Your initial line of reasoning is fine, but your conclusion is incorrect. The correct conclusion is that she needs a locked down appliance that *does* support Flash and Skype, and therefore does 100% of what she needs rather than 75%.
Then it became a level race. instances were lead by a high level char who told me, "stay here while i kill this guy." After a while, i was like, "WTF am i doing?"
In WoW they came up with all this great new data mining and achievements. We end up with gear scores and Wow Heroes etc.
All the data gearscore uses has been available since WoW 1.0. All it does is inspect a player (something you've always been able to do), add up the item levels of their gear (while hidden to players until recently, item level has been available to mods since 1.0), and then share that number with other users of the mod using the mod communication channels (which have been available since 1.12 or so, but mods like Cosmos and CTRaid had been setting up their own in-game channels before that anyway).
100% of gearscore's functionality has 0% to do with the armory or WoW's "social networking" features. The fact that a site like wow-heroes can put that on a webpage is pretty irrelevant when douchebags are just going to inspect you and boot you if your gear is bad when they see it in-game, anyway.
Read the context. He "didn't like the look" and "didn't finish the single player campaign". And he's concerned about LAN play. What does this tell you? Despite "hating" WC3 he probably put a few dozen hours into it (at least) at LANs or possibly even on battle.net. If he really didn't like the actual gameplay of the multiplayer, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't give two shits about SC2 or whether or not it had LAN play.
You can play it just fine in offline ("Guest") mode. It simply does not record your "achievements" in that mode. But you can still play single players and save your games and what not. This was discussed at length at Blizzcon, mostly due to angry people asking about LAN play at the Q&A session after the speech. I didn't check out this new preview so I'm not sure if it was mentioned there.
If companies were so concerned about "cheating" in games, why do they build cheat codes into games?
I realize a dozen people have beaten me to the punch on this but some comments are so stupid they just have to be responded to multiple times.
What the fuck? Seriously, what the fuck? When you're playing a single player game, the only limit to what is considered cheating is what you consider to be cheating, because you're only playing against yourself. It literally has zero effect on anyone else if you complete Doom with god mode on the entire game.
This is completely different than playing multiplayer games, where you have to have an agreed-upon set of rules beforehand, usually determined by a third party (the game designer) because you are playing against other people who may or may not agree with you as to what constitutes cheating or, for more complex games, what the "game" itself even is. When you cheat in multiplayer games, it directly affects the enjoyment of the game for other people. Almost universally in a negative fashion.
I'm REALLY hoping you were just trolling and aren't actually this fucking stupid.
That's really a 19th century view of prison. Modern prisons are supposed to be about rehabilitation. With the exceptions being when they're overpopulated or when their majority population is "lifers". Overpopulated prisons tend to just be places to hold people because they can't afford to attempt to rehabilitate at that scale, and with lifers there's no reason to rehabilitate someone when you're just waiting for them to die.
I honestly think the other guy is more clever for setting you up like that than you are for knocking it down. Shame the moderation system can't really reflect that.
Raiding *is* a social interaction. Just because a minority forgo important things like work or school doesn't mean that's the norm. People forgo work and school for stupid shit like doing drugs and watching TV, too. It's not because they play WoW, it's because they're mentally ill or depressed.
Despite all the anecdotes posted on the internet, I do not personally know a single person who has quit school or work for WoW. And many of the people I know either currently play or at some time in the past played WoW, so it's probably a better sample size than your one roommate.
One exception I'll admit is people using PTO days or sick days for expansion releases, but I also know people who have done that for sporting events and other similar trivial entertainment purposes.
I have yet to see any bots in the random dungeon queue, but I have definitely seen really really awful players. In fact, I'm fairly certain a bot would out DPS some of the worst ones I've seen.
In other words, you have not sunk several hundred dollars into this hobby like so many others. When your investment so far has been that large, an extra $6.50 worth of insurance to save you a potentially big hassle is nothing.
For those not familiar with wow.com, previously called wowinsider.com, it's basically like a supermarket tabloid for WoW. I mean seriously, an anonymous source says that "serious consideration" is being given to maybe possibly some time in the distant future making authenticators mandatory?
Anyway, having said that, the easiest way to do this would be to use the Cataclysm expansion purchase to subsidize it. Each purchase would give you a coupon for one free authenticator. Putting an authenticator in the box would just be a waste of money (and wouldn't help the people who purchase it online).
Their real problem right now seems to be manufacturing them fast enough to keep up with demand. I know people who ordered one around or shortly after Christmas who still haven't received theirs (despite the confirmation email stating "2-3 business days").
Until they can solve the inventory problem, making them mandatory is still out of the question.
I can't remember if WoW requires a credit card initially to register, but, assuming it doesn't, you could probably just give all fake info and then use game cards to pay for it if you were really paranoid about it.
I was really just trying to point out your complete lack of reading comprehension. The anonymous coward seems to have handled it pretty thoroughly, though.
I'll make it easy for you: "as required by law OR... is necessary to identify, contact, or BRING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST YOU."
The "as required by law" and "bring legal action against you" sections are separated by an "OR". This means one is not required of the other in their stated policy.
Got it yet? Blizzard followed their policy to the letter. You don't agree to it? Don't give them your information. End of story.
You weaken your argument by referencing the Salem witch trials, which occurred in what was essentially a patriarchy/monarchy. Not a "democracy" at all.
Your post would have made sense if he hadn't appended "but evil is very often no more than an opinion." to his first paragraph. The poster was purposefully defining evil in his own way, and extending it beyond what one might normally consider worthy of the label of "evil", because that's exactly what the post he was replying to did.
A simple reading of Blizzard's own privacy policy, which you agree to by using their service, is all that is necessary to know if they overstepped their bounds or not.
I haven't read it because I don't care and it's irrelevant to my point. Blizzard has no inherent responsibility to ensure their users' privacy beyond their stated intentions. Nor does any other company. At least some of the onus is on the users to control their own private data. If a company says "if the law comes calling, we will cooperate" and you still agree to give them your information (and as long as this policy is publicly posted before agreeing to share said information), that's on you, not the company.
Slashdot Mirror
Your initial line of reasoning is fine, but your conclusion is incorrect. The correct conclusion is that she needs a locked down appliance that *does* support Flash and Skype, and therefore does 100% of what she needs rather than 75%.
I have some .mp2 files from 15 years ago.
That's your own fucking fault. Not Blizzard's.
All the data gearscore uses has been available since WoW 1.0. All it does is inspect a player (something you've always been able to do), add up the item levels of their gear (while hidden to players until recently, item level has been available to mods since 1.0), and then share that number with other users of the mod using the mod communication channels (which have been available since 1.12 or so, but mods like Cosmos and CTRaid had been setting up their own in-game channels before that anyway).
100% of gearscore's functionality has 0% to do with the armory or WoW's "social networking" features. The fact that a site like wow-heroes can put that on a webpage is pretty irrelevant when douchebags are just going to inspect you and boot you if your gear is bad when they see it in-game, anyway.
Read the context. He "didn't like the look" and "didn't finish the single player campaign". And he's concerned about LAN play. What does this tell you? Despite "hating" WC3 he probably put a few dozen hours into it (at least) at LANs or possibly even on battle.net. If he really didn't like the actual gameplay of the multiplayer, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't give two shits about SC2 or whether or not it had LAN play.
You can play it just fine in offline ("Guest") mode. It simply does not record your "achievements" in that mode. But you can still play single players and save your games and what not. This was discussed at length at Blizzcon, mostly due to angry people asking about LAN play at the Q&A session after the speech. I didn't check out this new preview so I'm not sure if it was mentioned there.
Diablo 1 is still active on battle.net. This is the game that launched the service in 1996.
That guy already won it in 1948.
The article is a little misleading. The bug started in NT 3.1, not DOS or Windows 3.1.
I'm hoping he posts a reply to this that somehow demonstrates that he still doesn't get it so we can have a whoosh hat trick.
In 4chan terminology, "fag" is just a suffix that means "person" or "people".
I realize a dozen people have beaten me to the punch on this but some comments are so stupid they just have to be responded to multiple times.
What the fuck? Seriously, what the fuck? When you're playing a single player game, the only limit to what is considered cheating is what you consider to be cheating, because you're only playing against yourself. It literally has zero effect on anyone else if you complete Doom with god mode on the entire game.
This is completely different than playing multiplayer games, where you have to have an agreed-upon set of rules beforehand, usually determined by a third party (the game designer) because you are playing against other people who may or may not agree with you as to what constitutes cheating or, for more complex games, what the "game" itself even is. When you cheat in multiplayer games, it directly affects the enjoyment of the game for other people. Almost universally in a negative fashion.
I'm REALLY hoping you were just trolling and aren't actually this fucking stupid.
That's really a 19th century view of prison. Modern prisons are supposed to be about rehabilitation. With the exceptions being when they're overpopulated or when their majority population is "lifers". Overpopulated prisons tend to just be places to hold people because they can't afford to attempt to rehabilitate at that scale, and with lifers there's no reason to rehabilitate someone when you're just waiting for them to die.
I honestly think the other guy is more clever for setting you up like that than you are for knocking it down. Shame the moderation system can't really reflect that.
Raiding *is* a social interaction. Just because a minority forgo important things like work or school doesn't mean that's the norm. People forgo work and school for stupid shit like doing drugs and watching TV, too. It's not because they play WoW, it's because they're mentally ill or depressed.
Despite all the anecdotes posted on the internet, I do not personally know a single person who has quit school or work for WoW. And many of the people I know either currently play or at some time in the past played WoW, so it's probably a better sample size than your one roommate.
One exception I'll admit is people using PTO days or sick days for expansion releases, but I also know people who have done that for sporting events and other similar trivial entertainment purposes.
I have yet to see any bots in the random dungeon queue, but I have definitely seen really really awful players. In fact, I'm fairly certain a bot would out DPS some of the worst ones I've seen.
In other words, you have not sunk several hundred dollars into this hobby like so many others. When your investment so far has been that large, an extra $6.50 worth of insurance to save you a potentially big hassle is nothing.
For those not familiar with wow.com, previously called wowinsider.com, it's basically like a supermarket tabloid for WoW. I mean seriously, an anonymous source says that "serious consideration" is being given to maybe possibly some time in the distant future making authenticators mandatory?
Anyway, having said that, the easiest way to do this would be to use the Cataclysm expansion purchase to subsidize it. Each purchase would give you a coupon for one free authenticator. Putting an authenticator in the box would just be a waste of money (and wouldn't help the people who purchase it online).
Their real problem right now seems to be manufacturing them fast enough to keep up with demand. I know people who ordered one around or shortly after Christmas who still haven't received theirs (despite the confirmation email stating "2-3 business days").
Until they can solve the inventory problem, making them mandatory is still out of the question.
I can't remember if WoW requires a credit card initially to register, but, assuming it doesn't, you could probably just give all fake info and then use game cards to pay for it if you were really paranoid about it.
I was really just trying to point out your complete lack of reading comprehension. The anonymous coward seems to have handled it pretty thoroughly, though.
"Bring legal action against you" *is* the "special case".
I'll make it easy for you: "as required by law OR ... is necessary to identify, contact, or BRING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST YOU."
The "as required by law" and "bring legal action against you" sections are separated by an "OR". This means one is not required of the other in their stated policy.
Got it yet? Blizzard followed their policy to the letter. You don't agree to it? Don't give them your information. End of story.
You weaken your argument by referencing the Salem witch trials, which occurred in what was essentially a patriarchy/monarchy. Not a "democracy" at all.
Your post would have made sense if he hadn't appended "but evil is very often no more than an opinion." to his first paragraph. The poster was purposefully defining evil in his own way, and extending it beyond what one might normally consider worthy of the label of "evil", because that's exactly what the post he was replying to did.
A simple reading of Blizzard's own privacy policy, which you agree to by using their service, is all that is necessary to know if they overstepped their bounds or not.
I haven't read it because I don't care and it's irrelevant to my point. Blizzard has no inherent responsibility to ensure their users' privacy beyond their stated intentions. Nor does any other company. At least some of the onus is on the users to control their own private data. If a company says "if the law comes calling, we will cooperate" and you still agree to give them your information (and as long as this policy is publicly posted before agreeing to share said information), that's on you, not the company.
Because one person fucked up (out of hundreds of millions in a lot of cases) and sued, and the company didn't want to get sued again.