Though I'm using Git for about year now, I'm pretty much n00b. Outside of the obvious - git init/add/commit/diff/pull/push/update + gitk - I know very little. That's why it is also very hard for me to understand the usual complain about Git that it is very arcane. Yes, documentation is very poor and still can't catch up with all the features, yet you rarely run into the need for some esoteric function or syntax. Basic commands are pretty much "intuitive".
I'm basically the same as you. I rarely use anything but those commands, and I'd agree that git is pretty easy to use, as long as you're sticking to the basics.
From what I understand, git used to be a huge patchwork of scripts that were much more difficult, and they spent some time a while ago making them a bit easier.
You, sir, are as broken-minded as he is. Forgetting about "fair" for a moment and considering this as a military simulation as it attempts to be, using your fellow soldiers as fodder is an offense that would lead one to the firing squad.
Halo 3 is nowhere near a 'military simulation.' But yes, I agree with you.
Using your team mates to further your own score is immoral.
In a video game? Hardly. Besides, in most games, when you're playing on a team, it's better for the team if everyone works together. If you were up against an actual challenge rather than your other kids, you probably would have lost the game due to your son's actions. The only reason he can kill steal at all is because your opposition is so easy that it doesn't even matter if he plays the game for real. Either that, or he's just stupid, but since you're calling into question the whole idea, I figure I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
If you think "fair" is the same as "legal" then you show a trait that is also indicative of why our legal system is as abused as it has become. Morality plays a role in life even in game play.
While I agree that our legal system does get abused, it's set up that way. Those in charge want it to be able to be abused. And real life, with real consequences, is just a bit different than a game, so it's not even really relevant to this discussion. I disagree with the basic notion of kill stealing being immoral. Which is fine. I just felt that I'd try to explain another side of the story.
Sorry, I may not have explained myself fully. I (as a competitive type most of the time) prefer that a game is close. I wouldn't enjoy a game where there is no challenge at all. However, I will still try to win by as much as possible.
As for cheaters, though, no sympathy. They suck.
My son does not know the meaning of fair play. When we were playing Halo2 as team members, his favorite tactic was to hold back until he heard one of the others engaged in fire and then come in at an angle to clean up and get the kills.
Did your son mod the engine? Did he do something that you yourself could not do? Then it's fair.
Since when is taking advantage of others "fun" or part of a game?
The point of a game (to competitive types) is to win. Your son found a valid strategy that let him win. He didn't break any rules. He played within the game.
I like to describe this as competitive vs 'fluffy'. Fluff has no negative connotations, it comes from Warhammer, and it essentially means 'story.' Some WH players are interested in the game as a game, and tournaments. They'll sometimes build armies that don't really fit the fluff, but are much better than one that would. They're not breaking rules, they allow for armies like that. But people who are into fluff would rather play a non-competitive game where the story is just as sacred as the rulebook.
Now, I'm not saying you're interested in Halo's story. But what I am saying is that it seems like you want a game to be pretty much even, with one person barely pulling it out in the end. Everyone (almost) wins. That's great. It's also what the competitive people want. The difference is, the competitive people want to use every single last trick in the book to make it as hard for you to win as possible. In order to win games, your opponents have to lose. It's enjoyable for the competitive types to have the game still be close, even after that.
Anyway, I'm rambling. The point is, your son is just competitive. Or maybe not. But I hope you can at least see the viewpoint.
If you can't learn, then there is no point at all.
Incidentally, this is why when you play online it ranks you and only matches you up against people of your skill level. If you're a newbie, pretty soon you're also playing with only other newbies, and then you're free to learn in an environment where these kinds of conflicts don't happen. I agree that it sucks when everyone is destroying you and you can't do anything about it. Online play is nice in that regard.
Lots of companies incorporate in Delaware because their laws are sweet.
Also, see the question right below.
And that's why your opinion is irrelevant. Please purchase a trade paperback version, support the creators of the original content, then try again.
You do know that Alan Moore never really felt that he was properly compensated for the book, and it was bad enough that it caused him to split from DC and never work for them again, right?
But don't let me spoil your good feelings for you. Don't get me wrong, your intentions are well placed. But don't forget that you're not always supporting the artist when you buy.
This coming from someone who just got their dead tree Watchmen today. I re-read it all in one sitting. So good...
"It's ten o'clock... Do you know where your AI programs are?" -- Peter Oakley