I'm already making plans for my girlfriend and I to move out of california now since it's just too expensive and there are increasingly less and less tech jobs here.
Believe me, you'll be happy you did, and not because there are any more tech jobs outside of California than in (though there may be because companies are leaving CA for the same reason people do). Instead, it will simply be because you can actually afford to live on the same (or lesser) pay. At least, as long as you don't move to New York or somewhere with a similarly high cost of living.
The division seems to be between people who own a home and those who don't. Everyone I see who doesn't own a home here already is struggling and the ones who do are taking vacations. I've pulled out my savings to go on 'vacation' to the east coast to look for work.
This is simply because those that own a home either bought at a lower price than is currently demanded, or can actually afford a home at current prices. Even those with homes are often taking out 2nds on their home to live their lives and take their vacations.
Before I left California the paper had a front-page story on a Habitat for Humanity house that was selling for $250K to a qualified low-income buyer, and housing prices have continued to go up since then. For $250K in some areas around here (Hampton Roads, VA) I can have a very nice house on a substantial piece of land, or a nice house on a smaller piece of land (depending on how close I want to be to work, basically; and that smaller piece of land is bigger than anything in a CA suburb).
Most people that speak UK English can probably make themselves understood to others than speak UK English. The same can be said about US English. On the other hand, if you get someone with a particularly harsh dialect of US English speaking to someone with a particularly harsh dialect of UK English (ie. someone from the back woods of the south and someone from the films Trainspotting or Snatch), it's quite possible that even when trying to be understood neither will have any idea what the other is saying, even without slang.
Personally, I couldn't understand what 90% of the people I met were saying for the first 2 months after I moved to Virginia, and this is about as far north as you can go before you are completely out of the south (and to those that contest that Virginia is in the south: where was the capital of the Confederacy?).
If a company doesn't provide tech support that can handle the calls it will receive, then they are very likely to lose business eventually.
Why is it ok to import sneakers and t-shirts from cheap Phillipine workers and importing "office jobs" is not?
Not to mention things like ketchup... Anyway, the reason it becomes an issue here is because a good number of people that sit at their desk reading Slashdot all day are tech support people. The jobs have the same level of turnover and pay roughly the same in the US, but some people still prefer a shitty low-paying job at a desk to a shitty low-paying job behind a counter or stove, and almost all people would prefer a shitty low-paying job behind a desk to looking for a new job with that shitty low-paying job on their resume.
In the Nvidia case this is all not very realistic. They have invested too much in the way they work now, so it will never be usefull enough for them to open their drivers.
This is exactly why I said it's not a good example, though the rest of your statements (a 3rd party developing open drivers) bring up a good point. Unfortunately, 3rd-party drivers are very unlikely to take full advantage of the hardware without open specifications (the reason so many people prefer ATI's methods).
(Someone remembers the Voodoo cards, and their problem with their too closed and problematic Glide API and their resistance against DirectX? Where are they now?).
Voodoo didn't resist DirectX very long, it was OpenGL that gave them problems, precisely because their cards weren't developed with it in mind. id Software forced their hand in this by announcing that Quake 3 would not support their "miniGL" drivers, requiring them to release OpenGL drivers for the cards. These drivers, when finally released, showed very poor performance (in part because of the fact that they were new drivers). This, combined with severe delays on the release of new cards, and a constant resistance to new features (32bit colour, for one), while introducing new features with questionable benefit, and rumors of requiring a secondary power source (now common on many cards, at the time unheard of), and finally buying STB so they could become the sole producer of 3dfx cards, all undid the company. In the end, most of their IP is now at nVidia, a company which took the market by ramping up the frequency at which new chips were released to market (every 6 months, something 3dfx never managed), fixing OpenGL problems with their chips within 3 generations (~2 years, all before their cards were even remotely popular for 3D graphics), working with Microsoft on DirectX support, introducing 32bit colour when no one thought it was necessary, and producing reference 2d/3d boards that surpassed the capabilities of 3dfx' add-on 3D-only boards before 3dfx could build any kind of reputation for building solid 2d/3d boards.
In the end, nVidia played a tough hand against 3dfx, and 3dfx kept stumbling. By the time this mess was all over, ATI stepped up to the plate, and though they stumbled at first, they have since managed to keep up with (or get ahead of) nVidia at nearly every turn.
Now, someone ported a binary driver to linux. Very nice from this guy, but in the long run this will hurt linux (AND linux users). Manufacturers are just weighing what's the penalty and the profit for bringing out a driver (binary or source), no driver or support somenone who writes a driver (binary or source). Now, if the use of binary drivers is discouraged, there will be more source drivers becoming available (but less drivers, some manufacturers are not willing to open their source). However in the long run (and linux marketshare will help) manufacturers have to support linux. The more other manufacturers have open source drivers, the less trouble they have doing the same.
Actually, the more manufacturers see that drivers are routinely broken with little care by the Linux kernel maintainers, the less likely they are to develop drivers, source or binary. In the long run, this can be detrimental to Linux' market penetration, as users trying to switch find that their hardware does not work.
Of course you can say all things about manufacturers 'not being able to open' (nvidia binary drivers cannot be opened, because of rules, etc.), but that is just not true.
I'm afraid you chose the wrong example here, because nVidia is dealing with licensing agreements forced upon them by law. They tried to use someone else's IP, and they got caught, and were forced to license that IP. In the end, they either retool their line, break compatability, and release drivers and cards that don't utilize that IP, or they release binary-only drivers. Unless there's something wrong with the licensed IP or they can convince the original owners of that IP to license it for open source distribution, it's out of their hands.
Nvidia has no advantage of opening their secrets (yes, their competitors will take advantage of this) and therefore they are not doing it (they lose perhaps a handfull of users). A perfect business decision in the light of most linux users using a binary driver. However if ATI IS providing (this is an example) the source, Nvidia has to look different to the situation, especially if, say 20% of the users uses ATI because of this and if ATI is also 'giving up' their secrets.
But, again, nVidia doesn't own the secrets in this case. Additionally, ATI provides most of the information needed to create a driver for their cards, but doesn't provide the driver itself. Some people seem to prefer this method, but, in the end, it still means you have no support from ATI.
How is it an artifical crime? You do not have permission to distribute the song. Period. End of story.
The term "artificial crime" is a bit loaded, and was made up by the previous poster, so I'm not going to address that. At best, it can be said that copyright has been mutilated beyond its original purpose, and that both sides have been using strawmen to defend their own views.
You can fold, spindle and mutilate the song/album to your hearts content for YOUR use but you do not have the right to give it to 1000 of your closest 'friends'.
If you can physically give it to 1000 of your closest friends, there is some protection available in the form of fair use and the Home Recording Act (but when you get to the point of 1000 people you're going to have problems). Unfortunately, this protection has yet to be enforced on the internet. Furthermore, they are not suing based on the number of downloads you've served up to your 'friends', but rather on the number of songs you make available for download. The two things are not directly related. I can put up my 500+CD library and get only 10 downloads in 6 months. On the other hand, more than half of that library is outside of the RIAA's hands, as well.
As far as the theft part is concerned, if you didn't pay it for it, it's theft. I'm excluding situations where someone buys it for you and gives it to you since it is already paid for. I am also excluding the situation where you give the CD to a friend for them to listen to and then they return it to you. Just like a library.
The crime of theft is not in having something that wasn't paid for (after all, theft and receiving stolen property are two different crimes, as well). The crime is in depriving the previous owner of what they owned, whether that owner is a shop, private person, or record label. The RIAA is using the word theft because it's a term that most people think they understand, and know is wrong. Copyright infringement is a term that is not widely understood, especially as far as what it does and does not pertain to, and therefore the RIAA shies away from it outside of the actual legal documents they file (because they can't file a suit for theft in these cases).
Copyright infringement does not deny the original owner of the item. In fact, the original owner in many cases (though P2P reduces this) is the person doing the infringement (alternatively, the original owner gave it to someone who either infringed on the copyright or gave it to someone that did, which is right along the lines of what happens in P2P networks, where many files come from the same source). What it does deny to the original owner is control of the work. In the end, that's what this is really all about.
This nonsense about 'information wants to be free' is tiring. Someone has to pay for the product or there wouldn't be anyone producing anything. Even free software isn't free since someone has to pay for the hardware to compile and distribute it. Someone has to pay for the bandwidth. Someone has to pay for the electricity. Someone has to pay for all the other equipment involved in producing the software.
But, in the end, software, music, movies, and, more and more, even books share one major thing in common: in electronic form, with technologies like P2P, reproduction and distribution can be free (as in beer), as long as individuals that are already paying for the hard drive space, the computers, the electricity, and the bandwidth are willing to host it. The RIAA represents a group of companies that have controlled distribution of their product for a long time (this is not the case in all media, and especially is not the case with non-RIAA music labels), so, of course, loss of control of the distribution, combined with no method to track and monetize such distribution, scares them, even to the point where they are willing to lose sales to stop the entire method of distribution. This is why they went after the P2P companies first: to stop the dist
Just like winning $100,000 at the lottery can't replace working hard to get those $100,000
Yeah, but if I can get $100,000 for buying a $1 ticket instead of working a year or two, I'll take the lottery money and keep on working.
Similarly, if I can turn my metabolism up a few notches without the months of working out 7-20 hrs/week that it normally takes me to do so, I'll gladly take the pill and reduce my work-out schedule to simply that which I need to gain the muscle mass I want. At the same time, if their research is correct, it would be much easier to actually put in that time in the gym.
Well, it's not really a bad idea considering that your landline is the most reliable. It'll work during bad weather, and it'll work during a power outage, or when your ISP is being neglegent and your connection is down.
Yeah, try that when a hurricane comes through and the phone lines are run on the same poles as the power lines...
The last hurricane that really did any damage in this area (Isabelle) left us with congested (but usable) cell service, but no power, cable, or land-line phones. Thankfully we filled the gas tanks before-hand, so we could charge our GBAs and cell phones off the car cigarette lighters.
I can play with my WaveBird plugged into the electrical outlet a hell of a lot easier than I can with the standard GameCube controller plugged into the GameCube. After all, the electrical outlets are a lot closer to the couch than the GameCube.
On the other hand, I have to have a 3rd-party adapter to keep from having to constantly burn up AA batteries on my Wavebird, too. Still, it's got nice battery life.
Most of my use of my GBA is in the car (no, not when I'm driving), but I certainly wouldn't want to be tied to the cigarette lighter, as I might need to light a cigarette, or charge my cell phone. My car only has 1 cup holder, I can hardly expect multiple power outlets.
but they can record it in a near-perfect digital (holographic) representation of the original analog recording, remaster it, and fill the whole 1TB with the one album, so they won't bother putting the whole Beatles collection on one disc. After all, they can almost do that on a DVD with CD-quality audio.
These are simply within the chat interface on battle.net, though, and not in the games themselves.
On the other hand, I've noticed at particular times (it's been a while since I've been on battle.net, though, so I can't say recently) that the ads have been dominated by Blizzard's own products, meaning that they weren't getting many outside advertisers. At the same time, I'd think that this means they aren't tracking very well, as I don't need to see ads for games I already own and have used on battle.net.
odbII interfaces are usually in the dash somewhere, most likely below the steering wheel.
In any case, the image looks nothing like an odbII interface, unless someone had a really strange idea of how to handle this interface and translate it for a PC.
It'd probably take a while to find one, because the reason the poster stated for a gun manufacturer to be sued is nearly impossible precisely because gun manufacturers rarely sell guns directly to the consumers. In fact, even Wal-Mart, which was found negligent in its policies regarding sales of guns was not sued, but simply had any license to sell a firearm in the state of California revoked (and therefore one of my favorite jokes about being able to buy a gun but not an uncensored album in WalMart is no longer applicable in California, though it made it even more interesting that you could buy a gun without proper ID, but not an R-rated movie).
The weight of the cost for government medical care for all of the people who smoke and can't afford to pay their own health bills or afford insurance that will cover it causes my taxes (I'm not a smoker although everyone else in my family is) to go up to support this harmful habit that others "choose" to do. I feel that if others can "choose" to keep this habit, then I should be able to "choose" whether or not to pay the taxes required to support their partaking of this habit.
The real question is, do you vote for people that want to reduce your tax burden when it comes to paying for medical care for people that can't afford it (or for people that not only can't afford it, but are not likely to actually be cured of their problem(s))?
As we continue to increase the burden on our tax system with increases in state-run medical insurance, we seem to continue adding bullshit laws to protect people's health so that they won't increase the burden on the same system. Laws for bicycle and motorcycle helmets, seatbelts, smoking, and so on, often with the "medical care for those that can't afford it" and its associated costs listed as one of the reasons for the legislation. If you really want to cut the cost, cut the benefit.
The reality is that the half-assed system of government-provided medical care costs us more than it would if it were either offered to everyone or offered to no one. I pay more for someone that doesn't (or can't) work to have medical care than I do for my own (even with my wife on the plan), and I can't imagine that my company has more people paying into its insurance plan than the government (though I will admit the company is also adding in a good chunk of money on its own to reduce the costs for employees, it's rediculous to think the government wouldn't take money from somewhere else in our taxes to pay for any cost over-run in medicare, too).
Finally, look at the taxes paid on cigarettes themselves. Most of that money (though it depends on your state; and much of it probably goes into advertising and programs that are supposed to reduce smoking in general) is supposed to go to alleviate the cost burden on non-smoking tax-payers in precisely these areas. Any state in which a pack of cigarettes sells for more than $4 is bringing in more in taxes than the price of the pack of cigarettes (and I'm not even taking into account that a retailer pays less than the ~$2 they charge for a pack of cigarettes in states with little or no tobacco tax).
Check it out - that pretty much is not an option! Your ROM is going into a cabinet that already exists, you don't get to spec a new cabinet for every title. Later on your ROM will be pulled out of that cabinet, and someone's going to stick a new one in. Same goes when you ship a cart for the portable of your choice.
Why not simply use one of the many cabinets made in the last ~10 years that is at least somewhat compatible with modern consoles? Stick to portable and embedded devices if you want heavy asm use, the cabinets have been moving away from it for quite some time, especially in the US where the arcade barely exists.
Does anyone here play and buy sports games? I'm wondering what the appeal is in creating yet another football or basketball game.
I do, occasionally, but not in the "pick up the new one as soon as it comes out every year" way that seems to be the foundation of the genre. Therefore, I can't help you understand this mentality, because I don't understand it myself.
Do the newer ones deviate from the rules to create a new type of game, or is it just better graphics and sound?
It depends on the title, as well as the year. Sometimes the updates are fairly minor, other times they do a fairly good job of revamping the interface and adding some new features that actually make it worthwhile. More often than not, though, the biggest reason people will cite for buying more than one game in the same sport on the same console is to get the roster and stat updates, as well as any rule changes the league may have implemented. I know a handful of people that can tell you what's new in Madden 2005, but, in the end, it all sounds pretty minor to me (but again, I'm not an overwhelming fan of these games).
Or are game studios working on games based on other sports? It seems to me that one could only create so many football games before covering the same ground, yet there seems to be a new "Madden" game every year.
There are games for other sports, and, of course, every sports game studio will probably try to put out a game for anything that seems remotely popular, even if it's just a passing fad. The only games that seem to get yearly updates, though, are the longer-standing titles: football, basketball, soccer, baseball, hockey (with pro and college versions for some). There are the tennis, golf, snowboarding, skateboarding, etc games that get updated more or less often, but in some cases they only rarely get multiple titles (from the same developer) on the same console (snowboarding and skateboarding may be the exceptions here, but those titles haven't been as long running in their current inception as the others). Racing titles seem to go both ways, depending on the nature of the individual title (i.e. new NASCAR games every year, but GT games occur far less often).
Not being a sports game player I'm wondering how the game developers are keeping sports games new and different.
Most of them really aren't, although they've also branched out into more titles in some areas, such as the "street" versions of basketball and football. This doesn't really impact the core titles. Madden 2005 is Madden 2004 + XBox Live support + new rosters/stats/whatever + a handful of new features that probably won't be noticed by all but the most rabid fans. Casual sports game players are probably best served by checking the reviews and picking up the best title for the particular season + console they're shopping for at that particular time, though if they're looking to save some money, looking at the previous year's titles may be even better (though this year Sega's NFL title is $20, so why not?). Most won't be missing out on much if they only buy 1 title for a particular sport per console generation, as most of the major updates come with the new consoles (updated graphics + sound, maybe changes in the interface, etc), and the time between console generations allows for a large number of small changes from one year to the next, which will be much more noticable after 3-5 years of such changes.
I think that's possibly the worst thing about this announcement. Their yearly titles may not have been the best (though their first year or two weren't bad, 2003 wasn't a good year for them), but the other titles (Top Spin, Links, etc) were very good. Hopefully they'll consider keeping some of those titles to compete in the less-dominated markets, but looking at the layoffs and so forth, it seems unlikely.
If you have a 'Cube, Tales of Symphonia is an excellent choice (though, given your "dumbed down" comment, I would recommend you set it on the high difficulty setting immediately; I'm about five hours in and I find it a little too easy).
I already have it, but as an RPG rather than an SRPG, it gets relegated to shelf space until I have a weekend to myself (I thought I would have one by now, otherwise I might have waited a bit longer before picking it up, though as an RPG on the GameCube I almost had to buy it just to satisfy that itch that says if I don't buy it, they won't make any more RPGs for the system).
I'm looking forward to seeing the Atelier series come over as well; I'd been following them for quite a while from afar and am just now getting ready to dive into importing, but having the English-language version available is always a plus.
I'm simply hoping that they either do well on the English voice acting, or allow the Japanese voices. In almost every translation (even movies/anime) the English voices tend to irritate me because they're so stiff, so it's always a pleasure to be able to switch it over and just read the translated text (maybe someday I'll learn enough Japanese to not need it).
I still think that a US-developed FF-style RPG could be wildly successful if it has the sense to learn from the mistakes made in the last few times it was tried (Secret of Evermore, Shadow Madness, etc). Oh, and if they get a decent writer. I guess what I'm saying is that I really wanted Advent Rising to be an RPG, but we'll see.
I'm not even necessarily concerned about FF-style RPGs, but US developed RPGs in general. The major RPG titles from US developers were severely hamstrung when it came time to develop console titles in the series, with probably the best-known examples being Baldur's Gate and Fallout. Again, while Dark Alliance was a fun game, it wasn't a strong example of US RPGs, whereas KOTOR was, but the only thing the publishers have gained from that is sequel-fever.
Totally agree about the need for more non-FF rpg over here, but from what ive seen the only thing the US can make are titles like KoTOR (heavaly reliant on existing SW universe/other existing media) or games like Sudeki which are advertised as RPG's but IMO its an adventure game that has RPG elements and are as you said dumbed down, i dont want my rpg's to have a 1st person shooter mode (aka Sudeki)
Obviously, though, with KOTOR being based on the Baldur's Gate engine, it's possible for US developers to bring the PC RPGs to the consoles without dumbing them down. It's simply a matter of getting the publishers to believe this, which they don't seem to be ready to do, despite the success of KOTOR. On the other hand, the XBox does have a couple of RPGs coming up that look like they may be good as well, namely Fable and Jade Empire.
I would also like to see US developers branching out from the d20 system. One of the things I find most interesting about the FF series is the number of changes they've been willing to make to the battle, skill, class, etc. systems in the games, and Square, Enix, (now SquareEnix) and others among Japanese RPG developers have been willing to take even more risks, with sometimes mixed results, in other titles.
It might also be interesting to see some of the US strategy developers take on the SRPG format, though it really seems that RTS has sucked most of the life out of the US developers in this area, and most RTS developers would probably have a hard time coming up with something interesting for either the turn-based format or the RPG elements of the genre.
I would definitely agree, and am looking forward to Phantom Brave (as the "spiritual sequel" to Disgaea and LPT).
From the comments made by the people that were working in the stores at which I bought these games, they did fairly well, so, hopefully, Nippon Ichi will continue bringing these games stateside with the help of people like Atlus.
Beyond that, it's always good to see Japanese RPGs outside of the usual FF fair come over. Now if only we could get more US RPGs on the consoles without publishers deciding they need to be dumbed down. Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance and its sequel may be fun games, but they don't satisfy the itch for RPGs.
It is a bit unfortunate that the pattern these days is for demos to be released *after* the release of the full game. However, I can understand the logic behind it. A demo is supposed to sell your game, and having a hastily rushed out demo, full of bugs and glaring errors, isn't a good move.
Additionally, the people that rush out and buy the game in the first week or so can only be convinced NOT to buy the game by the demo, as your Daikatana example probably illustrates (though the reviews were so savage and the hype so bad that the game was dropped in price immediately and no one was rushing anywhere for it).
I'm 26, but my income tends to be higher than anyone I know the same age. I don't buy a lot of games that get left unplayed, but it does happen occasionally, especially when I find out there's an older game out there that was supposed to be really good that I missed (and I can pick up for $10-20). Otherwise, I usually catch up with a lot of my unplayed games in the summer, when fewer good titles come out.
I've also found myself playing more games that have long play-time, but can be played in short bursts. I can pull a race or two in PGR2 or GT3 every now and then, a battle or two in Disgaea, La Pucelle, or C&C Generals, or a couple of levels in Mario vs. Donkey Kong or WarioWare Inc, without getting too much hassle for not paying attention to my wife, not helping with dinner, not taking out the trash, cleaning the house, etc. Sitting down to play KOTOR, Final Fantasy, or another of the RPGs I would've spent most of my time with a few years ago is suspended for the times she can visit friends or family for a weekend without me needing to be there.
Of course, with a daughter on the way, I can always hope that she'll be a gamer, too, and will play some of the games I don't always get time for. I hope to be able to start her out on the classics collections, hopefully to get her to appreciate gameplay more than graphics (or at least appreciate the graphics for what they are, rather than appreciating nothing else).
The proof, unfortunately for hardcore gamers, is in the numbers. Where games like The Sims, Grand Theft Auto (Which was a long game, but it was a game that had action right from the get go and could be played in short spurts) and games that cater to broader crowds such as sports games, are king. And unfortunately, developers and publishers need money to keep going.
Unfortunately for the publishers, though, the people that go out and buy Madden every year, and maybe buy the occasional blockbuster like GTA:VC or The Sims, are not buying a lot of games, there are just a lot of them buying certain games.
Personally, I don't mind the fact that some of the games on my shelf are underplayed, and that most of them are very long. I know that if I have to stop buying games (I have certainly cut down in the last year), it will be a while before I can really say I've played all I have. It also helps in the dry periods, which usually occur every summer, and keeps me from having to jump on every over-hyped game that comes along before the real reviews come out.
More often than not, length is determined by genre. Sports games tend to gain length by adding features and game modes, or unlockables, but otherwise what keeps people playing them is a love for the particular sport. I could play all the Madden I need in 30 minutes or less, so I don't buy the game (that and knowing that someone I know will pick it up...). RPGs tend to be long in order to tell their story, with some longer than others. Needless to say, I don't start playing an RPG when I only have 30 minutes. There are many games that lie in between, like platformers and shooters, while strategy games can fill the whole range (whether RTS or SRPG), with quick rounds combining for long-term playability (i.e. playing 1 battle at a sitting in either genre), though I've found that some of them tend to stretch out to a number of hours per battle, and hopefully those games allow saving mid-battle.
We don't need shorter games, they're already out there. If you want short games, buy short games. I'll stick to longer games, even if most of them are games I only play 30 minutes at a time.
I'll also add that my primary reason for buying more games than I can play usually comes down to wanting to buy any well-reviewed titles of particular genres, in order to add one more sale to that particular game, in hopes that people will continue to make good titles in that genre. There's nothing worse than seeing that one of your favorite genres is absent from a certain platform, and this should be easy to see for RPG fans that were PC gamers before Baldur's Gate, or GameCube owners, or even XBox owners that are still playing KOTOR over and over again.
As far as no one forcing waitresses to work in bars, this is true. However its probably also true they can make alot more money in a bar then at the local denny's. I don't see why someone trying to make money with a set of skills should be forced into a situation that causes them damage simply b/c they wish to maximize their earnings. All workplaces should be relatively healthy to work in.
That's why it makes sense to have seperated smoking and non-smoking areas, for the sake of people's health. At the same time, if people don't want to work in smoking areas, they have to deal with whatever differences exist there. Like everything else, risk factors can affect your pay. I know I could've gotten a fairly good bonus if I had taken a job in Iraq (despite the fact that it would probably be safer than working in many cities in the US), but I chose not to do so, and someone else got that money, instead. It's certainly not the case that in every situation waitresses make more money in smoking sections than non-, but it happens often enough in many areas that it's worthwhile for some. California didn't even give people the choice in most bars, though they did for quite some time in restaurants. Once the smoking ban was put in place, though, many bar owners either took the fines (as both bar owners and the smokers get fined) or shut their doors after receiving a number of fines. Many people, after all, are perfectly happy to drink at home if they can't have a smoke in the bar (which is probably better overall for everyone but the drinker).
The rest of your post seems to deal with the fact that we restrict movies to those under 18, so why not restrict games? Well those age restrictions don't worry. Lots of kids smoke pot, drink and watch violent movies. I saw many R rated movies before i was 17, so did all of my friends, yet none of us have become violent crimials. I don't think we're the exception either. As i stated in another post, people influeced that much by a game or movie already have other problems, and its not the fault of the game makers, just like McDs didn't make you fat, you (not personally..) did by eating there too much and not excersing.
The point is simply to force parents to become involved. Perhaps that's not the best way to handle things, but I believe it's a middle ground that most people can deal with. I certainly played what would be M rated games before I was 17, but my parents were well aware of what I was playing (and I certainly wasn't buying most of them myself, anyway).
Another point people never seem to get; you don't suddenly wake up on your 18th bday much more responsible. Its different for everyone, so much so that i question having such hard and fast rules. I know alot of people in their 30s that are much less responsible then alot of 16 yr olds.
I agree, but in the end there's no way to handle that in government without the government itself getting overly involved in people's lives. What I really detest is the truly hard-and-fast rules, such as those related to the ages at which people can consume alcohol and tobacco, or even view pornography, as well as voting. On the other hand, the latter two especially can be very controversial topics because people are too afraid to let their children see a naked body and maybe are afraid of what we'll end up with if stupid people couldn't vote.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm already making plans for my girlfriend and I to move out of california now since it's just too expensive and there are increasingly less and less tech jobs here.
Believe me, you'll be happy you did, and not because there are any more tech jobs outside of California than in (though there may be because companies are leaving CA for the same reason people do). Instead, it will simply be because you can actually afford to live on the same (or lesser) pay. At least, as long as you don't move to New York or somewhere with a similarly high cost of living.
The division seems to be between people who own a home and those who don't. Everyone I see who doesn't own a home here already is struggling and the ones who do are taking vacations. I've pulled out my savings to go on 'vacation' to the east coast to look for work.
This is simply because those that own a home either bought at a lower price than is currently demanded, or can actually afford a home at current prices. Even those with homes are often taking out 2nds on their home to live their lives and take their vacations.
Before I left California the paper had a front-page story on a Habitat for Humanity house that was selling for $250K to a qualified low-income buyer, and housing prices have continued to go up since then. For $250K in some areas around here (Hampton Roads, VA) I can have a very nice house on a substantial piece of land, or a nice house on a smaller piece of land (depending on how close I want to be to work, basically; and that smaller piece of land is bigger than anything in a CA suburb).
Most people that speak UK English can probably make themselves understood to others than speak UK English. The same can be said about US English. On the other hand, if you get someone with a particularly harsh dialect of US English speaking to someone with a particularly harsh dialect of UK English (ie. someone from the back woods of the south and someone from the films Trainspotting or Snatch), it's quite possible that even when trying to be understood neither will have any idea what the other is saying, even without slang.
Personally, I couldn't understand what 90% of the people I met were saying for the first 2 months after I moved to Virginia, and this is about as far north as you can go before you are completely out of the south (and to those that contest that Virginia is in the south: where was the capital of the Confederacy?).
If a company doesn't provide tech support that can handle the calls it will receive, then they are very likely to lose business eventually.
Why is it ok to import sneakers and t-shirts from cheap Phillipine workers and importing "office jobs" is not?
Not to mention things like ketchup...
Anyway, the reason it becomes an issue here is because a good number of people that sit at their desk reading Slashdot all day are tech support people. The jobs have the same level of turnover and pay roughly the same in the US, but some people still prefer a shitty low-paying job at a desk to a shitty low-paying job behind a counter or stove, and almost all people would prefer a shitty low-paying job behind a desk to looking for a new job with that shitty low-paying job on their resume.
In the Nvidia case this is all not very realistic. They have invested too much in the way they work now, so it will never be usefull enough for them to open their drivers.
This is exactly why I said it's not a good example, though the rest of your statements (a 3rd party developing open drivers) bring up a good point. Unfortunately, 3rd-party drivers are very unlikely to take full advantage of the hardware without open specifications (the reason so many people prefer ATI's methods).
(Someone remembers the Voodoo cards, and their problem with their too closed and problematic Glide API and their resistance against DirectX?
Where are they now?).
Voodoo didn't resist DirectX very long, it was OpenGL that gave them problems, precisely because their cards weren't developed with it in mind. id Software forced their hand in this by announcing that Quake 3 would not support their "miniGL" drivers, requiring them to release OpenGL drivers for the cards. These drivers, when finally released, showed very poor performance (in part because of the fact that they were new drivers). This, combined with severe delays on the release of new cards, and a constant resistance to new features (32bit colour, for one), while introducing new features with questionable benefit, and rumors of requiring a secondary power source (now common on many cards, at the time unheard of), and finally buying STB so they could become the sole producer of 3dfx cards, all undid the company. In the end, most of their IP is now at nVidia, a company which took the market by ramping up the frequency at which new chips were released to market (every 6 months, something 3dfx never managed), fixing OpenGL problems with their chips within 3 generations (~2 years, all before their cards were even remotely popular for 3D graphics), working with Microsoft on DirectX support, introducing 32bit colour when no one thought it was necessary, and producing reference 2d/3d boards that surpassed the capabilities of 3dfx' add-on 3D-only boards before 3dfx could build any kind of reputation for building solid 2d/3d boards.
In the end, nVidia played a tough hand against 3dfx, and 3dfx kept stumbling. By the time this mess was all over, ATI stepped up to the plate, and though they stumbled at first, they have since managed to keep up with (or get ahead of) nVidia at nearly every turn.
Now, someone ported a binary driver to linux. Very nice from this guy, but in the long run this will hurt linux (AND linux users). Manufacturers are just weighing what's the penalty and the profit for bringing out a driver (binary or source), no driver or support somenone who writes a driver (binary or source). Now, if the use of binary drivers is discouraged, there will be more source drivers becoming available (but less drivers, some manufacturers are not willing to open their source). However in the long run (and linux marketshare will help) manufacturers have to support linux. The more other manufacturers have open source drivers, the less trouble they have doing the same.
Actually, the more manufacturers see that drivers are routinely broken with little care by the Linux kernel maintainers, the less likely they are to develop drivers, source or binary. In the long run, this can be detrimental to Linux' market penetration, as users trying to switch find that their hardware does not work.
Of course you can say all things about manufacturers 'not being able to open' (nvidia binary drivers cannot be opened, because of rules, etc.), but that is just not true.
I'm afraid you chose the wrong example here, because nVidia is dealing with licensing agreements forced upon them by law. They tried to use someone else's IP, and they got caught, and were forced to license that IP. In the end, they either retool their line, break compatability, and release drivers and cards that don't utilize that IP, or they release binary-only drivers. Unless there's something wrong with the licensed IP or they can convince the original owners of that IP to license it for open source distribution, it's out of their hands.
Nvidia has no advantage of opening their secrets (yes, their competitors will take advantage of this) and therefore they are not doing it (they lose perhaps a handfull of users). A perfect business decision in the light of most linux users using a binary driver. However if ATI IS providing (this is an example) the source, Nvidia has to look different to the situation, especially if, say 20% of the users uses ATI because of this and if ATI is also 'giving up' their secrets.
But, again, nVidia doesn't own the secrets in this case. Additionally, ATI provides most of the information needed to create a driver for their cards, but doesn't provide the driver itself. Some people seem to prefer this method, but, in the end, it still means you have no support from ATI.
How is it an artifical crime? You do not have permission to distribute the song. Period. End of story.
The term "artificial crime" is a bit loaded, and was made up by the previous poster, so I'm not going to address that. At best, it can be said that copyright has been mutilated beyond its original purpose, and that both sides have been using strawmen to defend their own views.
You can fold, spindle and mutilate the song/album to your hearts content for YOUR use but you do not have the right to give it to 1000 of your closest 'friends'.
If you can physically give it to 1000 of your closest friends, there is some protection available in the form of fair use and the Home Recording Act (but when you get to the point of 1000 people you're going to have problems). Unfortunately, this protection has yet to be enforced on the internet. Furthermore, they are not suing based on the number of downloads you've served up to your 'friends', but rather on the number of songs you make available for download. The two things are not directly related. I can put up my 500+CD library and get only 10 downloads in 6 months. On the other hand, more than half of that library is outside of the RIAA's hands, as well.
As far as the theft part is concerned, if you didn't pay it for it, it's theft. I'm excluding situations where someone buys it for you and gives it to you since it is already paid for. I am also excluding the situation where you give the CD to a friend for them to listen to and then they return it to you. Just like a library.
The crime of theft is not in having something that wasn't paid for (after all, theft and receiving stolen property are two different crimes, as well). The crime is in depriving the previous owner of what they owned, whether that owner is a shop, private person, or record label. The RIAA is using the word theft because it's a term that most people think they understand, and know is wrong. Copyright infringement is a term that is not widely understood, especially as far as what it does and does not pertain to, and therefore the RIAA shies away from it outside of the actual legal documents they file (because they can't file a suit for theft in these cases).
Copyright infringement does not deny the original owner of the item. In fact, the original owner in many cases (though P2P reduces this) is the person doing the infringement (alternatively, the original owner gave it to someone who either infringed on the copyright or gave it to someone that did, which is right along the lines of what happens in P2P networks, where many files come from the same source). What it does deny to the original owner is control of the work. In the end, that's what this is really all about.
This nonsense about 'information wants to be free' is tiring. Someone has to pay for the product or there wouldn't be anyone producing anything. Even free software isn't free since someone has to pay for the hardware to compile and distribute it. Someone has to pay for the bandwidth. Someone has to pay for the electricity. Someone has to pay for all the other equipment involved in producing the software.
But, in the end, software, music, movies, and, more and more, even books share one major thing in common: in electronic form, with technologies like P2P, reproduction and distribution can be free (as in beer), as long as individuals that are already paying for the hard drive space, the computers, the electricity, and the bandwidth are willing to host it. The RIAA represents a group of companies that have controlled distribution of their product for a long time (this is not the case in all media, and especially is not the case with non-RIAA music labels), so, of course, loss of control of the distribution, combined with no method to track and monetize such distribution, scares them, even to the point where they are willing to lose sales to stop the entire method of distribution. This is why they went after the P2P companies first: to stop the dist
Just like winning $100,000 at the lottery can't replace working hard to get those $100,000
Yeah, but if I can get $100,000 for buying a $1 ticket instead of working a year or two, I'll take the lottery money and keep on working.
Similarly, if I can turn my metabolism up a few notches without the months of working out 7-20 hrs/week that it normally takes me to do so, I'll gladly take the pill and reduce my work-out schedule to simply that which I need to gain the muscle mass I want. At the same time, if their research is correct, it would be much easier to actually put in that time in the gym.
Well, it's not really a bad idea considering that your landline is the most reliable. It'll work during bad weather, and it'll work during a power outage, or when your ISP is being neglegent and your connection is down.
Yeah, try that when a hurricane comes through and the phone lines are run on the same poles as the power lines...
The last hurricane that really did any damage in this area (Isabelle) left us with congested (but usable) cell service, but no power, cable, or land-line phones. Thankfully we filled the gas tanks before-hand, so we could charge our GBAs and cell phones off the car cigarette lighters.
I can play with my WaveBird plugged into the electrical outlet a hell of a lot easier than I can with the standard GameCube controller plugged into the GameCube. After all, the electrical outlets are a lot closer to the couch than the GameCube.
On the other hand, I have to have a 3rd-party adapter to keep from having to constantly burn up AA batteries on my Wavebird, too. Still, it's got nice battery life.
Most of my use of my GBA is in the car (no, not when I'm driving), but I certainly wouldn't want to be tied to the cigarette lighter, as I might need to light a cigarette, or charge my cell phone. My car only has 1 cup holder, I can hardly expect multiple power outlets.
but they can record it in a near-perfect digital (holographic) representation of the original analog recording, remaster it, and fill the whole 1TB with the one album, so they won't bother putting the whole Beatles collection on one disc. After all, they can almost do that on a DVD with CD-quality audio.
These are simply within the chat interface on battle.net, though, and not in the games themselves.
On the other hand, I've noticed at particular times (it's been a while since I've been on battle.net, though, so I can't say recently) that the ads have been dominated by Blizzard's own products, meaning that they weren't getting many outside advertisers. At the same time, I'd think that this means they aren't tracking very well, as I don't need to see ads for games I already own and have used on battle.net.
odbII interfaces are usually in the dash somewhere, most likely below the steering wheel.
In any case, the image looks nothing like an odbII interface, unless someone had a really strange idea of how to handle this interface and translate it for a PC.
It'd probably take a while to find one, because the reason the poster stated for a gun manufacturer to be sued is nearly impossible precisely because gun manufacturers rarely sell guns directly to the consumers. In fact, even Wal-Mart, which was found negligent in its policies regarding sales of guns was not sued, but simply had any license to sell a firearm in the state of California revoked (and therefore one of my favorite jokes about being able to buy a gun but not an uncensored album in WalMart is no longer applicable in California, though it made it even more interesting that you could buy a gun without proper ID, but not an R-rated movie).
The weight of the cost for government medical care for all of the people who smoke and can't afford to pay their own health bills or afford insurance that will cover it causes my taxes (I'm not a smoker although everyone else in my family is) to go up to support this harmful habit that others "choose" to do. I feel that if others can "choose" to keep this habit, then I should be able to "choose" whether or not to pay the taxes required to support their partaking of this habit.
The real question is, do you vote for people that want to reduce your tax burden when it comes to paying for medical care for people that can't afford it (or for people that not only can't afford it, but are not likely to actually be cured of their problem(s))?
As we continue to increase the burden on our tax system with increases in state-run medical insurance, we seem to continue adding bullshit laws to protect people's health so that they won't increase the burden on the same system. Laws for bicycle and motorcycle helmets, seatbelts, smoking, and so on, often with the "medical care for those that can't afford it" and its associated costs listed as one of the reasons for the legislation. If you really want to cut the cost, cut the benefit.
The reality is that the half-assed system of government-provided medical care costs us more than it would if it were either offered to everyone or offered to no one. I pay more for someone that doesn't (or can't) work to have medical care than I do for my own (even with my wife on the plan), and I can't imagine that my company has more people paying into its insurance plan than the government (though I will admit the company is also adding in a good chunk of money on its own to reduce the costs for employees, it's rediculous to think the government wouldn't take money from somewhere else in our taxes to pay for any cost over-run in medicare, too).
Finally, look at the taxes paid on cigarettes themselves. Most of that money (though it depends on your state; and much of it probably goes into advertising and programs that are supposed to reduce smoking in general) is supposed to go to alleviate the cost burden on non-smoking tax-payers in precisely these areas. Any state in which a pack of cigarettes sells for more than $4 is bringing in more in taxes than the price of the pack of cigarettes (and I'm not even taking into account that a retailer pays less than the ~$2 they charge for a pack of cigarettes in states with little or no tobacco tax).
Check it out - that pretty much is not an option! Your ROM is going into a cabinet that already exists, you don't get to spec a new cabinet for every title. Later on your ROM will be pulled out of that cabinet, and someone's going to stick a new one in. Same goes when you ship a cart for the portable of your choice.
Why not simply use one of the many cabinets made in the last ~10 years that is at least somewhat compatible with modern consoles? Stick to portable and embedded devices if you want heavy asm use, the cabinets have been moving away from it for quite some time, especially in the US where the arcade barely exists.
Does anyone here play and buy sports games? I'm wondering what the appeal is in creating yet another football or basketball game.
I do, occasionally, but not in the "pick up the new one as soon as it comes out every year" way that seems to be the foundation of the genre. Therefore, I can't help you understand this mentality, because I don't understand it myself.
Do the newer ones deviate from the rules to create a new type of game, or is it just better graphics and sound?
It depends on the title, as well as the year. Sometimes the updates are fairly minor, other times they do a fairly good job of revamping the interface and adding some new features that actually make it worthwhile. More often than not, though, the biggest reason people will cite for buying more than one game in the same sport on the same console is to get the roster and stat updates, as well as any rule changes the league may have implemented. I know a handful of people that can tell you what's new in Madden 2005, but, in the end, it all sounds pretty minor to me (but again, I'm not an overwhelming fan of these games).
Or are game studios working on games based on other sports? It seems to me that one could only create so many football games before covering the same ground, yet there seems to be a new "Madden" game every year.
There are games for other sports, and, of course, every sports game studio will probably try to put out a game for anything that seems remotely popular, even if it's just a passing fad. The only games that seem to get yearly updates, though, are the longer-standing titles: football, basketball, soccer, baseball, hockey (with pro and college versions for some). There are the tennis, golf, snowboarding, skateboarding, etc games that get updated more or less often, but in some cases they only rarely get multiple titles (from the same developer) on the same console (snowboarding and skateboarding may be the exceptions here, but those titles haven't been as long running in their current inception as the others). Racing titles seem to go both ways, depending on the nature of the individual title (i.e. new NASCAR games every year, but GT games occur far less often).
Not being a sports game player I'm wondering how the game developers are keeping sports games new and different.
Most of them really aren't, although they've also branched out into more titles in some areas, such as the "street" versions of basketball and football. This doesn't really impact the core titles. Madden 2005 is Madden 2004 + XBox Live support + new rosters/stats/whatever + a handful of new features that probably won't be noticed by all but the most rabid fans. Casual sports game players are probably best served by checking the reviews and picking up the best title for the particular season + console they're shopping for at that particular time, though if they're looking to save some money, looking at the previous year's titles may be even better (though this year Sega's NFL title is $20, so why not?). Most won't be missing out on much if they only buy 1 title for a particular sport per console generation, as most of the major updates come with the new consoles (updated graphics + sound, maybe changes in the interface, etc), and the time between console generations allows for a large number of small changes from one year to the next, which will be much more noticable after 3-5 years of such changes.
I think that's possibly the worst thing about this announcement. Their yearly titles may not have been the best (though their first year or two weren't bad, 2003 wasn't a good year for them), but the other titles (Top Spin, Links, etc) were very good. Hopefully they'll consider keeping some of those titles to compete in the less-dominated markets, but looking at the layoffs and so forth, it seems unlikely.
If you have a 'Cube, Tales of Symphonia is an excellent choice (though, given your "dumbed down" comment, I would recommend you set it on the high difficulty setting immediately; I'm about five hours in and I find it a little too easy).
I already have it, but as an RPG rather than an SRPG, it gets relegated to shelf space until I have a weekend to myself (I thought I would have one by now, otherwise I might have waited a bit longer before picking it up, though as an RPG on the GameCube I almost had to buy it just to satisfy that itch that says if I don't buy it, they won't make any more RPGs for the system).
I'm looking forward to seeing the Atelier series come over as well; I'd been following them for quite a while from afar and am just now getting ready to dive into importing, but having the English-language version available is always a plus.
I'm simply hoping that they either do well on the English voice acting, or allow the Japanese voices. In almost every translation (even movies/anime) the English voices tend to irritate me because they're so stiff, so it's always a pleasure to be able to switch it over and just read the translated text (maybe someday I'll learn enough Japanese to not need it).
I still think that a US-developed FF-style RPG could be wildly successful if it has the sense to learn from the mistakes made in the last few times it was tried (Secret of Evermore, Shadow Madness, etc). Oh, and if they get a decent writer. I guess what I'm saying is that I really wanted Advent Rising to be an RPG, but we'll see.
I'm not even necessarily concerned about FF-style RPGs, but US developed RPGs in general. The major RPG titles from US developers were severely hamstrung when it came time to develop console titles in the series, with probably the best-known examples being Baldur's Gate and Fallout. Again, while Dark Alliance was a fun game, it wasn't a strong example of US RPGs, whereas KOTOR was, but the only thing the publishers have gained from that is sequel-fever.
Totally agree about the need for more non-FF rpg over here, but from what ive seen the only thing the US can make are titles like KoTOR (heavaly reliant on existing SW universe/other existing media) or games like Sudeki which are advertised as RPG's but IMO its an adventure game that has RPG elements and are as you said dumbed down, i dont want my rpg's to have a 1st person shooter mode (aka Sudeki)
Obviously, though, with KOTOR being based on the Baldur's Gate engine, it's possible for US developers to bring the PC RPGs to the consoles without dumbing them down. It's simply a matter of getting the publishers to believe this, which they don't seem to be ready to do, despite the success of KOTOR. On the other hand, the XBox does have a couple of RPGs coming up that look like they may be good as well, namely Fable and Jade Empire.
I would also like to see US developers branching out from the d20 system. One of the things I find most interesting about the FF series is the number of changes they've been willing to make to the battle, skill, class, etc. systems in the games, and Square, Enix, (now SquareEnix) and others among Japanese RPG developers have been willing to take even more risks, with sometimes mixed results, in other titles.
It might also be interesting to see some of the US strategy developers take on the SRPG format, though it really seems that RTS has sucked most of the life out of the US developers in this area, and most RTS developers would probably have a hard time coming up with something interesting for either the turn-based format or the RPG elements of the genre.
I would definitely agree, and am looking forward to Phantom Brave (as the "spiritual sequel" to Disgaea and LPT).
From the comments made by the people that were working in the stores at which I bought these games, they did fairly well, so, hopefully, Nippon Ichi will continue bringing these games stateside with the help of people like Atlus.
Beyond that, it's always good to see Japanese RPGs outside of the usual FF fair come over. Now if only we could get more US RPGs on the consoles without publishers deciding they need to be dumbed down. Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance and its sequel may be fun games, but they don't satisfy the itch for RPGs.
It is a bit unfortunate that the pattern these days is for demos to be released *after* the release of the full game. However, I can understand the logic behind it. A demo is supposed to sell your game, and having a hastily rushed out demo, full of bugs and glaring errors, isn't a good move.
Additionally, the people that rush out and buy the game in the first week or so can only be convinced NOT to buy the game by the demo, as your Daikatana example probably illustrates (though the reviews were so savage and the hype so bad that the game was dropped in price immediately and no one was rushing anywhere for it).
I'm 26, but my income tends to be higher than anyone I know the same age. I don't buy a lot of games that get left unplayed, but it does happen occasionally, especially when I find out there's an older game out there that was supposed to be really good that I missed (and I can pick up for $10-20). Otherwise, I usually catch up with a lot of my unplayed games in the summer, when fewer good titles come out.
I've also found myself playing more games that have long play-time, but can be played in short bursts. I can pull a race or two in PGR2 or GT3 every now and then, a battle or two in Disgaea, La Pucelle, or C&C Generals, or a couple of levels in Mario vs. Donkey Kong or WarioWare Inc, without getting too much hassle for not paying attention to my wife, not helping with dinner, not taking out the trash, cleaning the house, etc. Sitting down to play KOTOR, Final Fantasy, or another of the RPGs I would've spent most of my time with a few years ago is suspended for the times she can visit friends or family for a weekend without me needing to be there.
Of course, with a daughter on the way, I can always hope that she'll be a gamer, too, and will play some of the games I don't always get time for. I hope to be able to start her out on the classics collections, hopefully to get her to appreciate gameplay more than graphics (or at least appreciate the graphics for what they are, rather than appreciating nothing else).
The proof, unfortunately for hardcore gamers, is in the numbers. Where games like The Sims, Grand Theft Auto (Which was a long game, but it was a game that had action right from the get go and could be played in short spurts) and games that cater to broader crowds such as sports games, are king. And unfortunately, developers and publishers need money to keep going.
Unfortunately for the publishers, though, the people that go out and buy Madden every year, and maybe buy the occasional blockbuster like GTA:VC or The Sims, are not buying a lot of games, there are just a lot of them buying certain games.
Personally, I don't mind the fact that some of the games on my shelf are underplayed, and that most of them are very long. I know that if I have to stop buying games (I have certainly cut down in the last year), it will be a while before I can really say I've played all I have. It also helps in the dry periods, which usually occur every summer, and keeps me from having to jump on every over-hyped game that comes along before the real reviews come out.
More often than not, length is determined by genre. Sports games tend to gain length by adding features and game modes, or unlockables, but otherwise what keeps people playing them is a love for the particular sport. I could play all the Madden I need in 30 minutes or less, so I don't buy the game (that and knowing that someone I know will pick it up...). RPGs tend to be long in order to tell their story, with some longer than others. Needless to say, I don't start playing an RPG when I only have 30 minutes. There are many games that lie in between, like platformers and shooters, while strategy games can fill the whole range (whether RTS or SRPG), with quick rounds combining for long-term playability (i.e. playing 1 battle at a sitting in either genre), though I've found that some of them tend to stretch out to a number of hours per battle, and hopefully those games allow saving mid-battle.
We don't need shorter games, they're already out there. If you want short games, buy short games. I'll stick to longer games, even if most of them are games I only play 30 minutes at a time.
I'll also add that my primary reason for buying more games than I can play usually comes down to wanting to buy any well-reviewed titles of particular genres, in order to add one more sale to that particular game, in hopes that people will continue to make good titles in that genre. There's nothing worse than seeing that one of your favorite genres is absent from a certain platform, and this should be easy to see for RPG fans that were PC gamers before Baldur's Gate, or GameCube owners, or even XBox owners that are still playing KOTOR over and over again.
As far as no one forcing waitresses to work in bars, this is true. However its probably also true they can make alot more money in a bar then at the local denny's. I don't see why someone trying to make money with a set of skills should be forced into a situation that causes them damage simply b/c they wish to maximize their earnings. All workplaces should be relatively healthy to work in.
That's why it makes sense to have seperated smoking and non-smoking areas, for the sake of people's health. At the same time, if people don't want to work in smoking areas, they have to deal with whatever differences exist there. Like everything else, risk factors can affect your pay. I know I could've gotten a fairly good bonus if I had taken a job in Iraq (despite the fact that it would probably be safer than working in many cities in the US), but I chose not to do so, and someone else got that money, instead. It's certainly not the case that in every situation waitresses make more money in smoking sections than non-, but it happens often enough in many areas that it's worthwhile for some. California didn't even give people the choice in most bars, though they did for quite some time in restaurants. Once the smoking ban was put in place, though, many bar owners either took the fines (as both bar owners and the smokers get fined) or shut their doors after receiving a number of fines. Many people, after all, are perfectly happy to drink at home if they can't have a smoke in the bar (which is probably better overall for everyone but the drinker).
The rest of your post seems to deal with the fact that we restrict movies to those under 18, so why not restrict games? Well those age restrictions don't worry. Lots of kids smoke pot, drink and watch violent movies. I saw many R rated movies before i was 17, so did all of my friends, yet none of us have become violent crimials. I don't think we're the exception either. As i stated in another post, people influeced that much by a game or movie already have other problems, and its not the fault of the game makers, just like McDs didn't make you fat, you (not personally..) did by eating there too much and not excersing.
The point is simply to force parents to become involved. Perhaps that's not the best way to handle things, but I believe it's a middle ground that most people can deal with. I certainly played what would be M rated games before I was 17, but my parents were well aware of what I was playing (and I certainly wasn't buying most of them myself, anyway).
Another point people never seem to get; you don't suddenly wake up on your 18th bday much more responsible. Its different for everyone, so much so that i question having such hard and fast rules. I know alot of people in their 30s that are much less responsible then alot of 16 yr olds.
I agree, but in the end there's no way to handle that in government without the government itself getting overly involved in people's lives. What I really detest is the truly hard-and-fast rules, such as those related to the ages at which people can consume alcohol and tobacco, or even view pornography, as well as voting. On the other hand, the latter two especially can be very controversial topics because people are too afraid to let their children see a naked body and maybe are afraid of what we'll end up with if stupid people couldn't vote.
Best Buy didn't seem to card me for Halo, but they might have had my ID in their all-knowing computer from a previous purchase.
Best Buy only recently started carding for M rated games, and, as far as I've been able to tell, it's the only thing they actually card for.