Creston wrote on Oct 7, 2010, 11:04:
I'm curious. When does a prepaid card go 'active'? When it's sold, or when it's tied to an account?

Because if it's the former, then they'd be doing a lot of double counting if someone buys a bunch of cards at once, right?

Still, that is a staggering number. Don't people get bored of it ever?

Creston

They don't know when a card is sold. They know when it goes active, because the player plugs the card number into their system, and they do not count multiple cards active on the one account (ie an account with 6 months of time paid up with 3 cards applied is 1 account in their numbers).

They can't fudge the figures on an ongoing basis because ultimately actilizard is a publically listed company and a great deal of accounting information is visible, and there are some requirements about how they report stats like subscribers that may influence investment decisions.

Elessar wrote on Jul 14, 2010, 10:46:
And the obligatory self-entitled PC gamer responses ensue. It's their fucking wallet and they're well within their right to consider how a new game mode fits into their business model.

I'm pro-PC gaming through and through, but you whiny bitches just give it a bad name. No wonder dev interest is waning.

All of these games are based on an engine pc gamers paid for. I own a copy of 1942, bf2, and bc2. Its not like PC gaming is unprofitable, and its not like tieing multiplayer to steam doesn't help with piracy, its not like mouse/keyboard isn't the better controller system for first person shooters either.

The whining is demonstrating to the company that they are pissing off legitimate customers. History is littered with companies that have gone out of business when ignoring that sound.

imo most software companies -really- want their games on a mod-free platform, where their lazy map design can't be shown up by 3 enthusiasts in their spare time.

jdreyer wrote on May 10, 2010, 02:54:
Can I say I'm disappointed that people would actually spend the money on the Stimulus package? People should vote with their pocketbooks and let that tripe stew. Overpriced mediocre map packs shouldn't get hard earned dollars.

Long come to the realisation and acceptance that gaming purchasers are only semi-rational pack animals. Besides which no doubt half the servers have the maps on rotation, so sales are forced anyway.

The only current alternative is bfbc2 and that has no shortage of design flaws, whether it was packaged as a console game or not. So much so that its pretty much retired already for me.

Cutter wrote on Apr 27, 2010, 21:19:
The real problem? Most of us were here for gaming in its infancy when it was about the games. Now it's just another big business that's about profits first. Meh, sucks but it had to happen sooner or later. I guess a lot of us are just getting too old to either care about or want to deal with the greed and BS anymore. While I won't be quitting gaming any time soon, I've certainly slowed down a lot and will probably continue to do so from this point forward. Time to take up a new hobby methinks, wood carving, or stained glass or something.

I like having this news, because it helps me determine whether a "property" is in the hands of the original developers, or whether its heading towards farm-it-out-yearly mode. Joyless map-pack and uniform change expansion packs masquerading as new games for next christmas, here we come...

PHJF wrote on Apr 21, 2010, 00:42:
They increase the drop rate because it takes 112 weapons to craft a single class-specific hat.

112

well it would if the steam hadn't eaten a reclaimed metal on me.

The worst problem with the hats is I want one particular hat, but the crafting chance of getting the right hat is only 25%. I'm now sitting on that classes items, so I can craft more tokens to redo the hat if it comes out wrong, which of course means I have to wait for even more drops before I can do the hat in the first place.

nin wrote on Apr 13, 2010, 14:04:

there's nowhere you couldn't get to in 60 seconds.

I disagree. Towards the end, it made a habit of you driving across two islands to get to your destination.

If anything caused me to despawn my unrestored vigaro, such as getting in a taxi I would be very unhappy! Managing the spawns of my ride far more important than getting somewhere on time.

You can generally cross the map in sufficient time if you know the bridge-to-bridge routes without referring to the map. The guide often zig-zags you when staying straight and winding out the car is much faster.

You don't have to slave to the friends anyway.

OldScho0l wrote on Apr 5, 2010, 19:07:
This might be a bit rude, but I hope the Valve falls flat on their faces and never manage to release another game again. They screwed us all with their frikin episodic gaming and can kiss my ass if they think I'll ever buy another one of their games. "Oh, We're going to release a new episode every 6 months!" Lies! Valve = FAIL in my opinion. Half-Life series is dead to me.

You sound like the guys who threaten to quit WoW on the forums everytime they nerf [insert class here], but never actually do.

Jerykk wrote on Mar 29, 2010, 01:05:

Even if the sequel is technically worse, its more interesting if its 'different'.

I'm inclined to disagree. "Different" these days means "dumbed down," with everything that fans liked about the first game being removed in the second. That's not interesting, it's just depressing. A sequel should take what fans liked about the original and expand and improve it. That's what makes for a good sequel. What doesn't make for a good sequel is taking out things that fans loved or "streamlining" them to the point where they might as well be taken out.

I agree, but thats not the thrust of your original point.

Jerykk wrote on Mar 29, 2010, 00:19:

But regression might be better than stagnation (starcraft 2).

How is regression better than stagnation? Regression = things get worse. Stagnation = things stay the same. I'd rather things stay the same than get worse.

If you don't change the economic system in the sequel, then its just new scenery as far as a player that mastered the original is concerned. Even if the sequel is technically worse, its more interesting if its 'different'. Especially something like SupCom that a lot of people play at the icon zoom level.

Hero units are what made WCIII stand out. Had it not had them, it would have been a thoroughly forgettable game.

Before the extremists all jump on the post, I have no desire that they be exported at all to other games. It just happens to have been an enjoyable feature of that game.

LittleMe wrote on Mar 10, 2010, 22:02:

The official price is $50, your either ignorant or trolling.

Neither. I saw it for $60. Your use of the word "your" shows who is the real ignorant person here, as the correct word is "you're".

I wasn't trolling, just pointing out the fact that SC1+FA is supposed to be a better, less dumbed down RTS and costs a fraction of SC2.

werst poast eva.

For a large proportion of people who are in the market for a new RTS the current retail price of SC1+FA is irrelevent anyway, because we already bought them a long time ago.

PacoTaco wrote on Feb 20, 2010, 22:48:
Make 3b in a two weeks easy by plexing in 0 space 5 hours a day or less, or moon mining if you control them, some people create trade routes, and make even more all in high sec empire. 3b = 12 months of GTC's FREE as can be.

My old account has a couple of bil of assets and a couple of bil of cash. Done everything that you discuss here.

1 - Moons. Won't be highends, because they are all defended already, will get knocked down before profit unless you are part of a major alliance. If you are part of a major alliance, the moon profits won't be yours. Non highends need a lot of tedious hauling/logistics surrounding them.

2 - Plexing these days requires scanning. Scanning is slow. Good plexes need 2 accounts for any sort of speed, or an expensive ship with high SP character.

3 - Trading "routes" always devolves to being online -all the time- and flying a freighter is the second most boring thing ever invented in an online game. (The most boring thing is of course EVE mining).

4 - Mission running is 20-40mil/hr, it winds up it costs you more than 10 hours/month to keep your acct doing it, and you still need to spend more time to fund PVP. You could easily be playing EVE for 20 hours a week, before you start any fun time at all, and you can't realistically just start at that level as a new player. As a new player you have no standings, and have to do dull/slow missions.

Standings system sucks balls too - you can't do level 5 missions for long before it destroys your standings.

5 - Whats EVE funtime anymore anyway ? In my timezone, we often made 50+ jumps (more than 30 minutes of flying) just to get an engagement, and thats not even counting form up etc.

Also, spearmen vs AH64 battles don't take months. They take exactly the amount of time it takes for the AH64 to fly within a mile or so of the spearmen, press one button, and then fly home.

Unless there is a farmer on the flightpath with an AK47 or mechanical component fails etc (all represented with the random factor in CIV).

I do find it amusing when a battleship explodes performing a similar role (because it would likely be 20kms off the spearmen when firing, and one considers the improbability of a spear penetrating normal hull plate, let alone a 12inch armor belt, but then again even battleships have been known to suffer spontaneous magazine and/or turret explosions. The possibility being modelled in CIV is real.

God no, a net profit would attract tax. Its the first thing accountants teach you not to do.

Besides which, EA's 'sport' is buying studios and firing people, and its hard to make your firing quota if the company is making a profit.

Amillennialist wrote on Dec 30, 2009, 07:23:
That's entia multiplicanda praeter necessitatem!

What were you thinking when you paraphrased my argument so incorrectly ?

Yes, in places the wording is so similar that it appears that authors borrowed from one another. Rather than argue that (which is reasonable, but just speculation), you claim it was "ONE" author.

No - I claim that for matters where the text coincides so strongly the sensible explanation is that they all drew from the same WITNESS or source. Which makes them not witnesses themselves to great parts of their narratives. Which returns to my original point about there not actually being that many witnesses.

Here's what Luke wrote regarding his Gospel. Note the eyewitness testimony:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses . . . have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account . . . " (Luke 1).

them/us. its a clear distinction, in this translation and in most of the translations, and translation is also an issue here.

But John says he was present during the crucifixion:

"Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek . . .

"When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved [John] standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home" (John 19:20, 26-27).

And at the empty tomb:

"Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." So Peter went out with the other disciple, and they were going toward the tomb . . . the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead" (John 20).

The beloved disciple is a deliberate ploy to hide the authorship of Johns. Someone else tells me its Lazarus. Who do I believe, and why ?

Resoundingly, demonstrably false, as shown above and in this: Besides Luke and John taking credit for their work, we have also Aristion and John the Presbyter (first-century); Clement of Rome (c. AD 96); and Papias (c. AD 60-130)

And we know all the problems with Papias, namely his work is gone, and only exists in quotes in other reconstructed or retranslated works. Others chain from there.

As far as I can see, Clement doesn't attest authorship, merely existence, at a date that I have not disputed. Happy for you to point out the relevent part of Clement if you know it, as its ugly to read and reference.

As noted above: Matthew, AD 50; Mark, AD 50-60; Luke, AD 55-60; and Paul's letter to the Galatians, AD 51.

Which are largely contentious dates.

So, even if it were "the oldest" -- which it may not be -- you still have eyewitness testimony from the others regarding the Resurrection.

as you point out yourself, the dates are contentious.

(What do you think Peter, whose testimony Mark records, was preaching all those years?)]

Since the "issues" with Mark are either factual errors, misunderstandings, or faulty reasoning, that should settle it.

Well you'll have to actually explain the faulty reasonings or misunderstandings.

Yes, the ending of Mark and the account of the woman caught in adultery do not appear in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts we possess, so they should not have been included.

None of which means they are necessarily fabrications, for John writes that "there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (John 21:25).

Yes, the bible doesn't disprove many thesis's. Otherwise it would be non contentious, and we'd all be Christians via deductive reasoning.

Significantly, these (apparent) additions do not contradict Scripture.

You'd hope not if it was a post-edit!

The point I was making was that typos alter or abolish neither the authorship, message, nor value of a text.

And the point I was making is that demonstrable error is far larger than typo's. Which can alter meaning.

That's the simplest logical explanation only if you exclude all the other evidence we possess.

First, Romans knew how to crucify a person.

Which oddly enough, according to gospels, the procedure was much abridged in this case - 6 hours, no leg breaking to ensure suffocation, and both men alongside Jesus were apparently not dead, and needed leg breaking.

Second, according to the accounts, the Jewish authorities who had Christ murdered asked for and received a Roman guard to prevent the theft of Christ's body.

Third, the Apostles were in hiding for fear of the authorities after the Crucifixion. What could have motivated them to go out and "turn the world upside down" -- even to the point of death -- but the resurrected Christ?

You're not the first with this fiction:

"some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place [the Resurrection]. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers and said, "Tell people, 'His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.' And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day" (Matthew 28:11-15).

So the guards are reliable witnesses, but on the take at the same time ?

You're two thousand years too late.

You mean it was obvious even to the author at the time ?

You only need one part -- the living Christ -- and on numerous occasions He appeared to His followers, including 500 at one time.

and how many of those 500 people were sufficiently close, wrote down what they saw, or could tell Jesus from a superficially similar person ?

In other words this could be interpreted as "Luke wrote that Peter said that he witnessed 500 people saw floating animated Jesus at the same time". (insert suitable authors/figures to taste). Realistically we probably come back down to 1 witness account, written 25 years+ afterwards.

Not according to Matthew:

Nor Mark:

Nor Luke:

Nor John; see the twentieth and twenty-first chapters of his Gospel.

By Luke, the author.

We've already gone over why this is not many eye-witness accounts, you've even quoted where Luke makes the distinction, and Luke was a companion of Paul, and Paul is only clearly an eyewitness to Jesus after the death, which means nobody is sure if he could actually identify a voice as belonging to Jesus other than by accepting the words as he heard them as true. Round and round we go. The gospels won't prove your assumptions about authors anymore than it will mine, which remains my fundamental point.

Complete fabrication.

"and it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance"

q[Have you no shame?
apparently not, no, but i could find the reference.

Amillennialist wrote on Dec 28, 2009, 15:37:

They weren't written by eye-witnesses, (matter of fact the true authors are likely anonymous)

"likely"? That's an admission that you don't know.

Not only is your claim without empirical evidence, the documents themselves and the testimony of the early church put the lie to it.

The evidence is in the texts themselves. 3 of the gospels share text to the point of word-for-word, and paragraph for paragraph, in many places, often with obvious edits that indicate one text was edited from the other. The natural conclusion is that for many of the events covered in those _3 gospels_, that they in fact reflect the statements (accurate or not) of ONE person. Furthermore Luke states within its own text to not be an eye-witness account itself.

All the Apostles (but Judas) and thousands of eyewitnesses to Christ's words and deeds (and at least hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ) lived well past that, long enough to disseminate their oral and written accounts of what they witnessed.

see above.

The Apostle John himself -- author of his Gospel, three Epistles, and Revelation -- lived to the end of the first century.

yes, and he could have been anywhere between 60 and 90 years old when writing his version of events, 30-50 years after the events took place, and he was not demonstrably present at the crucifixion or the tomb.

Neither did the Apostles live in a vacuum. Many of the Church Fathers were disciples of the Apostles themselves. They were part of the larger Roman world in general, and Israel in particular.

Which makes no difference as to the date, number and veracity of stated accounts, which are all secondhand.

That is true (as far as we know; you can't rule out another discovery like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the next time of New Testament texts); but we have thousands of manuscript copies from various regions around the Mediterranean.

Yes that would be most excellent.

Yes, and by comparing those manuscript families, it is possible to guarantee with near complete certainty what the original documents stated.

The "edits" were marginal notes copied accidentally into the text or portions added for clarification (Mark 16:9 and following; a portion of John 7 and 8).

Transcription errors are a punctuation mark here, a numeral there; significantly, you're not finding contradictions in doctrine.

You don't find any manuscript -- even the oldest and most reliable -- stating "P.S.: The resurrection? We were only kidding!"

No, the oldest statements, ie the empty tomb statement, where only an angel attests to the resurrection.

The fact that we can state that these passages do not appear in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts means that we know so much about the ancient texts that we can point out what is an addendum or copying error.

Which is my point. You can't attest to the accuracy via this method, and then not accept the issues with Mark.

Do the words of the Declaration of Independence become less relevant if a copy of it is used? Does the difference between "inalienable" and "unalienable" matter?

Remove the entire statement altogether, or replace the entire statement with a totally different sentence, and you get a larger difference in the document meaning than fixing a typo.

Various published editions of The Lord of the Rings contain revisions. Does that mean that we can't know, understand, and enjoy what Tolkien intended?

The forwards to later editions, which I happen to have read recently, and tolkiens own notes, actually describe much of the error introduced in typesetting of the Lord of the Rings, and the Lord of the Rings has never been represented as anything but fiction, so it just doesn't matter as much.

While I'd love to have the originals, reliable copies are an acceptable substitute.

No, Mark 16:1-8 details angels telling the women (the first to the empty tomb were women!) that Christ had risen, just as He said.

If Christ were still dead, the tomb would have been sealed with the corpse inside.

Or someone moved the fucking body. Or he wasn't actually dead. Occams razor.

And you still have to silence Matthew, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, and the Church Fathers.

See above. Matthew / Luke / Mark source most information from the same person, who is not identified, or each other.

So, an empty tomb and an angel proclaiming that Christ had resurrected (just as He had predicted on several occasions) is inconsistent with . . . a resurrection?

No. Most rational people would immediately discount the angel as bullshit, and wonder who took the body.

Except that you have a history of the Apostles words and works recorded in Acts and in their own accounts.

Multiple eyewitness accounts you dismiss, but speculating from a void? That's reasonable!

There really aren't any 'eye-witness accounts' to most parts of the resurrection.

They are third person descriptions that mention some people present, none of which are attributed to writing the documents. Acts is ascribed to the same author as Luke, and he has stated that he is not present, and he describes the appearances to other people, who also were in a trance! Corinthians is a description of how to deal with logical issues in interpreting it, not an account.

It basically only leaves John, who is only roundabout present (ie we presume he is within the mass described as the disciples for the later appearances, or he is the beloved disciple), and the source of the other gospels, who is unknown.

Amillennialist wrote on Dec 28, 2009, 02:26:

Reasonably-stated.

Accepting the historical evidence for the existence of Christ necessitates dealing with what those eyewitness accounts declare He said and did.

The record of what he might have _done_ is only the Gospels. Others have already pointed out why that sucks.

They weren't written by eye-witnesses, (matter of fact the true authors are likely anonymous) and there was at least 25 years between the death of jesus, and the first Gospels, and none of the original documents exist.

We have fragments of Gospels dating from much later, and whole examples dating from the 4th century, replete with transcription errors and even edits. The ending to the oldest StMarks is a particular issue, because all it really specifies is missing body for the 'resurrection', and that particularly sucks for rationally believing in any supernatural influence.

It could well mean that at least 25 years post death, the resurrection was yet to exist as a story in the form we come to see/believe/get brainwashed with as kids today.

Amillennialist

Nobody is here debating the existence of Jesus the Man. Just like nobody debates the existence of Mohammed the Man. Or L. R. Hubbard the man for that matter.

Proving the existence of the man, does not however prove the existence of the God.

He's posting because starting arguments is fun, and when you have a pet topic you are generally good at it.

My peeves with Christianity other than the sheer waste of time and breath spouting it at me over my life, is the obvious charade of the crucifixion, and the moral vacuum that its ok to do anything, so long as God tells you to. Which includes genocide.

Apparently "Charm Lawyer" didn't work...

About the only thing that works on a lawyer is 'dispel evil'.