Slashdot Struggles to Remain Relevant in The Social Web
Hah! Pretty funny coming from a NEWSPAPER...
It's open source. Renaming the sucker would be the easiest fork *ever*.
Have scientists been able to throw together basic ingredients of living things and have the resulting pile resemble anything even close to life? Even in perfectly favorable lab settings?
(Depending on how you define "life", of course)
It still sets a precedent. What about the 24 year old foreign exchange student-come-NASA intern? If treason gets downgraded from "death" to "uh, 15 years I guess", a (good) judge is going to have to sentence future treasonists according to precedent. I don't know if you've checked lately, but retiring at 40 in rural China on 3 million dollars allows you, your children, and your children's children to live very comfortably. That's an appealing prospect for some.
Facebook has outraged thousands of obsessive shirkplace F5-pressers by changing its layout from the layout it changed to after the layout before that.
The change has met a storm of protest from users going so far as to click "Join This Group," with nearly two million people with, apparently, nothing whatsoever to do that they're actually being paid to stepping forward to demand that Facebook switch back to the layout before the last one, or the one before that.
"This new format makes absolutely no sense at all," said aggrieved office administrator Brenda Busybody, 43 (IQ), who had said the same thing each of the last three times it changed. "There's, like, all this stuff all over the place. It's not like the old one at all
The users vowed to continue their campaign assiduously for at least a day or two, in between working on their imaginary farm or joining "I Bet I Can Find A Million People Who Believe In Facebook Petitions Before June" or observably not giving two hoots about handing their personal details, fingerprints, DNA and probably first-born to Facebook's advertisers if it meant they could get thirty coins on Petville.
Facebook engineer Jing Chen explained on the company blog how the changes had been extensively tested on the 599.5 million Facebook users who hadn't joined such groups, and that he hoped everyone who wasn't a whiny little bitch would appreciate the new experience. "There's really nothing quite like the complaints of someone getting something for free that what they're getting for free just isn't perfect enough. It's what makes Monday Monday."
If you set up Napolean vs. Wellington at Waterloo, you didn't have to worry about players saying, "I think I'll take my army and move back over Belgian fronteir, then negotiate a treaty which will apparently give Britain what it is looking for, under the cover of which I can build other geopolitical alliances that will undercut her."
The group I play in switches periodically between a few campaigns/DMs, but that is pretty much what our main campaign is doing.
After you did all the work of researching and setting up the initial conditions for an elaborate battle simulation, the players were jolly well going to play out *your* scenario.
The conflict hasn't reached a point where the armies of the conflicting nations are facing each other, but they are on the move. We were given complete freedom of how we wished to proceed, and none of us would have it any other way. Even the guy who is DMing that campaign, when he is sitting on the player side for other campaigns, will not hesitate to ditch a major plot/quest line if the party wants to do something else.
It seems to me that roleplaying rules should focus on (a) forcing player decisions
I think I understand what you're getting at with decisions on a personal situation level, but I disagree. From a player's perspective, the rules exist to enable my character to accomplish what I want them to accomplish.
D&D 4E can make adapting to party tangents much easier than earlier editions, especially if you use some of the software tools available, & not just the official ones.
Sellers *choose* to allow returns for buyer's remorse because it is good PR. They are not legally obligated to do so. Similarly, I can *choose* to give you a refund if you don't like your game, but I don't *have* to. If the product/game is defective, then yes, there are legal issues to force me to refund your money. But I'm not aware of any laws in the US forcing me to accept returns for any random reason.
If God had a beard, he'd be a UNIX programmer.