and whenever they've added any sort of setting, the default was quite restrictive.

Well good enough for me then, right? Nothing bad has happened so far, so nothing ever well.

The woman's word didn't convict them. It amounted to reasonable suspicion to pull a vehicle over, that's it. Your ignoring a big chain of events.

It could have been a female Federal agent wanting to create a parallel construction of evidence.

Its conceivable. Do you have any evidence for this beyond a mere statement of the possibility that it might be the case?

An anonymous call, by itself, warrants just the smallest of investigations -- in this case, the law enforcement official followed the vehicle and did not see any evidence of wrong doing. That should have been the end of it.

Because pulling the driver over and asking if he was drunk is an "exceptionally deep investigation"?

The woman apparently did not want to press charges

Press charges for WHAT?

or even testify since it is assumed she refused to give her name.

Not wanting to get involved is pretty normal. If I saw a drunk I wouldn't want to get dragged into court, have my character, recollections, and life torn apart by cross examination, my time wasted etc. And if the police catch up to him because of my tip, and notice he's drunk then they can take care of him without my help.

I suspect in this case, however, you'd need to have the caller identified since if the run-off-the-road case was taken to trial, the defendant has a right to cross-examine witnesses.

Only if he was charged with running the other driver off the road. If he's to be charged with drunk driving, the fact that he's impaired when pulled over is more than sufficient.

I do think they overstepped what was appropriate for the situation.

Pulling him over to see if he's drunk is inappropriate after a report he was driving badly. FWIW Drunk drivers rarely drive erratically. Their reactions and awareness is impaired; so unless something unexpected happens they'll probably appear to be driving just fine.

Now it's starting to sound like Warcraft II and Beyond the Dark Portal, or StarCraft and Brood War, or DDRMAX and its mission pack sequels (DDRMAX2, Extreme, Extreme II, and SuperNOVA).

It would be approaching that. But again I think the difference is that the game is aware of and pushing the expansions from within the game immediately after *buying* the game.

So where Doom can be forgiven for having the Shores of Hell and Inferno greyed out because you didn't pay anything for it -- imagine you just bought Star Craft but the Broodwar campaigns are showing there, but greyed out with a $ next to them. Except that's not it either because at least starcraft was a complete game with 3 campaigns and multiplayer... its more like buying star craft, and finding the protoss and zerg campaigns are greyed out with $ next to them, and only one multiplayer map with the rest all showing that $.

Did a quick check: There are several games on GOG with DLC.

Yeah, but too be fair, I think that's a fairly recent feature for GoG.

I know "AI: War" also uses (used?) a serial key to differentiate between the demo and full version, which was another sticking point with GoG. (Although they allow multiplayer keys for NWN etc... so there's that...)

By this point though, I don't think Arcen is ~that~ concerned. By far the majority of the revenue is from steam. They wrote that steam is 91% of the income, 3% was direct sales, and 5.9% is gamersgate and impulse. Leaving 0.1% for 'others'

http://christophermpark.blogsp...

That's a while back and still predates bionic dues being released, etc but at the time GoG and other distributors amounted to less than a 10th of a percent. (Although he candidly admits both that at the time of that writing gog was a very new distributor for them, and that gog didn't have ai war -- which is far and away their most popular game so the low numbers are entirely expected.)

Still, it suggests that its not really worth arcen's time to jump through any major hoops or obstacles to put ai-war on gog.

How is this different than what I do now? I order parts on speculation and sometimes I'm right. THis is not a problem. It cuts the turnaround time and keeps old parts in inventory.

I dropped track on Bundy when he went all Robert Byrd, sorry.

The hell. You say.

I dunno. Speed would not be high on my list of priorities. My dishwasher takes over 2 hours to wash the load, and that's acceptable. The reliability — which you mention second — is much more important in my opinion.

And then comes the standardization of the data-files and of the raw materials.

I would not mind paying a designer of a printable widget for his work — so a DRM of some kind would be alright, even if irritating. Because I'd still be able to have the piece in a couple of hours after buying it, instead of waiting at least a day for the (expensive) overnight shipping.

if (!steam_is_available) panic();

If the game relies on steamworks cloud saves etc and doesn't gracefully run without them that's not DRM any more than this is:

if (!sound_card_is_available) panic();

Its lazy at worst, but its not DRM.

What Bundy did, using someone's property without permission..

Property that you just said is owned by its current owner because nobody else wants it and that the current owner couldn't give away?

Maybe the government should have just said, "Wait, what, you want this land? Great! its your land now. We've forwarded you title, and you can start paying property taxes on it."

If you're going to argue that the DARPA protocols informing the Internet are some kind of anti-capitalist triumph, fine. Keep in mind that you also just bought the Military-Industrial Complex and all of the wars the U.S. has fought. So ya got a lot of artillery and missiles goin' for ya.

Only if we continue to H8 the capitalism that drives real improvement, in favor of some nebulous "change" that seems to involve a lot of un-repayable debt.

As with "A Pimple's History of the United States" by Zinn, I'll get a used copy. Wouldn't want to support this tripe with a full-price purchase. The reverse psychology play of "sticking the capital to the Socialist" is better enjoyed in theory.

So go to your preferences and turn it off. Or uncheck the 'also share on Google+' checkbox when posting.

And relearn how to do that every time google changes anything. Possilby needing to learn new permissions models and settings and interfaces on Google's unpredictable schedule.

Take a look at Facebook's permissions settings history for an example.

Seriosly, This isn't hard.

It's harder than it needs to be.

Separate the accounts entirely that aren't linked to something with your real name eliminates unintended mistakes no matter what google does with the interface tomorrow.

My one-line summary of Marx: "The Kingdom of God, hold the God."
We're in more of Randian dystopia, BTW.