DiabloFans

Quote from name="Lt Venom" »

Why do you have radioactive materials in your fire alarms?

Radioactive materials are how fire alarms work

My fear is breaking through a sheet of ice (on a frozen-over lake) and not being able to break out of it to get back to the surface. Brrrrr.

I know the q&a has already taken place, is there anyway I can view it online? Or download or something? I'm having a lot of trouble finding where the actual q&a is. Thanks in advance!

Yea D2 had 7 classes after expansion, but with the way skills were balanced sooo many of the builds were useless or underpowered. I am assuming that these five classes in D3 are going to be balanced in a way that there will be many many different ways to make the same character.

So long as there are more viable builds for each character, I don't see a problem with only 5 classes. We hardly know anything about the skill system, it seems a bit early to pass judgment. Simply my opinion of course.

What if first to level 99 gets a beta key to Diablo 3?

Now THAT would be a prize worth shooting for

http://www.battle.net/forums/thread.aspx?ForumName=d2-general&ThreadID=1364651

Anyone care to join me on WHCL?

Quote from Drysc »

We will be performing a Diablo II ladder reset on June 17 beginning at approximately 9:00 a.m. PDT. The reset is anticipated to require approximately six hours of downtime to complete, and during that time all Diablo II Battle.net realms will be unavailable for play. When the reset occurs all existing ladder characters will be moved to non-ladder. This provides a fresh start and new competition for leveling supremacy on the ladder realm.

For more information on the Diablo II ladder please visit our Ladder FAQ at http://www.battle.net/diablo2exp/faq/ladder.shtml

Edit: Aww it appears I got beat by a few who posted in the News section. Oh well, it's still exciting news!

Quote from "gyrextt" »

I see "ow"

Could it be?

That's what I saw the first time.

Probably my mind just making my eyes see stuff.

Quote from "Lydeck" »

I wonder how they'd react if they were brought to a big city ... like, persay ... New York.

Sounds like the makings of a Disney movie.

Firefox. I've never tried Opera, and Internet Explorer runs extremely slow on my computer. And by extremely slow I mean still pretty fast but not as fast as Firefox

Hahah I didn't see how much they looked like the Fallen when I first read about it.

I feel bad for them tho.... imagine how terrified they must have been to see an airplane fly over their home.

I think weight restriction depends on how they do inventory. In Mythos, the inventory is huge (relative to D2) and it's a pain in the ass to have to reconfigure all your items, especially because when you pick up items they seem to enter your inventory haphazardly.

Basically, if D3 has a similar inventory to D2 then no, I would hate the weight system. It would force builds who don't focus on strength (like sorcs who mf and find all sorts of items) to gimp their builds in order to hold loot. Unless, of course, the weight factor is taken into account when balancing classes / skills. Either way, you still get stuck with a lot of unnecessary and tedious muling, in my opinion.

Quote from "Siaynoq" »

...Now against it, here's what pisses me off about people telling me to be all conscious about the environment. With all the people recycling in their homes and doing their best to separate their trash, buy reusable shopping bags, boycott bottled water, drive their cars less, why the hell should we do all these things? I saw this educational video about how products are made and how the current economic model of consumerism is forced on people. You can watch it here if you like.
http://www.storyofstuff.com/

It's fairly interesting and makes some good points. But here's what pissed me off toward the end. The chick narrating it says answers the question of, "Well then, should I still recycle?" And she was like, "Yes, of course we all should recycle. It's just that recycling is the tip of the iceberg in fighting in this problem." And that's my problem with it right there. It's only the tip of the iceberg. In other words, why is there tons of social pressure put on me to be environmentally conscious and always separate my trash according and all that other stuff when a much smaller amount of pressure is placed on the world's largest polluters to clean up their acts? Why should I feel guilty about the environment and change my daily habits when the government lacks the political will to just create laws for people and corporations to be less polluting and wasteful?

...
Why isn't the real pressure put on government and multinational corporations to do something drastic in improving the environment. ....

....Cause all I think is, why not put that energy and money into convincing the government to create new laws and regulations to stick it to other huge polluters. ....

I'll still go on recycling anyway, just because I've trained myself to always do it. I'll do my best to drive less and buy products with less packaging or whatever. But the next time I get a lecture from someone on why I need to help save the planet, I may just ask them to lick my balls.

....

I understand what you are saying about the frustrations of the whole "tip of the iceberg" notion. Personally, when I recycle and act environmentally friendly, I do it for two reasons.
1) Going with the analogy from that movie, if you want to take down an entire iceberg, you've got to take down the tip at some point or another. Why not now?
2) Hopefully, with enough people making eco-friendly decisions and actively changing their life style, more people will become more aware of, and willing to fight for, the issues facing our environment. By fight, I mean pressure the lawmakers. Yes, the money spent on ads to recycle could be spent on pressuring lawmakers. Would it actually serve a purpose there? In my opinion, no. It would take a lot of money to convince the government to clean up their acts, and pass laws that would force big corporations to alter the way they run their businesses. That's not even considering the fact that the corporations have a lot more money to pressure the government with.

This next point is unrelated to to the global warming issue, but is pertinent to the "pressuring of lawmakers" issue. It is no secret that the politicians in the U.S. are quite corrupt at times, and often favor large corporations. One example of this is the way currency is treated in the U.S.. Paper bills are extremely inefficient and wasteful, needing to be recollected and destroyed by the government every few years because of wear and tear. This is very expensive, and also uses lots of natural resources. There has been a movement towards exclusively using one dollar coins, which last a lot longer before needing replacement, and would use less paper (obviously). This call has been opposed by many corporations, particularly vending machine companies, because they would need to remake all of their old equipment to accommodate the new currency. All of a sudden, the motion died. The environmental friendly alternative was stopped by large corporations. Tying this back to your original idea, perhaps if Americans were more environmentally aware, they would act upon this issue, namely how it has been dropped and affected by corporations. Perhaps :).

Quote from "Magistrate" »

Well, I decided to throw a controversial question out there, now.

So, all of you people who say that if kids are exposed to sex at a young age don't mind public sex, what about homosexual sex?

Just curious. And actually, this doesn't just have to be directed at the public sex people.

I dunno, I fall into the category of one who thinks children should be exposed to sex at a young age, but I do mind public sex. I meant education should start sooner... I didn't mean children should physically be exposed to sex.

That's if you were targeting me haha.

Quote from "SpanishBard" »

You misinterpreted my post.///
I dont quite understand. It's almost as if you're insinuating that everyone is religious. You're defining marriage, and sexual relations as religiously based. Religion plays a role when you value religion as your set of beliefs.

Ugh now you are misinterpreting my post. I wasn't saying everyone is religious, I was saying that lots of beliefs on sex are outlined in various religions. Therefore, people who are religious have their perceptions of sex altered by religion. Honestly, I don't see how I even hinted that everyone is religious. And no, I didn't define marriage as religiously based. I only said that some religions think it is only right to have sex if you are married.

And yes, I completely agree with your last line, "Religion plays a role when you value religion as your set of beliefs". And I think that many people do value religion as their set of beliefs, and therefore religion does play a major role in many issues (such as sexual relationships). ..

I'm pretty sure global warming is a misleading name. It isn't based on the fact that the whole world is getting warmer uniformly... more that there is a significant climate change that has led to an increase in the average temperatures. Most theories that support global warming blame man made emissions (such as CO2) as the major causes. Keep in mind that the temperature has risen roughly 1 degree Celsius over the past century. One cold year isn't what it is based on... global warming is not something that can be witnessed annually. Yes, 1 degree over one hundred years isn't a big deal, the main concern is that current human behavior is accelerating the temperature increase.

Yes, goodguy, the planet's temperature varies in cycles. The thing is, global warming is trying to say that as a whole, the average temperature in these cycles has risen. Not particular years...

Random example: Four numbers... 56 56 59 58. Now, the numbers are 58 58 55 60. Yea sure, the 55 is the "lowest in history". But, the overall average of the "cycle" rose.

Quote from "SpanishBard" »

The knee thing wasn't part of the arguement. You fail at reading. The rest of your post is pretty cryptic, somewhat hard to read. You're drawing similarities between marriage - sex - belief system. Mind you, marriage may have been a religious tradition, but it's turned into a sentimental tradition. Marriage is common among folks whether they draw any relationship to the fact that it's a religious ceremony.

Religion plays a small role.

Yea I see now, my mistake. Your post was kind of ambiguous because when you said "this is random"; I thought you were saying that his notion of women dominance was "random" when instead you were describing your next point. My bad, I misunderstood, but it's not like your English was flawless so you can't just say that I "fail at reading"

As to the rest of my post, I was trying to say that LinkX's point doesn't necessarily have to be stated in some "study" or on a website to be valid. You refuted his argument because he had no article to support it. He could have drawn the conclusion himself, and is just offering it as a possible connection between two things (the fall of women dominance and monogamy).

Stating that religion has a small role in perceptions of sex is an understatement in my opinion. Many people sanctify sex because it is supposed to be the ultimate sense of connection, as described by their religion. When religion defines sex as a sacred act, the ultimate bond between two people, saying that it has a small role on the perception of sex is absurd.
Example: Many devout Christians and Catholics feel that sex is a holy act that should only be between a married couple.
Millions of people have their views and opinions of sex skewed or influenced by what their religion tells them. I'm not attacking them, merely stating that religion undeniably plays a significant part in this topic.

Hopefully I made my point a bit clearer this time go round

Yes, 100%.

What I don't get is this. Even if global warming doesn't exist, that is no reason not to work towards protecting our environment. If nothing else, global warming serves as a big way of making people work on preserving our planet.

Sure, there is the possibility of it not existing, but the chance that it does exist should be important enough to motivate people to be more cautious with nature.