Lots of people loved DS9, and it's widely considered a contender for the best Trek, along with TNG. And I, for one, thought Voyager was good, and I know I'm not alone.
Books aren't as fun as a well-done RPG. I'm sorry you dislike turn-based RPGs, but that's no reason whatsoever to call for their extinction. I don't like real-time, highly open-ended RPGs all that much (they're OK, but far from ideal), but it would be asinine for me to act as if my preference is the One True Way and say everyone should fall in line. Both styles have room to coexist here.
Don't lie, Vista is a hog for unnecessary reasons. I'm upgrading the RAM on the PC as we speak so hopefully that problem goes away. It sucks when you see that your PC needs 1GB extra RAM on the sole fact that you run Vista over a different OS. It is not a big problem to many people who frequent this site but it IS a problem to more casual players!
First of all, I'm not lying. I do game on Vista, and have no issues with it whatsoever.
Besides, anyone gaming on their PC is probably willing to spend the $30 or $40 for a memory upgrade, so I don't think it's fair to call that a barrier of any significance.
Or maybe you're on crack? Far Cry is, indeed, one of the games I've played on both systems. My eyesight is fine. My monitor is 22" widescreen. I'm sorry, but it just makes no difference to the gameplay.
The same rule holds true for nVidia cards. They shifted direction in their numbering scheme after they got to the 9000 series, it's true, but ATI did the same thing when they need a successor to their 9xxx cards.
This is blatantly false. What a decent ($200+) graphics card buys you today is being able to play games at decent resolution. To play todays games at 1600x1200 resolution or better, you need a decent card. And increased resolution really does mean better game play; don't imagine that it doesn't matter if you haven't spent time with it.
I have to disagree here. I have played exactly one game where more resolution led to better gameplay, and that was WoW, because of all its user interface mods. When I had a crappy computer, I used to run games at 640x480 resolution. Now I run the same games at 16900x1200, and the gameplay is improved not one bit. It doesn't even look that much prettier.
Oh, for God's sake. Did you even read my post? I own an iPod, and have used the models I criticized. Now, I haven't used an iPhone, but I allow that it could surprise me, just that it's unlikely ("odds are it wouldn't completely blow me away"). In other words, you're tilting at windmills. Hard.
And for the record, I hate Macs, and have used them all the time. Stop living in this illusory world where the only ones who hate Apple products are those who haven't used them.
But is this unhealthy to the commercial result of Apple corp and the satisfaction of most Apple customers? Being closed also means that Apple has vertical control of everything from their online services to operating system to hardware, and Apple has generally been very good at using that control to deliver products that work very well if you stay inside Apple's garden.
This would be just as true if Apple stopped suing people for having the sheer audacity to try and work with their stuff, though. Apple would still retain control over the complete chain, and their products would still gain whatever benefit they do now as a result. It's just that they'd stop being assholes to everyone else in the world.
It's easy to say that, but when you take Apples "Less functional" product and set it next to a "More functional" product you can really see a difference.
No, you really can't. For example, the iPod, which you mentioned, isn't anything particularly special (for the vast majority of models). There are two models which are truly great: 3rd generation, and Touch. The 3rd gen is discontinued, and the Touch is so expensive that it's not a feasible alternative to other players at the moment (not to mention it's pretty damned shameful for a "video" player to have so little space). The rest of them are unusable junk. Apple had a great design with the 3rd gen, and then ruined it by putting the buttons on the wheel. It's an utter failure in usability terms, but they get praised for it. Why? Damned if I know, but probably fanboys.
I haven't personally used an iPhone, but odds are it wouldn't completely blow me away. I thought it was cool (and still do), but far and away better than anything out there? No. Revolutionary? Hardly. It's a neat toy, nothing more... and now that others are copying the idea, it's not even the best version of the neat toy.
But PC gaming is dieing because of factors like DRM schemes
Yeah, that sucks. That's why I support games like Sins of a Solar Empire, which don't do that BS. Insane requirements and costs: maybe if you want.
insane requirements and costs
Uh, if you have a compulsive need to run games at maximum settings, maybe. I get by just fine on hardware that isn't bleeding-edge, you can too.
laptop popularity
Huh? What exactly does this have to do with gaming, especially considering desktops still far outnumber laptops?
and Vista.
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and throw down the BS flag here. Your intentions may be good, but you are at the least woefully misinformed. I game on Vista, and it's fine. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or has been lied to.
No, I understand that, but too many people give credit to Apple for being "revolutionary", when they're anything but. The Apple that had a revolution was a long time ago, and has little to no bearing on the Apple of today. Too many people forget this, so I have no problem with people overstating the issue. Some overstatement is probably needed in the current climate of Apple fanboys.
I'm guessing you think none of that counts, because Apple didn't invent the MP3 player, but that's not very sound reasoning.
I disagree. It didn't represent a dramatic new shift for the industry. It popularized an existing concept way beyond what it had achieved before, but that isn't revolution. Revolution is the creation of the concept. The telephone was revolutionary. The cellular phone was revolutionary. The $model of cell phone was not.
I stand by my statement that Apple hasn't had a revolutionary idea in years. Not a slam on them, not many people do put forth revolutionary ideas. That doesn't mean that we get to lower the bar on what constitutes revolutionary. If the stuff you listed is revolutionary, pretty much any product that ever comes out is.
And that was how many years ago? Yes, Apple had revolutions back then. They haven't had ONE since. Everything since their pioneering work has been evolution... which isn't something to fault them for, but let's not call it revolution when it isn't.
I disagree with you. Apple is synonymous with smartphones. At least in the eyes of consumers.
Sorry, but if you really believe this, it's safe to say you've been buying into the marketing too much. Blackberry was synonymous with smartphones to the average user before the iPhone was even announced, and still is.
All you've done is proved his original point. None of this whatsoever is revolutionary. Apple has never, in recent history, done anything revolutionary. Everything they've done has been evolution. That isn't bad per se, but let's not call it a revolution when it isn't one.
It can't be addressed... because it's not a security issue with the site. It's an issue that the user needs to be trained on how to spot, and good luck getting that to happen.
I mean, come on, banks have the "problem" you described, and most banks aren't what we'd call insecure.
I "knew" nothing because I was 15 that year, and didn't bother paying attention to an election I couldn't vote in. About all I knew about him was that he was probably a liar (in my book, every politician is a liar unless proven otherwise by his actions), but at least he didn't have the audacity to cook up the whoppers Al Gore coughed up in that campaign (for which he was deservedly derided).
Well, people aren't willing to give up their partisan attitude, so, the most viable option is probably to implement a preferential voting system so that people can vote for who they really want, while not screwing over their "safe" choice (of course, the scary possibility that people actually think these assholes are the best for the job exists, but I'm hoping that's not the case). The preferred option is for people to actually look at more than just two candidates and call it a day. Now, surely many third-party candidates are every bit as flawed as the major candidates, but surely at least one out of the pack must have some worth, which is more than we can say for McCain or Obama (yeah, moderation abusers, I criticized him, mod me down again).
Really, though, at this point the most important thing is to get some fresh blood into the system somehow. What we have now is a bunch of people who refuse to vote for someone who isn't in the big parties, and two big parties who are so corrupt that it makes it nigh-impossible for anyone who actually wants to change things to get power. I don't care if we accomplish it by reforming the major parties, or making third parties viable, but someone has to get in there and get some actual change done, not the "change" that candidates have promised us for as long as I can remember (which, of course, is always a completely empty promise).
Of course it was lose-lose. I never said McCain was a better choice. What's been lost on most people this entire election season is that both candidates were bad for us. Getting into an argument of who was less bad was missing the fundamental problem. The problem is, American voters tend to be idiots, and are so damned partisan about things that they thing the worst possible thing is for the other guy to win - even though he won't make much of a difference. You need to think long-term, and realize that if you get a foot closer or two feet closer to the precipice every minute, you're still going to die. You need to figure out how to make the situation better, not less bad.
So, in other words, he'll do nothing. As anyone who's been paying attention to him would know by now. He not only voted to extend the patriot act, but he voted for the FISA amendments.
Obama's position on civil liberties is clear. He doesn't believe in them any more than Bush did. Hopefully the other branches of our government can keep him from running rampant, or else we are well and truly fucked.
They were turn based originally because of HARDWARE LIMITATIONS!!!
That's not a valid reason to change it. I prefer turn-based RPGs, simple as that. I don't give a damn if it was hardware limitations or because some guy was doing it on a bet, that's the way I like them, and if the turn-based RPG ever entirely disappears, odds are I'll stop playing RPGs altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
Lots of people loved DS9, and it's widely considered a contender for the best Trek, along with TNG. And I, for one, thought Voyager was good, and I know I'm not alone.
Books aren't as fun as a well-done RPG. I'm sorry you dislike turn-based RPGs, but that's no reason whatsoever to call for their extinction. I don't like real-time, highly open-ended RPGs all that much (they're OK, but far from ideal), but it would be asinine for me to act as if my preference is the One True Way and say everyone should fall in line. Both styles have room to coexist here.
Don't lie, Vista is a hog for unnecessary reasons. I'm upgrading the RAM on the PC as we speak so hopefully that problem goes away. It sucks when you see that your PC needs 1GB extra RAM on the sole fact that you run Vista over a different OS. It is not a big problem to many people who frequent this site but it IS a problem to more casual players!
First of all, I'm not lying. I do game on Vista, and have no issues with it whatsoever.
Besides, anyone gaming on their PC is probably willing to spend the $30 or $40 for a memory upgrade, so I don't think it's fair to call that a barrier of any significance.
Or maybe you're on crack? Far Cry is, indeed, one of the games I've played on both systems. My eyesight is fine. My monitor is 22" widescreen. I'm sorry, but it just makes no difference to the gameplay.
I play both of those games, and I disagree with your assessment. Sorry.
The same rule holds true for nVidia cards. They shifted direction in their numbering scheme after they got to the 9000 series, it's true, but ATI did the same thing when they need a successor to their 9xxx cards.
This is blatantly false. What a decent ($200+) graphics card buys you today is being able to play games at decent resolution. To play todays games at 1600x1200 resolution or better, you need a decent card. And increased resolution really does mean better game play; don't imagine that it doesn't matter if you haven't spent time with it.
I have to disagree here. I have played exactly one game where more resolution led to better gameplay, and that was WoW, because of all its user interface mods. When I had a crappy computer, I used to run games at 640x480 resolution. Now I run the same games at 16900x1200, and the gameplay is improved not one bit. It doesn't even look that much prettier.
Oh, for God's sake. Did you even read my post? I own an iPod, and have used the models I criticized. Now, I haven't used an iPhone, but I allow that it could surprise me, just that it's unlikely ("odds are it wouldn't completely blow me away"). In other words, you're tilting at windmills. Hard.
And for the record, I hate Macs, and have used them all the time. Stop living in this illusory world where the only ones who hate Apple products are those who haven't used them.
We're not talking about iTunes here, we're talking about the iPod. iTunes' innovation does not make the iPod innovative or special in the least.
isn't it the position off the game companies that their games are pirated so much that they are loosing most of their sales to pirates?
Right. And that position is bullshit, as we all know.
But is this unhealthy to the commercial result of Apple corp and the satisfaction of most Apple customers? Being closed also means that Apple has vertical control of everything from their online services to operating system to hardware, and Apple has generally been very good at using that control to deliver products that work very well if you stay inside Apple's garden.
This would be just as true if Apple stopped suing people for having the sheer audacity to try and work with their stuff, though. Apple would still retain control over the complete chain, and their products would still gain whatever benefit they do now as a result. It's just that they'd stop being assholes to everyone else in the world.
It's easy to say that, but when you take Apples "Less functional" product and set it next to a "More functional" product you can really see a difference.
No, you really can't. For example, the iPod, which you mentioned, isn't anything particularly special (for the vast majority of models). There are two models which are truly great: 3rd generation, and Touch. The 3rd gen is discontinued, and the Touch is so expensive that it's not a feasible alternative to other players at the moment (not to mention it's pretty damned shameful for a "video" player to have so little space). The rest of them are unusable junk. Apple had a great design with the 3rd gen, and then ruined it by putting the buttons on the wheel. It's an utter failure in usability terms, but they get praised for it. Why? Damned if I know, but probably fanboys.
I haven't personally used an iPhone, but odds are it wouldn't completely blow me away. I thought it was cool (and still do), but far and away better than anything out there? No. Revolutionary? Hardly. It's a neat toy, nothing more... and now that others are copying the idea, it's not even the best version of the neat toy.
But PC gaming is dieing because of factors like DRM schemes
Yeah, that sucks. That's why I support games like Sins of a Solar Empire, which don't do that BS. Insane requirements and costs: maybe if you want.
insane requirements and costs
Uh, if you have a compulsive need to run games at maximum settings, maybe. I get by just fine on hardware that isn't bleeding-edge, you can too.
laptop popularity
Huh? What exactly does this have to do with gaming, especially considering desktops still far outnumber laptops?
and Vista.
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and throw down the BS flag here. Your intentions may be good, but you are at the least woefully misinformed. I game on Vista, and it's fine. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or has been lied to.
No, I understand that, but too many people give credit to Apple for being "revolutionary", when they're anything but. The Apple that had a revolution was a long time ago, and has little to no bearing on the Apple of today. Too many people forget this, so I have no problem with people overstating the issue. Some overstatement is probably needed in the current climate of Apple fanboys.
I'm guessing you think none of that counts, because Apple didn't invent the MP3 player, but that's not very sound reasoning.
I disagree. It didn't represent a dramatic new shift for the industry. It popularized an existing concept way beyond what it had achieved before, but that isn't revolution. Revolution is the creation of the concept. The telephone was revolutionary. The cellular phone was revolutionary. The $model of cell phone was not.
I stand by my statement that Apple hasn't had a revolutionary idea in years. Not a slam on them, not many people do put forth revolutionary ideas. That doesn't mean that we get to lower the bar on what constitutes revolutionary. If the stuff you listed is revolutionary, pretty much any product that ever comes out is.
And that was how many years ago? Yes, Apple had revolutions back then. They haven't had ONE since. Everything since their pioneering work has been evolution... which isn't something to fault them for, but let's not call it revolution when it isn't.
I disagree with you. Apple is synonymous with smartphones. At least in the eyes of consumers.
Sorry, but if you really believe this, it's safe to say you've been buying into the marketing too much. Blackberry was synonymous with smartphones to the average user before the iPhone was even announced, and still is.
All you've done is proved his original point. None of this whatsoever is revolutionary. Apple has never, in recent history, done anything revolutionary. Everything they've done has been evolution. That isn't bad per se, but let's not call it a revolution when it isn't one.
It can't be addressed... because it's not a security issue with the site. It's an issue that the user needs to be trained on how to spot, and good luck getting that to happen.
I mean, come on, banks have the "problem" you described, and most banks aren't what we'd call insecure.
I "knew" nothing because I was 15 that year, and didn't bother paying attention to an election I couldn't vote in. About all I knew about him was that he was probably a liar (in my book, every politician is a liar unless proven otherwise by his actions), but at least he didn't have the audacity to cook up the whoppers Al Gore coughed up in that campaign (for which he was deservedly derided).
Well, people aren't willing to give up their partisan attitude, so, the most viable option is probably to implement a preferential voting system so that people can vote for who they really want, while not screwing over their "safe" choice (of course, the scary possibility that people actually think these assholes are the best for the job exists, but I'm hoping that's not the case). The preferred option is for people to actually look at more than just two candidates and call it a day. Now, surely many third-party candidates are every bit as flawed as the major candidates, but surely at least one out of the pack must have some worth, which is more than we can say for McCain or Obama (yeah, moderation abusers, I criticized him, mod me down again).
Really, though, at this point the most important thing is to get some fresh blood into the system somehow. What we have now is a bunch of people who refuse to vote for someone who isn't in the big parties, and two big parties who are so corrupt that it makes it nigh-impossible for anyone who actually wants to change things to get power. I don't care if we accomplish it by reforming the major parties, or making third parties viable, but someone has to get in there and get some actual change done, not the "change" that candidates have promised us for as long as I can remember (which, of course, is always a completely empty promise).
Of course it was lose-lose. I never said McCain was a better choice. What's been lost on most people this entire election season is that both candidates were bad for us. Getting into an argument of who was less bad was missing the fundamental problem. The problem is, American voters tend to be idiots, and are so damned partisan about things that they thing the worst possible thing is for the other guy to win - even though he won't make much of a difference. You need to think long-term, and realize that if you get a foot closer or two feet closer to the precipice every minute, you're still going to die. You need to figure out how to make the situation better, not less bad.
So, in other words, he'll do nothing. As anyone who's been paying attention to him would know by now. He not only voted to extend the patriot act, but he voted for the FISA amendments.
Obama's position on civil liberties is clear. He doesn't believe in them any more than Bush did. Hopefully the other branches of our government can keep him from running rampant, or else we are well and truly fucked.
They were turn based originally because of HARDWARE LIMITATIONS!!!
That's not a valid reason to change it. I prefer turn-based RPGs, simple as that. I don't give a damn if it was hardware limitations or because some guy was doing it on a bet, that's the way I like them, and if the turn-based RPG ever entirely disappears, odds are I'll stop playing RPGs altogether.
Glad to hear the best browser on the web is out of beta! I look forward to seeing where it goes from here a great deal.