I'm not a developer, but from the standpoint of a gamer it's hardly bullshit. I've seen some very nice comparisons (no, not from Microsoft) of DX9 vs DX10. Not everything is a leap forward, but some things do look prettier.
so all games are 20% slower
This isn't true at all. I game on Vista, sluggishness simply isn't an issue. I have, in fact, noticed no meaningful slowdown (40 FPS instead of 45 FPS... oooh, run for the hills!!!) running games on my machine in Vista compared to XP.
Ah. Well, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. I guess, if what you say is the case, they should be flamed too. That said, despite all the car analogies, this isn't a car site, so opportunities are bound to be rare.
Ferrarri owners don't walk around sounding like cultists, and they don't falsely claim that the stuff they buy isn't overpriced. Until Apple owners can meet this reasonable standard, they will continue to get flamed.
Invariably people who compain about the price are peopl that can't afford them.
I can afford them, I just choose not to pay for overpriced hardware made by a company which is such a control freak, they make Microsoft look like a cute fluffy bunny.
As to "vendor locked", that's freetard talk.
Yeah, cause it's such an idiotic thing to want to be able to run the apps you want on the iPhone, or to be able to run Apple's software on any hardware which has enough muscle for it.
When I want the inferior crap that is Mac OS...
Fixed that for you.
...until then realise that it's only your preference, not a universal truth.
Well, most of us do realize that. I suggest you take your own advice, fanboy.
I've even gotten into discussions with people who insisted that everyone on board Federation ships were officers, which to anyone who has ever served in the military knows is absurd...
No it isn't. How things work in real life has no bearing on how things work in a fictional universe. More to the point, you were discussing how things are in the fictional universe (where details have been provided for you by the creators), not how you think they would be (the land of speculation). If there hadn't been enlisted personnel shown at various points in the series, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that only commissioned officers are on those ships.
Yes, Scotty did wear a red shirt. And Spock and McCoy both wore blue because they were both science officers. The system was red for security/engineering, blue for science, yellow for command. For whatever reason, they flipped yellow and red around starting with TNG, but the system is still the same otherwise.
Hold pirates like precious and fragile flowers in your hand, because their lukewarm interest is the last dying ember between you and the chill of oblivion. It's been a while since any game has captured my interest enough to pirate, much less buy; and your development costs can only ever rise, thanks to the advancing state of the art 3D graphics you use to sell the same crap again and again.
For this to be true, cynicism towards the games of today would have to be the norm, not the exception. You are the exception: most people enjoy the games that are being made now. While it's your right to not like the games, you shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that developers will respond as if you are the average gamer.
You can pick bad dialogue out of any Star Wars movie. The classic example is Han and Leia's exchange towards the end of Empire Strikes Back. "I know" as a response to a declaration of love is every bit as bad as "You're breaking my heart!". Sorry, but EpIII did not earn its reputation. Fans who put the originals on too high a pedestal gave the movie its reputation, not the quality of the movie itself.
I never said there was good dialogue, to be fair. I also wouldn't say any of the Star Wars flicks have had particularly good dialogue, so that isn't a crime I would hold against that movie in particular.
No, we aren't. Sorry if you don't agree, but I quite enjoyed his newer work, as well as his older. Hell, Episode 3 was the crowning achievement in the Star Wars saga, what with having an actual interesting plot and all.
I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with everyone telling you the new one was crap. While it wasn't as good as, say, Raiders of the Lost Ark or Last Crusade, I'd definitely say it was better than Temple of Doom. Quite frankly, there's no legitimate reason I've seen that anyone has to complain about it. Yes, the plot/physics is nonsensical. So what? They've always been that way for this series.
Dunno if Shia LaBeouf would make an adequate replacement for Ford, though. He does ok in the new movie, but it wouldn't be the same.
We're not talking about someone exploiting one thing for their entire lives, though. We're talking about one work which was wildly successful, such that if even if it were in the public domain today, JK Rowling wouldn't have to worry about money again (if she's smart with her money). That isn't an argument against copyright at all, it's merely recognizing her success.
They don't have a right to make a livelihood in what they do. They do have a right to attempt to do it without your interference. You have no right to that artist's work except under the terms they choose to make it available, and if you don't like their terms, but take their work anyway... that's tantamount to forced labor.
That is perfectly debateable. I always have maintained that copying someone's work that is their livelihood is every bit as immoral as stealing a physical widget that is someone's livelihood. Just because you say copying isn't immoral, doesn't make it morally acceptable to a wider audience than just yourself.
Intermediates like Rowling (and sorry, but no she's not as good as people gushing over her like to think) do the opposite: they just cut off and sit back on the eternal "it's copyrighted forever" bandwagon.
a) She's just fine, you just don't like her work.
b) Pretty sure she's made enough money off the Harry Potter books at this point that, even if another copy never got sold, she wouldn't have to work any more.
And what if the war is justified, even if it isn't defensive? If one country is beating the other up just for the hell of it, I'd say that stopping that from happening is justifiable, even though it isn't a defensive war, and the aggressive nation's civilians might get hurt in the process.
Sweeping generalizations don't usually work when it comes to deciding the morality of acts.
Are you seriously saying that anyone who goes to war, ever, should end up before a war crimes tribunal? Cause that's what would happen if you prosecuted leaders whose militaries accidentally killed civilians in time of war. People are going to die in war. Even civilians. This is a fact of life, get over it.
I'm not saying the war was justified, but that's not the issue you brought forth. You said Bush should be tried for war crimes because civilians were accidentally killed during his war, which is fucking ridiculous.
Didn't play ball? I'd say. They harbored Osama Bin Laden. You remember him, right? The guy that planned and ordered the deaths of 3000+ Americans in the largest attack on American soil? Am I ringing a bell here?
So, any time a country refuses to extradite a criminal, military action is the answer? That seems a bit extreme to me.
I agree that helpdesk is part of IT, but if you're doing helpdesk+desktop support+server admin, you aren't just helpdesk any more. The job description may say you are, but that means jack. I mean what your job really IS, not what some guy in HR says it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft releases a bullshit new DX...
I'm not a developer, but from the standpoint of a gamer it's hardly bullshit. I've seen some very nice comparisons (no, not from Microsoft) of DX9 vs DX10. Not everything is a leap forward, but some things do look prettier.
so all games are 20% slower
This isn't true at all. I game on Vista, sluggishness simply isn't an issue. I have, in fact, noticed no meaningful slowdown (40 FPS instead of 45 FPS... oooh, run for the hills!!!) running games on my machine in Vista compared to XP.
Er... wasn't that the whole point of Java, and didn't people find out that it didn't work as well as they'd like?
Ah. Well, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. I guess, if what you say is the case, they should be flamed too. That said, despite all the car analogies, this isn't a car site, so opportunities are bound to be rare.
Ferrarri owners don't walk around sounding like cultists, and they don't falsely claim that the stuff they buy isn't overpriced. Until Apple owners can meet this reasonable standard, they will continue to get flamed.
Activation doesn't require any personal details.
They are by far the best devices out there.
Someone mod this man funny!
Invariably people who compain about the price are peopl that can't afford them.
I can afford them, I just choose not to pay for overpriced hardware made by a company which is such a control freak, they make Microsoft look like a cute fluffy bunny.
As to "vendor locked", that's freetard talk.
Yeah, cause it's such an idiotic thing to want to be able to run the apps you want on the iPhone, or to be able to run Apple's software on any hardware which has enough muscle for it.
When I want the inferior crap that is Mac OS...
Fixed that for you.
...until then realise that it's only your preference, not a universal truth.
Well, most of us do realize that. I suggest you take your own advice, fanboy.
I've even gotten into discussions with people who insisted that everyone on board Federation ships were officers, which to anyone who has ever served in the military knows is absurd...
No it isn't. How things work in real life has no bearing on how things work in a fictional universe. More to the point, you were discussing how things are in the fictional universe (where details have been provided for you by the creators), not how you think they would be (the land of speculation). If there hadn't been enlisted personnel shown at various points in the series, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that only commissioned officers are on those ships.
Yes, Scotty did wear a red shirt. And Spock and McCoy both wore blue because they were both science officers. The system was red for security/engineering, blue for science, yellow for command. For whatever reason, they flipped yellow and red around starting with TNG, but the system is still the same otherwise.
Hold pirates like precious and fragile flowers in your hand, because their lukewarm interest is the last dying ember between you and the chill of oblivion. It's been a while since any game has captured my interest enough to pirate, much less buy; and your development costs can only ever rise, thanks to the advancing state of the art 3D graphics you use to sell the same crap again and again.
For this to be true, cynicism towards the games of today would have to be the norm, not the exception. You are the exception: most people enjoy the games that are being made now. While it's your right to not like the games, you shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that developers will respond as if you are the average gamer.
You can pick bad dialogue out of any Star Wars movie. The classic example is Han and Leia's exchange towards the end of Empire Strikes Back. "I know" as a response to a declaration of love is every bit as bad as "You're breaking my heart!". Sorry, but EpIII did not earn its reputation. Fans who put the originals on too high a pedestal gave the movie its reputation, not the quality of the movie itself.
I never said there was good dialogue, to be fair. I also wouldn't say any of the Star Wars flicks have had particularly good dialogue, so that isn't a crime I would hold against that movie in particular.
Uh, I watched it, and it was easily the worst of the original trilogy. Better than Episode I, but that's about it.
No, we aren't. Sorry if you don't agree, but I quite enjoyed his newer work, as well as his older. Hell, Episode 3 was the crowning achievement in the Star Wars saga, what with having an actual interesting plot and all.
I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with everyone telling you the new one was crap. While it wasn't as good as, say, Raiders of the Lost Ark or Last Crusade, I'd definitely say it was better than Temple of Doom. Quite frankly, there's no legitimate reason I've seen that anyone has to complain about it. Yes, the plot/physics is nonsensical. So what? They've always been that way for this series.
Dunno if Shia LaBeouf would make an adequate replacement for Ford, though. He does ok in the new movie, but it wouldn't be the same.
We're not talking about someone exploiting one thing for their entire lives, though. We're talking about one work which was wildly successful, such that if even if it were in the public domain today, JK Rowling wouldn't have to worry about money again (if she's smart with her money). That isn't an argument against copyright at all, it's merely recognizing her success.
They don't have a right to make a livelihood in what they do. They do have a right to attempt to do it without your interference. You have no right to that artist's work except under the terms they choose to make it available, and if you don't like their terms, but take their work anyway... that's tantamount to forced labor.
That is perfectly debateable. I always have maintained that copying someone's work that is their livelihood is every bit as immoral as stealing a physical widget that is someone's livelihood. Just because you say copying isn't immoral, doesn't make it morally acceptable to a wider audience than just yourself.
Intermediates like Rowling (and sorry, but no she's not as good as people gushing over her like to think) do the opposite: they just cut off and sit back on the eternal "it's copyrighted forever" bandwagon.
a) She's just fine, you just don't like her work.
b) Pretty sure she's made enough money off the Harry Potter books at this point that, even if another copy never got sold, she wouldn't have to work any more.
I didn't know that the airlines had hired away the managers of the major record labels. Did you guys hear about that?
And what if the war is justified, even if it isn't defensive? If one country is beating the other up just for the hell of it, I'd say that stopping that from happening is justifiable, even though it isn't a defensive war, and the aggressive nation's civilians might get hurt in the process.
Sweeping generalizations don't usually work when it comes to deciding the morality of acts.
Are you seriously saying that anyone who goes to war, ever, should end up before a war crimes tribunal? Cause that's what would happen if you prosecuted leaders whose militaries accidentally killed civilians in time of war. People are going to die in war. Even civilians. This is a fact of life, get over it.
I'm not saying the war was justified, but that's not the issue you brought forth. You said Bush should be tried for war crimes because civilians were accidentally killed during his war, which is fucking ridiculous.
And I'm pretty sure we still have some disparities between sexes and races here too.
There's a big difference between private parties being racist/sexist dickheads, and the government being racist/sexist dickheads.
Didn't play ball? I'd say. They harbored Osama Bin Laden. You remember him, right? The guy that planned and ordered the deaths of 3000+ Americans in the largest attack on American soil? Am I ringing a bell here?
So, any time a country refuses to extradite a criminal, military action is the answer? That seems a bit extreme to me.
I agree that helpdesk is part of IT, but if you're doing helpdesk+desktop support+server admin, you aren't just helpdesk any more. The job description may say you are, but that means jack. I mean what your job really IS, not what some guy in HR says it is.
Then they weren't helpdesk jobs, were they? If you wear all of the hats, you don't say that you're $hat, and ignore all the other hats you wear.