"That you claim to have used ot for a decade is pretty sad also."
Yes, because for that entire time, I only owned one computer, just like every other person on Slashdot.
Besides, even if it were my only computer, it played StarCraft, what more would I need?
"As for your last question it has something to do with not being able to detect the presence of solder in software... fool."
You phail computer programming. You do not waste precious ROM space (especially in the 286 days) with code to query the CPU when there is no expectation that the CPU will ever be removed, let alone replaced.
Following the "They don't know it's soldered on" logic, you would have ROMs also check the system speaker, the clock, the floppy disk controller, and every single last capacitor on that board to make sure it's there and has the proper BIOS settings configured for it.
Hate to break the news to you, but Newfoundland and Labrador has been a part of Canada for almost 60 years now.
(Seriously, if you live in Canada, you should understand the reason to be less ambiguous than to try to use an ISO abbrevation that conflicts with Canada Post.)
"maybe I can interest you in a 100 acre farm"
Don't they measure things in hectares up there? Maybe your problem with establishing residency is that your farm is actually on the wrong side of the border.
"This is what they always do. If they ship with the HDMI cable, then they have to also include the composite, since that's the lowest common denominator."
This isn't the first time in this discussion the "HDMI isn't for the lowest common denominator" hand-wave has been brought up, but I'll respond to this one nonetheless.
You're totally ignoring the fact that Sony is offering two models, and the $600 model in and of itself isn't supposed to be for the "lowest common denominator." If you don't want/don't need/can't use the HDMI cable, then you're supposed to be purchasing the $500 model, or at least that is what Sony marketing would have us believe. Those buying the $600 model are supposed to be the ones who can use that HDMI port out of the box, or at least they would if they had the cable.
This isn't about Sony being clever and catering to the most people, this is about Sony's right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
According to the blog entry, it's still in the "trial" phase. But the funny thing is I wouldn't have noticed it at all if it didn't screw up with a valid URL; I typed in "playonline.com" (spelled correctly and everything) and still got their redirect, yet it worked fine when I put the "www" in front of it, which to me sounds like the DNS servers serving the redirect both have incomplete records and are lazy about querying other servers.
At no point in the movie is there any mention of either advertising or what can be done with it. Considering the way you now have to jury-rig the system to enable some sort of 30 s skip, I'm guessing the submitter has yet to come to terms with the fac that TiVo sold out to advertisers a long time ago.
"Stop making up fictions in order to demonize Intel."
"Fictions?" So the computer I used for the better part of a decade was a figment of my imagination? My inability to replace an MMX processor with a K6-III is, again, why I've gone AMD-only.
"I believe my AMD 286 had one, as well as my AMD 386 and AMD 486."
Why check the CPU's ID when it's soldered to the board?
"It turned out that (suprise suprise) no one would give any money to the federal government and that provided for an crippled central government."
Then the problem was one of enforcement, which was addressed by Article I; "If you don't cough up your membership dues, we'll levy an (apportioned) capitation on your state's citizens directly." Of course, for the first 80 years there were moral problems with the apportionment scheme to be used, but now it's been pretty well fixed.
This was the scheme used for the first half-century of our current constitution, and the only real reasons the scheme fell by the wayside were the desire on the part of the federal government to micromanage taxation to cosolidate pork and the desire on the part of the state governments to wash their hands of taxation and let the federal government take the blame.
(Really, the example of highway funding exemplifies this; the feds get to spread the burden of pork across all states instead of just one, making it more tolerable, and the state gets to play the victim while never seriously considering funding construction on their own.)
"No money means no central military, which means no defense (state militias cannot compare to a central military, there just is not enough cohesion)"
Article I also gives Congress the power to prescribe the training regime for the state militias. It just so happens that, for the most part, they chose not to until the National Guard Act. The only real "problem" then would be the federal government's inability to order a state's militia to fight on foreign soil without that state's permission, but the dual enlistment doctrine introduced by the aforementioned Act "fixed" that.
But even then, if the problem is of a lack of cohesion, why are even the National Guard units called to serve as distinct bodies, rather than have the individuals reassigned to federal units?
"i'm not sure how the WGA works exactly, but there's a good chance you will be able to move it to another machine.
i just built a new system, and i was expecting my (pirated) copy"
If I were looking to pirate the software outright, would I really be concerned about what kind of license I would be buying?
If you can't abide by either Microsoft's pricing or Microsoft's licensing, use Linux. Otherwise, you not only lack a moral leg to stand on but are working to support with marketshare that which you claim to despise.
"If it's made according to how you wanted the character made, You paid for it, it's yours."
I can go down the street to the trophy shop and buy myself a trophy to my exact specifications. Heck, I could probably spend a little effort and get myself an exact replica of an Olympic gold medal. Does that make it the same? Does that mean it's worth as much to me as a trophy I won?
"There ARE aspects of the game payers like, why not just let them play those parts?"
If those aspects of the game were meant to be the main part of the game and less a mini-game, do you really think it'd be treated as a reward for reaching a certain level or completing a certain series of quests? If you want a PvP game, go out and play a PvP game.
Not that that is all you're interested in. If all you want is PvP, then I wouldn't have to put up with you in my experience point or quest parties. You want to be able to do it with the same equipment and such as others who have put in the commitment, all without any commitment of your own.
"Their subscriptions help pay improvement of the aspects you like, just as much as yours does"
But their mere presence detracts from my enjoyment, more than their subscription fees. Why should I have my game ruined by people who can't be bothered to play by the rules?
"If a game is made so that one strategy dominates the others, then the game is already flawed, please read about game theory."
It's called "cheating" for a reason.
"they should have the choice!"
Choose another game.
"but please try to understand the other types of players."
Please understand there are other games.
"But I love pvp in this game and I pay my subscription like everyone else."
But you can't abide by the rules and design of the game, unlike everyone else. All your subscription entitles you to is access, nothing more, no right to dictate the terms as you see fit, especially when the vast majority of other players are quite content with the terms of access and what you ask for would detract from their own enjoyment.
"You said that, I didn't:)"
Essentially yes, you did. You don't care about game balance, you don't care about the enjoyment of other players, you would ruin both just so that your character can have some unjustified bling. Your entire post is about how everything should be all about you and what you want and how everybody should cater to your tastes, even to their own detriment and even though you amount to nothing much more than a lone voice in the wilderness in your MMORPG of choice.
"Powerlevelling is good, because it lets people play the part of the game they enjoy, and that's what gaming is all about."
How much enjoyment could you have with what is essentially somebody else's high-level character? A good deal of the enjoyment of having such a character is remembering the effort it took.
"I say that's a lie, i say people choose to work at their job, instead of doing what many consider a chore (ingame) to get those stats."
If it is such a "chore" that you equate it with "work," then quit the game. The publisher and the entire game community are not required to cater to your whims and putting up with your high-level but utterly inexperienced character. If you don't like it, then it is on you to quit, not to ruin it for other people.
"And as many people have already pointed out, they can't buy skill anyway, so why on earth are you whining about it?"
Because level is the only real metric left for measuring the potential skill of other players, and what you're adocating breaks even that. You are making it so that I can't reasonably rely on somebody else's level to be useful information on how well they party.
"Nothing in game would be for sale unless it's either difficult to get or boring to get."
Nothing would be for sale if people didn't want an easier way of getting what others worked hard for. Ants, grasshopper, little red hen, etc.
If you don't like it, quit. Take some initiative for once in your life.
"When you realize you only need that one crystal to finish your monolithic spaceship of doom, you pull out a menu, and purchase it,"
What would be the point of having that "monolithic spaceship of doom" if everybody has one? If that's the way it's going to be, why aren't you satisfied with starting gear, or why should they even put such an item in the game to begin with? The ultimate conclusion to your argument is that nothing in the game should require any effort to acquire, thereby eliminating any value to any attainable items. You'd have a game full of Paris Hiltons.
"Nobody wants boredom,"
That's where you're wrong. It's unfulfilling boredom that people don't want. You're assuming that everybody would be equally satisfied with instant gratification as they would be with that which is not easily attainable. If that were true, we'd all still be living in caves.
I will admit that this is mostly a matter of personal satisfaction, but your pursuit of instant gratification through the use of gold sellers and power levelling affects me by ruining the game economy and burdening me with unreliable party members such as yourself.
If you want instant gratification, go get an offline game and an Action Replay and leave the rest of us out of your masturbatory fantasies.
"Second life is already doing this to some extent,"
And you don't think this has anything to do with Second Life's rather small market share?
"I must admit, i myself am somewhat annoyed with char building,"
Then don't do it.
"I love doing pk (or pvp if you want) because that's the place where you're facing human adversaries."
Then play a different game.
"rom a foreign aid point of view, this is one of the ways you'll be able to give money directly to the poor people of poor nations."
Does the term "sweatshop" mean nothing to you? You will not be giving money to the workers, you will be giving it to their employers.
"anyways, i'm heading off topic, cyas and i hope you'll think about why it is people will pay to avoid parts of a game."
"directly proportional to how much of the game is simply not fun for players."
There is no reason for any game company to go out of their way to please everybody. If there are some players that don't find the game fun any more, it is time for those players to move on to something else that is fun. Blizzard (et al) are making enough money that they don't need to cater to such people, especially when doing so could seriously harm the playing experience of everybody else.
"Evaluating your job-worthiness by simulating real-world problem-solving situations"
You're assuming they're always doing it deliberately. You're assuming that they able to think that far ahead. You're assuming that the hiring personnel actually know what they're doing. You're assuming that they're acting stupid rather than being stupid, and my point is that such an assumption in general is, at best, a long shot.
If you continue to automatically assume that any potential employer acting in such a way is trying to test you with "real world scenarios," you're not only failing to apply Hanlon's Razor but also Hoccam's Razor in general, and you're setting yourself up to be severely disappointed; worse yet, you won't know for sure one way or the other until you've already made a commitment to work for them.
Slashdot Mirror
"Stalking is supposed to be hard."
You're assuming anybody worth stalking uses Facebook.
"That you claim to have used ot for a decade is pretty sad also."
Yes, because for that entire time, I only owned one computer, just like every other person on Slashdot.
Besides, even if it were my only computer, it played StarCraft, what more would I need?
"As for your last question it has something to do with not being able to detect the presence of solder in software... fool."
You phail computer programming. You do not waste precious ROM space (especially in the 286 days) with code to query the CPU when there is no expectation that the CPU will ever be removed, let alone replaced.
Following the "They don't know it's soldered on" logic, you would have ROMs also check the system speaker, the clock, the floppy disk controller, and every single last capacitor on that board to make sure it's there and has the proper BIOS settings configured for it.
"I've been back in NL (my country of origin)"
Hate to break the news to you, but Newfoundland and Labrador has been a part of Canada for almost 60 years now.
(Seriously, if you live in Canada, you should understand the reason to be less ambiguous than to try to use an ISO abbrevation that conflicts with Canada Post.)
"maybe I can interest you in a 100 acre farm"
Don't they measure things in hectares up there? Maybe your problem with establishing residency is that your farm is actually on the wrong side of the border.
"This is what they always do. If they ship with the HDMI cable, then they have to also include the composite, since that's the lowest common denominator."
This isn't the first time in this discussion the "HDMI isn't for the lowest common denominator" hand-wave has been brought up, but I'll respond to this one nonetheless.
You're totally ignoring the fact that Sony is offering two models, and the $600 model in and of itself isn't supposed to be for the "lowest common denominator." If you don't want/don't need/can't use the HDMI cable, then you're supposed to be purchasing the $500 model, or at least that is what Sony marketing would have us believe. Those buying the $600 model are supposed to be the ones who can use that HDMI port out of the box, or at least they would if they had the cable.
This isn't about Sony being clever and catering to the most people, this is about Sony's right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
According to the blog entry, it's still in the "trial" phase. But the funny thing is I wouldn't have noticed it at all if it didn't screw up with a valid URL; I typed in "playonline.com" (spelled correctly and everything) and still got their redirect, yet it worked fine when I put the "www" in front of it, which to me sounds like the DNS servers serving the redirect both have incomplete records and are lazy about querying other servers.
"pointing the remote at the TIVO and pressing a couple buttons"
That right there is beyond the ken of most TiVo users. Which is exactly why they make you do it to begin with.
"I would say that this is a very small fraction of the student population. "
But for how many of those 1000 records did they obtain a search warrant?
At no point in the movie is there any mention of either advertising or what can be done with it. Considering the way you now have to jury-rig the system to enable some sort of 30 s skip, I'm guessing the submitter has yet to come to terms with the fac that TiVo sold out to advertisers a long time ago.
"Stop making up fictions in order to demonize Intel."
"Fictions?" So the computer I used for the better part of a decade was a figment of my imagination? My inability to replace an MMX processor with a K6-III is, again, why I've gone AMD-only.
"I believe my AMD 286 had one, as well as my AMD 386 and AMD 486."
Why check the CPU's ID when it's soldered to the board?
"I think Intel has more class than some other companies."
"ZOMG! The socket 7 chip on the motherboard isn't GenuineIntel! Don't let it POST!"
That little bit of Intel "class" is why I've gone AMD-only to begin with.
For me (at least), the answer to all your hypothetical questions is "The PS3 still wouldn't be worth $600."
"The US Constitution has a prohibition on funding an army for more than two years."
Solution: budget the Army (and everything else) annually.
Ever read the Federalist Papers?
"It turned out that (suprise suprise) no one would give any money to the federal government and that provided for an crippled central government."
Then the problem was one of enforcement, which was addressed by Article I; "If you don't cough up your membership dues, we'll levy an (apportioned) capitation on your state's citizens directly." Of course, for the first 80 years there were moral problems with the apportionment scheme to be used, but now it's been pretty well fixed.
This was the scheme used for the first half-century of our current constitution, and the only real reasons the scheme fell by the wayside were the desire on the part of the federal government to micromanage taxation to cosolidate pork and the desire on the part of the state governments to wash their hands of taxation and let the federal government take the blame.
(Really, the example of highway funding exemplifies this; the feds get to spread the burden of pork across all states instead of just one, making it more tolerable, and the state gets to play the victim while never seriously considering funding construction on their own.)
"No money means no central military, which means no defense (state militias cannot compare to a central military, there just is not enough cohesion)"
Article I also gives Congress the power to prescribe the training regime for the state militias. It just so happens that, for the most part, they chose not to until the National Guard Act. The only real "problem" then would be the federal government's inability to order a state's militia to fight on foreign soil without that state's permission, but the dual enlistment doctrine introduced by the aforementioned Act "fixed" that.
But even then, if the problem is of a lack of cohesion, why are even the National Guard units called to serve as distinct bodies, rather than have the individuals reassigned to federal units?
"So, if you make it illegal, the people who are not sick will stop looking at it."
"I wonder why this stuff is illegal..."
Unless, of course, you want to declare curiosity to be a sickness as well.
While on the subject of the Rolling Stones, there's always "Cocksucker's Blues."
Only Radio Shack's old employees in Korea will actually know they've been laid off.
"i'm not sure how the WGA works exactly, but there's a good chance you will be able to move it to another machine.
i just built a new system, and i was expecting my (pirated) copy"
If I were looking to pirate the software outright, would I really be concerned about what kind of license I would be buying?
If you can't abide by either Microsoft's pricing or Microsoft's licensing, use Linux. Otherwise, you not only lack a moral leg to stand on but are working to support with marketshare that which you claim to despise.
Slashdot: Where violating the terms of a Microsoft OEM license is always OK but violations of GPL are treated with extreme prejudice.
"Nobody buys full retail." "I must be nobody." Therefore, I must be the one buying full retail.
Call me "nobody," then. I refuse to pay for an OS I can't move from one machine to another.
"If it's made according to how you wanted the character made, You paid for it, it's yours."
:)"
I can go down the street to the trophy shop and buy myself a trophy to my exact specifications. Heck, I could probably spend a little effort and get myself an exact replica of an Olympic gold medal. Does that make it the same? Does that mean it's worth as much to me as a trophy I won?
"There ARE aspects of the game payers like, why not just let them play those parts?"
If those aspects of the game were meant to be the main part of the game and less a mini-game, do you really think it'd be treated as a reward for reaching a certain level or completing a certain series of quests? If you want a PvP game, go out and play a PvP game.
Not that that is all you're interested in. If all you want is PvP, then I wouldn't have to put up with you in my experience point or quest parties. You want to be able to do it with the same equipment and such as others who have put in the commitment, all without any commitment of your own.
"Their subscriptions help pay improvement of the aspects you like, just as much as yours does"
But their mere presence detracts from my enjoyment, more than their subscription fees. Why should I have my game ruined by people who can't be bothered to play by the rules?
"If a game is made so that one strategy dominates the others, then the game is already flawed, please read about game theory."
It's called "cheating" for a reason.
"they should have the choice!"
Choose another game.
"but please try to understand the other types of players."
Please understand there are other games.
"But I love pvp in this game and I pay my subscription like everyone else."
But you can't abide by the rules and design of the game, unlike everyone else. All your subscription entitles you to is access, nothing more, no right to dictate the terms as you see fit, especially when the vast majority of other players are quite content with the terms of access and what you ask for would detract from their own enjoyment.
"You said that, I didn't
Essentially yes, you did. You don't care about game balance, you don't care about the enjoyment of other players, you would ruin both just so that your character can have some unjustified bling. Your entire post is about how everything should be all about you and what you want and how everybody should cater to your tastes, even to their own detriment and even though you amount to nothing much more than a lone voice in the wilderness in your MMORPG of choice.
"Powerlevelling is good, because it lets people play the part of the game they enjoy, and that's what gaming is all about."
How much enjoyment could you have with what is essentially somebody else's high-level character? A good deal of the enjoyment of having such a character is remembering the effort it took.
"I say that's a lie, i say people choose to work at their job, instead of doing what many consider a chore (ingame) to get those stats."
If it is such a "chore" that you equate it with "work," then quit the game. The publisher and the entire game community are not required to cater to your whims and putting up with your high-level but utterly inexperienced character. If you don't like it, then it is on you to quit, not to ruin it for other people.
"And as many people have already pointed out, they can't buy skill anyway, so why on earth are you whining about it?"
Because level is the only real metric left for measuring the potential skill of other players, and what you're adocating breaks even that. You are making it so that I can't reasonably rely on somebody else's level to be useful information on how well they party.
"Nothing in game would be for sale unless it's either difficult to get or boring to get."
Nothing would be for sale if people didn't want an easier way of getting what others worked hard for. Ants, grasshopper, little red hen, etc.
If you don't like it, quit. Take some initiative for once in your life.
"When you realize you only need that one crystal to finish your monolithic spaceship of doom, you pull out a menu, and purchase it,"
What would be the point of having that "monolithic spaceship of doom" if everybody has one? If that's the way it's going to be, why aren't you satisfied with starting gear, or why should they even put such an item in the game to begin with? The ultimate conclusion to your argument is that nothing in the game should require any effort to acquire, thereby eliminating any value to any attainable items. You'd have a game full of Paris Hiltons.
"Nobody wants boredom,"
That's where you're wrong. It's unfulfilling boredom that people don't want. You're assuming that everybody would be equally satisfied with instant gratification as they would be with that which is not easily attainable. If that were true, we'd all still be living in caves.
I will admit that this is mostly a matter of personal satisfaction, but your pursuit of instant gratification through the use of gold sellers and power levelling affects me by ruining the game economy and burdening me with unreliable party members such as yourself.
If you want instant gratification, go get an offline game and an Action Replay and leave the rest of us out of your masturbatory fantasies.
"Second life is already doing this to some extent,"
And you don't think this has anything to do with Second Life's rather small market share?
"I must admit, i myself am somewhat annoyed with char building,"
Then don't do it.
"I love doing pk (or pvp if you want) because that's the place where you're facing human adversaries."
Then play a different game.
"rom a foreign aid point of view, this is one of the ways you'll be able to give money directly to the poor people of poor nations."
Does the term "sweatshop" mean nothing to you? You will not be giving money to the workers, you will be giving it to their employers.
"anyways, i'm heading off topic, cyas and i hope you'll think about why it is people will pay to avoid parts of a game."
Oh, I already know. "The world owes me."
"directly proportional to how much of the game is simply not fun for players."
There is no reason for any game company to go out of their way to please everybody. If there are some players that don't find the game fun any more, it is time for those players to move on to something else that is fun. Blizzard (et al) are making enough money that they don't need to cater to such people, especially when doing so could seriously harm the playing experience of everybody else.
The world does not revolve around you.
The Wii will still have third-party online support before the PS3's price is dropped to something acceptable.
"Evaluating your job-worthiness by simulating real-world problem-solving situations"
You're assuming they're always doing it deliberately. You're assuming that they able to think that far ahead. You're assuming that the hiring personnel actually know what they're doing. You're assuming that they're acting stupid rather than being stupid, and my point is that such an assumption in general is, at best, a long shot.
If you continue to automatically assume that any potential employer acting in such a way is trying to test you with "real world scenarios," you're not only failing to apply Hanlon's Razor but also Hoccam's Razor in general, and you're setting yourself up to be severely disappointed; worse yet, you won't know for sure one way or the other until you've already made a commitment to work for them.