It seems that everytime you link to an article, it doesn't match the point you are making. Your article shows that China is reducing its subsidy program, and it also mentions that European governments had their own subsidy programs too. The US has incentives of their own, so it doesn't make sense for you to pick on China for this.
Scroll down the page here for another link from you and we get this. So China has complained about the US subsidy program (just as the US complains about China). Once again, why do you pick on China? Most countries want to get ahead in this market, but there are other reasons for countries to support the renewable energy industries - like not stuffing up the planet!
Likewise, if I didn't like IE on my Windows 98 box, I could have just bought a Mac or a UNIX workstation. The U.S. government didn't see it that way.
True, and back then you could still load your any other browser that you wanted on Windows so the situation is even worse than that we had back in '98. Back then Microsoft also got grief for using optimised calls to the API functions in Office, thus giving them a performance advantage. Similarly, Apple ensures that no other browser is as fast as the Safari on iOS. Microsoft have followed Apple down the lock-down path, so it would not surprise me if IE10 on WinRT does the same thing (although I have tried it to find out).
It is amazing what companies can get away with these days. I don't subscribe to the idea that you should be allowed to be anti-competitive as long as you are not a monopoly, because if something was wrong for one company to do then surely it is just as wrong for every company to do. If the winds of change continue for Microsoft and eventually someone else (presumably Apple) gets to become the dominant OS provider, at what point are they not allowed to act the way they do now? Is it when they click over from 50% to 51% marketshare?
It took me less than 10 seconds to find the link to the software to fix this. It took me the same amount of time to find the instructions to do the equivalent fix for ubuntu - replace Unity. Not much difference there.
It would, however, take a lot less time to install one program than to do all of those steps in the second link. People who claim that using a third party application is too hard remind me of the people on infomercials that overact to show that they can't operate an old fashioned mop. If it is so hard to download one program (or put one mop in a bucket of water) then I think that you would have much bigger problems in life.
Really, and how do you do this without having to use a 3rd party paid app?
Why would you think that it would have to be a paid app? There are heaps of free programs available for Windows for doing stuff like this. My first search on Google found a couple of examples to get the start menu back.
Why guess about this, when it is so easy to google "Tivo GPL" or "Tivoization". From Wikipedia:
Tivoization (pronounced "Teevo-ization") is a term coined to describe the creation of a system that incorporates software under the terms of a copyleft software license (like the GPL), but uses hardware restrictions to prevent users from running modified versions of the software on that hardware.
If the problem was simply that they were in violation of GPL v2 by not releaing the code, then there would not have been a reason to create a whole new license to address this.
Windows ME got 6 years of support (Microsoft offers a minimum of 10 years of support for Business and Developer products). Mac OS 10.3 got 4 years of support (Apple don't have a defined policy for their life cycle, just a general rule that they offer support for the current and previous version). REHL will get 13 years of support.
Two years of support for CS5 is not just "a *bit* quick" for such expensive, professional software. It is an insult.
No, it is more like running Remote Desktop onto another computer that runs a browser. The problem with the Opera approach is that it limits what client side JavaScript can run after the page has loaded. This is not the fault of Opera, but rather the dictatorship of Apple.
I see you're not familiar with the laptops the Australian government foisted onto students a few years ago - cheap 10" netbooks which were too slow to be useful the day they were built.
It is true that I am not familiar with them, because they didn't seem to make it to the students that I know. They all had big-arse laptops.
Now the batteries are shot, they're falling apart, and they haven't gotten any faster...
They don't need to last too long. That's the point of cheap, disposable computers. As to them not getting faster, why would they?
Notebooks tend to have much more power, are much easier to work with, and have CD/DVD drives. Netbooks don't.
The student laptops that I have seen didn't really have much non-standard software (non-office products). The education software that it did have did not require a CD to install. I know this because I was given the software to install on the mother's work computer, to which I said to go get stuffed! Remember the schools get to dictate which software is used. If it doesn't work on their school mandated computers then they will choose other software.
As for not being powerful enough, I just finished playing the original Call of Duty on my netbook. I had to lower some of the settings to get a good framerate, but it worked fine after that. Netbooks are not as completely useless as some have claimed.
you may find notebooks to actually be cheaper per unit
It is true that the netbook market has been hit by the cheaper notebook computer prices. But it is not just about price. My original post was that the size is a bigger factor for the small kids who have to carry the units with them and who tend not to own their own cars.
So you could get a cheaper computer. Then what? You need them configured, a support structure, additional software etc. All that costs money. You can't just take the experience of someone buying a computer for themselves and translate it to the needs of the government buying 50,000 units.
Like you, I did the calculations and was frankly surprised at how cheap it worked out to be.
This is exactly what the OLPC was made for - distribution in third world countries!
But seriously, it always makes me angry when I see the notebook computers that some schools force their students to use. Big heavy 15" models are stupid to be carried every single day even by adults, let alone small children. You would think that inexpensive, small netbooks should be a no-brainer.
The term started being used right after there was a major news story about a group of Holocaust deniers and the first people to use it were explicit in the comparison.
This is the first time that I have heard of a specific event. Do you have a citation for this? A date? Who was the person that first used it?
You see, the problem with this theory is that it is the perfectly correct word to use. It describes someone who denies something, in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. This is not a new term (it is over 700 years old), and it certainly was not invented for use with the people who deny the holocaust occurred.
I have seen other posts on this topic where people have explicitly said that they "deny manmade global warming" and yet in the same post object to the term denier. Hey guys, deny and denier are essentially the same word!
On the other hand, "warmist" is a completely made up word. It does not describe what they do (they don't warm things). It was not a term that could have been arisen except from a single source. It was coined as a derogatory term by people who know the power that labelling things can bring. So it comes as no surprise that these people would also want to force their own choice of labels on others, by insisting that we substitute the term skeptic for denier. It is an attempt to sound like they are taking the reasonable position to speak out against a hundred years of scientific research.
Hmm, interesting. You used the word "verily", so it must be a quote from Shakespeare. I didn't know that the global warming argument went that far back!
Is it really so difficult to imagine that people simply do not want to see an enormous government intrusion into literally every energy use decision they make, or are made on their behalves by others?
Implying that somehow this is all a conspiracy theory is unbelievably false.
That is really outside the scope of the topic that I was discussing. The original poster was simply complaining about the use of the term "denier" and not about the implications of the measures required to solve the problem.
Now you might take issue with big government, and that is quite a reasonable and valid stance to take. But the problem is that the deniers (who can be seen elsewhere on this page) are going further than debating our the response to the problem by claiming that global warming is all a big con by government to give themselves more power. As far as conspiracy theories go, that one is huge compared to anything that I have suggested.
My theory involved a small number of people feeding a script to a group of willing, like-minded pundits who in turn influence the more conservative part of the population who eagerly lap up the tales of the "guv'ment" against them. It works because it is managable and it suits the desires of every participant in the chain.
The other idea, that AGW is a giant hoax, would require the cooperation of virtually every government around the world of all persuasions to corrupt the vast majority of the scientific community to produce false results and theories. It would be a monumental task and a complete house of cards, because all it would take is a few emails to wikileaks to show the evidence to bring the whole crashing thing down.
Which one of these theories would you consider to be unbelievably false? You can say that both are unbelievable if you like, but then you probably would not be considered to be the denier that we were discussing in the first place!
Every one of the people that do not buy all (or part of) the whole AGW religion have been labelled "deniers" for 10 years now.
It is interesting that you mention this in relation to a story about Heartland Institute. It was this exact argument that made it apparent to me that there was a hand on the tiller of the anti-global warming movement. I wish I could remember the/. story when this happened, but there was one particular discussion about climate change when I noticed that out of the blue lots of different people had suddenly found themselves being offended by the term "denier". It seemed so unlikely that so many people would simultaneously become offended that at the time I thought that they must have been parroting a recent show of one of the conservative radio commentators.
But it made me pay attention to how the debate progressed in the ranks of the anti-AGW supporters. I began to wonder whether there was some checklist in the boardroom of a think tank (like Heartland) where they had listed what the next bit of FUD they were going to print in their next newsletter for their eager followers to claim as their own.
The funny thing about the "don't call me a denier" argument is that it is often used by right wing pundits who make a living denigrating their opposing side using labels like lefties, greenies, pinkos, communists, intelligentsia, ivory-tower academics, latte-sippers, chatting classes, liberals, alarmists and (apparently the next new term) "green-shirts". Actually, the last one is not really new; a quick google search on "climate green shirts" shows that it has been used for a few years now.
Still, good luck with your denialist gambit. Now it is true that the literal definition of the term is a very apt fit to what you are (more so than skeptic), and nobody using it was doing so to affiliate you with any other denialists. In fact the only people that bring up the holocaust are people like you.
But now you mention it, the holocaust deniers do share some traits with the anti-AGW supports like being against the weight of overwhelming expert opinion and the uncanny ability to be looking elsewhere when being shown evidence that they don't like.
I wouldn't say they've been bought and paid for by any one specific entity, but they do tend to come up with such completely and obviously false stats on occasion that it is difficult to believe the outlet is completely unbiased.
Well we have already seen in this thread someone who claimed an example of bias where there it has been demonstrated that there was none. I wonder how many other times people's evidence proves to be just as "reliable".
They're further developing their A5 and ramping up production by introducing it first in an existing product.
Exactly. My first thought was that they will replace the CPU in all of their product line, and the iPad 2 was the first one that had run out of stock and thus required a new batch to be made. So rather than any tactical move to introduce it in the iPad 2 first, it was just the luck of the draw; the first cab off the rank.
It would make a more efficient production line if they didn't have to support 2 different die sizes of CPU. It is probably why they did this change quietly so that people didn't stop buying the existing stocks of the other models of iPad and iPhone while waiting for the new "version".
He he. You made me think back to the days when I first came up with the Gadget moniker. I was probably using a TNT2 Ultra video card then. It was a far cry from the monster cards we are looking at today! Even so, my card had great TV input/output and included LCD 3D glasses. It seems the actual feature set if graphics cards hasn't improved a lot over the years.
I've seen it rumored in more than a few places that Tom's Hardware is very Intel and Nvidia, shall we say, "friendly".
That would explain why in their most recent Best Graphics Cards For The Money AMD's cards only won 5 categories compare with Nvidia's massive win in 1 category (plus a tie in another and 3 categories with no winners). Basically if you ignore all the times that they say good things about AMD, then it is obvious that they favour Intel and Nvidia.
As for the original poster claiming big differences in the rankings, I just don't see it. If you filter out the cards that are not tested on both sites you get the following rankings:
Well from my limited knowledge of the bionic eye (gleaned from watching The Six Million Dollar Man), the sound of the eye would be extremely irritating. It makes a very loud Doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo noise.
It was invented by Disney during WW2 to help train soldiers to fight nazis.
That sounded facinating, but when I went to learn more I found that Wikipedia disagrees with you. It cites several uses of the word prior to the creation of Private Snafu.
Still, it was interesting to find out about the Disney shorts. I must watch some on Youtube once my boss have left the building!
Obviously you care, otherwise you would not have clicked on the "Read More" link on the story, then replied to the first post to get you to the top of the page, and then typed a message about this subject. The alternative to all this would have been to just skip to the next story that does interest you.
At time of writing, there have been nearly 200 posts on this story, so the answer to your question is yes, some people do care enough to think about this subject.
I can't think of anything more boring than flying a 737. I am a flight sim geek as well, but a 737? Sheesh. Its the most boring and actually very simple to fly plane.
I wonder if the guy thinks the same of you. Just sitting down at a computer to play games might be utterly boring to him. His idea of fun might be to, oh I don't know, build a freakin' 737 in his garage!
Your attitude is like someone seeing Michelangelo's statue of David and complaining what a waste of time it was because you prefer giant naked women instead.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that everytime you link to an article, it doesn't match the point you are making. Your article shows that China is reducing its subsidy program, and it also mentions that European governments had their own subsidy programs too. The US has incentives of their own, so it doesn't make sense for you to pick on China for this.
Scroll down the page here for another link from you and we get this. So China has complained about the US subsidy program (just as the US complains about China). Once again, why do you pick on China? Most countries want to get ahead in this market, but there are other reasons for countries to support the renewable energy industries - like not stuffing up the planet!
Likewise, if I didn't like IE on my Windows 98 box, I could have just bought a Mac or a UNIX workstation. The U.S. government didn't see it that way.
True, and back then you could still load your any other browser that you wanted on Windows so the situation is even worse than that we had back in '98. Back then Microsoft also got grief for using optimised calls to the API functions in Office, thus giving them a performance advantage. Similarly, Apple ensures that no other browser is as fast as the Safari on iOS. Microsoft have followed Apple down the lock-down path, so it would not surprise me if IE10 on WinRT does the same thing (although I have tried it to find out).
It is amazing what companies can get away with these days. I don't subscribe to the idea that you should be allowed to be anti-competitive as long as you are not a monopoly, because if something was wrong for one company to do then surely it is just as wrong for every company to do. If the winds of change continue for Microsoft and eventually someone else (presumably Apple) gets to become the dominant OS provider, at what point are they not allowed to act the way they do now? Is it when they click over from 50% to 51% marketshare?
The point is that it is not a built-in feature.
It took me less than 10 seconds to find the link to the software to fix this. It took me the same amount of time to find the instructions to do the equivalent fix for ubuntu - replace Unity. Not much difference there.
It would, however, take a lot less time to install one program than to do all of those steps in the second link. People who claim that using a third party application is too hard remind me of the people on infomercials that overact to show that they can't operate an old fashioned mop. If it is so hard to download one program (or put one mop in a bucket of water) then I think that you would have much bigger problems in life.
Really, and how do you do this without having to use a 3rd party paid app?
Why would you think that it would have to be a paid app? There are heaps of free programs available for Windows for doing stuff like this. My first search on Google found a couple of examples to get the start menu back.
Or you could just hack up your own start menu without any extra programs.
This concept is not new. There was a program called Calmira that made Windows 3.1 look like Windows 95. Have a look at this screenshot!
Why guess about this, when it is so easy to google "Tivo GPL" or "Tivoization". From Wikipedia:
Tivoization (pronounced "Teevo-ization") is a term coined to describe the creation of a system that incorporates software under the terms of a copyleft software license (like the GPL), but uses hardware restrictions to prevent users from running modified versions of the software on that hardware.
If the problem was simply that they were in violation of GPL v2 by not releaing the code, then there would not have been a reason to create a whole new license to address this.
Windows ME got 6 years of support (Microsoft offers a minimum of 10 years of support for Business and Developer products). Mac OS 10.3 got 4 years of support (Apple don't have a defined policy for their life cycle, just a general rule that they offer support for the current and previous version). REHL will get 13 years of support.
Two years of support for CS5 is not just "a *bit* quick" for such expensive, professional software. It is an insult.
So in other words, it's a browser.
No, it is more like running Remote Desktop onto another computer that runs a browser. The problem with the Opera approach is that it limits what client side JavaScript can run after the page has loaded. This is not the fault of Opera, but rather the dictatorship of Apple.
I see you're not familiar with the laptops the Australian government foisted onto students a few years ago - cheap 10" netbooks which were too slow to be useful the day they were built.
It is true that I am not familiar with them, because they didn't seem to make it to the students that I know. They all had big-arse laptops.
Now the batteries are shot, they're falling apart, and they haven't gotten any faster...
They don't need to last too long. That's the point of cheap, disposable computers. As to them not getting faster, why would they?
Notebooks tend to have much more power, are much easier to work with, and have CD/DVD drives. Netbooks don't.
The student laptops that I have seen didn't really have much non-standard software (non-office products). The education software that it did have did not require a CD to install. I know this because I was given the software to install on the mother's work computer, to which I said to go get stuffed! Remember the schools get to dictate which software is used. If it doesn't work on their school mandated computers then they will choose other software.
As for not being powerful enough, I just finished playing the original Call of Duty on my netbook. I had to lower some of the settings to get a good framerate, but it worked fine after that. Netbooks are not as completely useless as some have claimed.
you may find notebooks to actually be cheaper per unit
It is true that the netbook market has been hit by the cheaper notebook computer prices. But it is not just about price. My original post was that the size is a bigger factor for the small kids who have to carry the units with them and who tend not to own their own cars.
So you could get a cheaper computer. Then what? You need them configured, a support structure, additional software etc. All that costs money. You can't just take the experience of someone buying a computer for themselves and translate it to the needs of the government buying 50,000 units.
Like you, I did the calculations and was frankly surprised at how cheap it worked out to be.
This is exactly what the OLPC was made for - distribution in third world countries!
But seriously, it always makes me angry when I see the notebook computers that some schools force their students to use. Big heavy 15" models are stupid to be carried every single day even by adults, let alone small children. You would think that inexpensive, small netbooks should be a no-brainer.
The term started being used right after there was a major news story about a group of Holocaust deniers and the first people to use it were explicit in the comparison.
This is the first time that I have heard of a specific event. Do you have a citation for this? A date? Who was the person that first used it?
You see, the problem with this theory is that it is the perfectly correct word to use. It describes someone who denies something, in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. This is not a new term (it is over 700 years old), and it certainly was not invented for use with the people who deny the holocaust occurred.
I have seen other posts on this topic where people have explicitly said that they "deny manmade global warming" and yet in the same post object to the term denier. Hey guys, deny and denier are essentially the same word!
On the other hand, "warmist" is a completely made up word. It does not describe what they do (they don't warm things). It was not a term that could have been arisen except from a single source. It was coined as a derogatory term by people who know the power that labelling things can bring. So it comes as no surprise that these people would also want to force their own choice of labels on others, by insisting that we substitute the term skeptic for denier. It is an attempt to sound like they are taking the reasonable position to speak out against a hundred years of scientific research.
Hmm, interesting. You used the word "verily", so it must be a quote from Shakespeare. I didn't know that the global warming argument went that far back!
Is it really so difficult to imagine that people simply do not want to see an enormous government intrusion into literally every energy use decision they make, or are made on their behalves by others?
Implying that somehow this is all a conspiracy theory is unbelievably false.
That is really outside the scope of the topic that I was discussing. The original poster was simply complaining about the use of the term "denier" and not about the implications of the measures required to solve the problem.
Now you might take issue with big government, and that is quite a reasonable and valid stance to take. But the problem is that the deniers (who can be seen elsewhere on this page) are going further than debating our the response to the problem by claiming that global warming is all a big con by government to give themselves more power. As far as conspiracy theories go, that one is huge compared to anything that I have suggested.
My theory involved a small number of people feeding a script to a group of willing, like-minded pundits who in turn influence the more conservative part of the population who eagerly lap up the tales of the "guv'ment" against them. It works because it is managable and it suits the desires of every participant in the chain.
The other idea, that AGW is a giant hoax, would require the cooperation of virtually every government around the world of all persuasions to corrupt the vast majority of the scientific community to produce false results and theories. It would be a monumental task and a complete house of cards, because all it would take is a few emails to wikileaks to show the evidence to bring the whole crashing thing down.
Which one of these theories would you consider to be unbelievably false? You can say that both are unbelievable if you like, but then you probably would not be considered to be the denier that we were discussing in the first place!
Every one of the people that do not buy all (or part of) the whole AGW religion have been labelled "deniers" for 10 years now.
It is interesting that you mention this in relation to a story about Heartland Institute. It was this exact argument that made it apparent to me that there was a hand on the tiller of the anti-global warming movement. I wish I could remember the /. story when this happened, but there was one particular discussion about climate change when I noticed that out of the blue lots of different people had suddenly found themselves being offended by the term "denier". It seemed so unlikely that so many people would simultaneously become offended that at the time I thought that they must have been parroting a recent show of one of the conservative radio commentators.
But it made me pay attention to how the debate progressed in the ranks of the anti-AGW supporters. I began to wonder whether there was some checklist in the boardroom of a think tank (like Heartland) where they had listed what the next bit of FUD they were going to print in their next newsletter for their eager followers to claim as their own.
The funny thing about the "don't call me a denier" argument is that it is often used by right wing pundits who make a living denigrating their opposing side using labels like lefties, greenies, pinkos, communists, intelligentsia, ivory-tower academics, latte-sippers, chatting classes, liberals, alarmists and (apparently the next new term) "green-shirts". Actually, the last one is not really new; a quick google search on "climate green shirts" shows that it has been used for a few years now.
Still, good luck with your denialist gambit. Now it is true that the literal definition of the term is a very apt fit to what you are (more so than skeptic), and nobody using it was doing so to affiliate you with any other denialists. In fact the only people that bring up the holocaust are people like you.
But now you mention it, the holocaust deniers do share some traits with the anti-AGW supports like being against the weight of overwhelming expert opinion and the uncanny ability to be looking elsewhere when being shown evidence that they don't like.
I wouldn't say they've been bought and paid for by any one specific entity, but they do tend to come up with such completely and obviously false stats on occasion that it is difficult to believe the outlet is completely unbiased.
Well we have already seen in this thread someone who claimed an example of bias where there it has been demonstrated that there was none. I wonder how many other times people's evidence proves to be just as "reliable".
They're further developing their A5 and ramping up production by introducing it first in an existing product.
Exactly. My first thought was that they will replace the CPU in all of their product line, and the iPad 2 was the first one that had run out of stock and thus required a new batch to be made. So rather than any tactical move to introduce it in the iPad 2 first, it was just the luck of the draw; the first cab off the rank.
It would make a more efficient production line if they didn't have to support 2 different die sizes of CPU. It is probably why they did this change quietly so that people didn't stop buying the existing stocks of the other models of iPad and iPhone while waiting for the new "version".
And this is why you're the gadget guy.
He he. You made me think back to the days when I first came up with the Gadget moniker. I was probably using a TNT2 Ultra video card then. It was a far cry from the monster cards we are looking at today! Even so, my card had great TV input/output and included LCD 3D glasses. It seems the actual feature set if graphics cards hasn't improved a lot over the years.
I've seen it rumored in more than a few places that Tom's Hardware is very Intel and Nvidia, shall we say, "friendly".
That would explain why in their most recent Best Graphics Cards For The Money AMD's cards only won 5 categories compare with Nvidia's massive win in 1 category (plus a tie in another and 3 categories with no winners). Basically if you ignore all the times that they say good things about AMD, then it is obvious that they favour Intel and Nvidia.
As for the original poster claiming big differences in the rankings, I just don't see it. If you filter out the cards that are not tested on both sites you get the following rankings:
Battlefield 3
Toms: 680GTX-SLI, 690GTX, 7970CF, 6990, 590GTX, 680GTX, 7970, 580GTX
Anan: 680GTX-SLI, 690GTX, 7970CF, 6990, 590GTX, 680GTX, 7970, 580GTX
Skyrim
Toms: 680GTX-SLI, 690GTX, 7970CF, 590GTX, 6990, 680GTX, 7970, 580GTX
Anan: 680GTX-SLI, 690GTX, 590GTX, 680GTX, 7970, 580GTX, 6990, 7970CF
DiRT 3
Toms: 680GTX-SLI, 690GTX, 7970CF, 680GTX, 6990, 590GTX, 7970, 580GTX
Anan: 680GTX-SLI, 690GTX, 7970CF, 590GTX, 680GTX, 6990, 7970, 580GTX
Metro 2033
Toms: 7970CF, 680GTX-SLI, 690GTX, 6990, 590GTX, 7970, 680GTX, 580GTX
Anan: 7970CF, 680GTX-SLI, 690GTX, 6990, 590GTX, 7970, 680GTX, 580GTX
Only Skyrim seems to show any major differences, and that was probably due to some driver issues, game version or alternative testing methods.
Exactly how superstitious are you?
I would estimate about thirteen times the national average, which is unfortunate.
Well from my limited knowledge of the bionic eye (gleaned from watching The Six Million Dollar Man), the sound of the eye would be extremely irritating. It makes a very loud Doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo-doo noise.
It was invented by Disney during WW2 to help train soldiers to fight nazis.
That sounded facinating, but when I went to learn more I found that Wikipedia disagrees with you. It cites several uses of the word prior to the creation of Private Snafu.
Still, it was interesting to find out about the Disney shorts. I must watch some on Youtube once my boss have left the building!
Except if you want more than 255 columns. The Excel blows and Calc rocks.
Sure, in a 10 year old version of Excel. In one from 5 years ago, the column limit is 16,384. I guess the increase came with the 2007 file format.
Does anyone really fucking CARE about this?
Obviously you care, otherwise you would not have clicked on the "Read More" link on the story, then replied to the first post to get you to the top of the page, and then typed a message about this subject. The alternative to all this would have been to just skip to the next story that does interest you.
At time of writing, there have been nearly 200 posts on this story, so the answer to your question is yes, some people do care enough to think about this subject.
I can't think of anything more boring than flying a 737. I am a flight sim geek as well, but a 737? Sheesh. Its the most boring and actually very simple to fly plane.
I wonder if the guy thinks the same of you. Just sitting down at a computer to play games might be utterly boring to him. His idea of fun might be to, oh I don't know, build a freakin' 737 in his garage!
Your attitude is like someone seeing Michelangelo's statue of David and complaining what a waste of time it was because you prefer giant naked women instead.