You can't get any easier than the Harmony remotes. I bought one for my dad. I set up a bunch of actions.
Watch TV. Watch DVD. Watch VCR. Etc.
I spent hours manually tweaking the timing to be long enough to handle the delay in input switching on their TV, while being fast enough to feel responsive and avoid the "...is it working? is it done?" hassles.
The remote is covered in dust, and he uses the 4 separate remotes he has for the TV, satellite box, dvd player, and vcr.
I played on hard (not the one you unlock after beating the game) and had no problems with it.
This goes hand-in-hand with my previous post: A lot of people are simply unable (or unwilling) to adapt to a different control scheme, even when that control scheme is perfectly fine.
One question though: Did you play at a widescreen resolution? I set my brother up with Dead Space after I went through it, and it was much more difficult (and much less impressive) on a non-widescreen monitor.
There it is folks: Free will always results in throwing your hands up and saying "fuck it". When is the government going to ban free will? Won't somebody please think of the children?
Dead Space is awesome. It's the best game in a long time.
There was nothing wrong with the asteroid sequence, either.
Likewise, there is nothing wrong with the RE5 controls. There was nothing wrong with RE4 controls, and there was nothing wrong with the controls in the other RE games. The issue is that people want the game to control like a typical action game, or even a shooter. What people don't realize is that RE isn't about run and gun. It's about running.
Classic RE games (which I sorely miss), are ALL about running. If you take out every zombie or monster in your way, you'll be out of ammo pretty quickly. The gameplay was about solving puzzles, and staying alive. Running through the mansion/police department/etc., your strategy should be to explore first, and confront last.
People bitch about the controls in these games too - being one of the earlier 3D franchises, the use of relative controls disoriented a hell of a lot of people. People didn't understand that UP on the controller meant forward, not UP on the screen. The games HAD to be designed this way since they used fixed camera angles (due to the use of pre-rendered environments). Imagine running from an enemy down a long hallway by holding down on the controller. When you get to the point where the camera angle changes, holding down would no longer keep you moving in the same direction (in many cases, it would turn you around and send you running into the monster!). Relative controls meant that players were able to hold one direction and run through the hallway across multiple camera angle changes. Relative controls also made manual aiming without a crosshair, over the shoulder view, or even first-person view, much more viable.
The only legitimate gripe about the controls is the slow rate of turn. Without an analog controller (since it was not the default on the PlayStation), a decision about turn speed had to be made. The issue is MINOR, at best.
For the action RE games (4 and 5), the control was built around single-analog movement. This meant one stick was used for forward+back as well as turning. (Yes, RE 5 is basically RE 4 HD.)
The complaints about the controls in RE 4 and 5 almost invariably come for people who want a pure action game. Ever fire a gun while running? Doesn't really work so well. Even a slow walk make it about a million times more difficult.
I can understand wanting a faster turn rate while standing still (and not aiming). While aiming, the turn rate is fine. I personally play with it set to "faster" (there is one above it, "fastest") and have no problems on the hardest difficulty. This isn't Quake.
I can understand wanting to walk while aiming, but being required to stop to shoot (like Dead Space). However, I think this would make the game too easy. In order to keep the difficulty up, we'd see more enemies, faster enemies, and, as a result, more shooting and more ammo. This would push RE games even further away from survival horror. No thanks.
The official reason (for most pious Americans), is that suicide, or otherwise giving up on life, is a sin. They believe life is not just worth fighting for, but that NOT fighting for it is an affront to their creator.
The real reason, of course, is that they are scared shitless of death, as are most people, as well as the afterlife.
Lots of far reaching arms? Vicious suckers to suck life from it's prey? Able to change its colors to match the current environment, while still being the same beast? Spraying ink everywhere when challenged?
Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of government?
It's because they can. There is absolutely no legal or accounting reason they have to charge for anything. Anything any Apple employee says to the contrary is a bald-faced lie. Plenty of other companies give out free support, upgrades, and content for hardware and software.
The issue is Apple doesn't want to report the costs for the development and support of updates in their reports, so they act as if they'll never happen.
When demand reaches a point (WHERE THE FUCK IS MMS OR COPY AND PASTE?!) they can no longer ignore, they crank out the update and offset the cost by selling it. This pleases investors (and thereby keeps regulators off their backs), who would otherwise say "But you said costs were $X, and we launched last year! What the fuck is this new cost for?"
As to why iPhone users get it free and Touch users have to pay, I suspect that carriers are eating the cost (at a much-reduced rate).
Apple could easily report costs as $X, with an estimated $Y per year for continued support and development, for Z years. Apple does not like to do things this way because they prefer to hide the cost (and then recoup them by selling the update). Apple also likes to be secretive. If you saw a report stating that the iPhone support costs are $Y per year for Z years, you could figure out that Z-1 years from now we'll be seeing the next iPhone hardware. And as we all know, Apple likes to keep new products under wraps for as long as possible, so people keep buying the old one up until very the day of the conference, when they all run out and buy the new one.
The basic issue is that they want $. They could easily post estimates for continued support and development.
There is N O T H I N G in the legal or accounting realm that prevents this. If this were the case, there would be no free support or added content for other hardware, software, etc. The fact is, there's TONS of it, from companies who don't treat their customers as bottomless teats.
You continue to fail. The entire point is that Bose is not alone, and is by far not the worst, when it comes to shamelessly hocking crap at exorbitant prices.
The difference between Bose and other companies is that audiophiles have latched onto certain brand names.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt it, especially from women.
The second sledgehammer reference for this article.
Holy crap.
And what do you do when the factory-shipped ROMs are tainted?
WinFLASH.
MSI (among others) uses it.
Go read the source code and find out.
The number of slashdot users who own a sledgehammer makes your story incredibly unlikely.
Buy a Dell / an Intel motherboard.
Install the shitty Intel thing that no one installs.
Intel has been pushing their out-of-band management shit for ages. Now, it may finally have a use (until it is exploited as well).
You can't get any easier than the Harmony remotes.
I bought one for my dad.
I set up a bunch of actions.
Watch TV.
Watch DVD.
Watch VCR.
Etc.
I spent hours manually tweaking the timing to be long enough to handle the delay in input switching on their TV, while being fast enough to feel responsive and avoid the "...is it working? is it done?" hassles.
The remote is covered in dust, and he uses the 4 separate remotes he has for the TV, satellite box, dvd player, and vcr.
I played on hard (not the one you unlock after beating the game) and had no problems with it.
This goes hand-in-hand with my previous post:
A lot of people are simply unable (or unwilling) to adapt to a different control scheme, even when that control scheme is perfectly fine.
One question though: Did you play at a widescreen resolution? I set my brother up with Dead Space after I went through it, and it was much more difficult (and much less impressive) on a non-widescreen monitor.
Holy shit can't believe you got modded troll.
There it is folks:
Free will always results in throwing your hands up and saying "fuck it".
When is the government going to ban free will?
Won't somebody please think of the children?
"Why study distant galaxies if we can never interact with them?"
Because we have no free will, duh.
Well obviously we're just tracking backwards at the tick rate of the universe, until we reach the simulation seed state at T0.
Much of quantum mechanics APPEARS to run on probability.
Just as much of much appeared to run on such in the past.
-1: Retarded.
Dead Space is awesome.
It's the best game in a long time.
There was nothing wrong with the asteroid sequence, either.
Likewise, there is nothing wrong with the RE5 controls. There was nothing wrong with RE4 controls, and there was nothing wrong with the controls in the other RE games. The issue is that people want the game to control like a typical action game, or even a shooter. What people don't realize is that RE isn't about run and gun. It's about running.
Classic RE games (which I sorely miss), are ALL about running. If you take out every zombie or monster in your way, you'll be out of ammo pretty quickly. The gameplay was about solving puzzles, and staying alive. Running through the mansion/police department/etc., your strategy should be to explore first, and confront last.
People bitch about the controls in these games too - being one of the earlier 3D franchises, the use of relative controls disoriented a hell of a lot of people. People didn't understand that UP on the controller meant forward, not UP on the screen. The games HAD to be designed this way since they used fixed camera angles (due to the use of pre-rendered environments). Imagine running from an enemy down a long hallway by holding down on the controller. When you get to the point where the camera angle changes, holding down would no longer keep you moving in the same direction (in many cases, it would turn you around and send you running into the monster!). Relative controls meant that players were able to hold one direction and run through the hallway across multiple camera angle changes. Relative controls also made manual aiming without a crosshair, over the shoulder view, or even first-person view, much more viable.
The only legitimate gripe about the controls is the slow rate of turn. Without an analog controller (since it was not the default on the PlayStation), a decision about turn speed had to be made. The issue is MINOR, at best.
For the action RE games (4 and 5), the control was built around single-analog movement. This meant one stick was used for forward+back as well as turning. (Yes, RE 5 is basically RE 4 HD.)
The complaints about the controls in RE 4 and 5 almost invariably come for people who want a pure action game. Ever fire a gun while running? Doesn't really work so well. Even a slow walk make it about a million times more difficult.
I can understand wanting a faster turn rate while standing still (and not aiming). While aiming, the turn rate is fine. I personally play with it set to "faster" (there is one above it, "fastest") and have no problems on the hardest difficulty. This isn't Quake.
I can understand wanting to walk while aiming, but being required to stop to shoot (like Dead Space). However, I think this would make the game too easy. In order to keep the difficulty up, we'd see more enemies, faster enemies, and, as a result, more shooting and more ammo. This would push RE games even further away from survival horror. No thanks.
Whatever happened to predictability?
The milkman, the paperboy, and late night tv?
The official reason (for most pious Americans), is that suicide, or otherwise giving up on life, is a sin. They believe life is not just worth fighting for, but that NOT fighting for it is an affront to their creator.
The real reason, of course, is that they are scared shitless of death, as are most people, as well as the afterlife.
Go read the actual act.
Come back.
Explain why Apple CAN'T give updates for free.
Explain why other companies CAN.
The truth is as I stated.
Apple does not want to show estimated costs for continued development and support.
Lots of far reaching arms?
Vicious suckers to suck life from it's prey?
Able to change its colors to match the current environment, while still being the same beast?
Spraying ink everywhere when challenged?
Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of government?
They can estimate expenses for continued support and development.
They choose not to, however, because they want to hide the expense (and hope to later recoup it by selling the updates).
It's all bullshit, and it's all typical Apple.
They bill the touch as a one-off, so can't add new functionality without there being a representative charge.
HORSESHIT
This is 100% false.
It's because they can.
There is absolutely no legal or accounting reason they have to charge for anything. Anything any Apple employee says to the contrary is a bald-faced lie.
Plenty of other companies give out free support, upgrades, and content for hardware and software.
The issue is Apple doesn't want to report the costs for the development and support of updates in their reports, so they act as if they'll never happen.
When demand reaches a point (WHERE THE FUCK IS MMS OR COPY AND PASTE?!) they can no longer ignore, they crank out the update and offset the cost by selling it. This pleases investors (and thereby keeps regulators off their backs), who would otherwise say "But you said costs were $X, and we launched last year! What the fuck is this new cost for?"
As to why iPhone users get it free and Touch users have to pay, I suspect that carriers are eating the cost (at a much-reduced rate).
Apple could easily report costs as $X, with an estimated $Y per year for continued support and development, for Z years.
Apple does not like to do things this way because they prefer to hide the cost (and then recoup them by selling the update). Apple also likes to be secretive. If you saw a report stating that the iPhone support costs are $Y per year for Z years, you could figure out that Z-1 years from now we'll be seeing the next iPhone hardware. And as we all know, Apple likes to keep new products under wraps for as long as possible, so people keep buying the old one up until very the day of the conference, when they all run out and buy the new one.
That sir, is your answer.
The basic issue is that they want $.
They could easily post estimates for continued support and development.
There is N O T H I N G in the legal or accounting realm that prevents this. If this were the case, there would be no free support or added content for other hardware, software, etc. The fact is, there's TONS of it, from companies who don't treat their customers as bottomless teats.
You continue to fail.
The entire point is that Bose is not alone, and is by far not the worst, when it comes to shamelessly hocking crap at exorbitant prices.
The difference between Bose and other companies is that audiophiles have latched onto certain brand names.