DiabloFans

Quote from Groanan

That is just blatant brainwashing, of the sort you'd expect textbook makers in Texas to come up with.
A peaceful man would not spout hate speech "because it is promoting free speech, and free speech is peace."

Full stop. You clearly don't understand the concept of free speech. Hate speech is protected aswell. That is how it works. If "hate" speech is banned that means someone has to decide what is and is not hateful. The implication there is obvious.

Freedom of Speech MUST include a license to offend: Intelligence Squared Debate - 2007

This debate pretty well lays out the arguments for and against if you're interested. Sufficed to say, the opposition gets crushed.

Quote from Nekrodrac

Ugh...I hardly understood what you were saying there Proletariat...
Don was addressing the point of 'sexist attitude' specifically and explained himself well. You seem to be talking about a completely different thing or at least taking that argument away from its particular context. Decode please.

I explained it was an irrelavent argument. Saying that men are pre-disposed to violence has no bearing on the efficacy of peaceful protest. It's an obvious straw-man.

Quote from Don_guillotine

What I was trying to say was that banks play an important beneficial role in a functional society (while pursuing their own ends, they are beneficial to the society). Many laypeople misunderstand banking even on a simple level, why they exist, what they do, and so forth. It's like me criticizing something chemistry-related when my knowledge of chemistry is rudimentary at best.

I wouldn't disagree, but that's no recourse for their incredibly irresponsible behavior. This isn't something a professor of economics would disagree with me about (i've talked to them on many occasions), even a die-hard Keynesian.

Quote from Don_guillotine

As for the protest, yes, like I said, the people have the right to protest their mind. They're just protecting against the wrong target, with possibly falsely based motives, but it's their right to do it in any case.

Assuming it gets any press, the target selection is largely irrelavent. It's about numbers, having a cogent opinion, and getting it across. I don't know if they can do it, but I respect them for trying. It is certainly better than not protesting out of apathy.

Quote from Don_guillotine

There's nothing really controversial or sexist with claiming that many young males have the potential to be violent. More so than young women.

It's simple: testosterone -- the hormone which makes men men -- has a link to aggression, and generally having a stronger flight/fight-response. It's the same for women with higher testosterone, and the opposite with men with lower testosterone. It's simple hormones. And the highest testosterone levels are -- in average -- on men in their early twenties.

But, not all young males are violent. Many are intelligent enough to avoid pointless aggression. However, not everyone got lucky with their Gaussian IQ lottery.

Immaterial to the argument and sufficed to say, regardless of how you cast the character of John and Jane Doe protestor they are endowed with the same human rights everyone else has to legally and peacefully display their opinions. If you happen to disagree with them, let them know. Diologue is part of the answer, not social darwinism.

Quote from Don_guillotine

As to this protest, I think it's kind of pointless. A better place to rally would be on Capitol Hill, demanding politicians to make banks carry their financial risks -- and in situations where the risk are impossible to carry, not just donate money in bailouts, but do it as a profitable investment to the taxpayer.

As i've said before, I don't pretend to understand the arguments or the merits of their protest. The location of protest is a debate in and of itself. I'm sure some people blame the government for banks' financial malfeasance just as i'm sure others would say Wall St. itself had a central role. The truth of the matter is that both arguments have merit. You can't have a bailout without a monumentally greedy and mis-managed banking industry. Similarly, you can't have a tremendously mis-managed banking industry without a lack of oversight and regulation. It would be simple to say "well, they should have just let them [the banks] fail," but i'm sure any rational person would agree: that's political suicide. No matter how strongly you adhere to lassize fair or libertarian ideology it's not within the current zeitgeist to allow that kind of shock to the system.

The overarching point, however, remains: and that is these people have a right to present their greivances in a peaceful manner, exercising their first amendment rights.

Quote from Ces

Egyptian here, all I want to say is good luck. One advice, try to gain the attention of the streets, for an example in Egypt before january 25th we started talking about the protest on 25th in public transports and so on, making an act of 2 people chatting and the one who is going down convinces the other guy, stuff like that.

Oh yeah, and if it catches on, don't trust anyone who would appear like a savior, we made a mistake here trusting our army council and now we have a lot stronger dictator in power.

Stay the course sir. Your heroic efforts to wrest free of tyranny is an inspiration to us all.

Quote from Daemaro

I think it's very important for us to practice things like freedom of speech, freedom of expression, our right to peaceably assemble. If we start neglecting these they will be taken from us.

Precisely.

Quote from Groanan

Young men are a threat, they are quick to temper, they are easily swayed by the pack mentality, and for some awful reason, they see little to no respect in the private property of others, maybe because they haven't been working long enough to appreciate not having other people destroy the stuff they own.

Sorry, but this is a non-argument. You're simply pointing out the fact violent protests do happen and that's got nothing to do with non-violent movements (that are going on, along side those you mentioned). I would also not be so quick to judge what is and is not justified. I had colleagues and fellow studends shot and gassed during Vietnam protests in the US, and I wouldn't consider the government we had back then any more brutal than China or any other example (far less, as a matter of fact). The point is, there are things worth protesting and not everyone is out to justify stealing a TV or burn a car.

A peaceful man would publish anything he wanted, and he would be protecting his freedom of speech. Speech is not violence and the constitution in this country, as well as the UN charter, make that abundantly clear. Washington DC to this day hosts KKK and neo-nazi rallies. I've seen african american policemen protect these very people's rights to march. Not because they agree with their ideology, but because to all of us free speech is the heart of what we believe in. If you're ready to lay down your right to speak against or critique a religion, a government, a politician, or an idea: you're neglecting the defense of your own rights. That, in my mind, is the worst of all cowardice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU

I think a diablofans tramp-stamp would be a welcome addition to any lower-back.

I teach American and World History full-time at a State University and lecture part-time with a few private institutes. I also have the wonderful opportunity to research and collaborate with some other professors on the topics of everything from socio-economic trends to biology, politics, and music. Given my quite liberal leanings in an otherwise conservative part of the country, i've also got a penchant for local political activism and like to help my students organize their efforts aswell.

Of course, I do also place a high value on my gaming time, what little of it now remains in an otherwise hectic life and i've been playing PC games since before most forum members here were born. =)

Stuff about the WD. Anything really, I feel like he's largely a mystery compared to the other classes with extensive skill info and video footage.

Quote from Zarando

I don't even do that for my law exam, for weight training or anything else VASTLY more important than a video game. If you're falling asleep, go to sleep, its simple!

It's ok to be casual, no big deal. =P

Quote from LinkX

However, the language is only inflammatory because people allow it to offend them. If I hit you with a baseball bat, it's going to hurt. If I speak words at you, it's simply vibrations in the air. People allow themselves to be offended.

Not exactly true. Language carries with it more than the ability to cause a conscious re-action in the listener. While that may be the case sometimes, maybe even often times, it isn't the case all the time. When words are corrlated with negative emotions, pain, etc. the sub-conscious reaction is quite visceral. In other words, calling someone a racial epithet that they've been conditioned to associate with and they'll probably experience an increased heart rate and enter fight/flight mode instinctively. Though it may sound like a play on words, the speaker is threatening and the subject is responding as his environment has conditioned him to. We would be remissed to isolate threat of violence from violence itself. Just because I'm not brandishing a weapon, doesn't mean I don't intend to hurt you. After all, as Gov. Perry would say "that's why they call it concealed." (Quoting crazy ass republicans is fun)

The fact people still respond negatively to "nigger," in America is largely due to the fact racism is alive and well in many parts of the country (not just the south, see: Los Angeles, New York, Philidelphia, Chicago, studies) and the time since rather extreme examples of racism is less than one average human lifespan. Grandparents certainly remember segregation and violence toward blacks. Parents, if not recalling that, do recall serious descrimination. Children have grown up being taught by those parents and grandparents and under a lot of the same pressures (though certainly not as pronounced as in the early-mid 20th century).

I'm not saying the word should be banned. I'm not even saying you should never say it. What I am saying, is that you should expect negative consequences when using it. Just because it's become a colloquaial generic among some black populations, doesn't mean that everyone gets to use it as such. Espcially when they happen to look like the people who used to use it by it's original definition.

Quote from Hpnot1Q

Im not, and i know damn wel about the slavery. That was not my point.

I don't know what you point was, but i'd say anyone with a history of being descriminated against using that word has every right to be mad at you if you use it. What's the problem with that?

And if you have to wonder why there is a dichotomy of opinion between European populations and American ones, you clearly don't "know damn wel," about slavery.

You should enlighten us. I'm not here for D3 anyway, just the chance to hook up with one of these studmuffin forum moderators.

Here are a few pictures I found elsewhere. I have not seen them (after searching around) on this site, and I thought they were good pics, so here ya go.





4th difficulty reveal/confirmed


Below is a Wizard armor spell breaking up...unsure of what it is


Below is the Monk's Blinding Flash skill


Below is the Wizard's Blizzard skill






























Below picture is of 'Slaughtered Calf Inn'

So while passing the time.. I tried somthing kind of fun while playing TorchLight. (Im sure its been done before)

In TL, there are 3 skill trees for each class. There are 5 "active skills" in each tree for each class. That makes 15 active skills per class.

What I just did was level up a Vanquisher to level 30.

I Saved up points to put a new point into each skill when it became available. There are generaly 3 new skills ( 1 in each tree) to grab every 5 levels. In all, there are 15 active skills ( about 8 less than D3 will have per class )

By level 30ish go for somthing like this:
I put 5 points in each of the level one skills (15 total)
4 in each of the level five skills (12 total)
3 in each of the level 10 skills(9 points)
2 in the level 15 and 20 skills (12 points)
and 1 in each of the level 25 points (3 points) TOTAL (51 points)

**Important: make sure you have enough points (at least 3) going into each 5th level. So at level 5, make sure to have 3 unspent points, at level 10 make sure to have 3 unspent points (so you can get all 3 of the new skills). In between, use your fame points to keep the lower level skills viable. Play the game on Hard (instead of very hard) so that the lower level skills stay viable.

Basically I ignored the passives, and it kind of simulated the way the skills will unlock in Diablo 3.
By the time I had all the skills unlocked I started expirimenting trying to find fun combinations and "limited" myself to 6 skills (left, right Mouse Buttons and 1-4).

So really not a brilliant idea or anything, but it was alot of fun. I found quite a few fun combinations of skills that made the Vanq play totally differently.

So doing this was a blast, even with just 15 skills to chose from, its alot of fun swaping them in and out. Now, when you think D3 has 23 active skills (instead of 15) and 5 rune changes for each skill.. the same thing that is really interesting / fun in TorchLight is going to be insane in D3. Can't wait.

Doing this from last night till this morning some how (didn't think it was possible) hyped me up even more for D3.

I've got a good idea. Let's all pretend that Diablo 3 is going to be a brand new game that never existed before. Let's pretend for just a second that no one has ever played the complete version. Now we--- oh, wait. I've just been informed that Diablo 3 IS a brand new game that never existed before and no one HAS ever played the complete version. Okay, um...

Alright, um. Okay, let's pretend that players can't "miss" features of a brand new game since a brand new game never had them. Let's pretend (just pretend, mind you) that a brand new game can't really be expected to have every feature that every gamer wants. Let's just PRETEND that if all brand new games were expected to cater to the needs of everyone, then every new game would be the same as every new game. So that means----- oh, no, I've been informed that all that was actually reality as well.


Look, people, Diablo 3 is an online game. I guess if you're not an online gamer, whatever reason may be fueling that, you won't be playing Diablo 3, because it's an online game. The game's architecture isn't so "box-o'-legos" that Blizzard can just slide in an offline mode. It's not like they have an on-off switch. "Okay, D3 team, looks like about 14% of the internet is angry. Better flip the offline mode back on." I daresay that implementing an offline mode would push this game back 3+ months. That's even optimistic. Because aside from rewriting the entire game engine... aside from rewriting the game so that all the important data that is kept server-side can be kept client-side... aside from rewriting their ENTIRE security system to account for the reality that everyone can possibly access every bit of information that they got from their client-side game... Now Blizzard has to atmospherically rework the game so that it accounts for the fact that now everyone is not necessarily part of the D3 world if they're playing D3.

I'm sorry. I understand that you hoped it wouldn't be an online game. But it is. It's a game you must get online to play. I know, I know, reality sucks. I guess a particular video game has been proven once and for all to NOT be an inalienable right of soldiers, people with crappy internet, and people on the go. I don't know about the rest of you, but MY whole world is crumbling in the face of that revelation.

Hardcore isn't for pussies, if you can't handle it, don't play it. HC duels = Loot duels. Anything less than that is unacceptable.


The last thing we need is Blizzard tainting the last piece of diablo we have just because some carebears wants some risk, but not too much risk.

When D2 was released over a decade ago, one of it's cutting edge features was the client-server online protection. At the time of release this was top-shelf security and it took quite some time before any real cracks appeared in it. However, with enough time and effort everything can be cracked and now we have to current botfest of D2.

Now they wish to make D3 as secure as possible at release. If to get a high level of security so that bots/hackers/dupers/asswipes don't ruin my gaming experience I don't care if they force you to breath into a tube to get the program started. If it can keep my playing experience fun for as long as possible I say do it.

Whats even more ironic/moronic is that I bet 90% of the people who played D2 did so online or at best played offline only when forced to. Lets get real, in todays broadbanded world will being connected to play really be a problem? The only time I'm not connected is during a power outage, which tends to cause a serious degrade in gaming experience by itself. Get real and find something realistic to bitch about...

I just love the way the new resource orbs look. They are highly detailed and aren't one solid color. In some videos you can see it swirling within the orb. My favorite is easily Arcane Power. It's simply pure awesome in energy form.

Spirit (Monk)


Fury (Barbarian)


Arcane Power (Wizard)


Mana (Witch Doctor)


Hatred & Discipline (Demon Hunter)


Compare to D1/D2 orbs:

Hi guys

Not sure if you guys have already seen this, but.. yeah

http://pc.ign.com/articles/118/1186681p1.html

IGN interviews Jay Wilson about the 5 classes.