Nate_is_my_fake_name's forum posts

#1 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -
@darkjester74: Yeah, I think it's awesome.  If you click on it, it links you to a PDF of the full Court decision.
#2 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -

Haha, I love the caption on the FO3 screenshot!
 
Also, I think Patrick's reporting on this case has been quite good so far; it has definitely been timely.  I checked a couple of other websites when the story broke yesterday, and I think Giant Bomb may have been the first to gaming site to post it.

#3 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -
@Shady1992 said:
@IBurningStar said:
@Shady1992 said:

@IBurningStar:  60 million was the figure during Wrath, so its divided by 3 for WoW/BC/Wrath, to 20 million.  Wrath had 12 million subs at its peak, and its no big secret that MMOs don't have 100% player retention; you're really only short the 8 million people that quit at some point.  Factor in Cataclysm since this is 2011; and you have over 60 million

 I want you to provide a source for the bold and underlines part, please.
Why do you want me to provide a source for a well known fact?  Surely you are capable of using search engines on your own
I don't think you understand how the burden of proof works.
#4 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -
@Loose: That's what I found in Google as well.  Couldn't see anything more recent.
#5 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -
@Shady1992 said:
@Nate_is_my_fake_name said:

@Shady1992 said:

@Nate_is_my_fake_name:  Actually; I specifically noted that most people interested in playing an MMO are no longer interested in playing an MMO, as about 50 million of them have stopped altogether.     And like I said earlier, the amount of people who want to play an MMO still, but refuse to play WoW is... well small
Do you have any...well, evidence for that claim?
Sure, like I said earlier WoW has sold over 60 million copies since 2004  Only 11 million people are subscribed to WoW right now  edit: heh, forgot to do the math for you 60-11=49, round up to 50
Do you have a source for WoW having sold that many copies?
#6 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -
@JeffGoldblum said:

Why is Abraham Lincoln fighting anthropomorphic potatoes in a forest?

This is exactly what I thought!
 
That said, wow.  Looks impressive.
#7 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -

Nice...and I am surprised it was not more like a 5-4 decision.

#8 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -
@Inkerman said:
My argument is based on risk factors. If we were to compare two couples one heterosexual and the other homosexual, both are infertile and both have contracted the same STDs (or alternatively are completely immune), and the society they are entering is without prejudice then by all means flip a coin. Unfortunately we do not live in such a world, we live in reality. Things like risks to health, likelihood of achieving higher education, of remaining in employment, of getting married, of committing a crime, etc, etc are all applied every day to every facet of society, whether on an age, race, gender, geographic, economic or any other basis. Applying EXACTLY the same statistical analysis results in Gays having a higher risk of increased health costs in regards to both disease and reproduction and additionally cause greater social angst (although as I have said, I see this as a minor factor, that, as has been shown to me, diminishes with time). When there is dramatic differentiation between risk factors we do not ignore it (for example, Affirmative Action), so why do you expect society to ignore the higher cost (and therefore lower value) of homosexual couples?
These "risk factors" have nothing to do with whether or not this should be called "marriage" or something else.  These factors would be the same, because more people are not going to become gay just because they can now legally get married.  So...why are you so opposed to it being called marriage again?  Keep digging yourself into that hole.
#9 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -
@SlasherMan said:
@Nate_is_my_fake_name said:
@Shady1992 said:
@Nate_is_my_fake_name:  Actually; I specifically noted that most people interested in playing an MMO are no longer interested in playing an MMO, as about 50 million of them have stopped altogether.     And like I said earlier, the amount of people who want to play an MMO still, but refuse to play WoW is... well small
Do you have any...well, evidence for that claim?
Don't be crazy, who needs evidence when you can just say things on the internet? I mean, he "cited" a number, so it must be true! Numbers don't lie, right?
Oh man, what the fuck was I thinking?!
#10 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -
@Shady1992 said:
@Nate_is_my_fake_name:  Actually; I specifically noted that most people interested in playing an MMO are no longer interested in playing an MMO, as about 50 million of them have stopped altogether.     And like I said earlier, the amount of people who want to play an MMO still, but refuse to play WoW is... well small
Do you have any...well, evidence for that claim?