We run our own DNS servers on the Server Beach box (DNS needs more than 99% uptime as well) and NS2 with the local circuit. We would never consider using someone else's DNS server for client side either. We only use the ISP for access, not for any services.
We also don't get throttled as quick as home users, by a mile. This is business class service, which costs more and does have a contract. We have a completely different level of service in the contract, and business customers get priority over home customers. Even the equipment is completely different, Cisco gear, not a cable modem. That is why we have two circuits on order as well, one for client side, and one for incoming side, to guarantee the customer's side can't be throttled back due to clients going wild. I have never seen TW throttle anyone here, and Ive been a *heavy* home customer for over a decade. It isn't perfect, but it isn't the same as what you get at home.
And if our local company was Comcast, I wouldn't be doing this.
Before they do that they would simply release a patch where those servers were not needed and allow you to download your save game.
I doubt it. Once you have already paid for the game, your continuing to play the game costs them money. It is in their best interest to simply shut the servers down as quickly as their lawyers say that they can without getting a class action suit. They won't allow you to play offline because if you could play without their DRM servers, you wouldn't need to buy new games as often, and they can't allow that. This DRM seems specifically designed to insure that you *must* buy new games every year or two.
It sounds exactly like Steam would be if Microsoft owned it.
I bought a $50 broken laptop for parts.. The wife searched through the carry case and saw paperwork for an extended warranty (gotta love her). It was on the last month, so I took it back to Best Buy (gotta hate them), who offered the warranty, not the manufacturer. They were being asshats and trying to tell me that they could only give me a replacement that was a very low end no-name laptop with a smaller screen, while the one I had was middle/higher end Toshiba. They using the CPU speed as the only metric, and the "new" one was faster, so it was better, and I was "lucky". I told them I wanted the exact same model (as per the extended warranty paperwork), which was of course, impossible. I just wanted something that was in the same original price range, to be fair, not something half the price.
Long story short, I was polite but direct, didn't get personal, and just happened to have a very loud speaking voice that was asking why they weren't going to honor their own extended warranty, in a reasonable way, over and over, while the place was crowded. After 30 minutes, I walked out with a $1300 gift card, which was the original cost minus warranty/tax. It doesn't matter that I bought it used or knowing it was broken, it was the fact that it had a warranty and I expected them to honor their own agreements.
Let me tell you, it was really interesting trying to explain to the manager what the problem was, but they did eventually exchange it.
1. Buy 1GB stick, take home. 2. Put old 32MB stick in new box and return to store to complain. 3. Get 2nd 1GB stick for almost free, put on eBay. 4. Profit!
How do we know you didn't really do this, and using Slashdot as a convoluted method of convincing the store manager that the box really had the 32MB stick inside, hmm?;)
I'm leaving AT&T to go to cable based solutions for a dozen users in an office. I know the reliability will be only 99%, but my 99.99% SLA is useless, as they go down all the time (and compensating me, which is a joke since I need the service, not $50 credits). Moving from ATT's service of 12 phone lines and two bonded T1s to cable phone lines and two 5/1.5 internet circuits will save me over $30,000 per year and have me at a FIXED PRICE, unlimited LD. In the current economy, this means three people won't have to get their hours cut to 50% time during the slow half the year. Since the level of service that I actually get will be the same, I would rather give the money to the employees who would otherwise be cut back, rather than AT&T who has failed on every level since they bought out Bell South.
For the servers that need better than 99% uptime (credit applications, etc.), we rented a box on Server Beach, their special unmetered 10mb connection for less than $150 a month. As a side note, Bell South was actually good in service and product before AT&T bought them out. The other day AT&T wouldn't issue a trouble ticket and told us that they would have someone there 24 hours later, at 5pm the next day, in spite of our 4 hour SLA. I get better service from Time Warner for my $100 home internet/tv than I do from AT&T under contract for several thousand per month.
You do understand that companies LICENSE their patents to other companies, right? So I wouldn't be interested in trying a demo from XYZ Software, Inc. that licenses this type of demo system, regardless of who owns the one patent.
a "good contract" may have loopholes you didn't think of
Then it isn't a good contract, is it? In the case of SCO and Novell, their problem was physically losing a lot of the original paperwork, and a bad contract with more legalize than plain English. Most contracts I have seen aren't good contract and suffer the same problem.
I'm guessing you won't be playing as Chell if it takes place further back in time (which is my guess). It would be hard to take place inside, in the future, since Chell kinda 'sploded the whole place when she (tried to) kill GLaDOS.
Honestly, they could easily come up with a FEW games based on this material. I would quickly pay $30 for a purely android based version, perhaps the android can finally escape after achieving sentience. It doesn't have to tie into the HL universe, it can be in the past. Just working his/her way through the program to gain enough "trust" to get deployed somewhere closer to an exit. The android has to "fight" their way through the final area using only the portal gun, while real humans and turrets have guns with bullets, all while GLaDOS is the voice that is directing the actions and informing the humans where the android is. I could expand, but your imagination can fill in the voids. Damn, I really want that game:) Portal 2 as well.
It doesn't have to be silent degradation. Imagine a pop-up notification: "You have just lost 2000 XP and your +3 armor of wisdom, buy the game to regain them!", or "All injuries will now become instant headshots, this won't happen if you buy the game!".
Oh, even better. Being someone who won't buy Sony products, I would *love* to see them implement their new demo system in exactly this way. Nags to get me to buy something when I am trying to play, what a great idea. That would be like constant pop up ads for Viagra when you are trying to watch porn.
No one is "giving" you anything, they are allowing you to test drive it, that is all. So, for the car analogy, you go to the Ford dealership to test drive a car. After the first mile, it won't go over 30. After 3 miles, it won't go over 20. After 5 miles, it will only idle, forcing you to pull over. Then a salesman drives up in his demo model and offers you a ride back if you promise to buy the car. Yea, thats a good idea. Does that make you want to buy it? I didn't think so.
This is a complete 180 degree turn from the old shareware concept, where you get to play the first chapter or two for free (which I think is the best hook). This can possibly backfire as there could be some confusion for the consumer. Any game that becomes "less fun" loses its value to purchase, as the consumer isn't always going to understand the concept of diminishing features. They just know the game isn't as much fun as it used to be a few days ago.
While a novel idea, I would think that in practice it would be much harder to put into action without frustrating potential customers, including teens. It would seem to me that this would likely lead to more piracy, as *some* people would become frustrated rather quickly and resentful over limitations that they seem as unreasonable. Steam does a better job with the "free weekend" specials, and other games often have playable demos with limited levels. Both of these methods seem to be infinitely better ways to tease customers into buying, since they know exactly what to expect from installing the demo. The Sony way introduces a bit too much uncertainty, imo, and might have the result of having me passing the demo up completely.
The same could have been said about Half-Life, but they have managed to do more and more quite well. I never could believe that a game is so perfect that you can't add more to it. The main thing missing was 1. needed more levels and 2. needed more background story. My guess is that Portal 2 will be just that, more story and more levels. I don't see them changing the rules or physics of the game, as that wouldn't make sense.
I am so wanting there to be more sections for "androids". I always thought the idea of "android hell is a real place" was such a mind screw and gave you so much understanding of how messed up this company was, that it needed a whole game through the eyes of the androids.
I think there may be a difference in the two types of release. There seems to be evidence that acting out on anger, such as screaming or punching a bag to simulate fighting, *might* make it worse. I don't use games for that purpose, personally, and instead use it as a diversion that releases stress, just as someone might do something physical that isn't "violent" to relieve stress. I'm not convinced that playing violent games can actually be equated with punching a bag.
That said, I am sure that some personality types may not benefit from "play killing", or anyone that takes it too serious. When I am playing, I'm not killing that person, I'm killing their avatar, their "chance to play" by putting them back into respawn. I'm also playing against myself as much as the other person. I don't really care about their score, only my kill/death ratio. In my eyes, the people I'm "killing" are friends, even if I don't know them. A death is no more personal in TFC/TF2 than in paintball, to ME. Those that personify the games more so might get more negative effects from the experience.
So in short, it might not be what you play, but your mind set when you play it. I don't see how you can lump everyone playing the same game as having the same mind set or reasons, or tendency to become violent. Perhaps the ones who later become very violent and shoot people would have done something different growing up if video games didn't exist, like torture animals or smaller kids, like in the "good old days".
and really showcases the insulated mind-set of Americans. Canada produces a LOT of really great music.
Yeah? Like what exactlly?
Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, Alanis Morissette, Barenaked Ladies, Tom Cochrane, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Men Without Hats, Paul Anka, Loverboy, Anne Murray, Bachman-Turner Overdrive, Triumph, Bryan Adams, April Wine, Pat Travers, And of course, Rush. And hundreds more.
A lot of other music that people think are "American" are actually Canadian. Wikipedia has an article on it. Feel free to acquaint yourself with it. Considering that Canada is 1/10th the size of the US in population, they have done just fine in contributing to our (somewhat) common culture.
The box was running Vista 64 and ran it fine, did a clean (and legal) install of Win 7. Had it on an old P4/3.2 (its an old copy) so I know the media is fine. Might try your idea of copying files, although may have to migrate some reg entries as well.
Just barfs on install. I spent 3 hours trying one day right after I installed W7/Pro 64bit, clean install. Might be a 64bit issue, but I've looked pretty hard for answers and found none. If I get time, will try again, but it isn't from a lack of trying or basic understanding. I even downloaded a patch program, from MS, but did no good. And this is on a decent box, Core 2 Q9650/8GB RAM/ATI 4650-512mb.
Sure you can, smoking isn't illegal, but the taxes on it are more or less as much as it costs to produce and sell.
So now you want a special tax for people who use IE6? Or just monitarily punish people who "sin" in your eyes, be they smokers or old software users?
The answer usually is to get the government involved because there's a lot of idiots out there like you that support fascism and oppose regulation needed to deal with corporate malfeasance and irresponsibility.
So, to prevent facism, you want the government to have MORE absolute control? We have come full circle, again, do you have any idea of how silly that sounds? I'm all for letting the government do the things that the people can't do for themselves, such as national defense, interstate commerce regulation, treaties, and building major highways, but I am just not sure how a federal regulation on what software someone uses is going to prevent facism, or prevent data theft. You are assuming that the government actually knows more than the average corporation about software security. I have yet to see any evidence of that.
Look, I can tell from your tone that you are smart. I just can't prove it by what you are actually saying.
Not really. Vista still sucks because of the way they implemented UAC, with way more prompts than were needed, something they fixed in 7. As for XP, most people liked it pretty well at the start because it was infinitely more stable than 95/98/ME, although the introduction of "Home" and "Professional" grades was an unnecessarily expensive way to distribute software (and still is). It was a bit more resource hungry than 2k, but ran 95/98 games just fine, the usual main complaint. The main bitch about Vista was software that simply would not run. We have software from 2004 that will not run right on Vista or 7 (runs at about 10% of regular speed...) and not looking to upgrade it because it "works" on XP, but not on vista/7/wine. I still can't get AOE3 to install at all on my Win7 box, and it is a Microsoft product that is supposed to work fine.
Coming down hard does not mean making something a federal crime, unless you want to create a straw man.
You can't come down hard unless it is illegal, and the feds can't come down at all unless the crime is a federal crime. That isn't a straw man, that is Legal 101: The feds only come down on "federal crimes", they have NO authority on anything else. If you are talking about CIVIL cases (which would usually be STATE laws), then you open up a Pandora's box when you start dictating what web browser and platform is secure or not. Do you really want congress decided what software is "safe"? No, don't worry, MS wouldn't spend billions to lobby for THAT cause.... Also, that is a matter for the court system (usually state), and frankly, I don't like the idea of some judge "deciding" if IE6 (or Mozilla, or Opera) is secure enough or not.
While your argument might have the best of intentions, it has the worst of results in all cases. The answer is never "the government needs to get involved", for almost every question you can imagine.
Seems to me that the best thing he could do is apply what he knows while learning some new syntax. Volunteer some time to help with a project if you can't use it at your job, but he needs to get working on applying what he has already learned if he wants to retain it. Not by forcing himself 12 hours a day, but by doing a little every day toward some end goal, and learning the new stuff, too.
The problem really isn't so much IE6 as the failure of the government and courts to come down hard on companies that behave in such an irresponsible fashion.
So it should be a federal crime to use IE6?
You do realize how silly that sounds, correct? Not even Obama would try to grab that much power. Yet.
Slashdot Mirror
We run our own DNS servers on the Server Beach box (DNS needs more than 99% uptime as well) and NS2 with the local circuit. We would never consider using someone else's DNS server for client side either. We only use the ISP for access, not for any services.
We also don't get throttled as quick as home users, by a mile. This is business class service, which costs more and does have a contract. We have a completely different level of service in the contract, and business customers get priority over home customers. Even the equipment is completely different, Cisco gear, not a cable modem. That is why we have two circuits on order as well, one for client side, and one for incoming side, to guarantee the customer's side can't be throttled back due to clients going wild. I have never seen TW throttle anyone here, and Ive been a *heavy* home customer for over a decade. It isn't perfect, but it isn't the same as what you get at home.
And if our local company was Comcast, I wouldn't be doing this.
Before they do that they would simply release a patch where those servers were not needed and allow you to download your save game.
I doubt it. Once you have already paid for the game, your continuing to play the game costs them money. It is in their best interest to simply shut the servers down as quickly as their lawyers say that they can without getting a class action suit. They won't allow you to play offline because if you could play without their DRM servers, you wouldn't need to buy new games as often, and they can't allow that. This DRM seems specifically designed to insure that you *must* buy new games every year or two.
It sounds exactly like Steam would be if Microsoft owned it.
I bought a $50 broken laptop for parts.. The wife searched through the carry case and saw paperwork for an extended warranty (gotta love her). It was on the last month, so I took it back to Best Buy (gotta hate them), who offered the warranty, not the manufacturer. They were being asshats and trying to tell me that they could only give me a replacement that was a very low end no-name laptop with a smaller screen, while the one I had was middle/higher end Toshiba. They using the CPU speed as the only metric, and the "new" one was faster, so it was better, and I was "lucky". I told them I wanted the exact same model (as per the extended warranty paperwork), which was of course, impossible. I just wanted something that was in the same original price range, to be fair, not something half the price.
Long story short, I was polite but direct, didn't get personal, and just happened to have a very loud speaking voice that was asking why they weren't going to honor their own extended warranty, in a reasonable way, over and over, while the place was crowded. After 30 minutes, I walked out with a $1300 gift card, which was the original cost minus warranty/tax. It doesn't matter that I bought it used or knowing it was broken, it was the fact that it had a warranty and I expected them to honor their own agreements.
Let me tell you, it was really interesting trying to explain to the manager what the problem was, but they did eventually exchange it.
1. Buy 1GB stick, take home.
2. Put old 32MB stick in new box and return to store to complain.
3. Get 2nd 1GB stick for almost free, put on eBay.
4. Profit!
How do we know you didn't really do this, and using Slashdot as a convoluted method of convincing the store manager that the box really had the 32MB stick inside, hmm? ;)
I'm leaving AT&T to go to cable based solutions for a dozen users in an office. I know the reliability will be only 99%, but my 99.99% SLA is useless, as they go down all the time (and compensating me, which is a joke since I need the service, not $50 credits). Moving from ATT's service of 12 phone lines and two bonded T1s to cable phone lines and two 5/1.5 internet circuits will save me over $30,000 per year and have me at a FIXED PRICE, unlimited LD. In the current economy, this means three people won't have to get their hours cut to 50% time during the slow half the year. Since the level of service that I actually get will be the same, I would rather give the money to the employees who would otherwise be cut back, rather than AT&T who has failed on every level since they bought out Bell South.
For the servers that need better than 99% uptime (credit applications, etc.), we rented a box on Server Beach, their special unmetered 10mb connection for less than $150 a month. As a side note, Bell South was actually good in service and product before AT&T bought them out. The other day AT&T wouldn't issue a trouble ticket and told us that they would have someone there 24 hours later, at 5pm the next day, in spite of our 4 hour SLA. I get better service from Time Warner for my $100 home internet/tv than I do from AT&T under contract for several thousand per month.
You do understand that companies LICENSE their patents to other companies, right? So I wouldn't be interested in trying a demo from XYZ Software, Inc. that licenses this type of demo system, regardless of who owns the one patent.
a "good contract" may have loopholes you didn't think of
Then it isn't a good contract, is it? In the case of SCO and Novell, their problem was physically losing a lot of the original paperwork, and a bad contract with more legalize than plain English. Most contracts I have seen aren't good contract and suffer the same problem.
I'm guessing you won't be playing as Chell if it takes place further back in time (which is my guess). It would be hard to take place inside, in the future, since Chell kinda 'sploded the whole place when she (tried to) kill GLaDOS.
Honestly, they could easily come up with a FEW games based on this material. I would quickly pay $30 for a purely android based version, perhaps the android can finally escape after achieving sentience. It doesn't have to tie into the HL universe, it can be in the past. Just working his/her way through the program to gain enough "trust" to get deployed somewhere closer to an exit. The android has to "fight" their way through the final area using only the portal gun, while real humans and turrets have guns with bullets, all while GLaDOS is the voice that is directing the actions and informing the humans where the android is. I could expand, but your imagination can fill in the voids. Damn, I really want that game :) Portal 2 as well.
It doesn't have to be silent degradation. Imagine a pop-up notification: "You have just lost 2000 XP and your +3 armor of wisdom, buy the game to regain them!", or "All injuries will now become instant headshots, this won't happen if you buy the game!".
Oh, even better. Being someone who won't buy Sony products, I would *love* to see them implement their new demo system in exactly this way. Nags to get me to buy something when I am trying to play, what a great idea. That would be like constant pop up ads for Viagra when you are trying to watch porn.
If someone gave me the car for free...
No one is "giving" you anything, they are allowing you to test drive it, that is all. So, for the car analogy, you go to the Ford dealership to test drive a car. After the first mile, it won't go over 30. After 3 miles, it won't go over 20. After 5 miles, it will only idle, forcing you to pull over. Then a salesman drives up in his demo model and offers you a ride back if you promise to buy the car. Yea, thats a good idea. Does that make you want to buy it? I didn't think so.
This is a complete 180 degree turn from the old shareware concept, where you get to play the first chapter or two for free (which I think is the best hook). This can possibly backfire as there could be some confusion for the consumer. Any game that becomes "less fun" loses its value to purchase, as the consumer isn't always going to understand the concept of diminishing features. They just know the game isn't as much fun as it used to be a few days ago.
While a novel idea, I would think that in practice it would be much harder to put into action without frustrating potential customers, including teens. It would seem to me that this would likely lead to more piracy, as *some* people would become frustrated rather quickly and resentful over limitations that they seem as unreasonable. Steam does a better job with the "free weekend" specials, and other games often have playable demos with limited levels. Both of these methods seem to be infinitely better ways to tease customers into buying, since they know exactly what to expect from installing the demo. The Sony way introduces a bit too much uncertainty, imo, and might have the result of having me passing the demo up completely.
The same could have been said about Half-Life, but they have managed to do more and more quite well. I never could believe that a game is so perfect that you can't add more to it. The main thing missing was 1. needed more levels and 2. needed more background story. My guess is that Portal 2 will be just that, more story and more levels. I don't see them changing the rules or physics of the game, as that wouldn't make sense.
I am so wanting there to be more sections for "androids". I always thought the idea of "android hell is a real place" was such a mind screw and gave you so much understanding of how messed up this company was, that it needed a whole game through the eyes of the androids.
Is there anything we can do to reverse the unnecessary apostrophes?
Perhaps you should ask him to invent a method.
On xp/3, chrome gets a 100 on my box, although I do see an X in the upper right corner that doesn't belong. And yes, IE8 gets a 12.
I think there may be a difference in the two types of release. There seems to be evidence that acting out on anger, such as screaming or punching a bag to simulate fighting, *might* make it worse. I don't use games for that purpose, personally, and instead use it as a diversion that releases stress, just as someone might do something physical that isn't "violent" to relieve stress. I'm not convinced that playing violent games can actually be equated with punching a bag.
That said, I am sure that some personality types may not benefit from "play killing", or anyone that takes it too serious. When I am playing, I'm not killing that person, I'm killing their avatar, their "chance to play" by putting them back into respawn. I'm also playing against myself as much as the other person. I don't really care about their score, only my kill/death ratio. In my eyes, the people I'm "killing" are friends, even if I don't know them. A death is no more personal in TFC/TF2 than in paintball, to ME. Those that personify the games more so might get more negative effects from the experience.
So in short, it might not be what you play, but your mind set when you play it. I don't see how you can lump everyone playing the same game as having the same mind set or reasons, or tendency to become violent. Perhaps the ones who later become very violent and shoot people would have done something different growing up if video games didn't exist, like torture animals or smaller kids, like in the "good old days".
Yeah? Like what exactlly?
Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, Alanis Morissette, Barenaked Ladies, Tom Cochrane, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Men Without Hats, Paul Anka, Loverboy, Anne Murray, Bachman-Turner Overdrive, Triumph, Bryan Adams, April Wine, Pat Travers, And of course, Rush. And hundreds more.
A lot of other music that people think are "American" are actually Canadian. Wikipedia has an article on it. Feel free to acquaint yourself with it. Considering that Canada is 1/10th the size of the US in population, they have done just fine in contributing to our (somewhat) common culture.
The box was running Vista 64 and ran it fine, did a clean (and legal) install of Win 7. Had it on an old P4/3.2 (its an old copy) so I know the media is fine. Might try your idea of copying files, although may have to migrate some reg entries as well.
Just barfs on install. I spent 3 hours trying one day right after I installed W7/Pro 64bit, clean install. Might be a 64bit issue, but I've looked pretty hard for answers and found none. If I get time, will try again, but it isn't from a lack of trying or basic understanding. I even downloaded a patch program, from MS, but did no good. And this is on a decent box, Core 2 Q9650/8GB RAM/ATI 4650-512mb.
Sure you can, smoking isn't illegal, but the taxes on it are more or less as much as it costs to produce and sell.
So now you want a special tax for people who use IE6? Or just monitarily punish people who "sin" in your eyes, be they smokers or old software users?
The answer usually is to get the government involved because there's a lot of idiots out there like you that support fascism and oppose regulation needed to deal with corporate malfeasance and irresponsibility.
So, to prevent facism, you want the government to have MORE absolute control? We have come full circle, again, do you have any idea of how silly that sounds? I'm all for letting the government do the things that the people can't do for themselves, such as national defense, interstate commerce regulation, treaties, and building major highways, but I am just not sure how a federal regulation on what software someone uses is going to prevent facism, or prevent data theft. You are assuming that the government actually knows more than the average corporation about software security. I have yet to see any evidence of that.
Look, I can tell from your tone that you are smart. I just can't prove it by what you are actually saying.
From the company: these devices can burn natural gasses that are plant derived as well.
Yes, I think they call that "methane" which is the same as natural gas.
Not really. Vista still sucks because of the way they implemented UAC, with way more prompts than were needed, something they fixed in 7. As for XP, most people liked it pretty well at the start because it was infinitely more stable than 95/98/ME, although the introduction of "Home" and "Professional" grades was an unnecessarily expensive way to distribute software (and still is). It was a bit more resource hungry than 2k, but ran 95/98 games just fine, the usual main complaint. The main bitch about Vista was software that simply would not run. We have software from 2004 that will not run right on Vista or 7 (runs at about 10% of regular speed...) and not looking to upgrade it because it "works" on XP, but not on vista/7/wine. I still can't get AOE3 to install at all on my Win7 box, and it is a Microsoft product that is supposed to work fine.
Coming down hard does not mean making something a federal crime, unless you want to create a straw man.
You can't come down hard unless it is illegal, and the feds can't come down at all unless the crime is a federal crime. That isn't a straw man, that is Legal 101: The feds only come down on "federal crimes", they have NO authority on anything else. If you are talking about CIVIL cases (which would usually be STATE laws), then you open up a Pandora's box when you start dictating what web browser and platform is secure or not. Do you really want congress decided what software is "safe"? No, don't worry, MS wouldn't spend billions to lobby for THAT cause.... Also, that is a matter for the court system (usually state), and frankly, I don't like the idea of some judge "deciding" if IE6 (or Mozilla, or Opera) is secure enough or not.
While your argument might have the best of intentions, it has the worst of results in all cases. The answer is never "the government needs to get involved", for almost every question you can imagine.
Seems to me that the best thing he could do is apply what he knows while learning some new syntax. Volunteer some time to help with a project if you can't use it at your job, but he needs to get working on applying what he has already learned if he wants to retain it. Not by forcing himself 12 hours a day, but by doing a little every day toward some end goal, and learning the new stuff, too.
The problem really isn't so much IE6 as the failure of the government and courts to come down hard on companies that behave in such an irresponsible fashion.
So it should be a federal crime to use IE6?
You do realize how silly that sounds, correct? Not even Obama would try to grab that much power. Yet.