It's not a bug. You can save at any point. There are a lot of branching stories and even I have the urge to save, try something then go back. Sometimes I don't go back and then don't need the saves again. The game itself shouldn't be making 150 saves. Mine has a quick save, an auto save and whatever saves the person makes. So a minimum of 2 saves and a maximum of however many I want.
Maybe the XBox version if like this, but no other version I know of has this behavior.
I do play games, however, on my PS3 I can go into the save folder, check a bunch of files I want to delete and select "Delete Selected" and they are gone.
Sounds like an issue with Oblivion rather than NXE. If Oblivion allows you to create so many game saves, Oblivion should offer a good UI for cleaning up it's junk.
That's like saying it's the responsibility of any application on your PC to do file management. You'd have to learn Adobe's menus for cleaning up Adobe files, Microsoft Office's methods for managing your word docs and Visual Studio's methods for managing project files...
It's up to the OS to allow you to clean up files if you need to, not each individual application.
you can quickly get to all your Arcade games from ANYWHERE.
Anywhere huh? Let's pretend I own one for a second. What if I have my XBox in the living room. Will I be able to get to my arcade games in my basement, my kitchen, or driving to work?
As operating systems do more, they take more hardware to perform adequately.
I could actually argue that any properly programmed OS should perform it's usual tasks just as well as it's predecessor even if you add new bells and whistles to it. You simply optimize your current code to account for the minor branch in the code later that determines if a user wants to use the new feature. If the user decides to run that feature, then you of course incur a slowdown but if they never turn it on, there's no reason that feature should slow the rest of the system down by 20-40%.
I was pointing out my observations and giving some substance to my argument on why men are "horn-dogs" for butterflysrage using my life experience of being passive.
You essentially started off your post with the same sort of thing I'm talking about. Somehow it's down to my responsibility to approach a random stranger on the street and ask her out. I don't see why I'd have to do that. I live a good life IMO and don't necessarily need another person there to enjoy it with. If someone wished to come along for the ride I'd likely invite them along, but nobody's ever asked.
The last place I worked I knew of three women that I knew had interest in me. I worked with one of them, and the other two were people that I worked around. Maybe something I said or did peaked their interest. I will likely never know. I found out through mutual friends and coworkers. I could have approached any one of them and brought it to the table but I didn't see a reason to. If any of them were truly interested, they should have said something instead of playing some elementary game of telephone with a friend. It actually made me a little mad that they felt that it was inappropriate or were not comfortable enough to ask.
I wasn't saying that it needs to be done... It was more of a reference to why this kind of thing happens. I guess it does kind of sound like I'm stating that it should be done. It wasn't intentional.
A problem I've always had with this whole ordeal is that men are raised and taught to be... approaching? They are told that they have to be the one to start up a conversation. I think it's a double edged sword of sorts. You could have forward women, but they are quickly harassed as unsavory types. This leads to situations where a guy has to control that upbringing and suppress it during parts of his day.
I speak from experience when I say that if a guy doesn't approach women with intent of some type he will live a single life. Period. No questions asked. I stopped "trying" nearly 10 years ago and I have only once been approached by women... and she was drunk. I don't consider myself an unapproachable or ugly person, and I've been "hooked up" by friends that are surprised that I'm single. If we didn't have at least one side of the equation attempting connections, the human race would be wiped out in a matter of years.
Anyway, The ranting has a point. It's mainly that children are raised to fit certain roles in life. These roles cater to a work style and an interaction preferential in life. Men will always think about procreation because that's what they are told all their life. They are raised to be upfront and in your face (even if they aren't looking at your face.)
You could also point to professions like nail salons, hair dressers, retail locations and bus drivers.
I wonder what the percentage of the sewage treatment and waste collection industry is women...
There are fields that women avoid because they simply lack the interest in doing the job. I'm constantly reminded of the professions like racing. You see very few women in the field not because there is sexism, but because there are 50 men interested for every one woman. Just like you probably don't have 50 men interested in styling hair, but you could definitely put your finger on 50 women. If you had as many women interested in the field as you do men, then things will even out.
It's going to take some major upbringing changes to level out the playing field of sexes. Stop training girls to be emotional and "prissy". They will be more likely to take on "hard nosed" jobs. Train boys that it's okay to cry and be less "gruff". They will more likely take jobs that they don't have to get dirty in. Parents still have a very important role in how they raise their kids and what they will become.
You can't really blame any one business or industry for being sexist. Sure... you can point to a few people as exceptions, but it doesn't make it a rule.
To me, the hypocritical part of it is a company that uses FOSS software and inflicts certain restrictions on the use of products derived from it. IMHO, truly open software does not have patent protection promises and restrictions on where/when it can be run. You can refuse to support it because you can't (due to manpower, etc.) but to outright bring legal protectionists (or threaten to) into the deal defies the openness.
If a drug dealer were spending his money on improving the neighborhood by cleaning graffiti and painting lines in the road while selling drugs, would it be morally right to support this dealer?
Who in the world said there would be no banks and no credit if there was no bailout? And why do you believe it?
Last I heard, Chase was alive and well, along with many other banks. I did in fact get a line of credit in October. I am currently house shopping and was able to acquire an approval then. Yes, it is a personal mortgage, but it's credit. Also, as you said it yourself. The feds announced a buyout potential causing the banks to halt (though I still have my doubts) lending. That's not the fault of the failing AIG and Freddie/Fannie. That's cautious bankers. If the feds hadn't announced a buyout, it would be business as usual... with a few less aggressive/careless players.
You are under the assumption that EVERY single bank in the world is going under?
And yes, I know credit is how the world works. It's part of the reason we had a depression before.
You have a fairly dire outlook on the whole thing. You've possibly lost money somehow in the whole deal, but not everyone has.
Prove it. Seriously. I keep hearing this bull story from everyone that watches the main stream media who was drumming up support for this bail out. How is the price of milk tied to housing, insurance and these banks?
They would have had to close down, sell off their assets and eat the cost of their business. This was nowhere near the Great Depression and you know it. In fact, I'd say the govt bailout was following right in the footsteps of what caused the Great Depression back in the 20s by issuing the buyout. The great depression was also fueled by the fact that a few large corporations controlled a HUGE steak in the US economy. Today that's simply not true. There are other banks and companies that could have easily taken on those debts (at a small cost).
You do have proof of this, right? And I don't mean speculation. I want raw numbers that somehow make the dollar worth less, make things sell for 50 times their value and makes people have to sell their children to prostitution to make ends meet. I heard a lot of this speculation that one company failing was the end of the world. I simply don't buy it. At all.
I read the title in the feed and thought we were talking about a drawing instead of a skit. (yes, I know there are multiple meanings for sketch... but in context it can be confusing.)
So when do you change from regulation (and burden on the people to pay for it) to punishing those responsible for the downfall (and putting the burden on the entrepreneur)?
Technically, they don't OWN it yet. If that was the impression, then I worded it wrong. They still have to pay the mortgage on it. I was told that 1/3 of it will be willed to me so I will have to take it on, but that is neither here nor there. The parents of said children that MUST rent in town could have done the same for them. (My parents aren't "rich" by any stretch... but they invested in something "real" for us. Anyone with stable credit could do the same thing.)
It's not direct. The renter only sees the check they pay. Not where it's going. Then when the landlord raises rent, they complain that they are greedy bastards.
Except for the fact that there's a farmer somewhere that probably has to pay 500 times more than you do for the same schooling. If he owns 500 acres of farmland and you own 1 acre for your house, he's paying $50,000 for every $100 you spend. Does he get more of a say in how the school is run? Does he get more votes in the election to pass another levy?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm still trying to figure out how to teach my Mom that she doesn't need EVERY toolbar in existence.
It's not a bug. You can save at any point. There are a lot of branching stories and even I have the urge to save, try something then go back. Sometimes I don't go back and then don't need the saves again. The game itself shouldn't be making 150 saves. Mine has a quick save, an auto save and whatever saves the person makes. So a minimum of 2 saves and a maximum of however many I want.
Maybe the XBox version if like this, but no other version I know of has this behavior.
Apparently the "can't take a joke" crowd is out in full force looking at the modding that happened.
I do play games, however, on my PS3 I can go into the save folder, check a bunch of files I want to delete and select "Delete Selected" and they are gone.
Sounds like an issue with Oblivion rather than NXE. If Oblivion allows you to create so many game saves, Oblivion should offer a good UI for cleaning up it's junk.
That's like saying it's the responsibility of any application on your PC to do file management. You'd have to learn Adobe's menus for cleaning up Adobe files, Microsoft Office's methods for managing your word docs and Visual Studio's methods for managing project files...
It's up to the OS to allow you to clean up files if you need to, not each individual application.
you can quickly get to all your Arcade games from ANYWHERE.
Anywhere huh? Let's pretend I own one for a second. What if I have my XBox in the living room. Will I be able to get to my arcade games in my basement, my kitchen, or driving to work?
As operating systems do more, they take more hardware to perform adequately.
I could actually argue that any properly programmed OS should perform it's usual tasks just as well as it's predecessor even if you add new bells and whistles to it. You simply optimize your current code to account for the minor branch in the code later that determines if a user wants to use the new feature. If the user decides to run that feature, then you of course incur a slowdown but if they never turn it on, there's no reason that feature should slow the rest of the system down by 20-40%.
I was pointing out my observations and giving some substance to my argument on why men are "horn-dogs" for butterflysrage using my life experience of being passive.
I don't think you realize the opportunity you passed up.
Yeah I do... A second income. that's what it boils down to for me.
You essentially started off your post with the same sort of thing I'm talking about. Somehow it's down to my responsibility to approach a random stranger on the street and ask her out. I don't see why I'd have to do that. I live a good life IMO and don't necessarily need another person there to enjoy it with. If someone wished to come along for the ride I'd likely invite them along, but nobody's ever asked.
The last place I worked I knew of three women that I knew had interest in me. I worked with one of them, and the other two were people that I worked around. Maybe something I said or did peaked their interest. I will likely never know. I found out through mutual friends and coworkers. I could have approached any one of them and brought it to the table but I didn't see a reason to. If any of them were truly interested, they should have said something instead of playing some elementary game of telephone with a friend. It actually made me a little mad that they felt that it was inappropriate or were not comfortable enough to ask.
I wasn't saying that it needs to be done... It was more of a reference to why this kind of thing happens. I guess it does kind of sound like I'm stating that it should be done. It wasn't intentional.
but informative you are not.
Master Yoda, you are?
Fixed for you, I did.
A problem I've always had with this whole ordeal is that men are raised and taught to be ... approaching? They are told that they have to be the one to start up a conversation. I think it's a double edged sword of sorts. You could have forward women, but they are quickly harassed as unsavory types. This leads to situations where a guy has to control that upbringing and suppress it during parts of his day.
I speak from experience when I say that if a guy doesn't approach women with intent of some type he will live a single life. Period. No questions asked. I stopped "trying" nearly 10 years ago and I have only once been approached by women... and she was drunk. I don't consider myself an unapproachable or ugly person, and I've been "hooked up" by friends that are surprised that I'm single. If we didn't have at least one side of the equation attempting connections, the human race would be wiped out in a matter of years.
Anyway, The ranting has a point. It's mainly that children are raised to fit certain roles in life. These roles cater to a work style and an interaction preferential in life. Men will always think about procreation because that's what they are told all their life. They are raised to be upfront and in your face (even if they aren't looking at your face.)
You could also point to professions like nail salons, hair dressers, retail locations and bus drivers.
I wonder what the percentage of the sewage treatment and waste collection industry is women...
There are fields that women avoid because they simply lack the interest in doing the job. I'm constantly reminded of the professions like racing. You see very few women in the field not because there is sexism, but because there are 50 men interested for every one woman. Just like you probably don't have 50 men interested in styling hair, but you could definitely put your finger on 50 women. If you had as many women interested in the field as you do men, then things will even out.
It's going to take some major upbringing changes to level out the playing field of sexes. Stop training girls to be emotional and "prissy". They will be more likely to take on "hard nosed" jobs. Train boys that it's okay to cry and be less "gruff". They will more likely take jobs that they don't have to get dirty in. Parents still have a very important role in how they raise their kids and what they will become.
You can't really blame any one business or industry for being sexist. Sure... you can point to a few people as exceptions, but it doesn't make it a rule.
To me, the hypocritical part of it is a company that uses FOSS software and inflicts certain restrictions on the use of products derived from it. IMHO, truly open software does not have patent protection promises and restrictions on where/when it can be run. You can refuse to support it because you can't (due to manpower, etc.) but to outright bring legal protectionists (or threaten to) into the deal defies the openness.
I suppose some people look at it like this...
If a drug dealer were spending his money on improving the neighborhood by cleaning graffiti and painting lines in the road while selling drugs, would it be morally right to support this dealer?
It's a sad day when maxing out your character is considered "conquering" the game.
Who in the world said there would be no banks and no credit if there was no bailout? And why do you believe it?
Last I heard, Chase was alive and well, along with many other banks. I did in fact get a line of credit in October. I am currently house shopping and was able to acquire an approval then. Yes, it is a personal mortgage, but it's credit. Also, as you said it yourself. The feds announced a buyout potential causing the banks to halt (though I still have my doubts) lending. That's not the fault of the failing AIG and Freddie/Fannie. That's cautious bankers. If the feds hadn't announced a buyout, it would be business as usual... with a few less aggressive/careless players.
You are under the assumption that EVERY single bank in the world is going under?
And yes, I know credit is how the world works. It's part of the reason we had a depression before.
You have a fairly dire outlook on the whole thing. You've possibly lost money somehow in the whole deal, but not everyone has.
Prove it. Seriously. I keep hearing this bull story from everyone that watches the main stream media who was drumming up support for this bail out. How is the price of milk tied to housing, insurance and these banks?
They would have had to close down, sell off their assets and eat the cost of their business. This was nowhere near the Great Depression and you know it. In fact, I'd say the govt bailout was following right in the footsteps of what caused the Great Depression back in the 20s by issuing the buyout. The great depression was also fueled by the fact that a few large corporations controlled a HUGE steak in the US economy. Today that's simply not true. There are other banks and companies that could have easily taken on those debts (at a small cost).
You do have proof of this, right? And I don't mean speculation. I want raw numbers that somehow make the dollar worth less, make things sell for 50 times their value and makes people have to sell their children to prostitution to make ends meet. I heard a lot of this speculation that one company failing was the end of the world. I simply don't buy it. At all.
I read the title in the feed and thought we were talking about a drawing instead of a skit. (yes, I know there are multiple meanings for sketch... but in context it can be confusing.)
So when do you change from regulation (and burden on the people to pay for it) to punishing those responsible for the downfall (and putting the burden on the entrepreneur)?
Technically, they don't OWN it yet. If that was the impression, then I worded it wrong. They still have to pay the mortgage on it. I was told that 1/3 of it will be willed to me so I will have to take it on, but that is neither here nor there. The parents of said children that MUST rent in town could have done the same for them. (My parents aren't "rich" by any stretch... but they invested in something "real" for us. Anyone with stable credit could do the same thing.)
It's not direct. The renter only sees the check they pay. Not where it's going. Then when the landlord raises rent, they complain that they are greedy bastards.
Except for the fact that there's a farmer somewhere that probably has to pay 500 times more than you do for the same schooling. If he owns 500 acres of farmland and you own 1 acre for your house, he's paying $50,000 for every $100 you spend. Does he get more of a say in how the school is run? Does he get more votes in the election to pass another levy?