Some Apple fans do really annoy. E.g., the tendency for claiming that Mac invented everything.
Which ones, exactly? Methinks the gnashing of teeth on Mac fanboys is like people who rip into PETA: I've seen far more people with an obsessive hatred of PETA than I've ever seen kook aid drinking, obsessive pet owners.
I mean, most folks are buying laptops nowadays. How much money would they have to spend to get their computer to run a game as well as a PS3?
Not much. Keep in mind that when console fanboys talk about how much better performance the next console will have, they compare current PC graphics cards to a future console release...aka vaporware. And that Sony has a history of wildly exaggerating Playstation performance.
When Sony releases the Playstation 4 (if there even is one) I hope Nvidia has a demo with the hardware they expect to have in 1 - 1.5 years.
Half Life 2 isn't a new game
True. I've never even tried running FEAR or some of the other new games. But the idea that PC gamers have to have "the latest and greatest" is a myth. Games typically take two or more years to develop, and develop for the hardware available at the time. So if a new game comes out tomorrow, I should have no problems running it on a card made two years ago.
Last time I checked PC's had over a decade of heaving modding from end users, compared to the possibility that people might make mods for the PS3. Fucktard.
Console fanboys have been saying that for about three decades now. Wake us up when it actually happens.
Updating your video driver (or other drivers) is not a fun part of gaming. But for PC games, it's usually the first level you have to play.
Games that are rushed to release can have a lot of bugs - but this applies to consoles as well.
Now that consoles have comparable graphics and sound to a mid-level PC, there's little advantage to using a PC over a console for games. And there are often large disadvantages.
Some games (racing, fighting) work much better on consoles than on PC's. Some games (RTS's, FPS's) work much better on PC's. And that's not going to change.
The main reason was because I was tired of needing to buy a new graphics card every year in order to to display the best graphics and have the best performance for the newest games and the only reason I needed to upgrade was for games.
But you wont be able to play the best graphics or get the best performance on a console, so you just spent even more money for equal or less hardware. And since I played HL Episode 2 earlier this year on my four year old 6800 GT, I don't have a lot of sympathy for you.
Looks like we need to send another wingnut on a nice vacation to North Korea to see what "far left" and "state run" really look like. I should quit my job and start working as a travel agent...
Facts getting you down again? None of those services he mentioned actually produce goods of any kind. Governments don't do so well at running state owned factories or farms. They do do quite well when it comes to commonly needed services. But don't let inconvenient facts like Cuba having comparable health care for 1/30th as much per patient get in the way of loving that free market cock.
Keating is ancient history though. I'd ask McCain if he would pardon Bush officials for war crimes, selling nuclear secrets to Turkey, and warrantless wiretapping.
But let's face it, even if you do that, it's still a much more pointed question for Hillary than for the others.
How is that? The people who love to complain about the Marc Rich pardon generally leave out the fact that he had to pay a $100 million fine (twice as much as he was accused of defrauding the government on his taxes) and that would still be open to civil suits. Whereas Ford pardoned Nixon and George H.W. Bush pardoned people in the Iran Contra scandal that could have testified against him, as well as a heroin dealer. Scooter Libby's sentence was commuted by George W. Bush and might get a pardon before 1/20/09. And Reagan...Reagan, Reagan, Reagan. He pardoned George Steinbrenner for illegal donations to Nixon, FBI agents who broke into the offices of Vietnam protesters and attempted bank robber. Carter pardoned Patty Hearst.
So if anything...you should be more wary of Republican presidents, not Democrats. And candidates are likely to demure on the question anyway - first so they wont be held down by the decision, and secondly because it's a bit of a dick move to dangle a pardon in front of somebody's face but not be able to deliver.
And the response to that is "Like the type of investigation your husband had done for Marc Rich, Susan McDougal, Roger Clinton and others? How thorough was that?"
Small potatoes compared to pardoning people who could testify against you. Like when George W. Bush pardoned Scooter Libby, and George H.W. Bush pardoned the guys who did Iran Contra.
Yawn. Everyone has the right to have their own opinion. No one has the right to their own set of facts. And the fact is that when Republican politicians try to justify warrantless wiretapping, they are lying.
It's not their fault that Congress can not muster balls to get the votes to go after the Prez.
You don't "go after the Prez". That's what Republicans did with Clinton. You investigatecrimes. Big difference. And the Republicans, the press, and a few Bush Dogs are big impediments to investigating those crimes.
You don't get to bleat about "bias" when one side is 100% full of shit. Buscho started the warrantless wiretapping BEFORE 911. The blathering about "protect telecos that helped us after 911" is also bullshit because if the gvt had followed the law and gotten a warrant, the telecos would have no choice but to comply.
Leonard Boswell was one of twenty-one Bush Dogs that signed a letter a couple weeks back urging immunity for telecoms. He's facing a primary challenge from Ed Fallon, which might have had something to do with Boswell's about face on the issue.
Incidentally, it also goes to show what a pure egotist Ralph Nader is. It's Democrats taking care of the dead wood in the Democratic Party, while Nader just runs as a spoiler.
I do not - both the person taking drugs and that person's family usually suffer. Prostitution? The families of men who use them suffer.
Even if you do consider those to be crimes with victims, they can only be made worse with law enforcement, not better. It's not addiction or Prohibition and all the problems that come with it. It's addiction and Prohibition, and all the problems that come with it.
"Secret Police" - cops who are not identifiable as such with virtually unlimited authority, like the Russian Secret Police. Again, neither undercover cops nor plainclothes cops (there is a difference!) have nothing approaching unlimited authority.
They might not be at the level of the KGB or the Stazi, but that hasn't stopped them from trying.
Undercover work is dandy if it's investigating forced prostitution or embezzlement - not so much if it's investigating non-violent drug offenses. Which is what most undercover work probably does.
On the other hand, I would like police to be able to infiltrate criminal organizations and gather evidence.
When those criminal organizations are involved in violence and stealing money, sure. When those investigations nail people for trafficking in marijuana and send them off to jail for a few decades, not so much. Which is what much if not most of what undercover work is: busting non-violent drug users or traffickers.
Most people with an attitude like yours bring it on themselves. If you are polite to the cops, then things tend to work out. If you are rude, they do so less so. Is it ideal from a moral standpoint? Probably not. But it does work.
It doesn't matter if you are the Pope or Ms. Manners if you have an aggressive cop looking for a power trip. And there are a lot of aggressive cops in this country.
Slashdot Mirror
Some Apple fans do really annoy. E.g., the tendency for claiming that Mac invented everything.
Which ones, exactly? Methinks the gnashing of teeth on Mac fanboys is like people who rip into PETA: I've seen far more people with an obsessive hatred of PETA than I've ever seen kook aid drinking, obsessive pet owners.
by "even more" did you mean less?
Nope.
I mean, most folks are buying laptops nowadays. How much money would they have to spend to get their computer to run a game as well as a PS3?
Not much. Keep in mind that when console fanboys talk about how much better performance the next console will have, they compare current PC graphics cards to a future console release...aka vaporware. And that Sony has a history of wildly exaggerating Playstation performance.
When Sony releases the Playstation 4 (if there even is one) I hope Nvidia has a demo with the hardware they expect to have in 1 - 1.5 years.
Half Life 2 isn't a new game
True. I've never even tried running FEAR or some of the other new games. But the idea that PC gamers have to have "the latest and greatest" is a myth. Games typically take two or more years to develop, and develop for the hardware available at the time. So if a new game comes out tomorrow, I should have no problems running it on a card made two years ago.
One mod. Big golf clap. Compared to PC mods probably running in the tens of thousands.
Last time I checked PC's had over a decade of heaving modding from end users, compared to the possibility that people might make mods for the PS3. Fucktard.
Consoles are winning and will eventually win.
Console fanboys have been saying that for about three decades now. Wake us up when it actually happens.
Updating your video driver (or other drivers) is not a fun part of gaming. But for PC games, it's usually the first level you have to play.
Games that are rushed to release can have a lot of bugs - but this applies to consoles as well.
Now that consoles have comparable graphics and sound to a mid-level PC, there's little advantage to using a PC over a console for games. And there are often large disadvantages.
Some games (racing, fighting) work much better on consoles than on PC's. Some games (RTS's, FPS's) work much better on PC's. And that's not going to change.
The main reason was because I was tired of needing to buy a new graphics card every year in order to to display the best graphics and have the best performance for the newest games and the only reason I needed to upgrade was for games.
But you wont be able to play the best graphics or get the best performance on a console, so you just spent even more money for equal or less hardware. And since I played HL Episode 2 earlier this year on my four year old 6800 GT, I don't have a lot of sympathy for you.
Sooo, consoles still behind? Not by your qualifications.
Only if you're content to rely on vaporware.
Looks like we need to send another wingnut on a nice vacation to North Korea to see what "far left" and "state run" really look like. I should quit my job and start working as a travel agent...
Facts getting you down again? None of those services he mentioned actually produce goods of any kind. Governments don't do so well at running state owned factories or farms. They do do quite well when it comes to commonly needed services. But don't let inconvenient facts like Cuba having comparable health care for 1/30th as much per patient get in the way of loving that free market cock.
Keating is ancient history though. I'd ask McCain if he would pardon Bush officials for war crimes, selling nuclear secrets to Turkey, and warrantless wiretapping.
But let's face it, even if you do that, it's still a much more pointed question for Hillary than for the others.
How is that? The people who love to complain about the Marc Rich pardon generally leave out the fact that he had to pay a $100 million fine (twice as much as he was accused of defrauding the government on his taxes) and that would still be open to civil suits. Whereas Ford pardoned Nixon and George H.W. Bush pardoned people in the Iran Contra scandal that could have testified against him, as well as a heroin dealer. Scooter Libby's sentence was commuted by George W. Bush and might get a pardon before 1/20/09. And Reagan...Reagan, Reagan, Reagan. He pardoned George Steinbrenner for illegal donations to Nixon, FBI agents who broke into the offices of Vietnam protesters and attempted bank robber. Carter pardoned Patty Hearst.
So if anything...you should be more wary of Republican presidents, not Democrats. And candidates are likely to demure on the question anyway - first so they wont be held down by the decision, and secondly because it's a bit of a dick move to dangle a pardon in front of somebody's face but not be able to deliver.
And the response to that is "Like the type of investigation your husband had done for Marc Rich, Susan McDougal, Roger Clinton and others? How thorough was that?"
Small potatoes compared to pardoning people who could testify against you. Like when George W. Bush pardoned Scooter Libby, and George H.W. Bush pardoned the guys who did Iran Contra.
None of those are industries. Feel free to try again.
Yawn. Everyone has the right to have their own opinion. No one has the right to their own set of facts. And the fact is that when Republican politicians try to justify warrantless wiretapping, they are lying.
and alas, what Bush did doesn't fit the bill.
Horseshit. If breaking FOUR amendments isn't "high crimes and misdemeanors", what the fuck is?
If you ask the same thing of every candidate, knock yourself out. If you're being selective, you're being a tool.
Personally, I feel it's all election year politics
Then you're either extremely ignorant or an extreme fool.
What's to stop Bush from issuing a blanket pardon after the elections just before leaving office, hmmm?
Blanket pardons, no. Lots of individual pardons, sure.
Yawn. It is and always has been Democrats leading the fight against Republicans and Bush Dogs on amnesty, not Libertarians.
So you go after the telecoms?
Obviously.
It's not their fault that Congress can not muster balls to get the votes to go after the Prez.
You don't "go after the Prez". That's what Republicans did with Clinton. You investigate crimes. Big difference. And the Republicans, the press, and a few Bush Dogs are big impediments to investigating those crimes.
All that's well and good, but what does it have to do with telecom immunity?
Ask your local prosecutor how easy it is to compel testimony from someone they've indited for a crime, vs someone who's been given immunity.
You don't get to bleat about "bias" when one side is 100% full of shit. Buscho started the warrantless wiretapping BEFORE 911. The blathering about "protect telecos that helped us after 911" is also bullshit because if the gvt had followed the law and gotten a warrant, the telecos would have no choice but to comply.
Leonard Boswell was one of twenty-one Bush Dogs that signed a letter a couple weeks back urging immunity for telecoms. He's facing a primary challenge from Ed Fallon, which might have had something to do with Boswell's about face on the issue.
Incidentally, it also goes to show what a pure egotist Ralph Nader is. It's Democrats taking care of the dead wood in the Democratic Party, while Nader just runs as a spoiler.
I do not - both the person taking drugs and that person's family usually suffer. Prostitution? The families of men who use them suffer.
Even if you do consider those to be crimes with victims, they can only be made worse with law enforcement, not better. It's not addiction or Prohibition and all the problems that come with it. It's addiction and Prohibition, and all the problems that come with it.
"Secret Police" - cops who are not identifiable as such with virtually unlimited authority, like the Russian Secret Police. Again, neither undercover cops nor plainclothes cops (there is a difference!) have nothing approaching unlimited authority.
They might not be at the level of the KGB or the Stazi, but that hasn't stopped them from trying.
I have been pulled more than once over and every time I have been treated with respect.
Ah, so your anecdotes totally overrides his anecdotes.
You're making huge generalizations.
So are you. One problem with even "good" cops is that are extremely hesitant to turn in "bad" cops.
Undercover work is dandy if it's investigating forced prostitution or embezzlement - not so much if it's investigating non-violent drug offenses. Which is what most undercover work probably does.
On the other hand, I would like police to be able to infiltrate criminal organizations and gather evidence.
When those criminal organizations are involved in violence and stealing money, sure. When those investigations nail people for trafficking in marijuana and send them off to jail for a few decades, not so much. Which is what much if not most of what undercover work is: busting non-violent drug users or traffickers.
Most people with an attitude like yours bring it on themselves. If you are polite to the cops, then things tend to work out. If you are rude, they do so less so. Is it ideal from a moral standpoint? Probably not. But it does work.
It doesn't matter if you are the Pope or Ms. Manners if you have an aggressive cop looking for a power trip. And there are a lot of aggressive cops in this country.