Forums » General
"We're not. But we are allowed armour :P"
According to Wikipedia, body armour is permitted in Western Australia and Tasmania, but is illegal to possess in the rest of Australia without "authorization". I realize Wikipedia is not the most authoritative of sources, of course.
According to Wikipedia, body armour is permitted in Western Australia and Tasmania, but is illegal to possess in the rest of Australia without "authorization". I realize Wikipedia is not the most authoritative of sources, of course.
100 is nothing, lets not stop this until we've reached 1000 pointless replies!
+1 Spence.
How is body armor/armour defined?
Can you do the Back to the Future 3 bullet-proof vest legally even where it's restricted? Or is the law tailored towards intended use rather than specific products?
Can you do the Back to the Future 3 bullet-proof vest legally even where it's restricted? Or is the law tailored towards intended use rather than specific products?
I seriously hope lecter was joking
I seriously hope lecter was joking
I was not; Circa 2009 Inc., as it turns out, was.
I was not; Circa 2009 Inc., as it turns out, was.
"S.15A SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1953, 15A (2): In this section—
body armour means a protective jacket, vest or other article of apparel designed to resist
the penetration of a projectile discharged from a firearm."
body armour means a protective jacket, vest or other article of apparel designed to resist
the penetration of a projectile discharged from a firearm."
S 8A Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic)
Control of body armour
(1) A person must not-
(a) bring body armour into Victoria; or
(b) cause body armour to be brought or sent into Victoria; or
(c) manufacture, sell or purchase body armour; or
(d) possess or use body armour-
without an exemption under section 8B or an approval under section 8C.
Penalty: 240 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an employee of a person who holds an
approval under section 8C if the employee is acting in the course of his or
her employment and in accordance with the approval.
* * * * * * * *
body armour means a garment or item-
(a) that is designed, intended or adapted for the purpose of protecting
the body from the effects of a weapon, including a firearm; and
(b) that is prescribed by the regulations to be body armour; child means a
person under the age of 18 years;
* * * * * * * *
It's different in every state in terms of the structure of the legislation, but the federal gov't ensures uniformity over the things that are banned in collaboration with the states.
You would probably be able to obtain the materials to create your own body armour except perhaps with materials like kevlar or something which I would guess would be restricted, but I imagine you could manufacture illegal body armour more easily than you could manufacture a firearm.
Control of body armour
(1) A person must not-
(a) bring body armour into Victoria; or
(b) cause body armour to be brought or sent into Victoria; or
(c) manufacture, sell or purchase body armour; or
(d) possess or use body armour-
without an exemption under section 8B or an approval under section 8C.
Penalty: 240 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an employee of a person who holds an
approval under section 8C if the employee is acting in the course of his or
her employment and in accordance with the approval.
* * * * * * * *
body armour means a garment or item-
(a) that is designed, intended or adapted for the purpose of protecting
the body from the effects of a weapon, including a firearm; and
(b) that is prescribed by the regulations to be body armour; child means a
person under the age of 18 years;
* * * * * * * *
It's different in every state in terms of the structure of the legislation, but the federal gov't ensures uniformity over the things that are banned in collaboration with the states.
You would probably be able to obtain the materials to create your own body armour except perhaps with materials like kevlar or something which I would guess would be restricted, but I imagine you could manufacture illegal body armour more easily than you could manufacture a firearm.
Also, more on the topic, every game that has been around for 10 years has its share of vets that refuse to adapt to modernization of mechanics, graphics and other elements. They always bitch and whine when things change and then when it ultimately comes to nothing they usually drop off.
The only valid criticisms here is that this hasn't happened soon enough. It's obviously an important step to get curt trained so why don't you go clean your assault rifles and polish your body armour instead of moaning about it.
The only valid criticisms here is that this hasn't happened soon enough. It's obviously an important step to get curt trained so why don't you go clean your assault rifles and polish your body armour instead of moaning about it.
Anyone else find it funny that this thread deteriorated into a geopolitical flame war faster than the devs actually got this new ship into the game?
Welcome to Vendetta Online.
Funny, yes; surprising, no.
Oh we have those rights, but we dont get to excercise them until we committ a crime so yeah, pass
It's a penal colony. Your crime is living there. Your sentence is playing VO with really bad ping. Letting your sub lapse will do you no good: they have laggy VO in purgatory.
It's a penal colony. Your crime is living there. Your sentence is playing VO with really bad ping. Letting your sub lapse will do you no good: they have laggy VO in purgatory.
And if ye'r in heaven ye haz CD's wh to camp.
Wait! Nobody has mentioned Hitler yet!
Wait! Nobody has mentioned Hitler yet!
This is Incarnate:
This is Incarnate going to town on the AnniVult:
Any questions?
This is Incarnate:
This is Incarnate going to town on the AnniVult:
Any questions?
Question 1.) How are you going to hate on the new vulture when you haven't even flown in it yet? That's kind of like hating on a product you've pre-ordered when it hasn't even been released yet.
Though I'm not going to lie, people say a picture says 1,000 words, and there is a visual resemblance between those two pictures. Incarnate could you please post your genealogy... thanks
I'm no bunghole, this is the best i could do with mspaint
Is there a resemblance?
Though I'm not going to lie, people say a picture says 1,000 words, and there is a visual resemblance between those two pictures. Incarnate could you please post your genealogy... thanks
I'm no bunghole, this is the best i could do with mspaint
Is there a resemblance?
okay australian weapons law is one thing, but this just is no longer entertaining or remotely amusing
Wow.. What?
Anyway, I've been a little busy, but basically, if someone had asked me a couple of weeks ago whether I thought my statement from 2009 would still be true as a result of this change, I would have said "yes".
The reason for this is context. As far as I'm concerned the Anniversary Edition Vulture will always be "in the game". Whether the model or texture changes would not alter that definition, as I see it as a game developer. If I update the assets for all "Vultures", it follows that it would change just as logically as any other variant. I used the term "clone" to try and describe its similarity, but only as I would have described any other variant.
And that's where the whole argument breaks down. For instance, I never specifically said in this thread that the Vulture MkII would also get the new model/texture, simply that the "Vulture" would be changed. And yet, no one drew the most anal-retentive possible syntactic conclusion that I would only change the baseline "Vulture" and not any other "ship". This is because people exercised some reasonable common sense, in the context of game development.
Furthermore, the notion that I would ever imply that I will maintain any graphical assets.. forever, is ludicrous. Let me be clear: IF POSSIBLE, I WILL CHANGE EVERY PIXEL IN THIS GAME. I am not here to cater to a sense of nostalgia, nor am I here to keep dated assets around for some odd sense of differentiation and "oldschool superiority". There is no graphic I will not change, no dated thing I won't replace for the sake of improving the game. As far as I'm concerned, that violates neither the spirit, nor the words of my previous promises, and honestly.. it's my freaking mandate as head of development.
But, I honestly have a hard time believing that Lecter actually thought I was going to keep any old graphical assets around forever. Believing that requires abandoning reasonable development context and common sense in favor of selectively rigorous adherence to the strictest syntactic interpretation.. and sounds a little too much like bullshit in my opinion.
----------
Anyway.. enough. Nothing is going to happen immediately, we're still working on the new Anniversary textures and how that's going to work within the engine. I'm not removing any ships right this second. I'm still open to feedback on tweaking the new ship and other things (but that doesn't change my basic statements about our likely course). Be aware that the juggernaut of change is still rolling forward.
I'll try and get the new ship accessible sometime soon, so you can all then hate me for how much it's different, or whatever, and we can.. work through that. Hooray. But that'll be another thread, I think we're done with this one.
Anyway, I've been a little busy, but basically, if someone had asked me a couple of weeks ago whether I thought my statement from 2009 would still be true as a result of this change, I would have said "yes".
The reason for this is context. As far as I'm concerned the Anniversary Edition Vulture will always be "in the game". Whether the model or texture changes would not alter that definition, as I see it as a game developer. If I update the assets for all "Vultures", it follows that it would change just as logically as any other variant. I used the term "clone" to try and describe its similarity, but only as I would have described any other variant.
And that's where the whole argument breaks down. For instance, I never specifically said in this thread that the Vulture MkII would also get the new model/texture, simply that the "Vulture" would be changed. And yet, no one drew the most anal-retentive possible syntactic conclusion that I would only change the baseline "Vulture" and not any other "ship". This is because people exercised some reasonable common sense, in the context of game development.
Furthermore, the notion that I would ever imply that I will maintain any graphical assets.. forever, is ludicrous. Let me be clear: IF POSSIBLE, I WILL CHANGE EVERY PIXEL IN THIS GAME. I am not here to cater to a sense of nostalgia, nor am I here to keep dated assets around for some odd sense of differentiation and "oldschool superiority". There is no graphic I will not change, no dated thing I won't replace for the sake of improving the game. As far as I'm concerned, that violates neither the spirit, nor the words of my previous promises, and honestly.. it's my freaking mandate as head of development.
But, I honestly have a hard time believing that Lecter actually thought I was going to keep any old graphical assets around forever. Believing that requires abandoning reasonable development context and common sense in favor of selectively rigorous adherence to the strictest syntactic interpretation.. and sounds a little too much like bullshit in my opinion.
----------
Anyway.. enough. Nothing is going to happen immediately, we're still working on the new Anniversary textures and how that's going to work within the engine. I'm not removing any ships right this second. I'm still open to feedback on tweaking the new ship and other things (but that doesn't change my basic statements about our likely course). Be aware that the juggernaut of change is still rolling forward.
I'll try and get the new ship accessible sometime soon, so you can all then hate me for how much it's different, or whatever, and we can.. work through that. Hooray. But that'll be another thread, I think we're done with this one.