Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not Surprising (Score 1) 116

by blackraven14250 (#47536191) Attached to: eSports Starting To Go Mainstream
Go play Craft the World - it's clearly not nearly as good to spectate as any of the large spectator games out there right now like LOL or DOTA2, and in about 5 minutes you'd be convinced of it too. Here's a portion of a video specifically addressing spectator games, skipped to the relevant portion. If you feel like doing a bit more legwork instead of having the mental exercise done for you, watch this video - it points out a bunch of design features relating to the map in League of Legends, and is very easily digested by someone unfamiliar with the game. Think about each element they point out, specifically focusing on how it relates to the spectator experience. If you do that, and you genuinely believed that design was irrelevant, those 7 minutes will completely blow your mind.

Comment: Re:Not Surprising (Score 1) 116

by blackraven14250 (#47534125) Attached to: eSports Starting To Go Mainstream
The AC is right about what they are, although the point is that they're specifically designed with spectators in mind. That's not true for most games, and as a result there's a huge number of games that aren't good spectating material. These games (and others in some of their genres), btw, along with fighters, make up a substantial majority of games that are watched. People don't watch Mass Effect, or The Wolf Among Us, or the Batman Arkham games - it's very specific genres that even work for spectators, and then it's still mostly games designed for it from the start.

Comment: Re:Not Surprising (Score 1) 116

by blackraven14250 (#47533281) Attached to: eSports Starting To Go Mainstream

Video games are better to spectate than sports.

That's not true as a generalized statement. The games that are being played now by professionals in front of an audience, like LoL, DOTA2, SC2 and CS:GO are actually designed around being good for spectators. There's a whole lot more in the gaming sector that doesn't work for spectators.

Comment: Re:I take offense! (Score 3, Informative) 165

by blackraven14250 (#47532701) Attached to: Wikipedia Blocks 'Disruptive' Edits From US Congress

Our second problem is that we have voters who never learned in school that there were plenty of African Americans in the military, but they were segregated thanks to progressive President Wilson.

Our third problem is that plenty of people think it's cool to blame it all on a particular president of a political leaning they do not agree with, even though the US has had African Americans in the military in their own segregated units at least as early as the Revolutionary War.

Comment: Re:Black hole? (Score 1) 277

by blackraven14250 (#47521349) Attached to: Sony Forgets To Pay For Domain, Hilarity Ensues
I was pointing them out specifically because they're very large, well-known companies. If someone is thinking of "closely held" and imagining a mom-and-pop candy shop with 4 employees, those companies (and plenty like them) dispel that notion entirely. These are massive employers that would easily be near the top of the Fortune 500 is they were public. For example, in the case of Koch, Forbes has said that if they were public, they'd rank in at number 17 of the list. Cargill is larger than Ford, and would have been at #7 in 2013.

Comment: Re:Warrants are supposed to be narrow (Score 1) 150

by blackraven14250 (#47500349) Attached to: New York Judge OKs Warrant To Search Entire Gmail Account

Ummm, isn't that PRECISELY the point? If the search criteria isn't sufficiently broad to catch someone then that means they don't have enough evidence to be conducting the search in the first place. Almost everyone can be found guilty of some illegal activity (however minor) if the search parameters are sufficiently broad.

Genuine question. If I employed the services of a company specializing in archiving paperwork, and the government had a search warrant for potential evidence in their case which could be contained in that paperwork, wouldn't the prosecutor (or at least someone working under the prosecutor's direction) be the one looking through it? As the argument goes so many times against the government's practices, why should we expect that, in the case of email, searches should operate substantially differently than with paper records? In this case, it seems wholly appropriate to apply it in the other direction.

Comment: Re:Black hole? (Score 1) 277

by blackraven14250 (#47481937) Attached to: Sony Forgets To Pay For Domain, Hilarity Ensues
Those specific examples are closely-held, according to the only legal definition I was able to find. I also looked up self-insurance, and found a citations that say anywhere between 50 million and 90 million people are under corporate self-insurance health plans. "Pretty narrow" doesn't seem to apply when it's somewhere roughly between a third and two thirds of the entire insured workforce.

Comment: Re:Black hole? (Score 1) 277

by blackraven14250 (#47473489) Attached to: Sony Forgets To Pay For Domain, Hilarity Ensues

It was not a broad ruling applicable to corporations in general, where the linked argument might have been relevant.

You mean it doesn't apply to around 90% of all corporations according to the IRS' definition of the term, and that it absolutely doesn't apply to companies like Cargill, Koch and Mars?

Comment: Re:Intelligence isn't always advantageous (Score 1) 157

by blackraven14250 (#47441869) Attached to: Chimpanzee Intelligence Largely Determined By Genetics

But there is still an upper cap defined by energy requirements, and apparently we have actually hit that cap thousands of years ago already, and then bounced back slightly.

Ah, but there's a difference now compared to then. We have the ability, at least in the developed world, to push again past the old cap, which originally existed in a natural environment. Who knows if the modern environment would actually select for higher intelligence in practice to do it, but the possibility is there with modern resources.

Hard work never killed anybody, but why take a chance? -- Charlie McCarthy

Working...