As far as GTA goes, the resolution is known to be lower on the PS3 (only marginally, but still). The game uses a lower resolution for all distance objects on both platforms, so that complicates things further. Not a huge difference practically, but that's very well known already.
I have not (yet) had any slowdown on the 360, nor seen or heard of any, what you are saying about that is news to me, but I have seen it on the PS3. Not as bad as with Assassins Creed though, where there was a very significant difference (although it has one framerate bug on both platforms that mean you had quit/restart the game, again complicating things further).
GTA on both has very minor pop issues (e.g. when being outside and going in doors on some occasions). On both consoles the game (mercifully) caches the content to the HD, so I expect it's the same deal on both (not like Mass Effect on the 360, which is one big texture-popup extravaganza from developers who apparently were not aware that such as thing as "hard disks" exist on most 360's).
Probably "you have to pay extra to get wifi capability", and that the accessory that provides it is absurdly overpriced (much like the 360 hard drives). That's true, both are insanely overpriced for the X-Box. I bought the 120 GB drive as my 20 GB was always full, that left a nasty hole in my wallet. The 60 GBP for the WiFi adapter did not make me a happy bunny either.
In my defense, although aware of that, I considered that even with WiFi, it was - and is - still cheaper to get a 360 than a PS3. Of course you don't get a Blu Ray drive with the 360 - which makes the PS3 more compelling, particularly now the format war is over - but then again with the 360 you are not forced to pay extra for features you don't want (but I'd argue that an HD console does really need a Hard Disk, streaming textures off a DVD/Blu Ray drive just isn't fast enough to be practical).
The steam version of bioshock as well as trackmania have none of the above problems. Thanks, I wasn't sure about that.
I purchased Unreal 3 over Steam, and it still had a serial number on it. I was surprised at this, but Steam played nice and shows you the number as a popup at just the right time when you are installing, so you can enter it into Unreal (a nice solution).
After seeing that in particular I wasn't sure how much other third party titles were integrated with Steam so have been quite wary (incase it was the same installer, just wrapped additionally in the Steam downloader).
Being able to complete effectively as far as client software goes will also help with mindshare in the Enterprise arena (where Microsoft are using other.NET technologies to try and compete with Java). Note that is supposed to imply that I think it will help Sun/Java compete in the Enterprise arena (where it is still dominant) against Microsoft (which are attacking it heavily with.NET as an "integrated" solution to all of everyone's problems).
That's the first I've heard of that. That is absolutely about damn time!
It's a fairly simple thing, but making the plug in itself huge and less than use friendly is a major hurdle to end user adoption particularly on Windows, where the majority of consumers are (on the Mac OS you get Java out of the box so not an issue there).
I think Sun shot themselves in the foot when they decided to take the ball home and force Microsoft to stop distributing their own JVM with MSIE. Java has gone on to be a big success in the Enterprise / server space, but no one really things of it as being associated with web development any more (except when they are confusing it with the intentionally confusingly named Javascript).
Being able to complete effectively as far as client software goes will also help with mindshare in the Enterprise arena (where Microsoft are using other.NET technologies to try and compete with Java).
(I will have to stop typing now, I've just reached my buzzword quota.)
I see it as quite opposite. Silverlight doesn't offer a compelling featureset to lure people away from flash/flex
How do you share libraries between your other applications (e.g. server code, standalone client code) with a Flash interface, like you can with.NET or Java? I'm pretty sure Flex doesn't even try to address that. Of course not many software developers are going to be writing significant code in ActionScript in the first place, which is in itself something that makes it less attractive than Java or Silverlight.
Not being able to write native interfaces with Flash and Flexis also a problem. Flex has only very, very basic support for this (not really useable for substantial application development). In the interest of balance Silverlight is also currently a bit crappy in this regard when it comes to Mac OS, although the GTK and Windows interfaces give you everything you'd want.*
* Currently under the Mac it uses GTK to render the interface, although without X11 needing to be run, but work is being done on this. However, in the interim it's still possible to still write.NET applications on the Mac with fully native Cocoa widgets (which, again, is not possible with Flash).
But that's not all that separates Flash from something like.NET/Mono + Sliverlight, Java or something like C and QT/GTK....
You can't really go very low level with ActionScript. You can't hook hook in to the hardware or local operating system to integrate with what features are available specifically to the platform you are deploying on. IMO you'd as well be writing in a more widely supported ECMA scripting language Javascript/JScript - as at least both Windows and Mac OS could execute it out of the box and both vendors have added powerful platform specific functionality to their implementations.
Then there is performance. As I've noted in another post, I can't see something like GIMP, Abiword or Firefox being developed in Flash. We've had Quake II in Java (and it rocks). The performance I get from Mono (albert it on nothing even remotely as advance) is none the less superb. Can you imagine a point where people will be developing major apps in ActionScript? I can't see developers flocking to it myself.
As far as I am concerned, Flash a package for multimedia designers, not serious software development. It doesn't encourage reusable code to anything like the extent of Java or.NET. I see Silverlight as an attempt to bridge that gap - and that's what I like about it.
As for what I don't like?
Like Flash, Silverlight is nasty because it's proprietary (although the Mono team have their own Silverlight compiler, and Microsoft have endorsed it, which is good, if a bit confusing). However, unlike Flash, with Silverlight you can re-use your existing code and development expertise and code. You can build advanced applications in a familiar way with all the flexibility and power you can put in to a traditional desktop or server side application.
What I really don't like though, is that this clearly part of a "war" on multiple fronts (and one that is being well executed at that).
Microsoft have.NET battling Java (which is heavily entrenched in the Enterprise and isn't going to be easy for Microsoft to shift head on), but they are also attacking Java where it's no longer very strong anyway, in the form of "web applets" (this is where Silverlight comes in). C# is great for web service development (common Enterprise Java territory).
Flash just happens to be in that space right now, but although it fulfills a unique niche right now (one it looked like Java was going to fill going back quite a few years ago). With.NET, Microsoft can steamroller over Flash pretty easily over the course of a few years - the.NET approach is just really compelling and I think will gain momentum. Flash isn't part of a big cohesive strategy, i
Yes, you're wrong. You say that but you haven't proven me wrong.
I've played around with OpenLaszlo quite a bit, it's a clever hack (I'm really impressed with it - and I don't use the term to reflect impliy anything about the quality of it) but it's still a hack for writing applications in Flash - it creates Flash, but it doesn't change what Flash is. It does not make into Flash in a platform for full featured application development (e.g. comparable with Java, Mono/.NET + Silverlight, etc.).
I've check out Flex before too, isn't about turning Flash into an application development platform either. Its more about allowing multimedia interface designers to deploy the sort of ECMA script driven multimedia presentation you'd find on a web page, to a desktop.
That's why Microsoft is introducing Silverlight. Flash is threatening to become an OS-independent application platform which could make Windows irrelevant. I think it's more to do with their being an itch among developers that Java fails to scratch (even if largely thanks to Microsoft undermining it, as well as bad judgement calls by Sun) and that Flash doesn't even come close to scratching as far as software developers are concerned.
Flash isn't an OS-independant application development platform that anyone other than a web designer can take seriously (but these days, of anyone who can make a web page counts themselves a developer).
Frankly, I think having C# and the Common Language Infrastructure (i.e. run times) under ECMA and ISO standards - and a working (and highly functioning) Open Source implementation in the form of Mono does a lot more to undermine their monopoly.
Flash doesn't deal with having shared libraries between applications. It doesn't even support native interfaces (Flex tries a little bit from a cosmetic perspective, but it doesn't do very much other than re-theme basic widgets, badly and in a way that makes them function correctly). You can't share you libraries from you server with your client code (unless - and this is a terrible idea - you were writing your server side software in ActionScript).
To put it this way, can you imagine writing something like GIMP, Abiword, Entourage or Firefox in Flash?
Sure it's just about technically possible, but it would be an almighty hack and not even a remotely sensible idea (not just because Action Script isn't powerful enough, or that it couldn't handle having shared libraries - and the resulting code would almost certainly be a giant nasty hairball - but also because the performance would be so poor it would be unusable).
So we should buy into yet another MS line. That's where it gets uncomfortable.
There is Mono (which can generate Silverlight run times), and it is really good quality, and C# and the Common Language Runtime are standards (and C# is a great language), but obviously Microsoft have a bad track record when it comes to embrace and extend (and so embracing Silverlight would possibly prove to be bad idea in the long run).
IME, Siverlight is a far better environment for developing real applications in than Flash, which is really only suitable for animations (from a software developer perspective). Something like Siverlight or Java is far more appropriate for application development (but Java - from the perspective of web based application roll outs - has gone off the rails if you ask me).
IMO, it should really have worked the way rolling out projects from Project Builder on NeXT/Open Step worked - only the relevant libraries/DLL's for your application were included in the final build of your application, for whatever platform it was for (so releases could be just a few Kb - not requiring a separate 60+ MB install of a common runtime environment).
When it comes to client side application development,.NET is an improvement over Java IMO. If you want to, you can include an entire runtime distribution of Mono and the core libs in your main binary and you still have a reasonably sized application that "just works" for the user when they double click the icon.
Still, most things that can be done in either - with the exception of video - can be done in DHTML+Canvas on Firefox(/Gecko) and Safari(/Webkit) - and to a lesser degree, IE7. If Microsoft supported standards anywhere near as well as Mozilla has done it wouldn't be a big issue. I also wish Apple had put just slightly more work in to Canvas (text placement, anyone?). Kudos to the Mozilla team for not only implementing it, but providing some top class documentation for it.
Basically though, I think Flash has just gone too far down the wrong route, as application development in it seems like a hack. Perhaps someone can illustrate to me why I'm wrong and it really is good for application development and I'm just missing something every time I come to look it it (perhaps because the books and documentation are almost all aimed at animators+designers, not developers?).
I just refused to buy it (and Mass Effect and Trackmania).
I would really have liked to play Mass Effect on the PC, the 360 version has too many loading issues due to constantly streaming of the DVD (it was clearly not really a finished game, even though the content is all there and very high quality) I assume that presumably wouldn't be a problem on a powerful desktop PC so I was looking forward to it until I heard it had the crappy copy protection scheme.
A representative of the guys behind Trackmania (which I would really like to play...) has been really cocky about it too, he thinks its not impacting sales and only pirates. Of course he's wrong, and of course I'm sure you can still get downloads of it anyway (as is always the case...). Nice work there, chump. It's on Steam now, but I'm still not buying it because he was such an asshole I don't want to give them any business.
It's not simply that I have a principled objection, I installed X3 and it's Starforce copy protection totally hosed my system. It was crash all over the place after installing, even when playing games other, and some times while just at the desktop. I had to look in the event logs, the device manager and search Google then put all that together to see why (from what I gathered, it installs a device driver / virtual disc controller to the OS, and one that's very poorly written at that, which not only slows down you system, but also causes it to crash, often frequently.)
After running the Starforce uninstaller (found online) my system was immediately fine again. Of course I had to do that as uninstalling X3 - which had installed it - didn't take off the crap it had put on. I never did play the game for more than a few minutes, I sure as hell wasn't about to install it again.
As a result of this sort of crap, I pretty much only buy PC games on Steam these days. I know it works, and when it comes to reinstall Windows know the games will just re-download fine.
I know I won't have to hunt around looking for a serial number, which is on the manual, when it says it should be on the box, or is on some inlay card or sticker that's got lost. and then I have to hunt around for a crack, but then the crack only works with an unpatched release of 1.0 of the software, which is no use because version 1.0 is a pile of crap and without patching to a new version it can't be completed because of some bug in the gameplay on level 4 (etc, etc).
Ironically, it's primarily the PUBLISHERS who have forced all this crap on to go games (not developers). I've even emailed a few developers (politely) to let them know what I think of their copy protection and a more than one has responded sympathetically saying it's a request of the publisher, or the original licenser (in the case of ports). I say ironically as it's the existing publishers who will lose out with (legal) online downloads, because they will get cut out all together.
(Sorry that this is off topic, but Bio Shock was so well know for it's POS copy protection, seems hard to discuss it without mentioning it).
I'm not sure why you feel the XBox 360 is dated (from a functional point of view).
It's true that most cross platform ports do look identical, at least when they are not moving. Unfortunately when they are moving, there are issues on the PS3.
GTA, for example is worse quality on the PS3 (upscaled from less than 720p, unlike the 360 version, and it's much jerkier in very active screens), the only other cross platform title I've seen which comes to mind is Assassin's Creed, which is also far from smooth on the PS3 (that and - has has been noted - the load times were longer, which I found quite puzzling).
I am not sure what you mean by "doesn't have WiFi" as mine certainly does, WiFi has been available as an option since launch, nor do I know what you mean by HDMI being a "sort of hack".
Personally I prefer to use the RGB output and the optical audio out to my surround sound system, as the quality is identical and I have more RGB inputs than HDMI inputs (4 RGB, 2 HDMI) on my Denon, but there is nothing "hacky" about the HD support on the 360.
I would note that the 360 has shipped with HD support out of the box since launch, while the PS3 still does not (HD cables must be purchased separately for the PS3).
Personally I am biased though, not in favour of the X-Box (though I do think Microsoft have done a MUCH better job on their console software) but rather I am very sceptical of Sony and their claims for the PlayStation.
The PS3 no more lives up to the hype than the disappointing PS2 did. There are still multi platform ports to the Dreamcast (which was released quite bit before, and was cheaper), XBox and PS2 which look most inferior on the PS2.
Sony - largely thanks to the success of the original Playstation and great brand positioning - have been very successful in controlling the building the hype machine though, particularly among casual observers.
The inclusion of a hard disk on all PS3 models was a smart move (and removing it as standard from the 360 has proven to be a big mistake by Microsoft, which has really hurt the performance and design of some titles on the 360).
I think Sony made a mistake by choosing to go with an esoteric CPU design (yet again, after all the developers moaned about how hard it was to develop for the PS2). To me that is madness, particularly when Microsoft are really strong in that area (providing an architecture that was so generic, that initial 360 demo's were designed and developed on PowerMac G5's).
The upshot of Sony's mistake is that it takes developers much longer to get titles running acceptably (with high levels of detail and still high frame rates) on the PS3, and they are going to resent spending time having to do that when then simpler but more effective 360 design allows them to spend much more time focusing on making the gameplay better and on polishing.
What has happened thus far is that the more ambitious cross platform titles have not lived up to scratch on the PS3, including titles that were scheduled to be PS3 exclusives at one point (which is rather damning).
I think Sony are still playing catch up with the PS3, there are no killer exclusives yet (GT5 looks good, but really I don't think it raises the bar much above PGR4) and the approach to the on line experience thus far has been one of determined indifference. Perhaps that will change when "Home" arrives though.
Unfortunately, developers (and Sony) are stuck with the hardware...
I've got to say I notice a big difference in 3G performance, although not as much as advertised.
I get about a 180-200 Kbps per second connection with EDGE and about a 2 Mbps connection with a 3G modem (the advertised speeds being 3.4-7 Mbps, depending on who's doing the advertising).
That's in London though, the UK is generally better for connectivity thanks to having a dense population in fairly small populated area (particularly in the South East of England).
As much as I really like the iPhone software I'm waiting for a 3G iphone to see if the improve some of the other features (like a decent camera, decent Bluetooth implementation) before I replace my N95.
When the iPod came out, hard disk based MP3 players where a new thing. The only other multi gigabyte MP3 player at the time based device was the poorly received Nomad - which was the size of a CD player (not something you could fit in a regular pocket).
Apple have paid for the UNIX OS,they pay licensing fees to the Open Group. They contribute back their changes to software such as GCC, KHTML/WebKit and other pojects - as is well documented.
But I guess the facts just get in the way of a bit of blind hatred.
"root" isn't even presented an account under Mac OS X (as with Linux distributions like Ubuntu technically the account exists, but it doesn't have a password set on it so you can't log in with it - nor is it displayed in the GUI).
I do not believe for a minute that your drivers do not install unless logged in as root.
It's crazy that you'd be logged in as root at all. I've only ever done that on mac OS X to fix a broken account (where the password for the other accounts on the system was unknown).
Hmm not really sure about that. I watch a bunch of HD podcasts (some from very popular sources) streaming (not even pre-downloaded, thought that is an option) from my Apple TV (the new Apple TV 2.0 software has an option specifically to browse for HD video podcasts, all of course hosted by who ever provides them, not by Apple). If only the Apple store actually sold HD video content too (rather than the overpriced SD stuff currently on offer)....
My satellite provider also offers HD shows for download (annoyingly, only for Windows and it's not streaming). Those are smaller scale than general release, but the X-Box live site does allow you do download HD movies in the US and UK now (and has been doing games of over a gig for ages now). I'm not sure bandwith is a huge issue, at least long downloads the XBL model (i.e. at least an initial download, then play). The limited selection on XBL means it's still not on a grand scale, but is a fairly significant inroad.
Of course, as with satellite TV feeds, in most of those cases the content is 720p/1080i rather than being in 1080p because 1080p require so much more bandwith and presently delivers so little benefit over 720p to average consumers, even among average consumers with HD sets as most people have HD sets that are more like 32-42" (rather than 50-60") and sit far enough away that it's not so easy to tell the difference between the two resolutions.
I think - exactly as has happened with satellite TV feeds - HD content is just going to be in 720p (which keeps down the file size and so makes HD content delivery more viable). I think decent availability HD video (on a wiser scale beyond HD podcasts and XBL), while not here yet is not far off. It would certainly help if Apple started shifting mainstream HD content via the iTunes Store (not least because a little competition between Apple and MS wouldn't hurt consumers right now).
7.6.1 fixed a significant number of annoying bugs and the release notes include quite a lengthy description of what's new. One of the fixes was for updated compatibility with the new Apple TV firmware for major features, such as Movie rentals.
What DRM changes are they supposed to have made in 7.6.1 that have explicitly broken whatever tool you are using to strip the DRM?
Are you sure it's something related to DRM implementation that's changed, or could it be that the DRM-stripping application now b0rks when used in conjunction with the latest version of iTunes for entirely different reasons?
The latest version of QuickTime is 7.4.1. You can download that directly from Apple.com without iTunes (though by default the "with iTunes" option is selected, the dubious merits of that aside, it's a very clear choice to download it on it's own on the download page).
The latest version of "iTunes+QuickTime" listed in Apple Software Update is "7.6.1". This actually refers to iTunes version number (which is 7.6.1.9) NOT the QuickTime version number. Of course, if you want iTunes you have to have QuickTime too (because it relies on it) but not the other way round. The latest version of QuckTime is simply 7.4.1, and installing the iTunes+QuickTime package will not change the version number reported by QuickTime.
Ironically that it says "iTunes+QuickTime" (rather than just sneakily installing QuickTime anyway when you install iTunes) is the cause of the confusion.
I find that iTunes minor version update releases are very closely correlated to announcements of new ways of breaking iTunes DRM to allow folks to play purchased music via non-Apple hardware / software. That's happened about twice - certainly not that many times. I don't like the fact that they do that, but they are not usually related. I don't think it's much of a business model now either, not now he albums of popular artists are being sold without DRM via iTunes.
The majority of updates tend to be related to compatibility with new players - such as the iPod, iPhone and Apple TV - and for compatibility with new firmware updates for those players. That seems to be the major reason they are so infuriatingly frequent (personally, I think it updates far too often and they should consider an alternative update model, perhaps one where device compatibility updates are dealt with in a more behind-the-scenes manner).
I'm far more comfortable sitting at my PC desk, playing a game than sitting on my couch, slouched over playing a game. I don't know how you or others trying to perpetuate this meme play games, but when I play, it's pretty intense. Sitting on the couch slouched over isn't exactly the best posture for competitive gaming.
If your desk chair is more comfortable than your sofa, time to look at getting a new sofa. If you are slouching on it, it's a rubbish sofa, end of. Personally, I have a recliner sofa as my primary sofa (for playing console games and watching movies).
Personally, I have a fairly good gaming PC with a 24" TFT, AMD FX GPU, 2 GB RAM and 2 x GeForce 9600 GT's, G5+G15, EAX w/ surround sound, etc. I have a nice desk in a dedicated room to play in. I still have a lot more fun playing the GRAW series on the TV though. Why?
A good sofa or armchair is more comfortable than the best desk chair. No contest. A 50" plasma is better for playing action games than a 24" TFT, the sound system I have in the living room is far superior to the one on my PC. That's why I prefer to play many games on console. It's a better experience for range of games (pretty much everything but MMO's - because of the text input - and RPG's - because I like to be able to download custom mods and maps, though I had a great time playing Elder Scrolls: Morrowind on the original X-Box just fine, as the interface was very well adapted and the text easily readable).
Now you start the cycle all over again - how much will the NEXT generation console cost after that? Over a grand?
The Mega Drive/Genesis and SNES cost 600 USD when released (though dropped to more like 300 USD, as has happened now). Saturn, PS and Jaguar (with CD drive) cost about that (slightly cheaper). Neither the 360 or PS3 cost more than the SNES or MD at launch.
Not withstanding that people forget how much inflation goes up, console prices have been pretty consistent. Economics as meant they have had to be (console vendors only price them as high as consumers will stomach, which has remained fairly constant).
In contrast, entry level (very functional) PC's have got cheaper, but games have got more demanding - a bargain basement PC will barely manage to pull off Dreamcast/PS2 quality games. It's the cost of PC gaming which has gone up (with SLI being mandatory to play modern action titles at the high resolutions you've brought up, and with flaws such as poor AF&AA being far more noticeable and distracting due to close proximity to the display).
Gotta spend $600 for the latest and greatest or you get NOTHING. With a PC, you can spend $60 for something adequate, or spend $600 for the latest and greatest
Many people buy cheaper consoles, just like many people buy cheaper older graphics cards. Buying "the latest console" is a lot cheaper than a high end PC - even when it's not full of the latest-and-greatest kit (i.e. just "really good kit"). $600 dollars will get you ONE 8800 GTX with change left over to buy RAM (but not enough to get two for SLI). That doesn't include motherboard, CPU, PSU, decent soundcard, case, keyboard, mouse, speakers.
For that matter, that doesn't include a display either, which is a factor given that basically anyone considering a console or PC is going to have a TV already, but unless they have a PC already, they probably won't have a display.
A bit out of sequence, but I'm going to reply to this sentiment last:
The current crop of console games are still being developed for standard def TVs
That's so entirely off the mark it's laughable. The people who don't have HD TV's and have been moaning for the last year about how difficult it is to see things clearly on some of the games on these "new fangled consoles" are the one's laughing hardest.
Many console titles are (at least in part) upscaled from ~720p (1280x768 being a far cry from "SD" games which are usually rendered at less 640x400), but unless y
Not knowing what the dominant religion is on Earth falls within my definition of ignorant. Also not understanding what "minority" means is also ignorant. In the case of Christianity, it's not a minority - there is no single larger religious group (including Atheists / Agnostics).
The poster said "one of the most iconic symbols in the world", not "the most iconic symbol". That's a mistake on your part.
Any medical benefits can still be gained through adult circumcision should the individual so choose, so it's still very much an option. Oh absolutely, I wouldn't want any legislation to prevent adults (say 16) being able to do elect to have it performed.
Ah right, oh I agree. It's continued success (compared to similar sized units from other vendors) can't really be said to be down to it's design on it's own now - even though the software on the device is arguably better, I don't think there is that much in it to make people consider one way or the other (by which I mean the interfaces on new Creative and Sony players, as well as the Zune are not especially horrible, at from least what I've seen and the form factors are pretty much the same, and the price points seem pretty similar).
I guess all the things you've mentioned, plus perhaps the momentum of the iPod range, which I suspect has quite a bit to do with how much other vendors (specifically Sony and Microsoft) managed to put users off their platforms at first, though poorly thought out and overly restrictive initial offerings (e.g. ATRAC, PlaysForSure, etc.).
It's a fact. Not really, I don't know why on earth you would think that. Maybe if the guys are not clean, but then it's likely to be an unpleasant experience in any case.
And the truth is male circumcision is no big deal. It's certainly no better or worse than people who have their genitals pierced, and people routinely have baby girl's infants pierced. Again, it's not a big deal. BIG difference (ethnically and in practice) on whether you have it done as a child, or as adult (say mid teens onwards). Not the same as having a your ears pierced. Apart from the tearing/complications (which shouldn't happen when carried out by a competent surgeon) it absolutely effects sensitivity.
Now I'm not sure to what extent the effect true for everyone (I have no way of knowing), but the hardening of the surface that lies under the foreskin that takes place - eventually - in all males (for which there is a name, that I forget and I'm too lazy to look up) happens not as a teenager (as it normally would), but as child in those who are circumcised. I can attest that I would definitely missed out if I had been circumcised. Again, I don't know if that's true for everyone or to what extent, but that's absolutely true.
You DO know that's a big part of the reason why it's practiced by religious groups on children before they reach sexual maturity, right (either as infants, or if not then then just before at around age 11)?
i.e. to stop them from playing with themselves as much by making it less enjoyable (and angering god / going blind / etc.) - just as girls were circumcised at the same age, for the same reasons. God forbid anyone should be left to enjoy the one positive aspect of going through puberty...
Sorry if you missed out. Your parents are assholes. Not my fault.
You know, in france at one time, women didn't shave their armpits. Now women shave their public hair completely. In porn films, yes. In practice? Depends on the woman (and possibly how long you've been going out.), Frankly I think everyone should make an effort and trim but I'm quite happy with au natural (as long as it's not out of control). I find it off putting when women shave off all their pubic hair, it's just weird IMO, I like women, not girls. YMMV. But that's yet another topic.
Well, the General Medical Council don't say it's illegal, but the only legal commentary published on it in Journal of Medical Ethics disagrees with you (except in the very rare-to-non-existent cases where there might be medical grounds, of course). Needless to say this is one reason why shysters try so hard to find clinical justification for carrying out the process.
Although it's carried out in practice by both Jewish and Muslim parents in the UK (and judges have refused to grant an order banning it under the guise of it hypothetically "being in the best interest of a child" based on a rather contrived scenario) that's a not the same thing as it being ruled as being normal legal practice. HRA lawyers who have been warning about this for years.
What has yet to happen is for someone to go to court and for it to ruled under appeal as being a breech of the HRA (although it could also be ruled as incompatible with the ECHR in the Lords, even if the appeal failed). IIRC an appeal was on the cards in the 2005 case, but it in the end the prosecution didn't appeal (much to the disappointment of HRA lawyers). The judge in that case (where the verdict on the father of "not guilty" of assault was returned by a jury majority verdict) never the less warned people not to misinterpret the ruling in the trial by jury case.
Just because people do it and are not challenged on it doesn't mean it's legal. A child of 11 could still legally object to procedure, or parents who had it carried out be later prosecuted after the fact (for example, in the admittedly unlikely event the child later rejects their parents faith).
It is also of note (something that NORM-UK like to point out) that the UK is a signatory to UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, under which any violent act towards a child is not permitted even on grounds of "religion, culture or tradition", and it is acknowledged in the UK that it is not clinically beneficial on it's own merits and so does NOT constitute legitimate surgery . The UK has ratified the the convention and is bound by it under international law. This actually impacts all UN signatories to it (which is all 192 members of the UN, apart from... the Somalia and err the USA who have not signed up to it), so it has a wider remit.
It is accurate is that there is no UK specific legislation which explicitly makes it clear male genital mutilation illegal under all circumstances (in the same mold as The Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1995), but legal human rights experts do disagree with you that it's legal because the 'accepted practice' conflicts withe the HRA & ECHR (never mind the UNCRC).
The only reason it continues to be practiced as it was prior to 1998 is because it has not been tried in court (even if the UK then amended the HRA legislation, the Lords would still be able to rule the HRA was then a breach of the ECHR, which the UK is governed by and doesn't have the power to amend) and the GMC and RCS. The GMC and RCS are the bodies the government have cravenly left to decide the matter - declaring it was a legal issue for bodies who represent medical and surgical practitioners to address, even though it's not legally within the GMC's or the RCS's power to legislate (they can define best practice, and have you struck off if they don't think your conduct meets appropriate standards, but as they do not have the power to decided what constitutes criminal behavior).
The cop out of deferring to the GMC and RCS was the governments way of say "we don't want to touch this with a 10 foot pole or we will have people rioting in the streets". The GMC and RCS have in turn both been towing the "well no one in the government told us it was explicitly illegal" line - which is clearly circular logic.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as GTA goes, the resolution is known to be lower on the PS3 (only marginally, but still). The game uses a lower resolution for all distance objects on both platforms, so that complicates things further. Not a huge difference practically, but that's very well known already.
I have not (yet) had any slowdown on the 360, nor seen or heard of any, what you are saying about that is news to me, but I have seen it on the PS3. Not as bad as with Assassins Creed though, where there was a very significant difference (although it has one framerate bug on both platforms that mean you had quit/restart the game, again complicating things further).
GTA on both has very minor pop issues (e.g. when being outside and going in doors on some occasions). On both consoles the game (mercifully) caches the content to the HD, so I expect it's the same deal on both (not like Mass Effect on the 360, which is one big texture-popup extravaganza from developers who apparently were not aware that such as thing as "hard disks" exist on most 360's). Probably "you have to pay extra to get wifi capability", and that the accessory that provides it is absurdly overpriced (much like the 360 hard drives). That's true, both are insanely overpriced for the X-Box. I bought the 120 GB drive as my 20 GB was always full, that left a nasty hole in my wallet. The 60 GBP for the WiFi adapter did not make me a happy bunny either.
In my defense, although aware of that, I considered that even with WiFi, it was - and is - still cheaper to get a 360 than a PS3. Of course you don't get a Blu Ray drive with the 360 - which makes the PS3 more compelling, particularly now the format war is over - but then again with the 360 you are not forced to pay extra for features you don't want (but I'd argue that an HD console does really need a Hard Disk, streaming textures off a DVD/Blu Ray drive just isn't fast enough to be practical).
I purchased Unreal 3 over Steam, and it still had a serial number on it. I was surprised at this, but Steam played nice and shows you the number as a popup at just the right time when you are installing, so you can enter it into Unreal (a nice solution).
After seeing that in particular I wasn't sure how much other third party titles were integrated with Steam so have been quite wary (incase it was the same installer, just wrapped additionally in the Steam downloader).
Maybe they think Mono itself is just an ironic troll of some sort? :-)
That's the first I've heard of that. That is absolutely about damn time!
.NET technologies to try and compete with Java).
It's a fairly simple thing, but making the plug in itself huge and less than use friendly is a major hurdle to end user adoption particularly on Windows, where the majority of consumers are (on the Mac OS you get Java out of the box so not an issue there).
I think Sun shot themselves in the foot when they decided to take the ball home and force Microsoft to stop distributing their own JVM with MSIE. Java has gone on to be a big success in the Enterprise / server space, but no one really things of it as being associated with web development any more (except when they are confusing it with the intentionally confusingly named Javascript).
Being able to complete effectively as far as client software goes will also help with mindshare in the Enterprise arena (where Microsoft are using other
(I will have to stop typing now, I've just reached my buzzword quota.)
I see it as quite opposite. Silverlight doesn't offer a compelling featureset to lure people away from flash/flex
How do you share libraries between your other applications (e.g. server code, standalone client code) with a Flash interface, like you can with .NET or Java? I'm pretty sure Flex doesn't even try to address that. Of course not many software developers are going to be writing significant code in ActionScript in the first place, which is in itself something that makes it less attractive than Java or Silverlight.
.NET applications on the Mac with fully native Cocoa widgets (which, again, is not possible with Flash).
.NET/Mono + Sliverlight, Java or something like C and QT/GTK....
.NET. I see Silverlight as an attempt to bridge that gap - and that's what I like about it.
.NET battling Java (which is heavily entrenched in the Enterprise and isn't going to be easy for Microsoft to shift head on), but they are also attacking Java where it's no longer very strong anyway, in the form of "web applets" (this is where Silverlight comes in). C# is great for web service development (common Enterprise Java territory).
.NET, Microsoft can steamroller over Flash pretty easily over the course of a few years - the .NET approach is just really compelling and I think will gain momentum. Flash isn't part of a big cohesive strategy, i
Not being able to write native interfaces with Flash and Flexis also a problem. Flex has only very, very basic support for this (not really useable for substantial application development). In the interest of balance Silverlight is also currently a bit crappy in this regard when it comes to Mac OS, although the GTK and Windows interfaces give you everything you'd want.*
* Currently under the Mac it uses GTK to render the interface, although without X11 needing to be run, but work is being done on this. However, in the interim it's still possible to still write
But that's not all that separates Flash from something like
You can't really go very low level with ActionScript. You can't hook hook in to the hardware or local operating system to integrate with what features are available specifically to the platform you are deploying on. IMO you'd as well be writing in a more widely supported ECMA scripting language Javascript/JScript - as at least both Windows and Mac OS could execute it out of the box and both vendors have added powerful platform specific functionality to their implementations.
Then there is performance. As I've noted in another post, I can't see something like GIMP, Abiword or Firefox being developed in Flash. We've had Quake II in Java (and it rocks). The performance I get from Mono (albert it on nothing even remotely as advance) is none the less superb. Can you imagine a point where people will be developing major apps in ActionScript? I can't see developers flocking to it myself.
As far as I am concerned, Flash a package for multimedia designers, not serious software development. It doesn't encourage reusable code to anything like the extent of Java or
As for what I don't like?
Like Flash, Silverlight is nasty because it's proprietary (although the Mono team have their own Silverlight compiler, and Microsoft have endorsed it, which is good, if a bit confusing). However, unlike Flash, with Silverlight you can re-use your existing code and development expertise and code. You can build advanced applications in a familiar way with all the flexibility and power you can put in to a traditional desktop or server side application.
What I really don't like though, is that this clearly part of a "war" on multiple fronts (and one that is being well executed at that).
Microsoft have
Flash just happens to be in that space right now, but although it fulfills a unique niche right now (one it looked like Java was going to fill going back quite a few years ago). With
I've played around with OpenLaszlo quite a bit, it's a clever hack (I'm really impressed with it - and I don't use the term to reflect impliy anything about the quality of it) but it's still a hack for writing applications in Flash - it creates Flash, but it doesn't change what Flash is. It does not make into Flash in a platform for full featured application development (e.g. comparable with Java, Mono/.NET + Silverlight, etc.).
I've check out Flex before too, isn't about turning Flash into an application development platform either. Its more about allowing multimedia interface designers to deploy the sort of ECMA script driven multimedia presentation you'd find on a web page, to a desktop. That's why Microsoft is introducing Silverlight. Flash is threatening to become an OS-independent application platform which could make Windows irrelevant. I think it's more to do with their being an itch among developers that Java fails to scratch (even if largely thanks to Microsoft undermining it, as well as bad judgement calls by Sun) and that Flash doesn't even come close to scratching as far as software developers are concerned.
Flash isn't an OS-independant application development platform that anyone other than a web designer can take seriously (but these days, of anyone who can make a web page counts themselves a developer).
Frankly, I think having C# and the Common Language Infrastructure (i.e. run times) under ECMA and ISO standards - and a working (and highly functioning) Open Source implementation in the form of Mono does a lot more to undermine their monopoly.
Flash doesn't deal with having shared libraries between applications. It doesn't even support native interfaces (Flex tries a little bit from a cosmetic perspective, but it doesn't do very much other than re-theme basic widgets, badly and in a way that makes them function correctly). You can't share you libraries from you server with your client code (unless - and this is a terrible idea - you were writing your server side software in ActionScript).
To put it this way, can you imagine writing something like GIMP, Abiword, Entourage or Firefox in Flash?
Sure it's just about technically possible, but it would be an almighty hack and not even a remotely sensible idea (not just because Action Script isn't powerful enough, or that it couldn't handle having shared libraries - and the resulting code would almost certainly be a giant nasty hairball - but also because the performance would be so poor it would be unusable).
There is Mono (which can generate Silverlight run times), and it is really good quality, and C# and the Common Language Runtime are standards (and C# is a great language), but obviously Microsoft have a bad track record when it comes to embrace and extend (and so embracing Silverlight would possibly prove to be bad idea in the long run).
IME, Siverlight is a far better environment for developing real applications in than Flash, which is really only suitable for animations (from a software developer perspective). Something like Siverlight or Java is far more appropriate for application development (but Java - from the perspective of web based application roll outs - has gone off the rails if you ask me).
.NET is an improvement over Java IMO. If you want to, you can include an entire runtime distribution of Mono and the core libs in your main binary and you still have a reasonably sized application that "just works" for the user when they double click the icon.
IMO, it should really have worked the way rolling out projects from Project Builder on NeXT/Open Step worked - only the relevant libraries/DLL's for your application were included in the final build of your application, for whatever platform it was for (so releases could be just a few Kb - not requiring a separate 60+ MB install of a common runtime environment).
When it comes to client side application development,
Still, most things that can be done in either - with the exception of video - can be done in DHTML+Canvas on Firefox(/Gecko) and Safari(/Webkit) - and to a lesser degree, IE7. If Microsoft supported standards anywhere near as well as Mozilla has done it wouldn't be a big issue. I also wish Apple had put just slightly more work in to Canvas (text placement, anyone?). Kudos to the Mozilla team for not only implementing it, but providing some top class documentation for it.
Basically though, I think Flash has just gone too far down the wrong route, as application development in it seems like a hack. Perhaps someone can illustrate to me why I'm wrong and it really is good for application development and I'm just missing something every time I come to look it it (perhaps because the books and documentation are almost all aimed at animators+designers, not developers?).
I just refused to buy it (and Mass Effect and Trackmania).
I would really have liked to play Mass Effect on the PC, the 360 version has too many loading issues due to constantly streaming of the DVD (it was clearly not really a finished game, even though the content is all there and very high quality) I assume that presumably wouldn't be a problem on a powerful desktop PC so I was looking forward to it until I heard it had the crappy copy protection scheme.
A representative of the guys behind Trackmania (which I would really like to play...) has been really cocky about it too, he thinks its not impacting sales and only pirates. Of course he's wrong, and of course I'm sure you can still get downloads of it anyway (as is always the case...). Nice work there, chump. It's on Steam now, but I'm still not buying it because he was such an asshole I don't want to give them any business.
It's not simply that I have a principled objection, I installed X3 and it's Starforce copy protection totally hosed my system. It was crash all over the place after installing, even when playing games other, and some times while just at the desktop. I had to look in the event logs, the device manager and search Google then put all that together to see why (from what I gathered, it installs a device driver / virtual disc controller to the OS, and one that's very poorly written at that, which not only slows down you system, but also causes it to crash, often frequently.)
After running the Starforce uninstaller (found online) my system was immediately fine again. Of course I had to do that as uninstalling X3 - which had installed it - didn't take off the crap it had put on. I never did play the game for more than a few minutes, I sure as hell wasn't about to install it again.
As a result of this sort of crap, I pretty much only buy PC games on Steam these days. I know it works, and when it comes to reinstall Windows know the games will just re-download fine.
I know I won't have to hunt around looking for a serial number, which is on the manual, when it says it should be on the box, or is on some inlay card or sticker that's got lost. and then I have to hunt around for a crack, but then the crack only works with an unpatched release of 1.0 of the software, which is no use because version 1.0 is a pile of crap and without patching to a new version it can't be completed because of some bug in the gameplay on level 4 (etc, etc).
Ironically, it's primarily the PUBLISHERS who have forced all this crap on to go games (not developers). I've even emailed a few developers (politely) to let them know what I think of their copy protection and a more than one has responded sympathetically saying it's a request of the publisher, or the original licenser (in the case of ports). I say ironically as it's the existing publishers who will lose out with (legal) online downloads, because they will get cut out all together.
(Sorry that this is off topic, but Bio Shock was so well know for it's POS copy protection, seems hard to discuss it without mentioning it).
I'm not sure why you feel the XBox 360 is dated (from a functional point of view).
It's true that most cross platform ports do look identical, at least when they are not moving. Unfortunately when they are moving, there are issues on the PS3.
GTA, for example is worse quality on the PS3 (upscaled from less than 720p, unlike the 360 version, and it's much jerkier in very active screens), the only other cross platform title I've seen which comes to mind is Assassin's Creed, which is also far from smooth on the PS3 (that and - has has been noted - the load times were longer, which I found quite puzzling).
I am not sure what you mean by "doesn't have WiFi" as mine certainly does, WiFi has been available as an option since launch, nor do I know what you mean by HDMI being a "sort of hack".
Personally I prefer to use the RGB output and the optical audio out to my surround sound system, as the quality is identical and I have more RGB inputs than HDMI inputs (4 RGB, 2 HDMI) on my Denon, but there is nothing "hacky" about the HD support on the 360.
I would note that the 360 has shipped with HD support out of the box since launch, while the PS3 still does not (HD cables must be purchased separately for the PS3).
Personally I am biased though, not in favour of the X-Box (though I do think Microsoft have done a MUCH better job on their console software) but rather I am very sceptical of Sony and their claims for the PlayStation.
The PS3 no more lives up to the hype than the disappointing PS2 did. There are still multi platform ports to the Dreamcast (which was released quite bit before, and was cheaper), XBox and PS2 which look most inferior on the PS2.
Sony - largely thanks to the success of the original Playstation and great brand positioning - have been very successful in controlling the building the hype machine though, particularly among casual observers.
The inclusion of a hard disk on all PS3 models was a smart move (and removing it as standard from the 360 has proven to be a big mistake by Microsoft, which has really hurt the performance and design of some titles on the 360).
I think Sony made a mistake by choosing to go with an esoteric CPU design (yet again, after all the developers moaned about how hard it was to develop for the PS2). To me that is madness, particularly when Microsoft are really strong in that area (providing an architecture that was so generic, that initial 360 demo's were designed and developed on PowerMac G5's).
The upshot of Sony's mistake is that it takes developers much longer to get titles running acceptably (with high levels of detail and still high frame rates) on the PS3, and they are going to resent spending time having to do that when then simpler but more effective 360 design allows them to spend much more time focusing on making the gameplay better and on polishing.
What has happened thus far is that the more ambitious cross platform titles have not lived up to scratch on the PS3, including titles that were scheduled to be PS3 exclusives at one point (which is rather damning).
I think Sony are still playing catch up with the PS3, there are no killer exclusives yet (GT5 looks good, but really I don't think it raises the bar much above PGR4) and the approach to the on line experience thus far has been one of determined indifference. Perhaps that will change when "Home" arrives though.
Unfortunately, developers (and Sony) are stuck with the hardware...
I've got to say I notice a big difference in 3G performance, although not as much as advertised.
I get about a 180-200 Kbps per second connection with EDGE and about a 2 Mbps connection with a 3G modem (the advertised speeds being 3.4-7 Mbps, depending on who's doing the advertising).
That's in London though, the UK is generally better for connectivity thanks to having a dense population in fairly small populated area (particularly in the South East of England).
As much as I really like the iPhone software I'm waiting for a 3G iphone to see if the improve some of the other features (like a decent camera, decent Bluetooth implementation) before I replace my N95.
When the iPod came out, hard disk based MP3 players where a new thing. The only other multi gigabyte MP3 player at the time based device was the poorly received Nomad - which was the size of a CD player (not something you could fit in a regular pocket).
Apple have paid for the UNIX OS,they pay licensing fees to the Open Group. They contribute back their changes to software such as GCC, KHTML/WebKit and other pojects - as is well documented.
But I guess the facts just get in the way of a bit of blind hatred.
"root" isn't even presented an account under Mac OS X (as with Linux distributions like Ubuntu technically the account exists, but it doesn't have a password set on it so you can't log in with it - nor is it displayed in the GUI).
I do not believe for a minute that your drivers do not install unless logged in as root.
It's crazy that you'd be logged in as root at all. I've only ever done that on mac OS X to fix a broken account (where the password for the other accounts on the system was unknown).
Hmm not really sure about that. I watch a bunch of HD podcasts (some from very popular sources) streaming (not even pre-downloaded, thought that is an option) from my Apple TV (the new Apple TV 2.0 software has an option specifically to browse for HD video podcasts, all of course hosted by who ever provides them, not by Apple). If only the Apple store actually sold HD video content too (rather than the overpriced SD stuff currently on offer)....
My satellite provider also offers HD shows for download (annoyingly, only for Windows and it's not streaming). Those are smaller scale than general release, but the X-Box live site does allow you do download HD movies in the US and UK now (and has been doing games of over a gig for ages now). I'm not sure bandwith is a huge issue, at least long downloads the XBL model (i.e. at least an initial download, then play). The limited selection on XBL means it's still not on a grand scale, but is a fairly significant inroad.
Of course, as with satellite TV feeds, in most of those cases the content is 720p/1080i rather than being in 1080p because 1080p require so much more bandwith and presently delivers so little benefit over 720p to average consumers, even among average consumers with HD sets as most people have HD sets that are more like 32-42" (rather than 50-60") and sit far enough away that it's not so easy to tell the difference between the two resolutions.
I think - exactly as has happened with satellite TV feeds - HD content is just going to be in 720p (which keeps down the file size and so makes HD content delivery more viable). I think decent availability HD video (on a wiser scale beyond HD podcasts and XBL), while not here yet is not far off. It would certainly help if Apple started shifting mainstream HD content via the iTunes Store (not least because a little competition between Apple and MS wouldn't hurt consumers right now).
7.6.1 fixed a significant number of annoying bugs and the release notes include quite a lengthy description of what's new. One of the fixes was for updated compatibility with the new Apple TV firmware for major features, such as Movie rentals.
What DRM changes are they supposed to have made in 7.6.1 that have explicitly broken whatever tool you are using to strip the DRM?
Are you sure it's something related to DRM implementation that's changed, or could it be that the DRM-stripping application now b0rks when used in conjunction with the latest version of iTunes for entirely different reasons?
The latest version of QuickTime is 7.4.1. You can download that directly from Apple.com without iTunes (though by default the "with iTunes" option is selected, the dubious merits of that aside, it's a very clear choice to download it on it's own on the download page).
The latest version of "iTunes+QuickTime" listed in Apple Software Update is "7.6.1". This actually refers to iTunes version number (which is 7.6.1.9) NOT the QuickTime version number. Of course, if you want iTunes you have to have QuickTime too (because it relies on it) but not the other way round. The latest version of QuckTime is simply 7.4.1, and installing the iTunes+QuickTime package will not change the version number reported by QuickTime.
Ironically that it says "iTunes+QuickTime" (rather than just sneakily installing QuickTime anyway when you install iTunes) is the cause of the confusion.
The majority of updates tend to be related to compatibility with new players - such as the iPod, iPhone and Apple TV - and for compatibility with new firmware updates for those players. That seems to be the major reason they are so infuriatingly frequent (personally, I think it updates far too often and they should consider an alternative update model, perhaps one where device compatibility updates are dealt with in a more behind-the-scenes manner).
I'm far more comfortable sitting at my PC desk, playing a game than sitting on my couch, slouched over playing a game. I don't know how you or others trying to perpetuate this meme play games, but when I play, it's pretty intense. Sitting on the couch slouched over isn't exactly the best posture for competitive gaming.
If your desk chair is more comfortable than your sofa, time to look at getting a new sofa. If you are slouching on it, it's a rubbish sofa, end of. Personally, I have a recliner sofa as my primary sofa (for playing console games and watching movies).
Personally, I have a fairly good gaming PC with a 24" TFT, AMD FX GPU, 2 GB RAM and 2 x GeForce 9600 GT's, G5+G15, EAX w/ surround sound, etc. I have a nice desk in a dedicated room to play in. I still have a lot more fun playing the GRAW series on the TV though. Why?
A good sofa or armchair is more comfortable than the best desk chair. No contest. A 50" plasma is better for playing action games than a 24" TFT, the sound system I have in the living room is far superior to the one on my PC. That's why I prefer to play many games on console. It's a better experience for range of games (pretty much everything but MMO's - because of the text input - and RPG's - because I like to be able to download custom mods and maps, though I had a great time playing Elder Scrolls: Morrowind on the original X-Box just fine, as the interface was very well adapted and the text easily readable).
Now you start the cycle all over again - how much will the NEXT generation console cost after that? Over a grand?
The Mega Drive/Genesis and SNES cost 600 USD when released (though dropped to more like 300 USD, as has happened now). Saturn, PS and Jaguar (with CD drive) cost about that (slightly cheaper). Neither the 360 or PS3 cost more than the SNES or MD at launch.
Not withstanding that people forget how much inflation goes up, console prices have been pretty consistent. Economics as meant they have had to be (console vendors only price them as high as consumers will stomach, which has remained fairly constant).
In contrast, entry level (very functional) PC's have got cheaper, but games have got more demanding - a bargain basement PC will barely manage to pull off Dreamcast/PS2 quality games. It's the cost of PC gaming which has gone up (with SLI being mandatory to play modern action titles at the high resolutions you've brought up, and with flaws such as poor AF&AA being far more noticeable and distracting due to close proximity to the display).
Gotta spend $600 for the latest and greatest or you get NOTHING. With a PC, you can spend $60 for something adequate, or spend $600 for the latest and greatest
Many people buy cheaper consoles, just like many people buy cheaper older graphics cards. Buying "the latest console" is a lot cheaper than a high end PC - even when it's not full of the latest-and-greatest kit (i.e. just "really good kit"). $600 dollars will get you ONE 8800 GTX with change left over to buy RAM (but not enough to get two for SLI). That doesn't include motherboard, CPU, PSU, decent soundcard, case, keyboard, mouse, speakers.
For that matter, that doesn't include a display either, which is a factor given that basically anyone considering a console or PC is going to have a TV already, but unless they have a PC already, they probably won't have a display.
A bit out of sequence, but I'm going to reply to this sentiment last:
The current crop of console games are still being developed for standard def TVs
That's so entirely off the mark it's laughable. The people who don't have HD TV's and have been moaning for the last year about how difficult it is to see things clearly on some of the games on these "new fangled consoles" are the one's laughing hardest.
Many console titles are (at least in part) upscaled from ~720p (1280x768 being a far cry from "SD" games which are usually rendered at less 640x400), but unless y
The summary says this motion was filed by Activision, Gibson have not comment publicly.
That makes it sound like a marketing exercise to me.
Not knowing what the dominant religion is on Earth falls within my definition of ignorant. Also not understanding what "minority" means is also ignorant. In the case of Christianity, it's not a minority - there is no single larger religious group (including Atheists / Agnostics).
The poster said "one of the most iconic symbols in the world", not "the most iconic symbol". That's a mistake on your part.
Ah right, oh I agree. It's continued success (compared to similar sized units from other vendors) can't really be said to be down to it's design on it's own now - even though the software on the device is arguably better, I don't think there is that much in it to make people consider one way or the other (by which I mean the interfaces on new Creative and Sony players, as well as the Zune are not especially horrible, at from least what I've seen and the form factors are pretty much the same, and the price points seem pretty similar).
I guess all the things you've mentioned, plus perhaps the momentum of the iPod range, which I suspect has quite a bit to do with how much other vendors (specifically Sony and Microsoft) managed to put users off their platforms at first, though poorly thought out and overly restrictive initial offerings (e.g. ATRAC, PlaysForSure, etc.).
It's a fact. Not really, I don't know why on earth you would think that. Maybe if the guys are not clean, but then it's likely to be an unpleasant experience in any case. And the truth is male circumcision is no big deal. It's certainly no better or worse than people who have their genitals pierced, and people routinely have baby girl's infants pierced. Again, it's not a big deal. BIG difference (ethnically and in practice) on whether you have it done as a child, or as adult (say mid teens onwards). Not the same as having a your ears pierced. Apart from the tearing/complications (which shouldn't happen when carried out by a competent surgeon) it absolutely effects sensitivity.
Now I'm not sure to what extent the effect true for everyone (I have no way of knowing), but the hardening of the surface that lies under the foreskin that takes place - eventually - in all males (for which there is a name, that I forget and I'm too lazy to look up) happens not as a teenager (as it normally would), but as child in those who are circumcised. I can attest that I would definitely missed out if I had been circumcised. Again, I don't know if that's true for everyone or to what extent, but that's absolutely true.
You DO know that's a big part of the reason why it's practiced by religious groups on children before they reach sexual maturity, right (either as infants, or if not then then just before at around age 11)?
i.e. to stop them from playing with themselves as much by making it less enjoyable (and angering god / going blind / etc.) - just as girls were circumcised at the same age, for the same reasons. God forbid anyone should be left to enjoy the one positive aspect of going through puberty...
Sorry if you missed out. Your parents are assholes. Not my fault. You know, in france at one time, women didn't shave their armpits. Now women shave their public hair completely. In porn films, yes. In practice? Depends on the woman (and possibly how long you've been going out.), Frankly I think everyone should make an effort and trim but I'm quite happy with au natural (as long as it's not out of control). I find it off putting when women shave off all their pubic hair, it's just weird IMO, I like women, not girls. YMMV. But that's yet another topic.
Well, the General Medical Council don't say it's illegal, but the only legal commentary published on it in Journal of Medical Ethics disagrees with you (except in the very rare-to-non-existent cases where there might be medical grounds, of course). Needless to say this is one reason why shysters try so hard to find clinical justification for carrying out the process.
... the Somalia and err the USA who have not signed up to it), so it has a wider remit.
Although it's carried out in practice by both Jewish and Muslim parents in the UK (and judges have refused to grant an order banning it under the guise of it hypothetically "being in the best interest of a child" based on a rather contrived scenario) that's a not the same thing as it being ruled as being normal legal practice. HRA lawyers who have been warning about this for years.
What has yet to happen is for someone to go to court and for it to ruled under appeal as being a breech of the HRA (although it could also be ruled as incompatible with the ECHR in the Lords, even if the appeal failed). IIRC an appeal was on the cards in the 2005 case, but it in the end the prosecution didn't appeal (much to the disappointment of HRA lawyers). The judge in that case (where the verdict on the father of "not guilty" of assault was returned by a jury majority verdict) never the less warned people not to misinterpret the ruling in the trial by jury case.
Just because people do it and are not challenged on it doesn't mean it's legal. A child of 11 could still legally object to procedure, or parents who had it carried out be later prosecuted after the fact (for example, in the admittedly unlikely event the child later rejects their parents faith).
It is also of note (something that NORM-UK like to point out) that the UK is a signatory to UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, under which any violent act towards a child is not permitted even on grounds of "religion, culture or tradition", and it is acknowledged in the UK that it is not clinically beneficial on it's own merits and so does NOT constitute legitimate surgery . The UK has ratified the the convention and is bound by it under international law. This actually impacts all UN signatories to it (which is all 192 members of the UN, apart from
It is accurate is that there is no UK specific legislation which explicitly makes it clear male genital mutilation illegal under all circumstances (in the same mold as The Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1995), but legal human rights experts do disagree with you that it's legal because the 'accepted practice' conflicts withe the HRA & ECHR (never mind the UNCRC).
The only reason it continues to be practiced as it was prior to 1998 is because it has not been tried in court (even if the UK then amended the HRA legislation, the Lords would still be able to rule the HRA was then a breach of the ECHR, which the UK is governed by and doesn't have the power to amend) and the GMC and RCS. The GMC and RCS are the bodies the government have cravenly left to decide the matter - declaring it was a legal issue for bodies who represent medical and surgical practitioners to address, even though it's not legally within the GMC's or the RCS's power to legislate (they can define best practice, and have you struck off if they don't think your conduct meets appropriate standards, but as they do not have the power to decided what constitutes criminal behavior).
The cop out of deferring to the GMC and RCS was the governments way of say "we don't want to touch this with a 10 foot pole or we will have people rioting in the streets". The GMC and RCS have in turn both been towing the "well no one in the government told us it was explicitly illegal" line - which is clearly circular logic.