Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 572 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
trip (696 D(B))
21 Apr 10 UTC
View/post a moderator report
haven't been on much lately, was wondering what this is for.
6 replies
Open
BrightEyes (1030 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
BOOBS!!
See inside
22 replies
Open
TrustMe (106 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
Rules question: Dislodged Convoy
Can a fleet that is dislodged retreat to the territory that it was attempting to convoy to?
3 replies
Open
dave bishop (4694 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
What happens if....
What would be the result of these moves?
14 replies
Open
SirBayer (480 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
SirBayer's Game of Pandarsenic is Untrustworthy
gameID=27270

Come one and all - it's only password protected so that I can save Pandarsenic a spot in the game. PM me for the password!
3 replies
Open
pita morgo (370 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
join a quick live game
it starts in an hour its called live baby, just join!
0 replies
Open
phantom420 (100 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
Join up! quick game
2 replies
Open
terry32smith (0 DX)
21 Apr 10 UTC
Live game - 5 min - Europe- join now!!!
come on you only have 10 minutes!
4 replies
Open
BrightEyes (1030 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
Sex!!
Now that I have your attention...
7 replies
Open
superman98 (118 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
Super Fun Live Game-Anon WTA @5:20pm EST
Hey all,
Live game today, 5min/phase, 50 D bet, Anon players, WTA, starts at 5:20pm EST. gameID=27268
1 reply
Open
trip (696 D(B))
21 Apr 10 UTC
live game anyone?
looking to play a live anc-med game today. wta, 25 pts, 10 min turns. please post if interested.
0 replies
Open
kenneth (100 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
Live game in 10 minutes.
Hi, hope you'll join.

live cheap, die free.
0 replies
Open
Draugnar (0 DX)
21 Apr 10 UTC
Interesting bug and work around.
Parameter 'viaConvoy' set to invalid value 'No'.

I had set an order to move to one location from another but accidentally selected By Convoy. when I tried to change it back to By Land, it threw up that error. I was able to work around it by selecting a new target territory, then changing back, but still...
0 replies
Open
phantom420 (100 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
need some people who are up to the challenge!
7 replies
Open
rudekker (584 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
New anon classic game
Nothing too exciting. Anonymous game, 24 hours between stages. Name o' the game is "Let's Game!"
0 replies
Open
Dunecat (5899 D)
20 Apr 10 UTC
Dune: Clash of the Titans; 5000-point bet WTA, 2-day phases, anonymous
gameID=27101

Everybody is invited.
24 replies
Open
Jimbozig (0 DX)
21 Apr 10 UTC
live gunboat
0 replies
Open
phantom420 (100 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
Live game come test your skills
14 replies
Open
Jimbozig (0 DX)
21 Apr 10 UTC
gunboat
in 20 gameID=27238
0 replies
Open
phantom420 (100 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
HELP US!!
we only need two more!!! gameID=27231
2 replies
Open
Jimbozig (0 DX)
21 Apr 10 UTC
live gunboat
4 replies
Open
phantom420 (100 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
10 min phase fun gameID=27231
1 reply
Open
phantom420 (100 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
Join up for a live one gameID=27231
3 replies
Open
S.E. Peterson (100 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
WTA Live Gunboat in 1 hour (35 point bet)
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=27189
4 replies
Open
Octavious (2701 D)
15 Apr 10 UTC
Degrees of Victory
What gives a man (or that other thing... woman...) the best start in a life of diplomatic domination? Are our most successful players trained in the art of psychology, well grounded by study of mathematics, or a graduate of the university of life? I want to know what degrees you took, or that you want to take, or if you had no time for university and chose instead a more hands on route through life.
90 replies
Open
LammeFrans (962 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
Ancient Med Game
http://www.webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=27219

1 place left
0 replies
Open
phantom420 (100 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
Gunboat Fast paced ol' boi
join up and test your skills
1 reply
Open
Jimbozig (0 DX)
21 Apr 10 UTC
live gunboat
0 replies
Open
phantom420 (100 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
JOIN!!! HAVE SOME FUN!!!
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=27204
0 replies
Open
Tolstoy (1962 D)
20 Apr 10 UTC
Are Supreme Court Justices really this stupid?
See below.
Tolstoy (1962 D)
20 Apr 10 UTC
My city is currently having a case heard in the Supreme Court over whether police officers have an expectation of privacy in the use of their city-issued cell phones (specifically their text messages).

A quote from the article about the argument before The Supremes in the local paper:

[quote]The argument also displayed the limits on the justices' mastery of modern communications devices as Roberts tried to figure out the role of the text-messaging service in enabling an exchange between two people.

"I thought, you know, you push a button; it goes right to the other thing," Roberts said.

"You mean it doesn't go right to the other thing?" Scalia said.[/quote]

These are the sharpest legal minds in the country, sitting on the highest court in the land - from which there is no appeal. They are charged with making new legal decisions about emerging technology and privacy which will affect all of us and our grandchildren for the rest of our lives. And they have no understanding whatsoever of what they're ruling on. Surely, there is a better way to handle this.

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_14916338?source=rss
Hunter49r (189 D)
20 Apr 10 UTC
Good thing the people making the laws are a lot smarter then this... oh wait.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23CjIWMgA
Tolstoy (1962 D)
20 Apr 10 UTC
Hilarious! I love the Admiral's response. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell if he's able to keep a straight face due to the low resolution.
urallLESBlANS (0 DX)
20 Apr 10 UTC
I hate it when there are places named after other well known places. Where is this Ontario...California?

I don't entirely blame them for not being up on texting (even though they should for this case), but I'd think they would be smart enough not to let everyone know.
baumhaeuer (245 D)
20 Apr 10 UTC
Amusing in a somewhat scary way...

I would say that it depends on who actually owns the city-issued cell-phones and (if the officers owned them) whether there were any strings attatched (you can have this, but you have to let us...)
Tolstoy (1962 D)
20 Apr 10 UTC
Ontario California is about 40 miles due East of downtown Los Angeles, in the Great Suburban Sea. It was founded by the Chaffery Brothers - originally of Ontario, Canada - in the 1880's as an agricultural colony (we may also thank them for Ontario, Oregon - although they eventually left that town as well and ended up in Australia). The city is most famous for its international airport (ONT), and only slightly less so for its political corruption. It is also a substantial hub of commerce and industry for the Inland Empire region of Southern California (an area East of Los Angeles, encompassing thousands of square miles and millions of residents), as well as the original home of several semi-famous sports figures whose names I never thought worth remembering.
Acosmist (0 DX)
20 Apr 10 UTC
Why are you not whining about the lawyers who are supposed to be informing them? Justices aren't experts in everything. Like all human beings, they can't be.
sqrg (304 D)
20 Apr 10 UTC
Well, it should also be in the justices' interest to gain expert knowlegde right?
They, of all people, should realize that they dont know or understand everything. On top of that, they are in the perfect position to gain this knowledge.
Besides, making uninformed decisions (or have faulty assumptions) is no good for anyone is it?
Draugnar (0 DX)
20 Apr 10 UTC
The interesting thing is, despite how the tech works, the issue comes down to "Who owns and pays for the cell phone and its service?" The cops should have no more expectation of privacy than any of us with corporate email accounts or corporate blackberries. So the fact that the judges don't understand the method by which a text gets from one phone to another is really irrelavent in the grand scheme of this case.
Tolstoy (1962 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
It is true that no one can be an expert in everything. But we're pretending that Supreme Court Justices are, and expecting them to make judgments based on things they don't really understand. It is also true that understanding the mechanics of texting isn't *too* important in this particular case. But what happens in a few short years when cases about Net Neutrality and other slightly complicated topics start popping up? Are we going to pretend that octogenarians who grew up thinking AM radio was the coolest thing ever and probably don't even type their own emails today are going to understand all the implications of their rulings on technologies and practices they can't themselves describe accurately? Anyone who has helped their elderly grandmother with her computer knows the answer.
Invictus (240 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
We don't need electrical engineers and IT guys on the Supreme Court to make sound rulings on Net Neutrality or other technological cases. The cases will still be decided on the good old fashioned facts of the case, and until the Singularity I'd bet on the Court getting by on a well informed but not technical understanding of the issues.
DaveH (1611 D)
21 Apr 10 UTC
Look, this is definitely a sad display of technical ignorance, but the SC Justices are all pretty up there in years. (Because, like, it takes a little while to develop the reputation necessary to get appointed.) But cases dealing with new technologies are not necessarily a new phenomenon. The Justices' job is to interpret the Constitution, which was written well before the invention of cars, computers, TV, radio... pretty much everything. They do the job by boiling the issue down to its simplest legal issue and make their decisions by comparing it to analogous situations and cases (e.g. Wiretapping compared to eavesdropping at someone's window). It might not be perfect, but they'll probably muddle through okay.

That being said, those old morons are so totally out of touch! LOL!!!!@!@!!!


12 replies
Page 572 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top