Needs to support an Adblock function at the bare minimum before it would be even marginally accepted by the masses. Mouse gestures would be nice. Those two things would go really far towards the acceptance of Chrome.
Does anyone "need" 1900x1200? I doubt it. "High-end" graphics haven't been used by anyone but a few people who look more for bragging rights than fun in gaming for years. Hell, what are you going to play on it anyways - all the MMORPG's are still designed to run on 5 year old hardware, and anything "intensive" like Crysis is more of a fucking tech demo than an actual playable game anyways. The fun games, except for the MMORPG's, now come out on the consoles first and maybe get a PC port if you're lucky a year later.
This was my stance for a long time. I've been running 1900x1200 for quite a while (several years) and figured that was pretty much all I'd ever need.
A ridiculous deal came along on a 30" Dell that runs at 2560x1600 and I bit the bullet and bought a pair of them to replace my 26" Planar's. I also upgraded my video card to a pair of GTX 280's to handle the resolution.
I honestly can't really accurately describe why the 2560x1600 is so much better than 1920x1200 because anything I say would have fallen on my deaf ears before I used the 2560x1600 resolution. But let me tell you, from someone who would have agreed with you 100% 8 months ago, 2560x1600 makes a WORLD of difference in games. I would not have thought this would be the case, and a statement like that would have been silly or wishful thinking... but the fact is, playing the games now feels more substantial and comfortable. It's a strange way to describe it - it's not like the game looks substantially better or anything - the gross visual differences between 1920x1200 are so minimal that you'd likely not notice. It's the subtle differences that make the games more enjoyable.
I will never go back to 1920x1200 voluntarily. 8 months ago I would have said anyone who said that is crazy, but after living with that resolution for awhile now, it really does make a huge difference.
Until VLC plays video's in RAR file without having to decompress them manually and until the developers stop being whiny bitches when people ask for functionality or offer patches they don't "agree" with, VLC is crap.
Someone already mentioned the WIN32 interface for VLC is utter garbage as well. Yeah, stick with mplayer or WMP classic or something. VLC is weak and the developers are primadonnas.
This is one of the reasons why I refuse to buy LCDs for gaming, both on my desktop and for consoles. Other factors include refresh rates, variable resolution, and numerous quality problems (dead or stuck pixels, color reproduction, viewing angle, brightness uniformity, etc).
Given a choice, nobody would prefer to play on a laggy ISP, so it's really awful that manufacturers don't inform about multiple-frame image processing delays on 60hz monitors.
CRT technology is so mature and LCD so comparatively half baked that I'm totally revolted by the general consensus to throw out completely superior performance in favor of smaller form factor (it's not like they're moved often).
I spent months last year looking for a flat panel to buy that I would want to game on, and came up empty handed, so I simply abstain.
I'm currently using a ViewSonic P220f from a friend after my 8 year old Sony GDM f500r was recently retired, both 21". My consoles are on a 34" Sony WEGA KV-34HS510.
When my tubes finally give out in a few years, I'll be looking for something far better than LCDs to replace them with.
This tired old refrain almost wears me out. With 5 minutes of Googling, you can find an awesome LCD> I'm a hard core gamer - I spent some time researching monitors and ended up with several different ones and they all work great. I've never had a dead pixel issue with any quality monitor I've purchased. I've never had a DOA. Lag on a quality LCD is immaterial to gaming, as is ghosting. If you are experiencing these issues, you have a shitty LCD. My current monitors are a pair of 30" Dells. Somehow, I always manage to score at the top of the scoreboard in COD4, TF2, etc...
If you can't find a flat panel that you want to game on, you aren't looking very hard. There are plenty out there. I recommend the Planar 2611W for a 26" monitor. These Dells are exceptionally nice - in fact, I had no idea 2560x1600 made that big a difference in enjoyment when playing a game. I will never go back to 1920x1200. Show me a CRT that does that resolution at 30" that isn't several thousand dollars (Do they even exist?).
So yeah - the tired BS about LCDs being unfit for gaming is just that - BS. I will gladly play you any day you want and we'll see who is superior. I'll have the "handicap" of the "laggy" LCD to go against your awesome skillz and CRT response.
They can make more selling google ads on any blog site than they ever could have getting published in a low-volume sifi rag.
Speaking from experience:
Bullshit.
Seriously. It's not as easy, nor as profitable, as you think. Furthermore, your stupid (and it really is stupid) assumption that a blog will provide the same kind of exposure is...well, exactly that: stupid. The magazines are used to find out who are the good authors. Somebody published in Analog is automatically considered better than Joe Fuckstick who posts his stories on a blog, no matter how many readers he has. The separation of wheat from chaff is largely done there.
(This excludes stuff like Jim Baen's Universe, which are online magazines of wonderful quality. You can get Analog and the rest through Fictionwise just fine, too, however, though that's not where the majority of their subscribers come from by any means.)
This is exactly right. I have a subscription to Analog - I have it because I like 90% of what Schmidt chooses for inclusion in the magazine. I read everything in the issues because I trust Schmidt's choices. That includes writers I've never heard of and stories that, on the face of it, look stupid - I still read them and am more often than not pleasantly surprised. But I read them because Stanely already did and said it was good.
I don't have the time nor inclination to read through hundreds of blogs to find someone good. I also have zero faith in 99.9% of the general internet wanna-be editors being able to pick out good stuff and point to it. If the time comes that there is an editor of a website that a) sticks around for the long term, b) is worth a shit and c) I agree with his/her choices - then I might consider occasionally reading the website - HOWEVER, I still would not read it regularly - simply because I can't pack it up and take it with me on a plane or walking around, to the park, etc... Analog I can roll up or slip into my pocket. I need no power to read it. Until a flexible display, low power pocket reader comes around, publishing on the web is not going to fly.
A few years ago I played Unreal Tournament on a PS2 using a keyboard and mouse. All consoles have USB connectors. I used my USB keyboard to set up my XBox Live account on my 360. I do hope that support for USB keyboards and mice hasn't taken a huge leap backwards. I guess some games might now allow the same reconfigurability of the controls as their PC counterparts do. This would be the fault of the game designer, not the console itself.
I also play the most recent in the Command and Conquer series on the XBox 360, but not tried it with a mouse yet. Might try that this evening.
What hardware would I need to encompass grand scale strategy games? Guess the CPU/memory in the 360 is a bit behind today's PC standards. I'm not too familiar with its specs.
All of the mouse/keyboard hacks on consoles that I've used (I admittedly have not used them all) have been problematic in one or more ways - most notably because the game itself isn't designed with a keyboard or mouse in mind - thus the aiming (with the mouse) is all wonky, unresponsive or does not move properly or any combination of those. The keyboard is equally as unresponsive or does things one wouldn't expect.
As far as strategy games goes, yes the memory limitation is a huge problem - graphics not so much on a modern console. The CPU is also a massive, massive limitation for large scale battles - that's why you don't see large scale RTS's on any console - it's just impossible to do.
Then you can get into things like massive multi-player online gaming - take Battlefield for instance. Battlefield 2 on a console is a joke (well, technically it doesn't even exist) - when you look at it on a PC from a gaming standpoint, there's just no comparison. This is because of the limitations of the console hardware and nothing else.
Honestly though, how is sharing a copy of a game you own a problem? You lend people books don't you? Or movies? What about movie/video game rental stores like Blockbuster or Hollywood Video? In short, explain how its a problem or there isn't one.
Are these serious questions? The answers are blatantly obvious. I'm no DRM fanboy, that's for sure - but are you seriously trying to compare sharing a copy of a game with loaning a book or DVD to a friend? In the first case, you now have TWO copies of said game (which is copyright infringement) and now you BOTH can enjoy the game AT THE SAME TIME. In your second and third cases, your friend can enjoy the content or you can, but not both (unless you both watch it together). I mean seriously... duh.
Unfortunately, your links are wrong. DRM is generally not meant to prevent piracy, it's meant to prevent 0 Day piracy and as long as it can between release and when the price drops from it's release price. That is the point of DRM, and in that it has had varying degrees of success.
Now, I am not saying that DRM is right or good or even necessary. In fact, I think DRM should be limited to the bare minimum of CD-KEY and/or the discs not being copyable by Joe-Average trying to make a quick copy for his friends. Anything beyond that is pretty pointless and just hassles paying customers.
Fine with me. I play games and the only 'PC' I own is an Ubuntu netbook. This would also stop people sticking with windows simply because they want to play the latest games.
The problem is I like playing on the PC and I hate playing most games on the console. I like FPSs. You can't design a good FPS for a console, since it doesn't have a keyboard and mouse. The best FPS player on a console will get schooled six ways from Sunday by a mediocre FPS player with a keyboard and mouse. A controller is not a precise mechanism, it's like taking an axe and trying to do delicate surgery.
Try to do RTS or other strategy games on a console - want to talk about a joke? The console doesn't have the hardware to encompass grand scale strategy games and the controls are laughable.
Judging by the number of self-proclaimed intelligent people who utterly failed to grasp the ending of A.I., yes, it was intellectually challenging.
Even if it did have many other serious flaws.
If by intellectually challenging, you mean "Why won't this square peg fit in this round hole?" then I agree with you. If you are implying anything more complicated than that, then you are completely insane.
So today we only have pseudo-SF movies, like "Minority Report", "Battlestar Galactica" and so forth (boy, am I going to be modded down today!) but whenever someone tries to make a movie even slightly intellectually challenging, like "A.I." he/she gets vilified and suffers dismal box-office failure.
Did you just seriously say AI was intellectually challenging? There was nothing "intellectually challenging" about AI. It was simply the worst SF movie ever made, and that's saying a lot. In fact, it was SF in name only - you talk about costume western that is Star Wars (and I don't necessarily disagree) - AI is nothing more than fluffy drama tear jerker that tried WAYYY too hard with ridiculously unbelievable characters, plot holes from here to the moon and horrible... absolutely HORRIBLE acting. There was absolutely NOTHING redeeming about AI, and the fact that you hold it up as something to be admired (intellectually challenging? Seriously?) leads me to believe you have absolutely no idea what good SF is. Your credibility in that department is pretty much shot.
quote?I think there have been other movies based on this novel--what of Spielberg's AI? Was that not a butchered version of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? also?/quote?
AI was the worst movie ever made. I have never come out of a theater more disappointed or disgusted. I want those two hours of my life back. Spielberg OWES ME TWO FUCKING HOURS!
Nope, the coupons were to mitigate the ass-pain caused by having to go out and buy one at all. There are still plenty of people who don't have satellite or cable, even though they can afford it, because they only watch the weather in the morning and the news in the evening or some such. To them it's an added expense for no added benefit; hence the ass-pain mitigating coupons.
Yes, there are still plenty of people, all 13 million of them. Of course, we should cater to those 13 million in the face of the other 313 million that DON'T use the analog frequency, which could be put to better use for THOSE people.
Yes, makes perfect sense - cater to the tiny minority to the detriment of the vast majority.
I mean, he ruined Apple once before, why not let him do it again?
A liar, a cheat, a complete idiot. He had it all! He's just what Apple needs in this day and age and will fit right in with the Enron, Auto makers and Banking executives!
The trouble here is that these people were only dressed up like Muslims. As an overall "culture", they are perfectly reasonable, calm, rational people, that make up 20% of the global population. I've encountered thousands and never encountered an elevated level of problems or violence levels.
Are they? I'm not arguing for or against your position that they are a reasonable culture - I simply don't know enough about the culture in detail to make a definitive statement one way or the other.
However, from what I do know, which I admit may be unbalanced, but I'd like to think it's at least somewhere close to reality, is the fact that the Muslim culture produces a lot more irrational terrorists that successfully and intentionally inflict harm on others than many/most other cultures currently in existence.
The fact that they make up 20% of the world population is immaterial. While on the face of it, it would seem that the amount of people who are peaceful vs the amount of people who are not, from a given culture, makes a difference in the assement, it doesn't. What you need to look at is the overall mentality of the culture. Muslim culture breeds more hatred and violence than other cultures - just take the fact that the middle east has been at war with itself for thousands of years if you want proof. It's a culture that, at it's roots, wants to kill non-believers. While 99% of that 20% (1,298,700,000 people) of world population may not follow the credo, the other 1% that do bear watching.
Now, the 20% of the world population comes back be a problem - the 1% is a large number when taken against 6.5 billion people (1,300,000) - whereas if you had 1% of Wiccan population on the planet, you'd have a tiny number and thus the damage they can/would/do/will inflict is insignificant compared to 1.3 million people from a given culture that are actively trying to kill you.
Bottom line, fearing "Muslim's" is irrational. Muslim's aren't a "problem culture". Your stereotype is wrong or at least so overly-broad as to be meaningless.
It's neither irrational nor so overly-broad as to be meaningless. It's reasonable to have a heightened sense of trepidation about a culture that has 1.3 million people that want you dead. Now, if you had said the reactions to it are irrational and/or meaningless, I would agree 100%. I, personally, would have no issues at all sitting next to a Muslim on a plane, nor would I have had a problem with them talking about the engines and such.
The problem is the reaction some people have to the reasonably heightened "fear" of the Muslim culture. The proper reaction is elevated caution, not outright (irrational) panic, which this incident is a perfect example of.
And THAT is the problem here. Your applying your stereotype too broadly because you don't know how to identify the actual 'problem culture'.
It's not that we don't know how to identify it, it's that it can't be identified. What's the difference between a brown man sweating because he's nervous about flying and one sweating because he's got a bomb under his coat? I don't know, do you? Most of the population couldn't visually tell the difference. The stereotype HAS to be broad, because it can't be narrowed.
Suppose a few Chinese men came to the US and were violently accosted by neonazi skinheads... and then returned to China and told their tale, and from then on, every white person who goes to china gets treated with "extra prudence" because they've identified "white people" as a "problem culture".
Would that be warranted? Of course not!
What's the difference?
Is it warranted? Nope, of course not (as you say) - but it's not irrational nor is it illogical. It would be a reasonable response by the population. But again, I am repeating myself to be sure this point is driven home, just because it's reasonable does not mean it's correct. But lackin
The crucial difference is between changing your own behaviour, and forcing someone else to change theirs. Stereotyping others in order to change your behaviour is fine. If those passengers had chosen to get off the planes themselves because they feared the Muslims were terrorists, then I doubt anyone would be criticising them. But no, because they expect other people to have their lives disrupted based on their prejudices, that's a very different thing, and it's fair game to criticise them.
This also isn't anything to do with any supposed race vs. culture distinction - it's still reasonable to stereotype in the way you describe based on race (or sex, come to that), but again crosses the line when you force others to do so.
No, it's not really reasonable to criticize the people who mentioned it to the airline - they spoke up about their fears (whether they were justified or not is immaterial) - the airlines dropped the ball and fucked everything up with their response. THEY are the ones that should be lambasted and strung up, not the people that alerted the airlines. Are they stupid? Yes, probably... but they aren't really the ones to blame for the problems the family in question encountered.
Those people didn't force others to detain the family - the airline chose to do that.
You are conflating prejudice based on race with prejudice based on culture. They're not the same thing, although there's a large amount of overlap. I think prejudice based on culture is slightly more reasonable, although still prone to much error. After all, culture affects behavior much more than race does.
Different cultures evidently produce terrorists at different rates. That seems factual. The unresolved question seems to be, to what extent is it reasonable and ethical to subject individuals from problematic cultures to greater scrutiny? Not at all? Is there a certain line that shouldn't be crossed? Is increased scrutiny ok, so long as rights aren't violated?
Fuck, I wish I hadn't already contributed to this article or I'd mod you up. You hit the nail on the head. For the record, it's reasonable and logical to profile based on culture. Our society takes it to the extreme (and beyond) and that is a definite problem. But the underlying idea(l) behind it is sound and perfectly reasonable.
Don't believe me? Nearly everyone does it every day. Walk down the street in a neighborhood you aren't familiar with or a town/city you aren't familiar with. You will automatically avoid people you are unfamiliar with. You will go to greater lengths to avoid people of a particular type of culture that you know to be problematic - take for example the gang culture. You might casually avoid someone dressed as a redneck - they are prone to problems, but it's minor and usually avoidable or resolvable. You will go to greater lengths to avoid someone dressed in "gang" culture. They are prone to greater problems/more violence and you are less likely to be able to resolve any conflict that arises.
The same goes for problem cultures from other countries. But - as I said, we go too far a lot of times in the US. You don't ban every redneck who wants to enter a business, just like you don't ban every gang banger who want to enter a business, nor should you overly scrutinize every person from a particular problem culture either. A reasonable level of prudence is required, something the greater population of the US seems to lack in many cases.
It just shows how much of what we go through is security theater. If they were really secure harmless comments about the engines or even bombs wouldn't matter as you couldn't get one on anyway. It's like signs at malls saying "no guns". Like some nutjob is going to see that and decide not to go kill a bunch of people. Real terrorists aren't going to make jokes.
Those signs have nothing to do with criminals being told not to carry guns into a place. They are there for legal reasons to restrict and notify those with concealed weapons permits (who are carrying) that the place of business does not allow guns on the premises. If they don't post the sign, concealed weapons are allowed by default, except in certain places (government buildings, etc...).
I have, and have had TW internet for years without having cable.
I have a 15Mb down / 1Mb up connection for $50 a month or something like that. No cable or phone required, no discount if I get cable or phone unless I get one of their "bundles."
I was using torrents to get my TV, but I actually received a C&D letter, specifically naming one of the shows I downloaded, when and from where. So I stopped using torrents. I source my TV from other places now.
The funny thing is, I didn't realize how Fscking awesome other other source(s) are. Back in the day, they kinda sucked and were a pain to use. Fast forward 8 - 10 years and wow, holy shit it's about 10x faster than using Bit Torrent and stuff is immediately available.
I'll leave it up to astute readers to figure out what the other source(s) are, since it's far less trackable than torrents without some active intervention on the part of the MPAA et al.
>Or until government regulates incandescent out of existence.
Which many of us hope will not happen. There is no suitable replacement for incandescent in MANY applications. My house has many such.
Flor is generally not dimable. Even those that claim to be really are barely and cost a fortune. Flor saves NO MONEY when dimmed, even if you can find expensive dimable ones. Flor bulbs do not fit in all fixtures, especially decorative ones and small ones. Flor bulbs are UGLY in many types of fixtures, period. Flor FIXTURES are UGLY in many types of applications. Flor light is not pleasing to many people- it is too white/blue or harsh. Flor fixtures often emit lots of RFI. Flor fixtures often emit noise. Flor lamps are not instantly on. Flor lamps are also not instantly 100% bright, many taking MINUTES to reach full brightness.
Until you can address all or most of those issues, there are very valid reasons to prefer incandescent lighting in many situations. I, for one, have replaced about 1/3 of all my lights with flor, but the remaining can't be because of many or all of the above reasons. If anything, tax incandescent lamps to make them cost parity with alternatives, but do not attempt to eliminate MY CHOICE until there is a truly suitable replacement.
I see these complaints when these types of stories come up and I have to laugh every time. It's obviously clear when people like you spout this bullshit that you've not used a modern, quality CFL. You're just regurgitating "problems" that you've heard, or at best, you're repeating problems you experienced in the 80's.
Here's your list of problems when compared to a modern CFL:
Flor saves NO MONEY when dimmed, even if you can find expensive dimable ones. Complete bullshit. Dimmable CFLs have 2 - 3 tubes, when dimmed, one tube, then two tubes, then all three tubes activate using (wait for it, 1/3, 2/3 or full power)
Flor bulbs do not fit in all fixtures, especially decorative ones and small ones. The only valid, actual problem you have here in this entire list.
Flor bulbs are UGLY in many types of fixtures, period. Completely subjective and thus not an actual problem.
Flor FIXTURES are UGLY in many types of applications. Completely subjective and thus not an actual problem.
Flor light is not pleasing to many people- it is too white/blue or harsh. You would not be able to tell the difference between a CFL and an incandescent bulb in a real world setting given a quality CFL at whatever color spectrum you choose.
Flor fixtures often emit lots of RFI. Don't buy cheap shit. Duh. This applies to any piece of electronics.
Flor fixtures often emit noise. Don't buy cheap shit. Duh. This applies to any piece of electronics.
Flor lamps are not instantly on. Complete bullshit. Not a lot more to say to this, except perhaps don't buy cheap shit.
Flor lamps are also not instantly 100% bright, many taking MINUTES to reach full brightness. Absolute, complete, utter bullshit. Don't buy cheap shit.
So, out of your entire list, exactly ONE thing can be applied to modern CFLs as a legitimate, actual problem. The rest of your list is complete bullshit, or at the very BEST entirely subjective.
So please, go investigate modern technology before you spout your overheard, archaic bullshit.
That's strange... I have replaced over 60 incandescent bulbs in my house - all of them about 4 years ago, maybe more.
Since then, I've had exactly one go out for no apparent reason (I've had 4 others go out because I had them in an enclosed fixture when the package explicitly said not for enclosed fixtures. I figured I'd try and see what happened... well, guess what... the package was right!).
So out of the 60+, only one failure in 4 years... I'm going to say that's a pretty decent rate.
I suspect you purchased cheap assed junk CFL's and are now wondering why they suck. Perhaps a less likely explanation is the power in your house is exceptionally attrocious and is killing your CFLs.
Either way, I've not seen the failure rates you have and neither have my neighbors that has switched their bulbs over. I have noticed a decrease in my energy usage (I keep a running graph detailing the last 9 years in my house).
I seriously suspect the problem is you and not the technology.
This is a good thing. The "protection" is decentralized, just like the greater internet. As such, you can't attack any one entity to compromise the protection. It's working as designed.
Slashdot Mirror
No plug-ins, not usable.
Needs to support an Adblock function at the bare minimum before it would be even marginally accepted by the masses. Mouse gestures would be nice. Those two things would go really far towards the acceptance of Chrome.
Does anyone "need" 1900x1200? I doubt it. "High-end" graphics haven't been used by anyone but a few people who look more for bragging rights than fun in gaming for years. Hell, what are you going to play on it anyways - all the MMORPG's are still designed to run on 5 year old hardware, and anything "intensive" like Crysis is more of a fucking tech demo than an actual playable game anyways. The fun games, except for the MMORPG's, now come out on the consoles first and maybe get a PC port if you're lucky a year later.
This was my stance for a long time. I've been running 1900x1200 for quite a while (several years) and figured that was pretty much all I'd ever need.
A ridiculous deal came along on a 30" Dell that runs at 2560x1600 and I bit the bullet and bought a pair of them to replace my 26" Planar's. I also upgraded my video card to a pair of GTX 280's to handle the resolution.
I honestly can't really accurately describe why the 2560x1600 is so much better than 1920x1200 because anything I say would have fallen on my deaf ears before I used the 2560x1600 resolution. But let me tell you, from someone who would have agreed with you 100% 8 months ago, 2560x1600 makes a WORLD of difference in games. I would not have thought this would be the case, and a statement like that would have been silly or wishful thinking... but the fact is, playing the games now feels more substantial and comfortable. It's a strange way to describe it - it's not like the game looks substantially better or anything - the gross visual differences between 1920x1200 are so minimal that you'd likely not notice. It's the subtle differences that make the games more enjoyable.
I will never go back to 1920x1200 voluntarily. 8 months ago I would have said anyone who said that is crazy, but after living with that resolution for awhile now, it really does make a huge difference.
Until VLC plays video's in RAR file without having to decompress them manually and until the developers stop being whiny bitches when people ask for functionality or offer patches they don't "agree" with, VLC is crap.
Someone already mentioned the WIN32 interface for VLC is utter garbage as well. Yeah, stick with mplayer or WMP classic or something. VLC is weak and the developers are primadonnas.
This is one of the reasons why I refuse to buy LCDs for gaming, both on my desktop and for consoles. Other factors include refresh rates, variable resolution, and numerous quality problems (dead or stuck pixels, color reproduction, viewing angle, brightness uniformity, etc).
Given a choice, nobody would prefer to play on a laggy ISP, so it's really awful that manufacturers don't inform about multiple-frame image processing delays on 60hz monitors.
CRT technology is so mature and LCD so comparatively half baked that I'm totally revolted by the general consensus to throw out completely superior performance in favor of smaller form factor (it's not like they're moved often).
I spent months last year looking for a flat panel to buy that I would want to game on, and came up empty handed, so I simply abstain.
I'm currently using a ViewSonic P220f from a friend after my 8 year old Sony GDM f500r was recently retired, both 21". My consoles are on a 34" Sony WEGA KV-34HS510.
When my tubes finally give out in a few years, I'll be looking for something far better than LCDs to replace them with.
This tired old refrain almost wears me out. With 5 minutes of Googling, you can find an awesome LCD> I'm a hard core gamer - I spent some time researching monitors and ended up with several different ones and they all work great. I've never had a dead pixel issue with any quality monitor I've purchased. I've never had a DOA. Lag on a quality LCD is immaterial to gaming, as is ghosting. If you are experiencing these issues, you have a shitty LCD. My current monitors are a pair of 30" Dells. Somehow, I always manage to score at the top of the scoreboard in COD4, TF2, etc...
If you can't find a flat panel that you want to game on, you aren't looking very hard. There are plenty out there. I recommend the Planar 2611W for a 26" monitor. These Dells are exceptionally nice - in fact, I had no idea 2560x1600 made that big a difference in enjoyment when playing a game. I will never go back to 1920x1200. Show me a CRT that does that resolution at 30" that isn't several thousand dollars (Do they even exist?).
So yeah - the tired BS about LCDs being unfit for gaming is just that - BS. I will gladly play you any day you want and we'll see who is superior. I'll have the "handicap" of the "laggy" LCD to go against your awesome skillz and CRT response.
They can make more selling google ads on any blog site than they ever could have getting published in a low-volume sifi rag.
Speaking from experience:
Bullshit.
Seriously. It's not as easy, nor as profitable, as you think. Furthermore, your stupid (and it really is stupid) assumption that a blog will provide the same kind of exposure is...well, exactly that: stupid. The magazines are used to find out who are the good authors. Somebody published in Analog is automatically considered better than Joe Fuckstick who posts his stories on a blog, no matter how many readers he has. The separation of wheat from chaff is largely done there.
(This excludes stuff like Jim Baen's Universe, which are online magazines of wonderful quality. You can get Analog and the rest through Fictionwise just fine, too, however, though that's not where the majority of their subscribers come from by any means.)
This is exactly right. I have a subscription to Analog - I have it because I like 90% of what Schmidt chooses for inclusion in the magazine. I read everything in the issues because I trust Schmidt's choices. That includes writers I've never heard of and stories that, on the face of it, look stupid - I still read them and am more often than not pleasantly surprised. But I read them because Stanely already did and said it was good.
I don't have the time nor inclination to read through hundreds of blogs to find someone good. I also have zero faith in 99.9% of the general internet wanna-be editors being able to pick out good stuff and point to it. If the time comes that there is an editor of a website that a) sticks around for the long term, b) is worth a shit and c) I agree with his/her choices - then I might consider occasionally reading the website - HOWEVER, I still would not read it regularly - simply because I can't pack it up and take it with me on a plane or walking around, to the park, etc... Analog I can roll up or slip into my pocket. I need no power to read it. Until a flexible display, low power pocket reader comes around, publishing on the web is not going to fly.
A few years ago I played Unreal Tournament on a PS2 using a keyboard and mouse. All consoles have USB connectors. I used my USB keyboard to set up my XBox Live account on my 360. I do hope that support for USB keyboards and mice hasn't taken a huge leap backwards. I guess some games might now allow the same reconfigurability of the controls as their PC counterparts do. This would be the fault of the game designer, not the console itself.
I also play the most recent in the Command and Conquer series on the XBox 360, but not tried it with a mouse yet. Might try that this evening.
What hardware would I need to encompass grand scale strategy games? Guess the CPU/memory in the 360 is a bit behind today's PC standards. I'm not too familiar with its specs.
All of the mouse/keyboard hacks on consoles that I've used (I admittedly have not used them all) have been problematic in one or more ways - most notably because the game itself isn't designed with a keyboard or mouse in mind - thus the aiming (with the mouse) is all wonky, unresponsive or does not move properly or any combination of those. The keyboard is equally as unresponsive or does things one wouldn't expect.
As far as strategy games goes, yes the memory limitation is a huge problem - graphics not so much on a modern console. The CPU is also a massive, massive limitation for large scale battles - that's why you don't see large scale RTS's on any console - it's just impossible to do.
Then you can get into things like massive multi-player online gaming - take Battlefield for instance. Battlefield 2 on a console is a joke (well, technically it doesn't even exist) - when you look at it on a PC from a gaming standpoint, there's just no comparison. This is because of the limitations of the console hardware and nothing else.
Honestly though, how is sharing a copy of a game you own a problem? You lend people books don't you? Or movies? What about movie/video game rental stores like Blockbuster or Hollywood Video? In short, explain how its a problem or there isn't one.
Are these serious questions? The answers are blatantly obvious. I'm no DRM fanboy, that's for sure - but are you seriously trying to compare sharing a copy of a game with loaning a book or DVD to a friend? In the first case, you now have TWO copies of said game (which is copyright infringement) and now you BOTH can enjoy the game AT THE SAME TIME. In your second and third cases, your friend can enjoy the content or you can, but not both (unless you both watch it together). I mean seriously... duh.
DRM scheme has been an failure
Unfortunately, your links are wrong. DRM is generally not meant to prevent piracy, it's meant to prevent 0 Day piracy and as long as it can between release and when the price drops from it's release price. That is the point of DRM, and in that it has had varying degrees of success.
Now, I am not saying that DRM is right or good or even necessary. In fact, I think DRM should be limited to the bare minimum of CD-KEY and/or the discs not being copyable by Joe-Average trying to make a quick copy for his friends. Anything beyond that is pretty pointless and just hassles paying customers.
Fine with me. I play games and the only 'PC' I own is an Ubuntu netbook. This would also stop people sticking with windows simply because they want to play the latest games.
The problem is I like playing on the PC and I hate playing most games on the console. I like FPSs. You can't design a good FPS for a console, since it doesn't have a keyboard and mouse. The best FPS player on a console will get schooled six ways from Sunday by a mediocre FPS player with a keyboard and mouse. A controller is not a precise mechanism, it's like taking an axe and trying to do delicate surgery.
Try to do RTS or other strategy games on a console - want to talk about a joke? The console doesn't have the hardware to encompass grand scale strategy games and the controls are laughable.
Judging by the number of self-proclaimed intelligent people who utterly failed to grasp the ending of A.I., yes, it was intellectually challenging.
Even if it did have many other serious flaws.
If by intellectually challenging, you mean "Why won't this square peg fit in this round hole?" then I agree with you. If you are implying anything more complicated than that, then you are completely insane.
So today we only have pseudo-SF movies, like "Minority Report", "Battlestar Galactica" and so forth (boy, am I going to be modded down today!) but whenever someone tries to make a movie even slightly intellectually challenging, like "A.I." he/she gets vilified and suffers dismal box-office failure.
Did you just seriously say AI was intellectually challenging? There was nothing "intellectually challenging" about AI. It was simply the worst SF movie ever made, and that's saying a lot. In fact, it was SF in name only - you talk about costume western that is Star Wars (and I don't necessarily disagree) - AI is nothing more than fluffy drama tear jerker that tried WAYYY too hard with ridiculously unbelievable characters, plot holes from here to the moon and horrible ... absolutely HORRIBLE acting. There was absolutely NOTHING redeeming about AI, and the fact that you hold it up as something to be admired (intellectually challenging? Seriously?) leads me to believe you have absolutely no idea what good SF is. Your credibility in that department is pretty much shot.
They say this like it's a positive recommendation or something. It's not.
No shit - that was the first thing I thought as well. Eagle Eye was absolutely horrible. Why would you want to be associated with that?
quote?I think there have been other movies based on this novel--what of Spielberg's AI? Was that not a butchered version of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? also?/quote?
AI was the worst movie ever made. I have never come out of a theater more disappointed or disgusted. I want those two hours of my life back. Spielberg OWES ME TWO FUCKING HOURS!
AI is the movie to judge all bad movies by.
The Microsoft-IBM co-development of OS/2 stopped at version 1.2.
The "taskbar" wasn't introduced until OS/2 3.0, but the "Minimized Window Viewer" was present in 2.x.
There wasn't a taskbar per se, but the Launchpad was a obvious precursor to it. Wasn't the Launchpad concept presented before 3.0? I believe it was.
Nope, the coupons were to mitigate the ass-pain caused by having to go out and buy one at all. There are still plenty of people who don't have satellite or cable, even though they can afford it, because they only watch the weather in the morning and the news in the evening or some such. To them it's an added expense for no added benefit; hence the ass-pain mitigating coupons.
Yes, there are still plenty of people, all 13 million of them. Of course, we should cater to those 13 million in the face of the other 313 million that DON'T use the analog frequency, which could be put to better use for THOSE people.
Yes, makes perfect sense - cater to the tiny minority to the detriment of the vast majority.
I mean, he ruined Apple once before, why not let him do it again?
A liar, a cheat, a complete idiot. He had it all! He's just what Apple needs in this day and age and will fit right in with the Enron, Auto makers and Banking executives!
The trouble here is that these people were only dressed up like Muslims. As an overall "culture", they are perfectly reasonable, calm, rational people, that make up 20% of the global population. I've encountered thousands and never encountered an elevated level of problems or violence levels.
Are they? I'm not arguing for or against your position that they are a reasonable culture - I simply don't know enough about the culture in detail to make a definitive statement one way or the other.
However, from what I do know, which I admit may be unbalanced, but I'd like to think it's at least somewhere close to reality, is the fact that the Muslim culture produces a lot more irrational terrorists that successfully and intentionally inflict harm on others than many/most other cultures currently in existence.
The fact that they make up 20% of the world population is immaterial. While on the face of it, it would seem that the amount of people who are peaceful vs the amount of people who are not, from a given culture, makes a difference in the assement, it doesn't. What you need to look at is the overall mentality of the culture. Muslim culture breeds more hatred and violence than other cultures - just take the fact that the middle east has been at war with itself for thousands of years if you want proof. It's a culture that, at it's roots, wants to kill non-believers. While 99% of that 20% (1,298,700,000 people) of world population may not follow the credo, the other 1% that do bear watching.
Now, the 20% of the world population comes back be a problem - the 1% is a large number when taken against 6.5 billion people (1,300,000) - whereas if you had 1% of Wiccan population on the planet, you'd have a tiny number and thus the damage they can/would/do/will inflict is insignificant compared to 1.3 million people from a given culture that are actively trying to kill you.
Bottom line, fearing "Muslim's" is irrational. Muslim's aren't a "problem culture". Your stereotype is wrong or at least so overly-broad as to be meaningless.
It's neither irrational nor so overly-broad as to be meaningless. It's reasonable to have a heightened sense of trepidation about a culture that has 1.3 million people that want you dead. Now, if you had said the reactions to it are irrational and/or meaningless, I would agree 100%. I, personally, would have no issues at all sitting next to a Muslim on a plane, nor would I have had a problem with them talking about the engines and such.
The problem is the reaction some people have to the reasonably heightened "fear" of the Muslim culture. The proper reaction is elevated caution, not outright (irrational) panic, which this incident is a perfect example of.
And THAT is the problem here. Your applying your stereotype too broadly because you don't know how to identify the actual 'problem culture'.
It's not that we don't know how to identify it, it's that it can't be identified. What's the difference between a brown man sweating because he's nervous about flying and one sweating because he's got a bomb under his coat? I don't know, do you? Most of the population couldn't visually tell the difference. The stereotype HAS to be broad, because it can't be narrowed.
Suppose a few Chinese men came to the US and were violently accosted by neonazi skinheads... and then returned to China and told their tale, and from then on, every white person who goes to china gets treated with "extra prudence" because they've identified "white people" as a "problem culture".
Would that be warranted? Of course not!
What's the difference?
Is it warranted? Nope, of course not (as you say) - but it's not irrational nor is it illogical. It would be a reasonable response by the population. But again, I am repeating myself to be sure this point is driven home, just because it's reasonable does not mean it's correct. But lackin
The crucial difference is between changing your own behaviour, and forcing someone else to change theirs. Stereotyping others in order to change your behaviour is fine. If those passengers had chosen to get off the planes themselves because they feared the Muslims were terrorists, then I doubt anyone would be criticising them. But no, because they expect other people to have their lives disrupted based on their prejudices, that's a very different thing, and it's fair game to criticise them.
This also isn't anything to do with any supposed race vs. culture distinction - it's still reasonable to stereotype in the way you describe based on race (or sex, come to that), but again crosses the line when you force others to do so.
No, it's not really reasonable to criticize the people who mentioned it to the airline - they spoke up about their fears (whether they were justified or not is immaterial) - the airlines dropped the ball and fucked everything up with their response. THEY are the ones that should be lambasted and strung up, not the people that alerted the airlines. Are they stupid? Yes, probably... but they aren't really the ones to blame for the problems the family in question encountered.
Those people didn't force others to detain the family - the airline chose to do that.
You are conflating prejudice based on race with prejudice based on culture. They're not the same thing, although there's a large amount of overlap. I think prejudice based on culture is slightly more reasonable, although still prone to much error. After all, culture affects behavior much more than race does.
Different cultures evidently produce terrorists at different rates. That seems factual. The unresolved question seems to be, to what extent is it reasonable and ethical to subject individuals from problematic cultures to greater scrutiny? Not at all? Is there a certain line that shouldn't be crossed? Is increased scrutiny ok, so long as rights aren't violated?
Fuck, I wish I hadn't already contributed to this article or I'd mod you up. You hit the nail on the head. For the record, it's reasonable and logical to profile based on culture. Our society takes it to the extreme (and beyond) and that is a definite problem. But the underlying idea(l) behind it is sound and perfectly reasonable.
Don't believe me? Nearly everyone does it every day. Walk down the street in a neighborhood you aren't familiar with or a town/city you aren't familiar with. You will automatically avoid people you are unfamiliar with. You will go to greater lengths to avoid people of a particular type of culture that you know to be problematic - take for example the gang culture. You might casually avoid someone dressed as a redneck - they are prone to problems, but it's minor and usually avoidable or resolvable. You will go to greater lengths to avoid someone dressed in "gang" culture. They are prone to greater problems/more violence and you are less likely to be able to resolve any conflict that arises.
The same goes for problem cultures from other countries. But - as I said, we go too far a lot of times in the US. You don't ban every redneck who wants to enter a business, just like you don't ban every gang banger who want to enter a business, nor should you overly scrutinize every person from a particular problem culture either. A reasonable level of prudence is required, something the greater population of the US seems to lack in many cases.
It just shows how much of what we go through is security theater. If they were really secure harmless comments about the engines or even bombs wouldn't matter as you couldn't get one on anyway. It's like signs at malls saying "no guns". Like some nutjob is going to see that and decide not to go kill a bunch of people. Real terrorists aren't going to make jokes.
Those signs have nothing to do with criminals being told not to carry guns into a place. They are there for legal reasons to restrict and notify those with concealed weapons permits (who are carrying) that the place of business does not allow guns on the premises. If they don't post the sign, concealed weapons are allowed by default, except in certain places (government buildings, etc...).
I have, and have had TW internet for years without having cable.
I have a 15Mb down / 1Mb up connection for $50 a month or something like that. No cable or phone required, no discount if I get cable or phone unless I get one of their "bundles."
I was using torrents to get my TV, but I actually received a C&D letter, specifically naming one of the shows I downloaded, when and from where. So I stopped using torrents. I source my TV from other places now.
The funny thing is, I didn't realize how Fscking awesome other other source(s) are. Back in the day, they kinda sucked and were a pain to use. Fast forward 8 - 10 years and wow, holy shit it's about 10x faster than using Bit Torrent and stuff is immediately available.
I'll leave it up to astute readers to figure out what the other source(s) are, since it's far less trackable than torrents without some active intervention on the part of the MPAA et al.
>Or until government regulates incandescent out of existence.
Which many of us hope will not happen. There is no suitable replacement for incandescent in MANY applications. My house has many such.
Flor is generally not dimable. Even those that claim to be really are barely and cost a fortune.
Flor saves NO MONEY when dimmed, even if you can find expensive dimable ones.
Flor bulbs do not fit in all fixtures, especially decorative ones and small ones.
Flor bulbs are UGLY in many types of fixtures, period.
Flor FIXTURES are UGLY in many types of applications.
Flor light is not pleasing to many people- it is too white/blue or harsh.
Flor fixtures often emit lots of RFI.
Flor fixtures often emit noise.
Flor lamps are not instantly on.
Flor lamps are also not instantly 100% bright, many taking MINUTES to reach full brightness.
Until you can address all or most of those issues, there are very valid reasons to prefer incandescent lighting in many situations. I, for one, have replaced about 1/3 of all my lights with flor, but the remaining can't be because of many or all of the above reasons. If anything, tax incandescent lamps to make them cost parity with alternatives, but do not attempt to eliminate MY CHOICE until there is a truly suitable replacement.
I see these complaints when these types of stories come up and I have to laugh every time. It's obviously clear when people like you spout this bullshit that you've not used a modern, quality CFL. You're just regurgitating "problems" that you've heard, or at best, you're repeating problems you experienced in the 80's.
Here's your list of problems when compared to a modern CFL:
Complete bullshit. Dimmable CFLs have 2 - 3 tubes, when dimmed, one tube, then two tubes, then all three tubes activate using (wait for it, 1/3, 2/3 or full power)
The only valid, actual problem you have here in this entire list.
Completely subjective and thus not an actual problem.
Completely subjective and thus not an actual problem.
You would not be able to tell the difference between a CFL and an incandescent bulb in a real world setting given a quality CFL at whatever color spectrum you choose.
Don't buy cheap shit. Duh. This applies to any piece of electronics.
Don't buy cheap shit. Duh. This applies to any piece of electronics.
Complete bullshit. Not a lot more to say to this, except perhaps don't buy cheap shit.
Absolute, complete, utter bullshit. Don't buy cheap shit.
So, out of your entire list, exactly ONE thing can be applied to modern CFLs as a legitimate, actual problem. The rest of your list is complete bullshit, or at the very BEST entirely subjective.
So please, go investigate modern technology before you spout your overheard, archaic bullshit.
That's strange... I have replaced over 60 incandescent bulbs in my house - all of them about 4 years ago, maybe more.
Since then, I've had exactly one go out for no apparent reason (I've had 4 others go out because I had them in an enclosed fixture when the package explicitly said not for enclosed fixtures. I figured I'd try and see what happened... well, guess what... the package was right!).
So out of the 60+, only one failure in 4 years... I'm going to say that's a pretty decent rate.
I suspect you purchased cheap assed junk CFL's and are now wondering why they suck. Perhaps a less likely explanation is the power in your house is exceptionally attrocious and is killing your CFLs.
Either way, I've not seen the failure rates you have and neither have my neighbors that has switched their bulbs over. I have noticed a decrease in my energy usage (I keep a running graph detailing the last 9 years in my house).
I seriously suspect the problem is you and not the technology.
Real men run as root. Sudo is for pussies.
Add mine too. Across all my servers, those that still use port 22 get probed all the time. The ones I've changed to different high numbered ports = 0.
This is a good thing. The "protection" is decentralized, just like the greater internet. As such, you can't attack any one entity to compromise the protection. It's working as designed.