I have some fairly old books (late 1800's) that are in pretty damn good condition. There is a small independant bookstore down the road that sells books ranging from brand new to 1830, most of the older books are in better shape (since they weren't seen as disposable commodities back then, that and publishers started cutting major corners recently, a trade paperback is lucky to survive a single reading these days) than the contemporary ones. I actually found a first edition german survey of physics by Max Plank (the pages weren't even cut) for $15 there.
Most of the used books I've bought have been basically like new.
Exactly! Incidentally, loaning Kindle titles worked just fine before they instituted the new "loan" policy--you just had to loan your Kindle as well.
Bad analogy, even if we keep on insisting on shoe horning real world limitations artificially into other things that don't suffer from the physics that cause those limitations. If I want to loan someone a book from my library I don't have to box up all x thousand books and ship them to the person who want to borrow a single book. I can loan you Catcher in the Rye, and read a book two shelves down at the same time.
I have "loaned" books to my girlfriend, digitally. We both have Nooks. I strip DRM out of all of my purchases on principle. I loaned her the China Meiville's New Crobuzon books when I was done reading them. I sent her copies via our network, she put them in Calibre and transfered them to her Nook. I didn't read them while she read them, having just read them a week previous. She then removed them from her Nook (though they may still be on her computer). In the end it worked just like loaning a real book. Or at least just like our large communal collection of books. I paid for half of them, and she can read them at will. Thanks to differing schedules we sometimes even (gasp!) read the same book at roughly the same time. I know... We should have to purchase a copy for each of us.
When we force arbitrary rules on things that don't have those rules because of any good reason, we're often actually being more limiting than in the real world, where those rules exist because of physical law.
If a publisher tells me I'm not allowed to lend books, or share with my long term, cohabitating, girlfriend, then screw them, and I reserve the right to ignore all laws that would hinder this ability.
I do have to say that I don't think I've seen any ebooks that are more expensive than the paperback copies. I have seen higher priced ebooks without the paperback copy available for it but a hardback edition is available.
On Amazon: Stephen King's new short story collection. Hardcover: $15.26 Paperback: 9.99 Kindle (ebook): 12.99
It actually isn't that rare, spend some time browsing best sellers on Amazon.
I just bought a Charles Stross anthology ("Wireless") for 7.99, I was going to buy the epub for my Nook instead, but it was 6.99. While being cheaper, I don't think losing rights is worth the dollar. In the end I wasn't a fan, took the paperback to Bookmans and got a whole $1.30 trade for it. So for an extra $1 I got the my rights (doctrine of first sale), and an extra $0.30.
More amusingly, thanks to publishers, ebooks have entered my "illegal but ethical" area of piracy. If I've purchased the book, I have no compulsion against pirating it. I would still find pirating them ethical at a lower cost point, but I would see the price as worth saving the effort. Just like I view pirating music where the artist cannot possibly get any benefit from the sale as ethical, but will still cough up the $0.99 from time to time just to keep me from spending some time on Google-fu.
I'm not the largest fan of Itunes on Windows either (too much bloat for the sake of products I don't own or want), but it is better for my uses than anything I've found on Linux. I had my HTPC using Ubuntu for awhile and switched it over to Windows7 for lack of an Mp3 player. Amarok was nice, but a bit creepy in modern version, Banshee was nice but died with my library of over 6000 songs, I used Guay-something mostly. I spent a month going through every damn Linux player I could find and none of them were feature rich, stable, or intuitive (pick two). I have a large library, addicted to "constrained shuffle" (like iTunes DJ feature, a random list, weighted by rating, that you can edit), and need something that guests can use with little or no training. Guay-something (forgot its name, and Google is no help) was pretty much perfect, and its "constrained shuffle" was even a bit better than iTunes (in concept, its implementation was a bit off) being able to stick within related songs via Last.fm recommendations. It was hard to explain to random non-nerds during game nights and parties, I never could figure out what the hell some options did despite days of fiddling, and it never was as stable as poor flawed iTunes.
I finally ditched Linux, though, because of Flash. What good is an HTPC that can't handle most streaming video? I feel dirty, and unnerdy about it, but... there comes a time when we have to pick function over ideology. Especially when I expect my girlfriend to be able to handle it. I get the "Flash is Adobe's fault" argument (and not being able to handle HDMI sound is Nvidia's) , but she didn't. "Wait, you have a HTPC that can't handle media? That makes sense how?". Oddly Boxee could handle 1080p streaming fine, but nothing else could, despite rolling back drivers and hand editing, and recompiling random crap. And Boxee become almost useless when Hulu pulled all support from them... again. And Hulu's client fails completely on Linux. None of it is Linux's fault... but damn.
Then again, my listening habits are such that I'll listen to one song repeatedly until the neighbors lose their minds, so aside from queuing my entire collection and shuffling at random when I want to listen to something new, there's almost no point in using something like iTunes. Even Amarok was a little bit of overkill.
We're opposites! I'm a shuffle fanatic. I collect completely random genres and listen to them all mixed on shuffle. Nothing like Mozart, followed by Slayer, followed by Coltrane, followed by Pink Floyd, followed by AC/DC, followed by Tool, followed by Dangermouse. followed by Fantomas, followed by Joanna Newsom, followed by John Zorn covering Ennio Morricone... etc...
It makes using a real OS a breath of fresh air compared to the nightmare that is the Windows directory layout, although it has improved slightly since the XP days--SLIGHTLY.
Sometimes Linux and OS X annoy me too though. Sometimes I ponder whether their glut of directories are a bit antiquated. Yes, there is less redundancy and more specificities and (actually followed) rules, but things can get a bit overwhelming at times. I lean more towards the *nix system though. Better overly specific than sloppy and inconsistant. Nothing is perfect, I suppose.
Learned hard way w/ iTunes. I despise programs that rearrange your files for you, make ridiculous subdirs w/out permissions, etc. I have to use iTunes, but I look forward to the day when I can get rid of anything apple and/or adobe. Hell, not even MS forces directories on you (not incl. the OS itself, I guess).
That behavior in iTunes is no longer the default, at least. And, last I checked, it could keep a large, unorganized, directory organized within itself, without mucking with the directory.
Personally I love iTunes. I have over 40Gb of music in it, and the idea of manually organizing it sounds like absolute hell. I tried that once, hated every second of it, so I'm a large fan of a program that will do all the boring work for me.
Actually MS does, or at least their sloppy design does. Its one of my peeves, I'm trying to be a good little nerd and keep my/user directory on a separate drive. But a lot of programs won't play nicely with that. Even if all of my home directory is sitting pretty on D:\ everything will still write to C:\Users\[NAME]\Appdata. Yes, you can change it with a bit of registry work, but it then breaks a bunch of programs that keep it hard coded. Same with trying to keep control of your home directory. Every damn program has to make some silly folder in an arbitrary location within it. Games are especially bad, since you often can't edit where they save. So you end up with, in my case:
And then a bunch saved in the immovabe C:\users\[Name]\appdata\ and its various, somewhat arbitrary subdirectories. And then a bunch that insist in saving in their directory in C:\Game\[comapany]\[title]\ or under their Steam directory, at some random place.
It makes backing up saved games a pain.
More on topic; I'm a strict hierarchy type, though I do mostly use search. When I used a Mac I had strict hierarchies, but mostly used Quicksilver to access files. Same on Linux, I use GnomeDo, or the one that comes bundled in KDE (is there anything halfway like Quicksilver/Do for KDE?) 90% of time, but am paranoid enough to know that a good heirarchy withstands most other organization fads. There is only so much tags and metadata can do when the standard evaporates, but folders and logical organization will be around forever.
There is no such thing as an "Anonymous Hacking Group". There are no senior members, or official members of any kind. You are only a member of anonymous while actively participating. The media has blown this way out of proportion. Most people don't actually understand what Anonymous is(or rather, what it isnt).
Yes, "Anonymous Hacking Group" is a bit stupid. And there may be no "senior members" or "officials", but in any group, no matter how egalitarian, there are natural leaders. I'm guessing a small number of people in Anonymous have a larger effect than the rest; they post the ideas, organize the attacks, provide the links. I've found this true in every group. Hell, being that Anonymous is pretty much a changing ad hoc group, some percentage will participate more than others, and by this they can be said to have more influence, as well.
There is no such thing as a group of equals, hierarchy and power structures self-arise naturally. Anyone who has ever been in a randomly selected group with no enforced power-structure can attest to this.
Also, just because you don't have an identifiable name, doesn't mean you aren't able to lead. There is more to indentify you than a mere name, your speech structure, writing style, style of direction, etc... also provide some amount of pseudo-identity. Look at the "Hosts file" troll who posts here every time a web browser is discussed (with his bold cites, and such), I don't know who he is, he could be you, but I sure as hell recognize his posts on sight.
I didn't mean to sound angry, since I wasn't at the time of writing this. I find political discussions to be fun, and often I get a bit overzealous. Me and my conservative friend (one of the only people I know who actually calls herself a "neocon") have been kicked out of several bars (and have had several people fear violence) for our heated debates on politics. I am also just wordy. If you asked me the color of they sky, I'd probably return a 5,000 word essay. I went to school for philosophy, I have yet to earn my money's worth.
Progressive generally espouse the belief that it's good to have an open mind, but I'm rather puzzled as to why so many of them quite literally disdain anyone who disagrees--typically for no other reason than the views of religious conservatism. Yes, I do agree that there are religious conservatives who would like to force their beliefs on others, and I find that unproductive. I also find this general attack dog mentality of the left to be equally unproductive. It's equal parts frustration and disappointment.
As I stated later, it isn't the disagreement with my own (somewhat fluid and hazy) principles that annoys me about the Palinistas. Part of it springs from the way they present themselves, in the media at least. I have issues with the idea of "spectacle over debate", I think it belittles the full political process. Even if their views are sound (which some may be), they are doing America a disfavor by acting like clowns. I had the same problem about liberal groups protesting George W. Bush. It doesn't advance the Great American Debate. Obviously this isn't true of the totality of the movement. Furthermore, I don't like the "cult of personality" aspect, regardless of political views, I doubt many people can actually take Limbaugh, Palin, and Beck terribly seriously, much less raise them to near religious levels of respect. I dislike it it when the "other side" does it as well. I don't understand the "Obama as messiah" thing, either. It actually is the largest point of contention I have with my significant other's parents. Your views shouldn't need a charismatic leader, nor should they be informed by someone who is a charismatic leader type. Political views should be formed by much introspection, hand wringing, and self doubt; and a fair amount of research across the spectrum of views.
Though I will be preemptively hostile to anyone who tries to enforce religious dogma. Not to religion (I'm an atheist, but I have nothing against religion, nor people who hold one). Enforcing religious tenets because they are religious tenets is very dangerous. I view the issue like any other issue which could be a potential threat to civil liberties, rights, or freedoms. Religious legislation is as dangerous as the USA PATRIOT act; something we should be forever vigilant against. Again, since this point is often misconstrued to hostility towards religion, I have nothing against Christians acting like Christians, or Muslims like Muslims, or whatnot like whatnot, it just has no place in government. If a religious tenet happens to line up with secular ethical concerns, or the health of civil society it is fine, but only as long as it is selected for the secular reasons and not the religious, and debated on those terms as well.
Seriously, take a few deep breaths and realize that some people might actually disagree with you; disagreement doesn't necessarily mean they want you to fall on your knees and pray to Jesus. Maybe they want you to be polite and amenable--not moments away from bursting an artery.
I like disagreement. I'm a fan of it. The more people who disagree with me, the healthier the state will generally be. I like cogent, intelligent, disagreement though. We're disagreeing in such a way. and it leads to a pleasant conversation, and perhaps a mutual learning experience. Shrill disagreement, on the other hand, annoys me. I don't like how the noise level has almost completely drowned out t
I used to live in the inner city, in a very mixed neighborhood (the most expensive zip code was 1/2 mile one way, the least 1/2 mile the other way; I was geographically middle class), there was an awesome barber shop. It was run by two young bothers from Eastern Europe, political refugees. Best political conversations ever (and yes, the did kill some people), and enough pictures of Al Pachino to emasculate anyone. Always threw in a good old fashion hot soap and straight razor shave. Nothing like having a man hold a straight razor to your throat talking about partaking in violent revolution.
When I was in a small mountain town, going to school I couldn't go to the good old boy barber because I liked my hair long and scruffy. But there was a male barber shop run by a couple of women. They would give you the straight razor shave and a neck massage (not at the same time).
Now I live in some newish suburbs, and there isn't a non-chain barber around. Except the place aimed at dapper high school jocks (you want the QB cut?). Its a sad thing. Its a good thing I hate hair cuts, and alway give instructions to cut it so it can grow out for six months.
I was just shopping around for a low-end ($600-700 range) DSLR, and Sony didn't even place, it was basically Nikon and Canon (mostly Canon, Nikon has a bit of a "Nikon tax"), and, oddly, Pentax. The Sony models, up until the high end of that range, were complete crap. They were all stripped down feature wise, and worse, they felt like crap (in the very low end $400-500, you could actually feel the frame flex a bit, and you could, with light pressure, feel the lens mount stress).
I don't know about the high end much, I'm just entering the hobby. They might be awesome, but everyone I know has a Nikon or Canon at that range (professional or semi-professional).
I went with the Pentax, btw. Mostly because I can use all my mom's old lenses, albeit only on manual. No complaints so far.
That's the problem. You don't understand the pro-life side of it. Pro-lifers do see a fetus as a child.
I was clarifying a view I posited earlier in the thread, the on that the person you replied to replied to. I wasn't trying to argue that a fetus is, or isn't a child, or uphold, or deny, the "typical" pro-life view. I was explaining why I am personally pro-life.
I suppose this highlights a greater part of the issue, which gets back to my post even earlier (being how this whole discussion is based on a footnote to my original comment); things are much more complicated than simplistic "pro" and "con" groups. A majority of people probably follow somewhere in the middle, and a majority of thinking people probably have their own reasons that are not identical to the visible stereotype. I'm pro-life, and would argue that a fetus is definitely not a child (up until a point).
I'm also, mostly, anti-war, and against the death penalty. But then again both of these have caveats, depending on the type of war, the reason for the war, the targets of the war, and whether or whether not the war is fought as ethically as possible, and whether the war is avoidable by diplomatic means (even if it means we don't 100% get out way). Well, I'm 100% against the death penalty, but the caveat there is that I would be for it if the justice system wasn't completely fallible, and if there was almost no chance of false positives.
The "be pro-death penalty, and pro-war, which they often are within the political spectrum" is wrong. You assume that pro-lifers value life and peace above justice and then try to relate them together. That is like saying that since the the Iraq war is wrong we shouldn't have fought in WWII or any other just war.
I see your point there. Though, to be a little annoying, there are some problems still with the logic. Iraq wasn't a war of justice by any stretch (except perhaps the humanitarian one, but we sort of missed that mark in implementation). There is no room there to value life, peace, or justice. This is true in most wars. WWII was a giant, glaring, exception. It might be one of the only wars (arguably since Genghis Khan) that comes close to being black and white. Though at the time there was some decent opposition to it, and sympathy for the Axis (at least for Germany).
hough I have noticed regardless of dollar up here in Canada it is always a little more expensive.
Probably the same as all "import" crap. Foreign movies are $10 more than domestic ones, regardless of the fact that both are probably pressed in China, and the rights for both are probably owned by the same (American) company.
In short, they do it because they can. Canada is especially fortunate, since more things can be called "exports" to squeeze in the extra buck.
Thats actually kind of cool... Its like a MacMini being marketed correctly! Any idea on how much its going to cost?
By kind of cool, I mean within the context of this discussion. I have a Zotac Zbox (and probably cheaper), which is much more nerd friendly, and am thinking of hand building an itx HTPC for our other TV.
If you think it is a child, it is murder and should be stopped. If you think it is not a child, then its an issue of trying to limit someone's rights to their own body and is a liberty issue.
I think its a false dichotomy, thats why. A fetus isn't a child. A fetus (to a point) is nothing but a mindless glob of rapidly reproducing cells, akin in complexity to a slime mold. A fetus, on the other hand, is a potential human being, which means the matter should never be taken lightly.
I err on the side of caution.
I, on the other hand, don't see how people can be rabidly pro-life (to the point of forcing this on others), and be pro-death penalty, and pro-war, which they often are within the political spectrum.
The debate about abortion is this: Side A: "It's a human, so having an abortion is killing a human, so we shouldn't allow it." Side B: "It's not a human, maybe it could be if we let it grow, but right now it's not, so it's ok for the host to kill it if she feels like it."
I don't think its that simple. What does human mean? I'm not sure we have a good definition of that. My feelings against it pretty much boils down to the "potentionality" of the fetus. A fetus, itself, isn't special, its about as complicated as a slime-mold. I'm not religious, so I don't think they have souls. The only thing that makes a fetus special is that it someday might be a human.
I'm against abortion because I generally stand on the "better safe than sorry" side of ethical cost/benefit analysis (same reason I'm in favor of global climate controls, even though I'm not sold on anthropogenic global warming yet -- this is another debate for another time).
I can be one the fence because I spent a huge sum of money to go to school for philosophy, which lead me to the conclusion that the more sure you are of your views, the more likely that are to be wrong. By views I mean subjective judgement, which all ethical judgement ultimately are. Abortion is largely a "normative" issue, which is pretty much proscribing an ethical system on others. I'm always leery of imposing anything on individuals. I'm not infallible, I'm not a god. Being such I worry about imposing my views on others, mostly my ethical views. No one has discovered an empirical, objective, model for prescriptive ethics, ethics don't exist in the world, they are not a real thing. The closest we can get is "I think x is wrong... because...", and hope it convinces others to agree of their own free will.
That said, I doubt completely banning abortion is ever going to happen, or that it would be a completely good thing if it happened. Especially if said laws were enacted out of religious authority for for religious reasons. Having a theocracy is a greater evil than any wrong that it could ever right. I do think they should be rarer. Though I think that abortions are largely a social problem (why the hell don't people wear condoms, take the pill, abstain from sex if they can't handle the consiquences?!)*, and we should fix the social aspects to help curb the act itself.
TL;DR version; The world is rarely black and white, and I'm not arrogant enough to think that I have the authority to rule over the lives and choices of others.**
* Also, if every abortion wasn't, we're ill equipped to actually handle the influx of children. If everyone who was completely against abortion would adopt a child who could have been aborted, the world would be a better place.
** Indeed, I often think that this point of view is the root of all problems in America. Whoever utters "do this because I know better", or "for your own good" is a would be tyrant.
I don't usually buy things on on ideology (or at least not very often), and I am all about value, and what best works for you. If your buying a PC to do video editing, and AMD scored best, then by all means get AMD. If your primary use is likely playing Video games, then to me it makes more sense to buy Intel.
Ideology wasn't completely a driving factor, it was just part of a nebula of other factors including price, performance, and hassle. If Intel completely trounced AMD, was comparable on price, and didn't require me spending an extra $100 on replacing my RAM (and another $50 extra for the mobo), I would have gotten the i7. Right now both the i7 and the Phenom series are pretty comparable for real world usage, though. Yes, the i7 out performs the Phenom on most gaming benchmarks, but we're not talking a huge difference. Its nice that with a $200 video card, and an i7(the one I was going to buy.,,) I can squeeze out 201fps in Left4Dead2 with full features at a resolution my monitor can't handle (damn being stuck at 1080!), which is, I'm sure, a marked improvement over the 195fps I can get with my current processor and the same GPU.
I'm happy to save the 6fps isn't worth $50 more for the chip, much less the extra $150 for RAM and the mobo. 6fps for $200 is a bit silly. If I was upgrading now, I'd probably go for an Intel, now that DDR3 has gone down dramatically, that and processors had a nice little leap since last year. But that is how building a computer works, I suppose, eventually you just have to settle and realize that hardware 2x better than your new stuff will come out in a year. Your $700 processor will be $200 in twelve months...
I also shop in the 150-200$ range for video cards, again pretty mid range. I think this is where you get the most value.
Ugh... Newegg had a GTX460 down to $100 (basically a little under $100 off), I was going to get it, and realized I would also have to upgrade my (rather new) PSU to get 2x s6 pin plugs, and have to shuffle around my cards since it's a double-wide and my case is at capacity (probably would need to get a USB wifi fob to replace my beastly large card). So that $100 card would have been around $200 in the end anyway. I got the HD 5770 instead, which was also $100, and ranks pretty well on Tom's (under the 460, but pretty much comparable). Hell, everything is an improvement over my HD 4650.
On that note, never buy anything from Fry's (if your in the US). Their prices are deceptively high.
Major devs don't cater to HTPC owners because not enough people set up HTPCs. I'm working on an article about the lack of PCs driving TVs [pineight.com]. If you have suggestions for how to better market HTPCs to the public, I'd appreciate your comments on its talk page.
I'm guessing most geeks have a PC driving TVs right now, or are planning on it in the near future thanks to quiet, low-powered-yet-capable components coming down in price. But geeks don't drive the software/game market, so the only way to actually get them to take off would be to have a major hardware distributor jump on it... and market it not as a another DVD player type "black box" (like Apple, Roku, Boxee, etc...), but as a general computer and media box.
Well, I suppose marketing as a black box would work, but also with "console functionality"... Sadly this will probably be some form of Apple, or Apple-esque, locked down, App Store-centric, overprices crap. Devs would still be locked into a nasty arrangement with a hardware manufacture.
Right now all of the consumer, prebuilt, HTPCs are locked down, and only good for streaming content over the internet. Some of them can't even handle grabbing media from a networked PC or NAS very well, if at all, much less allow the playing of PC games.
Which is ironic considering how much most Slashdotters disdain the Tea Party.
I very much disdain the Tea Party. Let me revise this, I very much disdain the "Palinesque" majority of the Tea Party, and only vehemently dislike (yet respect) the Libertarian minority of the Tea Party. Even so, I can acknowledge that some of their views align with mine. Actually some of the views of the Democrats and the Republicans align with mine. Its amazing how things are so much more complicated than mere proper noun dogmas.
This is especially true of the Tea Party, since it is a schizophrenic, fractured, beast. There isn't a unified Tea Party.
Disclosure: I am a liberal, progressive, social libertarian (notice the lowercase "L"). I generally agree with 50% of the pure Libertarian dogma, until they start ranting about corporations and Randian social darwinism. Conversely most Libertarians would probably agree with 50% of what I have to say until I start ranting about social responsibility and the need for corporate controls. My best friend is pro-Gay, agnostic, Neo-Conservative who thinks their needs to be a greater social safety net, and greater gun control, whose serving in the military and thinks America should go to war with anyone as long as it serves our interests. She volunteered for John McCain in the primary, and has a polisci degree from Georgetown.
I feel bad for anyone who fits into the caricature of some political organizations dogma. Seriously, you agree 100% with your political party, your an idiot. Hell, if you can sum yourself up with "Republican" or "Democrat", or "Liberal" or "Conservative" you probably are a moron who hasn't taken the time to form your own political views.
... [the] Tea Party may tend toward the religious/Christian voting bloc,
This, to me, is irony. A lot of the Tea Party rhetoric I see puts them as the "for liberty", but are fully willing to be tyrannical and force their arbitrary religious choices on other people. They also talk about the founding fathers ad nauseum, but completely ignore the pains most of the founders went through to eliminate religion from government. They also ignore the fact that most modern Christians (of the Evangelical, and Fundamental flavor) would have condemned most of the founder's beliefs as being un-Christian, them being mostly Deists and all.
If your god condemns being gay, or abortions*, sex out of wedlock, pornography, beer, or whathaveyou, then DON'T DO IT. There is no reason to force this upon others who don't hold your views. That would be the definition of tyranny; forcing your views on others who don't necessarily hold them. This is why I hate the Tea Party. The desire for some flavor of petit theocracy, and the fact that they refuse to accept the views of a majority of Americans (example; Obama shouldn't be president, or whoever was elected by a majority, who we don't agree with, isn't legitimate).
I'm mostly liberal, and fully realize that if people with a like view as mine ruled completely, it would be unacceptable. I am most definitely wrong on several issues, and no matter how convinced I am otherwise it wouldn't be right for me to completely block out the alternative view. What if there is something we could learn form the much feared socialism? Sure, it isn't all good, but there probably is some decent bits; after-all countries who mix bits of it in are doing a lot better than America is on most metrics. Conversely views more towards the right also have some very decent, and historically proven, bits that the left should learn from... Etc..
* I'm on the fence about this myself, but not because of any religious argument, and I would never force my view on others (recognizing that it is completely subjective).
, so you might be able to get 600Mbps, which you can already get using 802.11n
Which would be an improvement over 802.11n, since I've never seen anything close to 600Mbps on my network. I live in a modern house, with tons of drywall (not brick), and my computer is around 50-60' from the router, with relative LOS (only one other network straddling 50% my band); transfering from this computer to one hardwired to the router I'm impressed when I get to half that.
Fighting games like Brawl, Bomberman style games, and the like don't need to split the screen, yet they're like hen's teeth [thefreedictionary.com] on the PC apart from collections of emulated classic arcade games such as Namco Museum and Midway Arcade Treasures.
This does annoy me a bit. There was a period where I was completely in love with those games, and would have loved to have them on the PC. But I suppose it is a fair trade off, kind of, PCs get all the good RTS, FPS (Halo flames in 3... 2... 1...), 4X (games like Civ) titles, and the best versions of western RPGs. Consoles get the best fighters, and platformers, and brawlers.
I'm guessing the bar for entry on these games being made for PC would be lower if people used their PC to drive large HDTVs, and devs catered to them. Currently my HTPC (very light weight Atom d510, with an ION 2 GPU) has Steam on it, and I used it to run older games and things like Torchlight (and some cheesy shooters). I see it as my ghetto Xbox Market Place or Virtual Console. Controllers aside (cheap USB pads?), it could handle split screen content very well.
Multiplayer ties directly into this fallacy. A PC singular isn't multi-thousand dollar, but PCs plural are. The dearth of shared-screen PC games implies that it's more honest to compare a LAN of four gaming PCs to a console with four controllers, and a LAN of PCs is multi-thousand dollar.
I see your point, but it still isn't terribly fair. If we accept that most people have PCs right now, and a decent amount of them have PCs made in the last 4 years (about the age of the current consoles, perhaps a bit more modern), then, barring the need to play at insanely high settings, the only cost difference is the price of extra licenses, with perhaps a need to troll online discount retailers for discount RAM and a discount GPU (searching around Newegg, the last-gen of video cards can be had for $40-60, I'm sure cheaper if you were actually looking). For comparison, when I got my Wii (within a week of release) it cost me near $150 for the extra controllers, on top of the price of the console (including only one game). And the Wii was cheap.
People need to upgrade their PCs anyways. If you don't have the need for split screen, you'd be better of rolling the price of joining a console generation into your PC. In my opinion, any ways. It works for me.
A middle-of-the-road desktop is comparable to a high-end laptop, as I understand it. A lot of the homework-and-Facebook set own only a laptop because they're so cheap: $350 for a computer and monitor that fit in a handbag or child's backpack and can get on Facebook in a restaurant. Yet laptops can't take video cards.
Barring a pre-existing laptop... A laptop with an actual GPU (read: not Intel) cost around the same as one with integrated GMA. Laptops, sadly, aren't ideal. You do have a point here, as well.
So I guess consoles still have the advantage for the drunken-evenings-with-friends or weekend-play-dates-with-younger-cousins games I mentioned. But this brings up something else: small indie developers can't easily develop for consoles due to console makers' organizational requirements, and most PCs are connected to monitors too small for comfortable shared-screen gaming. What is a developer stuck between this rock and hard place supposed to do?
I can see the problem, and I'm sure if I had a solution I'd be rich (or at least wandering around smugly bragging about it). Make low over-head games (most of the ones you listed aren't relying on bleeding edge graphics and huge amounts of processor power) that can run on pretty much anything with some tweaking, and allow spawn copies to make up for the lack of spit screen. Or find a way to keep everything on a single screen like Smash Bros. or most fighters. Flash based (ugh) Web games also comes to mind. If best comes to best port them over to the various indie friendly stores on the consoles...
I wish I knew, the happier the indie devs are, generally the happier the full state of gaming is.
Sorry for coming off a bit snarky, fully unintentional.
Console games are far more likely than PC games to offer split- or otherwise shared-screen multiplayer.
There is this. Though I generally avoid split screen multi-player like the plague (4 player death match on a 20" screen, ugh!). For those that desire it, it is there. I do agree with your point, though. I didn't mean to say that "consoles suck", just that PCs aren't generally much worse off price wise, I hate the "PC's are multi-thousand dollar, consoles are $200 fallacy.
A typical homework-and-Facebook PC has an Intel CPU and an Intel GMA (Graphics My ***) graphics.
Yes, but this is like saying that your PSX can't handle PS3 games. Next time you upgrade, buy a better computer. Going for a middle of the road computer, and doing some basic research and comparisons will get you a computer that remains useful with modern games indefinitely (these days). Hell, spending $80 on a video card, even with some middle of the road Core 2 Duo, will grant you better performance in most games than their console version (Dragon Age, for example). Most computers bought in the last 5 years can perform equal than greater than a modern console with minimal cost or work.
As I understand it, the closest PC counterpart to Animal Crossing is MySims, and the closest PC counterpart to Mario Kart is Sonic and Sega All-Stars Racing. But what's the closest PC counterpart to Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Bomberman, Super Mario Galaxy, Katamari Damacy, Spyro, Metal Gear, or WarioWare?
I did say "90%" and "that I want to play". I'm more of a TLA type of gamer (RTS, FPS, and RPG). I do own a Wii just for Wario Ware, Rockband, Mario Kart, and Super Smash Brothers. Games I play on drunken evenings with friends... On the rare occasions when I have time to sit down and game solo, I reach for StarCraft II, New Vegas, or Dragon Age (full disclosure, this generally means playing a quick game of Torchlight and feeling guilty), and until recently WoW. Two of the are only on PC, and with the other two the PC version are pretty much accepted as being superior.
Obviously this is my subjective opinion. I have a couple friends who only play fighting games, PCs (sans emulation) wouldn't do good for them. I'm not the largest fan of that genre (I do still like a match of Bushido Blade II or Soul Caliber on the Dreamcast from time to time...), so my priorities are different. You priorities are probably much different than anyone else's as well.
I just wanted to attack the money issue.
To upgrade the homework-and-Facebook PCs to gaming PCs.
I was talking about my own personal last whim to get a console. Our house does have a Facebook/Gaming PC, my girlfriends computer, though it is pretty much capable of playing most modern games at middling settings. She only uses it for Popcap games and solitaire though... And oddly the occasion Nethack marathon.
I have been known to gently plead with my computer.
I also have a small statue of Kali sitting on top of it wearing a necklace I made from bits of broken hardware; as a warning.
I also had a reputation in college for taking printers (which I do cuss at) into the woods with a six pack and a tire iron, and coming back covered in ink with a giant psychopathic grin on my face.
I mean Intel has blown them out of the water three times now in a row.
Not that badly, really. When I was last building a system (around a year ago) I had the choice between an i7 and a Phenom II x4 (965 Black). I bought the AMD because I'd rather support them, and odds are I'd never actually notice the performance difference between them in the real world (that and Intel mobos, and forced replacement of my DDR2 with DDR3 was a bit too heavy for any perceived benefits). To this date I wouldn't go back and get the i7. What benefit would it have gotten me for the extra $50 (plus over $100 for inflated RAM and mobo)? I could encode a DVD rip 20 seconds faster? I could squeeze an extra FPS out of a modern console port?
The only people who really care are the people building at the extreme high end, who think that $700 for a video card is awesome, and aren't happy unless their computer is at least $2000 finished. These people are a minority (and increasingly sad, since software hasn't really kept up with hardware like it used to... their only war cry will be getting decent FPS in Crysis 2... Which will probably be as mediocre a game as Crysis 1).
In the middle, and mid-high the playing field is very level. It comes down to pure subjective choice, or min-maxing artificial benchmarks (which can play either way). I bought an AMD because I like AMD products and never had a complaint about them (I still have the AMD CPU from my old 8086) and would like to support them. I bought an AMD because having Intel as the only large mainstream chip manufacture would suck. I bought an AMD because Intel's business practices are dubious and I'd rather not support them. I bought my AMD because the 5% increase in performance wasn't worth a 20% increase in price.
Slashdot Mirror
But being a rapist makes a person an asshat.
I have some fairly old books (late 1800's) that are in pretty damn good condition. There is a small independant bookstore down the road that sells books ranging from brand new to 1830, most of the older books are in better shape (since they weren't seen as disposable commodities back then, that and publishers started cutting major corners recently, a trade paperback is lucky to survive a single reading these days) than the contemporary ones. I actually found a first edition german survey of physics by Max Plank (the pages weren't even cut) for $15 there.
Most of the used books I've bought have been basically like new.
Exactly! Incidentally, loaning Kindle titles worked just fine before they instituted the new "loan" policy--you just had to loan your Kindle as well.
Bad analogy, even if we keep on insisting on shoe horning real world limitations artificially into other things that don't suffer from the physics that cause those limitations. If I want to loan someone a book from my library I don't have to box up all x thousand books and ship them to the person who want to borrow a single book. I can loan you Catcher in the Rye, and read a book two shelves down at the same time.
I have "loaned" books to my girlfriend, digitally. We both have Nooks. I strip DRM out of all of my purchases on principle. I loaned her the China Meiville's New Crobuzon books when I was done reading them. I sent her copies via our network, she put them in Calibre and transfered them to her Nook. I didn't read them while she read them, having just read them a week previous. She then removed them from her Nook (though they may still be on her computer). In the end it worked just like loaning a real book. Or at least just like our large communal collection of books. I paid for half of them, and she can read them at will. Thanks to differing schedules we sometimes even (gasp!) read the same book at roughly the same time. I know... We should have to purchase a copy for each of us.
When we force arbitrary rules on things that don't have those rules because of any good reason, we're often actually being more limiting than in the real world, where those rules exist because of physical law.
If a publisher tells me I'm not allowed to lend books, or share with my long term, cohabitating, girlfriend, then screw them, and I reserve the right to ignore all laws that would hinder this ability.
Poe wrote on both?
I do have to say that I don't think I've seen any ebooks that are more expensive than the paperback copies. I have seen higher priced ebooks without the paperback copy available for it but a hardback edition is available.
On Amazon: Stephen King's new short story collection.
Hardcover: $15.26
Paperback: 9.99
Kindle (ebook): 12.99
It actually isn't that rare, spend some time browsing best sellers on Amazon.
I just bought a Charles Stross anthology ("Wireless") for 7.99, I was going to buy the epub for my Nook instead, but it was 6.99. While being cheaper, I don't think losing rights is worth the dollar. In the end I wasn't a fan, took the paperback to Bookmans and got a whole $1.30 trade for it. So for an extra $1 I got the my rights (doctrine of first sale), and an extra $0.30.
More amusingly, thanks to publishers, ebooks have entered my "illegal but ethical" area of piracy. If I've purchased the book, I have no compulsion against pirating it. I would still find pirating them ethical at a lower cost point, but I would see the price as worth saving the effort. Just like I view pirating music where the artist cannot possibly get any benefit from the sale as ethical, but will still cough up the $0.99 from time to time just to keep me from spending some time on Google-fu.
I'm not the largest fan of Itunes on Windows either (too much bloat for the sake of products I don't own or want), but it is better for my uses than anything I've found on Linux. I had my HTPC using Ubuntu for awhile and switched it over to Windows7 for lack of an Mp3 player. Amarok was nice, but a bit creepy in modern version, Banshee was nice but died with my library of over 6000 songs, I used Guay-something mostly. I spent a month going through every damn Linux player I could find and none of them were feature rich, stable, or intuitive (pick two). I have a large library, addicted to "constrained shuffle" (like iTunes DJ feature, a random list, weighted by rating, that you can edit), and need something that guests can use with little or no training. Guay-something (forgot its name, and Google is no help) was pretty much perfect, and its "constrained shuffle" was even a bit better than iTunes (in concept, its implementation was a bit off) being able to stick within related songs via Last.fm recommendations. It was hard to explain to random non-nerds during game nights and parties, I never could figure out what the hell some options did despite days of fiddling, and it never was as stable as poor flawed iTunes.
I finally ditched Linux, though, because of Flash. What good is an HTPC that can't handle most streaming video? I feel dirty, and unnerdy about it, but... there comes a time when we have to pick function over ideology. Especially when I expect my girlfriend to be able to handle it. I get the "Flash is Adobe's fault" argument (and not being able to handle HDMI sound is Nvidia's) , but she didn't. "Wait, you have a HTPC that can't handle media? That makes sense how?". Oddly Boxee could handle 1080p streaming fine, but nothing else could, despite rolling back drivers and hand editing, and recompiling random crap. And Boxee become almost useless when Hulu pulled all support from them... again. And Hulu's client fails completely on Linux. None of it is Linux's fault... but damn.
Then again, my listening habits are such that I'll listen to one song repeatedly until the neighbors lose their minds, so aside from queuing my entire collection and shuffling at random when I want to listen to something new, there's almost no point in using something like iTunes. Even Amarok was a little bit of overkill.
We're opposites! I'm a shuffle fanatic. I collect completely random genres and listen to them all mixed on shuffle. Nothing like Mozart, followed by Slayer, followed by Coltrane, followed by Pink Floyd, followed by AC/DC, followed by Tool, followed by Dangermouse. followed by Fantomas, followed by Joanna Newsom, followed by John Zorn covering Ennio Morricone... etc...
It makes using a real OS a breath of fresh air compared to the nightmare that is the Windows directory layout, although it has improved slightly since the XP days--SLIGHTLY.
Sometimes Linux and OS X annoy me too though. Sometimes I ponder whether their glut of directories are a bit antiquated. Yes, there is less redundancy and more specificities and (actually followed) rules, but things can get a bit overwhelming at times. I lean more towards the *nix system though. Better overly specific than sloppy and inconsistant. Nothing is perfect, I suppose.
Learned hard way w/ iTunes. I despise programs that rearrange your files for you, make ridiculous subdirs w/out permissions, etc. I have to use iTunes, but I look forward to the day when I can get rid of anything apple and/or adobe. Hell, not even MS forces directories on you (not incl. the OS itself, I guess).
That behavior in iTunes is no longer the default, at least. And, last I checked, it could keep a large, unorganized, directory organized within itself, without mucking with the directory.
Personally I love iTunes. I have over 40Gb of music in it, and the idea of manually organizing it sounds like absolute hell. I tried that once, hated every second of it, so I'm a large fan of a program that will do all the boring work for me.
Actually MS does, or at least their sloppy design does. Its one of my peeves, I'm trying to be a good little nerd and keep my /user directory on a separate drive. But a lot of programs won't play nicely with that. Even if all of my home directory is sitting pretty on D:\ everything will still write to C:\Users\[NAME]\Appdata. Yes, you can change it with a bit of registry work, but it then breaks a bunch of programs that keep it hard coded. Same with trying to keep control of your home directory. Every damn program has to make some silly folder in an arbitrary location within it. Games are especially bad, since you often can't edit where they save. So you end up with, in my case:
D:\Personal\[somegamesaves1]\
D:\Personal\[some gamesaves2]\
D:\Personal\My Documents\[company]\[game]\saves\
D:\Personal\My Documents\[company2]\[game]\saves\
D:\Personal\My Documents\save games\
D:\Personal\My Documents\[game]\save\
D:\Personal\My Documents\saved games\[game]\save\
D:\Personal\My Documents\saved games\saved games\[game]\saves\
And then a bunch saved in the immovabe C:\users\[Name]\appdata\ and its various, somewhat arbitrary subdirectories. And then a bunch that insist in saving in their directory in C:\Game\[comapany]\[title]\ or under their Steam directory, at some random place.
It makes backing up saved games a pain.
More on topic; I'm a strict hierarchy type, though I do mostly use search. When I used a Mac I had strict hierarchies, but mostly used Quicksilver to access files. Same on Linux, I use GnomeDo, or the one that comes bundled in KDE (is there anything halfway like Quicksilver/Do for KDE?) 90% of time, but am paranoid enough to know that a good heirarchy withstands most other organization fads. There is only so much tags and metadata can do when the standard evaporates, but folders and logical organization will be around forever.
There is no such thing as an "Anonymous Hacking Group". There are no senior members, or official members of any kind. You are only a member of anonymous while actively participating. The media has blown this way out of proportion. Most people don't actually understand what Anonymous is(or rather, what it isnt).
Yes, "Anonymous Hacking Group" is a bit stupid. And there may be no "senior members" or "officials", but in any group, no matter how egalitarian, there are natural leaders. I'm guessing a small number of people in Anonymous have a larger effect than the rest; they post the ideas, organize the attacks, provide the links. I've found this true in every group. Hell, being that Anonymous is pretty much a changing ad hoc group, some percentage will participate more than others, and by this they can be said to have more influence, as well.
There is no such thing as a group of equals, hierarchy and power structures self-arise naturally. Anyone who has ever been in a randomly selected group with no enforced power-structure can attest to this.
Also, just because you don't have an identifiable name, doesn't mean you aren't able to lead. There is more to indentify you than a mere name, your speech structure, writing style, style of direction, etc... also provide some amount of pseudo-identity. Look at the "Hosts file" troll who posts here every time a web browser is discussed (with his bold cites, and such), I don't know who he is, he could be you, but I sure as hell recognize his posts on sight.
I didn't mean to sound angry, since I wasn't at the time of writing this. I find political discussions to be fun, and often I get a bit overzealous. Me and my conservative friend (one of the only people I know who actually calls herself a "neocon") have been kicked out of several bars (and have had several people fear violence) for our heated debates on politics. I am also just wordy. If you asked me the color of they sky, I'd probably return a 5,000 word essay. I went to school for philosophy, I have yet to earn my money's worth.
Progressive generally espouse the belief that it's good to have an open mind, but I'm rather puzzled as to why so many of them quite literally disdain anyone who disagrees--typically for no other reason than the views of religious conservatism. Yes, I do agree that there are religious conservatives who would like to force their beliefs on others, and I find that unproductive. I also find this general attack dog mentality of the left to be equally unproductive. It's equal parts frustration and disappointment.
As I stated later, it isn't the disagreement with my own (somewhat fluid and hazy) principles that annoys me about the Palinistas. Part of it springs from the way they present themselves, in the media at least. I have issues with the idea of "spectacle over debate", I think it belittles the full political process. Even if their views are sound (which some may be), they are doing America a disfavor by acting like clowns. I had the same problem about liberal groups protesting George W. Bush. It doesn't advance the Great American Debate. Obviously this isn't true of the totality of the movement. Furthermore, I don't like the "cult of personality" aspect, regardless of political views, I doubt many people can actually take Limbaugh, Palin, and Beck terribly seriously, much less raise them to near religious levels of respect. I dislike it it when the "other side" does it as well. I don't understand the "Obama as messiah" thing, either. It actually is the largest point of contention I have with my significant other's parents. Your views shouldn't need a charismatic leader, nor should they be informed by someone who is a charismatic leader type. Political views should be formed by much introspection, hand wringing, and self doubt; and a fair amount of research across the spectrum of views.
Though I will be preemptively hostile to anyone who tries to enforce religious dogma. Not to religion (I'm an atheist, but I have nothing against religion, nor people who hold one). Enforcing religious tenets because they are religious tenets is very dangerous. I view the issue like any other issue which could be a potential threat to civil liberties, rights, or freedoms. Religious legislation is as dangerous as the USA PATRIOT act; something we should be forever vigilant against. Again, since this point is often misconstrued to hostility towards religion, I have nothing against Christians acting like Christians, or Muslims like Muslims, or whatnot like whatnot, it just has no place in government. If a religious tenet happens to line up with secular ethical concerns, or the health of civil society it is fine, but only as long as it is selected for the secular reasons and not the religious, and debated on those terms as well.
Seriously, take a few deep breaths and realize that some people might actually disagree with you; disagreement doesn't necessarily mean they want you to fall on your knees and pray to Jesus. Maybe they want you to be polite and amenable--not moments away from bursting an artery.
I like disagreement. I'm a fan of it. The more people who disagree with me, the healthier the state will generally be. I like cogent, intelligent, disagreement though. We're disagreeing in such a way. and it leads to a pleasant conversation, and perhaps a mutual learning experience. Shrill disagreement, on the other hand, annoys me. I don't like how the noise level has almost completely drowned out t
I used to live in the inner city, in a very mixed neighborhood (the most expensive zip code was 1/2 mile one way, the least 1/2 mile the other way; I was geographically middle class), there was an awesome barber shop. It was run by two young bothers from Eastern Europe, political refugees. Best political conversations ever (and yes, the did kill some people), and enough pictures of Al Pachino to emasculate anyone. Always threw in a good old fashion hot soap and straight razor shave. Nothing like having a man hold a straight razor to your throat talking about partaking in violent revolution.
When I was in a small mountain town, going to school I couldn't go to the good old boy barber because I liked my hair long and scruffy. But there was a male barber shop run by a couple of women. They would give you the straight razor shave and a neck massage (not at the same time).
Now I live in some newish suburbs, and there isn't a non-chain barber around. Except the place aimed at dapper high school jocks (you want the QB cut?). Its a sad thing. Its a good thing I hate hair cuts, and alway give instructions to cut it so it can grow out for six months.
I was just shopping around for a low-end ($600-700 range) DSLR, and Sony didn't even place, it was basically Nikon and Canon (mostly Canon, Nikon has a bit of a "Nikon tax"), and, oddly, Pentax. The Sony models, up until the high end of that range, were complete crap. They were all stripped down feature wise, and worse, they felt like crap (in the very low end $400-500, you could actually feel the frame flex a bit, and you could, with light pressure, feel the lens mount stress).
I don't know about the high end much, I'm just entering the hobby. They might be awesome, but everyone I know has a Nikon or Canon at that range (professional or semi-professional).
I went with the Pentax, btw. Mostly because I can use all my mom's old lenses, albeit only on manual. No complaints so far.
That's the problem. You don't understand the pro-life side of it. Pro-lifers do see a fetus as a child.
I was clarifying a view I posited earlier in the thread, the on that the person you replied to replied to. I wasn't trying to argue that a fetus is, or isn't a child, or uphold, or deny, the "typical" pro-life view. I was explaining why I am personally pro-life.
I suppose this highlights a greater part of the issue, which gets back to my post even earlier (being how this whole discussion is based on a footnote to my original comment); things are much more complicated than simplistic "pro" and "con" groups. A majority of people probably follow somewhere in the middle, and a majority of thinking people probably have their own reasons that are not identical to the visible stereotype. I'm pro-life, and would argue that a fetus is definitely not a child (up until a point).
I'm also, mostly, anti-war, and against the death penalty. But then again both of these have caveats, depending on the type of war, the reason for the war, the targets of the war, and whether or whether not the war is fought as ethically as possible, and whether the war is avoidable by diplomatic means (even if it means we don't 100% get out way). Well, I'm 100% against the death penalty, but the caveat there is that I would be for it if the justice system wasn't completely fallible, and if there was almost no chance of false positives.
The "be pro-death penalty, and pro-war, which they often are within the political spectrum" is wrong. You assume that pro-lifers value life and peace above justice and then try to relate them together. That is like saying that since the the Iraq war is wrong we shouldn't have fought in WWII or any other just war.
I see your point there. Though, to be a little annoying, there are some problems still with the logic. Iraq wasn't a war of justice by any stretch (except perhaps the humanitarian one, but we sort of missed that mark in implementation). There is no room there to value life, peace, or justice. This is true in most wars. WWII was a giant, glaring, exception. It might be one of the only wars (arguably since Genghis Khan) that comes close to being black and white. Though at the time there was some decent opposition to it, and sympathy for the Axis (at least for Germany).
hough I have noticed regardless of dollar up here in Canada it is always a little more expensive.
Probably the same as all "import" crap. Foreign movies are $10 more than domestic ones, regardless of the fact that both are probably pressed in China, and the rights for both are probably owned by the same (American) company.
In short, they do it because they can. Canada is especially fortunate, since more things can be called "exports" to squeeze in the extra buck.
Thats actually kind of cool... Its like a MacMini being marketed correctly! Any idea on how much its going to cost?
By kind of cool, I mean within the context of this discussion. I have a Zotac Zbox (and probably cheaper), which is much more nerd friendly, and am thinking of hand building an itx HTPC for our other TV.
If you think it is a child, it is murder and should be stopped.
If you think it is not a child, then its an issue of trying to limit someone's rights to their own body and is a liberty issue.
I think its a false dichotomy, thats why. A fetus isn't a child. A fetus (to a point) is nothing but a mindless glob of rapidly reproducing cells, akin in complexity to a slime mold. A fetus, on the other hand, is a potential human being, which means the matter should never be taken lightly.
I err on the side of caution.
I, on the other hand, don't see how people can be rabidly pro-life (to the point of forcing this on others), and be pro-death penalty, and pro-war, which they often are within the political spectrum.
The debate about abortion is this:
Side A: "It's a human, so having an abortion is killing a human, so we shouldn't allow it."
Side B: "It's not a human, maybe it could be if we let it grow, but right now it's not, so it's ok for the host to kill it if she feels like it."
I don't think its that simple. What does human mean? I'm not sure we have a good definition of that. My feelings against it pretty much boils down to the "potentionality" of the fetus. A fetus, itself, isn't special, its about as complicated as a slime-mold. I'm not religious, so I don't think they have souls. The only thing that makes a fetus special is that it someday might be a human.
I'm against abortion because I generally stand on the "better safe than sorry" side of ethical cost/benefit analysis (same reason I'm in favor of global climate controls, even though I'm not sold on anthropogenic global warming yet -- this is another debate for another time).
I can be one the fence because I spent a huge sum of money to go to school for philosophy, which lead me to the conclusion that the more sure you are of your views, the more likely that are to be wrong. By views I mean subjective judgement, which all ethical judgement ultimately are. Abortion is largely a "normative" issue, which is pretty much proscribing an ethical system on others. I'm always leery of imposing anything on individuals. I'm not infallible, I'm not a god. Being such I worry about imposing my views on others, mostly my ethical views. No one has discovered an empirical, objective, model for prescriptive ethics, ethics don't exist in the world, they are not a real thing. The closest we can get is "I think x is wrong... because...", and hope it convinces others to agree of their own free will.
That said, I doubt completely banning abortion is ever going to happen, or that it would be a completely good thing if it happened. Especially if said laws were enacted out of religious authority for for religious reasons. Having a theocracy is a greater evil than any wrong that it could ever right. I do think they should be rarer. Though I think that abortions are largely a social problem (why the hell don't people wear condoms, take the pill, abstain from sex if they can't handle the consiquences?!)*, and we should fix the social aspects to help curb the act itself.
TL;DR version; The world is rarely black and white, and I'm not arrogant enough to think that I have the authority to rule over the lives and choices of others.**
* Also, if every abortion wasn't, we're ill equipped to actually handle the influx of children. If everyone who was completely against abortion would adopt a child who could have been aborted, the world would be a better place.
** Indeed, I often think that this point of view is the root of all problems in America. Whoever utters "do this because I know better", or "for your own good" is a would be tyrant.
I don't usually buy things on on ideology (or at least not very often), and I am all about value, and what best works for you. If your buying a PC to do video editing, and AMD scored best, then by all means get AMD. If your primary use is likely playing Video games, then to me it makes more sense to buy Intel.
Ideology wasn't completely a driving factor, it was just part of a nebula of other factors including price, performance, and hassle. If Intel completely trounced AMD, was comparable on price, and didn't require me spending an extra $100 on replacing my RAM (and another $50 extra for the mobo), I would have gotten the i7. Right now both the i7 and the Phenom series are pretty comparable for real world usage, though. Yes, the i7 out performs the Phenom on most gaming benchmarks, but we're not talking a huge difference. Its nice that with a $200 video card, and an i7(the one I was going to buy.,,) I can squeeze out 201fps in Left4Dead2 with full features at a resolution my monitor can't handle (damn being stuck at 1080!), which is, I'm sure, a marked improvement over the 195fps I can get with my current processor and the same GPU.
I'm happy to save the 6fps isn't worth $50 more for the chip, much less the extra $150 for RAM and the mobo. 6fps for $200 is a bit silly. If I was upgrading now, I'd probably go for an Intel, now that DDR3 has gone down dramatically, that and processors had a nice little leap since last year. But that is how building a computer works, I suppose, eventually you just have to settle and realize that hardware 2x better than your new stuff will come out in a year. Your $700 processor will be $200 in twelve months...
I also shop in the 150-200$ range for video cards, again pretty mid range. I think this is where you get the most value.
Ugh... Newegg had a GTX460 down to $100 (basically a little under $100 off), I was going to get it, and realized I would also have to upgrade my (rather new) PSU to get 2x s6 pin plugs, and have to shuffle around my cards since it's a double-wide and my case is at capacity (probably would need to get a USB wifi fob to replace my beastly large card). So that $100 card would have been around $200 in the end anyway. I got the HD 5770 instead, which was also $100, and ranks pretty well on Tom's (under the 460, but pretty much comparable). Hell, everything is an improvement over my HD 4650.
On that note, never buy anything from Fry's (if your in the US). Their prices are deceptively high.
Major devs don't cater to HTPC owners because not enough people set up HTPCs. I'm working on an article about the lack of PCs driving TVs [pineight.com]. If you have suggestions for how to better market HTPCs to the public, I'd appreciate your comments on its talk page.
I'm guessing most geeks have a PC driving TVs right now, or are planning on it in the near future thanks to quiet, low-powered-yet-capable components coming down in price. But geeks don't drive the software/game market, so the only way to actually get them to take off would be to have a major hardware distributor jump on it... and market it not as a another DVD player type "black box" (like Apple, Roku, Boxee, etc...), but as a general computer and media box.
Well, I suppose marketing as a black box would work, but also with "console functionality"... Sadly this will probably be some form of Apple, or Apple-esque, locked down, App Store-centric, overprices crap. Devs would still be locked into a nasty arrangement with a hardware manufacture.
Right now all of the consumer, prebuilt, HTPCs are locked down, and only good for streaming content over the internet. Some of them can't even handle grabbing media from a networked PC or NAS very well, if at all, much less allow the playing of PC games.
I realized I said something dumb after hitting submit... Sorry about that.
Which is ironic considering how much most Slashdotters disdain the Tea Party.
I very much disdain the Tea Party. Let me revise this, I very much disdain the "Palinesque" majority of the Tea Party, and only vehemently dislike (yet respect) the Libertarian minority of the Tea Party. Even so, I can acknowledge that some of their views align with mine. Actually some of the views of the Democrats and the Republicans align with mine. Its amazing how things are so much more complicated than mere proper noun dogmas.
This is especially true of the Tea Party, since it is a schizophrenic, fractured, beast. There isn't a unified Tea Party.
Disclosure: I am a liberal, progressive, social libertarian (notice the lowercase "L"). I generally agree with 50% of the pure Libertarian dogma, until they start ranting about corporations and Randian social darwinism. Conversely most Libertarians would probably agree with 50% of what I have to say until I start ranting about social responsibility and the need for corporate controls. My best friend is pro-Gay, agnostic, Neo-Conservative who thinks their needs to be a greater social safety net, and greater gun control, whose serving in the military and thinks America should go to war with anyone as long as it serves our interests. She volunteered for John McCain in the primary, and has a polisci degree from Georgetown.
I feel bad for anyone who fits into the caricature of some political organizations dogma. Seriously, you agree 100% with your political party, your an idiot. Hell, if you can sum yourself up with "Republican" or "Democrat", or "Liberal" or "Conservative" you probably are a moron who hasn't taken the time to form your own political views.
... [the] Tea Party may tend toward the religious/Christian voting bloc,
This, to me, is irony. A lot of the Tea Party rhetoric I see puts them as the "for liberty", but are fully willing to be tyrannical and force their arbitrary religious choices on other people. They also talk about the founding fathers ad nauseum, but completely ignore the pains most of the founders went through to eliminate religion from government. They also ignore the fact that most modern Christians (of the Evangelical, and Fundamental flavor) would have condemned most of the founder's beliefs as being un-Christian, them being mostly Deists and all.
If your god condemns being gay, or abortions*, sex out of wedlock, pornography, beer, or whathaveyou, then DON'T DO IT. There is no reason to force this upon others who don't hold your views. That would be the definition of tyranny; forcing your views on others who don't necessarily hold them. This is why I hate the Tea Party. The desire for some flavor of petit theocracy, and the fact that they refuse to accept the views of a majority of Americans (example; Obama shouldn't be president, or whoever was elected by a majority, who we don't agree with, isn't legitimate).
I'm mostly liberal, and fully realize that if people with a like view as mine ruled completely, it would be unacceptable. I am most definitely wrong on several issues, and no matter how convinced I am otherwise it wouldn't be right for me to completely block out the alternative view. What if there is something we could learn form the much feared socialism? Sure, it isn't all good, but there probably is some decent bits; after-all countries who mix bits of it in are doing a lot better than America is on most metrics. Conversely views more towards the right also have some very decent, and historically proven, bits that the left should learn from... Etc..
* I'm on the fence about this myself, but not because of any religious argument, and I would never force my view on others (recognizing that it is completely subjective).
, so you might be able to get 600Mbps, which you can already get using 802.11n
Which would be an improvement over 802.11n, since I've never seen anything close to 600Mbps on my network. I live in a modern house, with tons of drywall (not brick), and my computer is around 50-60' from the router, with relative LOS (only one other network straddling 50% my band); transfering from this computer to one hardwired to the router I'm impressed when I get to half that.
Fighting games like Brawl, Bomberman style games, and the like don't need to split the screen, yet they're like hen's teeth [thefreedictionary.com] on the PC apart from collections of emulated classic arcade games such as Namco Museum and Midway Arcade Treasures.
This does annoy me a bit. There was a period where I was completely in love with those games, and would have loved to have them on the PC. But I suppose it is a fair trade off, kind of, PCs get all the good RTS, FPS (Halo flames in 3... 2... 1...), 4X (games like Civ) titles, and the best versions of western RPGs. Consoles get the best fighters, and platformers, and brawlers.
I'm guessing the bar for entry on these games being made for PC would be lower if people used their PC to drive large HDTVs, and devs catered to them. Currently my HTPC (very light weight Atom d510, with an ION 2 GPU) has Steam on it, and I used it to run older games and things like Torchlight (and some cheesy shooters). I see it as my ghetto Xbox Market Place or Virtual Console. Controllers aside (cheap USB pads?), it could handle split screen content very well.
Multiplayer ties directly into this fallacy. A PC singular isn't multi-thousand dollar, but PCs plural are. The dearth of shared-screen PC games implies that it's more honest to compare a LAN of four gaming PCs to a console with four controllers, and a LAN of PCs is multi-thousand dollar.
I see your point, but it still isn't terribly fair. If we accept that most people have PCs right now, and a decent amount of them have PCs made in the last 4 years (about the age of the current consoles, perhaps a bit more modern), then, barring the need to play at insanely high settings, the only cost difference is the price of extra licenses, with perhaps a need to troll online discount retailers for discount RAM and a discount GPU (searching around Newegg, the last-gen of video cards can be had for $40-60, I'm sure cheaper if you were actually looking). For comparison, when I got my Wii (within a week of release) it cost me near $150 for the extra controllers, on top of the price of the console (including only one game). And the Wii was cheap.
People need to upgrade their PCs anyways. If you don't have the need for split screen, you'd be better of rolling the price of joining a console generation into your PC. In my opinion, any ways. It works for me.
A middle-of-the-road desktop is comparable to a high-end laptop, as I understand it. A lot of the homework-and-Facebook set own only a laptop because they're so cheap: $350 for a computer and monitor that fit in a handbag or child's backpack and can get on Facebook in a restaurant. Yet laptops can't take video cards.
Barring a pre-existing laptop... A laptop with an actual GPU (read: not Intel) cost around the same as one with integrated GMA. Laptops, sadly, aren't ideal. You do have a point here, as well.
So I guess consoles still have the advantage for the drunken-evenings-with-friends or weekend-play-dates-with-younger-cousins games I mentioned. But this brings up something else: small indie developers can't easily develop for consoles due to console makers' organizational requirements, and most PCs are connected to monitors too small for comfortable shared-screen gaming. What is a developer stuck between this rock and hard place supposed to do?
I can see the problem, and I'm sure if I had a solution I'd be rich (or at least wandering around smugly bragging about it). Make low over-head games (most of the ones you listed aren't relying on bleeding edge graphics and huge amounts of processor power) that can run on pretty much anything with some tweaking, and allow spawn copies to make up for the lack of spit screen. Or find a way to keep everything on a single screen like Smash Bros. or most fighters. Flash based (ugh) Web games also comes to mind. If best comes to best port them over to the various indie friendly stores on the consoles...
I wish I knew, the happier the indie devs are, generally the happier the full state of gaming is.
Sorry for coming off a bit snarky, fully unintentional.
Console games are far more likely than PC games to offer split- or otherwise shared-screen multiplayer.
There is this. Though I generally avoid split screen multi-player like the plague (4 player death match on a 20" screen, ugh!). For those that desire it, it is there. I do agree with your point, though. I didn't mean to say that "consoles suck", just that PCs aren't generally much worse off price wise, I hate the "PC's are multi-thousand dollar, consoles are $200 fallacy.
A typical homework-and-Facebook PC has an Intel CPU and an Intel GMA (Graphics My ***) graphics.
Yes, but this is like saying that your PSX can't handle PS3 games. Next time you upgrade, buy a better computer. Going for a middle of the road computer, and doing some basic research and comparisons will get you a computer that remains useful with modern games indefinitely (these days). Hell, spending $80 on a video card, even with some middle of the road Core 2 Duo, will grant you better performance in most games than their console version (Dragon Age, for example). Most computers bought in the last 5 years can perform equal than greater than a modern console with minimal cost or work.
As I understand it, the closest PC counterpart to Animal Crossing is MySims, and the closest PC counterpart to Mario Kart is Sonic and Sega All-Stars Racing. But what's the closest PC counterpart to Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Bomberman, Super Mario Galaxy, Katamari Damacy, Spyro, Metal Gear, or WarioWare?
I did say "90%" and "that I want to play". I'm more of a TLA type of gamer (RTS, FPS, and RPG). I do own a Wii just for Wario Ware, Rockband, Mario Kart, and Super Smash Brothers. Games I play on drunken evenings with friends... On the rare occasions when I have time to sit down and game solo, I reach for StarCraft II, New Vegas, or Dragon Age (full disclosure, this generally means playing a quick game of Torchlight and feeling guilty), and until recently WoW. Two of the are only on PC, and with the other two the PC version are pretty much accepted as being superior.
Obviously this is my subjective opinion. I have a couple friends who only play fighting games, PCs (sans emulation) wouldn't do good for them. I'm not the largest fan of that genre (I do still like a match of Bushido Blade II or Soul Caliber on the Dreamcast from time to time...), so my priorities are different. You priorities are probably much different than anyone else's as well.
I just wanted to attack the money issue.
To upgrade the homework-and-Facebook PCs to gaming PCs.
I was talking about my own personal last whim to get a console. Our house does have a Facebook/Gaming PC, my girlfriends computer, though it is pretty much capable of playing most modern games at middling settings. She only uses it for Popcap games and solitaire though... And oddly the occasion Nethack marathon.
I have been known to gently plead with my computer.
I also have a small statue of Kali sitting on top of it wearing a necklace I made from bits of broken hardware; as a warning.
I also had a reputation in college for taking printers (which I do cuss at) into the woods with a six pack and a tire iron, and coming back covered in ink with a giant psychopathic grin on my face.
I mean Intel has blown them out of the water three times now in a row.
Not that badly, really. When I was last building a system (around a year ago) I had the choice between an i7 and a Phenom II x4 (965 Black). I bought the AMD because I'd rather support them, and odds are I'd never actually notice the performance difference between them in the real world (that and Intel mobos, and forced replacement of my DDR2 with DDR3 was a bit too heavy for any perceived benefits). To this date I wouldn't go back and get the i7. What benefit would it have gotten me for the extra $50 (plus over $100 for inflated RAM and mobo)? I could encode a DVD rip 20 seconds faster? I could squeeze an extra FPS out of a modern console port?
The only people who really care are the people building at the extreme high end, who think that $700 for a video card is awesome, and aren't happy unless their computer is at least $2000 finished. These people are a minority (and increasingly sad, since software hasn't really kept up with hardware like it used to... their only war cry will be getting decent FPS in Crysis 2... Which will probably be as mediocre a game as Crysis 1).
In the middle, and mid-high the playing field is very level. It comes down to pure subjective choice, or min-maxing artificial benchmarks (which can play either way). I bought an AMD because I like AMD products and never had a complaint about them (I still have the AMD CPU from my old 8086) and would like to support them. I bought an AMD because having Intel as the only large mainstream chip manufacture would suck. I bought an AMD because Intel's business practices are dubious and I'd rather not support them. I bought my AMD because the 5% increase in performance wasn't worth a 20% increase in price.