True. Family Guy is just like the Simpsons. Except its still funny.
"Funny" as in "strange" perhaps, certainly not "funny" as in "ha ha."
The Simpsons is still making new shows? I was barely aware. Last time I caught an episode, it was almost as crappy as The Family Guy and/or Futurama, and I gave up on it.
Oh yeah, and your favorite band sucks, too. Whoever they are.
I'm not sure about the benefits of booth babes to a company's display. A lot of the times when the press covers booth babes, it's just a collection of pictures in front of lots of displays, and not much talk about the actual product itself.
90% of marketing is branding. That's why Nike pays Tiger Woods a fortune to wear their dorky hats. Remining people (and in particular, potential investors) that you exist and are doing well enough to blow money on advertising, endorsements, and trade show booths will ultimately help your bottom line, or so the thinking goes.
Booth babes don't just attract attention from lonely software engineers, they also capture the attention of the media, not only on-line but also in print and even on the occasional cable show. Nobody covers E3 without a photo or two of booth babes.
Have cute girls in front of your display == get better chance of your display being seen in the E3 coverage.
Games are entertainment. Cute girls are nice to look at. Is that so wrong?
If you want things more family-friendly, why not just apply the old anime-con cosplay standard of "30% coverage minimum, inlcuding all the obvious places", instead of applying an ambiguous rule that outfits can not be "too risque"?
There are a lot of "loaded" iPods getting sold on eBay.
Yes, but clearly most people are buying them because they want the iPod, not because they are willing to pay over $500 for 20 GB of music that somebody else picked out.
The fact that an iPod has a bunch of songs on it (which will get deleted the first time they sync it with a computer, unless they are particularilly savvy, in which case, they wouldn't buy spending their money on bootlegs that they could get at no cost via P2P) might make the iPod marginally more attractive to some people, but it's probably not the main reason people are buying them.
I bet if I spent long enough digging through eBay archives, I could find several untouched iPods which sold for above retail. The fact that USA Today got wind of ONE iPod that sold for over $550 only proves that there's one idiot out there, not that iPods have created a fantastic new frontier for media piracy.
Also, somebody paying $480 for a $400 iPod (which is new, other than being taken out of the box to fill it up) is not really evidence that they are doing so for the content. They might just happen to live in a country where iPods are not convenient to buy at retail price.
I mean, if what they really wanted was the movies, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to just buy HK bootleg DVD's.
You missed my point. Nobody is selling warez-loaded iPods for $800 in any real quantities.
The best example they could come up with was one fool out there somehere who paid $551 for a used iPod. The example they lead with is being offered for $800. That's very different from news that it was sold at that price.
Given that people willing to screw the copyright holder's can already buy music that cheap at AllofMP3.com, it seems kind of silly to suggest that there's massive demand out there for iPods laden with pirate booty for double the new retail price.
As I said, show me that there are thousands of people out there paying ourageous sums of money for iPods, simply because they want the pirated content on the hard drives, and I'll eat my words and agree that it's a real issue. As it stands now, it looks to me like typical slow-news-week hype.
I could put a used CD of the Bay City Rollers on eBay with a starting bid of $19,000,000. It doesn't mean anybody's buying it.
Show me evidence of lots of iPods actually being sold for far above retail value because of the songs loaded in them, and maybe I'll agree there's an issue to discuss here.
I'm sure you are not seriously trying to suggest that the FX-60 is a simple bug-fix revision of a $65 chip.
where this article doesn't state what type of cycle Intel is on
That's because the "article" is just a PDF of the issues list for this specific chip, with reactionary analysis from some people who don't know any more than you do about it.
Again, bugs like this are very, very normal. They are present in every AMD chip, too. Every chip has some quirks which you need to work around. It's important to identify them quickly, so you can get work-arounds into place. Will some of these bugs be "fixed" in the next iteration of the chip? Probably, yeah. Will some still be present? Probably, yeah. Is it particularilly important? Not really. The final performance and stability of the chip is all that really matters.
Well, to be fair, his comment is actually a little funnier when the post he's replying to is below your reading threshold. It sort of looks like he's just saying it out of nowhere, like those "this thread is getting too serious, here's a photo of a hottie" posts you sometimes see in the middle of Fark flame-wars.
but leaving them in there in the next core revision seems well, stupid.
Wow. That does seem lazy, especialy if they are "SHOW STOPPER" bugs according to the fine engineers at geek.com! Just how many of these bugs were in a previous core revision?
Oh wait, this is pretty much the first version of this core to hit the market, isn't it? Never mind.
it also helps estabilsh price points, 'oh here is the old design with all these features disabled by software because they're buggy, or you can get this brand new all shiney and fixed and 20% faster because all these features now work chip for 3X the price'
Oh, so THAT'S why the current batch of AMD chips costs 3X what the previous one did. Oh wait... No, no they don't. Never mind.
well this is slashdot, your oppinion goes against the rest of the group, So naturally you get modded down.
LOL
That would be a good theory, if I had expressed my love and affection for the 360, but current/. groupthink is to hate on it. Something along the lines of: It will burn your house down and kill your children and no good games will ever come out for it. The archetecture sucks, the controller sucks, nobody really wants HDTV, it's too big, it's too heavy, it's too noisy, and by the way, Bill Gates has a long history of being a big dick. The Nintendo Vaporware Revolution is the only console you are allowed to salivate over without being evil.
So the way to get modded down for unpopular opinions on games.slashdot.org is to rave about it, which I didn't do.
Seeing as how my post was not a "Troll", and my complaint was not actually "Flamebait." I suspect I'm enjoying the receiving end of a good ol' bitchslap my a moderator with an axe to grind.
Swerving back on topic: DOAX was a creative game in a lot of small ways which tend to go overlooked by those who see it and simply proclain "OMG! Boobiez!!!1! U R t3h P3rv!" Heck, even the volleyball part was pretty good. Either a sequel or a back-support of the original would probably pique my interest in the 360 a little bit, although I really want to see a few more high-quality games become available before it would really be worth the money.
I see that list of titles and respond with a yawn. I only play shooters with a mouse, don't care about racing sims, and while Madden is nifty and all, it's not enough to get me to buy a whole new console.
DOA4 finally coming out was a step in the right direction.
A new GTA game, along the lines of the mafia-movie-inspired GTA3, would be even better, but that franchise is hopelessly devoted to Sony (and their next big plan seems to be for a PC-based MMO game), so I'm not holding my breath.
I'm puzzled, moderator. Why was my comment a "Troll"?
Because I admit to owning a first-gen X-Box, which makes me a Microsoft fanboy?
Because I'm not that thrilled with the selection of games for the 360 so far, to the extent that I care more about the backwards compatibility of one of my favorite games from the old platform?
Because I admit to enjoying a game which is basically a dating sim with a volleyball game bolted on to it?
This is why replying is always better than down-modding posts. I have no way of knowing just what your objection is.
What I am saying is that in general, what's the use of getting better and faster at finding bugs if there aren't plans to fix it?
Because the purpose of finding silicon bugs is almsot never to fix it. Fixing CPU bugs is often impractical. You find the flaws so you can route around them. This is the case with every consumer chip on the market, including the one you are using to read this right now.
Slashdot Mirror
True. Family Guy is just like the Simpsons. Except its still funny.
"Funny" as in "strange" perhaps, certainly not "funny" as in "ha ha."
The Simpsons is still making new shows? I was barely aware. Last time I caught an episode, it was almost as crappy as The Family Guy and/or Futurama, and I gave up on it.
Oh yeah, and your favorite band sucks, too. Whoever they are.
(What can I say? I'm in a contrarian mood.)
Stewie rules. He's a modern day edition of The Brain (from Pinky and The Brain) without all the bumbling.
Or the comedy.
Seriously. Stewie is just a badly-written rip-off of Dogbert which was shoe-horned into a badly-written rip-off of The Simpsons.
I'm not sure about the benefits of booth babes to a company's display. A lot of the times when the press covers booth babes, it's just a collection of pictures in front of lots of displays, and not much talk about the actual product itself.
90% of marketing is branding. That's why Nike pays Tiger Woods a fortune to wear their dorky hats. Remining people (and in particular, potential investors) that you exist and are doing well enough to blow money on advertising, endorsements, and trade show booths will ultimately help your bottom line, or so the thinking goes.
Booth babes don't just attract attention from lonely software engineers, they also capture the attention of the media, not only on-line but also in print and even on the occasional cable show. Nobody covers E3 without a photo or two of booth babes.
Have cute girls in front of your display == get better chance of your display being seen in the E3 coverage.
E3 is all about promotion, after all.
Games are entertainment. Cute girls are nice to look at. Is that so wrong?
If you want things more family-friendly, why not just apply the old anime-con cosplay standard of "30% coverage minimum, inlcuding all the obvious places", instead of applying an ambiguous rule that outfits can not be "too risque"?
There are a lot of "loaded" iPods getting sold on eBay.
Yes, but clearly most people are buying them because they want the iPod, not because they are willing to pay over $500 for 20 GB of music that somebody else picked out.
The fact that an iPod has a bunch of songs on it (which will get deleted the first time they sync it with a computer, unless they are particularilly savvy, in which case, they wouldn't buy spending their money on bootlegs that they could get at no cost via P2P) might make the iPod marginally more attractive to some people, but it's probably not the main reason people are buying them.
What exactly is your argument here? That it is or isn't legal? Or that it's such a small problem that it is therefore legal by default?
That it's such a small problem that it's not newsworthy.
NEWS FLASH! Kids sometimes shoplift candy.
I bet if I spent long enough digging through eBay archives, I could find several untouched iPods which sold for above retail. The fact that USA Today got wind of ONE iPod that sold for over $550 only proves that there's one idiot out there, not that iPods have created a fantastic new frontier for media piracy.
Also, somebody paying $480 for a $400 iPod (which is new, other than being taken out of the box to fill it up) is not really evidence that they are doing so for the content. They might just happen to live in a country where iPods are not convenient to buy at retail price.
I mean, if what they really wanted was the movies, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to just buy HK bootleg DVD's.
Wow. Three iPods. That must be costing the movie industry dozens of dollars. Clearly new legislation and ramped-up enforcement is needed.
You missed my point. Nobody is selling warez-loaded iPods for $800 in any real quantities.
The best example they could come up with was one fool out there somehere who paid $551 for a used iPod. The example they lead with is being offered for $800. That's very different from news that it was sold at that price.
Given that people willing to screw the copyright holder's can already buy music that cheap at AllofMP3.com, it seems kind of silly to suggest that there's massive demand out there for iPods laden with pirate booty for double the new retail price.
As I said, show me that there are thousands of people out there paying ourageous sums of money for iPods, simply because they want the pirated content on the hard drives, and I'll eat my words and agree that it's a real issue. As it stands now, it looks to me like typical slow-news-week hype.
I could put a used CD of the Bay City Rollers on eBay with a starting bid of $19,000,000. It doesn't mean anybody's buying it.
Show me evidence of lots of iPods actually being sold for far above retail value because of the songs loaded in them, and maybe I'll agree there's an issue to discuss here.
Stop running around destroying the english language by nullifying every statement that you disagree with.
I said he was bitching. I din't say he was wrong to do so.
I'm sure you are not seriously trying to suggest that the FX-60 is a simple bug-fix revision of a $65 chip.
where this article doesn't state what type of cycle Intel is on
That's because the "article" is just a PDF of the issues list for this specific chip, with reactionary analysis from some people who don't know any more than you do about it.
Again, bugs like this are very, very normal. They are present in every AMD chip, too. Every chip has some quirks which you need to work around. It's important to identify them quickly, so you can get work-arounds into place. Will some of these bugs be "fixed" in the next iteration of the chip? Probably, yeah. Will some still be present? Probably, yeah. Is it particularilly important? Not really. The final performance and stability of the chip is all that really matters.
Never had a lot of processing tasks forcing a lot of small chunks of "downtime" on you at work before?
You're too high-strung.
Well, to be fair, his comment is actually a little funnier when the post he's replying to is below your reading threshold. It sort of looks like he's just saying it out of nowhere, like those "this thread is getting too serious, here's a photo of a hottie" posts you sometimes see in the middle of Fark flame-wars.
but leaving them in there in the next core revision seems well, stupid.
Wow. That does seem lazy, especialy if they are "SHOW STOPPER" bugs according to the fine engineers at geek.com! Just how many of these bugs were in a previous core revision?
Oh wait, this is pretty much the first version of this core to hit the market, isn't it? Never mind.
it also helps estabilsh price points, 'oh here is the old design with all these features disabled by software because they're buggy, or you can get this brand new all shiney and fixed and 20% faster because all these features now work chip for 3X the price'
Oh, so THAT'S why the current batch of AMD chips costs 3X what the previous one did. Oh wait... No, no they don't. Never mind.
What was your point again?
well this is slashdot, your oppinion goes against the rest of the group, So naturally you get modded down.
/. groupthink is to hate on it. Something along the lines of: It will burn your house down and kill your children and no good games will ever come out for it. The archetecture sucks, the controller sucks, nobody really wants HDTV, it's too big, it's too heavy, it's too noisy, and by the way, Bill Gates has a long history of being a big dick. The Nintendo Vaporware Revolution is the only console you are allowed to salivate over without being evil.
LOL
That would be a good theory, if I had expressed my love and affection for the 360, but current
So the way to get modded down for unpopular opinions on games.slashdot.org is to rave about it, which I didn't do.
Seeing as how my post was not a "Troll", and my complaint was not actually "Flamebait." I suspect I'm enjoying the receiving end of a good ol' bitchslap my a moderator with an axe to grind.
Swerving back on topic: DOAX was a creative game in a lot of small ways which tend to go overlooked by those who see it and simply proclain "OMG! Boobiez!!!1! U R t3h P3rv!" Heck, even the volleyball part was pretty good. Either a sequel or a back-support of the original would probably pique my interest in the 360 a little bit, although I really want to see a few more high-quality games become available before it would really be worth the money.
No, it is just a different (and very common) way of saying, "this is one of the few times that...."
Oh, so it's not a misleading statement, just an outright false one.
(Clue: Every CPU on the market was released with bugs like these.)
You're just reading too much into it because you're caught in a Reality Distortion Field (TM).
Unlikely, given that I don't own anything with this chip in it, and have no plans to anytime soon.
It's a forum about a game console. Everything is subjective, and nothing is life-and-death. Excuse me for daring to chime in with my opinion.
Sheesh!
To each their own, I guess.
I see that list of titles and respond with a yawn. I only play shooters with a mouse, don't care about racing sims, and while Madden is nifty and all, it's not enough to get me to buy a whole new console.
DOA4 finally coming out was a step in the right direction.
A new GTA game, along the lines of the mafia-movie-inspired GTA3, would be even better, but that franchise is hopelessly devoted to Sony (and their next big plan seems to be for a PC-based MMO game), so I'm not holding my breath.
I'm puzzled, moderator. Why was my comment a "Troll"?
Because I admit to owning a first-gen X-Box, which makes me a Microsoft fanboy?
Because I'm not that thrilled with the selection of games for the 360 so far, to the extent that I care more about the backwards compatibility of one of my favorite games from the old platform?
Because I admit to enjoying a game which is basically a dating sim with a volleyball game bolted on to it?
This is why replying is always better than down-modding posts. I have no way of knowing just what your objection is.
The new X-Box is dead to me until they get DOAX working on it.
Then again $400 is a lot of money just to play a game I can already play on my old system.
What I am saying is that in general, what's the use of getting better and faster at finding bugs if there aren't plans to fix it?
Because the purpose of finding silicon bugs is almsot never to fix it. Fixing CPU bugs is often impractical. You find the flaws so you can route around them. This is the case with every consumer chip on the market, including the one you are using to read this right now.
The classics never stop being funny. Well done, AC.