People have been throwing around this rumor for more than a full year now, but apart from letting his kinky girlfriend (Karin Winslow) pierce his ears and pluck his eyebrows, I've seen no actual news item anywhere in that time that says he has actually had a sex change, or even identifies himself as female in any way whatsoever.
In all the latest press releases, he's still Larry Wachowski, and a quick Google search found plenty of recent references to them as the "Wachowski Brothers."
So, do you have any links to actual information, or are you just talking out your ass?
No matter how many shitty movies the Wachowski brothers crank out, they will always be the creators of Bound.
For that alone, my hat comes off whenever they walk by.
Sure, they also made a trilogy of kung-fu movies dressed up as sci-fi. (The first: Overrated. The second: Underrated. The third: Abysmal) Nevertheless, this minor achievement can not possibly be regarded as important or career-defining as making a movie in which Jennifer Tilly seduces Gina Gershon and which features Joey Pantliano playing a mobster. What more could anybody ask for?
However, whenever anybody is asked to site a case in which some poor schmuck actually got shafted by these laws, they suddenly fall silent.
And for an ignorant statement like this, a post is scored insightful?
For starters, here's an obvious case:
Jose Pidilla's rights may, indeed, have been violated, and you can perhaps make a case that treating him as an enemy combatant (just because he trained to kill Americans while overseas) is the wrong thing to do, especially when considering he's an American citizen... but that case has nothing to do with the PATRIOT act.
Under international law, any enemy combatant not fighting is a uniformed soldier is engaging in activity which puts them outside the protection of the Geneva convention. He can be shot first thing tomorrow morning if the military decides keeping him alive serves no purpose.
If PATRIOT was never passed, the Administration still could have done exactly the same thing, and PATRIOT was not invoked in any way by the state when arguing that he is to remain held.
Meanwhile, not a single person has articulated a single case in their own words in which PATRIOT was used to violate anybody's constitutional rights, but three jokers moderated down my (obviously correct) point that people seem unable to do so until it vanished into -1 oblivion.
It seems you people take our rights pretty seriously... except some of you can't seem to tolerate MY exercise of free expression.
My point remains completely without effective contradiction: The PATRIOT Act (like RICO before it) are treading into dangerous waters, and as a good libertarian I would very much like to see some parts of it scaled back, either by Congressional revision or the courts, but a lot of people are hyping this as The End of Freedom, yet they simply can't point to a single case to bolster that point.
The good news for you tin-foil hat types is that the House may have voted to extend, but it still needs to go through the Senate, where the general inclination from both parties seems much more aligned with correcting many of the more troublesome parts of the law.
No need to move to the Netherlands (or wherever) just yet.
On the other hand... I take that back. As soon as the PATRIOT Act is extended, jack-booted stormtroopers will be busting down your doors and hauling you all the way to Abu Ghraib to put you in the middle of a naked man-pyramid! Flee! Get out while you still can!
I'll stay here to... um.. slow them down so you can escape... yeah, that's it. Hurry, now! Get on the boat! Quick, before Karl Rove has you sent to Cuba just because you checked out "Catcher in the Rye" at your county library last month!!!
Well, a layman might still find those numbers extremely newsworthy, as it seems to indicate that Apple is growing at nine times the rate of Microsoft.
But ignoring the statistical anomolies of comparing percentages instead of straight numbers, it doesn't make sense to compare the two companies.
Microsoft makes an OS, but most of their money comes from being a software company. Yes, Windows is on almost every PC in the world (usually at an OEM price of less than $40 a pop), but MS-Office, which costs a lot more and brings in much better margins, is on almost every PC and almost every Mac. Plus there's the money they make on IIS Servers, Exchange Servers, etc.
When compared to other software companies, Microsoft remains a giant. When it comes to wide-distribution, consumer-level software, they are leaps and bounds ahead of what little competition is left.
Apple makes an OS, but most of their money comes from being a computer company. Yes, they get their $129 a year from the hard-core OS X nerds like me, but a lot of users will just buy every other generation of OS X. The do have a couple of software products, but they are mostly there for the sake of pimping computer sales.
Macs don't sell in quite as high of quantities as Dell or HP, but they do outsell a lot of the smaller players, and make more money than just about any PC maker, due to their high margins. Also, they are realizing a hell of a lot of their revenue now from selling iPods, iSight cameras, and other computer-related gizmos.
So, it's silly to compare Apple's revenue to Microsoft, but at least slightly interesting to compare them to Hewlett Packard, Gateway, Dell, etc. When viewed in that light, Apple is clearly not dominating the market (because nobody is... Dell holds a lead for now, but a year from now, who knows. Some plucky company like eMachines could come along and take it all away from them), but Apple is extremely doing well when lined up against these other companies.
The big thing that Apple has going for it is that they are just about the only ones left who are selling a computer with an OS that sets it apart from the competition. Even if it's an OS which only a small fraction of the public wants to use, they totally own that fraction. This results in Apple exectives sleeping a lot better at night than most PC makers, who fret over their position in a cut-throat, razor-thin market.
Here's the thing about PATRIOT (and RICO, for that matter.)
If you want to explain to me, in theory, how somebody's rights could be violated as a result of government powers enumerated in these laws, I can't argue. There are definitely a lot of things in the language of them which scare the living piss out of me, and they probably should.
However, whenever anybody is asked to site a case in which some poor schmuck actually got shafted by these laws, they suddenly fall silent. This leads one to think that all these dust-ups over PATRIOT amount to nothing more than a tempest in a tea-kettle. Life in America will probably go on as it always had, and should a case come up where PATRIOT actually runs afoul of the Constitution in an actual instance of somebody's rights being actually violated, one would hope that the courts would take the opportunity to sort it out.
Of far greater concern to me is the eminent domain ruling which the Supreme Court made last month. Holy fucking shit. Land owners were getting the shaft in some states prior to this ruling, but it is now officially established as perfectly constitutional for your local government to fuck you out of your home or farm for the sake of some developer who they are sweet on at the moment. I say it's high time we all push for a new amendment to cover this shit the way we used to think the Bill of Rights already did.
As a matter of fact, if you guys took a book, any sci fi book or graphic novel. Say Slashdot decided to host a petition to get a film done: half a million unique signatures would get that book serious consideration by a studio or independent investor. Find an obscure book and buy the option from the author for pennies before you pitch it here so when the studios come calling, you can up the price and profit (with flowthrough to the original author, of course) Anything would be better than this Whedon guy.
The end result of such obsession over making movies out of sci-fi novels?
Johnny Mnemonic.
I'll tell you what, instead of pissing all over a beloved work of brilliant genre fiction, you go rent that piece of shit adaptation next September while the rest of us go to the theaters to see Serenity, and everybody will be happy.
Mal is in a life-and-death struggle with a man who was torturing him for hours. Just as he's getting the slight upper hand in the fight, his crew comes storming in with guns at the ready.
When one crew member raises her gun, Zoe interrupts her...
Zoe: "Wait... [earnestly] He has to do this himself."
Mal: "No he doesn't!"
Zoe: "Oh."
Then the crew proceeds to shoot the bad guy. Priceless!
Quite simply, it'd almost undoubtably be a huge violation of the first amendment in the US to pass a law which says "you can't phone people and promote your political views", and I can certainly understand it.
Nearly all campaign speech and finance restrictions should be unconstitutional, but if McCain/Feingold can stand up to a Supreme Court challenge, I say we might as well trample the First Amendment a little deeper so I don't need to worry about being bothered during dinner.
The thing is, the person who is spamming you is not the same person as the one who is tryint to sell you "h_erbal V1AGRA."
Some guy has some crap to sell.
A spammer offers to reach "3,000,000" e-mail addresses with e-mail marketing for a single flat fee. No promises are made about who is getting it, or if they are at all receptive.
The spammer could chose to write in a way which doesn't duck around word filters or pretend to be a "Re: Dinner tonight" message from some hottie... and that would mean that there would be a much higher return of business per recipient. However, the spammer doesn't give a shit about how much "V1AGRA" is sold by that schmuck, who will probably be out of business next week anyway. He just wants his flat fee for reaching as many inboxes as possible.
I use "Run" once in a while in Windows, but on the Mac I have most of the apps I use already on the Dock. However, I could see why some people would want what you are talking about.
Hmmm... Your "Run" idea sounds like a terrific idea for a Dashboard widget. Hit whatever key you have set to bring up the dashboard, type the Application Utility, or script which you want to run, and away you go.
Besides, the Apple way is far superior. On an Apple keyboard, I can Cmd-C, Cmd-X, Cmd-V, Cmd-S, Cmd-W, Cmd-F, and Cmd-Q (all extremely common shortcuts) by just tucking my left thumb under my hand to the Command key, and hitting the key I want with no strain on the hand at all.
When I'm using shortcuts on a Windows machine, I hate it that I need to fork my hand wide open, holding the Ctrl key down with my pinky and reaching halfway across the keyboard like I'm playing really open piano chords.
To make matters worse, they put that fucking useless Windows key right between the Ctrl and Alt, where it's easy to accidentally hit while spanning my hand to use Ctrl-key shortcuts, popping up the Start menu and taking the keyboard & mouse focus off my application.
The thing is, Microsoft has no clear guidelines for where top-level menu items go (or rather, if they do, they don't even follow them themselves), so anybody who uses Windows for more than a couple of months is "trained" to rely on right-click after getting sick of this old ritual:
"Let's see... is this text-layout setting changed under File-Preferences? No? How about Edit-Options? Huh. File-Format-Preferences... Options-Settings.. Start-Control Panel-Printers? Ah, fuck..."
Where as anybody who spends a lot of time using a Mac not only knows where every commonly used menu item is, but they probably have the keyboard shortcut memorized.
So you don't hear about a lot of Mac-first users clamoring for multi-button mice. That cry mostly comes from Windows and Unix switchers.
Besides, I've never once owned a Windows PC where the mouse that shipped with is the one I used. Who, among power-users, has any reason to give a crap what mouse Apple throws in the box with their computer? You won't use it anyway!
I don't think the other two advantages are trivial at all.
If you are a "hard core" FPS player, no mouse means no point.
If you are playing a lot of MMORPG's, a lot of people find it more enjoyable (and certainly more scriptable) to roleplay via text than via headsets, so a keyboard is important for communication.
Most consoles make it very difficult to add keyboards and mice, and even when they do you can't count on many of the games to support them.
I have a 1.0 at the moment, and have every intention to skip this particular upgrade (and quite probably the next... I like to squeeze as many years out of my notebook computers as I can.)
Anything more than a modest incremental upgrade (1.42 on the lowest-end iBook, with maybe a little more video memory) would astonish me. If they were willing to use 1.7 GHz G4 chips in the iBook, I would think they'd be dropping them into the eMac and mini as well.
Ever tried a bicycle? It's pretty cheap and the only infrastructure required is a semi flat strip of dirt from point A to B. No need for an engine, gasoline, roads, taxes for highway subsidies, expensive oil wars, or covert ops to replace democratic governments with puppets.
Ever tried a bicycle on Minnesota roads in December?
Unless you want to put the whole goddamn greater metro area inside a big climate-controlled bubble, we need our cars up here.
Lack of a mouse cripples most of the best RTS games even more than it cripples the FPS game experience.
I've never understood why xbox doesn't have keyboard and mouse input jacks on their new system.
Same reason the PS2 and Game Cube lack them: Console makers figure (probably correctly) that their customers will be playing in living rooms, bedrooms, dorm rooms, etc. on couches and armchairs in an environment which doesn't lead itself to setting up a desk surface in front of you.
Personally, I wouldn't mind breaking out a TV tray or laying a small shelf across my lap to play an FPS with the mouse instead of a goofy console controller. (In fact, I already use a bluetooth keyboard and mouse combo to play World of Warcraft on my Mac in front of the living-room TV.) However, it would seem I am clearly in the minority.
Pitched, high tension battles fought street to street and house-to-house are experiences that consoles just can't offer up yet.
1. Take HALO engine. 2. Apply city-scape graphics. 3. There's no step three.
There are three things I can think of which set PC gaming apart, and none of them are "pitched, high tension battles fought street to street and house to house," which sounds to me like something that consoles would be great at.
What sets PC gaming apart is:
1. Mouse-driven FPS.
2. Keyboard-driven text chat.
3. Mods.
Pretty much everything else a PC game can do could also be done on a console.
Slashdot Mirror
Link, please?
People have been throwing around this rumor for more than a full year now, but apart from letting his kinky girlfriend (Karin Winslow) pierce his ears and pluck his eyebrows, I've seen no actual news item anywhere in that time that says he has actually had a sex change, or even identifies himself as female in any way whatsoever.
In all the latest press releases, he's still Larry Wachowski, and a quick Google search found plenty of recent references to them as the "Wachowski Brothers."
So, do you have any links to actual information, or are you just talking out your ass?
No matter how many shitty movies the Wachowski brothers crank out, they will always be the creators of Bound.
For that alone, my hat comes off whenever they walk by.
Sure, they also made a trilogy of kung-fu movies dressed up as sci-fi. (The first: Overrated. The second: Underrated. The third: Abysmal) Nevertheless, this minor achievement can not possibly be regarded as important or career-defining as making a movie in which Jennifer Tilly seduces Gina Gershon and which features Joey Pantliano playing a mobster. What more could anybody ask for?
However, whenever anybody is asked to site a case in which some poor schmuck actually got shafted by these laws, they suddenly fall silent.
And for an ignorant statement like this, a post is scored insightful?
For starters, here's an obvious case:
Jose Pidilla's rights may, indeed, have been violated, and you can perhaps make a case that treating him as an enemy combatant (just because he trained to kill Americans while overseas) is the wrong thing to do, especially when considering he's an American citizen... but that case has nothing to do with the PATRIOT act.
Under international law, any enemy combatant not fighting is a uniformed soldier is engaging in activity which puts them outside the protection of the Geneva convention. He can be shot first thing tomorrow morning if the military decides keeping him alive serves no purpose.
If PATRIOT was never passed, the Administration still could have done exactly the same thing, and PATRIOT was not invoked in any way by the state when arguing that he is to remain held.
Meanwhile, not a single person has articulated a single case in their own words in which PATRIOT was used to violate anybody's constitutional rights, but three jokers moderated down my (obviously correct) point that people seem unable to do so until it vanished into -1 oblivion.
It seems you people take our rights pretty seriously... except some of you can't seem to tolerate MY exercise of free expression.
My point remains completely without effective contradiction: The PATRIOT Act (like RICO before it) are treading into dangerous waters, and as a good libertarian I would very much like to see some parts of it scaled back, either by Congressional revision or the courts, but a lot of people are hyping this as The End of Freedom, yet they simply can't point to a single case to bolster that point.
The good news for you tin-foil hat types is that the House may have voted to extend, but it still needs to go through the Senate, where the general inclination from both parties seems much more aligned with correcting many of the more troublesome parts of the law.
No need to move to the Netherlands (or wherever) just yet.
On the other hand... I take that back. As soon as the PATRIOT Act is extended, jack-booted stormtroopers will be busting down your doors and hauling you all the way to Abu Ghraib to put you in the middle of a naked man-pyramid! Flee! Get out while you still can!
I'll stay here to... um.. slow them down so you can escape... yeah, that's it. Hurry, now! Get on the boat! Quick, before Karl Rove has you sent to Cuba just because you checked out "Catcher in the Rye" at your county library last month!!!
Well, a layman might still find those numbers extremely newsworthy, as it seems to indicate that Apple is growing at nine times the rate of Microsoft.
But ignoring the statistical anomolies of comparing percentages instead of straight numbers, it doesn't make sense to compare the two companies.
Microsoft makes an OS, but most of their money comes from being a software company. Yes, Windows is on almost every PC in the world (usually at an OEM price of less than $40 a pop), but MS-Office, which costs a lot more and brings in much better margins, is on almost every PC and almost every Mac. Plus there's the money they make on IIS Servers, Exchange Servers, etc.
When compared to other software companies, Microsoft remains a giant. When it comes to wide-distribution, consumer-level software, they are leaps and bounds ahead of what little competition is left.
Apple makes an OS, but most of their money comes from being a computer company. Yes, they get their $129 a year from the hard-core OS X nerds like me, but a lot of users will just buy every other generation of OS X. The do have a couple of software products, but they are mostly there for the sake of pimping computer sales.
Macs don't sell in quite as high of quantities as Dell or HP, but they do outsell a lot of the smaller players, and make more money than just about any PC maker, due to their high margins. Also, they are realizing a hell of a lot of their revenue now from selling iPods, iSight cameras, and other computer-related gizmos.
So, it's silly to compare Apple's revenue to Microsoft, but at least slightly interesting to compare them to Hewlett Packard, Gateway, Dell, etc. When viewed in that light, Apple is clearly not dominating the market (because nobody is... Dell holds a lead for now, but a year from now, who knows. Some plucky company like eMachines could come along and take it all away from them), but Apple is extremely doing well when lined up against these other companies.
The big thing that Apple has going for it is that they are just about the only ones left who are selling a computer with an OS that sets it apart from the competition. Even if it's an OS which only a small fraction of the public wants to use, they totally own that fraction. This results in Apple exectives sleeping a lot better at night than most PC makers, who fret over their position in a cut-throat, razor-thin market.
Here's the thing about PATRIOT (and RICO, for that matter.)
If you want to explain to me, in theory, how somebody's rights could be violated as a result of government powers enumerated in these laws, I can't argue. There are definitely a lot of things in the language of them which scare the living piss out of me, and they probably should.
However, whenever anybody is asked to site a case in which some poor schmuck actually got shafted by these laws, they suddenly fall silent. This leads one to think that all these dust-ups over PATRIOT amount to nothing more than a tempest in a tea-kettle. Life in America will probably go on as it always had, and should a case come up where PATRIOT actually runs afoul of the Constitution in an actual instance of somebody's rights being actually violated, one would hope that the courts would take the opportunity to sort it out.
Of far greater concern to me is the eminent domain ruling which the Supreme Court made last month. Holy fucking shit. Land owners were getting the shaft in some states prior to this ruling, but it is now officially established as perfectly constitutional for your local government to fuck you out of your home or farm for the sake of some developer who they are sweet on at the moment. I say it's high time we all push for a new amendment to cover this shit the way we used to think the Bill of Rights already did.
As a matter of fact, if you guys took a book, any sci fi book or graphic novel. Say Slashdot decided to host a petition to get a film done: half a million unique signatures would get that book serious consideration by a studio or independent investor. Find an obscure book and buy the option from the author for pennies before you pitch it here so when the studios come calling, you can up the price and profit (with flowthrough to the original author, of course) Anything would be better than this Whedon guy.
The end result of such obsession over making movies out of sci-fi novels?
Johnny Mnemonic.
I'll tell you what, instead of pissing all over a beloved work of brilliant genre fiction, you go rent that piece of shit adaptation next September while the rest of us go to the theaters to see Serenity, and everybody will be happy.
Best moment in the whole series for me:
Mal is in a life-and-death struggle with a man who was torturing him for hours. Just as he's getting the slight upper hand in the fight, his crew comes storming in with guns at the ready.
When one crew member raises her gun, Zoe interrupts her...
Zoe: "Wait... [earnestly] He has to do this himself."
Mal: "No he doesn't!"
Zoe: "Oh."
Then the crew proceeds to shoot the bad guy. Priceless!
Qwest (or, as I like to call them, Qworst) used to pull that one, too.
They don't anymore. In Minnesota we can now buy DSL with no voice service.
Quite simply, it'd almost undoubtably be a huge violation of the first amendment in the US to pass a law which says "you can't phone people and promote your political views", and I can certainly understand it.
Nearly all campaign speech and finance restrictions should be unconstitutional, but if McCain/Feingold can stand up to a Supreme Court challenge, I say we might as well trample the First Amendment a little deeper so I don't need to worry about being bothered during dinner.
The thing is, the person who is spamming you is not the same person as the one who is tryint to sell you "h_erbal V1AGRA."
Some guy has some crap to sell.
A spammer offers to reach "3,000,000" e-mail addresses with e-mail marketing for a single flat fee. No promises are made about who is getting it, or if they are at all receptive.
The spammer could chose to write in a way which doesn't duck around word filters or pretend to be a "Re: Dinner tonight" message from some hottie... and that would mean that there would be a much higher return of business per recipient. However, the spammer doesn't give a shit about how much "V1AGRA" is sold by that schmuck, who will probably be out of business next week anyway. He just wants his flat fee for reaching as many inboxes as possible.
I use "Run" once in a while in Windows, but on the Mac I have most of the apps I use already on the Dock. However, I could see why some people would want what you are talking about.
Hmmm... Your "Run" idea sounds like a terrific idea for a Dashboard widget. Hit whatever key you have set to bring up the dashboard, type the Application Utility, or script which you want to run, and away you go.
Besides, the Apple way is far superior. On an Apple keyboard, I can Cmd-C, Cmd-X, Cmd-V, Cmd-S, Cmd-W, Cmd-F, and Cmd-Q (all extremely common shortcuts) by just tucking my left thumb under my hand to the Command key, and hitting the key I want with no strain on the hand at all.
When I'm using shortcuts on a Windows machine, I hate it that I need to fork my hand wide open, holding the Ctrl key down with my pinky and reaching halfway across the keyboard like I'm playing really open piano chords.
To make matters worse, they put that fucking useless Windows key right between the Ctrl and Alt, where it's easy to accidentally hit while spanning my hand to use Ctrl-key shortcuts, popping up the Start menu and taking the keyboard & mouse focus off my application.
Idiots.
The thing is, Microsoft has no clear guidelines for where top-level menu items go (or rather, if they do, they don't even follow them themselves), so anybody who uses Windows for more than a couple of months is "trained" to rely on right-click after getting sick of this old ritual:
"Let's see... is this text-layout setting changed under File-Preferences? No? How about Edit-Options? Huh. File-Format-Preferences... Options-Settings.. Start-Control Panel-Printers? Ah, fuck..."
Where as anybody who spends a lot of time using a Mac not only knows where every commonly used menu item is, but they probably have the keyboard shortcut memorized.
So you don't hear about a lot of Mac-first users clamoring for multi-button mice. That cry mostly comes from Windows and Unix switchers.
Besides, I've never once owned a Windows PC where the mouse that shipped with is the one I used. Who, among power-users, has any reason to give a crap what mouse Apple throws in the box with their computer? You won't use it anyway!
I was speaking specifically of PC advantages over consoles.
Those are all console advantages over the PC... unless you don't like your friends very much and would rather they not come over to game with you.
I don't think the other two advantages are trivial at all.
If you are a "hard core" FPS player, no mouse means no point.
If you are playing a lot of MMORPG's, a lot of people find it more enjoyable (and certainly more scriptable) to roleplay via text than via headsets, so a keyboard is important for communication.
Most consoles make it very difficult to add keyboards and mice, and even when they do you can't count on many of the games to support them.
I have a 1.0 at the moment, and have every intention to skip this particular upgrade (and quite probably the next... I like to squeeze as many years out of my notebook computers as I can.)
Anything more than a modest incremental upgrade (1.42 on the lowest-end iBook, with maybe a little more video memory) would astonish me. If they were willing to use 1.7 GHz G4 chips in the iBook, I would think they'd be dropping them into the eMac and mini as well.
why not wait till they get the intel based laptops out?
Maybe because Intel-based Macs are more than a year off, and some people need a computer now, and would like it to be reasonably up-to-date.
Just a theory.
If I had to guess, it will be the same 1.4 GHz G4 that's going into the mini and the eMac.
The iBook is Apple's "budget" laptop. If they do an IBM G5 based one, it will probably be in the PowerBook line.
IIRC correctly, the flight at Kittyhawk lasted less than a minute.
:P
So that makes their plane about as reliable as every Ford car I've ever seen, up to the present day.
Ever tried a bicycle? It's pretty cheap and the only infrastructure required is a semi flat strip of dirt from point A to B. No need for an engine, gasoline, roads, taxes for highway subsidies, expensive oil wars, or covert ops to replace democratic governments with puppets.
Ever tried a bicycle on Minnesota roads in December?
Unless you want to put the whole goddamn greater metro area inside a big climate-controlled bubble, we need our cars up here.
And don't forget rtses.
Lack of a mouse cripples most of the best RTS games even more than it cripples the FPS game experience.
I've never understood why xbox doesn't have keyboard and mouse input jacks on their new system.
Same reason the PS2 and Game Cube lack them: Console makers figure (probably correctly) that their customers will be playing in living rooms, bedrooms, dorm rooms, etc. on couches and armchairs in an environment which doesn't lead itself to setting up a desk surface in front of you.
Personally, I wouldn't mind breaking out a TV tray or laying a small shelf across my lap to play an FPS with the mouse instead of a goofy console controller. (In fact, I already use a bluetooth keyboard and mouse combo to play World of Warcraft on my Mac in front of the living-room TV.) However, it would seem I am clearly in the minority.
For the PC, a few choice mods yields (insert list of very cool stuff here).
In other words, exactly what I was saying.
Oh, and the Model T wasn't actually made until 1908, five years after heavier-than-air flight was accomplished for the first time.
If, by same time, you mean 20 years later.
Ford's first car: 1896
Wright Brother's flight at Kittyhawk: 1903
If, by 20 years later, you mean 7 years later, then yes.
Pitched, high tension battles fought street to street and house-to-house are experiences that consoles just can't offer up yet.
1. Take HALO engine.
2. Apply city-scape graphics.
3. There's no step three.
There are three things I can think of which set PC gaming apart, and none of them are "pitched, high tension battles fought street to street and house to house," which sounds to me like something that consoles would be great at.
What sets PC gaming apart is:
1. Mouse-driven FPS.
2. Keyboard-driven text chat.
3. Mods.
Pretty much everything else a PC game can do could also be done on a console.