You are forgetting one importing fact when talking about refresh rates of new TV's. They can show pictures either in a progressive mode (720p, 576p @25Hz or @30Hz), or double that interlaced (1080i @50Hz or @60Hz).
I didn't forget refresh rates. I specifically mentioned that and higher resolutions as two remaining benefits for a monitor vs a HDTV. However, your numbers are wrong. 480p/576p/720p are all at a constant 60Hz (or 50Hz, I guess, in the case of non-PAL60 PAL sets). 1080i is interlaced, but it's still at 60Hz.
TV's will even double that to @100Hz. But here is the kicker - they buffer the frame internally, do their preprocessing, and then display them (how else do they reconstruct the nonexistant frame). The real issue is LAG - try watching some HDTV and notice how the audio is a frame or two ahead of the picture - it's driving me nuts on my 34" HDTV. Go to any electronics store, and you'll see it on all HDTV's. Plasma's are almost as bad.
Something is wrong with your TV, or your input signal. The only time I've ever seen sync issues was when Comcast first introduced HDTV in the area and gave me a crappy Motorola sidecar. DVDs, XBox, Gamecube, etc, never gave me problems, and the HD sync issues went away when I upgraded to a better integrated Motorola unit.
Now, if you're running through something like a Tivo or other hardware mpeg compressor/decompressor, you're going to get lag but not sync issues (for example, "live" TV with a Tivo is still 1-2 seconds behind real live TV, due to compression).
That might be great for CRT-based rear-projection TV's, but what about RPTV's that use a single light source, such as the ones with DLP, LCD and LCOS elements? I think these have to be calibrated quite a bit differently....
The ISF folks should know how to calibrate those, as well. Call a local calibrator and ask, if you don't know. Alternatively, check out the forums at Home Theater Spot or AVS Forum.
I guess it all comes down to opinions. I think FPS games are MUCH better with mouse and keyboard than ANY controller out there.
I agree this is all opinions. That said, though, a FPS that is designed for a console rather than ported will not necessary suffer controls. For my time, I'd rather play Halo on my XBox than Halo PC. That said, I'd rather play RTCW on my PC than on my XBox.
In fact if a game comes out on both console and PC (like Splinter Cell) I always get the PC version. Better controls (opinion), better graphics (NOT opinion).
Splinter Cell is something that I wouldn't want to play on PC because it works perfectly with the XBox controller. It's a stealth game, so the analog sticks are the best way to do that. If I want to sneak, I sneak. If I want to run, I run. I don't have to remember what state I'm in, or hold down a key, or whatever. That's an inherent problem with a keyboard as a controller -- it's not analog. This problem translates to other genres as well, such as sports games or racing games (yes, you can buy controllers for the PC, but I've never found a PC gamepad with the same comfort and sensitivity as what you'll find on a console). I wouldn't buy Madden on the PC, but I would buy it on my XBox (well, I would now that EA supports Live!, where I wouldn't have before...). I'll agree that graphics are better, but as Slashdotters are fond of saying, it's not the graphics that make a good game. Given very good graphics and excellent control (XBox version of Splinter Cell), I'd rather play that than have excellent graphics and decent-to-good control (PC version of Splinter Cell).
Console gamers biggest argument is that PC's are too expensive
That's only part of the argument. The full argument is that PCs are too expensive to keep up to date. With a PC, games require more hardware than they would on a console because they have to be written at a higher level to work on many different configurations. On a console, subsequent generations of games on a given console will push the hardware further and further without worrying about whether or not the gamer has an ATI card or a nVidia card, or what versions of drivers the player has, or whether they have 512MB of RAM or 1024MB of RAM. The hardware is known, and is guaranteed to be the same across players. You can do things on a console that you can't do on a PC. As an example, look at early Playstation games versus the last generation of games for the Playstation. Final Fantasy IX looks much better than Final Fantasy VII, yet they're both playing on the exact same hardware. Similarly, compare the screenshots of Halo2 against the XBox launch title Halo 1. The graphics are much more detailed, yet Halo 2 is using the exact same hardware as Halo 1. (okay, those Halo2 screenshots are high-resolution renders of the in-game models, but they do give us an indication of what the image quality will be in the finished game.)
Mark my words, this thing will go out of business. And PC games will never die!!!
I agree. However, console games will never die, either. Instead, we'll continue to see stratification, where the PC excels at some types of games (FPS to some extent though consoles are slowly taking over, RTS, MMOGs, hardcore simulations like Flight Simulator) and consoles at others (sports, action games, starting to take over FPS, sneak 'em ups like SC or Thief, racing), with only a bit of cross-over (Full Spectrum Warrior is a well-done console RTS, Forza Motorsports should be a well-done hardcore simulation, Halo2 looks set to take the FPS crown).
An HDTV monitor with the features you mention is going to cost *MORE* than a PC AND a high-end video card AND a nice VGA monitor combined.
Really? A HDTV monitor with the features I mentioned can be had for less than $2000. Add another $1000 for a decent home theater system supporting DD5.1 (that's upgradeable if you feel the need later -- ie, don't spend $3000 on a Bose when a $1000 Definitive + Denon system will sound better and be upgradeable in pieces), and $150 for an XBox, and you're at $3150. That's about the same price you'll pay for a high-end PC with a high-end video card and a nice VGA monitor (but your monitor is 4:3 and my TV is 16:9, so it's not a fair comparison). Now, let's look to the next generation. I'll spend $300 on the next XBox, while you'll spend $300 on a new video card, $300 on a new CPU, $300 on more/faster memory and a new motherboard to support your new CPU. Oops. Now you've spend $900 while I've spent $300. If you go out generation for generation, you're going to spend much more on upgrading your PC than I will on buying the new game consoles. My HDTV and home theater purchase was an upfront fixed cost, while you'll constantly be spending money on the latest and greatest PC hardware.
At some point, I'll end up replacing my TV, and you'll end up replacing your PC, but in the interrum my costs are much less than yours because I don't have to upgrade anything but the console when something better is released.
That will change, and it's not a bad idea to be future-proof in your larger purchases (ie, buy a good HDTV now and a decent progressive scan DVD player so that later you can just upgrade the DVD player and reap the benefits).
HD broadcasts are very rare (in Europe I think there is 1 satellite channel, and that's it).
HD is still relatively rare in the States, too, unless you live in a major metropolitan area or subscribe to certain satellite carriers. That said, my current cable provider gives me up to 14 or 15 different HD channels, depending on my package (locals, Discovery, "InHD" special channels, and premiums like HBO or Showtime). I'll get the Olympics in HD, and I've been watching HBO in HD exclusively for nearly two years now (Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Band of Brothers, Deadwood, Carnivale, etc). Europe and the rest of the world may be behind the times, but again that's no excuse not to be future-proof.
So why not just get a VGA (XGA) adaptor for your Xbox?
Two reasons:
Some games still don't even support 480p, and only recently has there been a good converter box that will properly handle interlaced signals from an XBox to a monitor, and
Most monitors are still stuck in 4:3. Yes, Apple's Cinema displays and some other LCD monitors are starting to be available in widescreen formats, but that's definitely in the minority. As well, I'm still a fan of CRTs for now, since larger LCDs still suffer from slow response times (thus ghosting) and insanely high prices.
If you reply "size" I say to you "VGA projector!"
Size is an issue, and projectors often don't have the contrast or clarity of a RPTV or LCD display. I could buy a nice 23" (or whatever) widescreen Apple monitor or a 55" RPTV for around the same price, but the RPTV will allow me to sit back on my couch and enjoy myself. I could also buy an LCD projector in the same price range, but then I will need to buy a good screen (I don't have a blank wall that will work for that, and much of a projector's quality comes from the screen onto which it projects) which will set me back another good chunk of money, and then I'll still have contrast and color vibrancy issues. So, for bang for the buck, I'd much rather spend my money on a RPTV, at least for the forseeable future.
1.) The latest hardware is almost always superior to that of a gaming console
It also costs a whole lot more to stay current, even if you factor in the cost of buying a good HDTV and DD5.1 home theater setup. As well, upgradeability is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, you can easily increase the capabilities of your machine, and get a better play experience. On the other hand, it makes software exponentially more difficult to write, and adds external dependencies such as drivers that games need to contend with, with the net result being that few games ever take advantage of cutting edge hardware when that hardware is truly cutting edge. Go to the store and look at the requirements on the back of any game, and I'll bet you'll see that most only really need a 1GHz processor, 256MB of RAM, and a GeForce3-level video card, even though processors are much faster now, RAM is cheap, and the GeForce3 is two generations old.
2.) I have a mouse and keyboard to use, which gives me much more control than a 12 button controller.
That's great for some types of games, and miserable for others. For example, I'd hate to play a real-time strategy game on an XBox because there's just not enough buttons to play well (at least, not if the RTS was designed for the PC; something like Full Spectrum Warrior, which has a control scheme that works very well on the XBox, is a pure joy to play with a controller). However, FPS games have proven that they work well with current controllers, and PC racing games require at least a joystick and more likely a steering wheel and pedals to be playable on a PC, while racing games excel on a platform like the XBox with its analog stick for steering and analog triggers for throttle and brakes. Sports games, adventure games, platformers, RPGs, and more work much better with a console's controller than a keyboard and mouse.
3.) Online play is simply much easier and more popular on the PC and will always stay that way, despite what MS and EA would like you to believe. I think that it's also more fun, because console games generally attract more immature children.
Spoken as one who has never played a game on XBox Live!:). A true service like XBox Live! is worth the $5/mo fee (less if you pay by the year) just for the integrated friends list, single sign-on, cross-game invites, and voice chat requirement. On the PC, each game has its own sign-on, and while software like GameSpy Arcade (damn, I remember when GameSpy was QuakeSpy, and not some game review website that just happens to provide horrible software) tries to mitigate that somewhat, you still can't easily keep track of friends across games (is Booger123 in BF the same as Booger123 in RTCW?), nor have a friend invite you into Counter-Strike while you're playing BF1942. As for immature children, I take it you haven't played Counter-Strike lately?:) XBox Live! has its share of immature players, as do all online games, but at least with Live! I can mute the player, or easily kick them out if I'm hosting a game, and send feedback about the player to a central server where if the user accumulates enough negative feedback there are consequences. Besides, by keeping track of my friends across games, I can avoid the riff-raff by playing with people I know aren't lame (whether I know them IRL or not) without requiring the time commitments or leetness of clan matches in the PC realm.
And Halo, as many have pointed out, offers that "LAN party" experience PC gamers seem to love. I can't see what's so good about it, though; Halo just doesn't do it for me. I'm not a fan of console FPS's.
First off, you contradict yourself. Above you mention Goldeneye, which was the first break-through console FPS. Yet you say that you're not a fan of console FPS games. Which is it?
To be fair, just because you like one or two FPS games on a console doesn't mean you like them all, nor that all of them are good. Goldeneye and Halo stand out because they give a very good gaming experience. Others have tried to get this feel, and some have succeeded to greater or lesser degrees (TimeSplitters, RTCW, the various Tom Clancy FPS games, various Unreal games, etc), but none have spawned the same cult following of Halo or Goldeneye.
Have you played Halo on an XBox? Have you done so with 16 other players across 4 or more consoles? Halo "got it right". The control scheme is nearly perfect (and if you don't like it, there are a number of alternate stick and button configurations to suit your play style), and the fact that everyone is using the same type of controller definitely helps balance the gameplay. No longer do you have to worry about the LPB with a Boomslang while you're stuck with a 20 year old Microsoft Mouse. As well, given a short amount of practice you can be as good (if not even better) with the controller as you would with a keyboard and mouse. The ability to easily modulate your movement speed by degrees is one major win that an analog console controller has over a keyboard and mouse, for example.
Perhaps you need a better TV. Newer HDTVs fix almost all of the issues you mention. Better refresh rates and higher resolutions are the only real benefits of a monitor now.
My computer monitor is sharper than my TV.
My computer monitor has more accurate color than my TV.
Perhaps your TV needs a calibration? Unfortunately, most HDTVs are setup out of the box to be used in a display room and not a home. The contrast is cranked up into torch mode, red colors are more emphasized, etc, because all of that makes the TV more appealing when alongside other sets at a shop. I'm of the opinion that all TVs should be sold with a free initial ISF calibration, but the calibration fee is cheap enough that you should still do it anyway (give yourself 6 months or so to break in the TV before calibrating, or you'll just find you have to do it again shortly).
My computer monitor has fewer visual artifacts than my TV (shadowing, faint snow).
My computer monitor uses a better interface to talk to my computer (using a monitor cable running a VGA signal) than my TV (which uses NTSC).
Composite connections and even S-Video suck. You should use component (YPrPb) or RGBHV, or better yet DVI if your TV supports it. No more snow, and a much more vibrant picture. Oh, and NTSC is not an interface but a signal format. Snow and other artifacts you're seeing are more often caused by the interface rather than the signal format (of course, compression artifacting is the signal, and not the interface, but that's not what you were complaining about). The interface is RF coax (cable), composite (single RCA jack for video), S-Video (DIN connector), component (three separate RCA jacks for different channels of the video), RGBHV (red, green, blue, horizontal, and vertical all on separate RCA jacks), DVI (duh), and S-CART (for the rest of the world). These interfaces can carry different signal formats like NTSC, ATSC (the format for HD feeds), PAL60, PAL50, etc.
My computer monitor can run at multiple resolutions, unlike my TV.
This is true, but HD sets do support several resolutions, from standard 480i/p, to 720p and 1080i (and in some cases even 1080p, though you'll rarely find that outside of high-end projectors). At 1080i widescreen, you're still talking about pushing quite a lot of pixels. In many cases, I'd rather have a widescreen 480p signal and dedicate the hardware to making what pixels I have available look better, rather than try to push as many pixels as possible. You'd be surprised how amazing visuals can look even at such a "low" resolution (see Project: Gotham Racing 2 on XBox, for example)
Finally, it's not hard to get a sound card and video card that have TV out and audio out from the computer
While that's true, I've not found any that can give the same visual or audio quality as an XBox. Sound cards that have S/PDIF output are still quite expensive. Video cards that output component signals are almost non-existant (ATI has a component dongle, but no other manufacturer does -- you'll have to get a VGA transcoder for anything else, and in either case you'll have to play with resolutions and refresh rates to get a good picture with little or no overscan).
If you liked the humor and voice acting in Armed & Dangerous (which I haven't played), you should pick up a copy of Planet Moon'sGIANTS: Citizen Kabuto. The humor is brilliant, especially the Smarties and the Meccs.
I don't see the point. If you don't execute outside input to your program, how could it be a security issue ?
From a T-SQL (Microsoft SQL Server) standpoint, dynamic code execution is a security risk for several reasons. SQL injection is the obvious reason, but even if you don't think you're at risk for SQL injection doesn't mean you're not. Why is that? Simply, because you have to allow more permissions on database objects when using dynamic code.
For example, I may want to limit permissions to insert into table Foo to a well-written, security-reviewed stored procedure sp_InsertFoo. I can give EXECUTE permissions to sp_InsertFoo and not have to give INSERT permissions on the table Foo.
Now imagine I have a procedure sp_DynamicInsertFoo that inserts into Foo but does so with with dynamic code generated inside the procedure. Now I not only have to give EXECUTE permission to whoever's calling sp_DynamicInsertFoo, but I also have to give INSERT permission on Foo. If my application ever does run into a SQL injection vulnerability, Foo can now be written into by arbitrarily. This would be even worse if Foo is a table where I store SQL instructions I want to execute.
Permission problems aside, there's also performance issues. A stored procedure using dynamic code needs to be recompiled more often (perhaps even every time it's run), compared to a static procedure that can be compiled once and cached. As well, from experience I've found that 90% of the time someone is trying to write dynamic code in such a scenario, there's some design flaw in their logic. This is similar to folks that can't think in set-based operations and so try to do everything using cursors (cursors have their uses, but in general they're a poor choice).
That said, with proper design and planning, there are some situations where the benefit of dynamic code generation may outweight the deficits. It's a rare scenario (not as rare as it should be, but still rare), but dynamic SQL execution does have its place.
If you're going to use a general purpose processor on a computer to run your application, the best thing is to use assembly language, because there's no performance hit over machine language while there's a huge gain in ease of coding.
The jump from assembly language to C (on an abstraction scale) is actually quite large. It could really be filled with another language that would introduce no performance hits but has good abstraction. People settle for C because portability is an issue and no other language is feasible for use.
If you want something done right, you do it on as low a level as possible. Once you've moved away to writing code that is interpretted, you're not really doing computer programming anymore. It doesn't mean that you can't write well written programs, but it's definitely not the same thing.
Wow. What's it like living in the 80s? Big hair and Camaros, baby!
It must be nice to simply ignore two decades of hardware advancement. I'm sure your employer loves the fact that you write all of your code in assembly language. Who cares if it takes you years to write a system that could be done in months with C or weeks with a scripting language. It's fast as all get out!
I would suggest that Works is more likely to be installed on consumer machines than Office. For example, I just ran through Dell's configuration on a standard desktop one would expect a home user to buy (in this case, a Dimension 4600, which is not the cheapest PC, but not the most expensive either and I would guess is a popular choice). Adding the most basic version of Office adds $168 to the price (this is a $700 PC, so that's a good chunk of money). By default, it comes with "Productivity Pack with WordPerfect" (which I gather is different than the WordPerfect office suite, which adds $49 to the price). If you really need Word, you can add Works for $29, or Works with training for $49 (Works has shipped with Word for several versions now, and I expect Word is the most-used Office application for personal use). While the Office Basic Edition does have Outlook, I doubt many people looking at a computer in this price range will add that option.
Now, if you said that, "Office must be on ~95% of all Windows machines used for business purposes," I'd probably agree. That's completely different than saying it's on personal machines (even when users install software from work on their home machines, I doubt they'd bother with Outlook in most cases).
Ditch IE and Outlook (together responsible for 99% of Windows problems right now)
Repeat after me. "Outlook is not Outlook Express. Outlook Express is not Outlook." I assume you meant to specify Outlook Express here, since Outlook has been pretty damned secure since service packs for Outlook 2000. Besides, since Outlook costs money I doubt many home users bought Outlook and are using it instead of the free Outlook Express.
If you agreed with the statement, how do you explain the rest of your post? The statement that "90% of <insert media here> is crap" applies across time. 90% of games has always been crap, and always will be crap (personally, I'd say it's closer to 95%, but it's always been 95% and always will be 95%).
The truth of the matter is, today, a random sample of 20 NES/MS/SNES/MegaDrive games, would probobly fare better than a random sample of 20 PS2/GC/XBox titles
Doubtful. If the sampling is truly random (ie, you're not picking the old games while wearing your rose-colored glasses), the suckiness of the platforms should average out to about the same. I'll qualify this by saying that a platform needs to hit some number of published titles before it applies, though. For instance, the 3DO and Jaguar had so few games each that a random sampling will give you approximately 100% crap.
If customers are willing to seek out 10/15/20 year old titles in preference to your spanking new one, I think that should get some people thinking.
All this proves is that people who were playing video games 10/15/20 years ago are now old enough to have a healthy amount of disposable income, and want to spend it on childhood nostalgia. It's no different from any other nostalgia, and it doesn't mean that the old items these folks lust after are any better than current items. For example, my dad is nostalgic for a late-60s Stingray Corvette, because that was the car he always wanted when he was growing up and couldn't afford it. Now that he can afford it, he could buy one and satisfy his nostalgia (he won't, because a good condition vette of that vintage will set him back more than he's willing to spend). That doesn't mean that the brand new 2005 C6 Corvette is worse than the Stingray. It just means that my dad is nostalgic for the Stingray.
Add most of them made a fair stab at it. Contrast this with *shudder* Gran Turismo or FIFA, whose sole selling point is graphics and snazz.
Have you actually played any of the Gran Turismo series? (or FIFA, but I haven't played FIFA in years so I'll leave that one alone...) The major selling point is not the graphics, but the simulation-based gameplay and Pokemon-like "gotta collect 'em all" mentality about cars in the game. The driving physics, while not 100% perfect, are very good (and many times better than even the best driving games from even 10 years ago). So, assuming you're into racing games and want the best gameplay experience possible, would you rather play Pole Position, or Gran Turismo 3? Did you just choose Pole Position because it's a classic and you're nostalgic for it? Did you not choose GT3 because you're biased against new(er) video games?
Programs like XBConnect give you a friends list as well as chatrooms where likeminded people can meet and organize a game.
Which is absolutely nothing like the MSN Messenger support. What the messenger integration gives you is alerts based on the various XBox Live events -- a friends is playing a game, someone sent you a friend request, someone sent you a game invite, etc. This is completely different from chatrooms where you can organize games.
Most games that support LAN play work with it already; there is no need for an xbox live subscription at all.
Assuming, of course, that you don't want voice chat (the LAN code of most (all?) games doesn't support the Live headset, because there's really no reason when everyone is in close proximity), a centralized friends list, a single tag across games, the ability to invite people into your game from across games, etc. I can understand how less than $5/mo can be expensive for some people, but comparing a tunneling app like XBConnect to a full-blown, supported online service is a little silly. Live is more than worth the subscription fee.
They did this before, with Solaris. Solaris 7 was actually Solaris 2.7. Same for Solaris 8, and 9 (2.8 and 2.9, respectively). I don't know why Sun has an aversion to keeping the major version number, but they do.
Its like saying the Linux car is the best because all it provides is the engine, you provide the axel, car body and leather seats. But how many people would want to buy a car like this?
Fox - I try to catch the Simpsons and That 70's Show.
Don't forget 24, the only thing worth watching on Fox, between all of the "reality" crap shows and cartoons far past their prime (Simpsons, King of the Hill). Too bad the next season won't start for another 4 or 5 months. I'm still waiting for Season 3 to be released on DVD.
Add in Speed (gotta have the Speed World Challenge Touring Car and GT races, though I could do without all the Nascar crap), HBO (Sopranos, Six Feet Under, excellent mini-series like Band of Brothers, Carnivale, and Deadwood), and Discovery (American Chopper, oh yeah!) and that's pretty much all I need on TV. Give me those channels and in HD, and I'm happy. (HBO has been in HD for a couple years, Fox has been available for 7 months or so, and Discovery just moved to HD on Comcast in the past few days, so I'm pretty much there:) Speed and FX in HD are all I need now.)
Joking aside... just keep in mind that in some countries (eg. Sweden) you're forced to pay a license fee for having a TV, even though you just use it for watching DVDs and playing games. The license fee is to pay for the two public broadcasting channels.
Does this apply to only TVs with built-in tuners? Could you get around it by buying a monitor set (not a PC monitor, but a TV with everything but the tuner)? I can't remember when was the last time I used the tuner in a TV. My main TV acts as a monitor for my PS2, GameCube, XBox, DVD player, and cable box, while my bedroom TV is a monitor for my TiVO. If I were to replace those sets with tunerless models and do away with my TiVO and cable box, would I still have to pay a licensing fee for the TVs? I'd hope not, since there'd be no possible way for me to use the two public broadcasting channels.
No, we can't be making any sort of changes to our remote system - not while having 5 remotes confuses the technically inept of the world, to my endless amusement. ("Whaddya mean, I have to switch the input on both the stereo AND the TV?" - my uncle)
I'm also pro-multiple-remotes-on-your-coffee-table. It keeps other people afraid of your kit. If they're afraid, they will be less likely to screw around. If they don't screw around, I don't have to worry about people breaking my stuff.
I personally prefer having all of the different remotes around because there's invariably something on each remote that you can't do from a universal remote. Plus, with the right setup and discipline, it's still possible to make a home theather easy to use even with an abundance of remotes. For instance, I typically use 1 remote 90% of the time -- the remote for my cable box. I have it setup to turn on the TV and the cable box at the press of a button, and the receiver stays on 24/7 and ready for TV input (when I change input to something else, I'm in the habit of changing back to TV before I finish my DVD or gaming session). I might pick up the receiver remote to adjust volume, or my TV remote to switch the screen format, or my X10 remote to turn off the lights, but that's it. The only other remote I use is my DVD player remote and while the other operations I mentioned could be consolidated onto a universal remote, I would never try to replace a DVD player's remote.
I have tried the tape cassette thingy too but things get pretty hairy when my feet get tangled up in the cable. Makes it hard to concentrate while digging about the passenger seat area for my sunglasses (or cell phone).
Maybe you should concentrate on driving while you're in your car?
I've seen it before. The Help->About menu. I know that toolkits allow a plain About menu. Why someone would want to add a popup menu just for the sake of having all menu items leading to a popup menu is beyond me
UI standards. If About is the only thing in Help, and you decide to push About to the top level, now you have differing behaviors for the menu bar. When you click on File, a menu drops down, but if you click on About, a dialog pops up. It's better to have a drop-down menu with the single item than to have that odd behavior. This goes for other menus, as well. I'm sure you've seen applications that only have Exit under File. You wouldn't want to push Exit up to the top-level. It may seem silly to have a menu with only one item in it, but it's better than a menu bar with multiple behaviors.
He did the crime, he knew it was illegal (of course he did, how could you NOT), now he's got to do the time. Sad? You bet, but, if they don't enforce it on this kid, some lawyer down the road will take this case and use it against them.
If the kid is smart, he'll already have a lawyer on his side, working for him. This is how laws get challenged. The sentiment of, "You did the crime, now do the time," is a cop-out. Would you react the same way if speeding was punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2500 fine? What would you do if you killed someone in self defense and were charged with murder? Would you roll over and take it, because you obviously killed the person? People bitch and moan about lawyers and the judicial system, but they protect your rights. (I'm speaking of criminal lawyers, not the civil lawyers that live for the next big class action.) What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? This may look cut and dried, but how do we know there weren't extenuating circumstances? Are night vision goggles really allowable, or is it an infringement on constitutional rights? (you don't have the constitutional right to bootleg movies, but you do have a constitutionally protected privacy that this may or may not infringe upon -- the only way to know is for the case to be tried in court and see what happens.) The kid might get off on what you consider a technicality, but that's justice. If the method of collecting evidence is questionable, and disallowed, and the case can't be proven otherwise, then the guy deserves to go free because you can't prove he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether it's a bootlegging case like this, a speeding ticket where the equipment used was out of calibration, or a more serious crime where evidence was gathered illegally (say, by tapping a phoneline without a warrant, or illegally searching someone's property without a warrant), it doesn't matter. If you can't prove the case beyond a shadow of a doubt without the disallowed evidence, there is no case. Period. End of story.
Complain if you like. That's your right. However, you should at least take the time to understand why the system is the way it is, and why even the obviously guilty still have a right to representation and a fair and speedy (speedy can be waived by the defendent, but not fair) trial by a jury of their peers. I don't want to take that right away from you. Why would you want to take it away from me?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to know all of the circumstances of this case.
I always sort of guessed that. Is it because octanes take more input energy to ignite, so the net heat out ends up being less?
It seems I was somewhat incorrect on this (OMG, someone on Slashdot admitting to being wrong? No way!). Octane in and of itself does not affect the energy values of a fuel, so technically 87 octane and 93 octane have the same energy value, both being gasoline. However, higher octane fuels burn less easily, which makes it more difficult to extract the energy potential. 87 vs 93 is not going to be noticeable, but 87 vs 110 would be. Energy value is not the whole story, though. Racing engines use higher octane fuels because they use higher compression. Higher compression means more power per cubic inch or Liter (depending on how you want to measure), which easily overcomes the lower energy value of a higher octane fuel. Street cars typically have compression ratios between 6:1 and 13:1 (pulled the range out of my ass, but examples would be a 2004 Civic LX I4 around 9:1, or a 2002 Porsche Boxster around 11:1). Racing engines can have ratios of 20:1 or higher. Also note that if you're using forced induction (turbo- or superchargers), you'll want a lower compression. You're forcing more air into the engine, which means you can burn more fuel, and you don't need so high of a compression ratio to make power. More, using forced induction on a high compression engine can lead to stress failures, especially since high compression engines typically are not designed for forced induction. The components simply cannot withstand the increase in pressure, and will fail spectacularly.
They also depend on what gas you put in the car. Some cars do drive better on supreme.
Higher compression engines, or more highly-tuned engines, need higher octane gas. Mostly, it's to prevent knocking (early detonation caused by compression rather than spark). Any good car of relatively recent make (at least the past 10 years, if not older) will have a knock sensor to adjust for lower-octane gas, at the expense of fuel usage. However, if your car is designed to run on 87 octane, higher test gas shouldn't make much of a difference.
Possibly this also has to do with the mountainous terrain and the fact that the gas gave me more power - not sure
Actually, there is less energy potential per gallon in higher octane gas than lower. That's not really an issue, though. What most likely happened was that previously you were not using the proper octane-level gas for your engine's compression and the ECM was adjusting to a less optimal program to compensate. As a side note, race gas and airplane gas have much higher octane ratings due to the use of lead additives. Don't try this in your car. Lead will kill your cats in a matter of minutes, not days or months. Race cars and airplanes don't have catalytic converters.
I do know that I regularly stick injector-cleaner in, so I shouldn't be getting plugged there. Therefore, I'm willing to state that better gas can give you better milage (and not all gas stations give the same quality gas either)
First off, most additives are snake oil. Pretty much the only thing that works is Techron (and knock-off brands using a similar formulation). If you fill your car at a station with Techron or a similar cleaning additive, there's no reason why you should have to add injector cleaner on your own. If you must, an application once or twice a year is sufficient. Any more often and you're just throwing money away. As for better gas giving you better mileage, that's true up to a point. As I mentioned already, higher compression engines require higher octane fuels. If you're not using the right fuel, your engine will operate inefficiently. Using a higher octane gas than is required is useless if your car can't adjust its compression ratios to make use of it (ie, putting 92 octane gas in a low compression engine like many American-made engines isn't going to help anything, while putting 87 octane in a high compression Porsche engine is going to give you poor performance and mileage). If it's bad gas you're worried about, the most common problem is too much water in the gasoline. You can solve this problem with an alcohol additive to "dry" the gas. Other problems like too much sulfur (I believe that was the problem recently with some gas down in Florida, among other places) don't have an easy remedy, and all you can do is stop driving, have the car towed, and empty the tank. Run a few tanks of good gas through the engine and it'll be fine.
As others have already stated in this article, there are many other factors to consider. Low tire pressure, dirty air filter, oil, oil filter, bad alignment, too much weight (of the driver, passengers, and any cargo), etc will all have an effect on your mileage. Also, most cars will get their best mileage at low RPMs. If you can cruise at 2000RPM, you're going to get much better mileage than cruising at 5000RPM (just be careful -- you're going to be in a high gear to cruise at such a low RPM, and trying to accelerate in that gear could cause you to lug your engine. This is more important in high-revving, low-torque engines than it is in low-revving, high-torque engines).
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't forget refresh rates. I specifically mentioned that and higher resolutions as two remaining benefits for a monitor vs a HDTV. However, your numbers are wrong. 480p/576p/720p are all at a constant 60Hz (or 50Hz, I guess, in the case of non-PAL60 PAL sets). 1080i is interlaced, but it's still at 60Hz.
Something is wrong with your TV, or your input signal. The only time I've ever seen sync issues was when Comcast first introduced HDTV in the area and gave me a crappy Motorola sidecar. DVDs, XBox, Gamecube, etc, never gave me problems, and the HD sync issues went away when I upgraded to a better integrated Motorola unit.
Now, if you're running through something like a Tivo or other hardware mpeg compressor/decompressor, you're going to get lag but not sync issues (for example, "live" TV with a Tivo is still 1-2 seconds behind real live TV, due to compression).
The ISF folks should know how to calibrate those, as well. Call a local calibrator and ask, if you don't know. Alternatively, check out the forums at Home Theater Spot or AVS Forum.
I agree this is all opinions. That said, though, a FPS that is designed for a console rather than ported will not necessary suffer controls. For my time, I'd rather play Halo on my XBox than Halo PC. That said, I'd rather play RTCW on my PC than on my XBox.
Splinter Cell is something that I wouldn't want to play on PC because it works perfectly with the XBox controller. It's a stealth game, so the analog sticks are the best way to do that. If I want to sneak, I sneak. If I want to run, I run. I don't have to remember what state I'm in, or hold down a key, or whatever. That's an inherent problem with a keyboard as a controller -- it's not analog. This problem translates to other genres as well, such as sports games or racing games (yes, you can buy controllers for the PC, but I've never found a PC gamepad with the same comfort and sensitivity as what you'll find on a console). I wouldn't buy Madden on the PC, but I would buy it on my XBox (well, I would now that EA supports Live!, where I wouldn't have before ...). I'll agree that graphics are better, but as Slashdotters are fond of saying, it's not the graphics that make a good game. Given very good graphics and excellent control (XBox version of Splinter Cell), I'd rather play that than have excellent graphics and decent-to-good control (PC version of Splinter Cell).
That's only part of the argument. The full argument is that PCs are too expensive to keep up to date. With a PC, games require more hardware than they would on a console because they have to be written at a higher level to work on many different configurations. On a console, subsequent generations of games on a given console will push the hardware further and further without worrying about whether or not the gamer has an ATI card or a nVidia card, or what versions of drivers the player has, or whether they have 512MB of RAM or 1024MB of RAM. The hardware is known, and is guaranteed to be the same across players. You can do things on a console that you can't do on a PC. As an example, look at early Playstation games versus the last generation of games for the Playstation. Final Fantasy IX looks much better than Final Fantasy VII, yet they're both playing on the exact same hardware. Similarly, compare the screenshots of Halo2 against the XBox launch title Halo 1. The graphics are much more detailed, yet Halo 2 is using the exact same hardware as Halo 1. (okay, those Halo2 screenshots are high-resolution renders of the in-game models, but they do give us an indication of what the image quality will be in the finished game.)
I agree. However, console games will never die, either. Instead, we'll continue to see stratification, where the PC excels at some types of games (FPS to some extent though consoles are slowly taking over, RTS, MMOGs, hardcore simulations like Flight Simulator) and consoles at others (sports, action games, starting to take over FPS, sneak 'em ups like SC or Thief, racing), with only a bit of cross-over (Full Spectrum Warrior is a well-done console RTS, Forza Motorsports should be a well-done hardcore simulation, Halo2 looks set to take the FPS crown).
Really? A HDTV monitor with the features I mentioned can be had for less than $2000. Add another $1000 for a decent home theater system supporting DD5.1 (that's upgradeable if you feel the need later -- ie, don't spend $3000 on a Bose when a $1000 Definitive + Denon system will sound better and be upgradeable in pieces), and $150 for an XBox, and you're at $3150. That's about the same price you'll pay for a high-end PC with a high-end video card and a nice VGA monitor (but your monitor is 4:3 and my TV is 16:9, so it's not a fair comparison). Now, let's look to the next generation. I'll spend $300 on the next XBox, while you'll spend $300 on a new video card, $300 on a new CPU, $300 on more/faster memory and a new motherboard to support your new CPU. Oops. Now you've spend $900 while I've spent $300. If you go out generation for generation, you're going to spend much more on upgrading your PC than I will on buying the new game consoles. My HDTV and home theater purchase was an upfront fixed cost, while you'll constantly be spending money on the latest and greatest PC hardware.
At some point, I'll end up replacing my TV, and you'll end up replacing your PC, but in the interrum my costs are much less than yours because I don't have to upgrade anything but the console when something better is released.
That will change, and it's not a bad idea to be future-proof in your larger purchases (ie, buy a good HDTV now and a decent progressive scan DVD player so that later you can just upgrade the DVD player and reap the benefits).
HD is still relatively rare in the States, too, unless you live in a major metropolitan area or subscribe to certain satellite carriers. That said, my current cable provider gives me up to 14 or 15 different HD channels, depending on my package (locals, Discovery, "InHD" special channels, and premiums like HBO or Showtime). I'll get the Olympics in HD, and I've been watching HBO in HD exclusively for nearly two years now (Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Band of Brothers, Deadwood, Carnivale, etc). Europe and the rest of the world may be behind the times, but again that's no excuse not to be future-proof.
Two reasons:
Size is an issue, and projectors often don't have the contrast or clarity of a RPTV or LCD display. I could buy a nice 23" (or whatever) widescreen Apple monitor or a 55" RPTV for around the same price, but the RPTV will allow me to sit back on my couch and enjoy myself. I could also buy an LCD projector in the same price range, but then I will need to buy a good screen (I don't have a blank wall that will work for that, and much of a projector's quality comes from the screen onto which it projects) which will set me back another good chunk of money, and then I'll still have contrast and color vibrancy issues. So, for bang for the buck, I'd much rather spend my money on a RPTV, at least for the forseeable future.
It also costs a whole lot more to stay current, even if you factor in the cost of buying a good HDTV and DD5.1 home theater setup. As well, upgradeability is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, you can easily increase the capabilities of your machine, and get a better play experience. On the other hand, it makes software exponentially more difficult to write, and adds external dependencies such as drivers that games need to contend with, with the net result being that few games ever take advantage of cutting edge hardware when that hardware is truly cutting edge. Go to the store and look at the requirements on the back of any game, and I'll bet you'll see that most only really need a 1GHz processor, 256MB of RAM, and a GeForce3-level video card, even though processors are much faster now, RAM is cheap, and the GeForce3 is two generations old.
That's great for some types of games, and miserable for others. For example, I'd hate to play a real-time strategy game on an XBox because there's just not enough buttons to play well (at least, not if the RTS was designed for the PC; something like Full Spectrum Warrior, which has a control scheme that works very well on the XBox, is a pure joy to play with a controller). However, FPS games have proven that they work well with current controllers, and PC racing games require at least a joystick and more likely a steering wheel and pedals to be playable on a PC, while racing games excel on a platform like the XBox with its analog stick for steering and analog triggers for throttle and brakes. Sports games, adventure games, platformers, RPGs, and more work much better with a console's controller than a keyboard and mouse.
Spoken as one who has never played a game on XBox Live! :). A true service like XBox Live! is worth the $5/mo fee (less if you pay by the year) just for the integrated friends list, single sign-on, cross-game invites, and voice chat requirement. On the PC, each game has its own sign-on, and while software like GameSpy Arcade (damn, I remember when GameSpy was QuakeSpy, and not some game review website that just happens to provide horrible software) tries to mitigate that somewhat, you still can't easily keep track of friends across games (is Booger123 in BF the same as Booger123 in RTCW?), nor have a friend invite you into Counter-Strike while you're playing BF1942. As for immature children, I take it you haven't played Counter-Strike lately? :) XBox Live! has its share of immature players, as do all online games, but at least with Live! I can mute the player, or easily kick them out if I'm hosting a game, and send feedback about the player to a central server where if the user accumulates enough negative feedback there are consequences. Besides, by keeping track of my friends across games, I can avoid the riff-raff by playing with people I know aren't lame (whether I know them IRL or not) without requiring the time commitments or leetness of clan matches in the PC realm.
Nope.
First off, you contradict yourself. Above you mention Goldeneye, which was the first break-through console FPS. Yet you say that you're not a fan of console FPS games. Which is it?
To be fair, just because you like one or two FPS games on a console doesn't mean you like them all, nor that all of them are good. Goldeneye and Halo stand out because they give a very good gaming experience. Others have tried to get this feel, and some have succeeded to greater or lesser degrees (TimeSplitters, RTCW, the various Tom Clancy FPS games, various Unreal games, etc), but none have spawned the same cult following of Halo or Goldeneye.
Have you played Halo on an XBox? Have you done so with 16 other players across 4 or more consoles? Halo "got it right". The control scheme is nearly perfect (and if you don't like it, there are a number of alternate stick and button configurations to suit your play style), and the fact that everyone is using the same type of controller definitely helps balance the gameplay. No longer do you have to worry about the LPB with a Boomslang while you're stuck with a 20 year old Microsoft Mouse. As well, given a short amount of practice you can be as good (if not even better) with the controller as you would with a keyboard and mouse. The ability to easily modulate your movement speed by degrees is one major win that an analog console controller has over a keyboard and mouse, for example.
Perhaps you need a better TV. Newer HDTVs fix almost all of the issues you mention. Better refresh rates and higher resolutions are the only real benefits of a monitor now.
Perhaps your TV needs a calibration? Unfortunately, most HDTVs are setup out of the box to be used in a display room and not a home. The contrast is cranked up into torch mode, red colors are more emphasized, etc, because all of that makes the TV more appealing when alongside other sets at a shop. I'm of the opinion that all TVs should be sold with a free initial ISF calibration, but the calibration fee is cheap enough that you should still do it anyway (give yourself 6 months or so to break in the TV before calibrating, or you'll just find you have to do it again shortly).
Composite connections and even S-Video suck. You should use component (YPrPb) or RGBHV, or better yet DVI if your TV supports it. No more snow, and a much more vibrant picture. Oh, and NTSC is not an interface but a signal format. Snow and other artifacts you're seeing are more often caused by the interface rather than the signal format (of course, compression artifacting is the signal, and not the interface, but that's not what you were complaining about). The interface is RF coax (cable), composite (single RCA jack for video), S-Video (DIN connector), component (three separate RCA jacks for different channels of the video), RGBHV (red, green, blue, horizontal, and vertical all on separate RCA jacks), DVI (duh), and S-CART (for the rest of the world). These interfaces can carry different signal formats like NTSC, ATSC (the format for HD feeds), PAL60, PAL50, etc.
This is true, but HD sets do support several resolutions, from standard 480i/p, to 720p and 1080i (and in some cases even 1080p, though you'll rarely find that outside of high-end projectors). At 1080i widescreen, you're still talking about pushing quite a lot of pixels. In many cases, I'd rather have a widescreen 480p signal and dedicate the hardware to making what pixels I have available look better, rather than try to push as many pixels as possible. You'd be surprised how amazing visuals can look even at such a "low" resolution (see Project: Gotham Racing 2 on XBox, for example)
While that's true, I've not found any that can give the same visual or audio quality as an XBox. Sound cards that have S/PDIF output are still quite expensive. Video cards that output component signals are almost non-existant (ATI has a component dongle, but no other manufacturer does -- you'll have to get a VGA transcoder for anything else, and in either case you'll have to play with resolutions and refresh rates to get a good picture with little or no overscan).
If you liked the humor and voice acting in Armed & Dangerous (which I haven't played), you should pick up a copy of Planet Moon's GIANTS: Citizen Kabuto. The humor is brilliant, especially the Smarties and the Meccs.
From a T-SQL (Microsoft SQL Server) standpoint, dynamic code execution is a security risk for several reasons. SQL injection is the obvious reason, but even if you don't think you're at risk for SQL injection doesn't mean you're not. Why is that? Simply, because you have to allow more permissions on database objects when using dynamic code.
For example, I may want to limit permissions to insert into table Foo to a well-written, security-reviewed stored procedure sp_InsertFoo. I can give EXECUTE permissions to sp_InsertFoo and not have to give INSERT permissions on the table Foo.
Now imagine I have a procedure sp_DynamicInsertFoo that inserts into Foo but does so with with dynamic code generated inside the procedure. Now I not only have to give EXECUTE permission to whoever's calling sp_DynamicInsertFoo, but I also have to give INSERT permission on Foo. If my application ever does run into a SQL injection vulnerability, Foo can now be written into by arbitrarily. This would be even worse if Foo is a table where I store SQL instructions I want to execute.
Permission problems aside, there's also performance issues. A stored procedure using dynamic code needs to be recompiled more often (perhaps even every time it's run), compared to a static procedure that can be compiled once and cached. As well, from experience I've found that 90% of the time someone is trying to write dynamic code in such a scenario, there's some design flaw in their logic. This is similar to folks that can't think in set-based operations and so try to do everything using cursors (cursors have their uses, but in general they're a poor choice).
That said, with proper design and planning, there are some situations where the benefit of dynamic code generation may outweight the deficits. It's a rare scenario (not as rare as it should be, but still rare), but dynamic SQL execution does have its place.
Wow. What's it like living in the 80s? Big hair and Camaros, baby!
It must be nice to simply ignore two decades of hardware advancement. I'm sure your employer loves the fact that you write all of your code in assembly language. Who cares if it takes you years to write a system that could be done in months with C or weeks with a scripting language. It's fast as all get out!
I would suggest that Works is more likely to be installed on consumer machines than Office. For example, I just ran through Dell's configuration on a standard desktop one would expect a home user to buy (in this case, a Dimension 4600, which is not the cheapest PC, but not the most expensive either and I would guess is a popular choice). Adding the most basic version of Office adds $168 to the price (this is a $700 PC, so that's a good chunk of money). By default, it comes with "Productivity Pack with WordPerfect" (which I gather is different than the WordPerfect office suite, which adds $49 to the price). If you really need Word, you can add Works for $29, or Works with training for $49 (Works has shipped with Word for several versions now, and I expect Word is the most-used Office application for personal use). While the Office Basic Edition does have Outlook, I doubt many people looking at a computer in this price range will add that option.
Now, if you said that, "Office must be on ~95% of all Windows machines used for business purposes," I'd probably agree. That's completely different than saying it's on personal machines (even when users install software from work on their home machines, I doubt they'd bother with Outlook in most cases).
Repeat after me. "Outlook is not Outlook Express. Outlook Express is not Outlook." I assume you meant to specify Outlook Express here, since Outlook has been pretty damned secure since service packs for Outlook 2000. Besides, since Outlook costs money I doubt many home users bought Outlook and are using it instead of the free Outlook Express.
If you agreed with the statement, how do you explain the rest of your post? The statement that "90% of <insert media here> is crap" applies across time. 90% of games has always been crap, and always will be crap (personally, I'd say it's closer to 95%, but it's always been 95% and always will be 95%).
Doubtful. If the sampling is truly random (ie, you're not picking the old games while wearing your rose-colored glasses), the suckiness of the platforms should average out to about the same. I'll qualify this by saying that a platform needs to hit some number of published titles before it applies, though. For instance, the 3DO and Jaguar had so few games each that a random sampling will give you approximately 100% crap.
All this proves is that people who were playing video games 10/15/20 years ago are now old enough to have a healthy amount of disposable income, and want to spend it on childhood nostalgia. It's no different from any other nostalgia, and it doesn't mean that the old items these folks lust after are any better than current items. For example, my dad is nostalgic for a late-60s Stingray Corvette, because that was the car he always wanted when he was growing up and couldn't afford it. Now that he can afford it, he could buy one and satisfy his nostalgia (he won't, because a good condition vette of that vintage will set him back more than he's willing to spend). That doesn't mean that the brand new 2005 C6 Corvette is worse than the Stingray. It just means that my dad is nostalgic for the Stingray.
Have you actually played any of the Gran Turismo series? (or FIFA, but I haven't played FIFA in years so I'll leave that one alone ...) The major selling point is not the graphics, but the simulation-based gameplay and Pokemon-like "gotta collect 'em all" mentality about cars in the game. The driving physics, while not 100% perfect, are very good (and many times better than even the best driving games from even 10 years ago). So, assuming you're into racing games and want the best gameplay experience possible, would you rather play Pole Position, or Gran Turismo 3? Did you just choose Pole Position because it's a classic and you're nostalgic for it? Did you not choose GT3 because you're biased against new(er) video games?
Which is absolutely nothing like the MSN Messenger support. What the messenger integration gives you is alerts based on the various XBox Live events -- a friends is playing a game, someone sent you a friend request, someone sent you a game invite, etc. This is completely different from chatrooms where you can organize games.
Assuming, of course, that you don't want voice chat (the LAN code of most (all?) games doesn't support the Live headset, because there's really no reason when everyone is in close proximity), a centralized friends list, a single tag across games, the ability to invite people into your game from across games, etc. I can understand how less than $5/mo can be expensive for some people, but comparing a tunneling app like XBConnect to a full-blown, supported online service is a little silly. Live is more than worth the subscription fee.
They did this before, with Solaris. Solaris 7 was actually Solaris 2.7. Same for Solaris 8, and 9 (2.8 and 2.9, respectively). I don't know why Sun has an aversion to keeping the major version number, but they do.
Enthusiasts.
Gotta watch Nip/Tuck, too!
Don't forget 24, the only thing worth watching on Fox, between all of the "reality" crap shows and cartoons far past their prime (Simpsons, King of the Hill). Too bad the next season won't start for another 4 or 5 months. I'm still waiting for Season 3 to be released on DVD.
Add in Speed (gotta have the Speed World Challenge Touring Car and GT races, though I could do without all the Nascar crap), HBO (Sopranos, Six Feet Under, excellent mini-series like Band of Brothers, Carnivale, and Deadwood), and Discovery (American Chopper, oh yeah!) and that's pretty much all I need on TV. Give me those channels and in HD, and I'm happy. (HBO has been in HD for a couple years, Fox has been available for 7 months or so, and Discovery just moved to HD on Comcast in the past few days, so I'm pretty much there :) Speed and FX in HD are all I need now.)
Does this apply to only TVs with built-in tuners? Could you get around it by buying a monitor set (not a PC monitor, but a TV with everything but the tuner)? I can't remember when was the last time I used the tuner in a TV. My main TV acts as a monitor for my PS2, GameCube, XBox, DVD player, and cable box, while my bedroom TV is a monitor for my TiVO. If I were to replace those sets with tunerless models and do away with my TiVO and cable box, would I still have to pay a licensing fee for the TVs? I'd hope not, since there'd be no possible way for me to use the two public broadcasting channels.
I'm also pro-multiple-remotes-on-your-coffee-table. It keeps other people afraid of your kit. If they're afraid, they will be less likely to screw around. If they don't screw around, I don't have to worry about people breaking my stuff.
I personally prefer having all of the different remotes around because there's invariably something on each remote that you can't do from a universal remote. Plus, with the right setup and discipline, it's still possible to make a home theather easy to use even with an abundance of remotes. For instance, I typically use 1 remote 90% of the time -- the remote for my cable box. I have it setup to turn on the TV and the cable box at the press of a button, and the receiver stays on 24/7 and ready for TV input (when I change input to something else, I'm in the habit of changing back to TV before I finish my DVD or gaming session). I might pick up the receiver remote to adjust volume, or my TV remote to switch the screen format, or my X10 remote to turn off the lights, but that's it. The only other remote I use is my DVD player remote and while the other operations I mentioned could be consolidated onto a universal remote, I would never try to replace a DVD player's remote.
Maybe you should concentrate on driving while you're in your car?
UI standards. If About is the only thing in Help, and you decide to push About to the top level, now you have differing behaviors for the menu bar. When you click on File, a menu drops down, but if you click on About, a dialog pops up. It's better to have a drop-down menu with the single item than to have that odd behavior. This goes for other menus, as well. I'm sure you've seen applications that only have Exit under File. You wouldn't want to push Exit up to the top-level. It may seem silly to have a menu with only one item in it, but it's better than a menu bar with multiple behaviors.
If the kid is smart, he'll already have a lawyer on his side, working for him. This is how laws get challenged. The sentiment of, "You did the crime, now do the time," is a cop-out. Would you react the same way if speeding was punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2500 fine? What would you do if you killed someone in self defense and were charged with murder? Would you roll over and take it, because you obviously killed the person? People bitch and moan about lawyers and the judicial system, but they protect your rights. (I'm speaking of criminal lawyers, not the civil lawyers that live for the next big class action.) What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? This may look cut and dried, but how do we know there weren't extenuating circumstances? Are night vision goggles really allowable, or is it an infringement on constitutional rights? (you don't have the constitutional right to bootleg movies, but you do have a constitutionally protected privacy that this may or may not infringe upon -- the only way to know is for the case to be tried in court and see what happens.) The kid might get off on what you consider a technicality, but that's justice. If the method of collecting evidence is questionable, and disallowed, and the case can't be proven otherwise, then the guy deserves to go free because you can't prove he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether it's a bootlegging case like this, a speeding ticket where the equipment used was out of calibration, or a more serious crime where evidence was gathered illegally (say, by tapping a phoneline without a warrant, or illegally searching someone's property without a warrant), it doesn't matter. If you can't prove the case beyond a shadow of a doubt without the disallowed evidence, there is no case. Period. End of story.
Complain if you like. That's your right. However, you should at least take the time to understand why the system is the way it is, and why even the obviously guilty still have a right to representation and a fair and speedy (speedy can be waived by the defendent, but not fair) trial by a jury of their peers. I don't want to take that right away from you. Why would you want to take it away from me?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to know all of the circumstances of this case.
It seems I was somewhat incorrect on this (OMG, someone on Slashdot admitting to being wrong? No way!). Octane in and of itself does not affect the energy values of a fuel, so technically 87 octane and 93 octane have the same energy value, both being gasoline. However, higher octane fuels burn less easily, which makes it more difficult to extract the energy potential. 87 vs 93 is not going to be noticeable, but 87 vs 110 would be. Energy value is not the whole story, though. Racing engines use higher octane fuels because they use higher compression. Higher compression means more power per cubic inch or Liter (depending on how you want to measure), which easily overcomes the lower energy value of a higher octane fuel. Street cars typically have compression ratios between 6:1 and 13:1 (pulled the range out of my ass, but examples would be a 2004 Civic LX I4 around 9:1, or a 2002 Porsche Boxster around 11:1). Racing engines can have ratios of 20:1 or higher. Also note that if you're using forced induction (turbo- or superchargers), you'll want a lower compression. You're forcing more air into the engine, which means you can burn more fuel, and you don't need so high of a compression ratio to make power. More, using forced induction on a high compression engine can lead to stress failures, especially since high compression engines typically are not designed for forced induction. The components simply cannot withstand the increase in pressure, and will fail spectacularly.
Higher compression engines, or more highly-tuned engines, need higher octane gas. Mostly, it's to prevent knocking (early detonation caused by compression rather than spark). Any good car of relatively recent make (at least the past 10 years, if not older) will have a knock sensor to adjust for lower-octane gas, at the expense of fuel usage. However, if your car is designed to run on 87 octane, higher test gas shouldn't make much of a difference.
Actually, there is less energy potential per gallon in higher octane gas than lower. That's not really an issue, though. What most likely happened was that previously you were not using the proper octane-level gas for your engine's compression and the ECM was adjusting to a less optimal program to compensate. As a side note, race gas and airplane gas have much higher octane ratings due to the use of lead additives. Don't try this in your car. Lead will kill your cats in a matter of minutes, not days or months. Race cars and airplanes don't have catalytic converters.
First off, most additives are snake oil. Pretty much the only thing that works is Techron (and knock-off brands using a similar formulation). If you fill your car at a station with Techron or a similar cleaning additive, there's no reason why you should have to add injector cleaner on your own. If you must, an application once or twice a year is sufficient. Any more often and you're just throwing money away. As for better gas giving you better mileage, that's true up to a point. As I mentioned already, higher compression engines require higher octane fuels. If you're not using the right fuel, your engine will operate inefficiently. Using a higher octane gas than is required is useless if your car can't adjust its compression ratios to make use of it (ie, putting 92 octane gas in a low compression engine like many American-made engines isn't going to help anything, while putting 87 octane in a high compression Porsche engine is going to give you poor performance and mileage). If it's bad gas you're worried about, the most common problem is too much water in the gasoline. You can solve this problem with an alcohol additive to "dry" the gas. Other problems like too much sulfur (I believe that was the problem recently with some gas down in Florida, among other places) don't have an easy remedy, and all you can do is stop driving, have the car towed, and empty the tank. Run a few tanks of good gas through the engine and it'll be fine.
As others have already stated in this article, there are many other factors to consider. Low tire pressure, dirty air filter, oil, oil filter, bad alignment, too much weight (of the driver, passengers, and any cargo), etc will all have an effect on your mileage. Also, most cars will get their best mileage at low RPMs. If you can cruise at 2000RPM, you're going to get much better mileage than cruising at 5000RPM (just be careful -- you're going to be in a high gear to cruise at such a low RPM, and trying to accelerate in that gear could cause you to lug your engine. This is more important in high-revving, low-torque engines than it is in low-revving, high-torque engines).
Links: