Arguably, the mistakes RIM made with Blackberry go back about 7 years or so. When they didn't react smartly to the advent of the iPhone and Android devices, they started hammering the nails into their own coffin.

I sincerely hope that this was as I read it...as a "Men In Tights" reference :D

There are no semi-automatic-only M16 rifles. Since the M16 is very specifically the military variant of the AR-15 platform, it *always* has the capability to be both semi-automatic and "burst". M16 & M16A1 are semi- and fully-automatic. The M16A2 and subsequent variants are semi- and 3-round-burst capable. The M4 series is simply the shortened version of the M16, from 20" to 16" barrels with various other minor modifications (mostly superficial). Hence, when you go to purchase a rifle from ArmaLite, you will buy an AR-15, or from BushMaster it may be the AR-16, etc., ad nauseum.

Of the thousands of variations of AK47-based rifles, there are no super-anal-retentive definitions of which I am aware. I've seen them have semi-automatic fire, or 2-, 3-, 4-round-burst fire, as well as fully-automatic fire while still being classified as AK47-based firearms. If you'd qualified your statement without saying "M16s" at all, I'd probably not have even commented in the first place.

Cheers.

No matter what our clocks say, we're still in the same point of existence as the rest of the planet. Time zones are an obsolete function, as is daylight savings time. As it is, we already use one reference and add or subtract hours based on geographic location...let's just cut out the middle man.

The world should run on a single 24 hour clock, for example the type which every GPS uses, and therefore what a vast amount of timekeeping systems already reference -- an "atomic clock" even gets its reference/steering via GPS timing.

So 0200 might be sunrise in America and sunset in Asia...who cares? The next time you have a flight, a long trip, an international teleconference, or some other multi-location coordination, you'll be quite thankful that everyone is using the same time standard.

I'm in the same boat. Took to D1 via a friend who got it shortly after release..then D2 and LOD were frickin' awesome, despite the horrid b.net servers at launch (and for a good period afterward). D3 I played for a while, didn't end up making my money back, but I just got bored to hell with the game. It's pretty much when I knew Blizzard had lost their touch -- they were unstoppable in the previous decade, so it was like seeing a titan fall. After all, SC+BW, D2+LoD, and WC3+TFT and even WoW were all amazing titles which still have loyal followings...why would anyone think Blizzard would suddenly change directions?

Considering Blizzard has been lackluster (at best) during the late 2000's and early 2010's, I have no reason to trust they'll put out a product which I consider valuable for the money spent. Until both the game reviewers and my trusted friends/associates give me the nitty-gritty, I will not purchase any more of their wares.

Actually, you could (at one point, at least) effectively increase the difficulty level in Single Player by starting a local/nullmodem multiplayer game, then backing out of it and going into single player instead. It wasn't quirky, and it didn't *TELL* you that you were in a higher difficulty...but as soon as you fought the first monsters you knew it wasn't normal anymore.

And the "Hellfire" expansion (released by Sierra) also added those difficulties, as well as the ability to walk really fast in town. It was nice to finally be able to get through town without waiting ages :)

I like how you've worded your response. I am going to use/paraphrase this, when the necessity arises.

"In a perfect world..." as determined by you, an imperfect entity. I'm sure you're perfectly capable of educating me as to how I'm an abhorrent and irresponsible person because I own a variety of firearms which you deem "unnecessary".

Who are you to decide what, how, and how many firearms people are allowed to own? From where do your statistics and/or reasoning derive? Do you realize that there are semiautomatic, rifled, "high capacity" shotguns as well? Would you limit them only to pump-action, lever-action, breech loading or otherwise? What would the capacity be for a magazine?

Please, define some limitations without tossing around arbitrary figures. Is a firearm with more than X rounds more capable of killing than one with Y fewer rounds? Once the magazine is expended, couldn't you simply reload? Does the size or caliber of the weapon itself define its lethality? Is a .22LR not as capable of killing as a .50BMG?

My point is that the arguments you're providing are all moot. You would place restrictions on the very freedoms which Americans enjoy, at what cost? What would your restrictions effectively accomplish? They would not reduce crime. They would not reduce negligence. This would merely limit the capabilities of what your average person is able to enjoy and own in a legal manner.

It is not about necessity. You don't need a car, a phone, or the internet, yet you use those -- I'm giving the benefit of the doubt in assuming you do this without harming anyone else in the process. Those are not constitutionally protected liberties; notice that I did not say constitutionally granted liberties. Firearms are, and for damned good reasons. If you choose not to exercise them to any extent, then that is your prerogative.

I fail to see how smoking pot would endanger society...or anyone for that matter. Excluding the drug trade in itself, only considering the actual usage of said drugs, there is zero harm to anyone except potentially the user (you know, if they light themselves on fire). I understand this was just an example, but a more suitable example would have made more sense. Real sense, not federal law enforcement sense.

Agreed about the gist of it though. It's a sort of "see no evil" thing in many areas.

...as compared to US Government workers, they're getting TRIPLE the productivity!

Less than 4% of the people who purchased Modern Warfare 3, for example, purchased the PC version. About 96% went between Xbox and PS3. I think it is a fair estimate that "CoD Kids" in general are playing it on consoles. Every annual CoD release is the same story.

There are plenty of older gamers; I believe the average estimated age is 35 years. Those are adults, not kids. Kids are dependent on their parents for most of their purchases...parents are often ignorant of such things and would rather spend $400 on a console which might last 5-10 years than $1000 on a PC which may need upgrading in 3-4.

If citing factual data is elitist, then I'll just stay on my high horse. At least I have a reason to be up here, unlike your ignorant pandering. Stereotyped kid will not care that he can't play his game with lack of internet...he will care that he can't play his game with others as multiplayer is designed. Your point? Moot.

...only informed, conscious gamers will be dissuaded by this type of asshattery. CoD kids using their mom's credit card at the local GameStop will continue to purchase the regurgitated crap they've been playing for years.

The pool of gamers (and people in general) who actually give a shit is dwindling rapidly.

Minor corrections: The Aurora theater shooting had the assailant use both a shotgun and an AR-15 rifle, though neither was an "assault rifle". That much is definitely confirmed.
Also, the facts coming from the Newtown massacre are wildly inconsistent. It is agreed that there was a shotgun recovered from the trunk of the assailant's car, but he was carrying two pistols and an AR-15. Whether he opened fire with the pistol(s) or the rifle really is a moot point -- the victims are still dead and the town is still shaken. I doubt we'll get a clear answer from the media, even though I'm 100% positive the coroner and forensic scientists know exactly what kinds of ammunition (and therefore weapons) were used.

"Assault Weapon" isn't even a term which was a buzz word; it was not used within or in reference to the firearms community/industry until the AWB of the early 90's. We know that bayonet lugs, adjustable stocks, pistol grips and extended magazines have nothing to do with effecting the lethality of a firearm. Furthermore, the crusade against these so-called "assault weapons" has been largely proven to be in vain; less than 3% of murders are committed with a rifle, and there have been zero cases of a legally-owned, Class III automatic weapon used for criminal purposes. All of the diatribes from DiFi, Bloomberg, and Obama, etc. are not really directed at challenging gun violence anyway. They're platitudes used in an attempt to sway the mindset of the public toward giving up their freedoms, rather than honestly addressing the source of the problem(s)...but you probably already understand this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POM_Wonderful_Presents:_The_Greatest_Movie_Ever_Sold

Excellent mockumentary, btw. In the spirit of "Super Size Me", if you're already familiar with Spurlock's work.

I also find the American gun debate to be frustrating. There are people who are too extreme on both sides of the argument, but I would rather err on the side of freedoms than to irrevocably and futilely remove them.

Outlawing guns will not reduce the supply of guns already available on the black market; likely it will merely increase them. Between the people who would not give up their unregistered weapons and future theft of any weapons which do remain legal, the pool will not suddenly dry up. Add to the mix smuggling and illegal production of new firearms and you're easily going to outpace law enforcement's capabilities to retrieve and destroy them.

The reason there can be no effective legislation via "Assault Weapons Ban" type of restrictions is that they're completely arbitrary and have already been proven to be completely ineffective. Automatic Weapons have been heavily restricted since 1934, only gaining further restrictions since -- and not one case of a legally-owned Class III firearm being used for violence has been found. What difference does a magazine capacity make, whether it is 5, 7, 10, 30, or 100+ rounds? What difference does an adjustable or collapsible butt stock make? How about a bayonet lug; I haven't seen too many bayonet-mounted-on-rifle stories in the news. The arguments are old, stale and moot.
If there was legislation that was drafted which actually made sense, rather than the usual Diane FeinStein or Bloomberg type of BS, pro-gun advocates like myself might actually consider it...but none of the ideas being brought forth have any merit. They're simply not worth considering because rather than addressing any issues of violence, or crime, or motives of criminals who perpetrate these types of heinous incidents, they attempt to restrict the freedoms guaranteed to us by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. The pro-gun mantra "gun control is not about guns, it is about control" is too true to be ignored.

...shall not be infringed is a statement for which too many legislators have no real respect.