Do you not put a suspected thief on trial because he put down the TV he was stealing when the policeman stared right at him?
No because you can't convict people on suspicions alone. In the example you gave, the "suspected thief" didn't actually steal anything. He put the TV down before he stole because the police officer was staring right at him. That it may be "obvious" to our "sensibilities" that he was going to steal the TV is irrelevant. The law is functional because it does NOT allow us to jump to such conclusions, and require that someone ACTUALLY OFFEND and have this offense PROVEN for punishment to be inflicted upon them.
I think at this juncture it would be beneficial to the conversation to point out that the CEO of Opera is using the same sort of tactic that people often accuse Microsoft of employing. He's just hurling FUD around without any basis. Stripping IE out of the operating system isn't providing less choice: Before you had no choice, you had IE and that was that, now you have a choice between IE and no IE. The choice of using some other browser is there, but now you have the ADDED choice of having IE, or not having IE.
Maybe I'm totally missing something, but that seems like categorically more choice to me...
Even if I could understand / appreciate the whole "anti-trust" thing, and conceded that it was the government's place to interfere to stop monopolies (which I can't), how is it EVER logical to suggest that it's up to a for-profit company to provide "consumer choice" by touting its competitors' products?
That's just totally ridiculous. You say that Microsoft is breaking the law by bundling IE with its software, great, I could argue that, that shouldn't be against the law, et cetera (but I won't, because it's not really relevant to the matter-at-hand), but how can you suggest that rather than just making them not bundle IE, you should ALSO make them provide ipso facto advertising (for free) for their competitors by offering so-called "genuine consumer choice"?
Is that the only people who ACTUALLY ARE completely unaffected by DRM are the people who are ACTUALLY PIRATING. I've bought games straight-up...any game that I feel is truly ground-breaking I fork out the dough for. Crysis, Oblivion, Thief, are all examples of titles that I felt were good enough to BUY.
Ho-Hum titles, I've downloaded, and I must admit that, in the end, I end up applying "pirating" methods to my "legal" games ANYWAY.
"Please insert DVD/CD", screw that, I'll just crack it to shit.
Maybe game companies should learn from this. I don't think it really matters what kind of protection your put in-place, someone is going to find a way around it.
Look at SecuROM and the activation for Windows Vista, the latter was certainly touted as being unbreakable...but...
this will mean a slowdown in intel sales (and amd) AMD owns ATI. So if video card sales pick up and processor sales drop off...I don't think AMD suffers too much.
would you rather an 8-10 hour game that keeps you engaged, or a a 20-25 hour game that gets stale, and repetitive Or you could have WoW...if nothing else WoW is the single reason why computer gaming is better than console gaming.
Besides, as far as the purpose intended, the Cell processor and memory architecture of a PS3 is more sophisticated (speed-wise) than any core 2 duo system. The GPU lags behind the top end PC parts and the memory amount is low relative to what is realistic with PCs, but it isn't so easy to dismiss what the PS3 *does* bring to the market. Hahaha. You made me laugh.
In order to cut corners they left certain key optimizations out of the console processors.
They are eaten up by low-end dual core PC processors.
The architecture may be more sophisticated, but as for everything else the consoles kiss serious PC ass (and that includes speed).
supplant, not replace Umm...this is from Merriam-Webster
1 : to supersede (another) especially by force or treachery
2 a (1) obsolete : UPROOT (2) : to eradicate and supply a substitute for b : to take the place of and serve as a substitute for especially by reason of superior excellence or power
synonym see REPLACE Your statement makes no sense, because "supplant" and "replace" are synonyms.
Wait...wait...your statement doesn't make no sense, it's nonsensical.
Seriously people, grab a fucking dictionary and learn your language before you try and be profound.
You wouldn't think I'd keep falling for the "we'll fix the issues in Windows this time, really" trick after the 95->98 transition, huh? Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice... can't get fooled again! Well they added USB support in Windows 98.
I should also point out that fixing every problem in a multi-million line piece of code is hard......I don't think that this has occurred to anyone on here. You try debugging an operating system with the complexity of Windows. When you can do it, then we'll take your complaints about Windows seriously.
Did Logitec ever claim that they were going to support Vista with this particular mouse? This claim was made for my $150CDN MX Revolution.
No drivers yet.
I have the nVidia drivers for my 8800GTX, and they work fine. I'm actually very impressed with how good they are given how new Vista and DX10 are.
I don't believe in outdated hardware, so I don't know about older AGP/DX9 cards.
Deus Ex. Fantastic to cack in just two games. Alas... Yeah...and Thief? Same devs, same engine, same development time frame.
Bringing these games to consoles is what killed them methinks.
the delay while waiting for the list to populate is agonizing, and it can't be changed. What are your system specs?
I just went and did this several times, and the list is nonexistent.
You should maybe think about getting new hardware...
Whether it's for general use, or just to have a look, who wants a locked-down, glorified media OS on their machine? I sure don't. It's a great gaming OS...so...being a gamer...I do...
like transparant popup windows when selecting text. this window shows options like bold/italic, etc. when moving the mouse over it, it slowly fades in. Moving the mouse out of the window makes it transparent again. I really don't see the use of it. So that you don't have to move your mouse all the way up to the top of the window to access commonly-used formatting options.
And it's transparent so that when it pops up it doesn't completely obscure the text behind it.
It's a great feature.
Yeah, and your video card alone cost more than the 360. What's your point? That the 360 just can't compete.
You don't need to have a video card as good as mine to out-do the 360...my old X1900XT did that handily.
Also, 512meg isn't bad when you don't have the overhead from the OS + antivirus + tons of various apps. My PC gaming rig has 4 gigs of RAM and 768megs of graphics memory.
That "overhead" puts what?
A 700 meg...
1.2 gig...
2 gig even, dent in my system RAM.
However you look at it...the XBox 360 got MURDERED ....overhead my ass...
Slashdot Mirror
Do you not put a suspected thief on trial because he put down the TV he was stealing when the policeman stared right at him?
No because you can't convict people on suspicions alone. In the example you gave, the "suspected thief" didn't actually steal anything. He put the TV down before he stole because the police officer was staring right at him. That it may be "obvious" to our "sensibilities" that he was going to steal the TV is irrelevant. The law is functional because it does NOT allow us to jump to such conclusions, and require that someone ACTUALLY OFFEND and have this offense PROVEN for punishment to be inflicted upon them.
I think at this juncture it would be beneficial to the conversation to point out that the CEO of Opera is using the same sort of tactic that people often accuse Microsoft of employing. He's just hurling FUD around without any basis. Stripping IE out of the operating system isn't providing less choice: Before you had no choice, you had IE and that was that, now you have a choice between IE and no IE. The choice of using some other browser is there, but now you have the ADDED choice of having IE, or not having IE. Maybe I'm totally missing something, but that seems like categorically more choice to me...
Even if I could understand / appreciate the whole "anti-trust" thing, and conceded that it was the government's place to interfere to stop monopolies (which I can't), how is it EVER logical to suggest that it's up to a for-profit company to provide "consumer choice" by touting its competitors' products? That's just totally ridiculous. You say that Microsoft is breaking the law by bundling IE with its software, great, I could argue that, that shouldn't be against the law, et cetera (but I won't, because it's not really relevant to the matter-at-hand), but how can you suggest that rather than just making them not bundle IE, you should ALSO make them provide ipso facto advertising (for free) for their competitors by offering so-called "genuine consumer choice"?
If I don't send a check [...]
Wait people still use cheques?
The fact that you correctly used curly brackets makes me wish I had mod points for you...
Don't miss this.
Is that the only people who ACTUALLY ARE completely unaffected by DRM are the people who are ACTUALLY PIRATING. I've bought games straight-up...any game that I feel is truly ground-breaking I fork out the dough for. Crysis, Oblivion, Thief, are all examples of titles that I felt were good enough to BUY. Ho-Hum titles, I've downloaded, and I must admit that, in the end, I end up applying "pirating" methods to my "legal" games ANYWAY. "Please insert DVD/CD", screw that, I'll just crack it to shit. Maybe game companies should learn from this. I don't think it really matters what kind of protection your put in-place, someone is going to find a way around it. Look at SecuROM and the activation for Windows Vista, the latter was certainly touted as being unbreakable...but...
"The o is not even close to the a on the keyboard, have to wonder..." Unless he's using Dvorak...in which case they're right next to one another...
Or you could have both...**coughcoughcrysiscoughcough**