No they're not. Have you read over the SCO brief on the case against IBM? It's so full of holes that I have to wonder exactly how much SCO is paying for its lawyers. There are outright mistruths and lies in it. It wildly ignores dates, misstates facts, and pretty much ignores reality.
The IP they claim IBM stole and gave to the Linux community existed in Linux well before IBM became involved. There's no way in hell that IBM could've leaked information prior to their involvement -- especially since the code was in Linux prior to IBM being involved with SCO!
The lawsuit is baseless, and SCO is just being an utter shit here.
Why should I feel bad about watching a stupid business model fail?
I mean... really. They're not porting anything that a significant number of people are interested in. And somehow this is our fault that they fail? Hey... you know what? If you port something people actually want then you might succeed! Of course, doing that costs money, while I suspect that Inca gave Hyperion the code for free with royalties on sales - after all, it costs Inca nothing to do it in that case and they may actually get some revenue from it. But it's still a stupid move on Hyperion's side, because there's no way they'll recoup costs. Period. End of story.
Frankly, porting is a hopeless business in the game world. You won't recoup costs. If it's not available for Linux at release then most people are going to buy the Windows version and dual boot, play on another machine, or whatever. By the time you release a Linux version the game will be old, and you certainly won't be able to sell it at full price to recoup costs. Most of your market will have already purchased it and so has it already, presuming they haven't tired of it.
I'm really glad you can't see a total freaking joke when you see one. It's so much easier to separate a fool from his money.
Look at IncaGold's website. Just look at it. I don't care how old and crusty Hyperion's website may be, IncaGold's is downright dead. They're thanking people who dropped by their booth at E3. That's great. But know what? This year's E3 hasn't happened yet (it's May 22-24), so they're referring to LAST YEAR. They talk about licensing Traitors Gate, which they think will be a big seller in 2002... uh... we're already in 2Q03.
So pardon me and other Linux users if we don't jump in joy over games that are old, never sold well, and don't appear to have a living company behind them. After all, if we want that then there are a few thousand games available via MAME.
Ah... so they stole it because Spyglass entered into a stupid contract.
Sorry, doesn't wash. Spyglass was foolish and greedy. They should've demanded a flat rate based on units shipped (which would include downloaded). Especially since they knew MS was planning to build it into the OS. Hell, at even $.005/copy that's how many millions of dollars?
The whining about QT decreased dramatically once Sorensen codecs were available for Mplayer... until then a large number of the newer QT files out there couldn't be viewed on Linux.
I know about Hypertransport, but it doesn't make a damned bit of difference. You're still limited by the controller speed and the memory speed, both of which are considerably lower in Opteron than P4/Xeon.
The fastest that the Opteron can read memory is 333 MHz. Period. End of story. Yeah, it reads 2x64, but it does so 333 million times per second.
The Xeon can read 2x64 533 million times per second.
Figured out yet why the Xeon has more bandwidth? I still haven't been able to read the Tom's Hardware review (I'm getting errors from the site - and, no, I'm not referring through/. or anyone else) but I'm going to bet that the Xeon system is outfitted with RDRAM - probably 1066 variety, which runs at 533 MHz. Which coincidentily explains the bandwidth numbers.
The Xeon's have a 533 MHz FSB, while Opteron is running at 333 MHz FSB (Technically the P4/Xeon is 133 MHz quad pumped and the Opteron is 166 MHz double pumped).
The memory controller on the chip means that Opteron will have a much lower latency... it doesn't give it any bandwidth bonuses. AMD's own faq says that there's not really any such thing as an FSB with the Opteron, but that's mostly indirection. The reality is that it's still 166 Mhz... the FAQ could be (deeply) misread that the memory controller operates at 1.6 GHz (or whatever the speed of that particular Opteron is), which would be wrong.
So what? MHz isn't everything. AMD is trying to make this abundantly clear with their performance ratings and talk like this is simply counterproductive.
If you want a "fair" benchmark then it should be a 2.8GHz Xeon vs the Opteron x44, both with the same amount of memory. A better benchmark, however, may be Itanium2 vs Opteron, but you can't run standard benchmarks on the I2 -- it's simply not designed for it. Oracle transaction ratings (albeit largely disk I/O dependant) and similar server benchmarks would be useful though.
Excluding the memory mismatch, however, it's a good idea to compare the Xeon 3.06 and the Opteron x44 -- they're the top end chips available and so the most likely for corporate shops to be choosing from. An alternate comparison would be similarly priced chips -- at current prices you'd be looking at the Xeon 2.8GHz.
No, if you go purely by SPECmarks then the Opteron roundly trashes the Xeon... and it definitely holds its own against Itanium2.
SPECint2000 for a single CPU system (x44) is 163% of the Xeon result. SPECfp2000 is 111%.
For dual CPU systems, the x44 SPECint is 115% of Xeon and SPECfp is 193%. For quad systems the numbers go to 139% and 243%, respectively. The charts on the AMD website are a bit weird here, since they use the dual Xeon system as a baseline.
Of course, there are lies, damned lies, and benchmarks. SPECmarks hardly show the whole story. But by any measure the Opteron's price::performance is astounding... even without considering the 64-bit capabilities. Consider that this is a tenth of the price of the Itanium2 for 95% (or more) of the performance.
Shrug. My suggestions are pretty good, on both TiVo's. In fact, we regularly watch stuff from the Suggestions. The key is to not go overboard with thumbs up and down -- if you like a show, give it one or maybe two thumbs up. If you don't like a show give it a single thumbs down. Three thumbs up or down is severe overkill and will certainly screw the Suggestion engine in a nasty way.
This should be improved, and they should really bring back TeachTiVo (which was a backdoor into editing the Suggestion engine - it let you see exactly what the TiVo thought you liked and disliked and allowed you to modify the values). Realize that when you give a thumbs up/down to a show (particularly multiple thumbs) you're not just giving it to that show -- you're also giving it to the genres, the actors, the directors, etc.
ts also is in desperate need of a smarter season pass
That's not a TiVo issue, it's a Comedy Central one. Bitch at them for not giving Tribune Media jack shit for info on their shows -- they don't even give the most rudimentry episode information. Without this there's no way for TiVo to know if it's a rerun or not.
There's a workaround, if you watch it every day though - you can simple change Keep At Most to 1. It'll record every one of them, but only keep one. Obviously no good if you miss a day.
They need to optimise the code or do something to avoid the long 20 seconds of lag I get pretty often
I suspect you have a Series 1. It's running on a 30 MHz CPU. It's doing far more than was ever anticipated for it. It's slow. That's life.
Lastly, it needs some kind of user level password protection.
I do believe that rating based content protection is available. Look under Settings.
Nice opinion. Again... what, exactly, did they give up?
Stan Lee should have said everything SM related, ever, has my name on it, and I get x%.
Wow... which is more or less what he did say. Stan's contract (as I understand it) specified a 10% cut of the profits. Yeah... one tenth of the profits. Wow. That's some deal.
Except that Stan, apparantly, has lost his business sense (and I have to presume he had one given Marvel's success). You never, ever, ask for a cut of the profits, because profits are easy to hide. Spiderman has grossed over $400M worldwide. But there are no profits. None. Zilch. It's amazing just how much you can write off as expenses on the budget when you never close the books on a project. In fact, Hollywood does its best to ensure no movie ever makes a profit on the books. That's been true for decades. Any decent agent knows this and ensures you word the contract right.
Stan should've asked for a cut of the take... he wouldn't have gotten more than 2-3%, but that's a boatload more than he's going to get now. I'd guess that either he used a contract lawyer that's unfamiliar with Hollywood SOP or he got greedy and thought a cut of the profits would be better than a cut of the take (and, to be fair, I bet Sony estimated huge amounts of profits). Painful lesson. I bet future deals will specify a cut of the take. And they won't be with Sony Pictures (painful lesson for Sony there too).
As for Marvel -- they entered into an agreement with Sony with limited joint merchandising. Sony is selling product without (allegedly) mentioning Marvel whatsoever -- which doesn't sound very joint to me. My bet is that Sony crossed the line on the contract and they're going to get hit for it, and hit hard. In this case it's not a question of profits -- it's a question of intellectual property. And I doubt that Sony has a leg to stand on, regardless of what the contract was -- Spidey is pretty clearly Marvel's IP.
Of course, it's a lot easier just to say "they all suck, they're all greedy, fuck them all" than to bother learning some of the actual background.
Don't forget that you only need to render at 640x480 30 fps (technically 60 fields/sec).
Yeah, I know... the Xbox can do HDTV, but it's hardly required. And even then you max out at 1920x1080 30 fps (again, 60 fields/sec). I don't think the Xbox supports 720p, which is actually a harder standard to meet.
I don't see the business case of buying a hardware company that relies on subscriptions and then stiffing your subscribers.
Think about it some more. The lifetime subscribers are a liability. You will not get anymore revenue from those boxes... by dumping them you will lose goodwill, but in the case of Replay (where it's something like 85% lifetime contracts) it may be determined that the cost of continued support for those subscribers is far greater than the ill will you'll generate by dumping them.
Personally, I agree - I think it'd be a stupid move since PVRs are still being sold largely by word of mouth - but it's definitely an option they have.
How do you write off a court case that may cost you millions?
Or debt to another company for services rendered (e.g. - whoever supplied Replay/SB with guide data)?
You can write off unpaid sales, but you can't write off things like that. In any country. In fact, under US law, if D&M was forgiven the debt by the guide company they are then liable for taxes on that unpaid debt - because it's considered the equivalent of free money.
They can't be very high end if I've never heard of them. Kenwood, Sony, Pioneer... those are high end.
Congrats... you've just named all of the major low-fi vendors.
Would you like to play again? Maybe, this time, try something more simple. Like automobiles. Hint - Honda, Toyota, and Ford are not the top of the line, despite sales figures.
Well, not necessarily. When ReplayTV got bought out, the company went away, and the assests went to SonicBlue. They honored the lifetime agreement for ReplayTV owners.
Yes, but lifetime subscriptions are not an asset - they are a liability. The press release doesn't go into any detail, but I'd presume that D&M got saddled with the liabilities (court cases, outstanding debts, and lifetime subscriptions) as well as gaining the assets.
This is why $36.4M is not a "deal" by the way... and it's why they went under in the first place. They have far more liabilities than assets at this time.
What the article suggests is that we shouldn't even do any research on nano-scale machines until we've evaluated the alleged health risks. Which is a load of bunk.
Think about it - if people had suggested this a couple hundred years ago then it's unlikely we would've developed electric power (yes, I know - studies on electricity date back millenia, but it wasn't until the 1800s that a vast amount of research was done on it and we started really harnessing its capabilities). Do you have any idea what happens to the human body when exposed to more than a few milliamps of electrical power?
Do the research, figure out how to make these things work for us... it's just that health concerns are another part of the research - which is pretty much standard nowadays anyway.
What if, rather than selling a packaged online game for all comers, you started a sort of RPG Society? You'd apply for membership, pay a monthly fee, knowing that every player is absolutely into the role playing
So what you're after is an online version of SCA?
Honestly, look into the world of MUDs - there are quite a few out there that are more about role playing than character advancement. As with everything else, it's merely a matter of looking in the right place.
I hope I'm don't come off as intolerant, but this got me thinking: Is this a coincidence? Or maybe it's just that video game programmers (or programmers in general) tend to be dissatisfied with their lives, and thus more likely to try something extreme?
Yes, we're sure to see Joan Carmack in a decade or so.
No matter what they say, womem [sic] programmers will never get the mentality of 'killers': those teenage (and older!) young men that find the most fun in online games griefing, killing, and exploiting the games.
You realize, of course, that Jessica Mulligan was previously Richard Mulligan and male?
Frankly, the mentality of those players isn't worth it. Goody - it gives them their jollies. You're better off without their revenue, because they cause more people to be disgusted with the game and quit it, or be annoyed and require additional customer service. Either way you've lost far more money due to that one customer than they'll give you back. Especially since support will eventually catch up to them, discipline them, and they'll quit (and remove your revenue source).
Oh... and it's not all young men that enjoy that kind of crap either. I was a guild officer in EQ and while our guild was mostly older (18+), we had a large number of younger members, none of whom were griefers. And yes, we were the top guild on the server (and still are, but I haven't played in over a year) and one of the top guilds in the entire game. Members who started pulling grief crap were kicked, and they would invariably fade away from the game afterwards.
You turn around for a second, and that car you just jacked dissapears. Apparently they couldn't even keep track of more than the tiny bit of the world you were currently in without making it even more slow.
No... it's just that someone else just jacked the car you'd previously jacked.
Remember - if it's not bolted down, it's mine. If I can pry it off, then it's not bolted down.
Slashdot Mirror
No they're not. Have you read over the SCO brief on the case against IBM? It's so full of holes that I have to wonder exactly how much SCO is paying for its lawyers. There are outright mistruths and lies in it. It wildly ignores dates, misstates facts, and pretty much ignores reality.
The IP they claim IBM stole and gave to the Linux community existed in Linux well before IBM became involved. There's no way in hell that IBM could've leaked information prior to their involvement -- especially since the code was in Linux prior to IBM being involved with SCO!
The lawsuit is baseless, and SCO is just being an utter shit here.
Why should I feel bad about watching a stupid business model fail?
I mean... really. They're not porting anything that a significant number of people are interested in. And somehow this is our fault that they fail? Hey... you know what? If you port something people actually want then you might succeed! Of course, doing that costs money, while I suspect that Inca gave Hyperion the code for free with royalties on sales - after all, it costs Inca nothing to do it in that case and they may actually get some revenue from it. But it's still a stupid move on Hyperion's side, because there's no way they'll recoup costs. Period. End of story.
Frankly, porting is a hopeless business in the game world. You won't recoup costs. If it's not available for Linux at release then most people are going to buy the Windows version and dual boot, play on another machine, or whatever. By the time you release a Linux version the game will be old, and you certainly won't be able to sell it at full price to recoup costs. Most of your market will have already purchased it and so has it already, presuming they haven't tired of it.
Yay! Someone with a clue gets it, and even gets modded to 5.
I saw the PA cartoon when it came out, thought it was funny, but also thought "they're going to get slammed if the SS owners find out".
I'm really glad you can't see a total freaking joke when you see one. It's so much easier to separate a fool from his money.
Look at IncaGold's website. Just look at it. I don't care how old and crusty Hyperion's website may be, IncaGold's is downright dead. They're thanking people who dropped by their booth at E3. That's great. But know what? This year's E3 hasn't happened yet (it's May 22-24), so they're referring to LAST YEAR. They talk about licensing Traitors Gate, which they think will be a big seller in 2002... uh... we're already in 2Q03.
So pardon me and other Linux users if we don't jump in joy over games that are old, never sold well, and don't appear to have a living company behind them. After all, if we want that then there are a few thousand games available via MAME.
Ah... so they stole it because Spyglass entered into a stupid contract.
Sorry, doesn't wash. Spyglass was foolish and greedy. They should've demanded a flat rate based on units shipped (which would include downloaded). Especially since they knew MS was planning to build it into the OS. Hell, at even $.005/copy that's how many millions of dollars?
And exactly how is that stealing?
Spyglass bought the exclusive commercial license for Mosaic from NCSA. Money and other goods were paid to NCSA for the rights.
Microsoft purchased a non-exclusive license from Spyglass for the technology. Again, money and other goods were exchanged.
So... uh... where is the alleged thievery?
The whining about QT decreased dramatically once Sorensen codecs were available for Mplayer... until then a large number of the newer QT files out there couldn't be viewed on Linux.
I know about Hypertransport, but it doesn't make a damned bit of difference. You're still limited by the controller speed and the memory speed, both of which are considerably lower in Opteron than P4/Xeon.
/. or anyone else) but I'm going to bet that the Xeon system is outfitted with RDRAM - probably 1066 variety, which runs at 533 MHz. Which coincidentily explains the bandwidth numbers.
The fastest that the Opteron can read memory is 333 MHz. Period. End of story. Yeah, it reads 2x64, but it does so 333 million times per second.
The Xeon can read 2x64 533 million times per second.
Figured out yet why the Xeon has more bandwidth? I still haven't been able to read the Tom's Hardware review (I'm getting errors from the site - and, no, I'm not referring through
The Xeon's have a 533 MHz FSB, while Opteron is running at 333 MHz FSB (Technically the P4/Xeon is 133 MHz quad pumped and the Opteron is 166 MHz double pumped).
The memory controller on the chip means that Opteron will have a much lower latency... it doesn't give it any bandwidth bonuses. AMD's own faq says that there's not really any such thing as an FSB with the Opteron, but that's mostly indirection. The reality is that it's still 166 Mhz... the FAQ could be (deeply) misread that the memory controller operates at 1.6 GHz (or whatever the speed of that particular Opteron is), which would be wrong.
So what? MHz isn't everything. AMD is trying to make this abundantly clear with their performance ratings and talk like this is simply counterproductive.
If you want a "fair" benchmark then it should be a 2.8GHz Xeon vs the Opteron x44, both with the same amount of memory. A better benchmark, however, may be Itanium2 vs Opteron, but you can't run standard benchmarks on the I2 -- it's simply not designed for it. Oracle transaction ratings (albeit largely disk I/O dependant) and similar server benchmarks would be useful though.
Excluding the memory mismatch, however, it's a good idea to compare the Xeon 3.06 and the Opteron x44 -- they're the top end chips available and so the most likely for corporate shops to be choosing from. An alternate comparison would be similarly priced chips -- at current prices you'd be looking at the Xeon 2.8GHz.
No, if you go purely by SPECmarks then the Opteron roundly trashes the Xeon... and it definitely holds its own against Itanium2.
SPECint2000 for a single CPU system (x44) is 163% of the Xeon result. SPECfp2000 is 111%.
For dual CPU systems, the x44 SPECint is 115% of Xeon and SPECfp is 193%. For quad systems the numbers go to 139% and 243%, respectively. The charts on the AMD website are a bit weird here, since they use the dual Xeon system as a baseline.
Of course, there are lies, damned lies, and benchmarks. SPECmarks hardly show the whole story. But by any measure the Opteron's price::performance is astounding... even without considering the 64-bit capabilities. Consider that this is a tenth of the price of the Itanium2 for 95% (or more) of the performance.
Tivo's suggestions are crap. Truly crap.
Shrug. My suggestions are pretty good, on both TiVo's. In fact, we regularly watch stuff from the Suggestions. The key is to not go overboard with thumbs up and down -- if you like a show, give it one or maybe two thumbs up. If you don't like a show give it a single thumbs down. Three thumbs up or down is severe overkill and will certainly screw the Suggestion engine in a nasty way.
This should be improved, and they should really bring back TeachTiVo (which was a backdoor into editing the Suggestion engine - it let you see exactly what the TiVo thought you liked and disliked and allowed you to modify the values). Realize that when you give a thumbs up/down to a show (particularly multiple thumbs) you're not just giving it to that show -- you're also giving it to the genres, the actors, the directors, etc.
ts also is in desperate need of a smarter season pass
That's not a TiVo issue, it's a Comedy Central one. Bitch at them for not giving Tribune Media jack shit for info on their shows -- they don't even give the most rudimentry episode information. Without this there's no way for TiVo to know if it's a rerun or not.
There's a workaround, if you watch it every day though - you can simple change Keep At Most to 1. It'll record every one of them, but only keep one. Obviously no good if you miss a day.
They need to optimise the code or do something to avoid the long 20 seconds of lag I get pretty often
I suspect you have a Series 1. It's running on a 30 MHz CPU. It's doing far more than was ever anticipated for it. It's slow. That's life.
Lastly, it needs some kind of user level password protection.
I do believe that rating based content protection is available. Look under Settings.
Stan Lee gave away something he shouldn't have.
Which is what, exactly?
So did Marvel. IMO
Nice opinion. Again... what, exactly, did they give up?
Stan Lee should have said everything SM related, ever, has my name on it, and I get x%.
Wow... which is more or less what he did say. Stan's contract (as I understand it) specified a 10% cut of the profits. Yeah... one tenth of the profits. Wow. That's some deal.
Except that Stan, apparantly, has lost his business sense (and I have to presume he had one given Marvel's success). You never, ever, ask for a cut of the profits, because profits are easy to hide. Spiderman has grossed over $400M worldwide. But there are no profits. None. Zilch. It's amazing just how much you can write off as expenses on the budget when you never close the books on a project. In fact, Hollywood does its best to ensure no movie ever makes a profit on the books. That's been true for decades. Any decent agent knows this and ensures you word the contract right.
Stan should've asked for a cut of the take... he wouldn't have gotten more than 2-3%, but that's a boatload more than he's going to get now. I'd guess that either he used a contract lawyer that's unfamiliar with Hollywood SOP or he got greedy and thought a cut of the profits would be better than a cut of the take (and, to be fair, I bet Sony estimated huge amounts of profits). Painful lesson. I bet future deals will specify a cut of the take. And they won't be with Sony Pictures (painful lesson for Sony there too).
As for Marvel -- they entered into an agreement with Sony with limited joint merchandising. Sony is selling product without (allegedly) mentioning Marvel whatsoever -- which doesn't sound very joint to me. My bet is that Sony crossed the line on the contract and they're going to get hit for it, and hit hard. In this case it's not a question of profits -- it's a question of intellectual property. And I doubt that Sony has a leg to stand on, regardless of what the contract was -- Spidey is pretty clearly Marvel's IP.
Of course, it's a lot easier just to say "they all suck, they're all greedy, fuck them all" than to bother learning some of the actual background.
Don't forget that you only need to render at 640x480 30 fps (technically 60 fields/sec).
Yeah, I know... the Xbox can do HDTV, but it's hardly required. And even then you max out at 1920x1080 30 fps (again, 60 fields/sec). I don't think the Xbox supports 720p, which is actually a harder standard to meet.
I don't see the business case of buying a hardware company that relies on subscriptions and then stiffing your subscribers.
Think about it some more. The lifetime subscribers are a liability. You will not get anymore revenue from those boxes... by dumping them you will lose goodwill, but in the case of Replay (where it's something like 85% lifetime contracts) it may be determined that the cost of continued support for those subscribers is far greater than the ill will you'll generate by dumping them.
Personally, I agree - I think it'd be a stupid move since PVRs are still being sold largely by word of mouth - but it's definitely an option they have.
How do you write off a court case that may cost you millions?
Or debt to another company for services rendered (e.g. - whoever supplied Replay/SB with guide data)?
You can write off unpaid sales, but you can't write off things like that. In any country. In fact, under US law, if D&M was forgiven the debt by the guide company they are then liable for taxes on that unpaid debt - because it's considered the equivalent of free money.
They can't be very high end if I've never heard of them. Kenwood, Sony, Pioneer... those are high end.
Congrats... you've just named all of the major low-fi vendors.
Would you like to play again? Maybe, this time, try something more simple. Like automobiles. Hint - Honda, Toyota, and Ford are not the top of the line, despite sales figures.
Well, not necessarily. When ReplayTV got bought out, the company went away, and the assests went to SonicBlue. They honored the lifetime agreement for ReplayTV owners.
Yes, but lifetime subscriptions are not an asset - they are a liability. The press release doesn't go into any detail, but I'd presume that D&M got saddled with the liabilities (court cases, outstanding debts, and lifetime subscriptions) as well as gaining the assets.
This is why $36.4M is not a "deal" by the way... and it's why they went under in the first place. They have far more liabilities than assets at this time.
Until you can control it, don't deploy it.
Who said anything about deploying?
What the article suggests is that we shouldn't even do any research on nano-scale machines until we've evaluated the alleged health risks. Which is a load of bunk.
Think about it - if people had suggested this a couple hundred years ago then it's unlikely we would've developed electric power (yes, I know - studies on electricity date back millenia, but it wasn't until the 1800s that a vast amount of research was done on it and we started really harnessing its capabilities). Do you have any idea what happens to the human body when exposed to more than a few milliamps of electrical power?
Do the research, figure out how to make these things work for us... it's just that health concerns are another part of the research - which is pretty much standard nowadays anyway.
What if, rather than selling a packaged online game for all comers, you started a sort of RPG Society? You'd apply for membership, pay a monthly fee, knowing that every player is absolutely into the role playing
So what you're after is an online version of SCA?
Honestly, look into the world of MUDs - there are quite a few out there that are more about role playing than character advancement. As with everything else, it's merely a matter of looking in the right place.
I hope I'm don't come off as intolerant, but this got me thinking: Is this a coincidence? Or maybe it's just that video game programmers (or programmers in general) tend to be dissatisfied with their lives, and thus more likely to try something extreme?
Yes, we're sure to see Joan Carmack in a decade or so.
No matter what they say, womem [sic] programmers will never get the mentality of 'killers': those teenage (and older!) young men that find the most fun in online games griefing, killing, and exploiting the games.
You realize, of course, that Jessica Mulligan was previously Richard Mulligan and male?
Frankly, the mentality of those players isn't worth it. Goody - it gives them their jollies. You're better off without their revenue, because they cause more people to be disgusted with the game and quit it, or be annoyed and require additional customer service. Either way you've lost far more money due to that one customer than they'll give you back. Especially since support will eventually catch up to them, discipline them, and they'll quit (and remove your revenue source).
Oh... and it's not all young men that enjoy that kind of crap either. I was a guild officer in EQ and while our guild was mostly older (18+), we had a large number of younger members, none of whom were griefers. And yes, we were the top guild on the server (and still are, but I haven't played in over a year) and one of the top guilds in the entire game. Members who started pulling grief crap were kicked, and they would invariably fade away from the game afterwards.
You turn around for a second, and that car you just jacked dissapears. Apparently they couldn't even keep track of more than the tiny bit of the world you were currently in without making it even more slow.
No... it's just that someone else just jacked the car you'd previously jacked.
Remember - if it's not bolted down, it's mine. If I can pry it off, then it's not bolted down.
6) affordable!
Sorry, this criteria is incompatible with all previous criteria. Thank you, play again.
I presume you don't have a S2 box, since they can do MP3 playback now with HMO.