Pentium100

Yea. I would ask Tara Strong how to become a great voice actor (if I was interested), but her opinion on who to vote for does not matter to me any more than that of any other random person.

Is it weird that I do not follow celebrities as role models? If somebody can sing really well (or at least well enough for me to like him), it still does not mean that they do other things correctly. If I wanted to be a singer I could follow them ("Oh, I want to sing just like xyz"). Similarly, if I found out that my favorite singer was doing drugs, it would not matter to me, since I would still enjoy his songs (maybe the drugs actually help him sing?). I wouldn't start doing drugs either. I can only imagine following a celebrity as a role model if I want to be just like that celebrity, including his career. Otherwise there will be massive differences between me and him, so there is no point in following him when he is not performing.

I usually do not care what the celebrities do when not working. Let's say I like a singer and enjoy listening to him. It really does not matter to me what he does when not performing, he can be strangling kittens for all I care. They may marry and divorce twice every year and I still won't care. I will only care about such things like "When is the new CD coming out? Will there be a concert near me?" The opposite of that is also true - if someone is a great person, but I do not like their singing (could even be a talented person, but I may not like the genre), then I will not be listening to them. As for Tara Strong - I sometimes visit her Twitter page and from that I know that we have quite different political views on some subjects. However, this does not make me enjoy her performances less (or more). If she ever decided to run for office in my area though, I definitely would not vote for her. I care about the celebrity only as much as it affects me. For a singer it's his singing, for a businessman it would be his business practices, for a politician it would be his political views and likelihood of corruption. When a celebrity campaigns for some politician I usually ignore that. My situation is probably very different from the situation of the celebrity and even if the celebrity honestly liked that politician and his views, I may not like him because I am not a celebrity.

If anyone is going to show up they'll just probably party a safe distance away from the fence and call it a day. If they actually try to get into the restricted area - they will have lots of problems. I'm pretty sure that the military will try non-lethal options first though. But still, unless someone there enjoys the smell of tear gas, they will have a bad time. Also, it's not like you can just hop over the fence and be inside the base where the interesting things are. AFAIK the security perimeter is at least 25km away from the actual base. So anyone would have to run for 25km while avoiding tear gas, rubber bullets, other non-lethal weapons and finally real bullets. At least some parts of the area are also likely mined. And then there's the legal trouble - going there without permission would probably result in a prison sentence.

The parents have the ear of the government. While the gamers are loud and are consulted on this issue, it's the parents that essentially initiated this response. If whatever stuff the game industry does just annoyed the gamers (a lot of industry practices annoy the gamers), the government would not care. On the other hand, the loot box controversy started because those loot boxes were in a child-rated game. That got the attention of parents (WHAT? MY kid is gambling and with real money no less? NO!). If the game was rated weakly-adult (ESRB rating M vs rating AO that gambling actually needs), the gamers would be annoyed just the same, but nobody else would care. Of course the gamers latched on this and hope to push other thing (that may be annoying only to gamers) through at the same time. And yea, the gamers need to not overdo it. The industry overdid it, let's not repeat its mistake.

Yes, and the game industry is also egging the government on. I mean, if I was doing something I knew I was not supposed to and got caught (like they did), I would try to comply with everything the government says so as to avoid getting in an even bigger trouble. Except that the industry is not doing that, they keep adding the loot boxes and making them even more obviously gambling. Reminds me of how ICANN had problems with the EU and the GDPR. It was so funny to read about it. In the end they had to comply with the regulation just like everybody else. Or like Icarus seeing that his wings are starting to melt decides to fly even closer to the sun.

So we agree on this point. This is a tactic that pretty much everyone use. Basically, let's say I want 100EUR for something, but I know that the other person likes to haggle and I'll never get what I ask, so I'll ask for 150EUR and then "reluctantly" agree to 100EUR. This is a practice that I personally really dislike, but have to do it (on both sides) because others do it. Same here - ask for the executives to go to jail or be shot for loot boxes and then be OK with a compromise of different ratings. Because if you ask for what you want in the first place, you will get a compromise, which is, of course, when both sides are about equally unhappy with the outcome.

Yes, and that is unfortunate. Just like after every shooting law-abiding gun owners may suffer the consequences of some idiot killing people. Or law-abiding airline passengers now have to suffer the increased security checks because of terrorist attacks. Some people mess up big time, the government gets involved, the guilty parties get punished but there is always collateral damage. There are a lot of banned things that can be used normally, but they are banned because some people abused them.

I dislike double standards. If a company wants to run an online casino, it should comply with the regulations and pay the taxes that apply. Some people try to be "clever" and find a loophole in the law that lets them do something that should not be allowed (say, market an online casino to kids or selling alcohol during the time when it is not allowed). However, government laws are not like the laws of physics - government laws can be changed and the loopholes can be fixed. I do not really want to see the loot boxes banned. Physical and online casinos are not banned. Just apply the gambling regulations to them and you can have them. Of course it would lose the appeal since the whole idea is to market these games to children. PEGI and ESRB ratings were supposed to be self-regulation by the game industry, pretty much like the movie industry. That is preferable to regulation by the government. However, if the industry refuses to do a proper job, then the government has to do the job for it. By the way, the movie industry seems to do a good job of rating the movies. I mean I haven't seen a slasher movie (or porn) classified as OK for children. And the industry is to blame for this. The companies should have known when it was "too far". They flew too close to the sun and now bad things are going to happen. NBA 2K20, to me, looks like the game company is mocking the government. I mean it may take some thinking to equate loot boxes (like in Battlefield 2) to gambling, but here you have a virtual casino. It's like the company saying "see, we even put slot machines in here, how long is it going to take you idiots to see that this is gambling?". Hopefully not very long. Some companies tried this stunt with the sale of alcohol at night. "See, we have a table and a couple of chairs in the shop, so it's a bar now, and we can sell alcohol at all hours, oh and we cannot do anything if the client decides to take the bottle home even if we forbid it, we cannot physically prevent them from just taking the bottle and walking out". That loophole got plugged. Now you have to pour the alcohol to a non-disposable container like a glass. Somehow this made those "bars" start actually enforcing the rules (and in turn, stopping selling alcohol, since their whole idea was to sell alcohol 'to go' when it was not allowed to do so). Still I am all for restricting the violent video games to adults. A 7 year old should not play Manhunt.

So, it didn't change then. Killing people by the millions was also because "government knows best". Then again given a choice between this and "every man for himself" I'd choose the government as long as it does not actively try to kill me. I hate the bans on incandescent lightbulbs and the fuel consumption regulations for cars (and if I was building a new house for myself then I would hate the energy efficiency requirements for houses as well), so I would be a hypocrite if I wanted gambling to be banned. On the other hand, making it more difficult is OK in my book, for example, I am OK with a taxon gasoline - I burn more gas (either by driving more or having an inefficient car) I pay more tax. As long as the thing is not really dangerous by itself (cocaine, explosives, highly radioactive stuff etc) it should not be banned.

No. I would not want a 5 year old child playing "Manhunt" any more than a 5 year old child playing a slot machine. Both games should be for adults only. NBA 2K20 is rated PEGI3 which means for children 3 and up. Maybe the 3 year old child should have an option of playing Manhunt too? Why is that game so restricted? Or maybe give the 3 year old a porn game? Or do you draw the line at that? Yes, I enjoy having true free market where I can choose from one option (well, in some cases two extremely similar options). So much freedom! I mean that's great. If smaller companies could enter the market it would be horrible, not only would the prices drop, but I would have too much choice. Completely free market has strong positive feedbacks and goes towards a monopoly. Because I do not want a monopoly, the government should make it easier for smaller companies to enter the market and harder for large companies to dominate the market by buying out competitors etc. By the way, in most countries people are "enforced free" as you cannot sell yourself into slavery, since, well, slavery is illegal. The ratings, just like the ratings for TV shows and movies are there to inform the parents about the product. The parents can still let their 7 year old child watch a "N13" rated TV show but they know that this TV show is more suited for older children. Sometimes the ratings are more detailed, for example, indicate that the game contains violence or nudity since some parents may be OK, but with only one of those. In my country children are not allowed into the cinema if the movie is rated "N16" or "N18" ( a 7 year old child is allowed in the cinema to watch a N13 movie, but only with parents), but the parent can always buy/rent a DVD and show the movie to the child. So, why is a game that literally has a casino in it rated as suitable for 3 year old children? I'm pretty sure some parents would allow their child to play this, but even they would most likely want to be informed. If the game companies are unwilling to correctly rate their products, then maybe the government should do it? Again, not banning, but correctly rating the game to 18+. Adults would still be able to buy it, hell, even give it to their children. But they would be informed. Speaking of the USA - that country originated so many warning labels on everything that make even me laugh - "do not put this plastic bag on your head or you will suffocate, do not give it to a child or he/she will put it on the head and suffocate", "do not put your dog in a microwave oven", "do not touch here - it's hot", "do not pour water on your TV", "contains small parts, small children can choke on them" and so on. But putting a proper rating on a game that has a casino in it - no, that's free speech, no way, children should be able to gamble in a virtual casino, since they are not allowed inside a real one. Anyway, in a socialized society, poor people get welfare. Addicts and people with mental problems are more likely to need it. Killing them so they are not a burden on the society went out of fashion in 1945. However, if you can save someone from addiction, he may even be a productive member of the society, so it's even better than killing him. Also, we would like that the children get the best chance they can to grow up to be productive members of society, even if their parents are not ideal (taking the children away should be reserved only for extreme cases, since growing up in a loving family is better for the mental health of the child, even if the parents are not ideal). So, the parents need some help, for example, the content rating system. Of course, the parents can ignore it, but it is there to help them make better decisions.

Free speech does not really exist, try going to Germany (and some other EU countries) and waving a Nazi flag. Or going to my country and waving a USSR flag. Not really. I believe in a free market, but that means that the market must be "enforced free" - the government has to keep a leash on the large companies - the larger the company, the shorter the leash. Small companies can do whatever, since there are usually many of them competing, I can just go to a competitor. Sure, on two conditions: 1) that we are talking about adults and 2) that those bad decisions do not affect other people. In my opinion you can dring a bottle of vodka and then drive at 200km/h, as long as you do not drive on a road that other people use. If you only risk killing yourself - go ahead. Back to the topic topic: There already is regulation on game violence. A game like "Manhunt" cannot be sold to children. There are also regulation on porn games - those also cannot be sold to children. I do not want casino games to be banned - I want them put in the same restricted category as "Manhunt" and porn games. Adults would still be able to buy them. That is a too narrow definition. What the player wins has value to them and, as such, triggers the same circuits in the brain as playing a physical slot machine. The problem with NBA 2K20 is that it is targeted at young children (rated ages 3 and up). Children are more susceptible to getting addicted. If it was restricted to adults only, there wouldn't be such a problem. But the company wants to exploit children, get them hooked on gambling. Just like cigarette companies used to advertise cigarettes to children.

On the other hand, hopefully the governments will end this practice - the game companies just got too greedy and got noticed. Even the UK may ban loot boxes, I mean, "surprise mechanics". Well, game companies, prepare for "surprise regulations". All the other game companies can thank EA for the regulations, since Battlefield 2 is what started the ball rolling. Put games with real-money casinos in them in the same category as online casinos - with the same license requirements, taxes etc, since this is what they are.

Look for the cause of the problem, if I don't see one, then turn off AC etc to reduce the load on the main UPS, if it's a work day then excuse myself from work and go rent a generator while telling to myself that "that's it, this is the last time for sure, I'm buying a generator now". I think I would actually buy the generator this time if I had a long enough outage. The main UPS should last for 1-2 hours, then the remaining UPSs should last for 45 minutes.

01

03

05

07

09

11

13

15

17

19