You can download it as many times as you want, but you can only play it on 5 different machines. That's actually pretty damn permissive; I doubt more than a handful of people need more than five PS3s for gaming purposes. Compare that with the Wii, where if you get a new console, you have to send both in to Nintendo to get your games transferred over.
You're right. The patch notes for 4.0.1 were particularly sparse. The only way to know everything that was coming was to read all the blue posts on the WoW forums (or play the PTR). One silly thing was, for death knights: "The way in which runes recharge has been changed." Well, that's vague. Why not spend one more sentence: "Only one of each rune recharges at a time; the second will not begin recharging until the first has done so." Maybe because that way, everyone will see how arbitrary and random the change itself is.
Your "was" suggests you already know this, but just to be clear: Blizzard has a Threat API. Only disadvantage with it is (IIRC) you can only poll it every couple of seconds.
Everyone acts like short games are a new phenomenon. Go back and play Super Mario Bros. You can beat it in minutes. Same with Super Mario World. The Metroid games have always encouraged people to beat them in under two hours. Zone of the Enders takes roughly 4 hours to beat your first try. Metal Gear Solid also encourages you to beat the game in a short amount of time (two hours again, I think). Castlevania? A couple hours.
So why do people remember games as being real long? Because they used to suck at them. Castlevania has, what, six levels? Yet people remember it taking weeks. The length only exists if you aren't very good at the game.
You're better at gaming in general. I've seen plenty of non-gamers fail miserably at games I would breeze through. You have twenty-plus years of experience playing games; of course most will seem easy to you. The important question is, are they still fun?
Of course, for every "memory usage is fine" story, you have a "memory leaks!" story. For what it's worth, I don't think that I've seen Firefox consume multiple gigabytes in a while (then again, I've stopped using it much for other reasons), but I just checked my system and saw that I'd left Firefox open without running any windows/tabs. Nothing open, and yet it consumed 500MB. Not the end of the world, and I have memory to spare, but still a bit much.
Indeed, security questions are an abomination. You know what else is annoying? Many sites/companies seem to be making passwords inherently less secure. On many, many sites I visit now, you can't input any special character--only letters and numbers. What's more, several of them used to allow special characters, then forced everyone to change them. As of right now, my bank requires security questions and doesn't allow special characters, and up until a year ago required the use of IE6.
The mantra of "use secure passwords" can be a hard one to follow if websites actively force you to use weak ones.
They should take it one step further than paper: run the user info through a CAPTCHA generator so that it can't simply be scanned. Claim something about security to justify it.
Played since launch, but not continuously. After it came out, I played for 6 months or so, then quit. A while after WotLK came out, I started up again for another four months. That was a year ago. I started again last month, because I wanted to be around when Cataclysm came out. After I get to 85, I'll probably do some raiding, remember that I got totally burned out in Blackwing Lair in classic, and quit again.
Basically, it's worth it to come back and see what's changed, but once you've done everything, it's kind of pointless. Sure, you can start a new class, but that's always felt like a chore to me. I wish they were adding a new hero class, as it's really nice to skip the 1-55 grind with the Death Knight.
1,000 miles is way too high an estimate for a single day, but having to gas up 3 times in a regular car to go the same distance doesn't invalidate the argument, because it takes way longer to charge an electric car than it does to gas up. If I wanted to drive to Disneyland from my house, making only the necessary stops (gas/powering up), it would take about 7 hours in a gas car. If I did the same drive in, say, a Tesla Roadster, then I might be able to get away with only one recharge, which would make the drive 10 hours. And that's if I'm actually able to get the advertised 245 mile range.
How is a larger car suboptimal for your needs? I've done plenty of commuting in SUVs, and never once thought "oh damn, if only my car was smaller!" Seems the larger car that has more capacity and fits 100% of your driving needs would be better than the car that only fits 95%.
Subjective as all hell, but I've yet to see an EV that 1) is available for purchase today, 2) isn't $100k+, and 3) wouldn't make the driver a laughing stock to actually be seen in one.
Beyond the subjective, a gas/diesel car can be much more versatile--do any electric cars exist that have lots of storage space, or great tow capacity? A city driving scenario is the only situation where an electric car makes any sense. If that's all you do, then great. Pay the extra money for one and enjoy it (though you might be less "green" than you think you are, depending on where the power from your grid comes from).
Source? I've never heard this, and couldn't find anything. Furthermore, there'd be gazillions of prior art and/or obviousness cases. Unless you're talking about some sort of streaming transmission mechanism, which I did find a patent for (which doesn't seem to apply in this case).
While I'm not looking forward to the 3DS, I will say that the one 3D video game I played (Motorstorm, at a store) looked way better than any 3D movie I have ever seen. Still wouldn't want it as my only option, though.
I think time will tell if Google and co. are capable of stymying the carriers' penchant for messing up their products (hopefully they are; competition is good). I think you're underestimating the strength of Apple's installed base, though. Android may very well be the better platform (I don't think it's quite there yet, but I'm definitely intrigued and certainly wouldn't say no to owning one), but the iPhone has become so entrenched by this point. Android will beat the iPhone by raw numbers simply by virtue of there being more Android models available, but it'll be hard for any single phone to surpass the iPhone.
> and ultimately whoever designs (or supports) the shiniest phones will win.
No. Whoever designs the best phones at attractive pricepoints will win. Whoever has the hardware the must have app of the day runs on wins. Apple has never understood any of that, Steve certainly hasn't.
You do realize that the iPhone has already been wildly successful, right? The latest statistic I could find said 51.15 million units sold since 2007. Sounds like they understand it pretty well.
While there are certainly people who are a little too enthusiastic about their guns, or even just nuts, it's actually somewhat understandable. Picture this: You have an activity you enjoy, one that you take part in responsibly and safely. In fact, most people take part responsibly and safely--there are some nuts out there, but they're in the minority. You only hear about them more because the news knows that "a licensed hunter shot his allotted deer today and went home" isn't very interesting. So most people are responsible, but just about every day, you hear people saying your activity--guns in this case, obviously--needs to be outlawed. It's only natural people would become more fervent about it.
Okay, that was really poorly written, but I only had three hours of sleep and hope it at least somewhat gets the point across. People get more "gun happy" because everyone else is trying to take their guns away. As a personal anecdote/aside, some of the most friendly and helpful people I have ever met have been at the shooting range.
And hooray for common sense. You knew it was hopeless.
Yeah, hopeless. Despite the fact that it stood for... how many years, now? And things using it kept selling quite well in the interim?
Yep, hooray for freedom. Nobody cared. And nobody's going to care now.
I've always wondered why I should care. I've been using HDMI for years, now, and have had exactly zero problems with it. I've always been able to watch my movies, TV, play games, etc. on my TVs and computer monitors just fine. I think the reason 99.9% of people don't care is because they don't have a problem to begin with. To my understanding, people who do have problems are trying to get outdated hardware to work, have a strange setup, or are trying to pirate. Of those three groups, I only sympathize with the first two.
There's still technically an extra step. Dividing the distance by 100, then multiplying the volume by the result is longer than simply distance/mileage.
I'll grant I'm being obnoxious and pedantic, so I'll drop the point and agree it depends on what you're used to.
I'm still curious why the parent thinks it's a better system.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct. And gun shops do that all day every day, all over the country.
Uhuh. And sporting goods stores sell baseball bats every day, too. If you decide to brain someone with it, that's your business.
What's your point?
You can download it as many times as you want, but you can only play it on 5 different machines. That's actually pretty damn permissive; I doubt more than a handful of people need more than five PS3s for gaming purposes. Compare that with the Wii, where if you get a new console, you have to send both in to Nintendo to get your games transferred over.
You're right. The patch notes for 4.0.1 were particularly sparse. The only way to know everything that was coming was to read all the blue posts on the WoW forums (or play the PTR). One silly thing was, for death knights: "The way in which runes recharge has been changed." Well, that's vague. Why not spend one more sentence: "Only one of each rune recharges at a time; the second will not begin recharging until the first has done so." Maybe because that way, everyone will see how arbitrary and random the change itself is.
Your "was" suggests you already know this, but just to be clear: Blizzard has a Threat API. Only disadvantage with it is (IIRC) you can only poll it every couple of seconds.
Everyone acts like short games are a new phenomenon. Go back and play Super Mario Bros. You can beat it in minutes. Same with Super Mario World. The Metroid games have always encouraged people to beat them in under two hours. Zone of the Enders takes roughly 4 hours to beat your first try. Metal Gear Solid also encourages you to beat the game in a short amount of time (two hours again, I think). Castlevania? A couple hours.
So why do people remember games as being real long? Because they used to suck at them. Castlevania has, what, six levels? Yet people remember it taking weeks. The length only exists if you aren't very good at the game.
You're better at gaming in general. I've seen plenty of non-gamers fail miserably at games I would breeze through. You have twenty-plus years of experience playing games; of course most will seem easy to you. The important question is, are they still fun?
People get upset when iTunes installs Safari, and now people are actually suggesting that Firefox come bundled with OpenOffice?
Of course, for every "memory usage is fine" story, you have a "memory leaks!" story. For what it's worth, I don't think that I've seen Firefox consume multiple gigabytes in a while (then again, I've stopped using it much for other reasons), but I just checked my system and saw that I'd left Firefox open without running any windows/tabs. Nothing open, and yet it consumed 500MB. Not the end of the world, and I have memory to spare, but still a bit much.
They need a better name, 'tho. The Latin is nice - but really doesn't sound good or brand nicely.
I propose FreeOffice. How 'bout ThinkSuite? OurOffice? What about StarOffice ( I just found that one on the ground here. No one was using it...)
As bad as LibreOffice is, at least it doesn't have a stupid ".org" at the end of it.
Indeed, security questions are an abomination. You know what else is annoying? Many sites/companies seem to be making passwords inherently less secure. On many, many sites I visit now, you can't input any special character--only letters and numbers. What's more, several of them used to allow special characters, then forced everyone to change them. As of right now, my bank requires security questions and doesn't allow special characters, and up until a year ago required the use of IE6.
The mantra of "use secure passwords" can be a hard one to follow if websites actively force you to use weak ones.
They should take it one step further than paper: run the user info through a CAPTCHA generator so that it can't simply be scanned. Claim something about security to justify it.
Well, I know I've certainly never seen it!
Played since launch, but not continuously. After it came out, I played for 6 months or so, then quit. A while after WotLK came out, I started up again for another four months. That was a year ago. I started again last month, because I wanted to be around when Cataclysm came out. After I get to 85, I'll probably do some raiding, remember that I got totally burned out in Blackwing Lair in classic, and quit again.
Basically, it's worth it to come back and see what's changed, but once you've done everything, it's kind of pointless. Sure, you can start a new class, but that's always felt like a chore to me. I wish they were adding a new hero class, as it's really nice to skip the 1-55 grind with the Death Knight.
1,000 miles is way too high an estimate for a single day, but having to gas up 3 times in a regular car to go the same distance doesn't invalidate the argument, because it takes way longer to charge an electric car than it does to gas up. If I wanted to drive to Disneyland from my house, making only the necessary stops (gas/powering up), it would take about 7 hours in a gas car. If I did the same drive in, say, a Tesla Roadster, then I might be able to get away with only one recharge, which would make the drive 10 hours. And that's if I'm actually able to get the advertised 245 mile range.
How is a larger car suboptimal for your needs? I've done plenty of commuting in SUVs, and never once thought "oh damn, if only my car was smaller!" Seems the larger car that has more capacity and fits 100% of your driving needs would be better than the car that only fits 95%.
Subjective as all hell, but I've yet to see an EV that 1) is available for purchase today, 2) isn't $100k+, and 3) wouldn't make the driver a laughing stock to actually be seen in one.
Beyond the subjective, a gas/diesel car can be much more versatile--do any electric cars exist that have lots of storage space, or great tow capacity? A city driving scenario is the only situation where an electric car makes any sense. If that's all you do, then great. Pay the extra money for one and enjoy it (though you might be less "green" than you think you are, depending on where the power from your grid comes from).
When I posted, he was modded Informative, hence my confusion.
Source? I've never heard this, and couldn't find anything. Furthermore, there'd be gazillions of prior art and/or obviousness cases. Unless you're talking about some sort of streaming transmission mechanism, which I did find a patent for (which doesn't seem to apply in this case).
While I'm not looking forward to the 3DS, I will say that the one 3D video game I played (Motorstorm, at a store) looked way better than any 3D movie I have ever seen. Still wouldn't want it as my only option, though.
I think time will tell if Google and co. are capable of stymying the carriers' penchant for messing up their products (hopefully they are; competition is good). I think you're underestimating the strength of Apple's installed base, though. Android may very well be the better platform (I don't think it's quite there yet, but I'm definitely intrigued and certainly wouldn't say no to owning one), but the iPhone has become so entrenched by this point. Android will beat the iPhone by raw numbers simply by virtue of there being more Android models available, but it'll be hard for any single phone to surpass the iPhone.
> and ultimately whoever designs (or supports) the shiniest phones will win.
No. Whoever designs the best phones at attractive pricepoints will win. Whoever has the hardware the must have app of the day runs on wins. Apple has never understood any of that, Steve certainly hasn't.
You do realize that the iPhone has already been wildly successful, right? The latest statistic I could find said 51.15 million units sold since 2007. Sounds like they understand it pretty well.
While there are certainly people who are a little too enthusiastic about their guns, or even just nuts, it's actually somewhat understandable. Picture this: You have an activity you enjoy, one that you take part in responsibly and safely. In fact, most people take part responsibly and safely--there are some nuts out there, but they're in the minority. You only hear about them more because the news knows that "a licensed hunter shot his allotted deer today and went home" isn't very interesting. So most people are responsible, but just about every day, you hear people saying your activity--guns in this case, obviously--needs to be outlawed. It's only natural people would become more fervent about it.
Okay, that was really poorly written, but I only had three hours of sleep and hope it at least somewhat gets the point across. People get more "gun happy" because everyone else is trying to take their guns away. As a personal anecdote/aside, some of the most friendly and helpful people I have ever met have been at the shooting range.
Superior is debatable. Everyone I know who uses Chrome (including myself) does so because they prefer it, not because of any added security features.
And hooray for common sense. You knew it was hopeless.
Yeah, hopeless. Despite the fact that it stood for... how many years, now? And things using it kept selling quite well in the interim?
Yep, hooray for freedom. Nobody cared. And nobody's going to care now.
I've always wondered why I should care. I've been using HDMI for years, now, and have had exactly zero problems with it. I've always been able to watch my movies, TV, play games, etc. on my TVs and computer monitors just fine. I think the reason 99.9% of people don't care is because they don't have a problem to begin with. To my understanding, people who do have problems are trying to get outdated hardware to work, have a strange setup, or are trying to pirate. Of those three groups, I only sympathize with the first two.
Well, if something is grossly inefficient, it's going to take more battery to get the job done than an efficient app.
There's still technically an extra step. Dividing the distance by 100, then multiplying the volume by the result is longer than simply distance/mileage.
I'll grant I'm being obnoxious and pedantic, so I'll drop the point and agree it depends on what you're used to.
I'm still curious why the parent thinks it's a better system.