First of all, your caveat (that retail price would be lowered) is far from a foregone conclusion. None of the current games with DLC have significantly lower prices than their competitors at launch. That includes Half Life 2, one of the pioneers, and a markedly short game by itself. (And notably, the available DLC doesn't seem to make it feel any more complete.)
Ultimately, the gaming community feels (unrealistically) that video game publishers are trying to milk them for all the money they are worth
That's not unrealistic at all; it's basic economics. Each side of a transaction has an intrinsic desire to maximize its gains, either by maximizing profit for the seller (bleeding the customer for all he's worth), or by lowering expenses for the buyer (paying the minimum possible). Typically these interests balance to a reasonable middle ground, but the profit margin for some games -- particularly subscription-based games, can be massive.
That said, the fault doesn't lie with the sellers here, it lies with idiotic buyers who have shown that they're willing to part with large sums of cash to play games. The game industry, like all others, is essentially a giant auction, except gamers don't know when to stop bidding. "Well, it's only $5 more than the last game.. that's not so much."
To be fair, the other factor that's supposed to balance out prices -- competition -- is non-existant for games. There's no equivalent game in a different package the way you can pick Coke vs. Pepsi vs. Sam's Choice. Imagine if you could only drink soda with your friends if you were drinking the same brand. That's the video game industry.
That's probably the most unintentionally funny thing I've read all day. Thanks for that.
SWG wasn't even close to the first multiplayer online game (let alone software) that required a subscription, or a pay-as-you-go model. In the 80s, online services like Q-Link, CompuServe, AOL, and GEnie charged pay-by-the-hour premium to play multiplayer games on top of by-the-minute connection fees in most cases. In the mid 90s, Kesmai, the developer of most of the games available on the aforementioned services, launched its own website, GameStorm, marking perhaps the first time a game developer was also the distributor and host of its own product. GameStorm charged a $10/mo subscription for unlimited access to all of its games, which significantly reduced the cost of online gaming. In the late 90s, games like Ultima Online and EverQuest followed suit, except they charged a monthly subscription for an *individual* game rather than a collection; a step backwards for consumers.
SWG was probably the first MMORPG that tried to expand the genre to a more mainstream audience, but it was just one of many, many "me too" games that were developed in the early part of the 2000s to try to capitalize on the burgeoning multiplayer market; a market that now dominates the PC gaming industry, much to my dismay.
They don't care whether or not it's bullshit, they care whether or not it's popular. Previous politicians demonized drugs and subsequently banned them as a way to show they were keeping people safe. Now the public believes they are dangerous, and so current politicians must legislate based on that perception.
That said, I think taking either extreme (all drugs are bad / no drugs should be illegal) is being disingenuous. I think we need clear methodology for determining what should and should not be illegal based on specific patterns of usage, physiological effects, etc. There will always be people who make mistakes and hurt themselves or others, but if that's not sufficient grounds for banning alcohol, then it's not sufficient grounds for banning, say, acid or mushrooms.
It depends. In the US, most carriers (including AT&T) won't give you a discount just because you own a phone; the only difference is that you're not locked into a n-year minimum contract. For most people, it doesn't make sense to buy a phone outright for 3x the cost when you'll be paying the same service fees either way.
It's not suspicious or unusual if they hit the wrong pedal. If your car doesn't slow down when you press the pedal, what do you do? Press it harder, of course. Unfortunately, when you have your foot on the gas, that means you're accelerating instead of decelerating.
I'm not trying to be an apologist, but I think an objective review of the available data is more consistent with operator error than with the temporary, non-reproducible failure of multiple systems in varying models.
But it could be more complex than that, if the entire system is fly-by-wire (which it is). If the computer is somehow misreading inputs in a system such as this, then it certainly is possible that the driver has the brake on but no lights and no brakes
You're yet another idiot. Brakes are NOT electronic whatsoever, nor are they "fly [drive] by wire". The lights ARE a simple switch, and while it's conceivable that the switch could fail intermittently, it would have no effect on the actual brake system. All of the indications of that accident are consistent with the driver pressing the wrong pedal, and not at all consistent with failed brakes.
I can't speak to your uncle's problem without more information, but given that it's completely unrelated to a BRAKE failure, it's irrelevant anyway.
I was a passenger in that situation about 10 years ago, and not in a Toyota, or Audi, or Volvo, or one of the other car companies generally associated with the problem. The driver didn't hesitate to shift into Neutral, the engine revved furiously while we slowed to a stop, and it ended up being nothing more than a crazy story we told our friends. (Broken throttle cable, BTW. People want mechanical links again why?) I suspect *most* people have the same reaction, and we just never hear about it because an accident averted doesn't make the news.
The tiptronic won't let you downshift if the RPMs are too high for the lower gear (which at some point they would be in a WOT condition -- you may be able to get down to 4th, but that's still ~120MPH at peak RPMs). And FWIW, the top speed in 1st gear is around 40MPH. That's not to say he couldn't have stopped the vehicle, but downshifting a tiptronic with overrange protection is not a viable method.
I have been in a vehicle that experienced uncontrolled acceleration, and it was not driver error. My friend's throttle cable broke when he floored it one morning, and the throttle got stuck in the wide open position (or close to it). He shifted into Neutral, braked to a stop, and turned off the engine. Tragedy averted. We went to NAPA, bought a new cable, and everything was fine.
Cars are not infallible, and they should be driven accordingly. Tires pop, brakes fail, transmissions fail, and engines seize, all of which require the driver to compensate accordingly if the vehicle is in motion. That said, as I stated earlier, I don't believe the current rash of "failures" in Toyota vehicles has been convincingly isolated from operator error -- intentional or otherwise.
It's possible there really is a problem with Toyota vehicles, but it's also possible that random distribution is favoring Toyota models. (Or disfavoring, as the case may be). For example, if you roll a perfect die 100 times, you're likely to both have one number come up more often than the others, as well as have a run of the same number coming up several times in a row. If driver skill distribution is random by vehicle choice, then you'd expect the same grouping for a given manufacturer, whether it's Toyota or Ford. Last time it was Audi, this time it's Toyota. Note that I'm not saying this with 100% certainty, but it's a plausible explanation given the facts; and in my opinion it's more plausible than electronically triggered wide open throttle AND mechanical brake failure AND electronic sensor failure. (The brakes are not electronically controlled; only electronically monitored.) Occam's razor and all that.
I actually own a vehicle that was recalled due to the "uncontrolled acceleration" problem, and from my perspective, the pedal layout is normal with respect to positioning. If anything, I'd say the accelerator in my vehicle is too narrow for my liking, and certainly more narrow than in vehicles I've owned in the past. I opted not to get the recall changes made, since they involved installing an *even smaller* accelerator pedal, along with a brake override in the ECU, neither of which are appealing to me, especially given the lack of evidence -- and now evidence to the contrary -- implicating either the mechanical or electronic components.
This study certainly mirrors my personal experience, especially in political "debates" with friends or acquaintances. One of my friends is staunchly in favor of a minimalist government; an idea that I can respect. When I asked why, he asserted that the state was doing "too much," like building roads, and doing it inefficiently to boot. When I asked for a concrete example, he brought up roads. The state, he said, should not be in the business of building roads; instead they should have open bids for contracts. When I pointed out that they do just that, he accused me of twisting his words and "missing the point." He went on to ramble about how the only job of the government was to protect us from foreign invaders, and then in the same breath used the military as an example of a "huge waste of money." I guess I did miss the point, because I still have no idea why he believes what he does. He just believes it, and the fact that he doesn't know why has no bearing on his belief.
It's not just politics either. I have a friend who is convinced that he *must* fully drain his (NiMH) batteries every time, or else they will lose capacity. I tried to explain that a) what he was describing was memory effect, b) that it hasn't been conclusively demonstrated in NiMH, c) that memory effect doesn't come into play outside of specially designed circumstances anyway, and d) that charge/discharge cycles have the largest effect on capacity in all other (i.e., typical) scenarios. As a result, he went from occasionally leaving the phone off the charger, to being bound and determined not to return it to the charger until it turns itself off. As you might expect, the phone is always nearly dead whenever someone needs to use it because it hasn't been charged for hours, which means even if he was right, it still defeats the point. (And of course, he burns through batteries as a result of intentionally racking up charge cycles, and always pins the blame on roommates who return the phone to the charger).
I know it sucks to be wrong because I'm wrong all the time, but I've also learned that it's really not that painful to admit when I'm wrong. As a plus, I don't look like a raving lunatic by continuing to argue in favor of disproved ideas.
The JS engine is probably the only area FF is trailing the rest of the market by a wide margin.
HTML5 as well, FF4 beta notwithstanding. About the only test I've seen FF win lately is memory usage, although I haven't been able to reproduce those results at all in personal use.
FF was good in its time, but hasn't been my browser of choice since Chrome started formally supporting plugins. I do miss multi-row tabbing, but it's easy enough to live without given the performance of Chrome overall.
I don't get it.. how is this better than just breaking their ankles and keeping them tied up on a bed? They can't get elected if they can't run. (Get it?) Plus they'll probably fall in love with you all over again while you nurse them back to health. Win-win.
Slashdot Mirror
Apologies, could you reiterate your question in a manner consistent with a superlative level of education?
Well, sir, pray tell what's the point of a monocle if not to look down your nose at everything?
and the rootkit drivers appear to be digitally signed by Realtek Semiconductor, a legitimate hi-tech company.
For very loose values of "legitimate." Realtek is the Yugo of hi-tech.
First of all, your caveat (that retail price would be lowered) is far from a foregone conclusion. None of the current games with DLC have significantly lower prices than their competitors at launch. That includes Half Life 2, one of the pioneers, and a markedly short game by itself. (And notably, the available DLC doesn't seem to make it feel any more complete.)
Ultimately, the gaming community feels (unrealistically) that video game publishers are trying to milk them for all the money they are worth
That's not unrealistic at all; it's basic economics. Each side of a transaction has an intrinsic desire to maximize its gains, either by maximizing profit for the seller (bleeding the customer for all he's worth), or by lowering expenses for the buyer (paying the minimum possible). Typically these interests balance to a reasonable middle ground, but the profit margin for some games -- particularly subscription-based games, can be massive.
That said, the fault doesn't lie with the sellers here, it lies with idiotic buyers who have shown that they're willing to part with large sums of cash to play games. The game industry, like all others, is essentially a giant auction, except gamers don't know when to stop bidding. "Well, it's only $5 more than the last game.. that's not so much."
To be fair, the other factor that's supposed to balance out prices -- competition -- is non-existant for games. There's no equivalent game in a different package the way you can pick Coke vs. Pepsi vs. Sam's Choice. Imagine if you could only drink soda with your friends if you were drinking the same brand. That's the video game industry.
WOW didn't trailblaze with that, SWG did
That's probably the most unintentionally funny thing I've read all day. Thanks for that.
SWG wasn't even close to the first multiplayer online game (let alone software) that required a subscription, or a pay-as-you-go model. In the 80s, online services like Q-Link, CompuServe, AOL, and GEnie charged pay-by-the-hour premium to play multiplayer games on top of by-the-minute connection fees in most cases. In the mid 90s, Kesmai, the developer of most of the games available on the aforementioned services, launched its own website, GameStorm, marking perhaps the first time a game developer was also the distributor and host of its own product. GameStorm charged a $10/mo subscription for unlimited access to all of its games, which significantly reduced the cost of online gaming. In the late 90s, games like Ultima Online and EverQuest followed suit, except they charged a monthly subscription for an *individual* game rather than a collection; a step backwards for consumers.
SWG was probably the first MMORPG that tried to expand the genre to a more mainstream audience, but it was just one of many, many "me too" games that were developed in the early part of the 2000s to try to capitalize on the burgeoning multiplayer market; a market that now dominates the PC gaming industry, much to my dismay.
Now get off my lawn!
You idiot! Everyone knows the iMac only accepts bills -- specifically crisp $100s. People like you are the reason vending machines are always broken.
They don't care whether or not it's bullshit, they care whether or not it's popular. Previous politicians demonized drugs and subsequently banned them as a way to show they were keeping people safe. Now the public believes they are dangerous, and so current politicians must legislate based on that perception.
That said, I think taking either extreme (all drugs are bad / no drugs should be illegal) is being disingenuous. I think we need clear methodology for determining what should and should not be illegal based on specific patterns of usage, physiological effects, etc. There will always be people who make mistakes and hurt themselves or others, but if that's not sufficient grounds for banning alcohol, then it's not sufficient grounds for banning, say, acid or mushrooms.
As I develop the awakening mind, I praise the buddha as they shine...
You can legally buy a gun that only shoots in the direction of the person pulling the trigger
I think Kurt Kobain et al have conclusively demonstrated that there's no such thing as a gun that only shoots in a given direction.
It depends. In the US, most carriers (including AT&T) won't give you a discount just because you own a phone; the only difference is that you're not locked into a n-year minimum contract. For most people, it doesn't make sense to buy a phone outright for 3x the cost when you'll be paying the same service fees either way.
Oh, I get it.. Black & White 3. I can't wait for Milo to hold his bowel movements the way a toddler holds its breath.
Your satellite's so fat, they had to launch the earth off of it.
It's not suspicious or unusual if they hit the wrong pedal. If your car doesn't slow down when you press the pedal, what do you do? Press it harder, of course. Unfortunately, when you have your foot on the gas, that means you're accelerating instead of decelerating.
I'm not trying to be an apologist, but I think an objective review of the available data is more consistent with operator error than with the temporary, non-reproducible failure of multiple systems in varying models.
But it could be more complex than that, if the entire system is fly-by-wire (which it is). If the computer is somehow misreading inputs in a system such as this, then it certainly is possible that the driver has the brake on but no lights and no brakes
You're yet another idiot. Brakes are NOT electronic whatsoever, nor are they "fly [drive] by wire". The lights ARE a simple switch, and while it's conceivable that the switch could fail intermittently, it would have no effect on the actual brake system. All of the indications of that accident are consistent with the driver pressing the wrong pedal, and not at all consistent with failed brakes.
I can't speak to your uncle's problem without more information, but given that it's completely unrelated to a BRAKE failure, it's irrelevant anyway.
I was a passenger in that situation about 10 years ago, and not in a Toyota, or Audi, or Volvo, or one of the other car companies generally associated with the problem. The driver didn't hesitate to shift into Neutral, the engine revved furiously while we slowed to a stop, and it ended up being nothing more than a crazy story we told our friends. (Broken throttle cable, BTW. People want mechanical links again why?) I suspect *most* people have the same reaction, and we just never hear about it because an accident averted doesn't make the news.
The tiptronic won't let you downshift if the RPMs are too high for the lower gear (which at some point they would be in a WOT condition -- you may be able to get down to 4th, but that's still ~120MPH at peak RPMs). And FWIW, the top speed in 1st gear is around 40MPH. That's not to say he couldn't have stopped the vehicle, but downshifting a tiptronic with overrange protection is not a viable method.
I have been in a vehicle that experienced uncontrolled acceleration, and it was not driver error. My friend's throttle cable broke when he floored it one morning, and the throttle got stuck in the wide open position (or close to it). He shifted into Neutral, braked to a stop, and turned off the engine. Tragedy averted. We went to NAPA, bought a new cable, and everything was fine.
Cars are not infallible, and they should be driven accordingly. Tires pop, brakes fail, transmissions fail, and engines seize, all of which require the driver to compensate accordingly if the vehicle is in motion. That said, as I stated earlier, I don't believe the current rash of "failures" in Toyota vehicles has been convincingly isolated from operator error -- intentional or otherwise.
It's possible there really is a problem with Toyota vehicles, but it's also possible that random distribution is favoring Toyota models. (Or disfavoring, as the case may be). For example, if you roll a perfect die 100 times, you're likely to both have one number come up more often than the others, as well as have a run of the same number coming up several times in a row. If driver skill distribution is random by vehicle choice, then you'd expect the same grouping for a given manufacturer, whether it's Toyota or Ford. Last time it was Audi, this time it's Toyota. Note that I'm not saying this with 100% certainty, but it's a plausible explanation given the facts; and in my opinion it's more plausible than electronically triggered wide open throttle AND mechanical brake failure AND electronic sensor failure. (The brakes are not electronically controlled; only electronically monitored.) Occam's razor and all that.
I actually own a vehicle that was recalled due to the "uncontrolled acceleration" problem, and from my perspective, the pedal layout is normal with respect to positioning. If anything, I'd say the accelerator in my vehicle is too narrow for my liking, and certainly more narrow than in vehicles I've owned in the past. I opted not to get the recall changes made, since they involved installing an *even smaller* accelerator pedal, along with a brake override in the ECU, neither of which are appealing to me, especially given the lack of evidence -- and now evidence to the contrary -- implicating either the mechanical or electronic components.
STFU pinko.
This study certainly mirrors my personal experience, especially in political "debates" with friends or acquaintances. One of my friends is staunchly in favor of a minimalist government; an idea that I can respect. When I asked why, he asserted that the state was doing "too much," like building roads, and doing it inefficiently to boot. When I asked for a concrete example, he brought up roads. The state, he said, should not be in the business of building roads; instead they should have open bids for contracts. When I pointed out that they do just that, he accused me of twisting his words and "missing the point." He went on to ramble about how the only job of the government was to protect us from foreign invaders, and then in the same breath used the military as an example of a "huge waste of money." I guess I did miss the point, because I still have no idea why he believes what he does. He just believes it, and the fact that he doesn't know why has no bearing on his belief.
It's not just politics either. I have a friend who is convinced that he *must* fully drain his (NiMH) batteries every time, or else they will lose capacity. I tried to explain that a) what he was describing was memory effect, b) that it hasn't been conclusively demonstrated in NiMH, c) that memory effect doesn't come into play outside of specially designed circumstances anyway, and d) that charge/discharge cycles have the largest effect on capacity in all other (i.e., typical) scenarios. As a result, he went from occasionally leaving the phone off the charger, to being bound and determined not to return it to the charger until it turns itself off. As you might expect, the phone is always nearly dead whenever someone needs to use it because it hasn't been charged for hours, which means even if he was right, it still defeats the point. (And of course, he burns through batteries as a result of intentionally racking up charge cycles, and always pins the blame on roommates who return the phone to the charger).
I know it sucks to be wrong because I'm wrong all the time, but I've also learned that it's really not that painful to admit when I'm wrong. As a plus, I don't look like a raving lunatic by continuing to argue in favor of disproved ideas.
The JS engine is probably the only area FF is trailing the rest of the market by a wide margin.
HTML5 as well, FF4 beta notwithstanding. About the only test I've seen FF win lately is memory usage, although I haven't been able to reproduce those results at all in personal use.
FF was good in its time, but hasn't been my browser of choice since Chrome started formally supporting plugins. I do miss multi-row tabbing, but it's easy enough to live without given the performance of Chrome overall.
You're thinking of AlQuedaMonkey. TalibanMonkey tally me bananas.
To be fair, I'm sure he didn't mean to imply that penises and overweight bald guys were mutually exclusive.
Obviously this is for *women*, not men, otherwise why would they mention the possibility of an ex getting elected!?!?
Plus, moving on...? That's not how we roll.
I don't get it.. how is this better than just breaking their ankles and keeping them tied up on a bed? They can't get elected if they can't run. (Get it?) Plus they'll probably fall in love with you all over again while you nurse them back to health. Win-win.