You're right, they probably didn't have the foresight to know they would become the largest MMORPG ever, ten fold. That doesn't mean they couldn't halt distribution of new subscriptions, until they met the current demands. If they only planned on supporting (hypothetically) 5 million subscriptions, once they hit 4, they should have stopped taking new customers.
You are right, armchair administrators such as myself do have a habit of saying I would have done this different, and that different. Sometimes our suggestions might be relevant to Blizzard's situation, sometimes (as you suggest) we just don't understand what they are dealing with, and our suggestions are irrelevant.
That said, I think it is very fair for us to all claim Blizzard went into this without enough foresight, and it is their own fault they are now over their heads.
If their datacenters are operating at full capacity without any sort of elbow room for expansion - why did they let this happen? Why are they still taking new subscriptions, when they know they can't expand their datacenters? Why are they letting more people create characters on realms that already have queues over an hour long?
Sure, the people creating new characters are warned that the server is full, and they will experience a queue. This really isn't fair to the people that already have characters on this server, created months ago, because the capacity was low. There is absolutely no sort of queue priority, based on length of time the character has been registered. For those of us that purposely create characters on low-population servers, Blizzard really gives us the shaft by making us wait, once the server is over populated.
It shouldn't take me literally a minute or two just to make a simple Auction House query. Regardless of how complex the database servers are that power the AH, it simply should not take that long. It does take that long though, and even if I don't know the solution to it, it is obviously broke. Even if I can't offer a solution, do I not have a right to complain about it being broke?
I also disagree with your claim that the people running the servers have more interest in it's survival than I do. I doubt they get paid based on the server's performance. Even during the recent frequent outages, increased lag, and general un-playability, they are probably still getting paid to work on it. They are getting their end of the deal regardless. I, on the other hand, am not getting my end of the deal. I am not getting to play, even though I am not paying any less. I can turn off the computer and go outside, but that doesn't mean I am not still paying for the game. If I have to turn off the computer and go outside too much, I might just stop paying. I don't say this as a threat to Blizzard, I say it because I am sure there are plenty of other people out there that will stop paying if they don't get what they pay for.
I was suprised this wasnt filed under YRO as well.
I run a 24/7 shoutcast server; It is my belief that this is part of my freedom of speech as an American. I honestly don't care if this bill passes or not, because they are not going to make me stop streaming music.
Does terrestrial radio have any sort of DRM? Last I checked, I can toss a blank tape in any $20 wal-mart stereo, and record whatever I want.
I have been a very big proponent of Skype's services. I like the fact that I can use skype-out as much as I need, or as little as I need, not getting locked into any obligation like traditional phones.
I have also been quite content with my Intel systems over the years, and haven't taken AMD into consideration lately.
Once my pre-paid skype time is up, I'm definitely not going to be refilling the account any more. Once I'm ready to buy a new system, it's not going to have an Intel. Sure, neither company is going to be shedding tears over me - but I hope I am not alone here.
Before you go contradicting a thread that says "RTFA" perhaps you should RTFA. Windows is not configured like this by default. You have to disable the built in firewall, which is on by default.
I have been using Rhapsody for slightly over a year now, and am going to be sticking with the service. Previously, I downloaded all my music illegally from p2p networks. I got frustrated with the problems of trying to find sources, accidently downloading shitty live music, and wrongly named files.
I pay $10 a month for Rhapsody. I make more than that in an hour at work. Even if I save only two minutes a day, not having to screw around on a p2p network, then it's worth it.
There are downsides: You don't own the music. For someone like me that is always looking for new music to listen to, this isn't a bad thing. If I listen to even one new album every month, then it's worth it. I don't plan on ever cancelling my subscription; if Rhapsody goes out of business, I will go elsewhere. The cost of owning the music I listen to right now, plus the new music I check out every month, would be enormous. Most music on Rhapsody is streaming. This could be a problem for people constantly on-the-go, but it's not for me. I use Rhapsody at home, at the office, or at the cafe. All three of these places always have wireless internet access. They definitely have sufficient bandwidth; I can't recall ever running into buffering problems.
In all honesty, their Windows interface could use a bit of work, as it seems a bit cumbersome. I wouldn't mind seeing it become more modular; let me get rid of the things I don't want in view. That said; before I decided to use Rhapsody, I also gave Napster and Yahoo Unlimited a trial run, and the Rhapsody interface was definitely better. Napster just made me feel like I was paying for the horrible p2p experiences I had before. Yahoo's was incredibly slow. Their servers were the problem, not the client. By now, this might have been fixed.
My favorite part about rhapsody, is the fact that playlists are stored on their servers, not on the client. When I add an album I like to my Library, while using Rhapsody at home; I can come to work and sign on, and it's in my Library.
It really blows my mind how Real can create such a shitty music player (I loathe RealPlayer as much as anyone out there) then make Rhapsody so damn good.
Iris recognition and card scanning are quite different... Iris recognition proves beyond reasonable doubt, that you are who you claim you are. Card scanning, on the other hand, regardless of how quick and efficient it is, is still vulnerable to card theft. Usually in a high-security area, these cards are coupled with some form of biometric verification too (Fingerprints, signature, etc.) of which, iris scanning is the most secure.
number of hamsters in an infinite number of... these things... for an infinite amount of years, running back and forth at random, then it could be accepted as a probability that one would eventually compose the entire works of Beethoven!
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, they probably didn't have the foresight to know they would become the largest MMORPG ever, ten fold. That doesn't mean they couldn't halt distribution of new subscriptions, until they met the current demands. If they only planned on supporting (hypothetically) 5 million subscriptions, once they hit 4, they should have stopped taking new customers.
You are right, armchair administrators such as myself do have a habit of saying I would have done this different, and that different. Sometimes our suggestions might be relevant to Blizzard's situation, sometimes (as you suggest) we just don't understand what they are dealing with, and our suggestions are irrelevant.
That said, I think it is very fair for us to all claim Blizzard went into this without enough foresight, and it is their own fault they are now over their heads.
If their datacenters are operating at full capacity without any sort of elbow room for expansion - why did they let this happen? Why are they still taking new subscriptions, when they know they can't expand their datacenters? Why are they letting more people create characters on realms that already have queues over an hour long?
Sure, the people creating new characters are warned that the server is full, and they will experience a queue. This really isn't fair to the people that already have characters on this server, created months ago, because the capacity was low. There is absolutely no sort of queue priority, based on length of time the character has been registered. For those of us that purposely create characters on low-population servers, Blizzard really gives us the shaft by making us wait, once the server is over populated.
It shouldn't take me literally a minute or two just to make a simple Auction House query. Regardless of how complex the database servers are that power the AH, it simply should not take that long. It does take that long though, and even if I don't know the solution to it, it is obviously broke. Even if I can't offer a solution, do I not have a right to complain about it being broke?
I also disagree with your claim that the people running the servers have more interest in it's survival than I do. I doubt they get paid based on the server's performance. Even during the recent frequent outages, increased lag, and general un-playability, they are probably still getting paid to work on it. They are getting their end of the deal regardless. I, on the other hand, am not getting my end of the deal. I am not getting to play, even though I am not paying any less. I can turn off the computer and go outside, but that doesn't mean I am not still paying for the game. If I have to turn off the computer and go outside too much, I might just stop paying. I don't say this as a threat to Blizzard, I say it because I am sure there are plenty of other people out there that will stop paying if they don't get what they pay for.
I was suprised this wasnt filed under YRO as well.
I run a 24/7 shoutcast server; It is my belief that this is part of my freedom of speech as an American. I honestly don't care if this bill passes or not, because they are not going to make me stop streaming music.
Does terrestrial radio have any sort of DRM? Last I checked, I can toss a blank tape in any $20 wal-mart stereo, and record whatever I want.
I have been a very big proponent of Skype's services. I like the fact that I can use skype-out as much as I need, or as little as I need, not getting locked into any obligation like traditional phones. I have also been quite content with my Intel systems over the years, and haven't taken AMD into consideration lately. Once my pre-paid skype time is up, I'm definitely not going to be refilling the account any more. Once I'm ready to buy a new system, it's not going to have an Intel. Sure, neither company is going to be shedding tears over me - but I hope I am not alone here.
Before you go contradicting a thread that says "RTFA" perhaps you should RTFA. Windows is not configured like this by default. You have to disable the built in firewall, which is on by default.
As soon as the water comes in contact with the motherboard, it's no longer pure distilled water.
I have been using Rhapsody for slightly over a year now, and am going to be sticking with the service. Previously, I downloaded all my music illegally from p2p networks. I got frustrated with the problems of trying to find sources, accidently downloading shitty live music, and wrongly named files. I pay $10 a month for Rhapsody. I make more than that in an hour at work. Even if I save only two minutes a day, not having to screw around on a p2p network, then it's worth it. There are downsides: You don't own the music. For someone like me that is always looking for new music to listen to, this isn't a bad thing. If I listen to even one new album every month, then it's worth it. I don't plan on ever cancelling my subscription; if Rhapsody goes out of business, I will go elsewhere. The cost of owning the music I listen to right now, plus the new music I check out every month, would be enormous. Most music on Rhapsody is streaming. This could be a problem for people constantly on-the-go, but it's not for me. I use Rhapsody at home, at the office, or at the cafe. All three of these places always have wireless internet access. They definitely have sufficient bandwidth; I can't recall ever running into buffering problems. In all honesty, their Windows interface could use a bit of work, as it seems a bit cumbersome. I wouldn't mind seeing it become more modular; let me get rid of the things I don't want in view. That said; before I decided to use Rhapsody, I also gave Napster and Yahoo Unlimited a trial run, and the Rhapsody interface was definitely better. Napster just made me feel like I was paying for the horrible p2p experiences I had before. Yahoo's was incredibly slow. Their servers were the problem, not the client. By now, this might have been fixed. My favorite part about rhapsody, is the fact that playlists are stored on their servers, not on the client. When I add an album I like to my Library, while using Rhapsody at home; I can come to work and sign on, and it's in my Library. It really blows my mind how Real can create such a shitty music player (I loathe RealPlayer as much as anyone out there) then make Rhapsody so damn good.
Iris recognition and card scanning are quite different... Iris recognition proves beyond reasonable doubt, that you are who you claim you are. Card scanning, on the other hand, regardless of how quick and efficient it is, is still vulnerable to card theft. Usually in a high-security area, these cards are coupled with some form of biometric verification too (Fingerprints, signature, etc.) of which, iris scanning is the most secure.
Would it also electrocute you for using "your" instead of "you're"
number of hamsters in an infinite number of... these things... for an infinite amount of years, running back and forth at random, then it could be accepted as a probability that one would eventually compose the entire works of Beethoven!