First of all, why did it take all day to cook a couple of salmon on your engine block? I could have it done in under an hour, depending on how well done you like your fish.
Wrap the fish - 10 minutes
place fish on exhaust manifold - 2 minutes
wait 20 minutes and flip the fish
wait another 20 minutes and remove fish
unwrap fish
enjoy
Doesn't sound too difficult to me. I've only cooked fish that way once, and it wasn't salmon, but it worked perfectly and the fish was great. I only did it because we were camping, it was raining, and we couldn't get a decent fire going... although we did get the fire going after we got the fish cooking on the manifold... but by then there was no point in moving it.
Anyway, my point is that your an idiot. Plain and simple.
If you have an XBox, and you don't have a PC, you might want to use your XBox for that purpose. If you have several XBox's, you might want to cluster them. If you need to cook, and you only have your car, then use it.
Check the %WINDIR%/.jpi_cache/ directory structure.)
Damn it! Why can't Mandrake put things in the normal places? I've looked all over my hard drive and I can't find %WINDIR% anywhere... guess I should have went with RedHat.
so i think it'll be impossible to find a beer that has no alcohol, yet still has a good flavor
What about artificials?
They have all kinds of artificial flavors.. hell, your lucky if anything you eat has ANY natural flavors anymore. So why not artificial alcohol flavoring to add to the NA beer? Make it taste like it has alcohol. Sounds simple enough.
Personally I prefer hard lemonade... Mikes or any other brand. I can't stand the taste of beer, but then again I've only had the off-the-shelf American stuff. Maybe some of the others are better.
I wondered about this as well. And since it's nut just the nicotine that hurts you, are they really doing anyone a favor? Oh, these won't hurt me... there isn't any nicotine. WFT?
I was pretty surprised when I saw this post. First truly interesting article in a while.
I'd like to try this and see if I can get mine to do more than 600 lines. Maybe we could get a competition going to see who can build the best tetri-bot and what things make it work better/worse or are just fun.
It's a nice change from the computerized chess stuff we keep hearing about. Until I'm able to beat the chess game I have on even the easiest setting, I don't want to hear about bigger and better chess computers. But I'm pretty good at Tetris... so this is cool.
He might be able to trick the computer. If the computer is programmed to study his moves, and knows what move to make based on a move he makes, he might be able to make alternate moves, moves he would not normally make, to somehow trick the computer into making a fatal mistake move.
Obviously I know very little about how the computer he is playing is setup. I have an electronic chess game that was supposedly programmed by Kasparov himself... or had something to do with the programming of it and even though it has 32 levels, I can't get bast the very first "beginner/super easy/easy enough for babies/first timer/newbie" level. No matter what I try, the damn thing is always one step ahead of me. I do fine against human oponents but either my game is messed up and I'm always on the hardest level or I'm not as good as I thought I was.
I'm wondering how with all the billions of dollars we spend on military shit, how the military can constanly screw things up... BTW, was.mil supposed to only be US mil or could any military anywhere get a.mil domain? And what kind of proof did you have to show to prove you were a military organization?
ESPN has a contract with the NFL (and pretty much every other sports association). They can talk about it, disseminate information, record it for their own personal use, yadda yadda yadda.
Not sure about TNN or Fox Sports Net.
The Dallas Cowboys a few years back, cut a deal with Nike even though the league had a deal with Reebok... I wonder if Nike would have been able to advertise using the Super Bowl name had the Cowboys been in the Super Bowl that year... Not sure how that would have worked.
Anyways, to the topic at hand:
Unfortunately I won't get to enjoy the commercials live this year. I'm gonna be outside working on some MTB trails but I'll tape it and watch them tonight when I get back. Since I don't particularly like either team, I'm not very excited about watching the game... which sucks because I usually really enjoy football. I did see some great college games this past season though so I'm good for another however many months until next season starts.
That's what I'm asking Santa for next christmas!!!
5000 sq ft... that's like 4 times the size of my apartment, and the views here suck. Now if only it had a broadband connection of some sort so I could still look at porn, then I would buy it... but until then... tis only a dream.
You're talking about a game that existed before XP was even around
Red Alert is no older than the oldest PS1 games which work great on my PS2. Since the comparison is being made between the cost of owning/upgrading a console compared to a computer, I think we need to compare apples to apples. While RedAlert is very old, if it were a PS1 game, it would still work on my newer PS equipment. This shows that the life of console games is longer, if you consider that the PS2 is the latest for Sony and XP is the latest for MS.
Of course we could talk about Macs where there isn't this problem. RedAlert or a game bought at the same time would still work on a Mac. So maybe this just illustrates a problem with MS and the lack of backwards-compatibility with their products.
If someone came up to you and asked you for a one word answer to the question of which they should buy if it's only to be used for gaming, could you honestly tell them they should buy a computer over a console? Maybe if money is no object you could, and I will admit that Serious Sam is still my fav video game and I have that on PC, but I think for overall gaming use consoles beat computers by a wide margin on the price issue. They are also much better for people who don't understand computers. For example, My 4 1/2 year old understands how to put a game in the PS2 and start it. It's much easier than starting his computer and all that. (a side note: his iMac crashes quite often while I've only had the PS2 lockup once)
You'd have to have something like 20 PS2 games, too...
I have 26 PS2 titles and 57 PS1 titles (wasn't including PS1 in my $1200 price though). I also have thirty something N64 games, around a hundred DVD's, several hundred video tapes, and nearly a thousand audio cd's. What's your point?
Nothing personal, but for most people, that's *far* more than they're going to spend on either.
I was using my own situation as an example and while I'm sure that not everyone has as many games as I do or has spent as much on computers as I have, I have friends that have and have spent more than myself. It's not hard to spend $1200 on a console and games, especially if you buy stuff when it first comes out. The primary reason I have not purchased a second "new" console is space, and the second is price. I have an entertainment center that holds all of my a/v stuff but I like my consoles closer to me and that is why I have a coffee table that has shelves and room for me to put my consoles and games.
There isn't however, room for two more consoles and 30 or 40 more games, another steering wheel or two, and other accessories. I guess if gaming was my life, I'd buy a second coffee table or set things up differently and then go out and spend a couple thousand more and get all the cool games and two more consoles but the fact of the matter is that I buy lots of PS2 games because I have a PS2 that I'm happy with. There are a lot of games I would buy that are currently only for XBox or GameCube but until they are released for PS2, the developers won't be getting a cent from me.
Everyone keeps saying that consoles are cheap and that I should just go buy an XBox or GameCube. Yes, I could do that, but why do I have to? I think having a universal format would help the three console developers rather than hurt them. PC Gaming is such a large industry because most people already have the hardware to play the games (maybe not the hardware to play the latest games, but most games I'm assuming). When I buy a PC Game, I don't have to look at the label to see if my computer can play it. I have high quality newer hardware and I can play any newer game that is currently out (I also have a mac). I like that. I find a game that I like, I go buy it, I play it. With consoles I find a game I like, then I find out it's for XBox or GameCube only. That sucks.
Another thing that nobody has mentioned is accessories. I have two steering wheels for my PS2 so that we can play driving games head to head. They cost $80 a piece and they only work with PS2. Maybe we could at least get a universal format for the accessories. If I could reuse some of my stuff on more than one system, I would be much more likely to buy a second system.
I doubt very many people bought a PS2 then picked up a bunch of PS1 games
You must not know many Sony fans. All of my friends that are gamers have PS2's and a bunch of PS1 games. Some of us still had PS1 games and ditched the console once we got our PS2's and we have also bought more PS1 titles. I think one reason for this is the price of quality PS1 titles. The games that were great a few years ago can still offer hours of enjoyment, for a lot less money than the newer titles.
They also offer a lot more variety. When the PS2 debuted, I played a lot more PS1 games on it than I do now. There are a lot of great titles out now that are better than most of the PS1 titles that I have but I'll always have my favs from that era.
And you know this because of what? Just because you built one for about $1300 without a monitor does not mean that I did not get a good deal myself. I have two identical systems that sport dual AMD 1900+ MP processors. Bought those when they first hit the market so I paid a premium for them. They were top-o-the-line at the time. Add in cost of the case, the monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, 2 hard drives, graphics card, sound card, joystick, dual network cards, and it all adds up pretty quickly. If you buy name brand, top of the line components, your going to have to shell out some cash.
Then you say that you have rarely had a game not work right out of the box... hmm... I can think of a dozen that gave me fits when I was running Win2K. Since getting the new systems and using WinXP I've had few problems with games but I have had more than I should. C&C Red Alert won't run at all... says I need an older operating system. Sim Coaster locked up my system before I downloaded a patch. Go to any developer site and see how many patches they have available for download. Granted most games will work right out of the box, most have patches that fix bugs or work out compatiblity issues.
I still say that the total cost of ownership for playing games on a PC is much greater than on a console. Even using your numbers, the cost is much greater. You said $1300 for your pc. A console costs about $200. That's an $1100 difference right off the bat.
The original argument was that with a computer, you don't need to upgrade to keep playing the new games whereas with a console, you have to buy a new one. If the consoles are on a 4 year cycle, and you spend $300 to buy a new console when it debuts, and $1300 to buy a computer at the same time, then another $300 to buy a new console 4 years later, your still only at $600 compared to $1300. You can buy 4 consoles which would be $1200 and last you 16 years for what it costs to start with a PC. Obviously prices may change and you'll need more than just the basic console/basic computer but you get my point. The cost of a computer is much higher than the cost of a console. You can do more with a computer than you can with a console and they each have their place.
why would they go running in to do that when they are so profitable at number 2
Because they don't want to fall farther behind. The know how powerful Sony and MS are and they know that the first out the door gets a bit of a bonus. Sony and MS are both hard at work on their next systems and you can be sure that both will be very cool indeed. Nintendo doesn't want to lose ground to it's competitors by allowing them to roll out new products first.
And if I were Sony, I would consider anything Nintendo or Microsoft did a threat. MS has a lot of cash, Nintendo has a lot of cash and a solid fanbase
Are you saying that Sony doesn't have a lot of cash nor a large fanbase? I would offer that Sony has a larger fanbase than Nintendo or MS and while both may pose a threat to Sony's future in the gaming industry, it's not like Sony doesn't know what it's doing.
Whenever people start to argue about which of the three will eventually reign supreme, a lot of wild things are said. We have to stop and realize what three companies we are talking about here. All three are very large, very experienced, and have proven track records. None of the three has yet to have a bomb. The XBox is MS's first attempt and it's been doing well for them... better than a lot of people thought it would do. They have the cash to keep going no matter what happens. Nintendo as you stated also has a great deal of cash but I don't think Nintendo or Sony would last long if they were to suddenly face a large loss on their consoles whereas MS could throw good money after bad for as long as it wanted to. The cash horde in Redmond is just that large.
My point was that we needed some universal medium upon which the big 3 could base their consoles. The consoles would not need to be similar at all except in their ability to use the universal format. Look at dvd players currently on the market. There are a lot of companies making them and there is a lot of differences between the various models. You have some ultra-low-budget players that barely get the job done all the way up to you-paid-how-much-for-that type players. I have two dvd players myself. One is a nice Sony model that is rather basic but gets the job done. The other was chosen for it's ability to play multiple regions as well as Pal format dvd's. So there was a reason for me to shop around and select one that met my needs. Not all dvd players will play multiple regions and few players avail in the US will handle PAL format. Even fewer that can handle PAL and NTSC in the same machine.
Your statement that a company could undersell the competition is true to some extent. But price isn't everything. Some people want a feature laden product and they are willing to pay more for a product that does what they want. As it is, if I want to play PS2 games, my only option is a PS2 console. I have no choice in the matter. I'm stuck with whatever features Sony wants to include. The same if I want to play XBox or GameCube games. If there was a universal format, and other companies entered the arena, we would have a choice in the console that we use. There would be a lot of competition to make a better console, not just sign on more game developers.
All three existing consoles are great in my opinion and they each have their market share and fans that prefer one over the other. But the biggest thing I hear from people regarding which one is better, always seems to come back to what games are available.
Just one universal format that you can buy from various companies. Like VHS for videotapes. You can buy a vcr from whoever you want and it will play all of the movies at Blockbuster (not the dvd's obviously but AFAIK, all of them on dvd are also on vhs). You don't have to look at the box to see if the movie will play on your Sony VCR. You just rent whatever you want, go home and watch it. You have a Sony VCR because that particular model was either super cheap, or had the features you wanted/needed/whatever.
What if this happened with gaming consoles? What if instead of getting a console because it has a certain title, we could get the console that we really like, and play all of the games on it? It would make life much simpler for us gamers and would force the console developers to give us a real reason to buy their console over someone elses. As it is, how much pressure is Sony under to develop a kick-ass PS3? Some, but not as much as you might think. They already know they have tons of support from game developers. They already know they will have tons of games. So the XBox and whatever new console Nintendo comes out with won't be as large of a threat. This would also open the market to more competition. Other companies could make consoles without having to worry about getting game developers signed on. They would focus on making the best console they can make and that would be it. So we would end up with better consoles and more choice as to what we want to play on the console we paid our hard earned money for. As it is, you have to shell out about $700 to buy all three consoles, extra controllers, and other accessrories if you want to be able to buy any game on the shelf without a care as to which console it is for.
but with the new embrace of the older male market with games like GTA and the like
I thought GTA was kid friendly. My 4 1/2 year old did quite well with that game. He loved driving around and crashing into people/things but always wanted me to do his muggings/beatings. He especially liked the fact that you can kick the crap out of the cops. Sure I probably shouldn't have let a four year old play GTA Vice City but I did, and he liked it.
Some may say that the game is much too violent for kids but hey, take a look at Saturday morning cartoons. What doesn't have violence these days? Even cartoons aimed at younger kids, like PowerPuff Girls is full of violence.
If you are intelligent enough to use a computer, use it as your gaming platform too. After all, it is better with regards to price/performance
Your kidding right?
I have a total investment in my PS2 and games of around $1200. I have an investment in my computer of around $4000. How is that better price to performance? There are a lot of better games available for my PS2 than there are for my computer. They also work right out of the box. I don't have to mess with Windows. I dont' have to hunt down new drivers. I don't have to install the latest patches. I just pop in the cd/dvd, fire up the console, and play the damn game. That is how gaming should be. I also get to play from the comfort of my couch.
Also, how often do you upgrade your computer? Do you still have the same computer you had 5 years ago and does it play the latest games? Probably not. Just like I upgrade my computer system every couple of years, I don't want to be using the same gaming hardware for the next 20 years. The NES was great but it had it's day. The same with all of the other consoles that came and went. I still have a ton of PS1 games that I play but I don't play them as much as the newer PS2 games because most of the PS2 games are better. They have better graphics, better sound, etc. The technology has advanced and to utilize the newer technology, you need newer hardware.
It's much more expensive to upgrade a computer than it is to buy a new console. How much is a "nice" graphics card these days? You can spend more on just a graphics card than on a console and still have a lot of other parts to buy, and the first computer you purchase will cost much more because you have nothing to start with and to compare price to performance, you need a decent gaming computer, not the Wally-World special.
Your right, they do have great software titles. The problem is the hardware. I bought a PS2 because of the number of games available. There are a ton of great games for PS2 and when I run out of those, I can go back and play all my old fav PS1 titles. When Sony releases a PS3, if it's backwards compatible (and it damn well better be), then I'll buy one of those so that I can play the new games, and all the games I already have.
Nintendo on the other hand chooses to screw it's repeat customers. I had a Nintendo, then a SNES, then a N64 but I stopped there. I spent a lot of money on N64 games and I still play them on my N64 system but I can't play them on the new hardware so there is less incentive for me to upgrade. I had no problem buying a PS2 when they first shipped because I knew that while there weren't a lot of titles out for it yet, all my old ones would work fine.
I agree that Nintendo has a gold mine of software franchises. I just wish they would license those for other platforms and stop making hardware. I've used a GameCube and I don't see any big difference in performance that would make me want to own one when I already have a PS2.
I like the software but not the hardware... but only because I already have a PS2. I'm getting very tired of these "For this particular console only" games. Each console has its merits and I chose PS2 because I had a PS1 that I loved, and I still had a lot of PS1 games. Now that I have a PS2, I don't want to buy an XBox or a GameCube. I already have a great console, why should I have to buy 2 more so that I can play all of the games that are out?
Further, where am I going to put two more consoles and how am I going to hook it all together? I have two consoles plugged in now (N64 is the other) and I don't have much free space in my gaming table (a coffee table with shelves in the front where I put my consoles and all the games, game mags, game books, etc.
Why can't we have one console to rule them all?
Seriously though, I think I would be more likely to pay more for a console that could play games from 2 of the big 3 than buying two consoles. If there was a PS2 that was licensed and able to also play GameCube games, or XBox games, at least it would help with my space issue. As it is, I have to consider the extra cost of another console, new controllers and other accessories, and then find a place to stick it.
Anyway, back to my original reason for posting... I like Nintendo games. They have some great games available for their console but I would prefer if they were to follow Sega and stop making hardware. As it is, they aren't getting much money from me (I buy N64 games still - there were some good games for that system) but if they were to release their games for PS2, I would buy a lot of them. I don't know what kind of profits they make on their hardware, or how that would be affected if they were to license their games for PS2, but I think overall they would sell more games because there are more PS2's in the world than GameCubes... and if they did a tri-license and included XBox, they would do even better... but one has to wonder how many consoles they would sell if their games ran on PS2 and XBox. I bet the hardware numbers would go in the shitter real quick.
Maybe you can clear this up for me: What are the advantages (real world, not just statistical) of the GameCube? If all else was equal, would there be a good reason to get a GameCube over a PS2 or XBox?
So there is a new article about old technology. Why is this posted on/.?
Microwave technology has been developed and tested for weapons for many years now. Same with lasers. This article contains nothing that hasn't been publicly available for at least 5 years. Dateline has had more than one show about it as well as 60 Minutes and others. Not sure what the big deal is.
What I think is a much more interesting use for microwave technology is the study of how we can alter the weather. This falls in the Battlefield Enhancement category and gets quite a bit of funding because of the possiblities.
Imagine being able to cause a lightning storm over your enemies forces, or causing severe flooding, or even a drought. You could even mix and match to your hearts content.
Iraq, you don't want to get your shit together, that's fine, but now you'll get a three year drought followed by heavy rains for 40 days and nights. Supposedly this can be accomplished by focusing microwave energy at a specific spot in the sky. If you send enough energy into a cloud, it will cause the cloud to produce rain. Obviously that's the short and quick version but you get the idea.
There is a lot of info available on the net about this. If your interested, read about the antenna array in Alaska that is supposedly used for Battlefield Enhancement (tm) experiments, and also check into the "radar rings" which happen when doppler radar stations transmit rather than receive. You'll see a bright circle around the radar station on the radar imaging. It usually only lasts a very short while and often the images are deleted from the archives. Thing what you want about that. I'm not one to believe in every conspiracy theory that comes along but it is pretty interesting.
I didn't quite explain what I meant. Sorry about that. Someone else had said that the call should go to voice mail automatically and that you would have to call the person back. If the caller is calling from another country, and you are forced to call them back, and it's a cell phone, the charge would be pretty high. I know placing a phone call when I'm traveling in another state can be pretty costly.. I think it's $.75 per minute plus long distance charges. I've never looked into how much it costs to call internationally but I'm sure it's not cheap.
As to your other question, I use AT&T Wireless. I'm in Seattle and it seems to be the most reliable in this area. Good reception, very few dropped calls, and reasonable pricing (as long as you stay in your own calling area).
When you purchase a video card, however, and "unlock" a feature that is only meant to be purchased, isn't that stealing?
What about cars? You buy a brand new Vette only to find out that the factory limited your speed by programming one of the computer chips to lock out at 167 MPH. So you buy a different chip to "unlock" your cars full potential. Is that stealing?
I say it's not. You bought the card, it's yours, do whatever the hell you want with it. But I agree with another poster about not trying to return it if you fry it. You fuck it up, it's your problem. Deal with it. Don't take it back to the store and cause prices to go up. I don't overclock any of my stuff because I can't afford to replace it if I mess it up. I bought items that were fast enough for my use and when they aren't fast enough I'll replace them. After I have replaced them, I may then try to speed them up a bit just for fun because at that point, if I make a mistake it doesn't matter because I already have a replacement.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, why did it take all day to cook a couple of salmon on your engine block? I could have it done in under an hour, depending on how well done you like your fish.
Doesn't sound too difficult to me. I've only cooked fish that way once, and it wasn't salmon, but it worked perfectly and the fish was great. I only did it because we were camping, it was raining, and we couldn't get a decent fire going... although we did get the fire going after we got the fish cooking on the manifold... but by then there was no point in moving it.
Anyway, my point is that your an idiot. Plain and simple.
If you have an XBox, and you don't have a PC, you might want to use your XBox for that purpose. If you have several XBox's, you might want to cluster them. If you need to cook, and you only have your car, then use it.
Damn it! Why can't Mandrake put things in the normal places? I've looked all over my hard drive and I can't find %WINDIR% anywhere... guess I should have went with RedHat.
What about artificials?
They have all kinds of artificial flavors.. hell, your lucky if anything you eat has ANY natural flavors anymore. So why not artificial alcohol flavoring to add to the NA beer? Make it taste like it has alcohol. Sounds simple enough.
Personally I prefer hard lemonade... Mikes or any other brand. I can't stand the taste of beer, but then again I've only had the off-the-shelf American stuff. Maybe some of the others are better.
Inhaling smoke of any sort can't be good for you.
I'd like to try this and see if I can get mine to do more than 600 lines. Maybe we could get a competition going to see who can build the best tetri-bot and what things make it work better/worse or are just fun.
It's a nice change from the computerized chess stuff we keep hearing about. Until I'm able to beat the chess game I have on even the easiest setting, I don't want to hear about bigger and better chess computers. But I'm pretty good at Tetris... so this is cool.
... and maybe by this time next week, they will be again...
He might be able to trick the computer. If the computer is programmed to study his moves, and knows what move to make based on a move he makes, he might be able to make alternate moves, moves he would not normally make, to somehow trick the computer into making a fatal mistake move.
Obviously I know very little about how the computer he is playing is setup. I have an electronic chess game that was supposedly programmed by Kasparov himself... or had something to do with the programming of it and even though it has 32 levels, I can't get bast the very first "beginner/super easy/easy enough for babies/first timer/newbie" level. No matter what I try, the damn thing is always one step ahead of me. I do fine against human oponents but either my game is messed up and I'm always on the hardest level or I'm not as good as I thought I was.
That's the funniest shit so far today.
The peace.mil was also pretty good.
I'm wondering how with all the billions of dollars we spend on military shit, how the military can constanly screw things up... BTW, was .mil supposed to only be US mil or could any military anywhere get a .mil domain? And what kind of proof did you have to show to prove you were a military organization?
Not sure about TNN or Fox Sports Net.
The Dallas Cowboys a few years back, cut a deal with Nike even though the league had a deal with Reebok... I wonder if Nike would have been able to advertise using the Super Bowl name had the Cowboys been in the Super Bowl that year... Not sure how that would have worked.
Anyways, to the topic at hand:
Unfortunately I won't get to enjoy the commercials live this year. I'm gonna be outside working on some MTB trails but I'll tape it and watch them tonight when I get back. Since I don't particularly like either team, I'm not very excited about watching the game... which sucks because I usually really enjoy football. I did see some great college games this past season though so I'm good for another however many months until next season starts.
5000 sq ft... that's like 4 times the size of my apartment, and the views here suck. Now if only it had a broadband connection of some sort so I could still look at porn, then I would buy it... but until then... tis only a dream.
You're talking about a game that existed before XP was even around
Red Alert is no older than the oldest PS1 games which work great on my PS2. Since the comparison is being made between the cost of owning/upgrading a console compared to a computer, I think we need to compare apples to apples. While RedAlert is very old, if it were a PS1 game, it would still work on my newer PS equipment. This shows that the life of console games is longer, if you consider that the PS2 is the latest for Sony and XP is the latest for MS.
Of course we could talk about Macs where there isn't this problem. RedAlert or a game bought at the same time would still work on a Mac. So maybe this just illustrates a problem with MS and the lack of backwards-compatibility with their products.
If someone came up to you and asked you for a one word answer to the question of which they should buy if it's only to be used for gaming, could you honestly tell them they should buy a computer over a console? Maybe if money is no object you could, and I will admit that Serious Sam is still my fav video game and I have that on PC, but I think for overall gaming use consoles beat computers by a wide margin on the price issue. They are also much better for people who don't understand computers. For example, My 4 1/2 year old understands how to put a game in the PS2 and start it. It's much easier than starting his computer and all that. (a side note: his iMac crashes quite often while I've only had the PS2 lockup once)
I have 26 PS2 titles and 57 PS1 titles (wasn't including PS1 in my $1200 price though). I also have thirty something N64 games, around a hundred DVD's, several hundred video tapes, and nearly a thousand audio cd's. What's your point?
Nothing personal, but for most people, that's *far* more than they're going to spend on either.
I was using my own situation as an example and while I'm sure that not everyone has as many games as I do or has spent as much on computers as I have, I have friends that have and have spent more than myself. It's not hard to spend $1200 on a console and games, especially if you buy stuff when it first comes out. The primary reason I have not purchased a second "new" console is space, and the second is price. I have an entertainment center that holds all of my a/v stuff but I like my consoles closer to me and that is why I have a coffee table that has shelves and room for me to put my consoles and games.
There isn't however, room for two more consoles and 30 or 40 more games, another steering wheel or two, and other accessories. I guess if gaming was my life, I'd buy a second coffee table or set things up differently and then go out and spend a couple thousand more and get all the cool games and two more consoles but the fact of the matter is that I buy lots of PS2 games because I have a PS2 that I'm happy with. There are a lot of games I would buy that are currently only for XBox or GameCube but until they are released for PS2, the developers won't be getting a cent from me.
Everyone keeps saying that consoles are cheap and that I should just go buy an XBox or GameCube. Yes, I could do that, but why do I have to? I think having a universal format would help the three console developers rather than hurt them. PC Gaming is such a large industry because most people already have the hardware to play the games (maybe not the hardware to play the latest games, but most games I'm assuming). When I buy a PC Game, I don't have to look at the label to see if my computer can play it. I have high quality newer hardware and I can play any newer game that is currently out (I also have a mac). I like that. I find a game that I like, I go buy it, I play it. With consoles I find a game I like, then I find out it's for XBox or GameCube only. That sucks.
Another thing that nobody has mentioned is accessories. I have two steering wheels for my PS2 so that we can play driving games head to head. They cost $80 a piece and they only work with PS2. Maybe we could at least get a universal format for the accessories. If I could reuse some of my stuff on more than one system, I would be much more likely to buy a second system.
You must not know many Sony fans. All of my friends that are gamers have PS2's and a bunch of PS1 games. Some of us still had PS1 games and ditched the console once we got our PS2's and we have also bought more PS1 titles. I think one reason for this is the price of quality PS1 titles. The games that were great a few years ago can still offer hours of enjoyment, for a lot less money than the newer titles.
They also offer a lot more variety. When the PS2 debuted, I played a lot more PS1 games on it than I do now. There are a lot of great titles out now that are better than most of the PS1 titles that I have but I'll always have my favs from that era.
And you know this because of what? Just because you built one for about $1300 without a monitor does not mean that I did not get a good deal myself. I have two identical systems that sport dual AMD 1900+ MP processors. Bought those when they first hit the market so I paid a premium for them. They were top-o-the-line at the time. Add in cost of the case, the monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, 2 hard drives, graphics card, sound card, joystick, dual network cards, and it all adds up pretty quickly. If you buy name brand, top of the line components, your going to have to shell out some cash.
Then you say that you have rarely had a game not work right out of the box... hmm... I can think of a dozen that gave me fits when I was running Win2K. Since getting the new systems and using WinXP I've had few problems with games but I have had more than I should. C&C Red Alert won't run at all... says I need an older operating system. Sim Coaster locked up my system before I downloaded a patch. Go to any developer site and see how many patches they have available for download. Granted most games will work right out of the box, most have patches that fix bugs or work out compatiblity issues.
I still say that the total cost of ownership for playing games on a PC is much greater than on a console. Even using your numbers, the cost is much greater. You said $1300 for your pc. A console costs about $200. That's an $1100 difference right off the bat.
The original argument was that with a computer, you don't need to upgrade to keep playing the new games whereas with a console, you have to buy a new one. If the consoles are on a 4 year cycle, and you spend $300 to buy a new console when it debuts, and $1300 to buy a computer at the same time, then another $300 to buy a new console 4 years later, your still only at $600 compared to $1300. You can buy 4 consoles which would be $1200 and last you 16 years for what it costs to start with a PC. Obviously prices may change and you'll need more than just the basic console/basic computer but you get my point. The cost of a computer is much higher than the cost of a console. You can do more with a computer than you can with a console and they each have their place.
Because they don't want to fall farther behind. The know how powerful Sony and MS are and they know that the first out the door gets a bit of a bonus. Sony and MS are both hard at work on their next systems and you can be sure that both will be very cool indeed. Nintendo doesn't want to lose ground to it's competitors by allowing them to roll out new products first.
Are you saying that Sony doesn't have a lot of cash nor a large fanbase? I would offer that Sony has a larger fanbase than Nintendo or MS and while both may pose a threat to Sony's future in the gaming industry, it's not like Sony doesn't know what it's doing.
Whenever people start to argue about which of the three will eventually reign supreme, a lot of wild things are said. We have to stop and realize what three companies we are talking about here. All three are very large, very experienced, and have proven track records. None of the three has yet to have a bomb. The XBox is MS's first attempt and it's been doing well for them... better than a lot of people thought it would do. They have the cash to keep going no matter what happens. Nintendo as you stated also has a great deal of cash but I don't think Nintendo or Sony would last long if they were to suddenly face a large loss on their consoles whereas MS could throw good money after bad for as long as it wanted to. The cash horde in Redmond is just that large.
My point was that we needed some universal medium upon which the big 3 could base their consoles. The consoles would not need to be similar at all except in their ability to use the universal format. Look at dvd players currently on the market. There are a lot of companies making them and there is a lot of differences between the various models. You have some ultra-low-budget players that barely get the job done all the way up to you-paid-how-much-for-that type players. I have two dvd players myself. One is a nice Sony model that is rather basic but gets the job done. The other was chosen for it's ability to play multiple regions as well as Pal format dvd's. So there was a reason for me to shop around and select one that met my needs. Not all dvd players will play multiple regions and few players avail in the US will handle PAL format. Even fewer that can handle PAL and NTSC in the same machine.
Your statement that a company could undersell the competition is true to some extent. But price isn't everything. Some people want a feature laden product and they are willing to pay more for a product that does what they want. As it is, if I want to play PS2 games, my only option is a PS2 console. I have no choice in the matter. I'm stuck with whatever features Sony wants to include. The same if I want to play XBox or GameCube games. If there was a universal format, and other companies entered the arena, we would have a choice in the console that we use. There would be a lot of competition to make a better console, not just sign on more game developers.
All three existing consoles are great in my opinion and they each have their market share and fans that prefer one over the other. But the biggest thing I hear from people regarding which one is better, always seems to come back to what games are available.
Just one universal format that you can buy from various companies. Like VHS for videotapes. You can buy a vcr from whoever you want and it will play all of the movies at Blockbuster (not the dvd's obviously but AFAIK, all of them on dvd are also on vhs). You don't have to look at the box to see if the movie will play on your Sony VCR. You just rent whatever you want, go home and watch it. You have a Sony VCR because that particular model was either super cheap, or had the features you wanted/needed/whatever.
What if this happened with gaming consoles? What if instead of getting a console because it has a certain title, we could get the console that we really like, and play all of the games on it? It would make life much simpler for us gamers and would force the console developers to give us a real reason to buy their console over someone elses. As it is, how much pressure is Sony under to develop a kick-ass PS3? Some, but not as much as you might think. They already know they have tons of support from game developers. They already know they will have tons of games. So the XBox and whatever new console Nintendo comes out with won't be as large of a threat. This would also open the market to more competition. Other companies could make consoles without having to worry about getting game developers signed on. They would focus on making the best console they can make and that would be it. So we would end up with better consoles and more choice as to what we want to play on the console we paid our hard earned money for. As it is, you have to shell out about $700 to buy all three consoles, extra controllers, and other accessrories if you want to be able to buy any game on the shelf without a care as to which console it is for.
I thought GTA was kid friendly. My 4 1/2 year old did quite well with that game. He loved driving around and crashing into people/things but always wanted me to do his muggings/beatings. He especially liked the fact that you can kick the crap out of the cops. Sure I probably shouldn't have let a four year old play GTA Vice City but I did, and he liked it.
Some may say that the game is much too violent for kids but hey, take a look at Saturday morning cartoons. What doesn't have violence these days? Even cartoons aimed at younger kids, like PowerPuff Girls is full of violence.
Your kidding right?
I have a total investment in my PS2 and games of around $1200. I have an investment in my computer of around $4000. How is that better price to performance? There are a lot of better games available for my PS2 than there are for my computer. They also work right out of the box. I don't have to mess with Windows. I dont' have to hunt down new drivers. I don't have to install the latest patches. I just pop in the cd/dvd, fire up the console, and play the damn game. That is how gaming should be. I also get to play from the comfort of my couch.
Also, how often do you upgrade your computer? Do you still have the same computer you had 5 years ago and does it play the latest games? Probably not. Just like I upgrade my computer system every couple of years, I don't want to be using the same gaming hardware for the next 20 years. The NES was great but it had it's day. The same with all of the other consoles that came and went. I still have a ton of PS1 games that I play but I don't play them as much as the newer PS2 games because most of the PS2 games are better. They have better graphics, better sound, etc. The technology has advanced and to utilize the newer technology, you need newer hardware.
It's much more expensive to upgrade a computer than it is to buy a new console. How much is a "nice" graphics card these days? You can spend more on just a graphics card than on a console and still have a lot of other parts to buy, and the first computer you purchase will cost much more because you have nothing to start with and to compare price to performance, you need a decent gaming computer, not the Wally-World special.
Nintendo on the other hand chooses to screw it's repeat customers. I had a Nintendo, then a SNES, then a N64 but I stopped there. I spent a lot of money on N64 games and I still play them on my N64 system but I can't play them on the new hardware so there is less incentive for me to upgrade. I had no problem buying a PS2 when they first shipped because I knew that while there weren't a lot of titles out for it yet, all my old ones would work fine.
I agree that Nintendo has a gold mine of software franchises. I just wish they would license those for other platforms and stop making hardware. I've used a GameCube and I don't see any big difference in performance that would make me want to own one when I already have a PS2.
I like the software but not the hardware... but only because I already have a PS2. I'm getting very tired of these "For this particular console only" games. Each console has its merits and I chose PS2 because I had a PS1 that I loved, and I still had a lot of PS1 games. Now that I have a PS2, I don't want to buy an XBox or a GameCube. I already have a great console, why should I have to buy 2 more so that I can play all of the games that are out?
Further, where am I going to put two more consoles and how am I going to hook it all together? I have two consoles plugged in now (N64 is the other) and I don't have much free space in my gaming table (a coffee table with shelves in the front where I put my consoles and all the games, game mags, game books, etc.
Why can't we have one console to rule them all?
Seriously though, I think I would be more likely to pay more for a console that could play games from 2 of the big 3 than buying two consoles. If there was a PS2 that was licensed and able to also play GameCube games, or XBox games, at least it would help with my space issue. As it is, I have to consider the extra cost of another console, new controllers and other accessories, and then find a place to stick it.
Anyway, back to my original reason for posting... I like Nintendo games. They have some great games available for their console but I would prefer if they were to follow Sega and stop making hardware. As it is, they aren't getting much money from me (I buy N64 games still - there were some good games for that system) but if they were to release their games for PS2, I would buy a lot of them. I don't know what kind of profits they make on their hardware, or how that would be affected if they were to license their games for PS2, but I think overall they would sell more games because there are more PS2's in the world than GameCubes... and if they did a tri-license and included XBox, they would do even better... but one has to wonder how many consoles they would sell if their games ran on PS2 and XBox. I bet the hardware numbers would go in the shitter real quick.
Maybe you can clear this up for me: What are the advantages (real world, not just statistical) of the GameCube? If all else was equal, would there be a good reason to get a GameCube over a PS2 or XBox?
Microwave technology has been developed and tested for weapons for many years now. Same with lasers. This article contains nothing that hasn't been publicly available for at least 5 years. Dateline has had more than one show about it as well as 60 Minutes and others. Not sure what the big deal is.
What I think is a much more interesting use for microwave technology is the study of how we can alter the weather. This falls in the Battlefield Enhancement category and gets quite a bit of funding because of the possiblities.
Imagine being able to cause a lightning storm over your enemies forces, or causing severe flooding, or even a drought. You could even mix and match to your hearts content.
Iraq, you don't want to get your shit together, that's fine, but now you'll get a three year drought followed by heavy rains for 40 days and nights. Supposedly this can be accomplished by focusing microwave energy at a specific spot in the sky. If you send enough energy into a cloud, it will cause the cloud to produce rain. Obviously that's the short and quick version but you get the idea.
There is a lot of info available on the net about this. If your interested, read about the antenna array in Alaska that is supposedly used for Battlefield Enhancement (tm) experiments, and also check into the "radar rings" which happen when doppler radar stations transmit rather than receive. You'll see a bright circle around the radar station on the radar imaging. It usually only lasts a very short while and often the images are deleted from the archives. Thing what you want about that. I'm not one to believe in every conspiracy theory that comes along but it is pretty interesting.
As to your other question, I use AT&T Wireless. I'm in Seattle and it seems to be the most reliable in this area. Good reception, very few dropped calls, and reasonable pricing (as long as you stay in your own calling area).
What about cars? You buy a brand new Vette only to find out that the factory limited your speed by programming one of the computer chips to lock out at 167 MPH. So you buy a different chip to "unlock" your cars full potential. Is that stealing?
I say it's not. You bought the card, it's yours, do whatever the hell you want with it. But I agree with another poster about not trying to return it if you fry it. You fuck it up, it's your problem. Deal with it. Don't take it back to the store and cause prices to go up. I don't overclock any of my stuff because I can't afford to replace it if I mess it up. I bought items that were fast enough for my use and when they aren't fast enough I'll replace them. After I have replaced them, I may then try to speed them up a bit just for fun because at that point, if I make a mistake it doesn't matter because I already have a replacement.
The RIAA, the RIAA, the RIAA is on fire.
The RIAA, the RIAA, the RIAA is on fire.
We don't need no water let the mother fuckers burn!
Burn, MOTHER FUCKERS! BURN!
I love that song!