• 1

    posted a message on Minecraft Seeds Pro - Manage Your Seeds Like a Pro
    Quote from BIOadam7

    Some of us don't have smart phones that may want to use this, but would be unable to because we don't have an app feature.

    Don't need a smartphone. An iPod works just fine.
    Posted in: Minecraft News
  • 1

    posted a message on A new World every Week?
    Quote from Spawngiirl

    [...] its a beta.

    This.

    /thread.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Notch needs to abolsih MCBans
    Quote from Lynxdragon
    Lets start a thread to have Notch abolish known accounts that grief? How about that idea!?

    /signed.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on skins that should not exist (nazi,hitler)
    Quote from Quxudia

    Yes there is, one accepts the world the way it is and the other tries to make it a better place.

    I live in a "non-traditional family" - the woman I love is polyamorous, so I share her with another man (a fellow I am happy to be very good friends with, in fact). We're about to move, all three of us, into a single house together. I anticipate living in that house with both of them until either (a) I become so ill I require permanent hospitalisation,, (:cool.gif: the house burns down, or (c) I die.

    That family structure would "upset" a damned lot of people, prompting them to make it illegal. In fact, it is (un-necessarily) illegal for BOTH of us guys, to marry the one woman. Even though, for all intents and purposes, we may as well be married anyway.

    Those laws don't make the world a better place. They make the world a more Christian place - and the two are not always the same thing.



    If that were true then laws wouldn't exist, it's illegal to falsely shout "Fire!" in a theater and for good reason.

    "Free speech" does not, and never did, mean "free to say whatever you want wherever you want and however you want". Rather, it means "free to express any opinion you might hold (that is not slanderous/libelous, does not advocate criminal acts, and does not endanger members of the public)".

    Thus, you are not forbidden to say or yell "fire" in a theater as a matter of restricting what you can talk about - you are forbidden to say or yell "fire" in a theater in such a way as to endanger the health, safety, and even lives of the public at large - in such a case, the other patrons of the theater in specific.

    And within that framework? Yes: speech is either completely free, or not free at all. There is no middle ground. In the words of Yoda: "there is only DO, or DO NOT."




    On a different note:

    Quote from Benefactor

    Do you know why you see swastikas on the walls, why you hear people insulting one another's race, and why you read in the paper about some Jewish man killed by supremacists? Because people hate other people, that's why. Solve that. Make a better world for everyone. End racism at the root. Make people not hate one another. Then you won't see swastikas on the walls or burning crosses. And when you do see them, you'll know for sure that those symbols aren't racist: after all, there is no more racism.

    *APPLAUSE* Well said, Sir or Madame. Well said, indeed!
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Petetion to stop the repeater update
    Quote from shrogg

    No, they were intended to be how they are currently, otherwise they would of fixed this long ago (really simple fix too)

    I highly doubt they were intended to work the old way.

    And you should stop trying to pretend to be able to read Notch's mind. You don't seem very good at it, to me.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Petetion to stop the repeater update
    IMO, it's an obvious bug fix; repeaters SHOULD have worked that way, from the get-go.

    Just like the old minecart boosters: don't get your heart set on a glitch, to the point you're upset when the glitch is fixed.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Which Pistons?
    I prefer the 1.7 version, for one simple reason: future updates are very unlikely to "break" them, unlike the mod version.
    Posted in: Redstone Discussion and Mechanisms
  • 1

    posted a message on Well, I can't buy Minecraft...
    Quote from gamerdude879
    I asked my dad, and you know what he said? He said, "No, I don't like the graphics."


    Ask him this:

    "Dad, if it's my money, and it's my time ... why does it matter if you think the graphics aren't good enough?"
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Getting Xbox 360 and Portable versions for free
    Quote from Axmann



    They could refuse you the game you purchased because of that little "retroactive effect" part in there.

    No, that is an incorrect argument. The first bit of what you show, simply isn't legal, and cannot be enforced (see: Contracts of Adhesion, Unconscionability, and for those concerned about Swedishlaw versus whatever other law might apply to them in this sort of matter, READ THIS).
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Getting Xbox 360 and Portable versions for free
    Quote from assassinof1337

    It does not say all future versions "of this platform" or however you wish to say it. It only says future versions. In order for it to be legally restricted to only that platform, it would have to say that.

    At the time, there was only Minecraft for PC - specifying "for PC" would have been redundant.

    Saying that its implied won't hold up in court, this is why Terms and Conditions contracts are so long(the one for iTunes is literally over 60 pages long)

    Fiiiine, you want to get down to arguing tiny little nit-picky principles of Law with me? Your loss: Impracticability, as an excuse for specific non-performance:

    Typically, the test U.S. courts use for impracticability is as follows (with a few variations between jurisdictions):
    1. There must be an occurrence of a condition, the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract,
    2. The occurrence must make performance extremely expensive or difficult
    3. This difficulty was not anticipated by the parties to the contract (note: some jurisdictions require that there be no measure within the contract itself to allocate risk between the parties)

    (1)
    It was long assumed by the majority of the customer-base that cross-platform translation to Consoles, especially the Xbox, was unlikely if not outright impossible. Reasonably, it follows that a similar opinion was generally held as regards translation to a smartphone.
    (2) Providing every Alpha customer with a free copy of the Xbox, Experia, and all possible future platform-translated iterations would impose a significant organisational cost on Mojang (having to establish and maintain an alternate and parallel distribution network) - and further, the very need to do so would reduce the perceived value of the entire Minecraft franchise, reducing the likelihood that there ever would be such platform translations at all.
    (3) See #1 - there was no realistic anticipation that MineCraft would be 'ported to the Xbox and to a Smartphone.


    So, there you essentially have it - and since I am not an attorney, you can bet your backside that whatever attorney's Mojang hires, will do a much better (and more thorough) job, including and especially having a foot-long list of precedents in their favor to summarise and present to the judge in any court case you were foolish enough to pursue.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • To post a comment, please .