Does Wine handle DirectX 10? No? Well that eliminates about 99% of PC gamers from switching
Does Windows XP handle DirectX 10? No? Well most of the PC gamers that I have met run XP as their primary system and hate Vista. Plus, most PC gamers are going to stick with Windows until all games become cross-platform, much as how an avid Halo player isn't going to sell a 360 to buy a Wii. But guess what? Most computer users aren't PC gamers, yes they may play PC games, but they aren't PC gamers.
Do all GPU vendors have OSS drivers? No? Well that eliminates about 99% of everyone else.
No, but with any remotely user friendly distro (such as Ubuntu) the non free drivers are trivial to install.
DVD playback? HAHAHAHA.
Takes 5 second to install. And comes included with just about any pre-installed distro.
Currently I have Slackware 12/XP Home both installed.
So wait. You have a distro with a reputation for being user unfriendly and trying to say that the average Joe is going to pick up Slackware and install it? Go back and try it with Ubuntu and you will find that all of your problems (minus PC gaming) are resolved. Slackware != the distro most users will use.
Wow, someone has never been around someone who doesn't know much about computers. With Windows users there are two modes, either paranoid as in "OMG!!!11! I can't go to Google!1!1! It will give my computer a virus!11!1!" or "My computer has *insert program here* installed so I can do whatever I feel like and never, ever, ever get a virus, ever". The real ideal solution would be to switch to a different OS, either Linux or OS X, but a lot of Windows users will only use Windows and refuse Linux even when it is easier to do most tasks than on Windows.
Its a risk you have to take if you are going to pirate something. And honestly, Ivan from Soviet Russia would have less need to root your box than say, Sony from Soviet America (yes, world headquarters are in Japan, but it was mostly American CDs). Honestly, I trust the "cloud" who might want to annoy me more than the corporation who tries to squeeze every cent out of me.
Or you know, Google just is like most of us and are tired of people just voting for a candidate based on the hype machine which is the media. Tired of people only going to vote for Obama because he is black and not Bush and tired of people voting for McCain because hes white and not Bush. Tired of the fact that most of the people who vote have no clue what the issues are, tired that the fate of entire industries are being determined with this election with no clue on what either candidate supports (for example, neither McCain nor Obama claim to support or deny software patents that are killing the US computer industry).
Sure, Google might be profiling you, but I think it is mostly that they are sick and tired of people voting with no clue who they are voting for.
This is only going to fuel the fire of stupidity in the USA. Just read their slogan
Knol Debates:
Listening to opinions, debating the facts
That isn't exactly how a debate should be run. It should be listening to facts and debating about opinions unfortunately, there lacks a good source to get facts, and even the presidential debates are more or less set up to keep us more in the dark.
Ideally, there should be a debate where individual citizens can stand up without pre-screened questions and ask the candidates anything pertaining to the election, but today with the news nothing more than glorified hype, that isn't going to happen.
Since when did one need a rationale for paying for things that cost money?
Ummm... Because I can buy all the games listed for about $5 on Ebay or pirate them all for free. If the money doesn't support the devs, why should I pay the new price for it when I can either buy it used or pirate the thing.
For any application A, Apple can prevent you from running A by not letting it be sold on iAppz. If you buy app A from gAppz, Google can delete it, but they can't prevent you from running it altogether since you can download it from my-gAppz.author-of-A.org.
Ok, lets say I pay $3 for a NES emulator for Android, Nintendo contacts Google and tells them they need to remotely disable it, so they do. The company that produced the emulator ends up bankrupt and so Google can't collect any money to give back to you. You just lost $3. In the Apple way (so far), you pay $3 for the NES emulator, Apple stops it from being on the app-store, but you still have on your iPhone.
I don't run IE6 anymore, but as I remember it ActiveX required permission to install something capable of malware. Firefox is extensible and lets you install malware capable software too.
Yes, but A) The active X thing only required a single click B) It was hard to determine what was legitimately needed and what wasn't C) Active X could basically screw with the entire OS. The worst thing that Firefox might do is totally trash Firefox. Nothing more, nothing less. Back in the days of IE 6, IE == Windows Explorer which in essence meant that the entire operating system was toast if IE got infected. Compare that with Firefox where you only need to uninstall it, and remove the Windows equivalent to the.mozilla directory and be malware free. Also, by default, Firefox will only download adons from Mozilla's domains, IE lets you install Active X from wherever.
Microsoft has been responsive when it comes to fixing security holes.
You're joking right? There are still bugs in IE that have been there for years, compare that to Firefox which has very quick releases that fix most bugs.
Riiiiight. Did you know that there is a place where almost all computers and devices are connected and can run absolutely anything? Its called the Internet, and I don't see the web randomly crashing all the time, the entire network thing is only a cell company excuse so they can control the network to make you pay more.
You could have installed something without remembering. You say you ran a virus check after restoration. Did you do a check before restoring to see what got you? Did you search the net to see what it was? Without details like that, your anecdote is meaningless when it comes to your assertion about the security of IE6.
Back then I only had like 5 programs on my computer. So, yes, I would have remembered if I had installed something. And yes, I checked before restoring and it was some random generic malware thing, I don't remember the name of it anymore.
There are, however, plenty of documented cases of malware on the net. Could you link to one that shows a fundamental design flaw of IE6 that isn't in Firefox, one that lets you "install all kinds of random crap that messes with settings and toolbars without prompts"?
And while this isn't 100% IE related, remember the Safari carpetbombing attack? http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2092 , it wasn't Apple's part that caused the flaw of automatically executing the files, it was MS's fault (yes Safari shares part of the blame)
That's a vague anecdote and could have been caused by any number of things.
Such as? I had the Windows firewall running, I have a firewall built into my router, I was running no other programs, Windows was kept up-to-date with patches, etc. So what else could it be? That the magical virus faerie came onto my computer and ran some.exe files?
What, exactly, are you talking about? When I ran IE6 I never had malware install itself. Most malware results from people explicitly installing stuff. The same thing could happen with Firefox.
Well, back when I still ran Windows XP (even fully patched) I ran into at least two instances when I was surfing using IE 6 and got random malware on my computer, one made popups happen all the time, and the other it put explicit icons on my desktop. In neither case did I have pre-existing malware, (confirmed by doing a virus check on the most recent backup which I restored to), nor did I run any binary by user interaction (such as clicking on a file).
* Viruses - THis is not a OS problem, its a user problem.
* Malware - Again not specific to Windows.
Oh, right. I forgot, your browser is clearly supposed to install all kinds of random crap that messes with settings and toolbars without prompts. Oh wait, other browsers don't do that? Other browsers prompt you before they do things like that? Yes, MS managed to fix a lot of that with IE7, but its still not an excuse for them doing that for the ~2-3 years of IE6.
* Applications - All the software in the world at a single spot. i.e. Google for applications. Who addresses commercial software? Who handles payments for this? Who will handle updates? Do users want to download Multi GB Games/Applications? Who pays for the massive bandwidth? What if you're not connected online,etc,etc. Again. Doesnt scale, buddy.
Lets see... On an average Windows install, the only software that isn't usually pirated, is made by Microsoft in the form of Office/Works/etc., An anti-virus/spyware application but the rest is all freeware/shareware/OSS. Most people's software is downloaded. You make a good point about games, but it honestly wouldn't be hard for a game maker to include a binary to run for Linux, same with commercial software. The thing is, boxed commercial software is a really, really, really small part of the average user's computer even on Windows. The "massive bandwidth" would be provided in the same way it always has, via mirrors and the official site. Today, most computers that are not in specialty use are connected online. If they aren't, it isn't that hard to go to a library or a friends house, or buy a CD with some.deb files in them, double click and type in your password.
Linux also has the advantage of customization. For example, its a pain to create a customized XP/Vista install disk, its trivial for someone to create a modified Ubuntu or other distro with the applications you need.
Yes, tons of window managers, but the average user only has to pick one of 2 (or three if you count in XFCE) but if you stick with all the apps with a G as the first letter you can be assured a standard UI if you are using Gnome, likewise if K is the first letter you can be assured that it uses a standard UI for KDE, compare that with MS who has tons of different icons, etc. for different products which are all in the same time frame and first-party applications, see http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/microsoft-learn-from-apple-II.media/vista.png for an example of what I'm talking about.
A) They cost a lot more in the short term than buying a new or used gas powered car
B) You can't go out to a dealership and buy one
C) The reliability just isn't there yet (and that could be said for any emerging technology)
The electric car would succeed if it was cheaper or just as cheap as a gas powered car (and no, in the current economic times, the fact that it might be cheaper 5-10 years from now, isn't going to persuade anyone to buy it). Or if you could walk into a dealership and most of the cars were electric and the stigma of it being unreliable were over.
Linux already is cheaper than any other OS out there, and is close to, or the most reliable OS (especially when compared to Vista). The problem is you can't walk into a store and get a computer with Linux on it, unless you want to go for a netbook. Once the last hurdle is crossed, you can say good bye to Windows.
The thing about the cloud is, it has more uptime than the average user can ever hope to have. For example, the average user makes no backups except perhaps on a yearly basis, even if one of Google's servers literally caught on fire, most of the data could easily be recovered. The average person doesn't have a RAID, so when one disk crashes the entire system crashes, and they don't have backups. Yes, for us geeks and our 1 TB external HDs, local fileservers, 8 GB flash drives and rsync we might be able to have marginally better uptime than the cloud, but honestly, the normal user is going to have better reliability with the cloud.
If you ask me, Windows 7 looks a lot like a response to Linux on the desktop. Now's the time for OSS developers to step up to plate and deliver a solution that will make Windows 7 look like child's play. I'm game.
Technologically, Linux and OS X are light years ahead of Windows, and will be by Windows 7. The problem is, some people will never use Linux unless it has a uniform UI (which, have you ever seen Windows?, Linux's UI is more uniform than even all of MS's products.) and other will not move to Linux unless *insert specialty application or game* is available on Linux. Still, the vast majority of users will use whatever is on their computer, be it Linux, Vista, XP, OS X, BSD, etc.
That is quite an important (and occasionally overlooked) point; the most dangerous people in the world are those with nothing left to lose.
But why are they poor? Surely it isn't because they force ~50% of the population (women) to wear veils in public, forbid them from having any rights, etc. All the the while "electing" and supporting violent leaders who do most of their crimes in the name of Islam. Nope, can't be any connection between poverty and Islam.
The Q'ran is no worse than the Bible, and Islam is no worse than Christianism. What matters, however, is what PEOPLE do with those directives. Demonizing a religion won't help with dealing with people.
But the point I was trying to get across was yes, the Bible does advocate Israel wiping some nations off of the face of the earth, however, those instructions were to be fulfilled thousands of years ago, not today. And books of the Bible accepted to be canon in most Christian faiths (Romans and other books and letters by Paul) state that the Old Testament is null and void while still saying that the moral part of it (such as the 10 commandments) are still valid points to live by. You won't see a Christian sacrificing a lamb for passover (and many cases you won't see a Jewish person do that either anymore) because most Christians believe that the Old Testament is not needed to be followed anymore. Find me a piece of Islamic canon that states that Jihad and destroying the non-Muslims are over and I will believe that they are equal, but as far as I know, Christianity has many references to the Old Testament law being unnecessary several times, but not any Islamic scripture.
As opposed to the Bible? Seriously, this line of argument is crap. "Evil is as Evil does", or something to that effect.
Give me a single line of the New Testament saying to go and kill people. Fact is, you really can't find them unless you somehow take various parables totally out of context, on the other hand we have Muslim passages such as:
(Sura 9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and fought jihad with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant."
(Sura 9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Yes, there are passages in the Old Testament that advocate the slaying of people, such as
"When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males.... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves." (Deuteronomy 20:13-14)
"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their women with child ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)
But most Christian scholars believe that those were instructions only for Isreal during that time unlike followers of Islam who believe that today we should still have Jihad
For example, take Romans, basically in there Paul is saying we don't have to follow the old testament anymore
Romans 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
No, what would be really great would be a browser with Flash. Yes, ad-block is great, but most modern OSes (and mobile ones if you hack them enough) have a hosts file that can be configured to block ads. But without Flash you take a way a good portion of the web.
The problem in making a good survival horror game is that people just aren't scared anymore. We are used to movies with blood everywhere and body parts flying in every direction. Mix that in with the current technology of load times and lag and a survival horror game just isn't going to work. Granted, you can make a fairly good and creepy game, but the tactics that worked in the past aren't going to work today.
Slashdot Mirror
Does Wine handle DirectX 10? No? Well that eliminates about 99% of PC gamers from switching
Does Windows XP handle DirectX 10? No? Well most of the PC gamers that I have met run XP as their primary system and hate Vista. Plus, most PC gamers are going to stick with Windows until all games become cross-platform, much as how an avid Halo player isn't going to sell a 360 to buy a Wii. But guess what? Most computer users aren't PC gamers, yes they may play PC games, but they aren't PC gamers.
Do all GPU vendors have OSS drivers? No? Well that eliminates about 99% of everyone else.
No, but with any remotely user friendly distro (such as Ubuntu) the non free drivers are trivial to install.
DVD playback? HAHAHAHA.
Takes 5 second to install. And comes included with just about any pre-installed distro.
Currently I have Slackware 12/XP Home both installed.
So wait. You have a distro with a reputation for being user unfriendly and trying to say that the average Joe is going to pick up Slackware and install it? Go back and try it with Ubuntu and you will find that all of your problems (minus PC gaming) are resolved. Slackware != the distro most users will use.
Wow, someone has never been around someone who doesn't know much about computers. With Windows users there are two modes, either paranoid as in "OMG!!!11! I can't go to Google!1!1! It will give my computer a virus!11!1!" or "My computer has *insert program here* installed so I can do whatever I feel like and never, ever, ever get a virus, ever". The real ideal solution would be to switch to a different OS, either Linux or OS X, but a lot of Windows users will only use Windows and refuse Linux even when it is easier to do most tasks than on Windows.
Its a risk you have to take if you are going to pirate something. And honestly, Ivan from Soviet Russia would have less need to root your box than say, Sony from Soviet America (yes, world headquarters are in Japan, but it was mostly American CDs). Honestly, I trust the "cloud" who might want to annoy me more than the corporation who tries to squeeze every cent out of me.
Or you know, Google just is like most of us and are tired of people just voting for a candidate based on the hype machine which is the media. Tired of people only going to vote for Obama because he is black and not Bush and tired of people voting for McCain because hes white and not Bush. Tired of the fact that most of the people who vote have no clue what the issues are, tired that the fate of entire industries are being determined with this election with no clue on what either candidate supports (for example, neither McCain nor Obama claim to support or deny software patents that are killing the US computer industry).
Sure, Google might be profiling you, but I think it is mostly that they are sick and tired of people voting with no clue who they are voting for.
Knol Debates: Listening to opinions, debating the facts
That isn't exactly how a debate should be run. It should be listening to facts and debating about opinions unfortunately, there lacks a good source to get facts, and even the presidential debates are more or less set up to keep us more in the dark.
Ideally, there should be a debate where individual citizens can stand up without pre-screened questions and ask the candidates anything pertaining to the election, but today with the news nothing more than glorified hype, that isn't going to happen.
Since when did one need a rationale for paying for things that cost money?
Ummm... Because I can buy all the games listed for about $5 on Ebay or pirate them all for free. If the money doesn't support the devs, why should I pay the new price for it when I can either buy it used or pirate the thing.
For any application A, Apple can prevent you from running A by not letting it be sold on iAppz. If you buy app A from gAppz, Google can delete it, but they can't prevent you from running it altogether since you can download it from my-gAppz.author-of-A.org.
Ok, lets say I pay $3 for a NES emulator for Android, Nintendo contacts Google and tells them they need to remotely disable it, so they do. The company that produced the emulator ends up bankrupt and so Google can't collect any money to give back to you. You just lost $3. In the Apple way (so far), you pay $3 for the NES emulator, Apple stops it from being on the app-store, but you still have on your iPhone.
I don't run IE6 anymore, but as I remember it ActiveX required permission to install something capable of malware. Firefox is extensible and lets you install malware capable software too.
Yes, but A) The active X thing only required a single click B) It was hard to determine what was legitimately needed and what wasn't C) Active X could basically screw with the entire OS. The worst thing that Firefox might do is totally trash Firefox. Nothing more, nothing less. Back in the days of IE 6, IE == Windows Explorer which in essence meant that the entire operating system was toast if IE got infected. Compare that with Firefox where you only need to uninstall it, and remove the Windows equivalent to the .mozilla directory and be malware free. Also, by default, Firefox will only download adons from Mozilla's domains, IE lets you install Active X from wherever.
Microsoft has been responsive when it comes to fixing security holes.
You're joking right? There are still bugs in IE that have been there for years, compare that to Firefox which has very quick releases that fix most bugs.
Riiiiight. Did you know that there is a place where almost all computers and devices are connected and can run absolutely anything? Its called the Internet, and I don't see the web randomly crashing all the time, the entire network thing is only a cell company excuse so they can control the network to make you pay more.
Because the stuff on YouTube is far more intelligent than the stuff on TV....
Awww... You stole my joke
You could have installed something without remembering. You say you ran a virus check after restoration. Did you do a check before restoring to see what got you? Did you search the net to see what it was? Without details like that, your anecdote is meaningless when it comes to your assertion about the security of IE6.
Back then I only had like 5 programs on my computer. So, yes, I would have remembered if I had installed something. And yes, I checked before restoring and it was some random generic malware thing, I don't remember the name of it anymore.
There are, however, plenty of documented cases of malware on the net. Could you link to one that shows a fundamental design flaw of IE6 that isn't in Firefox, one that lets you "install all kinds of random crap that messes with settings and toolbars without prompts"?
Well, even though this didn't really cause mine, it is a one-click stop to malware: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActiveX .
The other is more obvious which is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software which means that the critical vulnerabilities of IE don't get patched until MS decides to.
And while this isn't 100% IE related, remember the Safari carpetbombing attack? http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2092 , it wasn't Apple's part that caused the flaw of automatically executing the files, it was MS's fault (yes Safari shares part of the blame)
That's a vague anecdote and could have been caused by any number of things.
Such as? I had the Windows firewall running, I have a firewall built into my router, I was running no other programs, Windows was kept up-to-date with patches, etc. So what else could it be? That the magical virus faerie came onto my computer and ran some .exe files?
What, exactly, are you talking about? When I ran IE6 I never had malware install itself. Most malware results from people explicitly installing stuff. The same thing could happen with Firefox.
Well, back when I still ran Windows XP (even fully patched) I ran into at least two instances when I was surfing using IE 6 and got random malware on my computer, one made popups happen all the time, and the other it put explicit icons on my desktop. In neither case did I have pre-existing malware, (confirmed by doing a virus check on the most recent backup which I restored to), nor did I run any binary by user interaction (such as clicking on a file).
* Viruses - THis is not a OS problem, its a user problem.
* Malware - Again not specific to Windows.
Oh, right. I forgot, your browser is clearly supposed to install all kinds of random crap that messes with settings and toolbars without prompts. Oh wait, other browsers don't do that? Other browsers prompt you before they do things like that? Yes, MS managed to fix a lot of that with IE7, but its still not an excuse for them doing that for the ~2-3 years of IE6.
* Applications - All the software in the world at a single spot. i.e. Google for applications. Who addresses commercial software? Who handles payments for this? Who will handle updates? Do users want to download Multi GB Games/Applications? Who pays for the massive bandwidth? What if you're not connected online,etc ,etc. Again. Doesnt scale, buddy.
Lets see... On an average Windows install, the only software that isn't usually pirated, is made by Microsoft in the form of Office/Works/etc., An anti-virus/spyware application but the rest is all freeware/shareware/OSS. Most people's software is downloaded. You make a good point about games, but it honestly wouldn't be hard for a game maker to include a binary to run for Linux, same with commercial software. The thing is, boxed commercial software is a really, really, really small part of the average user's computer even on Windows. The "massive bandwidth" would be provided in the same way it always has, via mirrors and the official site. Today, most computers that are not in specialty use are connected online. If they aren't, it isn't that hard to go to a library or a friends house, or buy a CD with some .deb files in them, double click and type in your password.
Linux also has the advantage of customization. For example, its a pain to create a customized XP/Vista install disk, its trivial for someone to create a modified Ubuntu or other distro with the applications you need.
Yes, tons of window managers, but the average user only has to pick one of 2 (or three if you count in XFCE) but if you stick with all the apps with a G as the first letter you can be assured a standard UI if you are using Gnome, likewise if K is the first letter you can be assured that it uses a standard UI for KDE, compare that with MS who has tons of different icons, etc. for different products which are all in the same time frame and first-party applications, see http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/microsoft-learn-from-apple-II.media/vista.png for an example of what I'm talking about.
...But the problems with the electric car are:
A) They cost a lot more in the short term than buying a new or used gas powered car
B) You can't go out to a dealership and buy one
C) The reliability just isn't there yet (and that could be said for any emerging technology)
The electric car would succeed if it was cheaper or just as cheap as a gas powered car (and no, in the current economic times, the fact that it might be cheaper 5-10 years from now, isn't going to persuade anyone to buy it). Or if you could walk into a dealership and most of the cars were electric and the stigma of it being unreliable were over.
Linux already is cheaper than any other OS out there, and is close to, or the most reliable OS (especially when compared to Vista). The problem is you can't walk into a store and get a computer with Linux on it, unless you want to go for a netbook. Once the last hurdle is crossed, you can say good bye to Windows.
Or, set up a Linux server and use OOo and configure it to do a few backups or set up a RAID.
The thing about the cloud is, it has more uptime than the average user can ever hope to have. For example, the average user makes no backups except perhaps on a yearly basis, even if one of Google's servers literally caught on fire, most of the data could easily be recovered. The average person doesn't have a RAID, so when one disk crashes the entire system crashes, and they don't have backups. Yes, for us geeks and our 1 TB external HDs, local fileservers, 8 GB flash drives and rsync we might be able to have marginally better uptime than the cloud, but honestly, the normal user is going to have better reliability with the cloud.
If you ask me, Windows 7 looks a lot like a response to Linux on the desktop. Now's the time for OSS developers to step up to plate and deliver a solution that will make Windows 7 look like child's play. I'm game.
Technologically, Linux and OS X are light years ahead of Windows, and will be by Windows 7. The problem is, some people will never use Linux unless it has a uniform UI (which, have you ever seen Windows?, Linux's UI is more uniform than even all of MS's products.) and other will not move to Linux unless *insert specialty application or game* is available on Linux. Still, the vast majority of users will use whatever is on their computer, be it Linux, Vista, XP, OS X, BSD, etc.
That is quite an important (and occasionally overlooked) point; the most dangerous people in the world are those with nothing left to lose.
But why are they poor? Surely it isn't because they force ~50% of the population (women) to wear veils in public, forbid them from having any rights, etc. All the the while "electing" and supporting violent leaders who do most of their crimes in the name of Islam. Nope, can't be any connection between poverty and Islam.
The Q'ran is no worse than the Bible, and Islam is no worse than Christianism. What matters, however, is what PEOPLE do with those directives. Demonizing a religion won't help with dealing with people.
But the point I was trying to get across was yes, the Bible does advocate Israel wiping some nations off of the face of the earth, however, those instructions were to be fulfilled thousands of years ago, not today. And books of the Bible accepted to be canon in most Christian faiths (Romans and other books and letters by Paul) state that the Old Testament is null and void while still saying that the moral part of it (such as the 10 commandments) are still valid points to live by. You won't see a Christian sacrificing a lamb for passover (and many cases you won't see a Jewish person do that either anymore) because most Christians believe that the Old Testament is not needed to be followed anymore. Find me a piece of Islamic canon that states that Jihad and destroying the non-Muslims are over and I will believe that they are equal, but as far as I know, Christianity has many references to the Old Testament law being unnecessary several times, but not any Islamic scripture.
As opposed to the Bible? Seriously, this line of argument is crap. "Evil is as Evil does", or something to that effect.
Give me a single line of the New Testament saying to go and kill people. Fact is, you really can't find them unless you somehow take various parables totally out of context, on the other hand we have Muslim passages such as:
(Sura 9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and fought jihad with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant."
(Sura 9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Yes, there are passages in the Old Testament that advocate the slaying of people, such as
"When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves." (Deuteronomy 20:13-14)
"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their women with child ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)
But most Christian scholars believe that those were instructions only for Isreal during that time unlike followers of Islam who believe that today we should still have Jihad
For example, take Romans, basically in there Paul is saying we don't have to follow the old testament anymore
Romans 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
No, what would be really great would be a browser with Flash. Yes, ad-block is great, but most modern OSes (and mobile ones if you hack them enough) have a hosts file that can be configured to block ads. But without Flash you take a way a good portion of the web.
The problem in making a good survival horror game is that people just aren't scared anymore. We are used to movies with blood everywhere and body parts flying in every direction. Mix that in with the current technology of load times and lag and a survival horror game just isn't going to work. Granted, you can make a fairly good and creepy game, but the tactics that worked in the past aren't going to work today.