It's suprisingly more common than you would think. Really depends on the state. They'd be strung up in the northeast for sure, but 'Castle Doctrine' states are usually a little bit more reasonable about giving leeway to people in their home when armed men kick in the doors.
You mean like this?
Granted, it's actually targeted for Titan, but yeah...
Nintendo didn't make the power glove...
Yes, that's exactly what they're doing. No one has soft-landed the first stage of a rocket after using it to launch something into orbit before. That stage normally burns up on reentry or is debris in the ocean.
Crafting has always been unimportant to the games of most people, who would rather splatter some goblin brains than make some arrowheads or trade in exotic spices.
Considering the intricately detailed magic item creation rules in the 3rd edition derived games, I have to disagree with you. There's obviously a market for it, as Pathfinder spent a lot of effort on refining the existing mechanics.
And I said metallic dragons. Chromatic dragons were in the 4e Monster Manual. And that was exactly the problem: The book only had things for you to fight, and only the details you needed to fight them.
I'm pretty sure there's precedent for staggered releases of the core rulebooks. 3.5 and 3rd edition were like that, from what I remember, which actually allowed some third-party publishers to swoop in and fill the gap a bit for a few months.
Also I find it amusing that the things you list as "positive" changes to 4th edition are the exact things people like myself didn't like about it. Considering Pathfinder is far and away the best selling tabletop RPG today, it seems people who liked the 4e "improvements" are in the minority.
I'd also add that when I bought the 4th edition books, I was shocked to see they lacked rules for crafting (or anything not related to combat, really), stats for metallic dragons, or really any information about monsters other than their most basic combat statistics. So, again, precedent.
After seeing 5th edition played, and talking to the designers, I'm much more hopeful for it. At the very least, my group is going to try the starter once we're done our current Pathfinder campaign.
The real aim is to move the internet under Title II so that it can be heavily regulated. It would also be subjected to the 16.1% universal service fund tax (as spelled out in the telecom act of 1996).
Neither of those assertions are remotely true. There were already periods where Internet access was subject to Common Carrier regulations, and parts of Verizon's FiOS network are still under it to this day because it gave a tax and subsidy benefit to Verizon. If anything, internet access is already HEAVILY regulated, and Title II would simplify things immensely.
The bit about the USF tax is just propaganda from the NCTA.
Let's see - Jesse Jackson, the Urban League, and Comcast don't agree with you. That's quite the diverse collection of people from all over the political and ethnic spectrum
Yes, such a wide spectrum, consisting of Comcast and political activists funded by Comcast...
Thankfully no one is proposing 'strict regulations'. The modest and reasonable regulations (which already apply to not-insignificant chunks of Verizon's FiOS network) being pushed for by Title II advocates would cut off things such as paid prioritization schemes and providers favoring their own paid services by exempting them from technologically unnecessary bandwidth caps, however.
Dude, by your argument, "compatibility" counts as "place your arguments in registers A, B, C..."
The compatibility between C and C++ goes a bit deeper than that.
Comcast and Verizon have an government-approved agreement to not compete. Comcast sold Verizon spectrum, and in return Verizon has stopped rolling out FIOS. Now you can walk into a Comcast store and buy Verizon Wireless Plans bundled with your cable sub, and buy Comcast subscriptions in Verizon Wireless stores in regions where FIOS isn't available.
So, what you're saying, is you didn't know what anyone was talking about and opened your yap, and now you don't know how to extricate yourself from the thread without admitting you're an idiot and didn't read the post that was being responded to. You know, the one that implied the DoD was funding the development of Call of Duty for propaganda purposes.
I actually bought a new router within the last year. A "nice" Buffalo model with DD-WRT built in. Only to find out DD-WRT doesn't support native IPv6 (which my old, faulty NetGear did, go figure). They just support Toredo or other tunneled IPv6 solutions.
Man, was I disappointed.
I always found it amusing that the Author's Guild always seems to enthusiastically back whatever it is the publishers want to happen, even to the detriment of their supposed constituency...
Look, if authors/publishers aren't happy with Amazon, they don't have to do business with them. They can sell their books direct to the customer, even in a format the user can load right onto their Kindle, nothing's stopping them. Saying Amazon is the "only buyer" is B.S. The term 'buyer' doesn't mean anything (in the way you're using it) when you're dealing with purely electronic goods. Amazon doesn't "buy" an inventory of ebooks to sell, there's no supply to monopolize.