That is never going to happen. Consoles are commodity hardware *at launch* with the specific target of playing games on one platform in one way. With PCs, you've got video cards that cost a couple hundred dollars more than both the XB1 and PS4 *combined*.
A four and five star restaurant will never compete with McDonald's on price. What they *can* compete on is not serving you fetid shit in a paper wrapper. That requires that people give a damn. If people are just fine scarfing down a shitty box of styrofoam chicken nuggets, then you're screwed. It also requires that people make quality products for it. So many PC games are just shitty ports of console games, hindered by limitations of targeting consoles and leaving PCs as an afterthought. Then, you're crippled by trying to operate a four or five star restaurant when you're being supplied the same shitty ingredients as McDonald's.
Nobody is "whining" about the price, so calm the fuck down.
Also, do you really expect the price to drop that much or do you expect them to milk the sales they can out of it and then roll out the next replacement for this, end this, and continue on with the next $300 device? That seems to be the way routers have gone the last few years.
What is better, to settle and be potentially unhappy for years or not to settle and be alone, but without the garbage attached to being with someone who doesn't do much for you? I mean, just because you're poor or you're fat or you're driving a crappy car doesn't mean your taste changes. Unfortunately, this *is* what leads to so many unhappy relationships in the world and so much endless drama. People are so desperate to not be "alone" that they will eventually grasp at anything and anyone.
Also, if you're a five, shoot for a ten. You'd be amazed that the fives that land tens, either because the other supposed tens that ten spends their time with are actually awful people or because the five that landed them has other valuable compensations that appeal to someone.
Seriously, though, don't settle. Be alone rather than settle. All the miserable people I've known in my life are those who were so terrified of being by themselves that they settled.
No, you're thinking of Hannibal, in which there is a horrifying scene involving an alive and aware Ray Liotta watching a piece of his brain being cooked. A dozen years later and I still can't get that scene out of my head.
I have to assume her comment was made sarcastically. It seems clearly meant to be absurd to convey the opposite reality.
But even if it was a dumb ass saying awful shit online, I don't see why this is a story.
She isn't notable. Her employer, as far as I know, is not notable. She is not a politician. She is not a government employee. She is not even a celebrity of any status.
So who gives as hit what she sent as a twitter message or anything after the fact? If saying horrible shit is the noteworthy part of her existence and coverage, then journalists should start jumping on the Disqus-powered threads at the bottom of all the CBS articles linked to by DrudgeReport, because there are some pretty fucking horrendous things there from plenty of people. Or any article on the planet that has a Facebook comment system attached to it where people say the most vile shit under their full real name.
When I read her comment, I didn't see what the big deal was. It clearly seemed intentionally sarcastic. Making a quip about how something won't impact you, because you're white to contrast with the reality of a thing not being constrained by race. In fact, I don't see how a single person on the planet would ever have any context in which to make the statement she did without doing so sarcastically.
More importantly, who gives a fucking shit about this People Magazine quality bullshit?
Meanwhile, President Obama commuted the sentences of eight people this week. All of them convicted of offenses regarding cocaine. Not because they weren't guilty of the crimes they committed at the time they were crimes and sentenced under the law of those times, but because the penalties for those crimes changed since their conviction. So . . . it would seem that you *could* reasonably roll back convictions.
Who the hell are *you* to say that Alan Turing deserves a knighthood more than David Beckham? David Beckham kicked a fucking round ball around for a living. How many goaldowns did Alan Turing ever make?!
Commuting a sentence is reducing the penalty for a crime. A pardon is claiming that "this person should not have been convicted of a crime, to begin with".
Anyway, I guess this is supposed to be a feel-good story, but what's to feel good about someone finally getting justice sixty fucking years after they're dead?!
Are there really people denying "climate change"? It's a pretty accepted thing. Maybe not that it is due to man, but that there is change, sure. Of course, we also can't decide if the change is global *warming* or global *cooling*. It was only a couple decades or so ago that we were told pollution was sending us over the edge of unavoidable ice-ages.
I suppose you can sort of understand their skepticism. If I was born in 1990 and all I had ever heard was "global warming global warming AND IT IS ALL OUR FAULT!", I'd be terrified, too. If I was born in 1970 and had lived through "global cooling global cooling AND ITS ALL OUR FAULT!", I would probably be extremely skeptical of the claims, since I'd have been alive long enough to remember it the first time around.
They teach them to parrot "freedom!" rhetoric, while not bothering to teach them about the foundation of our government, Constitution, etc. In fact, they undermine it by educating them from "summarized" versions of the Bill of Rights or by having class lessons on "revising the constitution", strongly implying in their young mushy brains that the constitution is a living yadda yadda yadda (because, you know, things like preventing the government from infringing on the rights of women to vote are things that may someday need to be changed to fit into the world we live in blah blah blah).
In my entire school life, we spent far more time in DARE programs than we did learning about government, liberties, and civics.
In fact, one might assert that providing a worse bundled product was more damaging as it would cut down other vendors and give users a false sense of security. (If this report were even legitimate).
Of course, Defender isn't even bundled (you have to actively seek it out, download it, and install it), so I don't think the "anti-trust!" thing even applies.
Slashdot Mirror
That is never going to happen. Consoles are commodity hardware *at launch* with the specific target of playing games on one platform in one way. With PCs, you've got video cards that cost a couple hundred dollars more than both the XB1 and PS4 *combined*.
A four and five star restaurant will never compete with McDonald's on price. What they *can* compete on is not serving you fetid shit in a paper wrapper. That requires that people give a damn. If people are just fine scarfing down a shitty box of styrofoam chicken nuggets, then you're screwed. It also requires that people make quality products for it. So many PC games are just shitty ports of console games, hindered by limitations of targeting consoles and leaving PCs as an afterthought. Then, you're crippled by trying to operate a four or five star restaurant when you're being supplied the same shitty ingredients as McDonald's.
A bunch of them will.
And then they'll realize how ridiculous it is and they'll slowly and quietly begin to remove the payment method.
Nobody is "whining" about the price, so calm the fuck down.
Also, do you really expect the price to drop that much or do you expect them to milk the sales they can out of it and then roll out the next replacement for this, end this, and continue on with the next $300 device? That seems to be the way routers have gone the last few years.
Yeah, that's a ridiculous price when you can still pick up a WRT54G for under $50.
It might not do N or AC, but so what.
"Sir, I'm sorry, but I'm obligated to receive individual confirmation of each item on the list. Can we continue, now, please?"
I'm not sure what the problem is, there?
What is better, to settle and be potentially unhappy for years or not to settle and be alone, but without the garbage attached to being with someone who doesn't do much for you? I mean, just because you're poor or you're fat or you're driving a crappy car doesn't mean your taste changes. Unfortunately, this *is* what leads to so many unhappy relationships in the world and so much endless drama. People are so desperate to not be "alone" that they will eventually grasp at anything and anyone.
Also, if you're a five, shoot for a ten. You'd be amazed that the fives that land tens, either because the other supposed tens that ten spends their time with are actually awful people or because the five that landed them has other valuable compensations that appeal to someone.
Seriously, though, don't settle. Be alone rather than settle. All the miserable people I've known in my life are those who were so terrified of being by themselves that they settled.
No, you're thinking of Hannibal, in which there is a horrifying scene involving an alive and aware Ray Liotta watching a piece of his brain being cooked. A dozen years later and I still can't get that scene out of my head.
Finally. All those years of shoe-mirrors has paid off!
When you can make me a glass of chianti and a side of fava beans with it, I'll be impressed.
So if you're one of those creepy up-skirts dudes, it's all okay until you actually take the film out of your camera and look at it?
I also like how, apparently, we're calling it "mass collection of information", instead of "spying", now.
Oh, IAC!... Who I've never heard of.
For Ask.com, About, Vimeo, OKCupid, and match.com?! . . . which nobody gives as hit about.
She might as well be a janitor at Engadget for all the fucks anyone gives.
I have to assume her comment was made sarcastically. It seems clearly meant to be absurd to convey the opposite reality.
But even if it was a dumb ass saying awful shit online, I don't see why this is a story.
She isn't notable. Her employer, as far as I know, is not notable. She is not a politician. She is not a government employee. She is not even a celebrity of any status.
So who gives as hit what she sent as a twitter message or anything after the fact? If saying horrible shit is the noteworthy part of her existence and coverage, then journalists should start jumping on the Disqus-powered threads at the bottom of all the CBS articles linked to by DrudgeReport, because there are some pretty fucking horrendous things there from plenty of people. Or any article on the planet that has a Facebook comment system attached to it where people say the most vile shit under their full real name.
You mean, like if a politician twitter messaged a picture of their dick and then claimed their account had been "hacked"?
Obama won for the same reason Bush won again. Because the population is fucking stupid. Stupidity knows no color or ethnicity.
When I read her comment, I didn't see what the big deal was. It clearly seemed intentionally sarcastic. Making a quip about how something won't impact you, because you're white to contrast with the reality of a thing not being constrained by race. In fact, I don't see how a single person on the planet would ever have any context in which to make the statement she did without doing so sarcastically.
More importantly, who gives a fucking shit about this People Magazine quality bullshit?
Meanwhile, President Obama commuted the sentences of eight people this week. All of them convicted of offenses regarding cocaine. Not because they weren't guilty of the crimes they committed at the time they were crimes and sentenced under the law of those times, but because the penalties for those crimes changed since their conviction. So . . . it would seem that you *could* reasonably roll back convictions.
Excuse me?!
Who the hell are *you* to say that Alan Turing deserves a knighthood more than David Beckham? David Beckham kicked a fucking round ball around for a living. How many goaldowns did Alan Turing ever make?!
Commuting a sentence is reducing the penalty for a crime. A pardon is claiming that "this person should not have been convicted of a crime, to begin with".
Anyway, I guess this is supposed to be a feel-good story, but what's to feel good about someone finally getting justice sixty fucking years after they're dead?!
Are there really people denying "climate change"? It's a pretty accepted thing. Maybe not that it is due to man, but that there is change, sure. Of course, we also can't decide if the change is global *warming* or global *cooling*. It was only a couple decades or so ago that we were told pollution was sending us over the edge of unavoidable ice-ages.
I suppose you can sort of understand their skepticism. If I was born in 1990 and all I had ever heard was "global warming global warming AND IT IS ALL OUR FAULT!", I'd be terrified, too. If I was born in 1970 and had lived through "global cooling global cooling AND ITS ALL OUR FAULT!", I would probably be extremely skeptical of the claims, since I'd have been alive long enough to remember it the first time around.
You mean, a thing that there is plenty of that we're constantly being told is just years away from being completely gone?
So they're a boon to homeowners who can now sell their prices for a lot more than they dreamed of. This sounds like a good thing, to me.
But, you know, keep on with the class-wars, everyone.
"Okay, we hear you and we're going to stop violating your civil liberties you guys".
[Goes back to *secretly* violating your civil liberties.]
They teach them to parrot "freedom!" rhetoric, while not bothering to teach them about the foundation of our government, Constitution, etc. In fact, they undermine it by educating them from "summarized" versions of the Bill of Rights or by having class lessons on "revising the constitution", strongly implying in their young mushy brains that the constitution is a living yadda yadda yadda (because, you know, things like preventing the government from infringing on the rights of women to vote are things that may someday need to be changed to fit into the world we live in blah blah blah).
In my entire school life, we spent far more time in DARE programs than we did learning about government, liberties, and civics.
MSIE wasn't decent, either. Didn't stop anyone.
In fact, one might assert that providing a worse bundled product was more damaging as it would cut down other vendors and give users a false sense of security. (If this report were even legitimate).
Of course, Defender isn't even bundled (you have to actively seek it out, download it, and install it), so I don't think the "anti-trust!" thing even applies.