I just watched Drive last night, it had this tense feeling throughout the entire movie, I loved it.
This picture, well done :)
It just makes them bad fortune tellers.
(my mistake, I thought your comment was directed at another statement)
So, because they took a stance on something and were proven wrong over time, they aren't allowed to re-evaluate their position?
I don't get it...
Oh, don't mistake me, I didn't say I had a terrible time in FFXI, I find many games are what you make of them, regardless of their design flaws. At the time it was miles ahead of EQ. WoW was just miles ahead of FFXI when it came out.
I did a lot of Dynamis, I was very familiar with it, especially in the early days when they only had 4 Dynamis locations. Maybe things changed recently, but for the 2 years I was doing dynamis it didn't. Surprisingly, this is the first time I've heard of Dynamisbums, I remember it being Dynamis Cat Attack that had the relevant information.
Also, in EQ there were "planes" before the 'Planes of Power' expansion :)
FFXI was clunky and cumbersome, it had some good ideas but most of them were terribly executed. The only things done well in FFXI were the job system and the campaigns, and even then they both had some faults in terms of balance and other things. The crafting system was terrible. The economy was terrible. The HNM system was terrible. The linkshell system was mediocre at best. The LFG system was terrible. The idea of combining Japanese players and American players was an interesting one, but ended up terrible.
Dynamis was terrible. It had artificial time restraints, it was basically all trash pulls, the loot drops were sporadic, and it was just a poorly re-skinned city. It was nearly a 1 for 1 copy of the planes from EQ1, except EQ1 did it better.
FFXI was better than EQ1 in some ways, which is why I took to it so quickly and spent so much time on it, but when you compare it to WoW, it fell way short.
Again, I disagree with your logic.
Have a good day :)
Do you honestly think nothing is created in those countries because of copyright laws? Perhaps, there is something else present that is the cause of this.
I will concede that I incorrectly phrased my intent. I will concede that copyright laws can have some benefit by granting a short term copy monopoly to the creator. I think current copyright laws are overextending their bounds, and because of this we are all hurting for it.
I don't agree that if all copyright laws ceased to exist that innovation and creation would as well.
You are correct, Milton Friedman did support short term copyrights.
Shine the light upon yourself, you are doing the same thing. You are changing what you think 'rich' means. I think you have a very cynical viewpoint.
I think if you are age 25 (25+40=65) and you work towards it, you could have much more than a million dollars in your retirement account by age 65. Depending on how successful you are in your efforts, I'd imagine you can have much more than that in half the time.
In my example, I only identified a single source of additional income, a source of additional income most people could obtain, and that would build up $1 million over the period of 40 years.
I don't agree with you. Many economists don't agree with you. In fact, many economists agree that the exact opposite would occur and without copyrights the economy would flourish and it would benefit, not only the consumer, but also the creator.
When you get a chance, google Milton Friedman.
I'm pretty sure Blizzard has no issue with the game being called DotA 2. I've never heard anything to the contrary.
I promise you that you are incorrect. Let's see who's promise gets broken.
Blizzard doesn't even want Valve to change the name, that isn't what this legal battle is about.
They just don't want Valve to have exclusive rights to the term 'DotA'. They want to be able to use the term 'DotA' themselves and they want others to use the term 'DotA'.
From what I understand.
Blizzard is not trying to trademark the term 'DotA', they are trying to prevent the term 'DotA' from being trademarked. They do not want ANYONE to trademark it, they want it to stay free use.
Your definition of 'rich' is what is cynical. Rich means wealthy, anyone can learn to be wealthy, and over time becoming wealthy is an obtainable goal for most Americans.
If you put away $6k a year and gain 6% average interest yearly on it over 40 years it you will have saved a million. That's a little more than THOUSANDS. You can make an extra $6k a year with a part time job over the weekends.
Are you implying that this is not a worthwhile cause?
If so, I respectfully disagree.
I'm not sure I agree with your overly cynical approach to the topic, but if you are constantly using the money budgeted for your savings account in other places, you may need to review your budget. Perhaps, there are changes you can make to reduce expenses. Perhaps, there are alternate sources of income you can tap.
Milton Friedman would be proud.
Video game sounds great :)
Blu-Rays of the seasons past sound even better though...
I don't have any issues with not 'owning' digital content. I find content delivered digitally to be much more reliable, versatile and convenient over content delivered by physical means.
When Steam first came out, I used to feel that I needed a physical item as security. I felt that I needed to 'own' something physical or it just wasn't 'real'. I used to buy all my games via retail so I had a DVD. I used to backup all my games on to a DVD. Eventually, I just got over the need to control everything.
I've been a Steam user since inception, I've purchased around 125 Steam games and it is still my preferred method for content purchase.
My desk is right behind my couch, and in front of my couch is my TV. I can attest, sitting on the couch is better than sitting at the desk while playing console games.
