabin door is to try to blow up the plane. That's a bad outcome, but an unlikely one, and one that's really no less likely with post-9/11 security measures.
I guess installing and using locks on the cabin doors was TOO simple a solution. It didn't spend enough money or generate enough visibility to let the politicians say that they were doing something.
That's not entirely true, Interpol is not supposed to get involved with any cases that are of a "political, military, religious or racial character." This was obviously of a religious character, and is why the agency is being taken to task.
One problem with the way things work now is that some companies use deceptive means to get "likes." For example, Duracell sponsors ads saying "Love Star Wars? Click 'like' here!," with "sponsored by Duracell" in small type at the bottom. I'm sure if someone clicks that they'll soon show up on their friends page in ads that imply that they are endorsing Duracell.
I'm not sure where the original quote is from, but I've seen variations of it before in reference to the US Army in Europe. My information is from a variety of sources that I've read over the years, both books and articles. On the superiority of the Soviet T-34, I can point to Robert J. Kershaw's War Without Garlands, which includes a quote from a German officer that "our tanks were able to defeat tanks that were quite superior in firepower and armour" due to each tank having a radio and a crewman to operate it, allowing for more coordinated tactics. The main deficiency of the T-34 being a small crew and lack of a radio in most tanks.
A similar quote that DOES refer to the Soviets is "quantity has a quality all its own."
Actually, the quote was about America. While the Soviets had lopsided tank kill ratios against the Germans, it was due to the quality of their organization and tactics, not their tanks. Their tanks were in many ways superior to the German tanks. In fact, the Panther and Tiger tanks of Germany were developed in response to Soviet T-34s and KVs (the Panther being in many ways a copy of the T-34).
American tanks were designed to be superior to the German tanks that began the war, but by the time they actually saw combat Germany was fielding tanks that were far superior in terms of armor and armament. This was a surprise to the tankers, but not to the production planners, who were well aware that the Germans were fielding heavier tanks, but they made a conscious decision to go with quantity over quality, as switching to heavier tank production would have led to manufacturing delays as factories were re-tooled. That in turn could have delayed the invasion of Europe, something that the US wanted to achieve at the earliest possible date.
"Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote 'because of the very nature of Twitter as an... online social media site, Juror 2's tweets about the trial were very much public discussions.'"
A discussion, by definition, requires the participation of more than one person. So, Justice Corbin is incorrect. The juror made a public statement, but did not engage in a public discussion. It may be mostly a matter of semantics, but in this case it's also the difference between something that could have changed the outcome of the verdict and something which obviously did not.
The juror behaved inappropriately, but not in such a way that could have influenced the outcome of a verdict, so the verdict should have been upheld.
Slashdot Mirror
My name is very rarely in use by another, which just added to the annoyance in this case. I'm sure if I had been allowed to choose the server I transferred to I could have found one where the name was not already in use, but they decided to prevent that option, and so I decided to stop doing business with them.
There's two reasons why this was important:
1) The RPG element of a MMORPG. A character's name is a key facet of any character, especially in a MMORPG where it's the only element a player has complete control over, all other factors being essentially chosen from a list provided by the devs.
2) More importantly, there's the social factor. People online know me by that name. As I said, I've used it for a decade now, and people looking for me in game look for that name.
Most other games doing server mergers have had a system in place where the oldest character kept the name, as long as that character was over a certain level to ensure that it wasn't just a place-holding alt. Another popular alternative is to allow players to check a server for naming conflicts before doing a transfer and to select a server where a conflict doesn't exist. SWTOR's forcing all transfers to go to a single server prevented this as an option, but they could have still done the first one.
Even when they do the right things, they do it the wrong way. I left as a result of the server consolidations My main, created on day 1 of the pre-release period, was stripped of its name because of a combination of a lack of choice of servers to move to, and no attempt to implement reasonable rules regarding character naming conflicts as a result of the merger. So because somebody's alt had the same name as my main, and my server was the one being merged into the other, I had to lose the name that I've used in every online game I've played for the past decade.
Up to that point I had been the main driving force in getting my friends to stay with the game. I quit that day and everyone I know that hadn't already left, did so soon after.
Emerich's stats are questionable to begin with, and even he has admitted that he used the term "disposable income" incorrectly. Source: http://www.tnr.com/article/82962/conservatives-economic-chart-fox-de-rugy
His response to the criticisms? His numbers come from free online paycheck calculators, and his conclusions are backed up by anecdote. Source: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/84160/disputations-welfare-emmerich-singal-de-rugy
You'd have to ask a lawyer, but I believe there does have to be at least one or two legitimate plaintiffs in order to get things started. In the case of the Netflix suit, there are six "named" plaintiffs.
Sadly, that's not how class action suits work. If you are part of a "class" then you are automatically represented unless you opt out.
Good point. So, the attorneys in this suit are effectively removing the rights of everyone in the "class" to sue over this issue in exchange for absolutely nothing. Further, they emailed me the notice, but in order to opt out I need to send a letter to a post office box in Minnesota. This information is not listed on the page the email links to, rather I had to search a moderately lengthy FAQ to find it.
Valve is doing their customers a service by including this in the EULA.
Most class action suits are scams anyway. Just today I received notice of one that I'm included in being filed against Netflix for alleged privacy violations. The lawyers are seeking $9 million. I won't list the whole breakdown of the proposed settlement, but the lawyers are keeping $2.25 million (not including expenses), while the plaintiffs get a whopping $30,000 to split between however many thousand there end up being.
If Valve screws you over, you can still sue them as an individual, this just limits the ability of glorified ambulance chasers to make outrageous amounts of money in exchange for getting their supposed clients a settlement worth less than the cost of a good meal.
At the risk of getting modded down again: No, they are not. Pledges are a financial agreement between backers and project creators to exchange X amount of money for whatever reward was promised. Yes, you can back out prior to the ending of the Kickstarter Drive period. That's part of the agreement both parties enter into, but once that period is over that is no longer the case.
From the Terms of Use at http://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use:
"Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill."
That's the agreement project creators enter into when they begin their Kickstarter campaign. That's in addition to the common legal protections people have in any agreement made with or without a contract.
You misunderstand the Kickstarter model. Pledges are NOT donations. The project has promised physical consoles in exchange for most of the pledges. If they do not deliver then they would be subject to all applicable fraud laws.
Of course, they could provide a console and then never support it, but that would make them no different than a lot of other gaming platforms over the years.
Can't speak to all of the points you made, but they do go into more detail about "free to play" in the FAQ. They mean that every game must include some free content. In practice that means you might get a completely free game, but it's far more likely you'll get a demo with unlockable content, or a "freemium" model game.
"Or you do it right, and let states decide what, when and how they should do it. Instead of faceless bureaucrats in washington."
Where does this delusion that the states are better at handling things than the federal government come from? The bureaucrats in my state capital are just as faceless as those in Washington, and are far more susceptible to corruption than federal employees because they're under far less scrutiny.
Any movie that focuses on non-combatants dealing with the results of war has the potential to be an exception to Truffaut's statement, but I think it's still true of just about any depiction of combat on the screen
The irony is that it doesn't take an idealized portrayal to increase recruitment. Full Metal Jacket may or may not be considered an "anti-war" film, but it's certainly not idealized. Yet, I've seen Marines cite it as an influence on their decision to join the Corps.
As François Truffaut said, "there is no such thing as an anti-war movie because it will invariably look exciting up on screen."
I used to play a lot of games on my Xbox 360, but when we got Netflix a few years ago it moved from my study to the living room and now my wife monopolizes it to watch Netflix, and I'm playing my games on the PC. A console can only be used for one thing at a time, and when you keep adding more things it can do, it ends up spending less time being used to play games.
The UN as a whole does not work the same way that the UN Security Council does. Veto power only works on decisions of the Security Council. Decisions of the ITU would not be subject to veto should they gain power over the internet.
They failed to found the Film Industry Association of America, which could have then lobbied Congress to either outlaw digital photography, or attach a special tax on all digital cameras that would be used to subsidize companies that provide traditional film cameras and supplies.
I wish I had some mod points, because this should be +5 Insightful! Locking the cabin doors would have prevented 9/11 and will prevent further 9/11s from happening should someone try again. The most anyone could do now given pre-9/11 security measures combined with a locked cabin door is to try to blow up the plane. That's a bad outcome, but an unlikely one, and one that's really no less likely with post-9/11 security measures.
I guess installing and using locks on the cabin doors was TOO simple a solution. It didn't spend enough money or generate enough visibility to let the politicians say that they were doing something.
That's not entirely true, Interpol is not supposed to get involved with any cases that are of a "political, military, religious or racial character." This was obviously of a religious character, and is why the agency is being taken to task.
One problem with the way things work now is that some companies use deceptive means to get "likes." For example, Duracell sponsors ads saying "Love Star Wars? Click 'like' here!," with "sponsored by Duracell" in small type at the bottom. I'm sure if someone clicks that they'll soon show up on their friends page in ads that imply that they are endorsing Duracell.
I'm not sure where the original quote is from, but I've seen variations of it before in reference to the US Army in Europe. My information is from a variety of sources that I've read over the years, both books and articles. On the superiority of the Soviet T-34, I can point to Robert J. Kershaw's War Without Garlands, which includes a quote from a German officer that "our tanks were able to defeat tanks that were quite superior in firepower and armour" due to each tank having a radio and a crewman to operate it, allowing for more coordinated tactics. The main deficiency of the T-34 being a small crew and lack of a radio in most tanks.
A similar quote that DOES refer to the Soviets is "quantity has a quality all its own."
Actually, the quote was about America. While the Soviets had lopsided tank kill ratios against the Germans, it was due to the quality of their organization and tactics, not their tanks. Their tanks were in many ways superior to the German tanks. In fact, the Panther and Tiger tanks of Germany were developed in response to Soviet T-34s and KVs (the Panther being in many ways a copy of the T-34).
American tanks were designed to be superior to the German tanks that began the war, but by the time they actually saw combat Germany was fielding tanks that were far superior in terms of armor and armament. This was a surprise to the tankers, but not to the production planners, who were well aware that the Germans were fielding heavier tanks, but they made a conscious decision to go with quantity over quality, as switching to heavier tank production would have led to manufacturing delays as factories were re-tooled. That in turn could have delayed the invasion of Europe, something that the US wanted to achieve at the earliest possible date.
"Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote 'because of the very nature of Twitter as an... online social media site, Juror 2's tweets about the trial were very much public discussions.'"
A discussion, by definition, requires the participation of more than one person. So, Justice Corbin is incorrect. The juror made a public statement, but did not engage in a public discussion. It may be mostly a matter of semantics, but in this case it's also the difference between something that could have changed the outcome of the verdict and something which obviously did not.
The juror behaved inappropriately, but not in such a way that could have influenced the outcome of a verdict, so the verdict should have been upheld.
That's like saying that the thief wouldn't rob you if you simply gave them all your stuff to begin with!