> For instance, in the last dust-up, approximately 1200 Gazans died
According to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cloud_Pillar ) this is actually the number of Palestinians *injured*, not killed:
"Between 158 and 177 Palestinians died in the operation, with between 55 and 120 of them being combatants. An additional 1,200-1,300 Palestinians were injured, and between 350 and 700 Palestinian families displaced."
I want to write in Ron Paul, but he hasn't a chance of getting elected. He just isn't marketable enough for the drooling masses.
Ron Paul Newsletters Controversy.
Really? This is a man you would endorse for president? I think
The longer answer is:
1. You state that even higher management are your friends. Just how good? Visit each other on weekends? Hang out in bars? Or just "treat you in a friendly manner in the office"?
1.a. If it's the last, they are not true friends and you shouldn't give this "friendship" any weight whatsoever.
1.b. If they really are good friends, tell them about the offer. A 7k raise and 40 minutes shorter commute are not trivial to pass up. If they care about you, they might actually advise you to take it, even if it hurts them temporarily.
2. A 7k rise is a lot. If another company is willing to pay you such a hefty raise, you've been working for many years now at wages below what you could/should have been making. Why is the difference so large?
2.a. If it's because you've passed up opportunities to get a raise, either by leaving or declining a promotion at your current company, you are of course to blame.
2.b. If however as I suspect you simply haven't received (proper) pay raises at your current company for several years, thus putting you behind the curve, they have in effect been screwing you over. And make no mistakes, companies know *exactly* how much the going rate is for each programmer grade and seniority. So if they have been knowingly screwing you out of proper wages for several years, they are certainly no friends of yours.
Yeah, I got Torchlight on Steam for $20, too bad it was released a few days later on a weekend sale for $10
But frankly Torchlight is just missing something for me. Maybe it is the limited storyline/questing (practically non-existent), or maybe the small variety of spells and abilities. Or maybe the fact that I finished the entire dungeon in 3 evenings of casual play and the infinite one just bores me. But just looking at some of the frankly kick-ass moves of the D3 mage class for example, you can just see the difference between the two games.
It's definitely worth it for $10, I got a kick out of fishing a lot and turning my cat into various forms. But I think the lack of multiplayer and very limited replay value (at least for me - YMMV) mean that once you finish the end boss for the first time, there's very little reason to go back to the game.
Last but not least, there's a lot to be said for Blizzard's famous adherence to polish and quality. While playing Torchlight I've noticed: weak grammar and outright errors in quest texts ; different items with the same name ; ability to mis-use game mechanics to kill mobs that can't reach you.
These are just the things I remember, there are probably more. You can bet that there won't be those kinds of problems in D3.
So no, I am not "over waiting for D3". Not by a long shot
Then again, I worked on the smaller D2 team, and I know what our burn rate was there.
So, any inside scoop on when D3 is coming out? Now that's one title I'm really looking forward to!
As to games, remember Age of Conan?
What's your point? For one thing, AoC is still around and kicking, including an upcoming expansion. As far as any of us knows, it may be a financial success by now, even if the player base has shrunk. For Another, AoC is a Funcom game, no relation of Blizzard/Activision. Which of course brings us to your next point...
Blizzard appears to have a pretty good hit/miss ratio so far
I think @gravos' sentiment, while badly worded, is correct. Blizzard seem to be really good at what they do and presumably the "cut-scene filler" will actually be something that helps sell the game. As for "pretty good hit/miss ratio", it's pretty darn fucking spectacular, calling it "pretty good" is just about the understatement of the year.
but it's hard to say if it's luck, talent for seeing what will work, or just hordes of loyal fans.
Luck is getting 1 hit game. Smash hit after smash hit implies something more. As for the "hordes of loyal fans", I guess you're implying that no matter what Blizzard does, the "loyal fans" will buy and cheer? Just look at the recent RealID on forums fiasco and outcry on the WoW Forums, fans were certainly not shy about letting Blizzard know it messed up there!
So I don't buy it. I think Blizzard really are good at taking a concept and making a best seller game of it. I fully expect SC2 to both sell well and get good reviews (relative to the dated graphics it uses). My only personal complaint is that the game is expected to sell for I think $50 and will open only the Terran race in the single-player story mode, which means $150 for all 3 chapters and who-knows-how-long-to-wait for the next 2 chapters. To be honest, that's too steep for me, I'm going to sit and wait till prices come down and hopefully parts 2 and 3 are released.
strongly recommend them change products... I replace it with something else.
Which? What other products? Do you have any hard facts (tests etc.) that prove these products provide better/as-good overall security as Norton Internet security? If you do, stop teasing and give some links!
I've been using Norton Internet Security for the last 5 years on my home PC (which of course changed over the years) and I have been extermely satisfied with it, overall. It has done its job of protecting my PC perfectly (zero virus infections). As for the whole "bloated product" issue, I wouldn't know - my PC is a gaming machine, usually way above the curve. Norton doesn't really affect its performance. Granted, that's not the case for most people, so maybe you havea point there. But I'd rather take a bloated product that does its job (and buy an additional ram stick to help the computer work) then go for a "lite" product that will allow my computer to be filled with viruses.
Whenever there's a Symantec article on Slashdot, people love to bash them. I usually don't go defending commercial companies, but really, saying "there are better products out there" with no links given is a little annoying. No, scratch that, it's very annoying