I'd also like to point out that people aren't pissed off about going after the creators of glider, it's about how Blizzard's defense handled the situation, and ultimately won on said shady defense.
You could already play hacked versions on Blizzard's servers, assuming the key you had wasn't in use. What bnetd was nice for was the ability to play mods online with your friends. There are some really neat mods out there for Diablo II and having the ability to play them online with a friend or seven was nice.
No, my writing is fine. Their comprehension is not. There's more to comprehension than just the words presented. You have to consider the scope of the topic as well.
Why would I reject somoene who might have come across as a little seedy if I couldn't find any cursory information about them online? By every right, I should reject them just for that, but I don't always necessarily do it. Some people just have bad days. Some people are really the exact opposite and just do bad in interviews, which may make them appear "seedy".
But whatever. Apparently it's my fault for morons getting pissed off at the sheer thought that I could potentially reject people who can't present themselves right (though I stated I wouldn't).
Apparently you fail at reading comprehension too. I said I wouldn't pass just because I couldn't find them. Honestly what is with slashdotters lacking reading comprehension skills these days?
You're right, it's not unique to any one person. That's why if I don't find anything relevant on the first page of the links, I won't bother to look further. There's nothing wrong with taking a cursory glance if the information is easily attainable.
And it's not as easy to game as you'd think. The reason being is that which interviewee is going to know that it's specifically me having these kind of standards? They know nothing about me, so I doubt they'd go out of their way to make themselves look good. The majority of people who participate in the Internet could care less how they look online. If they did care, well, there wouldn't be a plethora of pictures of people snorting and smoking whatever illegal substance they could get their hands on.
The chances of a net smearing campaign happening to you are small. Just because it happened to you doesn't mean it'll suddenly happen to a lot of other people.
In the end, I doubt doing a quick cursory glance for anything incriminating for certain types of jobs is necessarily bad. If you do see something bad, you can delve further.
Besides, it doesn't take "one of those kind" of managers to populate a place full of idiots. Any manager can do that.
I've done this a few times looking at applicants who kind of seemed a little... seedy. I just looked at their contact information. Saw that they had an e-mail address. Then I said to myself, "Hey! What happens if I google the everything before the @ in their e-mail address?". If I didn't see anything on the first page that actually related to the person in question, then I didn't pass on their resume and application. Remember, not all employers are stupid.
Well, it seems you hold the idea of a general Christian and a Creationist in the same boat.
So let's spell out the differences here, as you clearly don't understand them.
General Christian:
Believes in "God". Follows the bible. However they aren't so deeply rooted in their faith that they're not able to make a nice compromise between reality and fantasy. They will follow science until it starts to make some serious infringements on their belief system (i.e. if science could prove "God" didn't exist, they wouldn't believe that). They will also follow the bible until it makes some serious infringements on the real world. However, it's generally noted that their faith isn't that strong. Science usually wins over faith.
Creationist:
"God" did it. The bible is law. Anything to contradict either of those two statements is clearly false. If you believe otherwise, you will burn in hell.
As you can see, a general Christian isn't going to get hung up about dinosaurs or whatever. They don't believe in the 6,000 year old earth crap. They realize there is a fine line between the real world and their faith. Although they may not put it in those terms, this is what it boils down to. The Creationists on the other hand, one can only wonder how they manage to function in our societies while being so willfully ignorant. Science is marginalized in their minds.
Except that the system requirements usually never mention working under Linux. So in that case, you can't really complain if you're trying to use a product in a way which isn't specified.
On the other hand, if they state they're supposed to work under Linux, then yeah, get all angry.
What's even more unconscionable about contracts that is that if you dare to actually try and read them in the store before you sign, every single employee gives you a shameful look. It's like "how dare you not trust us!". To the average person, that scares them.
You always have the option to read the contract, but if you do, everyone makes sure to treat you terribly if you do. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Which is what people who work in the customer service departments for (cell-)phone companies hear all the time anyway. It's not like it would be something new for them to hear. They even pretty much have a standard phrase to tell people who admit to as much (even if they don't explicitly say it).
NewEgg always waives the restocking fee on items if I make a simple phone call to their customer service reps. But that's always been on RMA's. You always have that option, and if you never exercise it, yes, they will just strictly follow policy. All companies are like this.
Welcome to the fail boat. You are passenger number 1 on this particular variant. Your punishment? Reread what they wrote until you understand what "almost everyone" means. Otherwise you can keep your subjective and useless vitriol to yourself.
Well, if you would have listened further in his speech, you would have heard him say that it all would take time. That he couldn't get it done in one term. Maybe not even two. Besides, every single candidate promises a lot of hooey. At least Obama tried to sound realistic, which is a little unusual.
No one was implying that they shouldn't. However if you'd take a second to un-stick your head from in-between your ass-cheeks, maybe, just maybe, you could have seen that there is some merit in people wanting as much information as they can find in the meantime. A broad idea is better than no idea.
You have hit the nail on the head, for the most part. A lot of frustrating experiences in games are not a balance issue. It's a control issue. If I fail to keep making the same jump, which should be very simple to make, all because the camera wants to swivel to some fucked up angle, yeah, that's certainly not a balance issue. It's a frustrating design issue that should have been weeded out during testing.
And that's something you really run into in a lot of games these days. While companies concentrate on making games easier to appeal to a broader audience, it seems a lot of them have refused to fix some elementary things. Things where if they had taken time to address those issues, the game wouldn't be frustrating (in some spots) and easy.
It would be nice if developers just took a second to read your comment and weigh what you've wrote.
There is... offline mode, and despite what others have told me, I have gotten it to work with Valve's games too.
Yes, Valve does snoop on how you play their games. But what they do with the data is make their games more fun through patches. They'll go, "ok, we see this is where people die the most. Why do they die the most? Sheer number of enemies? Low health? Puzzle is just *too* hard?", etc... So it's not entirely without merit on their end.
Well, the way they phrase the word, "unlimited", they make it sound as if that I can use as much of it as I want in any capacity for one set price. So what that really means in the consumers mindset is that their speeds won't be capped, ever. It means that they have no limit on how much data is transferred. They just pay one flat rate and have a go with it.
You're absolutely right that it's a luxury problem. You're also right that I'd probably be hard pressed to download that much every month. Even so, when I pay for something, and it's advertised one way, I expect it to be that way. What if one month I go 1GB over? What if I go 100 over? I don't pay for unlimited internet so I can be capped. I pay for unlimited in that, if there is a time where I want to use a lot, I can.
And it's very possible it might happen often just when I decide to use more than I normally do. I have two other PC's networked to the same connection, all of which are on and are being used by other people who like to ingest all sorts of different content.
So really, I do have every right to complain. While in your view, the grass might be greener on my side, that doesn't mean I have no right to complain. Hell, you should be bitching at your ISP too.
And I'm sure Comcast will make an effort to hide that little bit of information in the fine print so you don't notice it.
Honestly, they can't call it unlimited anymore. Unlimited has a set definition. It's not open to interpretation. If you introduce caps, or limits, well, you're giving a different service.
It would be nice if Comcast actually did something surprising... like, you know, give a good service? That would be tits.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd also like to point out that people aren't pissed off about going after the creators of glider, it's about how Blizzard's defense handled the situation, and ultimately won on said shady defense.
You could already play hacked versions on Blizzard's servers, assuming the key you had wasn't in use. What bnetd was nice for was the ability to play mods online with your friends. There are some really neat mods out there for Diablo II and having the ability to play them online with a friend or seven was nice.
No, my writing is fine. Their comprehension is not. There's more to comprehension than just the words presented. You have to consider the scope of the topic as well.
Why would I reject somoene who might have come across as a little seedy if I couldn't find any cursory information about them online? By every right, I should reject them just for that, but I don't always necessarily do it. Some people just have bad days. Some people are really the exact opposite and just do bad in interviews, which may make them appear "seedy".
But whatever. Apparently it's my fault for morons getting pissed off at the sheer thought that I could potentially reject people who can't present themselves right (though I stated I wouldn't).
Apparently you fail at reading comprehension too. I said I wouldn't pass just because I couldn't find them. Honestly what is with slashdotters lacking reading comprehension skills these days?
You're right, it's not unique to any one person. That's why if I don't find anything relevant on the first page of the links, I won't bother to look further. There's nothing wrong with taking a cursory glance if the information is easily attainable.
And it's not as easy to game as you'd think. The reason being is that which interviewee is going to know that it's specifically me having these kind of standards? They know nothing about me, so I doubt they'd go out of their way to make themselves look good. The majority of people who participate in the Internet could care less how they look online. If they did care, well, there wouldn't be a plethora of pictures of people snorting and smoking whatever illegal substance they could get their hands on.
No, if you re-read what I wrote, I said that I wouldn't pass on their resume and application, meaning it goes into the pile of potentials.
The chances of a net smearing campaign happening to you are small. Just because it happened to you doesn't mean it'll suddenly happen to a lot of other people.
In the end, I doubt doing a quick cursory glance for anything incriminating for certain types of jobs is necessarily bad. If you do see something bad, you can delve further.
Besides, it doesn't take "one of those kind" of managers to populate a place full of idiots. Any manager can do that.
I've done this a few times looking at applicants who kind of seemed a little... seedy. I just looked at their contact information. Saw that they had an e-mail address. Then I said to myself, "Hey! What happens if I google the everything before the @ in their e-mail address?". If I didn't see anything on the first page that actually related to the person in question, then I didn't pass on their resume and application. Remember, not all employers are stupid.
Teaching religion as science would degrade a child's mind, and probably any teachers mind if they were forced to do it.
Well, it seems you hold the idea of a general Christian and a Creationist in the same boat.
So let's spell out the differences here, as you clearly don't understand them.
General Christian:
Believes in "God". Follows the bible. However they aren't so deeply rooted in their faith that they're not able to make a nice compromise between reality and fantasy. They will follow science until it starts to make some serious infringements on their belief system (i.e. if science could prove "God" didn't exist, they wouldn't believe that). They will also follow the bible until it makes some serious infringements on the real world. However, it's generally noted that their faith isn't that strong. Science usually wins over faith.
Creationist:
"God" did it. The bible is law. Anything to contradict either of those two statements is clearly false. If you believe otherwise, you will burn in hell.
As you can see, a general Christian isn't going to get hung up about dinosaurs or whatever. They don't believe in the 6,000 year old earth crap. They realize there is a fine line between the real world and their faith. Although they may not put it in those terms, this is what it boils down to. The Creationists on the other hand, one can only wonder how they manage to function in our societies while being so willfully ignorant. Science is marginalized in their minds.
Except that the system requirements usually never mention working under Linux. So in that case, you can't really complain if you're trying to use a product in a way which isn't specified.
On the other hand, if they state they're supposed to work under Linux, then yeah, get all angry.
What's even more unconscionable about contracts that is that if you dare to actually try and read them in the store before you sign, every single employee gives you a shameful look. It's like "how dare you not trust us!". To the average person, that scares them.
You always have the option to read the contract, but if you do, everyone makes sure to treat you terribly if you do. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Which is what people who work in the customer service departments for (cell-)phone companies hear all the time anyway. It's not like it would be something new for them to hear. They even pretty much have a standard phrase to tell people who admit to as much (even if they don't explicitly say it).
There's also nothing on it that states that you can't. What's your point?
32bit operating systems won't even use 4GB of RAM. 64bit can use more than 4GB. I believe Vista's max is 16?
NewEgg always waives the restocking fee on items if I make a simple phone call to their customer service reps. But that's always been on RMA's. You always have that option, and if you never exercise it, yes, they will just strictly follow policy. All companies are like this.
I started to avoid TigerDirect when I noticed that their prices were comparable to retail prices. If I wanted retail prices, I'd go to retail.
Welcome to the fail boat. You are passenger number 1 on this particular variant. Your punishment? Reread what they wrote until you understand what "almost everyone" means. Otherwise you can keep your subjective and useless vitriol to yourself.
Well, if you would have listened further in his speech, you would have heard him say that it all would take time. That he couldn't get it done in one term. Maybe not even two. Besides, every single candidate promises a lot of hooey. At least Obama tried to sound realistic, which is a little unusual.
No one was implying that they shouldn't. However if you'd take a second to un-stick your head from in-between your ass-cheeks, maybe, just maybe, you could have seen that there is some merit in people wanting as much information as they can find in the meantime. A broad idea is better than no idea.
You have hit the nail on the head, for the most part. A lot of frustrating experiences in games are not a balance issue. It's a control issue. If I fail to keep making the same jump, which should be very simple to make, all because the camera wants to swivel to some fucked up angle, yeah, that's certainly not a balance issue. It's a frustrating design issue that should have been weeded out during testing.
And that's something you really run into in a lot of games these days. While companies concentrate on making games easier to appeal to a broader audience, it seems a lot of them have refused to fix some elementary things. Things where if they had taken time to address those issues, the game wouldn't be frustrating (in some spots) and easy.
It would be nice if developers just took a second to read your comment and weigh what you've wrote.
There is... offline mode, and despite what others have told me, I have gotten it to work with Valve's games too.
Yes, Valve does snoop on how you play their games. But what they do with the data is make their games more fun through patches. They'll go, "ok, we see this is where people die the most. Why do they die the most? Sheer number of enemies? Low health? Puzzle is just *too* hard?", etc... So it's not entirely without merit on their end.
Well, the way they phrase the word, "unlimited", they make it sound as if that I can use as much of it as I want in any capacity for one set price. So what that really means in the consumers mindset is that their speeds won't be capped, ever. It means that they have no limit on how much data is transferred. They just pay one flat rate and have a go with it.
You're absolutely right that it's a luxury problem. You're also right that I'd probably be hard pressed to download that much every month. Even so, when I pay for something, and it's advertised one way, I expect it to be that way. What if one month I go 1GB over? What if I go 100 over? I don't pay for unlimited internet so I can be capped. I pay for unlimited in that, if there is a time where I want to use a lot, I can.
And it's very possible it might happen often just when I decide to use more than I normally do. I have two other PC's networked to the same connection, all of which are on and are being used by other people who like to ingest all sorts of different content.
So really, I do have every right to complain. While in your view, the grass might be greener on my side, that doesn't mean I have no right to complain. Hell, you should be bitching at your ISP too.
And I'm sure Comcast will make an effort to hide that little bit of information in the fine print so you don't notice it.
Honestly, they can't call it unlimited anymore. Unlimited has a set definition. It's not open to interpretation. If you introduce caps, or limits, well, you're giving a different service.
It would be nice if Comcast actually did something surprising... like, you know, give a good service? That would be tits.