That's pretty much why I don't own any current gen hardware yet. There's not that much. Going from PSX to PS2 was a significant leap, you couldn't have done GTA3 on the PSX.
And this is why I've been saying since the early 2000s that the hardware is there for artists to express their vision. The games with good art direction from the Gamecube/PS2/XBox era still look good today compared to games today. Today's "awesome" looking games with bland art direction (basically every military-themed shooter or anything going for realism) will look shitty compared to next generation's games.
And on top of that, better graphics don't make for better games. They're a nice bonus on top of an already good game, but a mediocre game isn't really helped... which is why I haven't bought an Id tech demo since the original Quake.
If you want to save money to have an inferior experience with inferior controls
Wait... Are you referring to consoles or PC here? Playing Mario Galaxy with a keyboard and mouse would suck ass, just like dual-thumbsticks suck ass for FPSes.
And before you say "You can hook up a gamepad to a PC," every console in this generation has USB and more than half have Bluetooth and games that support keyboards and mice, so that argument is moot as well.
Libertarian government would protect the rights of individuals. So even if all wealth were to gravitate into the hands of a few, they would be unable to use their power to prevent others from exercising their rights.
I don't laugh out loud often. I did when I read this.
Maybe you missed one of the keywords in your own post -- 'industrial'. I think the industrial revolution helped with that quite a bit. Helped out a few other nations that did the same thing at around the same time.
You also seem to be conveniently forgetting the market crash that followed the time period you listed. And the bigger market crash that happened a couple decades later. Of course, *those* were caused by regulation, I'm sure you'll be quick to point out, and back when we had a *real* free market economy, everything was just hunky dory.
Wow, nice way to set up a situation where literally anyone who argues against your case has no right. Either they are independently wealthy, and they have no right to ask us to stand on our own two feet, or they take money from the government, and therefore they are hypocrites.
It doesn't do this at all. It would apply only to the ones that give back their salary while working for congress.
And accepting a salary for doing work for the government isn't automatically hypocrisy unless your position is that "government is bad, m'kay?"
Sure, so then those of us that did not benefit from the schooling that the loans garnered will also have to pay for them.
Oh, but you do benefit from them. You benefit by having an educated workforce. You benefit by having more people in science discovering new things. You benefit by having more capable people doing more things to invent new technology to improve everybody's lives.
You benefit in *many* ways. It's called an investment. Unfortunately, it's not one that you can withdraw from the bank when you retire, so fools ignore it and see it as only an expense.
And if you think education is expensive, you wouldn't want to experience what ignorance costs.
The source code is available. If you're such a whiz, go ahead and organize the project better.
I get pretty sick of you armchair quarterbacks. You're in a unique situation in which you can do something about the perceived problem. Put up or shut up.
Finally, I think it's important to note that if this study had come to the opposite conclusion, it would have been derided as quack science and laughed off of Slashdot.
Because for it to come to the opposite conclusion, it would probably have had to have been quack science. And before you accuse me of not wanting to challenge my "religion" of AGW, a couple of months ago when a report came out that claimed that warming was basically not happening, the first thing I thought was "wow, that's fantastic news. I hope they're right and not just partisan quacks." In case you missed that one, I'll leave it to you to guess if they were right or not.
Furthermore, the fact that the Koch brothers funded an apparently legitimate scientific study is unlikely to challenge the conception of most on this forum that they are a bunch of purely evil monsters, but it should.
Good on them. Now let's see if they're willing to act responsibly based on the results of the study they paid for.
I'll bet you'd (rightfully) call climatologists idiots if they started ignorantly poking already-debunked holes in your work as a physicist or biologist or whatever the fuck non-climate-science-related thing it is you do.
(though being smart, and reaping those rewards is now an Eeeeeevil 1% thing to do - and we can't have that now, can we)
I often wonder: do people like you *really* misunderstand the situation this badly, or are you just being deliberately dense?
Being smart and reaping rewards is not an issue. Reaping rewards and then manipulating the system using those rewards so you can be stupid and still reap rewards is the Eeeeeeevil thing to do.
There is no fine line here. Quit misrepresenting your perceived opponents' position to make yourself sound more reasonable.
You seem to forget a good decade + of Apple's irrelevance in the marketplace in your history. It's not as if they went straight from the Apple 2 to where they are today. They released tons of mediocre, poorly selling products before finding the breakout hit in the iPod.
No, the confusion is some people being willingly dumb -- mainly people with some sort of irrational fear or hatred of Google, or overzealous open source advocates.
What I wonder is how long we'll keep hearing this stupidity. When Android 6 comes out in 3-5 years and Google releases the source, will people *still* be bitching about "oh remember that one time they DIDN'T release the code when they said they wouldn't? They're EVIL!"
Or a redneck militia member. Or a gun nut. Or whatever. The sad thing is how much people agree on, yet still decide to argue about inconsequential crap.
By the way, show me in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights where this *right* is proclaimed.
Umm, you have that absolutely backwards, and this is just indicative of our pathetic lack of civics classes today.
The correct thing to say would be "show me in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights where this *right* is explicitly prohibited, because the Constitution is about what the government *can* do, the Bill of Rights is about what the government *cannot* do, and neither list what the citizens *can* do."
Slashdot Mirror
When was the last time you were able to upgrade a few parts in your console to add a nice boost to its capabilities?
The better question is: when was the last time you needed to upgrade a few parts on your console to play the latest game?
--Jeremy
That's pretty much why I don't own any current gen hardware yet. There's not that much. Going from PSX to PS2 was a significant leap, you couldn't have done GTA3 on the PSX.
And this is why I've been saying since the early 2000s that the hardware is there for artists to express their vision. The games with good art direction from the Gamecube/PS2/XBox era still look good today compared to games today. Today's "awesome" looking games with bland art direction (basically every military-themed shooter or anything going for realism) will look shitty compared to next generation's games.
And on top of that, better graphics don't make for better games. They're a nice bonus on top of an already good game, but a mediocre game isn't really helped ... which is why I haven't bought an Id tech demo since the original Quake.
--Jeremy
If you want to save money to have an inferior experience with inferior controls
Wait ... Are you referring to consoles or PC here? Playing Mario Galaxy with a keyboard and mouse would suck ass, just like dual-thumbsticks suck ass for FPSes.
And before you say "You can hook up a gamepad to a PC," every console in this generation has USB and more than half have Bluetooth and games that support keyboards and mice, so that argument is moot as well.
--Jeremy
Corporations, as a collection of individuals, seek to create wealth, not destroy it.
How you (or anyone) could make a blanket statement like this and think that it's absolutely true boggles the mind.
--Jeremy
Libertarian government would protect the rights of individuals. So even if all wealth were to gravitate into the hands of a few, they would be unable to use their power to prevent others from exercising their rights.
I don't laugh out loud often. I did when I read this.
--Jeremy
But it's *perfectly* moral for a big player to distort the market to their advantage, such that what they do isn't technically "stealing" from anyone.
I mean, look at the company stores in the 1800s; those mining companies were providing a *service* to their employees!
--Jeremy
Maybe you missed one of the keywords in your own post -- 'industrial'. I think the industrial revolution helped with that quite a bit. Helped out a few other nations that did the same thing at around the same time.
You also seem to be conveniently forgetting the market crash that followed the time period you listed. And the bigger market crash that happened a couple decades later. Of course, *those* were caused by regulation, I'm sure you'll be quick to point out, and back when we had a *real* free market economy, everything was just hunky dory.
--Jeremy
Wow, nice way to set up a situation where literally anyone who argues against your case has no right. Either they are independently wealthy, and they have no right to ask us to stand on our own two feet, or they take money from the government, and therefore they are hypocrites.
It doesn't do this at all. It would apply only to the ones that give back their salary while working for congress.
And accepting a salary for doing work for the government isn't automatically hypocrisy unless your position is that "government is bad, m'kay?"
--Jeremy
Sure, so then those of us that did not benefit from the schooling that the loans garnered will also have to pay for them.
Oh, but you do benefit from them. You benefit by having an educated workforce. You benefit by having more people in science discovering new things. You benefit by having more capable people doing more things to invent new technology to improve everybody's lives.
You benefit in *many* ways. It's called an investment. Unfortunately, it's not one that you can withdraw from the bank when you retire, so fools ignore it and see it as only an expense.
And if you think education is expensive, you wouldn't want to experience what ignorance costs.
--Jeremy
Worked on != worked with.
--Jeremy
The source code is available. If you're such a whiz, go ahead and organize the project better.
I get pretty sick of you armchair quarterbacks. You're in a unique situation in which you can do something about the perceived problem. Put up or shut up.
--Jeremy
Finally, I think it's important to note that if this study had come to the opposite conclusion, it would have been derided as quack science and laughed off of Slashdot.
Because for it to come to the opposite conclusion, it would probably have had to have been quack science. And before you accuse me of not wanting to challenge my "religion" of AGW, a couple of months ago when a report came out that claimed that warming was basically not happening, the first thing I thought was "wow, that's fantastic news. I hope they're right and not just partisan quacks." In case you missed that one, I'll leave it to you to guess if they were right or not.
Furthermore, the fact that the Koch brothers funded an apparently legitimate scientific study is unlikely to challenge the conception of most on this forum that they are a bunch of purely evil monsters, but it should.
Good on them. Now let's see if they're willing to act responsibly based on the results of the study they paid for.
--Jeremy
The sad thing is that you probably think this is an insightful analogy.
--Jeremy
Our response and his adamant reaction led us to never eat in that place again.
Golfclap for the entertainingly irrelevant anecdote.
--Jeremy
I'll bet you'd (rightfully) call climatologists idiots if they started ignorantly poking already-debunked holes in your work as a physicist or biologist or whatever the fuck non-climate-science-related thing it is you do.
--Jeremy
The LG Prada would like a word with you.
--Jeremy
(though being smart, and reaping those rewards is now an Eeeeeevil 1% thing to do - and we can't have that now, can we)
I often wonder: do people like you *really* misunderstand the situation this badly, or are you just being deliberately dense?
Being smart and reaping rewards is not an issue. Reaping rewards and then manipulating the system using those rewards so you can be stupid and still reap rewards is the Eeeeeeevil thing to do.
There is no fine line here. Quit misrepresenting your perceived opponents' position to make yourself sound more reasonable.
--Jeremy
You seem to forget a good decade + of Apple's irrelevance in the marketplace in your history. It's not as if they went straight from the Apple 2 to where they are today. They released tons of mediocre, poorly selling products before finding the breakout hit in the iPod.
--Jeremy
10 years ago, Apple wasn't in the position Apple is in now. Its execution on Xerox's GUI ideas has nothing to do with its success now.
--Jeremy
No, the confusion is some people being willingly dumb -- mainly people with some sort of irrational fear or hatred of Google, or overzealous open source advocates.
What I wonder is how long we'll keep hearing this stupidity. When Android 6 comes out in 3-5 years and Google releases the source, will people *still* be bitching about "oh remember that one time they DIDN'T release the code when they said they wouldn't? They're EVIL!"
--Jeremy
Locked down phones have nothing to do with Android's openness.
And, even if that were true, in addition to what Dishevel said, it's still better than *any* other non-niche alternative.
--Jeremy
They've been quite clear. They said "The Honeycomb code is crap. We won't be releasing it because we don't want it running on phones."
They've also been quite consistent. Whenever they have shitty, rushed code, they finish it before releasing it.
--Jeremy
Or a redneck militia member. Or a gun nut. Or whatever. The sad thing is how much people agree on, yet still decide to argue about inconsequential crap.
--Jeremy
By the way, show me in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights where this *right* is proclaimed.
Umm, you have that absolutely backwards, and this is just indicative of our pathetic lack of civics classes today.
The correct thing to say would be "show me in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights where this *right* is explicitly prohibited, because the Constitution is about what the government *can* do, the Bill of Rights is about what the government *cannot* do, and neither list what the citizens *can* do."
--Jeremy
Might want to check yourself in the mirror -- your bias is showing.
--Jeremy