You'd think a bug 9 years old would've been fixed. As usual, no response until it's been publicized enough times instead of fixing it before it can get to this point.
It would really suck if those older users really can't get a fix because they can't upgrade.
SOP for Apple is to not acknowledge the problem. As we all know, pretending a problem doesn't exist, makes it go away. Eventually enough people complain and force Apple to acknowledge. Their acknowledgement will be to deny it's a problem and possibly say some other company has the same issue. A few weeks after that, Apple will release a patch to fix this nonexistent problem. Don't forget that Apple laptops aren't built to be able to run at full speed without a working battery and in fact only run a little above half speed. If you macbook starts running slow and you thought you had a working battery, you might have a problem.
Apple manages to come out with some new craptastic standard which nobody else uses, until it dies it's overdue death. Then the cycle restarts. Isn't the current one some video jack or did it die already?
Who's denying it? No matter how much you keep repeating it, it doesn't cover what you wish it would(this deal with multiplayer servers). As another example, there's been many other multiplayer servers that have been shut down. They haven't been sued under that because it's not applicable. Same thing when Yahoo Music shut down and at first people thought they'd lose all their DRM music, which eventually changed when customers got helped out. You asked for an answer, you got one that you don't like and now you've just been repeating an argument for a law that doesn't cover what you want. Then again, you think a business should be forced to fund a service until it goes out of business because of it, which you keep ignoring.
How about this, argue this issue in regards to estoppel. The problem you'll still have to overcome is that a business can choose to do this sort of thing as long as it's not implying it'll be around for a certain length of time, which it hasn't done.
1. Once again...There's no law saying a company that offers to pay a third party to run a multiplayer server to keep it running for a certain amount of time.
2. Cool
3. That's exactly what your saying. By your logic any company that runs a multiplayer server would have to run it for a certain amount of time, no matter the costs. If they failed to do that, you want them punished under laws that don't exist. Codemasters payed a company to do the servers. The third party didn't want to renew the contract. Now you want to either force them to continue the service, at any cost to them, or get penalized with fines for breaking the multiplayer server laws.
1. They had multiplayer running for 3 years. 2. That's a UK law and this is taking place in the US. 3. We don't have laws that force companies to offer services, similar to this, until they run out of money and go bankrupt. Check out this list, most notably number 8 http://www.marketingminefield.co.uk/articles/top-10-internet-startup-failures.html Here's a business that went under in less than two months. They stopped providing their service yet weren't sued for breaking laws that don't exist. The laws that you're saying codemasters should be charged with don't exist.
Did you read any of the fine print for multiplayer? They usually say they can change things at any time. There isn't any law that forces a business to support something like a server for a minimum length of time. That would be dumb to force on a business and smaller places would be hesitant to do it if there was a chance their game, or whatever, wasn't popular. Oops, too bad, you still have to fund the servers, making a loss until you go out of business just to satisfy the 3 people using it. Don't forget you still have to have the staff around to make sure it doesn't go offline for whatever reason. Oh, those 3 people stopped playing? Well, since we're still forced to keep it up for a couple more years, the owners will no doubt be glad to mortgage their house just to keep it going since someone new might sign up and if it's not running, we'll get sued.
Obviously not. By that logic, that would mean they'd have to keep a server running until the end of the world simply because the box says there's multiplayer.
Exactly. Everyone saying things like physical media will go away and become replaced by streaming don't realize caps in Australia are as low as a couple hundred megabytes.
I agree with you. If you want to change the definition of what constitutes malware, then there won't be any.
Unfortunately, reality disagrees with you "Malware includes computer viruses, worms, TROJAN horses, spyware, dishonest adware, scareware, crimeware, most rootkits, and other malicious and unwanted software or program."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware
The problem is the illusion of no malware/etc., which leads people to not protect themselves because they can't get infections. Then you have the current issue where it does happen and people click on anything because, in their minds, they're completely safe. It's fine from a sales perspective from Apple but then when current issues do arise, that can also take a bite out of Apple(do you see what I did there) when they refuse to acknowledge anything wrong.
Why buy a hard copy? It'll be cheaper and it'll always be available, whether or not you're at a computer or you're camping out in the middle of the woods(got to have something to burn, am I right;) )
Slashdot Mirror
You'd think a bug 9 years old would've been fixed. As usual, no response until it's been publicized enough times instead of fixing it before it can get to this point. It would really suck if those older users really can't get a fix because they can't upgrade.
Because all these superhero movies are all original material and not at all from things created up to almost a century ago.
It doesn't mention that in any of the bibles.
Is it really that high for Apple fans? I don't think so. Have you seen the lines for their things on release day?
I agree. Let's get back to the endless fighting between linux and windows users.
Not really caring until forced by the public to fix an issue isn't malice.
Instead of reading what the company says, I prefer to go by their actions. Actions speak louder than words.
SOP for Apple is to not acknowledge the problem. As we all know, pretending a problem doesn't exist, makes it go away. Eventually enough people complain and force Apple to acknowledge. Their acknowledgement will be to deny it's a problem and possibly say some other company has the same issue. A few weeks after that, Apple will release a patch to fix this nonexistent problem. Don't forget that Apple laptops aren't built to be able to run at full speed without a working battery and in fact only run a little above half speed. If you macbook starts running slow and you thought you had a working battery, you might have a problem.
Apple manages to come out with some new craptastic standard which nobody else uses, until it dies it's overdue death. Then the cycle restarts. Isn't the current one some video jack or did it die already?
Microsoft does something...slashdotters complain. More news at 11.
julinux aka Just Use Linux. The guy that made it has a forum where you can get support directly from him.
Who's denying it? No matter how much you keep repeating it, it doesn't cover what you wish it would(this deal with multiplayer servers). As another example, there's been many other multiplayer servers that have been shut down. They haven't been sued under that because it's not applicable. Same thing when Yahoo Music shut down and at first people thought they'd lose all their DRM music, which eventually changed when customers got helped out. You asked for an answer, you got one that you don't like and now you've just been repeating an argument for a law that doesn't cover what you want. Then again, you think a business should be forced to fund a service until it goes out of business because of it, which you keep ignoring.
How about this, argue this issue in regards to estoppel. The problem you'll still have to overcome is that a business can choose to do this sort of thing as long as it's not implying it'll be around for a certain length of time, which it hasn't done.
And since multiplayer is removed, they don't get anything else out of it? That sucks.
1. Once again...There's no law saying a company that offers to pay a third party to run a multiplayer server to keep it running for a certain amount of time. 2. Cool 3. That's exactly what your saying. By your logic any company that runs a multiplayer server would have to run it for a certain amount of time, no matter the costs. If they failed to do that, you want them punished under laws that don't exist. Codemasters payed a company to do the servers. The third party didn't want to renew the contract. Now you want to either force them to continue the service, at any cost to them, or get penalized with fines for breaking the multiplayer server laws.
And how much did PS3 users pay for multiplayer?
1. They had multiplayer running for 3 years. 2. That's a UK law and this is taking place in the US. 3. We don't have laws that force companies to offer services, similar to this, until they run out of money and go bankrupt. Check out this list, most notably number 8 http://www.marketingminefield.co.uk/articles/top-10-internet-startup-failures.html Here's a business that went under in less than two months. They stopped providing their service yet weren't sued for breaking laws that don't exist. The laws that you're saying codemasters should be charged with don't exist.
Did you read any of the fine print for multiplayer? They usually say they can change things at any time. There isn't any law that forces a business to support something like a server for a minimum length of time. That would be dumb to force on a business and smaller places would be hesitant to do it if there was a chance their game, or whatever, wasn't popular. Oops, too bad, you still have to fund the servers, making a loss until you go out of business just to satisfy the 3 people using it. Don't forget you still have to have the staff around to make sure it doesn't go offline for whatever reason. Oh, those 3 people stopped playing? Well, since we're still forced to keep it up for a couple more years, the owners will no doubt be glad to mortgage their house just to keep it going since someone new might sign up and if it's not running, we'll get sued.
Obviously not. By that logic, that would mean they'd have to keep a server running until the end of the world simply because the box says there's multiplayer.
Exactly. Everyone saying things like physical media will go away and become replaced by streaming don't realize caps in Australia are as low as a couple hundred megabytes.
As a fellow Bushido, we both know the penalty for not keeping one's word.
I too hate Microsoft and express my opinions in a way the don't contribute to the articles I'm posting to.
Which doesn't do much considering most of these types of emails are sent from a no-reply address.
I agree with you. If you want to change the definition of what constitutes malware, then there won't be any. Unfortunately, reality disagrees with you "Malware includes computer viruses, worms, TROJAN horses, spyware, dishonest adware, scareware, crimeware, most rootkits, and other malicious and unwanted software or program." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware
The problem is the illusion of no malware/etc., which leads people to not protect themselves because they can't get infections. Then you have the current issue where it does happen and people click on anything because, in their minds, they're completely safe. It's fine from a sales perspective from Apple but then when current issues do arise, that can also take a bite out of Apple(do you see what I did there) when they refuse to acknowledge anything wrong.
Why buy a hard copy? It'll be cheaper and it'll always be available, whether or not you're at a computer or you're camping out in the middle of the woods(got to have something to burn, am I right ;) )