That only takes care of one of a bunch of applications. Sometimes its just easier to have everything all the same way as opposed to having one being treated differently then the others. Please keep in mind, more than just IE is being discussed here.
DRM is *not* removed. Digital Downloads generally come with more DRM than physical media. The US may be faced with pay-per-byte broadband (its already been in testing in Texas). If the ISPs see so many people will increase how much they download, they'll take advantage of that. If the US doesn't go unlimited, game makers will still release physical media. Same with movies. Soon there will be an effective "tax" to download that $10 movie because you'll have to pay the ISP and that could effectively be upwards of 2 to 3 bucks for a high quality movie. That's approaching the cost of DVDs and that comes with portability, which can be a big deal for some people. Its still a deal breaker for me.
I don't recall it ever being proven that a perfect beat makes music boring. There are plenty of musicians, especially in the industrial rock, electronica, and dance genres that have perfect beats and there are plenty of fans to attest to it not being boring. It may or may not be your cup of tea, but I highly doubt its proven that its boring. Even dance music I don't like, I'll find my head bopping to it just because the music's beat grabs you.
Personally I'm a huge fan of Trent Reznor and I doubt you'll be able to find a music critic to say that his use of synths makes his music boring.
Sometimes that perfection is a part of the song, not just the producer being a perfectionist. And that imperfection can be done on purpose as well. The artist's vision can go beyond the notes that get played, but how they're played, who plays them, or if they're even played by humans to begin with.
I partly disagree. I disagree when folks use technology to try and make it sound perfect because they don't want mistakes in their songs. However, I have no problem if they use technology to make it sound perfect because that perfection is part of the art. For instance, Trent Reznor has used synths and what not and he's even said in interviews about how he likes the juxtaposition of (in this case, on the album The Fragile) the imperfect nature of playing string instruments up against the perfect sound of synths.
Like someone said in an earlier post, as long as it improves upon the artistic vision of the artist, there's nothing wrong with that. Its when business decisions lead to the use of technology and what not that the real reason for music tends to be lost.
To be fair, the 360 was priced about $100 cheaper when it first came out as well. The 360 is only now coming in under the $300 and its for a stripped down console. So, they both came out at similarly high prices, the 360 just fell faster due to A) being the only nextgen on the market for awhile, and B) hitting critical mass due to that advantage (and all the other advantages that came with it like developers, etc.).
So the whole over-priced argument applies to the 360 as well. They just corrected it faster, but you lost a lot more value in it though. The ps3 is still worth every dollar, its just expensive.
Ummm... people have formed relationships in online games, no? I find it odd that you don't see the point in stating it. Most people don't state hetero because they don't need to. Unless otherwise stated, people will assume someone else is heterosexual. So, yes, heterosexual people don't "flaunt" it as it were, but then again, by not saying their homosexual, they're effectively saying their hetero.
Umm, isn't that kinda contradictory? They use the "online experience may change" thing to cover their ass due to ratings issues... so why do they have to ban this woman? That defeats the entire purpose that you set forth.
If that was in the actual profile, she wouldn't have been banned for stating her sexual orientation. Microsoft would have said she was banned for other comments. They have come out and said she was banned for stating her sexual orientation NOT for being offensive or using offensive language which is extremely clear in their TOS, so if they wanted a non-controversial way to ban her, they'd use that.
Common sense dude. Why assume something else was done when if that was indeed true, events would have transpired in a completely different manner.
I know. I don't want them to get into the phone market. When details were coming out that they were making some handheld device, I was really hoping it'd be a handheld gaming system to correspond with xbox. Imagine being able to hook that up to XBox Live Arcade? A lot of those games could easily transfer to a portable gaming system.
The iPod dock connector can't carry more than just USB at once. It can carry USB *or* Firewire. But it doesn't do both simultaneously. The purpose of the connector is so it doesn't need two separate ports... one for firewire, one for USB. I don't think USB and Firewire ports are interchangeable, but I could be mistaken. In all honesty, Apple should just drop Firewire support for iPods and iPhones since they really don't need it.
So we should be allowed to force companies to sell products that they don't want to sell? Its their choice to sell what they want to sell. I don't care if they have a government-defined monopoly. There's way too many opportunities to switch to another OS. If MS is pissing you off, go for a Linux or go for a Mac (though I'd rather you didn't).
MS said well in advance they'd stop selling XP. You have no right to complain that you can't buy it after that point in time. She could have purchased a laptop with Ubuntu and purchased her own copy of XP from newegg or something. She was in no way coerced to do anything.
I use Windows and Ubuntu. I have my issues with MS and I want to try out a Mac, but the cost of entry is too high to justify buying one just for fun. No one is forced or coerced to buy any OS. If they don't know any better than they should try educating themselves about it. Ignorance is NOT a defense.
I didn't imply that windows 7 was technically what vista should have been. I'm using the term "should" as in, "Oh man, they should have released this instead of Vista." I never said Windows 7 is what Longhorn promised us. I didn't make any implications as such and therefore you shouldn't have inferred that much.
Casual piracy is probably almost nonexistent. If a person can do a google search they can figure it out. The pool of people that DRM stops is getting smaller and smaller. The amount of piracy it stops is negligible. The general populace that plays computer games is becoming more and more knowledgeable about this kind of stuff.
People demonstrated that they wouldn't put up with it. This is true. However, MS has responded and Vista (while maybe not worthy of an upgrade) is definitely a decent OS at this point. At least for the average (and even some above average) users. Also, Windows 7 really is what Vista should have been and if 7 (assuming they don't screw it up) had been released instead of Vista, people would have upgraded. I know I'm definitely getting to like 7. If all of my software works on 7, I'm definitely going to consider upgrading my main PC when 7 is released (again, assuming they don't screw it up before then).
He's not buying from Steam though. Steam has now lost a customer. If enough people refuse to buy from Steam, eventually game developers will notice the trend.
How is it not? DRM inherently attacks consumers and does absolutely ZERO to thwart piracy. Show me one game where DRM has been successful. Spore was the number one pirated game AND the number one selling game. Explain to me what the purpose of DRM was for that game.
DRM is ridiculous. Anybody who tries to justify it has a screw lose.
I had no problems installing Chrome on the 7000 build. I installed it almost immediately just because I've come to like the interface, not that I had a problem with IE8. Maybe I'll give IE8 another go.
The statement never said Vista makes your computer run faster. It says that Windows 7 will do the same stuff as Vista, but run faster and use fewer resources. So they're saying computers with Windows 7 will run faster than computers with Vista. And honestly, Windows 7 is pretty damn sweet in my opinion. I have it running on a couple year old computer and its running the way I'd expect a new computer to run. I honestly think Microsoft will release an OS that will give people a reason to upgrade their old computers... assuming they don't screw it up by release time of course (which is quite possible).
I heard the exact opposite. I'll look for an article, but it said that people *weren't* buying the un-bundled version, mainly because they were the same price.
Slashdot Mirror
That only takes care of one of a bunch of applications. Sometimes its just easier to have everything all the same way as opposed to having one being treated differently then the others. Please keep in mind, more than just IE is being discussed here.
When you can play those games you bought off Steam AFTER uninstalling Steam, let me know.
Steam *is* DRM.
DRM is *not* removed. Digital Downloads generally come with more DRM than physical media. The US may be faced with pay-per-byte broadband (its already been in testing in Texas). If the ISPs see so many people will increase how much they download, they'll take advantage of that. If the US doesn't go unlimited, game makers will still release physical media. Same with movies. Soon there will be an effective "tax" to download that $10 movie because you'll have to pay the ISP and that could effectively be upwards of 2 to 3 bucks for a high quality movie. That's approaching the cost of DVDs and that comes with portability, which can be a big deal for some people. Its still a deal breaker for me.
I don't recall it ever being proven that a perfect beat makes music boring. There are plenty of musicians, especially in the industrial rock, electronica, and dance genres that have perfect beats and there are plenty of fans to attest to it not being boring. It may or may not be your cup of tea, but I highly doubt its proven that its boring. Even dance music I don't like, I'll find my head bopping to it just because the music's beat grabs you.
Personally I'm a huge fan of Trent Reznor and I doubt you'll be able to find a music critic to say that his use of synths makes his music boring.
Sometimes that perfection is a part of the song, not just the producer being a perfectionist. And that imperfection can be done on purpose as well. The artist's vision can go beyond the notes that get played, but how they're played, who plays them, or if they're even played by humans to begin with.
I partly disagree. I disagree when folks use technology to try and make it sound perfect because they don't want mistakes in their songs. However, I have no problem if they use technology to make it sound perfect because that perfection is part of the art. For instance, Trent Reznor has used synths and what not and he's even said in interviews about how he likes the juxtaposition of (in this case, on the album The Fragile) the imperfect nature of playing string instruments up against the perfect sound of synths.
Like someone said in an earlier post, as long as it improves upon the artistic vision of the artist, there's nothing wrong with that. Its when business decisions lead to the use of technology and what not that the real reason for music tends to be lost.
To be fair, the 360 was priced about $100 cheaper when it first came out as well. The 360 is only now coming in under the $300 and its for a stripped down console. So, they both came out at similarly high prices, the 360 just fell faster due to A) being the only nextgen on the market for awhile, and B) hitting critical mass due to that advantage (and all the other advantages that came with it like developers, etc.).
So the whole over-priced argument applies to the 360 as well. They just corrected it faster, but you lost a lot more value in it though. The ps3 is still worth every dollar, its just expensive.
What does settled in principle mean?
Ummm... people have formed relationships in online games, no? I find it odd that you don't see the point in stating it. Most people don't state hetero because they don't need to. Unless otherwise stated, people will assume someone else is heterosexual. So, yes, heterosexual people don't "flaunt" it as it were, but then again, by not saying their homosexual, they're effectively saying their hetero.
Umm, isn't that kinda contradictory? They use the "online experience may change" thing to cover their ass due to ratings issues... so why do they have to ban this woman? That defeats the entire purpose that you set forth.
If that was in the actual profile, she wouldn't have been banned for stating her sexual orientation. Microsoft would have said she was banned for other comments. They have come out and said she was banned for stating her sexual orientation NOT for being offensive or using offensive language which is extremely clear in their TOS, so if they wanted a non-controversial way to ban her, they'd use that.
Common sense dude. Why assume something else was done when if that was indeed true, events would have transpired in a completely different manner.
I see what you did there.
I know. I don't want them to get into the phone market. When details were coming out that they were making some handheld device, I was really hoping it'd be a handheld gaming system to correspond with xbox. Imagine being able to hook that up to XBox Live Arcade? A lot of those games could easily transfer to a portable gaming system.
The iPod dock connector can't carry more than just USB at once. It can carry USB *or* Firewire. But it doesn't do both simultaneously. The purpose of the connector is so it doesn't need two separate ports... one for firewire, one for USB. I don't think USB and Firewire ports are interchangeable, but I could be mistaken. In all honesty, Apple should just drop Firewire support for iPods and iPhones since they really don't need it.
So we should be allowed to force companies to sell products that they don't want to sell? Its their choice to sell what they want to sell. I don't care if they have a government-defined monopoly. There's way too many opportunities to switch to another OS. If MS is pissing you off, go for a Linux or go for a Mac (though I'd rather you didn't).
MS said well in advance they'd stop selling XP. You have no right to complain that you can't buy it after that point in time. She could have purchased a laptop with Ubuntu and purchased her own copy of XP from newegg or something. She was in no way coerced to do anything.
I use Windows and Ubuntu. I have my issues with MS and I want to try out a Mac, but the cost of entry is too high to justify buying one just for fun. No one is forced or coerced to buy any OS. If they don't know any better than they should try educating themselves about it. Ignorance is NOT a defense.
I didn't imply that windows 7 was technically what vista should have been. I'm using the term "should" as in, "Oh man, they should have released this instead of Vista." I never said Windows 7 is what Longhorn promised us. I didn't make any implications as such and therefore you shouldn't have inferred that much.
Considering this new bill says they aren't forcing any of them to keep analog, I don't see this being an issue.
Casual piracy is probably almost nonexistent. If a person can do a google search they can figure it out. The pool of people that DRM stops is getting smaller and smaller. The amount of piracy it stops is negligible. The general populace that plays computer games is becoming more and more knowledgeable about this kind of stuff.
People demonstrated that they wouldn't put up with it. This is true. However, MS has responded and Vista (while maybe not worthy of an upgrade) is definitely a decent OS at this point. At least for the average (and even some above average) users. Also, Windows 7 really is what Vista should have been and if 7 (assuming they don't screw it up) had been released instead of Vista, people would have upgraded. I know I'm definitely getting to like 7. If all of my software works on 7, I'm definitely going to consider upgrading my main PC when 7 is released (again, assuming they don't screw it up before then).
...they're just trying to figure out who is using a pirated game. If you're still playing... you must be a criminal.
He's not buying from Steam though. Steam has now lost a customer. If enough people refuse to buy from Steam, eventually game developers will notice the trend.
How is it not? DRM inherently attacks consumers and does absolutely ZERO to thwart piracy. Show me one game where DRM has been successful. Spore was the number one pirated game AND the number one selling game. Explain to me what the purpose of DRM was for that game.
DRM is ridiculous. Anybody who tries to justify it has a screw lose.
I had no problems installing Chrome on the 7000 build. I installed it almost immediately just because I've come to like the interface, not that I had a problem with IE8. Maybe I'll give IE8 another go.
The statement never said Vista makes your computer run faster. It says that Windows 7 will do the same stuff as Vista, but run faster and use fewer resources. So they're saying computers with Windows 7 will run faster than computers with Vista. And honestly, Windows 7 is pretty damn sweet in my opinion. I have it running on a couple year old computer and its running the way I'd expect a new computer to run. I honestly think Microsoft will release an OS that will give people a reason to upgrade their old computers... assuming they don't screw it up by release time of course (which is quite possible).
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/19/0744250
I heard the exact opposite. I'll look for an article, but it said that people *weren't* buying the un-bundled version, mainly because they were the same price.