I don't get how/why so called smarter, savvier people even have this crap as a possible choice of music to listen too. I buy a shitload (which is 32 for those that don't know) of CDs on a regular basis. I have never once worried about having any form of DRM stop me from listening to it, or infect my player. The majority of the population is to busy trying to figure out how to stretch a dollar far enough so they and their families can eat. It's only dumb rich kids being effected by these things, and they don't really care, they can always buy a new computer when their current one gets infected.
Again I say aren't their bigger fish to fry than Sony and it's singular DRM instance. You could always blame WalMart. I mean isn't, it their cheap ass prices that cause companies to need to protect as much other assests as possible. Or maybe blame the world goverments, must of who support intelectual property and patent rights.(Am I kinding?)
I'm not going to back a boycot of either of these companies as a whole. I already buy very little mass produced music (most my disks are by true independant labels of self produced). Those who get hurt by any DRM have only pirates to blame (I don't care how you get your music, just do it legally). Sony used a hole in the MS operating system (notice it did not effect any others) to implement their DRM. I don't agree with the approach but they are not intentionally screwing people, they are only trying to protect their assets.
I personally have not knowingly purchased any MS products in years, and out side of the the Computer Entertainment division I haven't purchased a Sony product in years either. There are alot bigger evils in the world than either of these companies. Take all that boycot energy and put it towards whipping out poverty and violence and we would have a much better place to live, and the last thing people would be worrying about is how a company protects their assets.
...I didn't buy Sony/MS before...
I have to assume you either don't play video games, or regularly break intelectual property laws.
We don't really differ all that much on this, it's all about how you look at it. User Stories, Use Cases and Test Cases before Technical Specifications is critical to a successful project (and if I recall even RUP supports that approach). This should be done for each stand alone component, not necessarilly for an entire enterprise application at once, but for each logical unit that can operat on it's own our using already defined/tested APIs. You should have most of your user feedback before implemenation begins, based on interogation of the stories and cases. In the end it comes down to how well you comparmentalize your system.
I support designing an API before implementation becuase it is the only way to allow other teams to begin their projects with out have problems with sequential development. If I can design an clear API then both sides (the user and the implementor) can go to work immediatly and with limited need for interaction between them (the number on resource waste in any large development project).
What you end up with, doing things this way, is a single unified document made up of many parts (much like your program). Getting overviews to determine what aspect to work on first is a great idea, but in the end you should be writing code based on more specific requirements
I beleive RUP is way to structured, which may seem odd after what I have already said, and that each dev team may have a different way of handling the document, design, implement process. RUP also forces you to have an association with Rational and I personally just don't like there stuff. XP on the other hand has some good ideas about iterative process and team development, but I feel it's to flakey and allows teams to push crapier code faster. The iterative process allows managers to say, it may have some bugs but it works, lets just release and then fix it later.
I stand by Brook's teachings in The Mythical Man Month(revised edition of course).
And somehow companies wonder why projects always end up late and over cost. If you are making estimates on unclear requirements you are asking to fail, or even "planning to fail" as Brooks put it. I'm not a fan of full waterfall process any more than they next guy, but not having a clear plan before coding is a disaster waiting to happen.
Having been on, and lead of, development teams I have seen first hand what the modern iterative processes can do. Last team I lead was the most succesfull project I have every been on for a couple simple reasons. I made sure that the buisness knew what the clients actual needs where before we even went to design. We also had clear Test Cases (not necessarily automated) before any development began. To often in todays development space tests are writen to match the code which certainly is not going to make clients happy. I beleive that most things can be tried on paper to see if they will fit the need.
The last of the big core changes I implemented on that team was building from the ground up. To often modern projects are built from the UI back. Sure you get a great LOOKING UI but then find out it doesn't meet the actual buisness process and that building the system infrastrucutre for the UI to build is too difficult. Good software should be able to work with or with out a User Interface (that is if your project is something more than a UI layer over an existing API). And yes this means avoid ideas like using a Rapid Prototype as the code base for the project.
RUP is to much over head for your typical dev enviroment. XP is the most effective way to produce vapor ware or other projects never expected to be completed.
Uh, your aggregator is caching the RSS files. You're just looking at old news.;)
This may not have to be entierly true. I'll admit I may have no idea what I am talking about here, but I do have a thearetical reason why you may still beable to receive live RSS feeds even when HTTP is being redirected. I don't know that the redirect is redirecting ALL port 80 communications, ALL HTTP communications or what have you. If they are only redirecting based on the mime type of the document requested (which is possible but highly unlikely) then a user may still be able to receive RSS feeds. A more likely (yet still doubtful)scenario would have to do with how they redirect. If the server is sending a redirect signal to the browser then the RSS reader may ignore that. I only say these things because I know major companies will take stupid short cuts, or might have had there system programmed by a "Web-Developer" in the 90s.
As a software engineer I can think of a number of ways to handle port/protocol redirects so I can imagine it is possible that the Original poster is correct, but have never tried it myself.
As much as your logic works it's not actually true..NET is too new to have more qualified developers than Java. Most universities, atleast the more prestigeous ones, do not teach.NET (which appears to be reserved to trade schools and community colleges), or have very limited selection of.NET courses, while Java is mandatory for most CS degrees today. So I would have to say the demand for Java is still higher than the demand for.NET and will remain so unless.NET starts getting support from the development and academic communities.
Obviously nothing since few companies use.NET in comparison to those using Java. Just to a quick job search on Dice(13.5K vs 10k) or Monster and you will see that there are clearly more Java jobs than.NET jobs.
Can someone explain to me how.NET is so fundamentally different from Java that it could escape Java's fate?
For one Java is actually in use and so it has the potential fate of losing user base..NET is not in uses so it's fate would either be to stay the same or actually be implemented somewhere. Java is supported by SUN, a successful but not untouchable, company..Net is supported by Microsoft, a company that has proven that can and will take huge losses to support mederately succesful to failing products.
It's actually because I have friends that I don't play online games. I much rather have everyone over for gaming that meeting on line. I should clarify, it is because I have friends in the same region as me that I don't play online games.
The PlayStation 3 will be made by Sony, a company which distributes software that renders a personal computer quite unstable and open to attack by malfeasant users from across the Internet.
The XBox 360 is be made by Microsoft, a company which distributes software that renders a personal computer quite unstable and open to attack by malfeasant users from across the Internet.
...Of course if you get rid of the right to own personal property entirely you don't have this issue. You may not have thought this through, it may lead to one or two other more severe problems.
Actually I have been thinking it through for a long time, taking into account the good and the bad. And as much as there are some down falls to collective or nationalized property laws, they benifits far out way the deteriment. Regardless, remove of personal property rights would remove the issue of copyright infringment being theft or not.
Check my response to the sibling post to yours and you will see the point I was trying to make. Personally I don't care what you call it, but to call someone stupid for beleiving one way or the other is rude and incorrect because there are sources to back up the idea that copyright infringment is theft. People have the right to beleive otherwise, but that does not make them either more intelligent or not.
Of course if you get rid of the right to own personal property entirely you don't have this issue.
If you happen to not be a citizen of the United States of America I would be more than happy to let this slide. In the US on the other hand we have what is called the No Electronic Theft (NET) act which was enacted "to facilitate prosecution of copyright violation on the Internet." The US has acknowledged that Electronic, none tangible, property, used without the permission of the properties rightful owner (copyright holder) is in fact theft.
This argument started long before the internet was in the publics hands. Back when Phone Phreaks and Pirated Cable were popular (which was prior to the 90s) the US justice department determined that regardless of the act of derpivation, freely aquiring services or materials which you are not entitled to is theft
As for the denfenition war (which is silly to do because I can find a defenition to match anything, I mean some people even think Intelligent Design is science), but I will provide a few defenitions that expand on the defenitions of theft, with references.
Theft - The act or an instance of stealing; larceny. Steal - To take (the property of another) without right or permission. Property - Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Theft - a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent Property - something (as an interest, money, or land) that is owned or possessed Intangible Property - property (as a stock certificate or professional license) that derives value not from its intrinsic physical nature but from what it represents Intelectual Property - property that derives from the work of the mind or intellect; specifically : an idea, invention, trade secret, process, program, data, formula, patent, copyright, or trademark or application, right, or registration relating thereto
- Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law
You may personally not beleive that use of copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder is indeed theft, but by pure defenition it falls under the category of theft as defined by respected scholars on American English language and the Governing body of the United States of America.
I was going to argue that you were incorrect in thinking that theft requires taking of physical property, but I realize the problem is not in your understanding of the word theft, it is the understanding of the word property. Now theft, in legal terms, can include both Property and Services (look up Theft of Service in any law library, there are countless cases), which does show that property does not need to be involved for theft to take place. In this case though, the copying of copyrighted material, property is involved. Property typically referes to something owned, though there are other defenitions for the word property. The thing owned need not be physical in anyway (I'm not getting into the definition of something or owned because this would never end) as has been show by national and international Intelectual Property law. Intelectual Property is an idea, invention, trade secret, process, program, data, formula, patent, copyright, or trademark just to name a few.
I would just suggest before you go off and tell others that they "dont't know their own language" that you take time to read up on the concepts involved and include modern references and common usages.
Copyright infringement is very much Theft, specifically Theft of Intelectual Property.
It's true that my friend's PS2 was always buggy. But my Gamecube was not. Conclusion: Two pieces of data are all you need to draw a perfectly statistically valid inference. NINTEND0 r00lz!
My original first gen ps2 purchsed in the first month of release is still working prefectly, but after nearly 5 years I still don't have a working game cube.
Conclusion: Two pieces of data are all you need to draw a perfectly statistically valid inference. "I" r00lz!
Just to clear things up, the reason doctors and lawyers get paid what they do is because people are willing to pay it, because people know what happens if they are not there to perform their duties. Once IT profesionals are in short supply (and hopefully unionized) then we will see how much people are willing to pay when all modern forms of comunication, storage and well pretty much everything stops (Ok I'll wake up and stop dreaming that IT pros actually work together for once). IT is the backbone of all modern industry. Neither doctors or lawyers, or any industry can operate with working IT.
Does it matter why students are not going into IT? I mean we, IT workers, should be happy and supporting this. We need a shortage in the market to get our salaries where they belong and create some sense of job security. Wouldn't it be nice if you could get a raise in the IT industry without changing jobs?
IT workers are more important to modern society than doctors or lawyers. Maybe if the shortage gets high enough we can make the same salaries.
If you couldn't get one before 2001 you were not trying. Not only did I purchase mine in november of 2000 for the list price I still have and use that same unit to this day. Plus there are other countries in the world (I know it's hard to beleive) and the PS2 was released there before all the other consoles as well. Just as an example in Japan the PS2 was released March 4, 2000 while the Xbox was relased February 22, 2002, almost 2 years later. Now you can say "but your talking about on being domestic and the other being foreign, it's not a far comparisson" which I would agree if the PS2 hadn't come out in the US before the US born XBox.
the PS2 lags pretty significantly in its technology (long loading times, framerates, jaggies).
I will admit very few people have put it all together but the PS2 has prove to be very compenent in all three areas you mentioned. JAK 2 and 3 showed that load times where unecessary, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus and God of War shows that Jagies are no issue (oh and they have no load time issues), God of war showed slow down is a thing of the past , and GT4 showed that when you can sustain 1080i then frame rate is really insignificant. It's interesting that PS2 games get better while XBox games stay pretty so so. Most Xbox fans will tell you that beyond a few minor things like downloadable content, Halo is superior to Halo 2. Oh and by the way does XBox even have any games other than the Halo series? I just realize I can't recall any other Xbox games that get the kind of talk that Katamari Damashi, Disgae or the obvious Final Fantasy get.
So lets try and nip the fan boy thing in the bud once and for all. Game Critic Awards for 2005 show not one XBox exclusive winner, where ps2 has 2 and heck ps3 grabs 2.
We can make it 2 to 2 at Game Developers Choice awards, and that's including one given to xbox the the I love bees thing.
Over at spike tv Xbox gets the lead with two exclusives where PS2 gets none.
Ign in 2004 (because 2005 is not out yet) give 5 best ofs to PS2 and 2 to Xbox.
I would have put of Gamespots best of but with the buzz I have going it was to hard to calculate.
I guess if you are interested in spending $400 (I'm talking earlier adopters) for the one game worth playing on XBox, then that's fine with me.. I mean there were a few people that shelled out over $200 a pop for neo-geo games.
I like your point but I think it is a miss understanding of what I said. In your example of shooting someone, you forget that in that situation the target has very little choice but to be shot. What makes it immoral is that you are taking away someones ability to chose. In the case of raising prices on non-necessities you aren't taking away a choice. I just can't see how saying buy for this price or don't buy at all is immoral. If this was food products for something people need to survive then I might start talking about morality.
We live in a capitalist society, either live with it or change it. If you don't like the price that is being charged for something then don't buy it. Music is a fine example of something that can be aquired, with little effort, for free, legally. There are musicians all over this world, many of which will give away their cds if ask. Now these aren't mass produced major label artists, and you may actually have to interact with other people to get it, but it is there.
Why not? It is certainly their right to price it higher, but it doesn't make it moral/ethical. Of course we can complain!
How is raising prices amoral or unethical? This is the basic law of supply and demand that all private buisness is based upon. The whole idea behind capitalism is to price things as high as people will pay for, it is the measure of success and quality. Profit margin is the basis for modern society.
I'll also defend your right to complain, but try and do it constructively.
Are there still people gaming on anything less than 720p campatible TV's?
Just kidding.
But seriously within the next couple years, if it isn't true already, 720p will be the standard minimum for all media. Honestly I couldn't image spending $400+ to play video games and not have them hooked up to anything not capable of 1080i. In the course of a video game sysem you will spend well over 2k on it, so why not buy yourself a decent tv to go with it. You can get 1080i for less that $1000 (I payed $1300 for mine 2 years ago and that's for a 42 inch mitsubishi). HD really makes a difference and is worth every penny. Not only is the picture quality higher, but things like progressive scan (480p/720p) help reduce motion sickness and eye strain.
If you're serious you make self-taught developers look bad, I now realize why have to work so damn hard to beat of degreed pros. I have worked with alot of people that have had that Job Security belief. Let me clarify, I have cleaned up after those people that have the Job Security belief while they cleaned out their desks. A boss would have to be blind or an idiot to let someone write code that can't be understood by the next developer. Of course a good boss wouldn't be making unrealistic promisses to their clients.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get how/why so called smarter, savvier people even have this crap as a possible choice of music to listen too. I buy a shitload (which is 32 for those that don't know) of CDs on a regular basis. I have never once worried about having any form of DRM stop me from listening to it, or infect my player. The majority of the population is to busy trying to figure out how to stretch a dollar far enough so they and their families can eat. It's only dumb rich kids being effected by these things, and they don't really care, they can always buy a new computer when their current one gets infected.
Again I say aren't their bigger fish to fry than Sony and it's singular DRM instance. You could always blame WalMart. I mean isn't, it their cheap ass prices that cause companies to need to protect as much other assests as possible. Or maybe blame the world goverments, must of who support intelectual property and patent rights.(Am I kinding?)
I'm not going to back a boycot of either of these companies as a whole. I already buy very little mass produced music (most my disks are by true independant labels of self produced). Those who get hurt by any DRM have only pirates to blame (I don't care how you get your music, just do it legally). Sony used a hole in the MS operating system (notice it did not effect any others) to implement their DRM. I don't agree with the approach but they are not intentionally screwing people, they are only trying to protect their assets.
...I didn't buy Sony/MS before...
I personally have not knowingly purchased any MS products in years, and out side of the the Computer Entertainment division I haven't purchased a Sony product in years either. There are alot bigger evils in the world than either of these companies. Take all that boycot energy and put it towards whipping out poverty and violence and we would have a much better place to live, and the last thing people would be worrying about is how a company protects their assets.
I have to assume you either don't play video games, or regularly break intelectual property laws.
We don't really differ all that much on this, it's all about how you look at it. User Stories, Use Cases and Test Cases before Technical Specifications is critical to a successful project (and if I recall even RUP supports that approach). This should be done for each stand alone component, not necessarilly for an entire enterprise application at once, but for each logical unit that can operat on it's own our using already defined/tested APIs. You should have most of your user feedback before implemenation begins, based on interogation of the stories and cases. In the end it comes down to how well you comparmentalize your system.
I support designing an API before implementation becuase it is the only way to allow other teams to begin their projects with out have problems with sequential development. If I can design an clear API then both sides (the user and the implementor) can go to work immediatly and with limited need for interaction between them (the number on resource waste in any large development project).
What you end up with, doing things this way, is a single unified document made up of many parts (much like your program). Getting overviews to determine what aspect to work on first is a great idea, but in the end you should be writing code based on more specific requirements
I beleive RUP is way to structured, which may seem odd after what I have already said, and that each dev team may have a different way of handling the document, design, implement process. RUP also forces you to have an association with Rational and I personally just don't like there stuff. XP on the other hand has some good ideas about iterative process and team development, but I feel it's to flakey and allows teams to push crapier code faster. The iterative process allows managers to say, it may have some bugs but it works, lets just release and then fix it later.
I stand by Brook's teachings in The Mythical Man Month(revised edition of course).
And somehow companies wonder why projects always end up late and over cost. If you are making estimates on unclear requirements you are asking to fail, or even "planning to fail" as Brooks put it. I'm not a fan of full waterfall process any more than they next guy, but not having a clear plan before coding is a disaster waiting to happen.
Having been on, and lead of, development teams I have seen first hand what the modern iterative processes can do. Last team I lead was the most succesfull project I have every been on for a couple simple reasons. I made sure that the buisness knew what the clients actual needs where before we even went to design. We also had clear Test Cases (not necessarily automated) before any development began. To often in todays development space tests are writen to match the code which certainly is not going to make clients happy. I beleive that most things can be tried on paper to see if they will fit the need.
The last of the big core changes I implemented on that team was building from the ground up. To often modern projects are built from the UI back. Sure you get a great LOOKING UI but then find out it doesn't meet the actual buisness process and that building the system infrastrucutre for the UI to build is too difficult. Good software should be able to work with or with out a User Interface (that is if your project is something more than a UI layer over an existing API). And yes this means avoid ideas like using a Rapid Prototype as the code base for the project.
RUP is to much over head for your typical dev enviroment. XP is the most effective way to produce vapor ware or other projects never expected to be completed.
Uh, your aggregator is caching the RSS files. You're just looking at old news. ;)
This may not have to be entierly true. I'll admit I may have no idea what I am talking about here, but I do have a thearetical reason why you may still beable to receive live RSS feeds even when HTTP is being redirected. I don't know that the redirect is redirecting ALL port 80 communications, ALL HTTP communications or what have you. If they are only redirecting based on the mime type of the document requested (which is possible but highly unlikely) then a user may still be able to receive RSS feeds. A more likely (yet still doubtful)scenario would have to do with how they redirect. If the server is sending a redirect signal to the browser then the RSS reader may ignore that. I only say these things because I know major companies will take stupid short cuts, or might have had there system programmed by a "Web-Developer" in the 90s.
As a software engineer I can think of a number of ways to handle port/protocol redirects so I can imagine it is possible that the Original poster is correct, but have never tried it myself.
You could play old commoder tapes on you care stereo. But I would suggest it, not goo for the human ear, and will eventually kill the data.
As much as your logic works it's not actually true. .NET is too new to have more qualified developers than Java. Most universities, atleast the more prestigeous ones, do not teach .NET (which appears to be reserved to trade schools and community colleges), or have very limited selection of .NET courses, while Java is mandatory for most CS degrees today. So I would have to say the demand for Java is still higher than the demand for .NET and will remain so unless .NET starts getting support from the development and academic communities.
What makes .NET more attractive?
.NET in comparison to those using Java. Just to a quick job search on Dice(13.5K vs 10k) or Monster and you will see that there are clearly more Java jobs than .NET jobs.
Can someone explain to me how .NET is so fundamentally different from Java that it could escape Java's fate?
For one Java is actually in use and so it has the potential fate of losing user base. .NET is not in uses so it's fate would either be to stay the same or actually be implemented somewhere. Java is supported by SUN, a successful but not untouchable, company. .Net is supported by Microsoft, a company that has proven that can and will take huge losses to support mederately succesful to failing products.
Obviously nothing since few companies use
It's actually because I have friends that I don't play online games. I much rather have everyone over for gaming that meeting on line. I should clarify, it is because I have friends in the same region as me that I don't play online games.
Not true. The little shield means Windows is protected. Mine is green. I bet yours is yellow or red.
Hey you're right my pc is protected too. Oh wait, mine is a Mac.
The PlayStation 3 will be made by Sony, a company which distributes software that renders a personal computer quite unstable and open to attack by malfeasant users from across the Internet.
The XBox 360 is be made by Microsoft, a company which distributes software that renders a personal computer quite unstable and open to attack by malfeasant users from across the Internet.
...Of course if you get rid of the right to own personal property entirely you don't have this issue.
You may not have thought this through, it may lead to one or two other more severe problems.
Actually I have been thinking it through for a long time, taking into account the good and the bad. And as much as there are some down falls to collective or nationalized property laws, they benifits far out way the deteriment. Regardless, remove of personal property rights would remove the issue of copyright infringment being theft or not.
Check my response to the sibling post to yours and you will see the point I was trying to make. Personally I don't care what you call it, but to call someone stupid for beleiving one way or the other is rude and incorrect because there are sources to back up the idea that copyright infringment is theft. People have the right to beleive otherwise, but that does not make them either more intelligent or not.
Of course if you get rid of the right to own personal property entirely you don't have this issue.
This argument started long before the internet was in the publics hands. Back when Phone Phreaks and Pirated Cable were popular (which was prior to the 90s) the US justice department determined that regardless of the act of derpivation, freely aquiring services or materials which you are not entitled to is theft
As for the denfenition war (which is silly to do because I can find a defenition to match anything, I mean some people even think Intelligent Design is science), but I will provide a few defenitions that expand on the defenitions of theft, with references.
You may personally not beleive that use of copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder is indeed theft, but by pure defenition it falls under the category of theft as defined by respected scholars on American English language and the Governing body of the United States of America.
... remind me that I should never move to Kansas. Even if there are other reasons to consider doing so.
There are reasons to move to Kanasas? Where do you live now, Nebraska?
I was going to argue that you were incorrect in thinking that theft requires taking of physical property, but I realize the problem is not in your understanding of the word theft, it is the understanding of the word property. Now theft, in legal terms, can include both Property and Services (look up Theft of Service in any law library, there are countless cases), which does show that property does not need to be involved for theft to take place. In this case though, the copying of copyrighted material, property is involved. Property typically referes to something owned, though there are other defenitions for the word property. The thing owned need not be physical in anyway (I'm not getting into the definition of something or owned because this would never end) as has been show by national and international Intelectual Property law. Intelectual Property is an idea, invention, trade secret, process, program, data, formula, patent, copyright, or trademark just to name a few.
I would just suggest before you go off and tell others that they "dont't know their own language" that you take time to read up on the concepts involved and include modern references and common usages.
Copyright infringement is very much Theft, specifically Theft of Intelectual Property.
It's true that my friend's PS2 was always buggy. But my Gamecube was not.
Conclusion: Two pieces of data are all you need to draw a perfectly statistically valid inference. NINTEND0 r00lz!
My original first gen ps2 purchsed in the first month of release is still working prefectly, but after nearly 5 years I still don't have a working game cube.
Conclusion: Two pieces of data are all you need to draw a perfectly statistically valid inference. "I" r00lz!
Just to clear things up, the reason doctors and lawyers get paid what they do is because people are willing to pay it, because people know what happens if they are not there to perform their duties. Once IT profesionals are in short supply (and hopefully unionized) then we will see how much people are willing to pay when all modern forms of comunication, storage and well pretty much everything stops (Ok I'll wake up and stop dreaming that IT pros actually work together for once). IT is the backbone of all modern industry. Neither doctors or lawyers, or any industry can operate with working IT.
Does it matter why students are not going into IT? I mean we, IT workers, should be happy and supporting this. We need a shortage in the market to get our salaries where they belong and create some sense of job security. Wouldn't it be nice if you could get a raise in the IT industry without changing jobs?
IT workers are more important to modern society than doctors or lawyers. Maybe if the shortage gets high enough we can make the same salaries.
If you couldn't get one before 2001 you were not trying. Not only did I purchase mine in november of 2000 for the list price I still have and use that same unit to this day. Plus there are other countries in the world (I know it's hard to beleive) and the PS2 was released there before all the other consoles as well. Just as an example in Japan the PS2 was released March 4, 2000 while the Xbox was relased February 22, 2002, almost 2 years later. Now you can say "but your talking about on being domestic and the other being foreign, it's not a far comparisson" which I would agree if the PS2 hadn't come out in the US before the US born XBox.
the PS2 lags pretty significantly in its technology (long loading times, framerates, jaggies).
I will admit very few people have put it all together but the PS2 has prove to be very compenent in all three areas you mentioned. JAK 2 and 3 showed that load times where unecessary, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus and God of War shows that Jagies are no issue (oh and they have no load time issues), God of war showed slow down is a thing of the past , and GT4 showed that when you can sustain 1080i then frame rate is really insignificant. It's interesting that PS2 games get better while XBox games stay pretty so so. Most Xbox fans will tell you that beyond a few minor things like downloadable content, Halo is superior to Halo 2. Oh and by the way does XBox even have any games other than the Halo series? I just realize I can't recall any other Xbox games that get the kind of talk that Katamari Damashi, Disgae or the obvious Final Fantasy get.
So lets try and nip the fan boy thing in the bud once and for all.
Game Critic Awards for 2005 show not one XBox exclusive winner, where ps2 has 2 and heck ps3 grabs 2.
We can make it 2 to 2 at Game Developers Choice awards, and that's including one given to xbox the the I love bees thing.
Over at spike tv Xbox gets the lead with two exclusives where PS2 gets none.
Ign in 2004 (because 2005 is not out yet) give 5 best ofs to PS2 and 2 to Xbox.
I would have put of Gamespots best of but with the buzz I have going it was to hard to calculate.
I guess if you are interested in spending $400 (I'm talking earlier adopters) for the one game worth playing on XBox, then that's fine with me.. I mean there were a few people that shelled out over $200 a pop for neo-geo games.
I like your point but I think it is a miss understanding of what I said. In your example of shooting someone, you forget that in that situation the target has very little choice but to be shot. What makes it immoral is that you are taking away someones ability to chose. In the case of raising prices on non-necessities you aren't taking away a choice. I just can't see how saying buy for this price or don't buy at all is immoral. If this was food products for something people need to survive then I might start talking about morality.
We live in a capitalist society, either live with it or change it. If you don't like the price that is being charged for something then don't buy it. Music is a fine example of something that can be aquired, with little effort, for free, legally. There are musicians all over this world, many of which will give away their cds if ask. Now these aren't mass produced major label artists, and you may actually have to interact with other people to get it, but it is there.
Why not? It is certainly their right to price it higher, but it doesn't make it moral/ethical. Of course we can complain!
How is raising prices amoral or unethical? This is the basic law of supply and demand that all private buisness is based upon. The whole idea behind capitalism is to price things as high as people will pay for, it is the measure of success and quality. Profit margin is the basis for modern society.
I'll also defend your right to complain, but try and do it constructively.
Are there still people gaming on anything less than 720p campatible TV's?
Just kidding.
But seriously within the next couple years, if it isn't true already, 720p will be the standard minimum for all media. Honestly I couldn't image spending $400+ to play video games and not have them hooked up to anything not capable of 1080i. In the course of a video game sysem you will spend well over 2k on it, so why not buy yourself a decent tv to go with it. You can get 1080i for less that $1000 (I payed $1300 for mine 2 years ago and that's for a 42 inch mitsubishi). HD really makes a difference and is worth every penny. Not only is the picture quality higher, but things like progressive scan (480p/720p) help reduce motion sickness and eye strain.
If you're serious you make self-taught developers look bad, I now realize why have to work so damn hard to beat of degreed pros. I have worked with alot of people that have had that Job Security belief. Let me clarify, I have cleaned up after those people that have the Job Security belief while they cleaned out their desks. A boss would have to be blind or an idiot to let someone write code that can't be understood by the next developer. Of course a good boss wouldn't be making unrealistic promisses to their clients.