I find it amusing when people say cahrging for Gold is stupid. Xbox is the clear front-runner in America and competitive in Europe, the only place where Playstation has a clear lead is Japan and I doubt anyone seriosuly thinks that Xbox was going to win Japan this generation.
Xbox has kept pace with PS3 while charging for Gold, ditching Gold would probably only bring a small number of people over while reducing income to a significant degree, how is that stupid?
You can certainly argue that it's stupid to PAY for that, but it's retarded to say that it's stupid for them to charge it.
Xbox Live started in the first Xbox when it's competition was almost non-existant for consoles (PS2 had some network capability but vastly less than Xbox). XBL is generally seen as a superior online experience to PSN from what I've seen. The 360 launched before the PS3 by about a year, so if you wanted next-gen graphics you had to get a 360, also the 360 had more next-gen games by the time the PS3 launched than were available on the PS3. Computers are too difficult and expensive for many people.
If the PS3 had launched at the same time as the 360 it would probably be neck-and-neck. But they didn't (of course if the 360 hadn't had the RRoD issue then PS3 probably wouldn't even be a contender).
Disclosure: My primary gaming platform is the PC, secondary is 360. I play almost no multiplayer.
Of those, how many actually get read?
We have 3 or 4 where I live, no one's touched them for probably close to a decade. The only time we touched them then saw for the comics that one of them had inserted into them.
I'll bet you that there was more man-hours put into reading Harry Potter than the Bible in the US in 2005
To be fair they avoided using evolution in the quoted segment. There IS a great deal of question as to how life came about, we have plausible hypotheses (sp?) such as the Miller-Urey experiments, but no definitive proof of how life originated.
Of course you and I both know that the the PLAN is to use that to teach Creationism in place of Evilution, but that's not what they are saying in that section.
Am I the only person who noticed that he's angry that liberals are banning "catastrophic insurance plans"? I mean, why would that be a bad thing?
Also, I don't remember us starting wars in any of those countries. We've PARTICIPATED in the war in Libya, but that was to make sure that Ghaddafi was removed per the people of Libya's wishes. I'm not aware of us having any involvement in Yemen or Syria other than strongly worded resolutions condemning the murder of civilians. I suppose that Conservatives are pro-murdering-civilians then?
So everyone should live in a gated community no matter whether they have a PhD or just a HS diplomma? Is that what you're saying?
Nice strawman
What he's saying is simple, there are different costs of living in different areas. He's not talking about gated communities, he's talking about the difference in rent for a tiny apartment, the difference in price for food in different areas. A living wage in one area is a ticket to Welfare in another, simply based off of differences in prices.
I like how the article pointlessly mentions that Jobs used LSD, I didn't like the guy but there's no reason to toss comments like that out in an article where they make no difference
Also, this sounds like "embrace, extend, extinguish" to anyone else?
>Smartphones are only for people who feel the need to install 1000+ apps
Yeah, no. My smartphone isn't a replacement for my computer, it's a cut-down computer that I use for things I want available on the go. I don't need an app for everything I could think of and the apps I use on a regular basis fit on the first screen of my Android, I suspect taht this is the case for the majority of people.br>
The way YOU use a smartphone != the way everyone SHOULD use a smartphone
You know that anti-aliasing is just the simulation of a higher resolution using subpixels right?
Which is FAR less power intensive than actually rendering at a higher resolution.
That's what your'e missing out on by not having a 3840x2160 resolution screen right now with your current 2x anti-aliasing. (more for 4x, etc.)
You know what else I'm missing out on? Having to have a GTX 580 to get playable framerates. Just wait till the next-gen consoles come out as well, then playing games at 3840x2160 will require a 690.
While these will be very expensive at first, they will be heavily pushed as the next big thing
So was 3D, I suspect the new standard will fail. Most people won't see the difference, the screens will be very expensive and with the switch to streaming the bandwidth requirements will be sky-high and unusable for many people.
Not me. I'd rather have current resolution and anti-aliasing than a slightly higher resolution. Also I like not needing to have Quad-SLI to run last-gen games at low settings.
I'm currently running a 19" monitor at 1440x900, when the next-gen graphics cards come out I'll probably upgrade to 1920x1200 (or 1080 if I have to) in the 20-22" range, and that will be good enough for me.
Slashdot Mirror
But...those things would require work.
I find it amusing when people say cahrging for Gold is stupid. Xbox is the clear front-runner in America and competitive in Europe, the only place where Playstation has a clear lead is Japan and I doubt anyone seriosuly thinks that Xbox was going to win Japan this generation.
Xbox has kept pace with PS3 while charging for Gold, ditching Gold would probably only bring a small number of people over while reducing income to a significant degree, how is that stupid?
You can certainly argue that it's stupid to PAY for that, but it's retarded to say that it's stupid for them to charge it.
$15 a month? You must not be in America then. Here it's $10 a month and pre-2010 it was $8
Xbox Live started in the first Xbox when it's competition was almost non-existant for consoles (PS2 had some network capability but vastly less than Xbox). XBL is generally seen as a superior online experience to PSN from what I've seen. The 360 launched before the PS3 by about a year, so if you wanted next-gen graphics you had to get a 360, also the 360 had more next-gen games by the time the PS3 launched than were available on the PS3. Computers are too difficult and expensive for many people. If the PS3 had launched at the same time as the 360 it would probably be neck-and-neck. But they didn't (of course if the 360 hadn't had the RRoD issue then PS3 probably wouldn't even be a contender). Disclosure: My primary gaming platform is the PC, secondary is 360. I play almost no multiplayer.
Or HD
Of those, how many actually get read? We have 3 or 4 where I live, no one's touched them for probably close to a decade. The only time we touched them then saw for the comics that one of them had inserted into them. I'll bet you that there was more man-hours put into reading Harry Potter than the Bible in the US in 2005
To be fair they avoided using evolution in the quoted segment. There IS a great deal of question as to how life came about, we have plausible hypotheses (sp?) such as the Miller-Urey experiments, but no definitive proof of how life originated.
Of course you and I both know that the the PLAN is to use that to teach Creationism in place of Evilution, but that's not what they are saying in that section.
Am I the only person who noticed that he's angry that liberals are banning "catastrophic insurance plans"? I mean, why would that be a bad thing? Also, I don't remember us starting wars in any of those countries. We've PARTICIPATED in the war in Libya, but that was to make sure that Ghaddafi was removed per the people of Libya's wishes. I'm not aware of us having any involvement in Yemen or Syria other than strongly worded resolutions condemning the murder of civilians. I suppose that Conservatives are pro-murdering-civilians then?
The problem is that the people who use Conservapedia believe it IS accurate and reliable.
So everyone should live in a gated community no matter whether they have a PhD or just a HS diplomma? Is that what you're saying?
Nice strawman
What he's saying is simple, there are different costs of living in different areas. He's not talking about gated communities, he's talking about the difference in rent for a tiny apartment, the difference in price for food in different areas. A living wage in one area is a ticket to Welfare in another, simply based off of differences in prices.
And yet somehow Australia manages to not be a economic shithole.
That upgrade is pretty much purely cosmetic.
It's too bad my points expired today, I'd +1 you.
I like how the article pointlessly mentions that Jobs used LSD, I didn't like the guy but there's no reason to toss comments like that out in an article where they make no difference
Also, this sounds like "embrace, extend, extinguish" to anyone else?
You're an idiot.
The Xbox brand has done pretty good and they started from scratch there.
Nothing, he's just trying desperately to have the last word when he's totally wrong and has no idea what he's talking about.
>Smartphones are only for people who feel the need to install 1000+ apps
Yeah, no. My smartphone isn't a replacement for my computer, it's a cut-down computer that I use for things I want available on the go. I don't need an app for everything I could think of and the apps I use on a regular basis fit on the first screen of my Android, I suspect taht this is the case for the majority of people.br>
The way YOU use a smartphone != the way everyone SHOULD use a smartphone
-1 Funny 7/10, would laugh again
a ham sandwich can play PC games @ 1440 x 900 @ low settings.
Indeed, what's your point?
my under-$200 GPU plays games @ 2304 x 1440 @ high / max settings + buttloads of AA.
What games? A 6870 won't play Metro 2033 at those setting playably according to Toms.
You know that anti-aliasing is just the simulation of a higher resolution using subpixels right?
Which is FAR less power intensive than actually rendering at a higher resolution.
That's what your'e missing out on by not having a 3840x2160 resolution screen right now with your current 2x anti-aliasing. (more for 4x, etc.)
You know what else I'm missing out on? Having to have a GTX 580 to get playable framerates. Just wait till the next-gen consoles come out as well, then playing games at 3840x2160 will require a 690.
I wouldn't mind having a CRT if I had a larger desk. There are definitely nice things about them. However pure digital video is nice too.
While these will be very expensive at first, they will be heavily pushed as the next big thing
So was 3D, I suspect the new standard will fail. Most people won't see the difference, the screens will be very expensive and with the switch to streaming the bandwidth requirements will be sky-high and unusable for many people.
Not me. I'd rather have current resolution and anti-aliasing than a slightly higher resolution. Also I like not needing to have Quad-SLI to run last-gen games at low settings.
I'm currently running a 19" monitor at 1440x900, when the next-gen graphics cards come out I'll probably upgrade to 1920x1200 (or 1080 if I have to) in the 20-22" range, and that will be good enough for me.
1. It's a lot more expensive 2. The vast majority of people won't notice, at all.