I'd never even considered getting a Mac before, mostly because I'm a PC gamer and I thought (quite correctly, I might add) that Macs were mostly for a niche market of people working in audio/visual media. However nice OSX is, I couldn't even begin to justify paying a premium price over a PC for a Mac that couldn't run most of the games I want to play.
Now, however, I'll definitely consider a Mac as my next computer, as I can justify that premium. Being able to use OSX *and* dual-boot Windows to play my favorite games sounds like a Good Deal (tm).
So, here's one person who might be making the switch in a couple of years if Boot Camp works out.
Here I thought that traffic to pr0n sites would still be growing at a rapid rate in addition to the categories mentioned in TFA. Maybe teh intarwebz have already tapped the category of "guys for whom that's the only way they'll ever see a naked woman."
You obviously don't understand that the USA isn't a capitalist state. We're a "mixed economy," meaning, essentially, crony capitalism. In a real capitalist economy, the government wouldn't have the power to hand out subsidies, prevent unions from counterbalancing the power of corporations, and legislate things like copyrights. So, while you see it as capitalism that's ruining America, I see it as the elements of socialism that have been introduced into our capitalism.
As for the rest of your post, classic Orwellian statement.
"War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Having to give tons of the money that you legally earned and rightfully deserve to social programs you may not even use is freedom."
It's most likely that, by "the Islamic world," TFA just means "the Middle East."
Re:This Year's Interactive Achievement Award Winne
on
The Videogame Oscars
·
· Score: 1
I've seen these awards before. They lost any chance for my respect when perhaps the best single-player RPG ever made (Planescape: Torment) won exactly zero awards in 2000, and was instead overshadowed by more popular and bigger-budget titles (Asheron's Call in the Best RPG category??)
Looking down at that current list of award-winners, I see they've continued their tradition of awarding acclaim to popular big-budget titles from large, mainstream publishers.
You see, what you fail to understand is that some sacrifices must be made in defense of our freedom. Sacrifices of our freedom. So, for freedom to endure, you must give it up to the only entity that can protect it: your friendly neighborhood federal government. That way, freedom will still exist... in the hands of George Bush and his Cabinet.
Well, now that you're enlightened, I'll be on my way. God Bless King Georg-...err, I mean, America!
I suppose it may come as a surprise to some gamers whose parents never really supported their habit, but there are those mothers and fathers out there who can enjoy games just as much as their kids.
Heck, back when I owned an N64 my dad used to get in rounds of Goldeneye and Mario Kart with me and my brother after school. And he had never really touched a game system before, except for brief spurts on the systems that we owned before that (NES and SNES).
This might even be seen by some as an improvement over the television habit that many parents have and pass on to their kids.
I've never owned a notebook, but at the beginning of my first year of college I bought a Dell Axim + foldable keyboard to take notes on in class. Unfortunately, though, I just ended up loading it up with emulators and playing Final Fantasy or Legend of Zelda through entire lectures. I can't imagine that it would be any different for any other college student, though I don't have a large enough sample size to be sure (at the college that I go to, most people still use paper and pencils.)
"People won't adopt it because it has too many features?"
I don't think that's the issue here. The question is, are people willing to pay extra money for these features?
For example, I would be willing to pay $200-$250 for a system that simply plays games, but not $350-$400 for a game system that does a whole bunch of other crap that I don't care about.
I'm sure a lot of the rest of the potential market for the PS3 feels the same way.
"There is a clear difference between child porn and freedom of speech and assembly."
Is there?
Putting aside the obviously abhorrent practice of *making* child porn for a moment, how are laws against its *possession* anything less than a violation of property rights (something intrinsic to freedom of speech and assembly)?
Note: I think anything even relating to child porn is sickening. I'm just trying to ask a question that I feel is valid.
"The number one reason why millions of innocent people have died and continue to die in lands without freedom, and the number one reason why Liberal thought is inherently dangerous. The lack of a belief in the desire of humans to be free, and the lack of a belief in Freedom, Liberty and Democracy as the greatest concepts and forms of government in human history."
And you are mistaken in your association of freedom and liberty with democracy.
"Democracy" is simply a method for making governmental decisions that involves the direct input of each individual constituent of a state. Having a democracy does not automatically grant a state things like the rule of law, individual rights, and economic freedom. In fact, it can directly work against these concepts if the democratic (small 'd') constituency simply votes to not have them.
"It is not only the right, but the RESPONSIBILITY of every Freedom and Liberty loving person to hold any and all governments accountable for thier actions, thier laws, and the way they govern!"
No person has a responsibility to do anything unless they explicitly or implicitly agree to it in a contract of some sort. When under the sway of a government, therefore, presume that we implicitly agree to follow the laws thereof, pay taxes, and so on. We do this because we are born on the land under the sway of that government. However, those of us here in America were not born in Canada, or England, or Sudan, or Iraq, or China, or anywhere else. We have no responsibility to comply with anything those governments tell us, let alone to hold them responsible for what they do to their own people (read: people other than us), because we have no contract with them, explicit or implicit.
Contrary to what most people think, Mario, Donkey Kong, Link/Zelda, etc. are not genres; they're brand names, or franchises if you prefer. Mario and Luigi alone have been in platformers, RPG's, sports games, puzzle games, fighting games, and racing games, just off of the top of my head.
So, most games with these characters in them are not "sequels," per se, but simply a different game using that brand name/franchise.
"Personally, I don't believe in Evolution. That doesn't make me an idiot."
At the risk of being un-PC, yes it does. Not because you don't believe in evolution, but because you believe in such a poor alternative.
Think about it: You're rejecting over a hundred years of empirical and scientific evidence, experiments, et al., as well as entire scientific fields (if you don't believe in evolution, you might as well disbelieve in, say, biology as well.)
And for what? A story in a book written many thousands of years ago which has been redacted, changed, edited, and abridged a countless number of times.
I think it's clear what any rational human being would choose.
"the pain that Windows will cause is not justified by the need to play Slaughterfest 3 or Unreal Shooter."
Jeez, you make it sound like running Windows is like getting a root canal.
It may not be the perfect OS, but running it certainly isn't painful (most of the time.) The small-moderate amount of hassle that I need to go through to maintain a Windows box is more than made up for by the range of good PC games I can run on it.
But what about if someone wants to run games (and perhaps other software that runs only on Windows) *and* still get the superior OS/apps found in Macs? Why should they be forced to buy two computers just so that they can preserve their "entire Mac experience"?
Sadly, I believe that Apple knows who they're dealing with at this time, and that's why they spewed up this sort of vague corporate drivel.
It pains me to admit it somewhat as a Windows user, but in general, Mac users know more about their computers than the average Windows junkie. Therefore, the former can generally be expected to know what spyware is and what sort of damage it can do, while the latter cannot. This leads one to conclude that the former will care more about spyware in general.
But, the former group (Mac users) also share another factor in common that Windows users do not: brand loyalty. They trust apple to do no evil. Because of that trust, they're inclined to not only take press releases from Apple such as this one at face value, but also to let cognitive dissonance set in when their beloved company's policies contradict their own personal beliefs (as exemplified by the various "well, THIS spyware isn't so bad..." posts on this topic and the first one.)
In other words, Apple knows what they're doing, because all of the company's brand-loyal lackeys will believe them no matter what they say, and most Windows users simply won't care.
Remember the old saying, kids: people with power are always tempted to use it, and information is a form of power. A profit-seeking entity like a corporation is no different from a political-power-seeking institution such as a state in this regard. They will say and do anything that they believe they can get away with if it means increasing their power factor.
So, I find no reason to take this admission by Apple at face value, unless you're one of the naive, "Apple can Do No Evil" types.
Private universities (as with any other private organizations, such as corporations) can dissociate themselves from people, whether they be students, employees, etc., for any reason that they may choose, as long as they're not breaking a contract.
In other words, if they expelled the student without a full refund of his tuition, then that would be considered fraud, and they would be liable for damages in court. However, if they compensate the student for services not rendered, then, sure, it's perfectly legal.
Now, of course, this doesn't stop the university in question from being a bunch of blowhards...
Aside from all of the logical arguments already posted, there is also a moral argument to consider. Is it right - or, to put it more succinctly, can it be morally justified - to monitor people who have done nothing wrong?
Ask yourself that question, and, unless you happen to be a Nazi or Communist, I think you will agree that the answer is "no."
Slashdot Mirror
Now, however, I'll definitely consider a Mac as my next computer, as I can justify that premium. Being able to use OSX *and* dual-boot Windows to play my favorite games sounds like a Good Deal (tm).
So, here's one person who might be making the switch in a couple of years if Boot Camp works out.
Here I thought that traffic to pr0n sites would still be growing at a rapid rate in addition to the categories mentioned in TFA. Maybe teh intarwebz have already tapped the category of "guys for whom that's the only way they'll ever see a naked woman."
As for the rest of your post, classic Orwellian statement.
"War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Having to give tons of the money that you legally earned and rightfully deserve to social programs you may not even use is freedom."
It's most likely that, by "the Islamic world," TFA just means "the Middle East."
Looking down at that current list of award-winners, I see they've continued their tradition of awarding acclaim to popular big-budget titles from large, mainstream publishers.
Many of them are being held to longer contracts due to "stop-loss" measures.
Double-speak much?
Freedom of speech? You need to ask permission to speak freely in front of a superior officer.
Press? Nope. Leaking information is a punishable offense.
Religion? Well, "thou shalt not kill" isn't exactly a respected commandment...
I could go on, but I think you see the point by now. Militarism is a poor way to defend freedom and individual rights.
You see, what you fail to understand is that some sacrifices must be made in defense of our freedom. Sacrifices of our freedom. So, for freedom to endure, you must give it up to the only entity that can protect it: your friendly neighborhood federal government. That way, freedom will still exist... in the hands of George Bush and his Cabinet.
Well, now that you're enlightened, I'll be on my way. God Bless King Georg- ...err, I mean, America!
Heck, back when I owned an N64 my dad used to get in rounds of Goldeneye and Mario Kart with me and my brother after school. And he had never really touched a game system before, except for brief spurts on the systems that we owned before that (NES and SNES).
This might even be seen by some as an improvement over the television habit that many parents have and pass on to their kids.
Has anyone else had similar experiences?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Sony stated that the PS3 will not have backwards compatability.
I don't think that's the issue here. The question is, are people willing to pay extra money for these features?
For example, I would be willing to pay $200-$250 for a system that simply plays games, but not $350-$400 for a game system that does a whole bunch of other crap that I don't care about.
I'm sure a lot of the rest of the potential market for the PS3 feels the same way.
Is there?
Putting aside the obviously abhorrent practice of *making* child porn for a moment, how are laws against its *possession* anything less than a violation of property rights (something intrinsic to freedom of speech and assembly)?
Note: I think anything even relating to child porn is sickening. I'm just trying to ask a question that I feel is valid.
And you are mistaken in your association of freedom and liberty with democracy.
"Democracy" is simply a method for making governmental decisions that involves the direct input of each individual constituent of a state. Having a democracy does not automatically grant a state things like the rule of law, individual rights, and economic freedom. In fact, it can directly work against these concepts if the democratic (small 'd') constituency simply votes to not have them.
"It is not only the right, but the RESPONSIBILITY of every Freedom and Liberty loving person to hold any and all governments accountable for thier actions, thier laws, and the way they govern!"
No person has a responsibility to do anything unless they explicitly or implicitly agree to it in a contract of some sort. When under the sway of a government, therefore, presume that we implicitly agree to follow the laws thereof, pay taxes, and so on. We do this because we are born on the land under the sway of that government. However, those of us here in America were not born in Canada, or England, or Sudan, or Iraq, or China, or anywhere else. We have no responsibility to comply with anything those governments tell us, let alone to hold them responsible for what they do to their own people (read: people other than us), because we have no contract with them, explicit or implicit.
So, most games with these characters in them are not "sequels," per se, but simply a different game using that brand name/franchise.
At the risk of being un-PC, yes it does. Not because you don't believe in evolution, but because you believe in such a poor alternative.
Think about it: You're rejecting over a hundred years of empirical and scientific evidence, experiments, et al., as well as entire scientific fields (if you don't believe in evolution, you might as well disbelieve in, say, biology as well.)
And for what? A story in a book written many thousands of years ago which has been redacted, changed, edited, and abridged a countless number of times.
I think it's clear what any rational human being would choose.
Jeez, you make it sound like running Windows is like getting a root canal.
It may not be the perfect OS, but running it certainly isn't painful (most of the time.) The small-moderate amount of hassle that I need to go through to maintain a Windows box is more than made up for by the range of good PC games I can run on it.
But what about if someone wants to run games (and perhaps other software that runs only on Windows) *and* still get the superior OS/apps found in Macs? Why should they be forced to buy two computers just so that they can preserve their "entire Mac experience"?
What about frames per second in, say, Alterac Valley, or a town raid? PvP is much harder for a system to handle than PvE.
It pains me to admit it somewhat as a Windows user, but in general, Mac users know more about their computers than the average Windows junkie. Therefore, the former can generally be expected to know what spyware is and what sort of damage it can do, while the latter cannot. This leads one to conclude that the former will care more about spyware in general.
But, the former group (Mac users) also share another factor in common that Windows users do not: brand loyalty. They trust apple to do no evil. Because of that trust, they're inclined to not only take press releases from Apple such as this one at face value, but also to let cognitive dissonance set in when their beloved company's policies contradict their own personal beliefs (as exemplified by the various "well, THIS spyware isn't so bad..." posts on this topic and the first one.)
In other words, Apple knows what they're doing, because all of the company's brand-loyal lackeys will believe them no matter what they say, and most Windows users simply won't care.
Remember the old saying, kids: people with power are always tempted to use it, and information is a form of power. A profit-seeking entity like a corporation is no different from a political-power-seeking institution such as a state in this regard. They will say and do anything that they believe they can get away with if it means increasing their power factor.
So, I find no reason to take this admission by Apple at face value, unless you're one of the naive, "Apple can Do No Evil" types.
/sarcasm
Private universities (as with any other private organizations, such as corporations) can dissociate themselves from people, whether they be students, employees, etc., for any reason that they may choose, as long as they're not breaking a contract.
In other words, if they expelled the student without a full refund of his tuition, then that would be considered fraud, and they would be liable for damages in court. However, if they compensate the student for services not rendered, then, sure, it's perfectly legal.
Now, of course, this doesn't stop the university in question from being a bunch of blowhards...
Ask yourself that question, and, unless you happen to be a Nazi or Communist, I think you will agree that the answer is "no."