Your TV's upscaler has a lot to do with how good standard def signals look. When I went shopping for a new flat-screen TV, I specifically looked for one that had good upscaling. It makes a huge difference, because I've seen more expensive TVs that have awful upscaling, and the Wii (and other older systems) look like utter shit.
Society has changed. It's gotten less violent. That means there's even less reason for these Gestapo tactics.
In my hometown of 25,000 people, the police bought themselves a riot van. This was about 15 years ago. That van has been sitting, unused, in the county courthouse parking lot since then. But hey, at least the cops got a fun toy to play around with and train in.
You should check again if you think these are trending upwards. Very little of the rest of your rant had anything at all to do with "morality". (What does unemployment and gas prices have to do with morality?)
Try coming to live in the real world with us -- it's one of the safest times to be alive in the history of humanity.
I'm not a particularly big fan of wine, but I don't get worked up into a lather when wine tasters talk about the sweet tannins and smoky aftertaste of the oak, chocolate and honey notes - I just shrug, and say "I'll have a Guinness, please."
This is all well and good; no problem here. The problem arises when they then try to point out how much better their expensive wines are than your Guinness. The problem is when you have to explain to them, "no, I really like what I have, you keep to yours." And the biggest problem is when they convince people who have no opinion either way that they need to spend the extra money to get all of the oak, chocolate and honey notes that they can't even taste, when they would have been perfectly happy with the Guinness.
The reason we get worked up about describing something as magical is because it's fucking stupid. Obviously nobody thinks they are literally claiming that they manufacture it using magic, or that it is imbued with magical properties. It's a completely pointless superlative; they might as well just be calling it "super awesome extreme!" because it means the same thing -- nothing.
I miss the days when Apple tried to compete in terms of performance and features -- stuff that could be measured objectively.
Now they compete on "design" (subjective -- IMO they put form over function far too much) and magical content. Of course, it's tough to compete on performance when you use the same hardware as everyone else, but still.
This is not a difficult thing to figure out in the context of the discussion.
Licensed: adj. 1) permitted to legally use the names, logos, likenesses, etc of the teams and players in the (NFL, NBA, MLB, FIFA, WNBA, UFC, WWE, etc)
Unlicensed: adj. 1) not licensed. i.e. the game developers have to make up their own names, logos, players, etc.
Why be deliberately dense and attempt to obfuscate a non-point?
And if basic care was always an out of pocket expense, I'll bet that $125 would drop to a more realistic $60-$80.
And you'd probably be correct on your bet; however, we've got a prisoner's dilemma to get to that point. If everyone dropped coverage for doctor's visits, it would be better for everyone, but until everyone drops coverage and prices are forced to drop, nobody can afford to drop coverage.
I think that most of these "it's not really open source" comments are from people coming from a purely Apple or Microsoft background who have no fucking clue what open source is to begin with. It's the only explanation I can come up with such idiotic comments like this.
Either way, the profit made in the used market is going toward video game stores and not Sony, and that's what they want.
Sure, but there's no profit for retailers in the new game/hardware market. The margins are so thin that most game stores can't afford to *not* have the used section, because that's where all their profits come from.
If the video game publishers want to kill off the used game market, they'd better make sure they're happy with selling only from Wal Mart, Best Buy, Hastings, etc, because it will simultaneously kill off the Gamestops and the mom & pops. For that to be sustainable, they'll need to both lower their prices at retail, and raise the margins for the retailers so that they can stay in business.
If by 'disagree with,' you mean 'have their democratically elected governments overthrown by, to be replaced with dictator strongmen puppets over a 70 year period', then yeah. But hey, don't let those details stop your line of logic, either. If you don't know it happened, you can confidently argue from ignorance!
Well, no, the real fundamental value of the last tech bubble gave us stuff like Amazon.com, all of the news site portals, Newegg.com, mp3 stores, and scads of other stuff. This new bubble gives us twitter and Facebook, and the only way to "monetize" those is to strip mine them for user data used to show ads.
The value from the previous bubble wasn't the stuff we *lost*, it was the stuff we *kept*. What is there in the new bubble that's both self-sustaining and worth keeping?
Borderline unethical? What would it take for you to call it outright unethical? Developers using the GPS to locate the child, track them down, and mug them?
Call a fucking spade a spade. The developers are scam artists, plain and simple.
Your app isn't targeted at children. Your app doesn't allow them to accidentally spend $100 on an in-app purchase that's right next to stuff that is bought with in-game currency. The developers of this game are slimy, trying to cash in on ignorance while they can.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: this is a children's game. THERE IS NO REASON FOR A CHILDREN'S GAME TO ALLOW ITS PLAYERS TO SPEND $100 ON IN-GAME ITEMS.
What the fuck is wrong with you "parents are being neglectful" people?
Slashdot Mirror
It probably does, actually; something along the lines of, "we aren't responsible for anything that happens, ever."
--Jeremy
Yeah, we all know that the *real* greedy fat cats are those union guys. Can't trust those leeches.
--Jeremy
Sturgeon's Law. And 80% is being generous.
--Jeremy
Your TV's upscaler has a lot to do with how good standard def signals look. When I went shopping for a new flat-screen TV, I specifically looked for one that had good upscaling. It makes a huge difference, because I've seen more expensive TVs that have awful upscaling, and the Wii (and other older systems) look like utter shit.
--Jeremy
Society has changed. It's gotten less violent. That means there's even less reason for these Gestapo tactics.
In my hometown of 25,000 people, the police bought themselves a riot van. This was about 15 years ago. That van has been sitting, unused, in the county courthouse parking lot since then. But hey, at least the cops got a fun toy to play around with and train in.
--Jeremy
Governor Arnold Schwarzennegger, President Ronald Reagan -- the Republican party sure hates actors, unless they happen to elect them.
--Jeremy
They have to throw a false equivalence (cache vs. log) in there to appease the Apple fan base.
--Jeremy
You should check again if you think these are trending upwards. Very little of the rest of your rant had anything at all to do with "morality". (What does unemployment and gas prices have to do with morality?)
Try coming to live in the real world with us -- it's one of the safest times to be alive in the history of humanity.
--Jeremy
The people who stand in line for days for those are rather pathetic as well.
--Jeremy
This is all well and good; no problem here. The problem arises when they then try to point out how much better their expensive wines are than your Guinness. The problem is when you have to explain to them, "no, I really like what I have, you keep to yours." And the biggest problem is when they convince people who have no opinion either way that they need to spend the extra money to get all of the oak, chocolate and honey notes that they can't even taste, when they would have been perfectly happy with the Guinness.
The reason we get worked up about describing something as magical is because it's fucking stupid. Obviously nobody thinks they are literally claiming that they manufacture it using magic, or that it is imbued with magical properties. It's a completely pointless superlative; they might as well just be calling it "super awesome extreme!" because it means the same thing -- nothing.
--Jeremy
I miss the days when Apple tried to compete in terms of performance and features -- stuff that could be measured objectively.
Now they compete on "design" (subjective -- IMO they put form over function far too much) and magical content. Of course, it's tough to compete on performance when you use the same hardware as everyone else, but still.
--Jeremy
This is not a difficult thing to figure out in the context of the discussion.
Licensed: adj. 1) permitted to legally use the names, logos, likenesses, etc of the teams and players in the (NFL, NBA, MLB, FIFA, WNBA, UFC, WWE, etc)
Unlicensed: adj. 1) not licensed. i.e. the game developers have to make up their own names, logos, players, etc.
Why be deliberately dense and attempt to obfuscate a non-point?
--Jeremy
You really think that carriers are dependent on each customer logging their own position in able to know which towers they're attaching to?
--Jeremy
And you'd probably be correct on your bet; however, we've got a prisoner's dilemma to get to that point. If everyone dropped coverage for doctor's visits, it would be better for everyone, but until everyone drops coverage and prices are forced to drop, nobody can afford to drop coverage.
--Jeremy
Your grandmother also doesn't care about an "eye phone" or a "robot" either, so that's probably not much of a concern to Microsoft.
--Jeremy
I think that most of these "it's not really open source" comments are from people coming from a purely Apple or Microsoft background who have no fucking clue what open source is to begin with. It's the only explanation I can come up with such idiotic comments like this.
--Jeremy
You're technically correct! That's the best kind of correct!
--Jeremy
Sure, but there's no profit for retailers in the new game/hardware market. The margins are so thin that most game stores can't afford to *not* have the used section, because that's where all their profits come from.
If the video game publishers want to kill off the used game market, they'd better make sure they're happy with selling only from Wal Mart, Best Buy, Hastings, etc, because it will simultaneously kill off the Gamestops and the mom & pops. For that to be sustainable, they'll need to both lower their prices at retail, and raise the margins for the retailers so that they can stay in business.
--Jeremy
Yeah, just like India and Pakistan started bombing each other immediately after they got nukes.
IOW: *Citation needed.
--Jeremy
If by 'disagree with,' you mean 'have their democratically elected governments overthrown by, to be replaced with dictator strongmen puppets over a 70 year period', then yeah. But hey, don't let those details stop your line of logic, either. If you don't know it happened, you can confidently argue from ignorance!
--Jeremy
And that is perfectly legal to do. They just can't call it an iPad.
You want to outlaw knockoffs? Good luck.
--Jeremy
Well, no, the real fundamental value of the last tech bubble gave us stuff like Amazon.com, all of the news site portals, Newegg.com, mp3 stores, and scads of other stuff. This new bubble gives us twitter and Facebook, and the only way to "monetize" those is to strip mine them for user data used to show ads.
The value from the previous bubble wasn't the stuff we *lost*, it was the stuff we *kept*. What is there in the new bubble that's both self-sustaining and worth keeping?
--Jeremy
Borderline unethical? What would it take for you to call it outright unethical? Developers using the GPS to locate the child, track them down, and mug them?
Call a fucking spade a spade. The developers are scam artists, plain and simple.
--Jeremy
Your app isn't targeted at children. Your app doesn't allow them to accidentally spend $100 on an in-app purchase that's right next to stuff that is bought with in-game currency. The developers of this game are slimy, trying to cash in on ignorance while they can.
--Jeremy
I've said it before, I'll say it again: this is a children's game. THERE IS NO REASON FOR A CHILDREN'S GAME TO ALLOW ITS PLAYERS TO SPEND $100 ON IN-GAME ITEMS.
What the fuck is wrong with you "parents are being neglectful" people?
--Jeremy