Hey, just so you know - there is a one time activation - but aside from that you can play the SinglePlayer game offline if you like

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm not against having outlets for pure unfettered self-expression, but much like a primal scream therapy session, it doesn't lend itself to real communication very well.>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^dag:
Is there a movement to accountabilise the web? I sure haven't seen much evidence of it. Most places I visit - it's pretty much anything goes.
I don't think it's just honesty and dumbfuckery. It's more about what the article describes, the feeling that "it's just a game" and a fantasy outlet for expressing sublimated rage, sadness etc in a "safe" way (without a chance of retribution).
I agree with @ReverendTed that scaling moderation by members is the way to handle lots and lots of comments.

Why do you think so many need an anonymous outlet for expression? Our culture is so repressive, on an individual scale, and that fear of retribution is real. I think the instinct that the internet is another world where we can reinvent ourselves is something to be encouraged rather than dismissed as a game or a fantasy. We're able to communicate now unburdened by circumstances or the disapproval of our peers. I'd say the less this reality interpenetrates with the lower world the better.
Personally there's almost no difference between my online and offline behaviour, except when I talk to my boss, but most people are more social than I am; they have more people pushing down on them and more to lose if they push back. So let them have their freedom, some might even have something worthwhile to say.

>> ^dag:

Is there a movement to accountabilise the web? I sure haven't seen much evidence of it. Most places I visit - it's pretty much anything goes.
I don't think it's just honesty and dumbfuckery. It's more about what the article describes, the feeling that "it's just a game" and a fantasy outlet for expressing sublimated rage, sadness etc in a "safe" way (without a chance of retribution).
I agree with @ReverendTed that scaling moderation by members is the way to handle lots and lots of comments.


Why do you think so many need an anonymous outlet for expression? Our culture is so repressive, on an individual scale, and that fear of retribution is real. I think the instinct that the internet is another world where we can reinvent ourselves is something to be encouraged rather than dismissed as a game or a fantasy. We're able to communicate now unburdened by circumstances or the disapproval of our peers. I'd say the less this reality interpenetrates with the lower world the better.

Personally there's almost no difference between my online and offline behaviour, except when I talk to my boss, but most people are more social than I am; they have more people pushing down on them and more to lose if they push back. So let them have their freedom, some might even have something worthwhile to say.

Reminds me to check to see if a release group put out a good version of the game: Single-player offline & CHEATS!!!

Augr, or how stupid users have become. The board rules say no petitions.. of any kind.

The online single play may be hurtful to some.. but as a range player, I prefer multi play matches with a melee class cause they can bunch up the mobs while I lay on the dps and crowd control. I am half way through hell mode now and always play multi.

As far as torchlight goes... I think players may be in for a surprise when while it may play very similar, it is plagued with cheating, item duping, and no online managed friends system for easy joining of games.

As someone who leveled alot of alts by playing single player WoW online, there are benefits that many of us prefer. There would be no auction house, and definitely no real money auctions possible if single play profiles were kept offline.

Ok this is how corrupt Blizzard has become. Someone started a petition for Blizzard to make an offline Singleplayer patch for Diablo 3. It had over a thousand votes so far. They posted it to the Diablo 3 forums, and even though it violated no rules of the forum that I know of Blizzard in all it's corrupted glory DELETED the post. No explanation no Blue post response just BOOM ban hammer delete.

That's just stupid it's like Canada trying to prevent people from protesting it just proves they know they are doing something wrong and they simply don't give a shit.

Blizzard: "What's that the players have a complaint about our game? Well that can't be our game is the embodiment of perfection incarnate. Just deleted it it simply has to be a mistake."

I have lost absolutely all respect for Blizzard now.

Here's the petition share this link with everyone you can think of.
http://www.change.org/petitions/blizzard-entertainment-diablo-3-offline-single-player-patch#

I've been live streaming a bit of Diablo 3 beta and starcraft, and I use Xsplit for it. It is vastly superior to the alternatives that I've seen. http://www.xsplit.com/ You can record offline as well.

I've been in the beta for awhile, but the recent attention its been getting has gotten me to fire it up again. First thing I'll say is its fun, especially when you gain a few levels/skills and better weapons.

I think its graphically appropriate for Diablo, one of the issues I have visually is that special monsters and mini-bosses glow shiny yellow or blue, and I find it distracting from the rest of the game's visuals.

As fort he skills, I kind of understand what they're trying to do, but for all its flaws I still prefer the skill tree/stat assigning. Though I do appreciate that you can change skills with ease. I never liked feeling stuck to one build with few opportunities to re-spec.

The always online thing does suck. Despite the online AH and achievements they could have added an offline mode for those who just want a single player experience and aren't concerned about the other stuff.

But its still monster smashin, loot grabbin, dungeon crawlin fun.

For the record, the appearance of the Trilateral Cat Commission coincided perfectly with some on and offline harassment I'd suffered involving sock puppets. I've come to the conclusion that mounting a troll campaign this complex would be difficult and extremely time consuming - not to mention batshit insane. So, sorry for the misunderstanding or congrats on being batshit insane, whichever the case may be.

Considering the content and comment style of the TriCateral Commission, I think you folks might be better suited for Cute Overload (http://cuteoverload.com/). Most of the videos you have posted are home videos, which are generally discouraged on this site. There is a site rule about not self posting which was designed specifically to keep the home videos to a minimum, but you have found a creative work around by group voting each others submissions. Also, overly cutesy comments in large volume (e.g. "That kitty is a little slice of heaven." "With whip cream" "Don't forget the cherry on top" "mmm...cherries" "Kitty Sundae!" "lolzers") may not go over so well.

Once again, if you haven't checked out CuteOverload yet, it is truly a slice of kitty heaven with whip cream and a cherry on top and some maple syrup and a scoop of chocolate icing for good measure. You will love it. http://cuteoverload.com/

If you decide to stick around, I won't bother you too much, unless you try to defend the Gold Standard or something crazy like that.

Happy trails.

Her explanations were correct, but less clear than in the vid you posted. I think her video style is designed to appeal to school kids mostly, but it appeals to me to. She works with children in her offline life.>> ^rottenseed:

Her math and explanations for case 1 were sloppy at best, incorrect at worst. This video is more clear.

Lass, truth is that if they're assholes online, they're most likely assholes offline. It's just offline they hold their tongue because they know the consequences can catch up with them. I find the internet is great for seeing someone's true colours. Sage advice though, just because someone has the ability to be a twat, doesn't mean they have to prove it.

Host site seems to be offline. Don't care to find this one again, anyway! *kill

Your car analogy is accurate, but misleading. If the car were newer, then it would in fact be against patent law to make one on your own. The SCO case is, I believe, patent law, not copyright.

I don't get your argument regarding publishing companies of various kinds trying to make money for themselves and not paying artists much. This is the old "artists deserve more money" argument. Frankly, they don't. And I'm saying that as an artist. If you're an artist and you give someone your art in exchange for whatever percentage, then you've agreed to that amount and you deserve that amount, and no more. The fact is, selling art is hard. It might not seem that way because we see it everywhere, but having art sitting in your house or on your computer and making money off of it is just plain difficult. The easiest route is frequently to let someone else do that for you, and to artists who can't afford a cup of coffee, making some decent cash sounds like a good deal.

Artists who don't want to go that route are free to keep their content and sell it themselves.
>> ^Porksandwich:

I like to try to apply things to real life objects or processes instead of digital.
You can make an exact replica of a 1950s car (legal), but if you copy a PICTURE someone else took of a 1950s car you're in trouble (illegal). Or if you take the picture of a 1950s car (legal), the owner who spent all the time and effort on it is SOL if you just snap a picture of it and make a million bucks----but if it were a painting they painted and you took a picture of it to sell..they'd have you by your balls in court.
It's even confusing in the tangible world, but in general copyright is not used like a club to keep other people from producing things in the tangible world.
In the digital world, copyright is hard to enforce but it's more "chilling effect" is it being used like a club to take down things that might even remotely be related to their copyrights...whether or not it can be demonstrated or proven. Look at SCO over Linux, they have lost but they still have that whole case showing up in court even now...it took YEARS to get it settled and it's back in some form from what I read elsewhere. Youtube is full of examples of it being used to remove content that is not theirs.....they took down the music video MegaUpload guys paid for and put up using DMCA knowing it wasn't theirs because they "had an arrangement with Google/Youtube to be able to do so".
Tangible world of copyright has some sense of "reasonable expectation" when it comes to decisions and such.
Intangible world of copyright has no "reason" applied to it at any stage, it doesn't make sense to anyone. It's abused, the courts even allow it's abuse to go unpunished because THEY do even know WTF is going on with it. It's a crazy mess of finger pointing, denying access to distribution channels people want to be able to get content on (EA and Steam is a great example of this), price fixing (Publishers conspiring with Apple to price fix Ebooks to Apple pricing, Amazon is balking at this as are a lot of people), etc.
Hell the publishers are using copyrights and agreements as ways to lock in authors to prevent them from publishing themselves and are purposefully screwing with digital ebook sites to make it uncertain for non-affiliated authors. And it's not working for them as more and more authors are going self-published, BUT no one steps in and tells them to cut that shit out. The New York Times Bestseller lists won't even put Self-Pubbed author titles on their listing, even if they are best sellers. It's just another aspect of the digital world being treated like it's tangible and slow moving, the publishers are using their clout to try to force people into their "idea" of what it should all be...slow and expensive, with content creators getting less than 15% of the final sale price in most cases.
Corporate establishments should not be dictating policy.... they shouldn't be able to force distribution channels offline (netflix comes to mind, Amazon Kindle titles, etc) by dictating or forcing it to be unreasonably costly/restrictive in comparison to their own services (Hulu, Apple Ebooks, etc). They are forcibly carving a spot for themselves into the contracts and agreements, despite what's best for consumers and content creators and getting additional laws/policy to enforce it.
On the other side of dictating policy, we have corporations pushing to take away restrictive policies when it hurts their profits. And we end up with the housing bubble and economic crisis......
Laws and policy should be written with the people in mind first, society second, anything else, and corporations last. Corporations should be adapting to the will of the people and the laws of the society that reinforce their will, not telling everyone how it's going to be.

I like to try to apply things to real life objects or processes instead of digital.

You can make an exact replica of a 1950s car (legal), but if you copy a PICTURE someone else took of a 1950s car you're in trouble (illegal). Or if you take the picture of a 1950s car (legal), the owner who spent all the time and effort on it is SOL if you just snap a picture of it and make a million bucks----but if it were a painting they painted and you took a picture of it to sell..they'd have you by your balls in court.

It's even confusing in the tangible world, but in general copyright is not used like a club to keep other people from producing things in the tangible world.

In the digital world, copyright is hard to enforce but it's more "chilling effect" is it being used like a club to take down things that might even remotely be related to their copyrights...whether or not it can be demonstrated or proven. Look at SCO over Linux, they have lost but they still have that whole case showing up in court even now...it took YEARS to get it settled and it's back in some form from what I read elsewhere. Youtube is full of examples of it being used to remove content that is not theirs.....they took down the music video MegaUpload guys paid for and put up using DMCA knowing it wasn't theirs because they "had an arrangement with Google/Youtube to be able to do so".

Tangible world of copyright has some sense of "reasonable expectation" when it comes to decisions and such.

Intangible world of copyright has no "reason" applied to it at any stage, it doesn't make sense to anyone. It's abused, the courts even allow it's abuse to go unpunished because THEY do even know WTF is going on with it. It's a crazy mess of finger pointing, denying access to distribution channels people want to be able to get content on (EA and Steam is a great example of this), price fixing (Publishers conspiring with Apple to price fix Ebooks to Apple pricing, Amazon is balking at this as are a lot of people), etc.

Hell the publishers are using copyrights and agreements as ways to lock in authors to prevent them from publishing themselves and are purposefully screwing with digital ebook sites to make it uncertain for non-affiliated authors. And it's not working for them as more and more authors are going self-published, BUT no one steps in and tells them to cut that shit out. The New York Times Bestseller lists won't even put Self-Pubbed author titles on their listing, even if they are best sellers. It's just another aspect of the digital world being treated like it's tangible and slow moving, the publishers are using their clout to try to force people into their "idea" of what it should all be...slow and expensive, with content creators getting less than 15% of the final sale price in most cases.

Corporate establishments should not be dictating policy.... they shouldn't be able to force distribution channels offline (netflix comes to mind, Amazon Kindle titles, etc) by dictating or forcing it to be unreasonably costly/restrictive in comparison to their own services (Hulu, Apple Ebooks, etc). They are forcibly carving a spot for themselves into the contracts and agreements, despite what's best for consumers and content creators and getting additional laws/policy to enforce it.

On the other side of dictating policy, we have corporations pushing to take away restrictive policies when it hurts their profits. And we end up with the housing bubble and economic crisis......

Laws and policy should be written with the people in mind first, society second, anything else, and corporations last. Corporations should be adapting to the will of the people and the laws of the society that reinforce their will, not telling everyone how it's going to be.

Online only prevents hacks and piracy. It also makes the developers' job easier by not having to support two parallel systems for online and offline.