"People are "hungry to know about the people behind these things" they buy because when they purchase their goods, they're helping the people behind their goods to prosper. " Which is OK, but this don't excuse things like taking quotes out of context to sensationalize reporting, like what happened in the PCGamer fiasco, for example.
YuhongBao
"The real problem is that, just like the Romans, we've turned pandering to the lowest common denominator into an artform." Hopefully Brad won't do so.
"As one UK editor told me after his magazine trashed our latest game, “My job is to maximize page views to our site, so don’t give us ammunition.” " Are you referring to the PC Gamer fiasco?
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="12" id="2796025"] Any chance of some information on the first Expansion pack? I think I remember reading that Tactical Battles are getting an over-haul? I'd love to share those details but my PR minder would have me killed. Poor Steph, she's been a real hero these past few months. Imagine your job being keeping me out of trouble?[/quote] Yea I know. Can you imagine if Brad Wardell (Frogboy/Draginol) was a big-company CEO?
In the meantime, IMO would be best to just ban ads from that site.
I will try contacting [email protected].
"We are still working to try and fix it with Google, but contacting them is like contacting someone on Mars." They do provide details: http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=https://forums.joeuser.com/&hl=en After you fix that, then you can request a review using Google's Webmaster Tools.
For those claiming that the emotional outburst was unprofessional: http://forums.demigodthegame.com/312130/get;1736735
I wonder what would happen if Brad was a big-company CEO?
From http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=965306&sid=3f78a992fba9ea04aa385b218e20e322 : #4 People trying to tell me how I should act. Yea, I’m the CEO of a $20+ million company. It’s “inappropriate” for the CEO to be out on forums participating right? Most people like having that kind of direct access. But there are still some pe
"This feature was created with the Enterprise Server edition of NT 4 back in 1997" And extended to all editions of Windows with XP. Before XP using /3GB under non-Enterprise/Advanced Server editions of Windows would only cause the kernel address space to be reduced, making it effectively useless.
This feature was created with the Enterprise Server edition of NT 4 back in 1997, and no it has nothing to do with PAE, which allow addressing more than 4GB total of physical memory but do NOT increase the per-process address space limit. There is AWE that was designed to be used under PAE which allow bank-switching, but programs specifically have to be designed to use it which takes much more work than making a program /LARGEADDRESSAWARE.
Note that the 2GB per-process address space limit mentioned here can be increased to 3GB if the program is marked as /LARGEADDRESSAWARE and the system is booted with the /3GB switch in boot.ini. It can be even increased to full 4GB if a 32-bit program marked /LARGEADDRESSAWARE is run on a 64-bit system.
On the quiet period, I should mention the SEC changes to the rules in 2005: http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8591.pdf http://www.sec.gov/answers/quiet.htm
From http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/f----those-mother-f---ers-youtubeviacom-lawsuit-gets-dirty.ars?comments=1 : "And from professional experience, this is nothing new. We have this funny idea that corporate executives or people entrusted to carry out important duties will, for some reason, behave professionally. Professionals can
BTW, how did the business world react to you being such a maverick CEO? I read that you had to ditch things like investment opportunities.
Since the problems of "shareholder value" get mentioned often in some threads, I want to mention that more and more public companies are moving away from shareholder value. For example, take a look at how Google IPO was done: http://hbr.org/2010/05/how-i-did-it-googles-ceo-on-the-endu