Skip to Content

WoW Insider has the latest on the Mists of Pandaria!
  • K-OSS
  • Member Since Mar 27th, 2006

Are you K-OSS? If So, Login Here.

BlogComments
Joystiq4 Comments
WoW2 Comments

Recent Comments:

Why all race Death Knights make sense from a lore standpoint {WoW}

May 23rd 2008 3:11PM The short story "Unbroken" shows that a Draenei, aligned perfectly with the Light, can be prone to weakness, no matter how disciplined. Isn't that what the Broken are? They're not demons, or demon tainted, they're what happened to those who were abandoned by the light. If the light will abandon them, even in the midst of a battle to defend Shattrath, because of a moment of doubt, why can't they do the same to those who traveled to Azeroth?

Another arguement can be made for their way of dealing with the light. The Naaru's teachings of the light are that those who do not embrace the light should be destroyed. Is it not worth to make the case that this with us or against us mentality would lead some Draenei also to seek power to convert more and more to the light? That they would make "little" sacrifices for the greater end? And that way could also lead them to the path of the Death Knight. After all, it was by making those "little" sacrifices for the greater end that brought Arthas all the way to the foot of Icecrown.

Priestess Delrissa, bringing a little PvP to your PvE {WoW}

Mar 29th 2008 5:38PM Had a similar experience, our CC consisted of two locks and a rogue. On the fight we ended up attempting to seduce both Salaris and Apoko, and sapping Yazzai. Sapped worked fine, but both Salaris and Apoko were immune to the Seduce. Eventually our tank just decided to tank three of the four, we had a lucky break chain fearing Salaris, and of course Sapping Yazz still.

In the end, we made it through. It struck as odd that the seduce wasn't working when everything we could find on the instance said it would... just another thing to remember for the next run I s'pose.

The Political Game: Don't worry, be happy {Joystiq}

Dec 8th 2006 3:13PM @ Captain Obvious
As it stands now, you are correct, you are free to choose. But that's not the scenario you originally proposed. You stated "If EVERYONE was armed there would be a lot less gun violence." Which does not imply any choice in the matter. Thus if my Cold War analogy is unfair, then your example was unclear.

Regardless of the over abundance of American Freedom(tm) or USSR Totalitarianism, the arguement of we have guns so others won't mess with us (which I believe is the basis of your point if I understand correctly) is the founding basis of deterrence, and thus my arguement still stands, as we're not debating the Cold War in terms of individual freedoms and in terms of Nuclear Deterrence. If you were speaking in realistic terms and not hypotheticals (such as EVERYONE has a gun), then that's a whole different thing. Thus the source of our little miscommunication.

The Political Game: Don't worry, be happy {Joystiq}

Dec 8th 2006 2:04PM "Because the obvious conclusion to my mom (or your mom, or grandfather, or uncle)owning a gun, is that she'll run out and join a gang so she can shoot people in rival gangs."

Neither scenario is depicting the true issue here. If everyone had a gun, it would ideally be considered a system of deterrence similar to that used during the Cold War era to keep everyone at bay. The main difference between the Cold War Deterrence and the everyone has a gun idea of deterrence us that EVERYONE has to abide by the concept of deterrence, which leads to the number one flaw which is inherent in a good portion of the human race, which is not everyone cares to think about anything beyond the immediate resolve. This would lead to a break in the deterrence policy and similar to the conceptual alternative to the cold war, could essentially create a domino effect of violence over a good portion of the population, if not immediately it would create a sense of stronger distrust and strengthen the ease of which that ill fated truce can be broken.

Ultimately, not a viable solution for a large scale, but could work in some smaller communities.

Region-free PS3, free online multiplayer confirmed {Joystiq}

Mar 27th 2006 9:28PM "who announced the idea of downloadable games first?
was it Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony?"

SEGA did, over 10 years ago. It was called the SEGA Channel. Every month the adapter downloaded dozens of games via cable and were able to play all of them as many times as you wanted. Next month, next set of games. Even had exclusive games, cheats & info, contests, 15 minute preview Test-Drives of upcoming games. Cost? $12.95/month. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Channel

See Snake in MGS3: Horse Meat Eater {Joystiq}

Mar 27th 2006 9:26PM So this is what would happen if Uwe Boll directed the MGS movie.