Jump to content

Snake726

Members
  • Content Count

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Snake726

  1. Yes re:Challenger, apparently Feynman's report focused on the fact that the o-rings had not been tested at the low temperature in which the launch took place.
  2. If there's anything I've learned from game development, it's that there is no such thing as bug free. Patches are just the reality of iteration. Most games these days ship with day 0 patches - in the old days the "gold disc" build would be achieved and the game would go into production, and maybe you then start to work on a patch. These days you cut off a build to ship at the production date, but then immediately start working on a day 0 patch to be downloaded on release, to fix as many other bugs as possible. Even then, you are always "shipping" bugs during bug triage - just like medical triage. Things that break the game are fixed first, things that block the player often are fixed next, things that look ugly are fixed last, and things that are stupid but don't do any of the above are shipped and tucked in the backlog to *maybe* be fixed in the future. To give you an idea, one of the last games I worked on shipped with 3,000 bugs - but only one A bug that crashed the game if a user idled in a certain boss encounter for something like 2 days - that was fixed shortly after it was found in the wild.
  3. Thanks for the additional update Steve, much appreciated!
  4. Thanks for the update! Keep up the good work.
  5. Much appreciated...right in time for a lunchtime play!
  6. You can ignore people! I'll never miss a chance to ignore a fellow Canuck!
  7. So the answer to your confidence in a debate about knowledge is off the table then eh. I am not diverting, I have no idea what you are on about. This is the BF sale policy: https://www.battlefront.com/sales-policy In it there are, of course, no claims about shipment dates for individual products, but there is a clear no return policy - this is the third time I'll quote it: NO REFUND POLICY Battlefront.com does not offer refunds for products purchased. I hereby speculate that BF does not offer refunds. Now you seem to think that this clause, in the federal law: "Section 435.3(b) of the final Rule continues to provide that the Commission does not intend to preempt action by state or local governments or supersede any provisions of any state or local laws, except to the extent that they conflict with the Rule. A law does not conflict with the Rule if it affords buyers equal or greater protection." Means the opposite of what it states? You are claiming that the law allows state law to supersede federal law, but this clause explicitly states the opposite. Unless the state law also allows for a refund after a date has been missed, then the federal law is applicable. The release date is stipulated on the front page, but in a fashion that lawyers fantasize about: "The obvious question out there is "when will CMSF2 ship?" We're aiming for no later than the end of September." The actual purchase page only stipulates: "Combat Mission Shock Force 2 is in the final stages of development, however it is not yet ready for release" Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Hopefully you're not Steve's lawyer!
  8. How confident are you in your ability to win a technical argument about epistemology?
  9. Tell me - what part of this are you having difficulty with, and we can work through it together: "Section 435.3(b) of the final Rule continues to provide that the Commission does not intend to preempt action by state or local governments or supersede any provisions of any state or local laws, except to the extent that they conflict with the Rule. A law does not conflict with the Rule if it affords buyers equal or greater protection."
  10. Now this - this is called the Dunning-Kruger effect, and may explain why you're so confused although everything apparently makes sense to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
  11. I will reiterate my well-dug hole of knowledge, until you read it, and maybe another time, so you comprehend it: Ad hominem - in this case the "abusive" ad hominem - is only a valid informal fallacy should an attack on character have nothing to do with the argument. However, in this case, your understanding of the relationship between federal law and the concept of legal precedent is incorrect. Since you don't acknowledge that you are incorrect in believing that a legal battle be necessary to ascertain whether or not federal law applies here, I can only assume: a) You are incapable of understanding b) You are intentionally acting as if you misunderstand to create an argument If you are truly a) and not b), you can learn more about how you're more recently wrong by reading this book: http://www.uapress.ua.edu/product/Ad-Hominem-Arguments,933.aspx
  12. Well I had to ask, and it looks like I was correct eh?
  13. Sigh. https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-22092.pdf "D. The Effect of the Rule on State and Local Laws Section 435.3(b) of the final Rule continues to provide that the Commission does not intend to preempt action by state or local governments or supersede any provisions of any state or local laws, except to the extent that they conflict with the Rule. A law does not conflict with the Rule if it affords buyers equal or greater protection."
  14. NO REFUND POLICY Battlefront.com does not offer refunds for products purchased.
  15. "The obvious question out there is "when will CMSF2 ship?" We're aiming for no later than the end of September. However, we'll soon release a demo with 4 battles and a training mission. That should help keep you occupied for a while."
  16. My God, dear lord, I am not annoyed with it, I am annoyed with the tight-asses who are annoyed by mentioning that Battlefront communicates very poorly. I don't give a **** if they don't communicate, but don't try and tell me it's not ****.
  17. Hell, since I'm in a giving mood, here's the paperwork and the section in question: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-22092.pdf "D. The Effect of the Rule on State and Local Laws Section 435.3(b) of the final Rule continues to provide that the Commission does not intend to preempt action by state or local governments or supersede any provisions of any state or local laws, except to the extent that they conflict with the Rule. A law does not conflict with the Rule if it affords buyers equal or greater protection."
  18. I'll spell this one out for you. This article is about state law: https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/return-policies-and-refunds.html This article is about federal law: https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-operations/laws-governing-shipping-advertising.html It is clear which legislation takes precedence: "The FTC has wide ranging powers to enforce the 30-Day Rule. Businesses can be sued by the FTC for injunctive relief, damages of up to $16,000 per violation, and redress for the consumer. Additionally, state and local agencies can sue you for violating consumer protection laws."
  19. Tell me friend - on what date would you consider an order placed for delivery by "the end of September" to be late? Do you consider the end of September to be a period; say, the 22nd to 31st? Or do you consider it to be the last day of the month, the 31st? [Edit: Apparently you consider the end of September to occur sometime in October.] Hilariously, in either case, Battlefront did not inform anyone of the date slippage, and, if they had, would not have extended a refund. What is your point? To continue to embarrass yourself?
  20. Tell me - did you receive a "prompt" message from Battlefront once the "time" of the "end of September" had passed? Do you think that, based upon your reading of the sales policy, you could have gotten a refund? This is really a pedantic activity, since I do not intend to cancel my order, but surely you'll submit that - failing some further reading comprehension issue - the fact of the matter is that Battlefront does not comply with U.S. federal law in this case and, by the grace of their consumers who gladly pay above-market prices for their products, nobody cares to give them trouble.
  21. There was no promised time, and BF explicitly states that they do not accept refunds. It's on the page you didn't read: NO REFUND POLICY Battlefront.com does not offer refunds for products purchased.
  22. To anyone interested, this is why most businesses do not charge for a pre-order until the actual date (pledge systems such as GMT for instance), because (among other reasons) it successfully skirts this FTC regulation. However, once a transaction has occurred, a reasonable date must be supplied and, if not, then the FTC provision says 30 days is implicit.
  23. And here's a high profile precedent in the EU, which has its own consumer protection laws in place to deal with this: https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/21/nintendo-accused-of-illegally-denying-refunds-on-pre-orders-in-europe/
  24. You quoted the wrong material. Here's the same website you Googled advising as per the prompt delivery regulation. Nice try though bucko. https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-operations/laws-governing-shipping-advertising.html "The FTC has wide ranging powers to enforce the 30-Day Rule. Businesses can be sued by the FTC for injunctive relief, damages of up to $16,000 per violation, and redress for the consumer. Additionally, state and local agencies can sue you for violating consumer protection laws." "The 30-Day Rule focuses solely on the method of ordering. It doesn't matter how the product is advertised or who initiates the sale. If a customer orders by any of the above methods, the shipment is covered by the Rule."
×
×
  • Create New...