It seems like they've always had this. I used to reinstall XP every other month it seems. (Windows systems tend to bog down if you don't.) If the hardware wasn't changed, I didn't have to call M$. However, if any part of the hardware changed, I had to call M$, and the conversations went something like this:
M$ Techie: What'd you do!?!
Me: I installed a new processor.
M$: Why would you do that?
Me: Because I have no financial responsibility
M$: So are you sure you didn't just steal a copy?
Me: Yup.
M$: Okay, here's a new code.
Now, I'm a happy Mac user. Granted, I can't build/upgrade my own system anymore, but at least it's freaking stable.
I'm assuming that this is a finished basement? If it's just partially finished or unfinished, I'd certainly just go with threading them through the ceiling.
If the basement is finished, there are a heck of a lot of questions that need to be answered first:
1. What kind of ceiling do you have?
2. Is it an old house? (leaky?)
3. Exactly how tall are the ceilings?
4. Wouldn't it be easier/better to just re-wall the downstairs as opposed to doing raised floor installation?
1. George Lucas
2. Hayden whatever his name is...
3. Natalie Portman. Okay fanboys, I know she's hot. But the eye candy was not a good actress in episode 1 or 2.
4. No Harrison Ford.
5. No James Earl Jones.
6. I saw absolutely no pictures of Jar Jar.
But is it the product that's addictive, or the person? Is this a classic case of blaming the inanimate as opposed to the animate?
I mean, chemical addiction is one thing. But wouldn't addiction not caused by some form of drug be a psychological issue? I mean, addiction could probably be most closely related to depression or ADD/ADHD, as a chemical imbalence in the brain.
I guess what I'm basically saying is blame the person who cannot control themself.
Well, sure. When I like something a lot, I want to do it a lot. (see: sexual intercourse ) So, to some extent, everything fun has to be somewhat addictive.
And about the hiring someone with a psychology degree to help make games more addictive? Come On! When has anyone heard of someone with a psychology degree getting a job?
Well, your original post suggested that you couldn't switch to ANYTHING because Linux wasn't user friendly, to which I replied that you were leaving out a significant ( like 3% is significant, really!:) ) part of the OS market in OS X.
You replied by saying it's too expensive to run OS X, and I mentioned that you can start using OS X for as little as $500 (a Mac Mini).
Then you started whining about performance. Well, I don't happen to own a Mac Mini, but I do own a 12" PowerBook (of which the specs are LOWER then the previously mentioned mini) and how it ran very well compared to what you would call "much faster" machines.
Now you want to wax all poetic about games? Fine, My first arguement is if you're worried about the price of a machine and the availability of games, go get an XBox or a PS2. Second arguement, Is there really anything else besides WoW out there that's worth playing on a computer? (Yeah, I know you're gonna say the Sims, but I'm straight, alright) Thirdly, My friends (I don't use linux) have been able to get many Windows games working in Linux.
I happen to own a 12" 1 GHz PowerBook running OS X. It happens to start up, load applications, and play World of Warcraft better then my girlfriend's 2.5 GHz HP laptop or my father's similar 2.5 GHz Compaq machine (both running Windows)
But I must just be a dolt thinking I'm getting my money's worth on a machine that seems faster and less buggy from my perspective.
The bundled software is what's crappy? Umm... OS X is a perfect example of this one. Programs do crash in OS X, however, Windows happens to like to crash with the programs that run on it. I would have to say that makes the OS poorly designed.
Remember Bullfrog? Remember Origin?
These companies made some great games. Then they got baught out by EA and it was downhill from there.
I'd include Maxis, but they didn't even make a good game before they got baught out by EA.
3B. You may permanently transfer ownership of the Game and all parts thereof, and all of your rights and obligations under the License Agreement, to another by physically transferring the CD-ROM, all original packaging, and all Manuals or other documentation associated with the Game, and by removing from all of your home or personal computers and destroying any remaining materials concerning the Game in your possession or control, provided the recipient agrees to the terms of this License Agreement. The transferor (i.e., you), and not the Licensor, agrees to be solely responsible for any taxes, fees, charges, duties, withholdings, assessments, and the like, together with any interest, penalties, and additions imposed in connection with such transfer.
It seems like the person you got it from did not destroy their account. Granted, Blizzard doesn't allow for this, but the EULA does state that this should have been done prior to tranferring ownership.
Is it just me, or did you say, "I'll stop now" like 4 times in that post?
And to answer at least one of your questions... why don't you stop developing things like the battle grounds and fix the endless list of problems you already have before you add more?
...because Battlegrounds will come in an expansion pack that will provide revenue for us capitalist (yes, I know they're from Canada) whores.
Slashdot Mirror
That's like the government saying, "If I were terrorists, I'd destroy the US by attacking the water supply."
Oh, wait... they did say that.
It seems like they've always had this. I used to reinstall XP every other month it seems. (Windows systems tend to bog down if you don't.) If the hardware wasn't changed, I didn't have to call M$. However, if any part of the hardware changed, I had to call M$, and the conversations went something like this:
M$ Techie: What'd you do!?!
Me: I installed a new processor.
M$: Why would you do that?
Me: Because I have no financial responsibility
M$: So are you sure you didn't just steal a copy?
Me: Yup.
M$: Okay, here's a new code.
Now, I'm a happy Mac user. Granted, I can't build/upgrade my own system anymore, but at least it's freaking stable.
They should also sue them because of that little (dog?) thing running around that has the same color pallette as Pikachu.
I mean, Nintendo clearly owns #FFFF00.
I'm assuming that this is a finished basement? If it's just partially finished or unfinished, I'd certainly just go with threading them through the ceiling.
If the basement is finished, there are a heck of a lot of questions that need to be answered first:
1. What kind of ceiling do you have?
2. Is it an old house? (leaky?)
3. Exactly how tall are the ceilings?
4. Wouldn't it be easier/better to just re-wall the downstairs as opposed to doing raised floor installation?
1. George Lucas
2. Hayden whatever his name is...
3. Natalie Portman. Okay fanboys, I know she's hot. But the eye candy was not a good actress in episode 1 or 2.
4. No Harrison Ford.
5. No James Earl Jones.
6. I saw absolutely no pictures of Jar Jar.
Man! That's almost as annoying as these people from Portland who thought it'd be a good idea to try to pronounce URL as "earl".
Oh boy! It made me want to cry.
For parents that need help
I'll create my own corporate office, with blackjack and hookers! In fact... forget the corporate office.
But is it the product that's addictive, or the person? Is this a classic case of blaming the inanimate as opposed to the animate?
I mean, chemical addiction is one thing. But wouldn't addiction not caused by some form of drug be a psychological issue? I mean, addiction could probably be most closely related to depression or ADD/ADHD, as a chemical imbalence in the brain.
I guess what I'm basically saying is blame the person who cannot control themself.
Well, sure. When I like something a lot, I want to do it a lot. (see: sexual intercourse ) So, to some extent, everything fun has to be somewhat addictive.
And about the hiring someone with a psychology degree to help make games more addictive? Come On! When has anyone heard of someone with a psychology degree getting a job?
Well, your original post suggested that you couldn't switch to ANYTHING because Linux wasn't user friendly, to which I replied that you were leaving out a significant ( like 3% is significant, really! :) ) part of the OS market in OS X.
You replied by saying it's too expensive to run OS X, and I mentioned that you can start using OS X for as little as $500 (a Mac Mini).
Then you started whining about performance. Well, I don't happen to own a Mac Mini, but I do own a 12" PowerBook (of which the specs are LOWER then the previously mentioned mini) and how it ran very well compared to what you would call "much faster" machines.
Now you want to wax all poetic about games? Fine, My first arguement is if you're worried about the price of a machine and the availability of games, go get an XBox or a PS2. Second arguement, Is there really anything else besides WoW out there that's worth playing on a computer? (Yeah, I know you're gonna say the Sims, but I'm straight, alright) Thirdly, My friends (I don't use linux) have been able to get many Windows games working in Linux.
HTH Have a Nice Day!
I happen to own a 12" 1 GHz PowerBook running OS X. It happens to start up, load applications, and play World of Warcraft better then my girlfriend's 2.5 GHz HP laptop or my father's similar 2.5 GHz Compaq machine (both running Windows)
But I must just be a dolt thinking I'm getting my money's worth on a machine that seems faster and less buggy from my perspective.
The bundled software is what's crappy? Umm... OS X is a perfect example of this one. Programs do crash in OS X, however, Windows happens to like to crash with the programs that run on it. I would have to say that makes the OS poorly designed.
Mac Minis start at $500. Expensive?
What about OSX? Noone's ever accused that of not being easy.
Remember Bullfrog? Remember Origin? These companies made some great games. Then they got baught out by EA and it was downhill from there. I'd include Maxis, but they didn't even make a good game before they got baught out by EA.
3B. You may permanently transfer ownership of the Game and all parts thereof, and all of your rights and obligations under the License Agreement, to another by physically transferring the CD-ROM, all original packaging, and all Manuals or other documentation associated with the Game, and by removing from all of your home or personal computers and destroying any remaining materials concerning the Game in your possession or control, provided the recipient agrees to the terms of this License Agreement. The transferor (i.e., you), and not the Licensor, agrees to be solely responsible for any taxes, fees, charges, duties, withholdings, assessments, and the like, together with any interest, penalties, and additions imposed in connection with such transfer.
It seems like the person you got it from did not destroy their account. Granted, Blizzard doesn't allow for this, but the EULA does state that this should have been done prior to tranferring ownership.
LOL. You misspelt misspelt.
Let's just wait until a AMD64 cluster hits http://top500.org/ before we start saying things like "AMD64 is obviously better then the PPC chip"
ASSide?
Sorry, I've confused them with EA. Then again, If EA made this game, we'd all be humans and we'd all look the same... and we'd be playing football.
Is it just me, or did you say, "I'll stop now" like 4 times in that post?
...because Battlegrounds will come in an expansion pack that will provide revenue for us capitalist (yes, I know they're from Canada) whores.
And to answer at least one of your questions...
why don't you stop developing things like the battle grounds and fix the endless list of problems you already have before you add more?
this is really easy to do with Omni Graffle. It's a sweet program for UML design, and it comes with OS X
it sucks!!! It is sooo freaking slow. So, as far as Mac users go, M$ Office is far better.
Anyone know if it has the same bug as the 10.3.2 update? ...that would be the one where you can't mount disk images