Jews have been living continuously in the region of Palestine for over 3000 years (the Arabs came later, and invaded around 1400 years ago).
Not going to take sides here, since both sides are reprehensible, and deserve very little sympathy at this point. I take that back, the normal people in both Israel and Palestine deserve it, the bellicose asshats in their governments and outspoken religious authorities deserve none whatsoever. That said; your statement is a bit wonky. Yes, modern Arabs, and later Muslims, were there later than Jews, but this is a bit false, since the root ethnicities and cultures that spawned both were there longer than either. Further "we were there first" is about as idiotic as one can get. Should the Native American tribes be allowed to partition American cities, restrict their ability to food and medicine, and generally treat them all like terrorists, criminals, and subhumans by default? They were here first, after all. Actually Siberians and the Japanese should be allowed to, since their genetic stock is more closely related to the original settlers of North America than most people here now.
No. Both people have to coexist, whether they like it or not. If they can't, I don't care, someone should come in and FORCE them to. And anyone who supports the hostilities of either faction should have as serious sanctions as someone supporting any other terrorist aggressor state, since they really don't hold a moral high ground on any issue anymore. They both are bad guys. No excuse changes this fact. Picking sides is nonsensical, its like arguing over who was less evil, Stalin or Mao.
Win 8 - Seems to be a looser. I've not used it enough to have a real opinion, but the consensus seems to be that it's another Vista...
I can't attest to how loose it is, but the actual OS is very solid (a bit of an improvement on Win7), most of the complaints are about the UI changes. Ignoring Metro (or whatever the hell it is called now) it is a very good OS.
I don't mind Metro, it isn't perfect, and feels tacked on, but it hasn't been the end of the world for me. If the changes in TFA are true, then I'd be pretty happy, though I probably wouldn't turn on the Start button if I had a chance. I barely used it in Win 7 (beyond search; i.e. [Win]-"pho"-[Enter] = Photoshop.), and would barely use it in 8.5.
You can argue that Play has some lock-in but you have to concede three points...
I wasn't bashing Google, in the end I said they're the best of the bunch because the fact I can side-load. My "complaint" (it really isn't, more of a concern) is the whole Google universe, Google does my email, my news (for now), my searches, my scheduling, takes care of some degree of my purchases, handles my voice mail. potentially follows my web behavior (if not for no-script, adblock, and ghostery) and shares and displays my art/hobby, etc... Extracting myself from this would be a pain. Yes, Google, to their benefit makes it easier than other companies, but they do have their hands on every bit of my online life.
I wouldn't call any of them "good guys" yet, being they haven't really done anything in that space yet. Point taken, though.
I'm a bit skeptical of them, and their ability to succeed in the market, though. Apple and Google have huge warchests, and a very established toe-hold in the market, to the point where even MS (another dinosaur) is having a hard time establishing themselves, resulting in stories like this. I have a hard time seeing the little fish amount to anything but niche platforms.
If they come out with an affordable, and feature rich tablet, I might take them up though.
You still need a really dark room for projectors, and in most circumstances their image quality isn't as good as a television. That hasn't stopped me from eyeing them, though, movie nights on the drive way just has an odd appeal.
A TV is a TV is a TV. You old CRT is as much a TV as my modern-ish 42" flat screen, which is as much a TV as my old small CRT in the bedroom hooked to an old DVD/VHS combo. Right now, besides technology and pixels, your CRT and my LCD are serving the exact same porpose, even if mine could (if any were around here) pick up digital broadcasts while yours would only get snow.
The AC said a significant portion of the population doesn't own televisions anymore, I find this very dubious.
Apple is in the phone business. Google is in the advertising business.
But as a customer, the end result is the same. I really don't care how either of them get their money, all I care about is the end result. With iOS, or Android, you end up getting locked into a "universe". I, naively, wanted to try one of the new Windows 8 phones, but decided against it because Google owns my life now (I'd have to switch all my contacts over, repurchase most of my software, and deal with not having all the really convenient, but very spooky, things Google has learned about me.) iOS is the same, Windows 8 mobile is the same. My dad also tried to give me an iPad as a gift, I turned it down for the same reason. Not because I hate Apple, but because it isn't worth the effort of "starting from scratch".
I'm also not just talking about apps, apps are a gateway to the whole iTMS thing. Amazon pretty much has the same idea there, you get some cheap apps, but they want you to buy all your movies, TV, books, and music from them, forever after.
This is an odd story... All I can really see of it is that MS is mad because Android is cheaper than their OS, and somehow this makes Google's goal worse than their goal, even if they are shooting for the same thing in the end.
VOTE Ron Paul 2016 to END this bullshit once and for all.
He isn't any better really. He just wants everything to be up to the highest bidder, i.e. to be private. Which, in the end, is pretty much exactly what we got now, minus a layer of government.
We need actual public property, which is held, by the government (it is part of their job, after all) for all of us, with all of us having the exact same rights over it regardless of our monetary worth or political clout.
A significant portion of the country no longer owns televisions nor are interested in non-time-shifted content.
This is very doubtful. I'm guessing cable subscriptions are falling, but I really doubt TV ownership is.
Hell, we haven't had cable for around 5 years now, and since we moved haven't been able to get over the air TV either (I only miss the strange Mexican channel, with eastern European announcers advertising title loans and beaters, which only played early '80's music videos). We still own a TV, and we still use it. Our content just switched from traditional formats to Netflix and Amazon. For TV shows, which we still watch, we just wait for Target to have them on sale for $15.
I haven't actually found anything better than a TV yet. Ever try watching a movie with your family on a 24" monitor in your office, or on your 7"-10" tablet? TV (the device), is still king, and will be for a long time.
I've used Amazon's marketplace, and thats about it. Though I have installed a pretty good amount of non-market APKs. It isn't Android or Google's fault that alternatives haven't risen up, all that matters is that they intrinsically allow these alternatives, unlike Apple or MS.
Anyhow, there's an interesting absence on that list of companies forming the complaint.
This is probably because they realize that they are the other behemoth in the room, and probably would be the next target. Further, all I could think about when reading this was "what about Apple"... Though it is ironic that MS is the one complaining, since they want nothing more than to copy Apple and Google.
Again: the complaint is that Google uses their market power on Android to get their users onto their services
Isn't that the game of all mobile operating systems these days? iOS tries to leverage you into their universe by corralling you into their shop system, but here you can't easily escape. MS is hoping for the same thing, hooking you into their universe, with no escape. Amazon is doing the same, with their gimped version of Android. At least Google allows you to escape, and install apps from other sources, and avoid using their services (which obviously they'd prefer you use, but they are still mostly optional san third party shenanigans).
There isn't a single good guy in the mobile universe. But Google is probably as close as you'd get right now.
Indeed, it is arguable that the Capitalist system is just as flawed and unworkable in the long-term than the Communist system...
I doubt it, capitalism is more basic in the end. Its just the exchange of goods for labor, goods, or currency. There was plenty of capitalism in communism. The "free market ideal" is probably going to fizzle in the long run though, to be replaced by a hybrid system of regulated markets with a small dash of socialism. This is already true in large swaths of the world.
Gee, I seem to remember there is no Soviet Union anymore. And yes we can thank Ronaldus Maximus for this.
Geopolitical events are very complicated, and rarely, if ever, have a single cause. The fall of the Soviet Union is not different. I'll say that Saint Ronny had his hand in it, as did Thatcher, but they aren't the only causes, and don't deserve all the credit. There were economic factors, cultural factors, and political factors within the Soviet Union that also nudged it into death, and Ronny or Thatcher deserve no credit for these.
But then again you might be being facetious, sadly I can't tell anymore. Some people have taken their belief systems to the point where it is completely indistinguishable from parody.
The amount of investments that most people have is pretty much nothing, barring things like 401ks. Even if I put all of my free money (i.e. money not tagged for necessary things, like food, rent, gas, insurance, etc...) in investments, it would amount to pretty much nothing, especially when we contrast this to people who have millions in various markets. There is a class of people who live off of investments, there is a point when you have enough money to basically make money from having money. Most of us aren't there, and never will be.
I'm not saying that is a bad thing, or that the GP is right. But there is a point where you have to admit that things are very different for us peons, than for the rich (again, not a value judgement, just a statement of fact).
u want disposable? Try the traditional computer where we were always casting off bits over time, upgrading ram and video cards and hard drives and so on. Sure you kept the case; so what?
Actually I recycled most of them. I still have 10 year old drives sitting around as backups, and my girlfriend gets all my cast-off bits as upgrades (most of her old parts going to my mom's PC). I'd estimate that the average PC component lasts around 7 years, in my family. Compare this with my Transformer, which at 2 years old was considered "legacy" by the manufacturer. After this 7 year period they end up on my garage wall, as "art" (with my Voodoo 2, and 8086 boards).
I know I am not typical... But even my non-technical dad keeps computers for 5+ years, during this time period they still receive updates, and can pretty much run all modern software (sans games, obviously). After his updates he donates them, sans HDDs. He did toss one, that got fried in a lightening storm, but he never heard the end of it from me, so now he lets me fix them up, so we can give them to shelters or schools.
computers that non-technical users can have over time without someone to help them maintain.
This disturbs me, personally. Your statement is synonymous with "disposable". Tablets is a way to force PCs to use the cell-phone model of updates and lifespan; you use it for a year or two and ditch it for a better one because it is no longer supported. ASUS did this with the first Transformer, they dropped all support for it in under 2 years, meaning the only recourse a user has is confusing, and unstable community updates. Even in Android land, the vendor now has too much control over devices.
Huh? What lock-in? Last I checked I could still install software from any source I wanted to, unless this has changed in the last half hour.
. A lot of people always claimed that games were the only reason they were still on Windows.
For me this is still part of the reason I stick with it (the other being some profession software, with no fully comparable Linux peers yet), but sadly even with Steam, Linux isn't there yet. Perhaps we're closer to the day when it is possible for a gamer to switch, which is progress, but we're still probably years off.
What we need is the major publishers to jump on the bandwagon, and not just Valve. We also need some soft of transparent, uber-Wine, so people can run everything else without any fuss or worry.
Right now the Steambox concept is going to make Linux more of a console OS, than the new ascendant desktop. Which is also pretty good progress.
I have a relatively large collection of music with greater than 20k tracks. In flac, this is only about 400GB. The entire collection would easily fit on a 500GB portable drive. Those with huge collections would have no trouble putting the entire thing on a cheap 3TB drive.
Though the photo analogy still holds here; I keep all my RAW files on an external drive, and use JPEG for normal use, and sharing. Music is similar, my portable player can't handle lossless formats, and if it could I couldn't fit my music on it. Sadly I can't stream to my phone (thanks to Verizon having caps), but even then it would be worse than a decent mp3.
Lossy has a place. Lossless is the best archival format, or for good setups, but for mp3 is good enough for most applications.
The point of the equipment is that you have quality in reserve as you go through the process of mastering the tracks.
This is how I've seen it as well. Its like the difference between a RAW file, and high quality jpeg. The jpeg is good enough for normal use, but you pretty much kill all the information you need for further editing during the compression process. The RAW is your master, but is pretty pointless for for anything else due to its size.
The DSLR does you no good if it is sitting at home, as it often will be because it is huge and clunky.
Which is why I own a nice mirrorless Olympus EP-3, with a pancake lens. Its pocketable in a cargo pocket, and about as small as older point and shoots, but takes pretty good quality pictures (better than a P&S, but not nearly as good as my DSLR). If I'm going somewhere where I know there will be good shots, I take my DSLR and a case full of lenses, if I'm just out and about I take my mirrorless. My phone doesn't stack up to any of these, and sadly I've gotten a bit snobby with photos, so I can't even stand the look of its pictures. That and it tried to be smart, which often leads to horrible shots (no focus, strange white balances, insisting on flash in mild shadow, etc...). I like my cameras as dumb as possible, within reason, so I have as much control as possible.
But, for people who just want snapshots, an iPhone (or equivalent) is perfect. I've tried to give my girlfriend an old DSLR of mine, and she refused because she just want to capture shots, and not "do photography". Her old Olympus point and shoot fills her needs perfectly. I on the other hand would never give up my DLSR, and try to carry it everywhere I can, even if it is inconvenient at times.
If someone were to combine full Facebook functionality
I'm guessing I'm the last person on Earth who doesn't want Facebook, or my online "friends", or popularity, or like-minded individuals influencing my content. I see this as a trap, sticking me in a hole where the content I see aligns with what some algorithm thinks I want to see, based on my social group and my perceived point of view. Popular articles are generally meaningless pap, and my Facebook timeline has devolved into a constant stream of memes and "clever" image macros. I want less social in my online life, not more. Or rather, more interesting social, social of people who, while not like minded, are intelligent and mature.
Don't tell me about what *you* think *personally* about *your* gaming preferences.
This is the only place from which I can actually speak with authority though. Or anyone, really. Modern Blizzard's thought process is completely opaque to me, to be honest. It has pretty much a non-stop "WTF" moment for the last couple years now.
Speculating: I'm guessing there was a DRM component. But, unlike some modern games (*cough* SimCity.) online only play probably also had roots in expanding features as well, especially since the Starcraft franchise is their most "prestigious" title. I'm also guessing that Blizzard actually worked with the pro-community (I'm 99% sure of this) while they were developing, and worked with people who host tournaments for their connectivity features, they would be daft to do otherwise.
I'm guessing, beyond DRM, that LAN mode wasn't in the direction they wanted to pull the title. Look at all the features in SCII multiplayer, and compare it to the original. Further, I'm guessing that they realized that they CAN remove LAN mode, and people will still buy it, since the people who care that passionately are so marginal that it won't even reflect on their bottom line.
Obviously I don't have statistics on this. But I'm guessing someone, somewhere inside Blizzard does.
(don't fuck with me on that last phrase, asshat, it's a fucking pro sport in Korea...it's popular to use LAN...)
Your passion is admirable, but your delivery doesn't help your case. SCII is a pro sport in Korea (and the rest of the world). And even if LAN is obscenely popular (I see no evidence of this, but we'll say its true), it really hasn't hurt Blizzard one bit by not including it. Hell, I don't like Starcraft, but I'm tempting to buy HOTS, because it looks bloody awesome (and who doesn't love Zerg?).
It isn't abuse when you don't support every user who may or may not potentially use your product. They also didn't REMOVE LAN play, it didn't exist in SCII in the first place so they can't possibly remove it. SCII isn't the original Starcraft.
I don't see the big deal. If you don't like it, don't buy it. The whole thing ends there. Blizzard didn't insult your honor, or shoot your pet. They just didn't implement a feature you want. I find it hard to be terribly upset by this. Hell, I got burned with Diablo 3, but I don't really care. Not a big deal. Live and learn.
the deliberate removal of a usable feature to force users to give up personal data.
I think your argument has morphed somewhere along the way. This is nowhere in your original response. I find it a bit absurd, since I very much doubt that it was the point of removing LAN. Hell. Buy a physical copy with cash, and don't use real info on your Battle.net account if you really care.
Slashdot Mirror
Jews have been living continuously in the region of Palestine for over 3000 years (the Arabs came later, and invaded around 1400 years ago).
Not going to take sides here, since both sides are reprehensible, and deserve very little sympathy at this point. I take that back, the normal people in both Israel and Palestine deserve it, the bellicose asshats in their governments and outspoken religious authorities deserve none whatsoever. That said; your statement is a bit wonky. Yes, modern Arabs, and later Muslims, were there later than Jews, but this is a bit false, since the root ethnicities and cultures that spawned both were there longer than either. Further "we were there first" is about as idiotic as one can get. Should the Native American tribes be allowed to partition American cities, restrict their ability to food and medicine, and generally treat them all like terrorists, criminals, and subhumans by default? They were here first, after all. Actually Siberians and the Japanese should be allowed to, since their genetic stock is more closely related to the original settlers of North America than most people here now.
No. Both people have to coexist, whether they like it or not. If they can't, I don't care, someone should come in and FORCE them to. And anyone who supports the hostilities of either faction should have as serious sanctions as someone supporting any other terrorist aggressor state, since they really don't hold a moral high ground on any issue anymore. They both are bad guys. No excuse changes this fact. Picking sides is nonsensical, its like arguing over who was less evil, Stalin or Mao.
Win 8 - Seems to be a looser. I've not used it enough to have a real opinion, but the consensus seems to be that it's another Vista...
I can't attest to how loose it is, but the actual OS is very solid (a bit of an improvement on Win7), most of the complaints are about the UI changes. Ignoring Metro (or whatever the hell it is called now) it is a very good OS.
I don't mind Metro, it isn't perfect, and feels tacked on, but it hasn't been the end of the world for me. If the changes in TFA are true, then I'd be pretty happy, though I probably wouldn't turn on the Start button if I had a chance. I barely used it in Win 7 (beyond search; i.e. [Win]-"pho"-[Enter] = Photoshop.), and would barely use it in 8.5.
But thats a moot point because I will shoot you first for trespassing and then piss on you for bringing a radio.
And I'd wander out and see what your business is. And perhaps offer you a beer if there was something good on the radio.
Gooe Ass?
You can argue that Play has some lock-in but you have to concede three points...
I wasn't bashing Google, in the end I said they're the best of the bunch because the fact I can side-load. My "complaint" (it really isn't, more of a concern) is the whole Google universe, Google does my email, my news (for now), my searches, my scheduling, takes care of some degree of my purchases, handles my voice mail. potentially follows my web behavior (if not for no-script, adblock, and ghostery) and shares and displays my art/hobby, etc... Extracting myself from this would be a pain. Yes, Google, to their benefit makes it easier than other companies, but they do have their hands on every bit of my online life.
The Play store is only a facet.
I wouldn't call any of them "good guys" yet, being they haven't really done anything in that space yet. Point taken, though.
I'm a bit skeptical of them, and their ability to succeed in the market, though. Apple and Google have huge warchests, and a very established toe-hold in the market, to the point where even MS (another dinosaur) is having a hard time establishing themselves, resulting in stories like this. I have a hard time seeing the little fish amount to anything but niche platforms.
If they come out with an affordable, and feature rich tablet, I might take them up though.
You still need a really dark room for projectors, and in most circumstances their image quality isn't as good as a television. That hasn't stopped me from eyeing them, though, movie nights on the drive way just has an odd appeal.
A TV is a TV is a TV. You old CRT is as much a TV as my modern-ish 42" flat screen, which is as much a TV as my old small CRT in the bedroom hooked to an old DVD/VHS combo. Right now, besides technology and pixels, your CRT and my LCD are serving the exact same porpose, even if mine could (if any were around here) pick up digital broadcasts while yours would only get snow.
The AC said a significant portion of the population doesn't own televisions anymore, I find this very dubious.
Apple is in the phone business.
Google is in the advertising business.
But as a customer, the end result is the same. I really don't care how either of them get their money, all I care about is the end result. With iOS, or Android, you end up getting locked into a "universe". I, naively, wanted to try one of the new Windows 8 phones, but decided against it because Google owns my life now (I'd have to switch all my contacts over, repurchase most of my software, and deal with not having all the really convenient, but very spooky, things Google has learned about me.) iOS is the same, Windows 8 mobile is the same. My dad also tried to give me an iPad as a gift, I turned it down for the same reason. Not because I hate Apple, but because it isn't worth the effort of "starting from scratch".
I'm also not just talking about apps, apps are a gateway to the whole iTMS thing. Amazon pretty much has the same idea there, you get some cheap apps, but they want you to buy all your movies, TV, books, and music from them, forever after.
This is an odd story... All I can really see of it is that MS is mad because Android is cheaper than their OS, and somehow this makes Google's goal worse than their goal, even if they are shooting for the same thing in the end.
VOTE Ron Paul 2016 to END this bullshit once and for all.
He isn't any better really. He just wants everything to be up to the highest bidder, i.e. to be private. Which, in the end, is pretty much exactly what we got now, minus a layer of government.
We need actual public property, which is held, by the government (it is part of their job, after all) for all of us, with all of us having the exact same rights over it regardless of our monetary worth or political clout.
A significant portion of the country no longer owns televisions nor are interested in non-time-shifted content.
This is very doubtful. I'm guessing cable subscriptions are falling, but I really doubt TV ownership is.
Hell, we haven't had cable for around 5 years now, and since we moved haven't been able to get over the air TV either (I only miss the strange Mexican channel, with eastern European announcers advertising title loans and beaters, which only played early '80's music videos). We still own a TV, and we still use it. Our content just switched from traditional formats to Netflix and Amazon. For TV shows, which we still watch, we just wait for Target to have them on sale for $15.
I haven't actually found anything better than a TV yet. Ever try watching a movie with your family on a 24" monitor in your office, or on your 7"-10" tablet? TV (the device), is still king, and will be for a long time.
Have you tried non-Play alternatives?
I've used Amazon's marketplace, and thats about it. Though I have installed a pretty good amount of non-market APKs. It isn't Android or Google's fault that alternatives haven't risen up, all that matters is that they intrinsically allow these alternatives, unlike Apple or MS.
Anyhow, there's an interesting absence on that list of companies forming the complaint.
This is probably because they realize that they are the other behemoth in the room, and probably would be the next target. Further, all I could think about when reading this was "what about Apple"... Though it is ironic that MS is the one complaining, since they want nothing more than to copy Apple and Google.
Again: the complaint is that Google uses their market power on Android to get their users onto their services
Isn't that the game of all mobile operating systems these days? iOS tries to leverage you into their universe by corralling you into their shop system, but here you can't easily escape. MS is hoping for the same thing, hooking you into their universe, with no escape. Amazon is doing the same, with their gimped version of Android. At least Google allows you to escape, and install apps from other sources, and avoid using their services (which obviously they'd prefer you use, but they are still mostly optional san third party shenanigans).
There isn't a single good guy in the mobile universe. But Google is probably as close as you'd get right now.
Indeed, it is arguable that the Capitalist system is just as flawed and unworkable in the long-term than the Communist system...
I doubt it, capitalism is more basic in the end. Its just the exchange of goods for labor, goods, or currency. There was plenty of capitalism in communism. The "free market ideal" is probably going to fizzle in the long run though, to be replaced by a hybrid system of regulated markets with a small dash of socialism. This is already true in large swaths of the world.
Gee, I seem to remember there is no Soviet Union anymore. And yes we can thank Ronaldus Maximus for this.
Geopolitical events are very complicated, and rarely, if ever, have a single cause. The fall of the Soviet Union is not different. I'll say that Saint Ronny had his hand in it, as did Thatcher, but they aren't the only causes, and don't deserve all the credit. There were economic factors, cultural factors, and political factors within the Soviet Union that also nudged it into death, and Ronny or Thatcher deserve no credit for these.
But then again you might be being facetious, sadly I can't tell anymore. Some people have taken their belief systems to the point where it is completely indistinguishable from parody.
Technically true, but in reality meaningless.
The amount of investments that most people have is pretty much nothing, barring things like 401ks. Even if I put all of my free money (i.e. money not tagged for necessary things, like food, rent, gas, insurance, etc...) in investments, it would amount to pretty much nothing, especially when we contrast this to people who have millions in various markets. There is a class of people who live off of investments, there is a point when you have enough money to basically make money from having money. Most of us aren't there, and never will be.
I'm not saying that is a bad thing, or that the GP is right. But there is a point where you have to admit that things are very different for us peons, than for the rich (again, not a value judgement, just a statement of fact).
Yeah, not worrying about the future has brought us all sorts of good things historically...
Or not.
u want disposable? Try the traditional computer where we were always casting off bits over time, upgrading ram and video cards and hard drives and so on. Sure you kept the case; so what?
Actually I recycled most of them. I still have 10 year old drives sitting around as backups, and my girlfriend gets all my cast-off bits as upgrades (most of her old parts going to my mom's PC). I'd estimate that the average PC component lasts around 7 years, in my family. Compare this with my Transformer, which at 2 years old was considered "legacy" by the manufacturer. After this 7 year period they end up on my garage wall, as "art" (with my Voodoo 2, and 8086 boards).
I know I am not typical... But even my non-technical dad keeps computers for 5+ years, during this time period they still receive updates, and can pretty much run all modern software (sans games, obviously). After his updates he donates them, sans HDDs. He did toss one, that got fried in a lightening storm, but he never heard the end of it from me, so now he lets me fix them up, so we can give them to shelters or schools.
computers that non-technical users can have over time without someone to help them maintain.
This disturbs me, personally. Your statement is synonymous with "disposable". Tablets is a way to force PCs to use the cell-phone model of updates and lifespan; you use it for a year or two and ditch it for a better one because it is no longer supported. ASUS did this with the first Transformer, they dropped all support for it in under 2 years, meaning the only recourse a user has is confusing, and unstable community updates. Even in Android land, the vendor now has too much control over devices.
marketplace lock-in
Huh? What lock-in? Last I checked I could still install software from any source I wanted to, unless this has changed in the last half hour.
. A lot of people always claimed that games were the only reason they were still on Windows.
For me this is still part of the reason I stick with it (the other being some profession software, with no fully comparable Linux peers yet), but sadly even with Steam, Linux isn't there yet. Perhaps we're closer to the day when it is possible for a gamer to switch, which is progress, but we're still probably years off.
What we need is the major publishers to jump on the bandwagon, and not just Valve. We also need some soft of transparent, uber-Wine, so people can run everything else without any fuss or worry.
Right now the Steambox concept is going to make Linux more of a console OS, than the new ascendant desktop. Which is also pretty good progress.
I have a relatively large collection of music with greater than 20k tracks. In flac, this is only about 400GB. The entire collection would easily fit on a 500GB portable drive. Those with huge collections would have no trouble putting the entire thing on a cheap 3TB drive.
Though the photo analogy still holds here; I keep all my RAW files on an external drive, and use JPEG for normal use, and sharing. Music is similar, my portable player can't handle lossless formats, and if it could I couldn't fit my music on it. Sadly I can't stream to my phone (thanks to Verizon having caps), but even then it would be worse than a decent mp3.
Lossy has a place. Lossless is the best archival format, or for good setups, but for mp3 is good enough for most applications.
The point of the equipment is that you have quality in reserve as you go through the process of mastering the tracks.
This is how I've seen it as well. Its like the difference between a RAW file, and high quality jpeg. The jpeg is good enough for normal use, but you pretty much kill all the information you need for further editing during the compression process. The RAW is your master, but is pretty pointless for for anything else due to its size.
The DSLR does you no good if it is sitting at home, as it often will be because it is huge and clunky.
Which is why I own a nice mirrorless Olympus EP-3, with a pancake lens. Its pocketable in a cargo pocket, and about as small as older point and shoots, but takes pretty good quality pictures (better than a P&S, but not nearly as good as my DSLR). If I'm going somewhere where I know there will be good shots, I take my DSLR and a case full of lenses, if I'm just out and about I take my mirrorless. My phone doesn't stack up to any of these, and sadly I've gotten a bit snobby with photos, so I can't even stand the look of its pictures. That and it tried to be smart, which often leads to horrible shots (no focus, strange white balances, insisting on flash in mild shadow, etc...). I like my cameras as dumb as possible, within reason, so I have as much control as possible.
But, for people who just want snapshots, an iPhone (or equivalent) is perfect. I've tried to give my girlfriend an old DSLR of mine, and she refused because she just want to capture shots, and not "do photography". Her old Olympus point and shoot fills her needs perfectly. I on the other hand would never give up my DLSR, and try to carry it everywhere I can, even if it is inconvenient at times.
If someone were to combine full Facebook functionality
I'm guessing I'm the last person on Earth who doesn't want Facebook, or my online "friends", or popularity, or like-minded individuals influencing my content. I see this as a trap, sticking me in a hole where the content I see aligns with what some algorithm thinks I want to see, based on my social group and my perceived point of view. Popular articles are generally meaningless pap, and my Facebook timeline has devolved into a constant stream of memes and "clever" image macros. I want less social in my online life, not more. Or rather, more interesting social, social of people who, while not like minded, are intelligent and mature.
Don't tell me about what *you* think *personally* about *your* gaming preferences.
This is the only place from which I can actually speak with authority though. Or anyone, really. Modern Blizzard's thought process is completely opaque to me, to be honest. It has pretty much a non-stop "WTF" moment for the last couple years now.
Speculating: I'm guessing there was a DRM component. But, unlike some modern games (*cough* SimCity.) online only play probably also had roots in expanding features as well, especially since the Starcraft franchise is their most "prestigious" title. I'm also guessing that Blizzard actually worked with the pro-community (I'm 99% sure of this) while they were developing, and worked with people who host tournaments for their connectivity features, they would be daft to do otherwise.
I'm guessing, beyond DRM, that LAN mode wasn't in the direction they wanted to pull the title. Look at all the features in SCII multiplayer, and compare it to the original. Further, I'm guessing that they realized that they CAN remove LAN mode, and people will still buy it, since the people who care that passionately are so marginal that it won't even reflect on their bottom line.
Obviously I don't have statistics on this. But I'm guessing someone, somewhere inside Blizzard does.
(don't fuck with me on that last phrase, asshat, it's a fucking pro sport in Korea...it's popular to use LAN...)
Your passion is admirable, but your delivery doesn't help your case. SCII is a pro sport in Korea (and the rest of the world). And even if LAN is obscenely popular (I see no evidence of this, but we'll say its true), it really hasn't hurt Blizzard one bit by not including it. Hell, I don't like Starcraft, but I'm tempting to buy HOTS, because it looks bloody awesome (and who doesn't love Zerg?).
It isn't abuse when you don't support every user who may or may not potentially use your product. They also didn't REMOVE LAN play, it didn't exist in SCII in the first place so they can't possibly remove it. SCII isn't the original Starcraft.
I don't see the big deal. If you don't like it, don't buy it. The whole thing ends there. Blizzard didn't insult your honor, or shoot your pet. They just didn't implement a feature you want. I find it hard to be terribly upset by this. Hell, I got burned with Diablo 3, but I don't really care. Not a big deal. Live and learn.
the deliberate removal of a usable feature to force users to give up personal data.
I think your argument has morphed somewhere along the way. This is nowhere in your original response. I find it a bit absurd, since I very much doubt that it was the point of removing LAN. Hell. Buy a physical copy with cash, and don't use real info on your Battle.net account if you really care.