People are ALWAYS saying that consoles are going to kill PC gaming. That's a completely silly short-sighted thing to say though...
As long as people buy PCs for any reason, there will be developers who will create games for them. As long as there are computers, there will be games for those computers.
You're also forgetting that it costs a hell of a lot more to develop a game for a console system. At the very most I think maybe the popularity of consoles will lead to more innovative titles on the PC created by smaller developers who can't break into the console market. Games like Serious Sam and I Was An Atomic Mutant are excellent examples of great PC games that wouldn't have been made on a console.
PCs are open, anyone can develop a game for a PC. Wanna make a game on a console? Better get a license from Nintendo, Sony, MS, etc.
I case you haven't noticed, the world is not exactly thrilled about what Dubya is trying to do, and same goes for quite a few Americans.
Kinda true. The first part anyway.
Quit a few Americans aren't thrilled. But the vast majority DO support him, and I'd challenge you to find a poll that says otherwise.
For the record, I don't support the war. I just think the "Bush-Bashing" gets way out of control sometimes, people stop arguing with what he says his reasons are for the war, and start making up silly reasons without anything to back it up.
He's not going to become the dictator of Iraq (he wants to remove one), he's not going to take over all the oil supplies, and he's not going to intentionally murder everyone that doesn't convert to Christianity.
That being said, a war isn't the right answer, because the Untied States will not be able to build a democracy in the middle east by itself. It will only create more instability, and I don't feel Saddam is a threat to the United States.
I think he's wrong, but I don't think he has some kind of evil hidden agenda. That's a silly, childish thing that silly, childish people say.
Germany also sees that this war is nto about freedom, or the terrible ways in which Sadam abuses his power, it is about Oil and more oil.
Hate to turn this all political, but that's a silly thing to say. Well, maybe not... if you consider where the largest french oil company buys a lot of their oil. But then again, the french are the "good guys", so I guess we can look the other way there.
Is George Bush a brilliant man? No, probably not.
But he's not so stupid to think he can take over Iraq to use their oil. That's not his motivation. Can't anyone believe that he has good intentions, he's just going about things the wrong way? Where's the reasoning come from? Why does everyone think he's after oil?
Do you really think the world would let him get away with something like that, or the American people?
Well I'm not about to visit the two sites you point out as examples (I'm at work... ha ha), but I disagree.
If you let a government start censoring something, the tendency would be to take it as far as it can go. It would START with hardcore porn, but then where would it go?
Sites that promote child endangerement are already illegal, and putting up pirated software is already illegal.
I'm not in favor of sites that expose children in erotic sex acts. But that's plainly illegal, and has nothing to do with censorship.
Whenever a government "recommends a voluntary code of practice", as you put it, I first laugh, but then I start to cry.
Nothing a government "recommends" stays voluntary for very long. A government recommendation usually means, "agree to do this, or else"...
Slashdot Mirror
2gbps? The article says 2.4mbps... 2gbps would be really cool :)
People are ALWAYS saying that consoles are going to kill PC gaming. That's a completely silly short-sighted thing to say though... As long as people buy PCs for any reason, there will be developers who will create games for them. As long as there are computers, there will be games for those computers. You're also forgetting that it costs a hell of a lot more to develop a game for a console system. At the very most I think maybe the popularity of consoles will lead to more innovative titles on the PC created by smaller developers who can't break into the console market. Games like Serious Sam and I Was An Atomic Mutant are excellent examples of great PC games that wouldn't have been made on a console. PCs are open, anyone can develop a game for a PC. Wanna make a game on a console? Better get a license from Nintendo, Sony, MS, etc.
I case you haven't noticed, the world is not exactly thrilled
about what Dubya is trying to do, and same goes for
quite a few Americans.
Kinda true. The first part anyway.
Quit a few Americans aren't thrilled. But the vast majority DO support him, and I'd challenge you to find a poll that says otherwise.
For the record, I don't support the war. I just think the "Bush-Bashing" gets way out of control sometimes, people stop arguing with what he says his reasons are for the war, and start making up silly reasons without anything to back it up.
He's not going to become the dictator of Iraq (he wants to remove one), he's not going to take over all the oil supplies, and he's not going to intentionally murder everyone that doesn't convert to Christianity.
That being said, a war isn't the right answer, because the Untied States will not be able to build a democracy in the middle east by itself. It will only create more instability, and I don't feel Saddam is a threat to the United States.
I think he's wrong, but I don't think he has some kind of evil hidden agenda. That's a silly, childish thing that silly, childish people say.
Germany also sees that this war is nto about freedom, or the terrible ways in which Sadam abuses his power, it is about Oil and more oil.
Hate to turn this all political, but that's a silly thing to say. Well, maybe not... if you consider where the largest french oil company buys a lot of their oil. But then again, the french are the "good guys", so I guess we can look the other way there.
Is George Bush a brilliant man? No, probably not.
But he's not so stupid to think he can take over Iraq to use their oil. That's not his motivation. Can't anyone believe that he has good intentions, he's just going about things the wrong way? Where's the reasoning come from? Why does everyone think he's after oil?
Do you really think the world would let him get away with something like that, or the American people?
No.
free registration required, blah blah blah.
Well I'm not about to visit the two sites you point out as examples (I'm at work... ha ha), but I disagree. If you let a government start censoring something, the tendency would be to take it as far as it can go. It would START with hardcore porn, but then where would it go? Sites that promote child endangerement are already illegal, and putting up pirated software is already illegal. I'm not in favor of sites that expose children in erotic sex acts. But that's plainly illegal, and has nothing to do with censorship.
Whenever a government "recommends a voluntary code of practice", as you put it, I first laugh, but then I start to cry. Nothing a government "recommends" stays voluntary for very long. A government recommendation usually means, "agree to do this, or else"...
Note to self: Cancel vacation to New Zealand, head to an Island more tolerant of my Internet porn addiction...
Does anybody REALLY consider SDL to be a valid competitor to DirectX?
Come on, there's nowhere near the same level. SDL is a nice little lib, but I wouldn't even group the two in the same category...