NBVegita

lol leave it to DOA to figure that out...

The only way selling something that is otherwise free is illegal is if you don't have the permission of the creator/owner of the rights to the game. If Priitk/BDE gave him their blessing, then there is nothing legally wrong with selling the game. I don't think you understand that the only reason why SS/cont is currently free is because BDE/Priitk made it that way. If they choose to at any time allow someone to sell it for profit or otherwise, it is their prerogative. Only in ideal do law and ethics match. It may not seem ethically correct for someone to try to make profit off of a free game, but if proper consent is given (see above) then it's perfectly legal. Not saying if it's right or wrong to do, just weighing in on some information. Edit: Just for the record, I agree that I don't think selling the game will help in any way and I would not want to see anyone paying for it. The only reason why I started playing it in the late 90's was because it was the best free game you could play.

Well it may be "stupidity" in your opinion, but that is exactly what it is, your opinion. Why not avoid driving because you've got a higher chance to die driving than walking? (Hey 37,000 people died last year from car accidents, that's more than the flu virus) As I stated above, this has PROVEN to be less severe than the normal flu, only speculation makes it "seem" worse. Until there are PROVEN signs that it will be more of a threat than the regular flu, then I'll take no more precautions than I currently take over the regular flu. Also the part of the equation that they're predicting is that the H1N1 is going to continue to evolve, so the flu shot you got now, if the virus evolves, will be useless. If 25-50 million people a year get the flu and only ~35,000 die...that means my chance of catching it is 8-17%, dying from it is .07-.14%, now apply that percentage to the percent that I'm going to catch it in the first place and my actual chance of dying from the flu is: .0056-.0224%. If not worrying about hundredths and thousandths of a chance I'm going to die from something makes me stupid, I'll take that any day. Edit to fix grammar

There a difference from wearing a helmet on a motorcycle where you are almost guaranteed death/serious injury should you have an accident and not getting an H1N1 shot because you may catch a flu that is so far less fetal than the regular flu. Also it's not a matter of people (young or not as you don't know how old most of us are) having that "It can't happen to me" mentality. First some of the people on here have already had it and had no adverse effects. Second, I don't get a regular flu shot which is much more deadly than the swine flu is and I have never once gotten the flu in my entire life, either that or I had it so mild I didn't know it was the flu. Second it's not so much of a "It's not going to happen to me", it's a "I'm not that concerned if it does happen to me". People are sensationalizing statistics so that this "epidemic" become a national crisis. Everyone is freaking out because of what they're trying to "predict" that this ever evolving virus "might" do/cause. This is the new global warming. I mean right now they're freaking out because people are getting sick out of the "normal flu season", well fucking duh. If you have a new strain of flu virus that is active outside of the window where the "normal" flu, then of course there will be more deaths and sickness now. Doesn't take a gd scientist to figure that one out. If/when this actually shows stages of being much more severe (beyond predictions) than the normal flu, it will garner more of my attention. Heck it's even hard to classify your age because for most everyone on these forums you fall in either the '5-24' range or '25-49' range. That's a huge range. I'd like to see the break down by actual ages because I bet the majority of your ss forum members are 16 < x < 35 and I bet that the majority of deaths in those groups are 5 < x < 16 and 35 < x < 49.

Another thing is that it's only killing people with pre-existing medical conditions. No I haven't gotten the shot. It is an extreme over exaggeration. No I don't plan on getting it. I may have already had it, was really sick for a week, worked from home, now I am fine. All of the doctors in my area aren't even testing for it anymore. Honestly for us to lose 2% of our population that would be 30 million people. That would make it nearly 9 times as deadly as the seasonal flu? If it were that deadly, you'd already have in the tens of thousands of deaths. Also if I'm not mistaken your "under 65" stat groups the age groups of 5-24 together, and realistically teenagers and children are high risk stats for the regular flu. So yes the age group 5-24 has the highest, but that would make sense even with a regular flu.

Yeah...I don't think I can list a top 10 really, so I'll just pop 10 off the top of my head that I've enjoyed recently: Nightwish - Wishmaster Incubus - Circles Yngwie Malmsteen - Riot in the Dungeons Sonata Arctica - Flag in the Ground Heavenly - Evil Stone Sour - Hell & Consequences Slipknot - Surfacing Mudvayne - Mercy Severity Lostprophets - Kobrakai Slipknot - Before I Forget I may be the only person on SS who cannot stand rap music.

Not for nothing but: Obama closing Gitmo: Yes he physically closed the facility and simply moved all of the prisoners to different facilities of the same security. Yes he denounced the "enhanced interrogation" but that is simply political grandstanding. Also simply closing Gitmo does nothing to effect our policies. It's one facility. Again why I say it's political grandstanding. You could just as efficiently "ended enhanced interrogation" buy simply changing out the staff of the facility, but by closing it, you end the bad correlation with the name, nothing more. Not to say it's right or wrong, but as long as there are humans and war there will be enhanced interrogation techniques. I'm sure Obama will make sure that if it's done, it's done much less publicly. Working towards non-proliferation: He hasn't changed his policies at all since the Bush administration on that one. I do believe even Sever was complaining about that noting that Obama is still pursuing sanctions against Iran over the issue. Not saying that's bad, but it's not an accomplishment. Pulling out of Iraq: It's great that he committed to pulling soldiers out of Iraq, but he's simply displacing them to Afghanistan. Again not saying that it's the wrong move, but he's just playing a slight of hand trick there. As for Obama visiting countries: Yes that's great to visit the countries, but many countries have come out publicly saying that although they appreciate the gesture of him coming to talk with them, that talk is cheap and they won't believe the "change" in the United States until they can see the actions being done and not talked about. Again great to keep open dialogue, but there is a world of difference between talk and resolution. So I would have to strongly disagree that it's blatantly clear, in fact I would say it's the opposite. The Nobel Prize, like anything else has been completely politicized. They may be giving it in support of what they hope Obama can achieve, but that IS NOT the spirit of the prize. For all we know Obama could be the most corrupt politician in the history of the U.S. or he could be the next coming of Jesus. Regardless of what he might be, you need to award him once you can discover what he will be. Again not to say that he eventually would not warrant the nomination or prize, but at this point it's pure political grandstanding. Oh and: Cough...BULLSHIT...Cough... First Democrat != Democracy. Second Republican != Republic. Third your political affiliation has nothing to do with the person you are or what you stand for. Fourth BULLSHIT! I thoroughly agree.

Agreed. I mean the deadline for nomination was January 31st, that gave him 11 days. Not to say that at some point he may not deserve to win the award, but at this point it's simply political grandstanding.

First, knowing that someone is controlling everyone and everything for a selfish gain would impede on my total peace and happiness. Second it is physically impossible to create a system in which everyone will be happy and peaceful. As stated in other posts, you may be happy driving a prius, mean while I want a viper. How does that system work? You may have a larger appetite than me, so you want more food to be happy, I don't, how does that work? Doing drugs may make you happy, just knowing that people are using them upsets me, what then? I mean honestly I could go on for literally days on that subject. It's nearly impossible to get a small control group of people, say 100, to be completely happy and at peace, let alone 7 billion people. Again as posted above, this is physically impossible. Great you don't have to work. Hey no one does, well someone, somewhere has to work to keep something running somewhere. And even if we invented AI, someone needs to have some control over things out of the realm of logic. Second, with no currency, as a stated above, you can't regulate resources. If everyone lived in 5000 sqft mansions and drove the most expensive cars to make and had their own private jets, ect. ect. you would simply run out of resources. Again I really could go on for days with this. First those are very dramatic perceptions. Look at what we have today vs even 500 years ago. The food you eat today, hell the fact that you can have a balanced meal of meat, vegetables, potatoes and the such, simply remarkable. The fact that every time you get a sniffle you don't have to worry if you might be killed because there really is no medical technology to speak of (by today's standards), is simply remarkable. The fact that you don't need to worry about being particularly skilled in a trade and you can still make a good living, simply remarkable. Going through your list: Increase technology: Well of course we're going to increase technology. Technology makes things more efficient. Since the invention of the earliest tools, we have constantly been striving for things to assist us to complete tasks we otherwise would not and to become more efficient. Get jobs: With out a job, be it flipping burgers at McDonalds or hunting for food, WE WOULD NOT SURVIVE. Plain and simple from the dawn of time until the end of time we will have jobs. Be it keeping your power on, or bringing water to your tribe, you will always have a job. Care more about money: Well first there has always been currency. It may not have been dollar bills and coins, but humans have been bartering since the beginning of time. Of course we always want more because on a primal level, the more you have, the longer you can survive. The same is true today. If I have $500,000 just sitting in a bank account and you have $50. If we both lose our jobs simultaneously, who is going to last longer? Same thing since the beginning of time, the more currency you have, the more you can accomplish and the "safer" you are. As for the part about caring about your currency more than fellow man, it depends on the man, and depends on the currency. Simply put, short of some immediate family, humans have that whole pesky survival instinct. Again if my primary concern is my and my wife and I need currency to assure our lives, then yes that currency means more to me than you do. Now when it comes to greed, again that is something ingrained in humans, notice how jealous you'd get if another guy slept with your girl/wife? Away from family: Where is it written that simply because you're tied to someone by blood, you must stay with them? Since the dawn of time, people have had circumstances that have allowed them to simply stay with there family, right through today. But as we evolved, we realized to attain prosperity (usually defined with an abundance of currency) you sometimes needed to venture to a new area, with our without your family. This has been going on for ages. Stress: We have always had stress over currency and economy. At least for a majority of people today, that stress is simply concerning a nest egg and convenience, not living or dying. If a farmers crop failed 200 years ago, it was likely he and his family would plain starve. If you go way back, when currency may simply have been food and water, your very survival was based on being able to get that currency. If anything I think most of our stress today is a manufactured stress concerning cur/eco, and nothing compared to the actual stress of generations past. Do what people tell you: There always have been and always will be someone governing you in some way. It's how we manage most everything. Even the earliest tribes had leaders and laws. Plain and simple. As there has always been, we all have degrees of freedom, but unfortunately, even in your famed Venus project, there will always be rules and authorities regulating you, usually based on the constructs of society at that time. Unhappy: That is a completely relative argument. Most people are unhappy today because they are consumed with self pity. If people are unhappy its because they've learned to be unhappy. Unfortunately that is a key of our society: Misery. When was the last time you turned on the news and it wasn't doom and gloom? When was the last time you read the entire news paper and actually felt genuinely happy when you were done? In fact, when was the last time you let yourself feel genuinely happy? I'll stop here because this could be its own topic. All of this is human nature. Even if you created this "Venus project", you could eliminate money as a currency but there will always be currency. For example, I have a viper. Well they can't produce them fast enough for you to have one. You have a boat, which at this time I cannot get either. Well I want a boat more than my viper and vice versa. We trade. Effectively we've created currency. Eventually that currency will gain weight, maybe having a plane is no big deal, but getting a hot tub is hard? I hadn't planned on elaborating this much, but I mean really this is like trying to create the Garden of Eden for 7 billion people and hoping against everything in human nature that not a single one of them will bite the apple.

The problem with that "future" is that it removes all humanity from humans. It reminds me of a bad sci-fi movie where everyone is brainwashed to feel peace and love, meanwhile there are a few people who are completely controlling everything for their selfish gain. Humans were never meant to live the way they're implying would be Utopian.

Lol. The Venus project is a joke. First their idea is more like the ideal of communism than socialism. No class system, no money, everyone has what their neighbor has. Second, the concept of having no government is ludicrous. In your perfect "Utopia" what are you going to do when someone kills another person? What are you going to do when your neighbor decides that he isn't happy having as much as you, so he takes what's yours? I mean I could go on for hours. I could literally keep going and going on this. I don't realistically understand how anyone can view this and think it's even remotely realistic. You would be attempting to remove all humanity from humans.

"The Arizona law, which took effect Jan. 1, punishes employers who knowingly hire individuals who don't have valid legal documents to work in the United States. Penalties include suspension or loss of business licenses. Because more companies are complying, illegal immigrants are finding it more difficult to find work, so they are going home. How can they pass a law like this?" asked Mexican representative Leticia Amparano-Gomez, who represents Nogales." Umm...whats wrong with that? If someone is an illegal immigrant I don't see why you shouldn't punish employer's who knowing hire them. The law is solid the only way they have a valid case to make is one concerning the difficulty/cost of a Mexican citizen getting a visa or citizenship. Hiring illegal immigrants doesn't help anyone, providing an easier pass for them to become legal immigrants does. This way they'll do the same jobs, but for more money, labor protection and pay their share of taxes. It's a win win situation.

Yeah...when ever you do it...make sure its not at 1pm during the weekday...yeah...

BTW ty sama...I had forgotten that they still haven't disabled my MSDN license from college lol. nothing like free software! I wonder how much longer I'm going to have it...I haven't taken a college course in over 5 years...

The 2v2 league was attempted with Snoo and Luco I believe. As for 2v2, a weaker team has utterly no chance at beating a better team to 15 kills. If a weaker team plays smart in rumble, basically going after just the teams at the same level of themselves they might even have a chance to win if they only need to get 4 kills where as the better teams needs 8. Also as stated before, the problem with 2v2 is that people get bored. If you have 3 teams who all want to play, they can play a rumble. It might not be a "magnificent" rumble, but at least all 6 players play. Instead you've got to sit and wait for the 2v2 to end and assuming you have any combination of decent teams it can last quite a bit of time. I also think why they want to try RRL is that it is the token even of the 17th. 2v2 is more of an afterthought event. I also feel that if you can get any decent turnout for the RRL, the entertainment of a good rumble match beats the entertainment of a 2v2 match any day.

But Sever I would inversely say that you don't have to believe that god exists "certainly" to be religious. I feel religion is a lot like many beliefs, you may identify yourself by a religion simply because you are more inclined to believe in God than to disbelieve. That doesn't mean that if you went to everyone who is associated with a religion that they beyond a doubt believe God is real. In fact I believe it's very difficult for anyone to have a belief containing no doubt. I will still categorize both Agnosticism and Atheism, personally, as religions because they are both concerning beliefs in the existence, or lack there of, of God, which is how I define religion.

I agree with that to some level. The problem I think the post is taking is that with boys/men today there never seems to be an occasion that jumps out of the "informal". My all means its fun to have informal dates, I mean a lot of dating is being able to spend informal time with someone, but there should be formal time too, like a nice dinner ect.

lol as I said, it depends on the date lol But I agree that everyone should know how to tie a tie. But part of the problem is the parents, you can't expect a kid to learn how to tie a tie if his parents never make him wear one. People really dress like slobs today. Last time I was in NYC I took my date to a the Petrossian at 58th and 7th, suit coat and tie recommended. While we were there this group of people came in wearing torn up jeans and ratty looking clothes. They were loud, obnoxious and rude, heck while the waiter was trying to take one of the woman's orders, she answered her phone! She didn't even say excuse me, just stopped ordering in mid sentence and carried on a 5 minute conversation!!! We caught a show on Broadway and the only people who were even dressed out of shorts and T-shirts were 15+ years older than us. /rant Basically I think that our society has a serious problem with not just the way they dress but etiquette also. I don't understand why people have such a problem dressing up. I understand not enjoying a tie as they can be uncomfortable around your neck, but I'll tell you there is nothing wrong with a good pair of slacks, casual dress shoes, a nice blazer with the top button of your shirt undone, assuming it all fits you. Obviously I'm not saying that should be the way to dress everywhere, I mean if you're going out to get food a Burger King obviously not but it doesn't hurt to look like you actually take care of yourself every now and then.

If I recall they tried a 2v2 league after the "downfall" of population and it only lasted a few weeks. Rumble is better because not only does everyone get to play at once, but being you're actually 2v2v2v2v2v2...instead of 2v2 it can help even the gap between mediocre and good teams. I would say stick with RRL, just not 2 teams per squad. Also what times are you planning to host these? Because depending when you're looking to do it I might put together a team for it.

Replace it with Vodka and I'm on board... <3 Vers.

lol how so?

I guess it depends on how old you are and where you're taking her for a date. If you're 16 taking her to dinner and a movie, probably not a good idea to wear a tie. Now if you're 25 taking her to a Broadway play and a 5* dinner, then I would recommend one. As for dressing formal, I don't see why people are so against it. Just a tip for all the youngins out there, right now girls think its cool to dress like a slob, but as you get older, girls want you to dress nicer. Hell its much easier to pick up a chick just about anywhere in a nice pair of jeans or slacks with a button up, even buttoned loosely (mind you it has to actually fit and not be 4 sizes too big) than it is in some baggy ol' sweats. oh and bathing helps too

I have to agree with Sever, Delic and Sama. First the point of not allowing one squad to field multiple teams is so that you actually have more "individual" squads in the league. For example say Luster signs up with Seraphim, but Sed isn't in Lusters starting lineup for RRL. Sed can create and actually compete against his squad for the league. Also it stinks if you're "team 2" of a squad and you almost win, but team 1 does win, because then you basically played your ass off for nothing. To go along with this, the more talent you have stacked on a squad or two, the less fun RRL becomes. For example say you had Aera, Seraphim and Epion all fielding two teams. Officially they will only be able to take 1, 2 and 3rd places, but because of their talent, with two teams, there would be such a gap between 3 and 4 it wouldn't be funny. At least if you limit roster size to 4, they may create other squads/join other squads for the league to balance it out. It should be set at a max of 4-5 people per squad, no multi-squadding and then you don't have the headache of having one squad put up two teams. Because I know just as well as you that even if it isn't true, any squad that does well with two teams in it will be immediately accused of cheating, even though you could do it with two squads also. But on the inverse if you know you're team 2 and you have no chance of beating team 1, none of your stats count anyway, so why be concerned, heck you could even make yourself fodder for the rest of your team to pad stats. Also inco you don't need your 4 players to be present to participate in the league, you just need 4 players signed up. This at least creates the illusions that you can at any given match possibly have 4 separate players eligible instead of just hoping your only 2 guys show up. Just my 2 cents.

I don't personally feel we will ever get THAT bad. Things are becoming more and more invasive and I think, or maybe I hope, that if things got bad enough, people would revolt.