You do anything other than word processing and programming (anything Adobe, for starters)
You work with the web at all (Flash, easily test IE, FF, Opera and Safari)
You hate working with the command line
You want your hardware to work out of the box without any tweaking
Again, games
You *gasp* prefer the Windows interface, and hate the prospect of tweaking a window manager to make it behave the way you want
You own a hundred apps that were made for Windows (and don't want to start click-and-pray emulation in Linux)
At the end of the day, why would I switch to Linux? So I have the source? No thanks. For the free software? Windows has all the free software I need. For the interface? The Windows interface is way more polished. Because it's free? So was Windows. Came with my computer. I have legal copies of XP Pro, XP Home, Media Center and Vista, and I've never paid for any of them.
I think it's great that you guys love Linux, but I'm perfectly happy, thanks.
I've been running Vista since it first came it. It performs fine. It doesn't crash. It adds a bunch of new features that are very welcome (everything from the little bars in Explorer that show HD usage to file indexing). And yes, I use it for gaming, and haven't noticed any real slowdown. And it makes installing anything absolutely painless. Generally, you don't even need to run installers anymore -- just pop in the driver disk, Vista will search it for any necessary files, and it installs everything you need for you.
And no, I'm not a newcomer to the OS world. Until recently, I had two XP computers, a PowerBook, a Linux server, and a Sparc (yeah, I'm so oldschool).
I understand that it's not a huge leap forward in the OS world, but these claims that it's going to singlehandedly bring down Microsoft can generally only come from people who haven't used it.
As for those who claim Vista is brutally expensive, well, it's certainly expensive compared to Linux. Compared to OSX, though, it's a steal. To explain:
Let's poorly assume you bought Windows 95. It cost you $210. If you purchased every upgrade, you moved to 98 for $110, XP for $100 - $150, and Vista for $200 (Home Premium, which is all most people will ever need). In total, you've spent $620.
Windows 95 came out in 1995; Mac OS 8 came out in 1997. Let's assume you bought OS 8 when it came out, and bought every upgrade (which Apple users do almost without exception; I can't actually think of a single person I know who has a Mac and hasn't purchased every OS upgrade). Upgrading to 8.5 (a necessary move for using a lot of hardware) cost you $100. OS 9? $130. OS X? $130. OS X.1? $130. Same goes for OS X.2-5. In total, you've spent $1,110 since you first bought OS 8.
Okay, NOW you can come back to me and complain about the price of Vista. Personally, I find it downright reasonable.
The problem here is one I've been warning people about all along. Unlike XP, Vista, or OS X, when you use Linux, you do not have control over your computer. Nobody does. All your work is at risk; all your data, workflow, applications, etc. The computer can stop responding to you based on nothing whatsoever; you accept this behavior when you install it. The current event is one example; all you need are bad drivers or another compile screwup (I've had several already) where your app doesn't build correctly, and you're down. And in this case, as TFA notes, you're down *and* nobody has a bloody clue how to fix it. Which Microsoft will happily sell you software to combat.
If you don't support software that enables the seller to provide you with support after install it, you're at risk. This is true of productivity software such as editors and image processing applications, and it is even more so for an OS, where *everything* you do can be affected. I rejected Linux as a serious use platform for myself and my businesses because of the lack of any production-ready software on Linux (with, granted, several notable exceptions, but the first person to use the phrase "Gimp" or "OpenOffice" in my presence obviously has never actually tried real production with either); been on XP and Vista since I left Win98 (though I've used OS X a lot in the last two years as well). I even run servers on it (WAMP is fantastic). And Windows is getting better all the time.
You may have never noticed a network drop. Actually, yes. I have three computers on the network, one of them being a server I use for web development under constant access, and I certainly would have noticed a network drop while I was listening to music.
Is that the definition of irony? My experience with Linux has not required me to compile anything for a few years now. And, out of the box, Linux supports much much more hardware than Windows. When was the last time you ran Linux? I've used Linux off and on over the last five years, and mark my words: Not once have I had a Linux install work 100% out of the box (or image, so to speak). And the last time I mucked around with Linux was about a week ago.
Like I said, Vista's not perfect, but it'll all a tradeoff. Linux is simply the system that's given me the most headaches.
If I used Vista [...] Funny how so many people with gripes against Vista are yelling from the sidelines without any first-hand experience.
I've never noticed a drop in network speed when playing audio. Nor does Vista crash on me. Nor have I had any driver issues. My Vista experience has been wonderful and painless, and from talking to other people, it seems like that's the case nine times out of ten. Of course there are bugs -- when you write an operating system taking several billion possible computer configurations into account, at some point something's not going to line up. That doesn't make the operating system worthless. And trust me, in all my years of running Windows, 3.0 to Vista, I've never come as close to throwing my computer out the window as I have trying to maintain any Linux distribution.
Vista's not perfect, but I'd still gladly choose it over any OS that forces me to compile things myself to get things working properly or buy an entirely new set of hardware just to run it.
Seriously? I've built countless computers in my time. I've installed various forms of Linux from time to time. There's no comparison. When I'm installing Windows, I click "Next" a couple times, walk away, and when I come back I'm looking at the Windows desktop. Sometimes that's all I need -- other times, I'll need to pop in the CD that came with the motherboard, click "Next" a couple times. Pop in the video card CD, click "Next" a couple times. And you have a perfect install.
But it gets better. If I want to install Microsoft Office, I put in the Office CD and click "Next" a couple times. If I want to install Photoshop, I put in the Photoshop CD and click "Next" a couple times. Are you noticing a pattern? How can you not be able to install Windows? I've seen some very low-IQ'd people have absolutely no trouble.
If you want to install Linux, you don't pop the CD in and click "Next". And when it's been installed, odds are really good that you don't have all your drivers (I've never installed Linux and had everything work out-of-the-box). And most users don't even know what a driver is. And installing them is hardly a matter of inserting a CD and clicking "Next".
I also noticed that you said "easy Linux distro". What do you count as easy? I don't think it gets easier than clicking "Next".
There are reasons to go widescreen, and I have to say that after doing a bunch of work on my widescreen PowerBook, I'm staying widescreen from here on in.
I admit that it's funny seeing all these students walking around with widescreen laptops that they never use for anything but Word (in which case you're exactly right -- normal word processing on a widescreen is actually worse). But the moment you load up Photoshop (or Illustrator, Flash, etc), you'll understand why widescreen is so great. It makes it possible to have a lot on the screen and still have a clear view of what you're working on.
That said, that's why I'm sticking with widescreen. It seems that most people, though, buy widescreen laptops because they're better for watching DVDs.
Actually, yesterday I took a stopwatch to my computers to compare their boot times (comparing my new PowerBook G4 1670 with 1gb of RAM and my old Athlon 1700+ desktop with 768mb of RAM).
Both computers are running a similar load of software at boot. The PC boots with Palm Desktop, Rainlender, and a web server (Abyss) while the Mac boots with Quicksilver and a web server (Apache). Other than that, everything else is pretty standard--audio drivers, video drivers, tablet drivers, and so on. Most of these things are present on both computers. The Mac is a month or two old, the PC hasn't been formatted in two years or so.
Everything timed at home with a stopwatch.
First up--the amount of time it takes from pushing the power button until you have a usable login screen. Mac--139 seconds PC--38 seconds
Next--the amount of time it takes from entering your password until you have an idle workspace (on Windows, this was when things stopped loading in the system tray, on OSX this was when the Finder menu appeared completely). Mac--50 seconds PC--9 seconds
So, complete boot time (plus whatever time it takes to enter a username and/or password)... Mac--189 seconds PC--47 seconds
Finally--the amount of time from the time you click "shutdown" until your computer is powered off. Mac--53 seconds PC--11 seconds
So, the time it takes to do a complete reboot... Mac--242 seconds PC--58 seconds
Instant-on would be fantastic if it could recover from crashes. There's nothing more frustrating than waiting three minutes for my laptop to boot.
I'm an ad junkie. I'm enrolled in a digital design program at a local college. I read Communication Arts. I regularly sit down with a good friend who does marketing work for several major companies and we disect current campaigns.
Yet, my computer at home blocks ads. Why? Because I'm on a dial-up connection. I live in a bedroom community that doesn't have any alternatives. At school I have all the bandwidth you could ever need, but when I'm surfing at home I don't have the time to wait to download advertisements.
But it doesn't stop there. I won't just rip out ads -- I'll rip out entire websites. I was getting frustrated with the load times for a popular local information website and discovered that browsing through a single page sent me upwards of 200kb. I wrote a simple script that took that exact same page, tore out the ads, tore of the JavaScript, tore out everything that wasn't pure content. The result is an average 10-20kb page, formatted with some nice CSS.
Maybe it's not totally ethical. But I just don't have the time to deal with it any other way. And things are not getting any better. I realized that we'd hit a new low when I started seeing ads with embedded movie trailers. Note to web designers: not everyone has high-speed internet, and it's not fair to force people to go high-speed when it's not always an option.
I'll echo what I'm hearing a lot: Google Ads got it right.
You missed a couple often-overlooked Zelda games. Namely, the two CD-I Zelda games as well as the two BS Zelda games. They were all very much part of Zelda lore. Well, maybe not the BS Zeldas so much.
No kidding. If it's a Halo movie that stars Durga, Jan, Rani, Kamal, and Jersey, I'll be there opening night.
Make a movie about Master Chief blowing up alien scum... *shrugs* why would I bother? I'd much rather hear about how our flawed heroes deal with the news of an impending alien invasion.
But I trust the fine folks at Bungie. They know what can be done with a good license in the right hands *hugs ilovebees DVD*
Really? Is this Staples in Canada, or the US? I worked at Staples for a year (in Canada) and saw so much fraud it wasn't funny. People return items all the time that we should absolutely not return. A biggie is people buying printers, using the ink cartridges until they're dry, then returning the printer. And the managers would do it.
Then again, is it fraud when you know it's fraud and do it anyway? Most of the managers know when something is up, and they play along anyway. A little fraud is easier to deal with than an angry customer, I guess.
September? Misinformation? Last I heard, the official word was that Japan's getting it in September and the North American release will be within a month, two months absolute tops.
Games as a tool for spreading religion doesn't work. It's exactly why I don't listen to much Christian music -- I hate listening to the 'salvation message' in every track on every CD (I'm saying this as a Christian who has worked at a Christian bookstore for a year -- there really is some good Christian music, but most of it is utter crap lyrically). People don't want to play a game that's trying to convert them.
On the other hand, religious video games can be fantastic. Final Fantasy Tactics, anyone? Love it or hate it, Xenogears?
"Christian" video games can be just fine. The problem is that most "Christian" publishers have the mentality that if it's not 'saving souls' it's not worth publishing. It's all about conversion. And I wish it wasn't so.
Someone is going to spend $20 million or $30 million or $40 million...
Funny, since I remember that the budget for Final Fantasy IX was already $40 million... and that was still on the original Playstation. I have no doubt they've gone higher since.
Likewise, I am also sick and tired of bigots and intolerant people. The difference being, the people I am sick and tired of are people like you.
Is Card a "dispicable (sic) human", "outrageous bigot", and "really not a nice guy" who is likely to "turn on a large segment of his fans"?
Obviously the largest point here would be Card's opinion of homosexuality. Let's take a look at the interview you linked to.
So I dutifully ask, "How do you feel about the Mormon Church's decision to raise over $1.5 million for initiatives banning gay marriage in California, Alaska and Hawaii?"
Card raises his voice. "No, what they've done is oppose efforts to apply the word 'marriage' to a homosexual couple! People are treating it as if they were seeking out opportunities to persecute somebody else! They're simply opposing changing the word 'marriage' to apply to something it's never applied to."
Okay, any problem there? If anything, your post just proved Mr. Card's point: making the argument something it isn't.
"I find the comparison between civil rights based on race and supposed new rights being granted for what amounts to deviant behavior to be really kind of ridiculous. There is no comparison. A black as a person does not by being black harm anyone. Gay rights is a collective delusion that's being attempted. And the idea of 'gay marriage' -- it's hard to find a ridiculous enough comparison."
Opinions? Is homosexuality deviant behavior? Any sociologist would agree. Is it amoral? Interestingly, that doesn't even enter the picture. Is a homosexual marriage different than a heterosexual marriage? Absolutely, for both sociological and biological reasons. Card argues (in other articles, most specifically "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality") that homosexual 'marriages' are different from heterosexual marriages in many important -- arguably fundamental -- ways. Thus, the term 'marriage' does not work.
Did I miss the part where Card says "kill the homosexuals"? "Make them sit at the back of the bus"? Because all I'm seeing is someone being called an "outrageous bigot" because his opinion differs from yours. And then you jump from Card saying that homosexuals are using the term 'marriage' erroneously to expecting him to "turn on a large segment of his fans."
Out of the blue, I took your recommendation and rented Primer this evening... Wow, no kidding, great film. It should be also mentioned that the lead actor also wrote, directed, and scored the entire film for $7,000 -- and took home Best Drama at Sundance last year.
I'm one of those people that usually only buys games used. I'm a lowly university student -- I can't afford to pay full price unless it's a game I'm REALLY looking forward to and want to support. However, I noticed a month ago that, oddly enough, the used PC game section at the EBs in my city (Winnipeg) have disappeared. I wonder if they've gotten too worried about pirating?
Wow. I'm friends with someone who was one of the key translators for the NIV (New International Version, one of the most popular translations along with the KJV). I'm not saying a translation error has never been made, but to cry conspiracy is, well, a little unfounded. If you hear someone say, "the Bible is wrong because the original Hebrew actually says this", I'd suggest learning Hebrew yourself and you'll discover that this is, in fact, a load a bullocks.
"[...] if you actually care about framerate (and not just how big that video card looks), you get Linux and run some (not all) games there."
Ouch. More and more games are being ported to Linux, but I'm sorry to say that framerate is not one of the things that will make you want to switch. Out of the box, games generally have much better framerates in Windows than their Linux counterparts unless you've taken a couple hours to tweak the hell out of your drivers and game settings.
"News flash: Source is not that fucking innovative. Just about everything Source had, Halo 2 had also, including the Havok engine[.]"
I'd have to disagree. Source is actually amazingly innovative, and the physics are only a very small part of that. The big feature would be the facial animations, which are insurmountably better than any game we've seen before. Put simply, Source has killer technology behind it that very few engines come even remotely close to.
"[...] loading is far slower and more frequent than in Doom 3 [...]"
The difference being that Half-Life 2 runs just find on my computer, while Doom 3 could barely chug anything out.
"[...] you get a cool-looking loading progress bar, not just the word "loading".
That's a gripe against the game, not against the engine. Yes, a loading bar would be nice, but it isn't exactly a 'killer game feature'. The engine is capable of it, Half-Life 2 just didn't do it. Don't ask me why.
"[...] during the CS:Source beta test, all you had to do to cheat was have "sv_cheats 1" in a config file on your local machine, which would get replicated to the server."
What? You could cheat in a beta? Could you use that cheat in the final release? No? I'm not 100% sure about this specific situation, but cheats are usually available in betas for testing purposes. It just makes sense.
The Source engine is one of the most advanced engines out there right now. I'll grant you the fact that Steam really, really stinks, but I have a feeling that we'll see the end of it pretty soon (as the Source engine doesn't depend on Steam in any way and Valve has gotten nothing but death threats since it came out).
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, and, uh, Linux :)
Nope. It's built on Google Gears, which is only available for Windows, Mac (FireFox only), and Windows Mobile 5/6.
At the end of the day, why would I switch to Linux? So I have the source? No thanks. For the free software? Windows has all the free software I need. For the interface? The Windows interface is way more polished. Because it's free? So was Windows. Came with my computer. I have legal copies of XP Pro, XP Home, Media Center and Vista, and I've never paid for any of them.
I think it's great that you guys love Linux, but I'm perfectly happy, thanks.
Really, I just don't get it.
I've been running Vista since it first came it. It performs fine. It doesn't crash. It adds a bunch of new features that are very welcome (everything from the little bars in Explorer that show HD usage to file indexing). And yes, I use it for gaming, and haven't noticed any real slowdown. And it makes installing anything absolutely painless. Generally, you don't even need to run installers anymore -- just pop in the driver disk, Vista will search it for any necessary files, and it installs everything you need for you.
And no, I'm not a newcomer to the OS world. Until recently, I had two XP computers, a PowerBook, a Linux server, and a Sparc (yeah, I'm so oldschool).
I understand that it's not a huge leap forward in the OS world, but these claims that it's going to singlehandedly bring down Microsoft can generally only come from people who haven't used it.
As for those who claim Vista is brutally expensive, well, it's certainly expensive compared to Linux. Compared to OSX, though, it's a steal. To explain:
Let's poorly assume you bought Windows 95. It cost you $210. If you purchased every upgrade, you moved to 98 for $110, XP for $100 - $150, and Vista for $200 (Home Premium, which is all most people will ever need). In total, you've spent $620.
Windows 95 came out in 1995; Mac OS 8 came out in 1997. Let's assume you bought OS 8 when it came out, and bought every upgrade (which Apple users do almost without exception; I can't actually think of a single person I know who has a Mac and hasn't purchased every OS upgrade). Upgrading to 8.5 (a necessary move for using a lot of hardware) cost you $100. OS 9? $130. OS X? $130. OS X.1? $130. Same goes for OS X.2-5. In total, you've spent $1,110 since you first bought OS 8.
Okay, NOW you can come back to me and complain about the price of Vista. Personally, I find it downright reasonable.
The problem here is one I've been warning people about all along. Unlike XP, Vista, or OS X, when you use Linux, you do not have control over your computer. Nobody does. All your work is at risk; all your data, workflow, applications, etc. The computer can stop responding to you based on nothing whatsoever; you accept this behavior when you install it. The current event is one example; all you need are bad drivers or another compile screwup (I've had several already) where your app doesn't build correctly, and you're down. And in this case, as TFA notes, you're down *and* nobody has a bloody clue how to fix it. Which Microsoft will happily sell you software to combat.
If you don't support software that enables the seller to provide you with support after install it, you're at risk. This is true of productivity software such as editors and image processing applications, and it is even more so for an OS, where *everything* you do can be affected. I rejected Linux as a serious use platform for myself and my businesses because of the lack of any production-ready software on Linux (with, granted, several notable exceptions, but the first person to use the phrase "Gimp" or "OpenOffice" in my presence obviously has never actually tried real production with either); been on XP and Vista since I left Win98 (though I've used OS X a lot in the last two years as well). I even run servers on it (WAMP is fantastic). And Windows is getting better all the time.
. (grain of salt)
I've never noticed a drop in network speed when playing audio. Nor does Vista crash on me. Nor have I had any driver issues. My Vista experience has been wonderful and painless, and from talking to other people, it seems like that's the case nine times out of ten. Of course there are bugs -- when you write an operating system taking several billion possible computer configurations into account, at some point something's not going to line up. That doesn't make the operating system worthless. And trust me, in all my years of running Windows, 3.0 to Vista, I've never come as close to throwing my computer out the window as I have trying to maintain any Linux distribution.
Vista's not perfect, but I'd still gladly choose it over any OS that forces me to compile things myself to get things working properly or buy an entirely new set of hardware just to run it.
Seriously? I've built countless computers in my time. I've installed various forms of Linux from time to time. There's no comparison. When I'm installing Windows, I click "Next" a couple times, walk away, and when I come back I'm looking at the Windows desktop. Sometimes that's all I need -- other times, I'll need to pop in the CD that came with the motherboard, click "Next" a couple times. Pop in the video card CD, click "Next" a couple times. And you have a perfect install.
But it gets better. If I want to install Microsoft Office, I put in the Office CD and click "Next" a couple times. If I want to install Photoshop, I put in the Photoshop CD and click "Next" a couple times. Are you noticing a pattern? How can you not be able to install Windows? I've seen some very low-IQ'd people have absolutely no trouble.
If you want to install Linux, you don't pop the CD in and click "Next". And when it's been installed, odds are really good that you don't have all your drivers (I've never installed Linux and had everything work out-of-the-box). And most users don't even know what a driver is. And installing them is hardly a matter of inserting a CD and clicking "Next".
I also noticed that you said "easy Linux distro". What do you count as easy? I don't think it gets easier than clicking "Next".
"Thus, God cannot make 2 + 2 equal 5, God cannot both simultaneously exist and not exist, and God cannot lie and tell the truth at the same time."
Makes me wonder if Austin Cline ever took a philosophy class. Sure doesn't sound like it.
I admit that it's funny seeing all these students walking around with widescreen laptops that they never use for anything but Word (in which case you're exactly right -- normal word processing on a widescreen is actually worse). But the moment you load up Photoshop (or Illustrator, Flash, etc), you'll understand why widescreen is so great. It makes it possible to have a lot on the screen and still have a clear view of what you're working on.
That said, that's why I'm sticking with widescreen. It seems that most people, though, buy widescreen laptops because they're better for watching DVDs.
Oh, I should note that this was Windows XP Pro SP2 and OSX 10.3.
Both computers are running a similar load of software at boot. The PC boots with Palm Desktop, Rainlender, and a web server (Abyss) while the Mac boots with Quicksilver and a web server (Apache). Other than that, everything else is pretty standard--audio drivers, video drivers, tablet drivers, and so on. Most of these things are present on both computers. The Mac is a month or two old, the PC hasn't been formatted in two years or so.
Everything timed at home with a stopwatch.
First up--the amount of time it takes from pushing the power button until you have a usable login screen.
Mac--139 seconds
PC--38 seconds
Next--the amount of time it takes from entering your password until you have an idle workspace (on Windows, this was when things stopped loading in the system tray, on OSX this was when the Finder menu appeared completely).
Mac--50 seconds
PC--9 seconds
So, complete boot time (plus whatever time it takes to enter a username and/or password)...
Mac--189 seconds
PC--47 seconds
Finally--the amount of time from the time you click "shutdown" until your computer is powered off.
Mac--53 seconds
PC--11 seconds
So, the time it takes to do a complete reboot...
Mac--242 seconds
PC--58 seconds
Instant-on would be fantastic if it could recover from crashes. There's nothing more frustrating than waiting three minutes for my laptop to boot.
Yet, my computer at home blocks ads. Why? Because I'm on a dial-up connection. I live in a bedroom community that doesn't have any alternatives. At school I have all the bandwidth you could ever need, but when I'm surfing at home I don't have the time to wait to download advertisements.
But it doesn't stop there. I won't just rip out ads -- I'll rip out entire websites. I was getting frustrated with the load times for a popular local information website and discovered that browsing through a single page sent me upwards of 200kb. I wrote a simple script that took that exact same page, tore out the ads, tore of the JavaScript, tore out everything that wasn't pure content. The result is an average 10-20kb page, formatted with some nice CSS.
Maybe it's not totally ethical. But I just don't have the time to deal with it any other way. And things are not getting any better. I realized that we'd hit a new low when I started seeing ads with embedded movie trailers. Note to web designers: not everyone has high-speed internet, and it's not fair to force people to go high-speed when it's not always an option.
I'll echo what I'm hearing a lot: Google Ads got it right.
You missed a couple often-overlooked Zelda games. Namely, the two CD-I Zelda games as well as the two BS Zelda games. They were all very much part of Zelda lore. Well, maybe not the BS Zeldas so much.
Make a movie about Master Chief blowing up alien scum... *shrugs* why would I bother? I'd much rather hear about how our flawed heroes deal with the news of an impending alien invasion.
But I trust the fine folks at Bungie. They know what can be done with a good license in the right hands *hugs ilovebees DVD*
Then again, is it fraud when you know it's fraud and do it anyway? Most of the managers know when something is up, and they play along anyway. A little fraud is easier to deal with than an angry customer, I guess.
September? Misinformation? Last I heard, the official word was that Japan's getting it in September and the North American release will be within a month, two months absolute tops.
On the other hand, religious video games can be fantastic. Final Fantasy Tactics, anyone? Love it or hate it, Xenogears?
"Christian" video games can be just fine. The problem is that most "Christian" publishers have the mentality that if it's not 'saving souls' it's not worth publishing. It's all about conversion. And I wish it wasn't so.
Funny, since I remember that the budget for Final Fantasy IX was already $40 million... and that was still on the original Playstation. I have no doubt they've gone higher since.
Is Card a "dispicable (sic) human", "outrageous bigot", and "really not a nice guy" who is likely to "turn on a large segment of his fans"?
Obviously the largest point here would be Card's opinion of homosexuality. Let's take a look at the interview you linked to.
So I dutifully ask, "How do you feel about the Mormon Church's decision to raise over $1.5 million for initiatives banning gay marriage in California, Alaska and Hawaii?"
Card raises his voice. "No, what they've done is oppose efforts to apply the word 'marriage' to a homosexual couple! People are treating it as if they were seeking out opportunities to persecute somebody else! They're simply opposing changing the word 'marriage' to apply to something it's never applied to."
Okay, any problem there? If anything, your post just proved Mr. Card's point: making the argument something it isn't.
"I find the comparison between civil rights based on race and supposed new rights being granted for what amounts to deviant behavior to be really kind of ridiculous. There is no comparison. A black as a person does not by being black harm anyone. Gay rights is a collective delusion that's being attempted. And the idea of 'gay marriage' -- it's hard to find a ridiculous enough comparison."
Opinions? Is homosexuality deviant behavior? Any sociologist would agree. Is it amoral? Interestingly, that doesn't even enter the picture. Is a homosexual marriage different than a heterosexual marriage? Absolutely, for both sociological and biological reasons. Card argues (in other articles, most specifically "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality") that homosexual 'marriages' are different from heterosexual marriages in many important -- arguably fundamental -- ways. Thus, the term 'marriage' does not work.
Did I miss the part where Card says "kill the homosexuals"? "Make them sit at the back of the bus"? Because all I'm seeing is someone being called an "outrageous bigot" because his opinion differs from yours. And then you jump from Card saying that homosexuals are using the term 'marriage' erroneously to expecting him to "turn on a large segment of his fans."
Intolerance, indeed.
Out of the blue, I took your recommendation and rented Primer this evening... Wow, no kidding, great film. It should be also mentioned that the lead actor also wrote, directed, and scored the entire film for $7,000 -- and took home Best Drama at Sundance last year.
I'm one of those people that usually only buys games used. I'm a lowly university student -- I can't afford to pay full price unless it's a game I'm REALLY looking forward to and want to support. However, I noticed a month ago that, oddly enough, the used PC game section at the EBs in my city (Winnipeg) have disappeared. I wonder if they've gotten too worried about pirating?
Wow. I'm friends with someone who was one of the key translators for the NIV (New International Version, one of the most popular translations along with the KJV). I'm not saying a translation error has never been made, but to cry conspiracy is, well, a little unfounded. If you hear someone say, "the Bible is wrong because the original Hebrew actually says this", I'd suggest learning Hebrew yourself and you'll discover that this is, in fact, a load a bullocks.
"[...] if you actually care about framerate (and not just how big that video card looks), you get Linux and run some (not all) games there."
Ouch. More and more games are being ported to Linux, but I'm sorry to say that framerate is not one of the things that will make you want to switch. Out of the box, games generally have much better framerates in Windows than their Linux counterparts unless you've taken a couple hours to tweak the hell out of your drivers and game settings.
"News flash: Source is not that fucking innovative. Just about everything Source had, Halo 2 had also, including the Havok engine[.]"
I'd have to disagree. Source is actually amazingly innovative, and the physics are only a very small part of that. The big feature would be the facial animations, which are insurmountably better than any game we've seen before. Put simply, Source has killer technology behind it that very few engines come even remotely close to.
"[...] loading is far slower and more frequent than in Doom 3 [...]"
The difference being that Half-Life 2 runs just find on my computer, while Doom 3 could barely chug anything out.
"[...] you get a cool-looking loading progress bar, not just the word "loading".
That's a gripe against the game, not against the engine. Yes, a loading bar would be nice, but it isn't exactly a 'killer game feature'. The engine is capable of it, Half-Life 2 just didn't do it. Don't ask me why.
"[...] during the CS:Source beta test, all you had to do to cheat was have "sv_cheats 1" in a config file on your local machine, which would get replicated to the server."
What? You could cheat in a beta? Could you use that cheat in the final release? No? I'm not 100% sure about this specific situation, but cheats are usually available in betas for testing purposes. It just makes sense.
The Source engine is one of the most advanced engines out there right now. I'll grant you the fact that Steam really, really stinks, but I have a feeling that we'll see the end of it pretty soon (as the Source engine doesn't depend on Steam in any way and Valve has gotten nothing but death threats since it came out).