@BrutalPandaX2 @Thunderstarter @Saketume Open your brain, your ignorance is showing. To run and play on a minecraft server you need not only a good gaming rig but you also need a good connection. Many of the people who live in rural areas don't have access to very high speed connections. Many may have DSL but they don't have access to the cable speeds that many of you take for granted. If you create a server on those speeds anyone who joins is going to be plagued by horrible ping.
However, saying that, while I think the service is valuable I think the price is a little steep.
Indeed, the governor was quick to say he was uneasy about the thing from the get go, he's just there to protect the taxpayer's money, and the decision to take legal action was a very serious one.
As a politician he's very cunning at covering his hide while shifting the blame completely away from him.
Capitalism is good, if it were capitalism either the investors wouldn't have invested the money on a game they doubted, or they would have invested and they would have lost their personal money. Crony capitalism is what we're dealing with.
The problem is that the government has such power to hand out your money to these businesses. Although he probably got it because of his celebrity status. If a politician makes a dumb move everyone loses, if an investor makes a dumb move, then he loses on a risk he chose for himself.
He produced a good game, he just didn't do it efficiently. I don't think he is really the core one at fault.. The problem lies with the states public-private partnership in which they can give special deals or loans to a business. They're suing him for negligence and a list of other things. But I believe that the governor and many of the others in government are just as responsible for being negligent with the taxpayer's money just because they were starstruck or what-not.
It's not just the state's that are guilty of this, it's the federal government mainly. It seems morally reprehensible that the government can force you to give them your money, for your own good, and then gamble it on a terrible bet. .
@YYankee You don't play in matches or rounds. It is a constant battle that never ends. There are 3 continents, each with around a 2000 player cap. Split between 3 factions. Population varies depending on the peak/dead hours in the respective time zones.
If we do this then not only should we have video game police, but we should have police at places like movie theaters to arrest people selling tickets to R-rated movies for underage kids. We also might as well make it illegal for the parents to circumvent any of these measures. We should make it illegal to show anything violent or sexual on TV until after midnight. The US military should be barred from showing recruitment ads on TV or any place where kids might be subject to their violent suggestions. Family farms should be outlawed as it desensitizes kids to killing in the form of slaughtering animals. Police should not be allowed to visibly carry firearms as this suggests that we live in a culture of violence.
We just need a few more laws and we'll live in a utopia! Tell your congressman.
@Quandry Gun violence has dropped significantly in the past 20 years, as has school violence. It has dropped despite the liberalization of gun laws across the nation and even more guns being available. Mass shootings are not increasing, in fact the data is so erratic that mass shootings supposedly peaked in 1929.
People often point to a country like the UK as an example of good gun laws. However the UK is one of the most violent countries, there were 1600 violent crimes per 100K people in the UK, in the US there were about 450 per 100K.
Too many times emotions and assumptions get caught up in these debates. What we need to look at are the facts.
If you want to address the issue of gun violence in the US, then you need to end the drug war as that is responsible for the majority of violent crime and gun crime. Not trivial things like an "Assault Weapons Ban" that even the DoJ says would have a tiny effect, perhaps too small to even measure.
@buccomatic You can buy the microtransaction currency with gold, so the jokes on you. If you put time in it's no problem to never buy "Gems" with real money. On the other hand if you don't put much time in and have money, then you can buy Gems. The model is great and much better than a 15$/month fee. The only reason you could complain about it is ignorance of how it works.
@colt_a By law, a company has a "duty" to protect the data of it's consumers, within reason. Just because they were able to be hacked doesn't mean they will be found guilty of negligence. They are not required by law to have impenetrable network security. Hell, if you look at most businesses (IE. Apple), many people have pointed out vulnerabilities in their security. But from a business standpoint, sometimes it's hard to justify the cost without seeing a real threat, especially with investors breathing down your neck. Maybe they had to take the network down similar to what they're doing now. And from a business standpoint, that's a lot of lost money and angry consumers. Sure it's not good having bad security, but from an investors standpoint, no ones was trying so diligently to hack it (with such sophistication) at the time so why loose money and piss off consumers? It's like if some airport wanted increased security before 9/11. People would have been angry, and asking why they were subjected to this. But after 9/11 people were understanding about why they were subjected to such inconvenience. And that example goes for not only the consumers, but the investors as well. I doubt any other company would have made decisions much different than Sony's had they been in their situation. That's just the reality of our corporate economic system. Though if some don't like that then perhaps they should design their own global economic system.
Venge-VS's comments