Maybe the Linux community will see this as a more important change than most people, due to their software options. (Obviously, Linux users aren't huge Internet Explorer users, nor do they use Safari browser as a rule. They're also more likely than others to use a version of the Opera browser.) But all in all? Apple was just recently pushing H.264 as one of their preferred codecs, so it'd be crazy for them to go along with pulling it from Safari. (Didn't they just recently convince YouTube to convert a whole bunch of former Flash based videos to H.264 format?)
I don't think Google Chrome has exactly taken the world by storm either, so their failure to support a popular codec like H.264 will just serve to further relegate the product to "niche use only". This would have MUCH more impact if FireFox was going to pull support for it, instead of Chrome doing so.
There's a lot of validity to it, too. Most of the software you see for, say, an iPhone or iPad, is relatively small in size and developed by a single person or very small team. When these same individuals decide to port it over to sell for OS X in the Mac online store? They're just re-using the same codebase with modifications for screen resolution and input devices, in most cases. (In fact, they may have even started out designing it to handle the larger screen resolution of a Mac anyway, if they were "future proofing" the iOS app for HD displays that might come along down the road.)
You're comparing this type of project to large commercial undertakings.... Two vastly different scenarios.
And in some of the big commercial projects? I'd argue that a lot of money is wasted, too. I've said before, for example, that too much money on modern game development is wasted on licensing "name brand" soundtracks. When I go to play the latest EA Sports title on my PS3, I don't need it to have a whole CD's worth of music tracks from bands like Nickelback or Fallout Boy on it. I'd rather have the game for $5-10 less, and just have original or royalty-free background music tracks in the thing. It doesn't have any effect on the quality of the gameplay itself. And documentation? That's almost laughable, considering practically ALL the software I ever purchased that I have real books or printed manuals for are 10+ years old now! Basically, as programs got more advanced and expensive, they tossed out the idea that good documentation was worth including. These days, they want you to basically figure it out on your own with the aid of built-in help dialogs, and to pay for training/support (often from the software vendor themselves) for help beyond that!
All your argument does is prove that piracy can act as free marketing for a product.
The same crowd that would use a pirated Photoshop when free or cheap shareware alternatives would have served them just as well are the ones perpetuating the idea that Photoshop is a "superior product" worth having. (At the same time, they obviously aren't the target market for Photoshop sales, and wouldn't resort to shelling out many hundreds of dollar for a legal license if it was forced upon them. They'd just make do with those cheaper or free alternatives.)
If only a small segment of true professionals ever installed and used Photoshop, I'd say Adobe would have to spend far more on advertising (cutting into their profits) to keep up the level of name recognition and respect they've gotten for free from all the "wanna be" users praising and passing around pirated copies.
I agree with you, except I'm pretty doubtful that MetroPCS *really* allows you to use unlimited amounts of data each month for the flat rate. If you read all the fine print, I'm willing to bet it's just like my Cricket Wireless account -- where "unlimited data" actually means a monthly limit of 2GB per month, that if exceeded, means you get throttled back to very SLOW transfer rates for all your remaining usage until that month is over. You don't get charged any overages though, which is the main thing I'm worried about. But in reality, they do meter your usage and limit you when you exceed a threshold.
As much as I strongly dislike DRM of all kinds, I'm willing to accept that like most things, it's a "tolerable disadvantage" to an offering, IF they manage to offer enough positives to offset it. In the case of Steam? I'm primarily a Mac OS X user these days, and this operating system has suffered from a lack of quality games written for it. When Steam promised Mac support, I was interested. I had Steam for years on my Windows PCs before that, but for Windows, it seemed like little more than a hassle.
Now, I look at it in a much more positive light on my Mac, because these guys were able to bring me several great games I was resigned to booting into Windows to play, previously; Team Fortress 2, Left for Dead 1 and 2, Portal, and Half Life 2. In all of these cases, the price was very reasonable too (especially for a Mac, where we're used to getting charged full retail price for a port of a game that's been out for over a year for Windows already!).
Now, it may be true that I "don't know for sure if I'll be allowed to play the games in 5 years", if Steam goes under or decides for whatever reason to deactivate the titles I paid for. But at the prices I paid for the OS X games I bought so far (about $10 for "Killing Floor", for example, and another $9.95 for Left for Dead), I really won't lose any sleep over it either. I got my entertainment dollar's worth out of all of them already. They even gave me free licenses for the games I'd bought previously on Steam, like Half Life 2.
On the flip side? There ARE some titles on Steam right now for the Mac I'd never buy through their system. Civilization 5 comes to mind immediately. They want about $50 for it. At that price? #1, I'm not even sure it's worth my money for a game that's really just an update to a game I've played MANY times before. But more importantly, $50 is too much to gamble/risk for a game tied to some company's online authentication system.
I really think you hold a distorted view of how U.S. citizens view things.
We're pretty evenly divided up between those who are BEGGING for more socialism in our government, and those who understand perfectly well that other forms of government are in a "functional, working" form despite being examples of "democratic socialism" YET don't want that for OUR government.
(I consider myself in the later of those 2 camps, BTW.)
The biggest problem we've got in today's USA? Government has grown too big and powerful, and it doesn't really matter which of the two major parties has a candidate in political office. Both of them are going to make political decisions that are #1. self-serving in some manner, and #2. increase the size and scope of government's control over its citizenry. The "pro socialism" camp out there doesn't even necessarily realize that's what they want. They simply like to vote in favor of any govt. program that promises it will do something for the "common man", the "poor", or will "penalize the rich" in some manner. In reality though - that pretty much gets translated to socialist policies each and every time. Meanwhile, anything promising to "level the playing field" by taking from the rich to give to the poor? There are plenty of loopholes in it that ensure any friends of politicians are exempted, and if anything? It selectively penalizes emerging competitors to companies in the favor of the people "calling the shots".
What you refer to as the "whole gun thing" is simply a case of many of us trying to retain a basic right to keep and bear arms that was specifically written in our Constitution. Again, if you're a fan of "democratic socialism", I don't really expect you to understand.... but it's a prime example of us valuing individual rights of people over some fuzzy, over-arching concept that the nation will be a "safer place" if people are prevented from possessing or using a certain type of personal property.
Sorry to hear that, but IMHO, you did the right thing nonetheless. If everyone they stopped like that demanded that their Constitutional rights be respected and followed - things would slowly change for the better. Every time people comply with this crap, because it's "the easier option", our rights whither away.
Umm... if they're so good at baseline driving, as you claim? How is it you're so aware of them being all over the roads you drive on?
I think your assertion that there's such a thing as a "trained drunk" is ridiculous. If you're not impaired enough to start operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe/improper/illegal manner -- then you're not impaired enough for it to be an issue. Plenty of people have a drink or two with a meal at dinner and get in their car or truck and drive home after that. That's because the small increase in their blood alcohol level isn't that significant. Arguably, it may just be enough to relax them a bit and make them a SAFER driver.
Furthermore, it makes no sense to pretend everyone responds the same to the same amount of alcohol.... The concept of developing a tolerance is very real, among other factors.
I remember, for example, a radio show on a local rock FM station where they invited a police officer in to talk about the dangers of drinking and driving, and to illustrate the effects, live, on the air. He asked one of the DJ's to try to slap a button as quickly as possible when he heard a buzzer and measured his reaction time. Then, they repeated the test after he had a shot, and again after another shot was poured, etc. He wound up frustrating the officer because he actually did better in reaction time after he had 3 or 4 shots!
Obviously yes, drinking and driving is taking a risk and isn't a good idea. But ideas like "zero tolerance" are just as poorly conceived for this as they are for most situations. Very few things are as simple as "black and white". And if there is a small "window" where someone can be "just drunk enough to be a danger when something unexpected happens while driving, yet a perfectly good baseline driver"? That's just an unfortunate reality I think we have to deal with, and let such people suffer the consequences of their behavior AFTER they're caught. Yes, that could mean they've killed someone else.... but people who play with loaded guns, pointing them at their friends as a joke sometimes kill their friends too when the guns accidentally go off. Doesn't mean guns should be outlawed for everyone.
I don't get why so many people seem to have a problem with Sam's character changing his attitude after he's been inside the computer? Basically, at the start, he sounds like the typical rich kid who can get whatever he wants, EXCEPT for the things money can't buy (having his dad come back). After he's zapped into the Tron universe and experiences all of that (plus gets the chance to re-unite with his dad, which seemed to be the main thing depressing him), he comes out a changed person. Pretty sure an experience like that would change MY outlook on life too if it happened to me!
Re:The writing was idiotic (Spoilers?)
on
Tron: Legacy
·
· Score: 1
Your points are (mostly) technically accurate, but if you have to ask all of those things, Tron is not and was never the movie for you in the first place!
I mean, the entire premise is ridiculous on its face, ultimately. You're going to zap a person with a laser beam and somehow THAT is supposed to get them inside the computer, as part of the software code? And for that matter? If Flynn's arcade was closed for that many years, wouldn't you think it's odd that the electricity was never shut off to the place? You'd think THAT would have put an end to the whole world of Tron evolving like it did!
You have to go into Tron accepting it as a fantasy film from the beginning, or else all those other questions you pose are just irrelevant additions to the big, initial ones that you're going to have, and not get decent explanations for!
If you REALLY want some of your questions addressed though, I'd say the following:
1. Supposedly, CLU has run amok on his mission to create perfection in the Tron universe. One individual wearing "earth clothes" would mess with the idea of unified clothing (where apparently, the color indicates whose side you're on), so it would need to be corrected. 2. Tron's world was supposed to be created by a video-game writer, originally from Earth, so why wouldn't he purposely WANT to create a lot of things that simulate what's on Earth? That would include thrusters that propel craft around, even if there's no real air or physical properties that would seem to require it. It's all just software, so the rules are pretty much unlimited. 3. The villain character ALWAYS thought he was just doing what needed to be done to create the best world possible. It's just that Flynn came to a realization that the pursuit of perfection at any cost wasn't a good idea after all and changed his views AFTER he created CLU and gave him all of the abilities he was given. (Apparently, they're implying that a "user" is able to change his/her mind about things, whereas a program is only capable of solving problems the way it was originally set up to do it. Sounds accurate to me.) 4. There's NO point in worrying over how software is supposed to come out of the portal and thrive in the real world, because it's no more ridiculous than the initial idea that a human can be zapped IN. If you can accept that your molecular structure can be disintegrated and re-assembled on the other end as software bits, why couldn't it go in the opposite direction? You're in the machine as software bits now, just like all the other programs are, so getting out involves re-forming the digital "you" back into a physical entity on the other side. 5. The ISOs were supposed to be fascinating because they spontaneously came into existence in the computer. I took them as being along the lines of "the chaos innately found in an ordered system". The ability to tangibly examine one would possibly have potential to unlock secrets of the origin of life in the real universe? Or maybe their ability to regenerate themselves in the digital world would translate over, when one is transported into the real world, and give scientists ideas on curing destructive diseases or aging? In any case, I don't think anyone in the movie ever stated they WOULD do any of those great things. It was only an idea that Flynn believed had a chance of being the case.
Re:My thoughts on Tron Legacy ....
on
Tron: Legacy
·
· Score: 1
Ok, fine... so I used a lot of quotation marks!
Still, I didn't put quotes around anything that wasn't subject to interpretation, an expression, or an actual statement an individual made. You, on the other hand, did so with the word movie (which you sarcastically put quotes around in your reply)!
(EG. When I put quotes around "packed full", that's because it's an expression that may or may not indicate anything absolute. I don't know for a fact that there were no more tickets available to the shows mentioned. I only know that people who went gave me a report that they were "packed full".)
My thoughts on Tron Legacy ....
on
Tron: Legacy
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I went to see it on Saturday night. I opted for the 3D version, and purchased tickets in advance, via "Fandango". Despite all the warnings I heard about the Friday opening being "packed full" -- it turns out I shouldn't have wasted the extra few bucks on service fees getting my tickets online, in advance. The theater for the 10:05PM show only had about 15-20 people in it!
Here's the stuff I found most notable:
1. As everyone else is saying, the visuals were top-notch. I really liked the "updated look" to the light cycles, and especially the ribbon trails they left behind them. The effect of people getting de-rezzed was amazingly good too. Even the re-imagination of the traditional Walt Disney castle logo at the beginning of the movie was very cool. The 3D was subtle, which I actually liked. If you were expecting to see Flynn chucking a disc so it looked like it was headed right out of the movie screen and into the theater? Nope... sorry. No gimmicks like that. Just a little added depth to the digital world. I think you won't lose any enjoyment if you skip the 3D version, but as long as you're paying today's ticket prices to see it on a big screen anyway? It's worth going with the 3D version, if it doesn't cost extra, or the extra fee is less than the price of a small soda!
2. The Daft Punk soundtrack fits the theme of the movie, and yes, it's not bad. But in certain spots, I thought it was mixed too loudly and becomes "overbearing", as if it's competing for your attention with what you're actually trying to watch on the screen.
3. I still have kind of mixed feelings on how "60's hippie" they tried to make the Tron world. I mean, Jeff Bridge's character's whole "zen" thing wasn't something I expected at all out of this sequel. Does it work? Yeah, because it helps explain a few questions you might be tempted to ask, like "If he's the creator of this whole universe and has the power to revise code, at will? Why has he been so restrained at doing proactive things to better the situation for the inhabitants?" But you couple all of that with the "Zeus" character who has that crazy David Bowie vibe going on, and arch-enemies who all do things in the vein of "big corporation" or "trying to take over the world" -- and you're looking pretty squarely at the hippie vs. establishment stereotypes.
4. There really wasn't much Tron in this Tron. He practically made a cameo appearance! Since he's many people's favorite character of the original, I thought he deserved a little more screen time.
Overall? I enjoyed/liked this movie, and I think they did a good job of trying to respect the original, instead of stomping all over it, like SO often happens when they sequel a movie that was made so much earlier. In the end though? Given the original's whole premise, I'm not sure how this could have been re-made to have a fully believable story-line or deep plot/message? Much of the "magic" of the original Tron came from the fact that back in the 80's, computers were still a brand new and fascinating thing for a lot of us. As kids, we saw Tron and said "Wow.... that's a pretty cool way to imagine what the inside of a computer would be like if you could really become a part of one!" Now, almost 30 years later? We've all progressed far past the extent of computer games being things as "basic" as a light-cycle or person vs. person battle with throwing discs, and computer have become as much of a commodity item as our washers or dryers. We've all seen plenty of movies covering more expansive concepts like the entire Internet (The Matrix, etc.), too. So in a sense, the magic has evaporated with time -- and the best they could do is try to give back a little with the visuals and some nostolgia.
The way I see it, ANY piece of hardware that has a built-in ability to receive some command that renders it completely non-functional is hardware with a DESIGN FLAW.
If it's in there someplace, you can be sure that eventually, the malware/spyware writers will devise some way to trigger it. (I can see the plan forming already. Software pops up and demands a random fee be paid online, or else it will kill your CPU.)
Most of us find the ability to remote kill a cellphone more acceptable, because those devices are relatively disposable. People often receive them at heavily discounted rates as part of a service contract for a year or two, and it's rare the user actually keeps the same unit after that contract is up for a renewal. Besides, if you quit paying for a monthly contract for a phone, you've got a barely useful device in your hands at that point, anyway. (The way contract phones are handled in the USA right now, they really could do just as well to lease the things to people.)
The cloud services you point out as growing in popularity with the masses are largely FREE services for their user-bases, and on top of that, primarily used for entertainment or convenience, rather than necessity.
Last time I checked, free handouts were ALWAYS really popular.
When you start talking about paid subscription services offered over the Internet? Popularity and satisfaction rates fall off a cliff. I have a number of clients who were sold Internet-based backup solutions (such as Carbonite or Mozy Pro) and even for that one specific purpose, they fail to please. Mozy users complain constantly of sluggish performance and stalls in the middle of any sizable restore operation. Mozy's official response? "That's why we can MAIL you the data on physical CDs or DVDs!" Carbonite and others are known for their software glitches and other performance problems. People I encounter who paid to use "Google Apps" constantly fail to get the whole business transitioned over to it. There's always something or other that Office/Outlook does that it can't do, or do as well, that makes it a "deal breaker" for somebody in charge of things. So what about just going with Microsoft's cloud computing options then? I barely know anyone too excited by that prospect either. "Let's see... You're telling me I can just BUY Office up-front, one time, and then I can use the thing forever if I like, OR I can keep paying month after month to use it via the "cloud" and have NO licensing rights left whatsoever, as soon as I quit paying? AND, I get the added "benefit" that if I have no Internet connectivity someplace, I'm unable to use it at all? Where do I sign up!?!"
But frankly, some of those systems, while very arguably "ugly", are anything BUT inefficient!
I work for a place that's stuck using one such app, and as much as I disliked it when I first started working here as network admin, I've come to realize the simplicity has many huge benefits too. For example, even when our bandwidth is saturated, that app keeps working pretty smoothly when it has to be accessed from our second location. The simple, all-text menus transfer easily even over very slow connections. Additionally, our salespeople who have used it for years can fly through the software using function keys and digits that select menu choices, pretty much in their sleep. When you watch them doing it while talking on the phone with a customer, you realize there's no way you can design a modern GUI based point-and-click app that could keep up as well. It's not nearly as user-friendly for a new user to learn, but we're not exactly a "revolving door" of sales and office staff, so years of greater efficiency for long-timers is worth a lot more than a longer initial training period for someone new.
In a strictly technical sense, of course you're correct. But I don't think most file-sharers mean what you think they mean, when they claim they "don't see what they're doing as illegal"?
It wasn't that long ago (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act didn't exist in the 90's, remember!), that copyright law made it pretty clear that an infringement wasn't even considered a criminal matter unless proof was there of an intent to gain financially from the infringement. (Not only that, but there was a minimum number of infringements of a given work that had to be proven, too. That means, even if Joe Blow burnt a CDR copy of a commercial software program he bought, and charged his friend a fee for his time and trouble to copy it for him as a favor? Nope... not a criminal infringement because he only made that 1 copy.)
I think a lot of us (myself included) think THAT law basically made sense. If someone is so bent out of shape that somebody else is passing around FREE copies of their work, or that someone copied a few things for a friend, or even a few good friends? Address the issue in civil court. File a lawsuit against them yourself to make them stop! Not worth your time and money for a lawyer, you say? Ah! Then it sure as hell isn't worth the TAXPAYERS' money either... so quit asking federal govt. to do your bidding for you by making it a criminal offense!
That's exactly what the DMCA accomplished though, and that's why plenty of people think it's BAD legislation that isn't worth respecting or following.
In my experience? Heavy SCHOOLING leads to a superficial understanding about a lot of things, coupled with an arrogant attitude that "I know this stuff inside and out, because I spent $$$'s to learn it and have the grades to PROVE it!"
In that regard, I'm not sure heavy Internet use to learn things is any different, except there's no formal grading or large amount of money that changed hands?
The truth is, to really KNOW things well, you have to take and interest in actually working with them on a regular basis, besides just acquiring the knowledge. That means at some point, you have to get out in the real world and DO things with the information. Same problem for perpetual students as for Internet-addicted know-it-alls.
I know here in St. Louis, MO - I discovered the existence of one of these. Very interesting concept, so I read everything I could find about it on their web site and other related ones. I think one of their biggest problems though lies in lack of resources. For example, one of my friends is a sculptor/artist/handyman who also works part-time at a used computer/PC recycling store. This seemed right up his alley, so I forwarded him a link to it. His response? That's great... but let me know when they get ahold of a 3D printer we can use as members. Then I'll sign right up! Until then, he has most of the equipment he needs already, in his own private workshop he's put together. Plus, by having his own stuff, he doesn't have to share with other people and waste gas and time making trips out there to work on projects.
Maybe other "hackerspaces" are a lot more elaborate and well-funded? But at least from what I saw, it's a great concept that in practice, is probably struggling a bit to remain viable.
That's interesting (because admittedly, I didn't read the contract back when I activated my iPhone). But would clauses like the one you mention keep me from signing up for service with the phone? Honestly, no... probably not. Why? Because any time a company puts unreasonable demands/statements in a contract, they're subject to legal challenge and typically, never really acted upon anyway.
For example, a long time ago, I purchased a copy of the DeLorme "Street Atlas USA" software bundled with one of their "Tripmate" battery powered GPS units that plugged into a computer's serial port. One day, I was bored and took the manual out of the CD jewel case and read the whole EULA. I was amazed to find a portion of it where DeLorme claimed that by purchasing the package, you agreed to ONLY use the GPS device with the INCLUDED SOFTWARE. How enforceable would THAT ever be??
You can put all sorts of insane things in a contract, but that doesn't make them legally binding. Typically, the attorneys hired to write up these documents go overboard, thinking (at least from THEIR point of view), it's always better to cover EVERYTHING conceivable, and let people fight it out in court later if they don't like it. (Lawyers get paid a second time if they get hired to write this stuff up initially, and then hired to defend it in a court battle later on!)
The last 2 posts in this thread mirror my experiences 100%.
As perhaps my most recent "why the hell can't Linux ever detect all the hardware properly?" moment? I had an old Acer laptop (circa 2002) that was in like-new condition. One of my customers dug it out of her closet and gave it to me, saying "It's so old, I don't want it anymore, but I rarely used it even when it was new.... so maybe you can do something constructive with it?" I upgraded the PC100 memory in it from 64MB to 256MB, so it at least had a CHANCE of doing something useful, and proceeded to install Linux on it. First, I tried Ubuntu -- but it ran PAINFULLY slow. Obviously not designed with a Pentium II based processor in mind, these days. Then I started doing research to find out which distro was recommended for a vintage machine like this. I settled on CrunchBang Linux, after looking at a LOT of options. Turns out neither the latest Ubuntu OR CrunchBang could detect the built-in sound on the machine though! It is REALLY so much to ask, for a Linux distro to auto-detect something as basic as a sound chipset on a laptop that they had 8 YEARS to get around to supporting properly??
The glossy screen, IMO, is one of the biggest issues... but frankly, it's not an iPad exclusive issue either. I recently spent quite a bit on an in-car navigation solution custom-designed for my make/model of car. It fits in the dashboard in place of a boring, 2 line LCD display the original manufacturer included and looks like it came with the car, new. It allows quite a few nice features, including ability to watch movies on it, play music from MP3s on memory sticks inserted into a hub in the glovebox, etc. But unfortunately, it has horrible screen glare too. I can't even open my sunroof during the day or the sun shines right onto the display and totally washes it out!
Much of this problem can be reduced or eliminated, iPad or otherwise, by clever/proper mounting. The main thing seems to be finding a way to get some sort of plastic "hood" over the top of it (as many factory nav systems accomplish by recessing the screens fairly far back into the dashboard), or placing it low enough so direct light from your windows misses it. Tinted windows may help too.
Also, I think the interface issue with the iPad can be overcome if someone really thinks it through, and writes a custom app for the purpose? I'm rather surprised it hasn't already happened, really. Ideally, I'd like to see some kind of "front end" app you'd leave running that allows things like launching a GPS mapping app, launching one of those ODBII apps that talks to a bluetooth module plugged into the port under the dash and displays engine information like spark timing, oil pressure, etc., and has a simplified (big buttons) interface for things like playing video or music in your collection. I've always thought the iPad would make an excellent trip planner too, with the right app. You could essentially do a modern day take on those old AAA "Trip-tic" flip books they used to give you. Integrate the whole GPS thing with ability to easily make your hotel reservations, locate the cheapest nearby parking garages, suggestions of cool tourist attractions coming up on your route as you go, etc. etc.
Heh.... I remember one of the kids I hung out with in grade-school had one of those Radio Shack metal detectors too. (I think it was the low-end orange plastic-handled model that just emitted various pitched tones to tell you how close you were to an object, vs. having any kind of actual meter on it.) We tried to go in to the local Dairy Queen, carrying the detector with us, to buy ice cream and drinks, and got kicked out because the manager was afraid of the device!
Actually, I just had a reason to check sound card prices this morning, because I had a client call who wants their sound problem fixed on their PC. Seems someone yanked a pair of headphones out of the front audio jack suddenly and accidentally, damaging the jack itself. Now the PC only makes nasty buzzing sounds, if anything, when you plug any speakers or headphones into it. Since it uses integrated audio, my plan was to disable the on-board sound in the BIOS and just add a sound card to use instead.
It appears you can buy a Creative Labs branded card for around $30 these days from many sources online, so they're not premium priced like they once were.
And while I agree they loaded a bunch of "bloatware" with their installation discs, I suppose the biggest benefit to buying a Creative card today is the support. With a lot of these other cards, they just use various Crystal Semiconductor chipsets on a generic board design, and they can be a huge pain to get updated drivers for, if anything newer than whatever your version of Windows auto-detects/installs is ever released.
Yeah... primarily, I found myself agreeing with the very first post after this article, where the guy said, "Because we're not 15 anymore?" I'm 39 and some people seem surprised I even PLAY computer games at my age, but why wouldn't I? I've been into computers and I.T. since I was 10 or 11, and all I've seen over the years is gaming come more and more into the entertainment mainstream, to where they compete pretty evenly with Hollywood movie releases and such. Still, you get older and your priorities change. You have so many more responsibilities, you can't justify spending 20-30 hours on completing some video game when you had so many more important things you could/should have been doing with that "free time".
These days, I find I prefer games that have no "ending", other than your team winning a quick battle before going on to the next one (which you can exit at any time you like). I don't even care for playing many "single player" games anymore, because I'd rather feel I'm at least playing against other live human beings.
That said? I *also* know the feeling about some of these "boss battles" being insanely difficult and making me just quit playing a game completely. Seems like I run into that on my PS3 a lot more than I do the computer games, though. There seems to be a large group of console gamers out there who are *really* skilled at figuring out the exact way to move, shoot and press buttons in just the right sequences to get past these challenges, so to them, "the harder, the better!". (My ex-wife is re-married to a guy who is like that... He's *really* into console gaming and has beat every title someone threw at him, usually in the first day or two. At this point, he's looking for a title with a boss battle that's SO insane, it might actually keep him busy for a few days trying to get past it.) It just makes me go "Screw it!" and eject the disc! I remember feeling that way about "Conan" on the PS3, as well as a scene in "Heavenly Sword". Both good games I liked playing until I got to some part that just seemed to repetitious AND difficult compared to everything before it -- and I lost interest.
Except, I don't think most of the people making such statements are *really* idiots who don't get the obvious differences. I think (well, hope at least!) it's a matter of trying to caution/wake up people that nations like the United States are headed down a path that leads there, ultimately, if we don't stop and look at where we're going!
Just this morning, I heard a couple of radio DJs doing their show, and despite their repeated insistence on taking a "libertarian outlook on things" in the past? These guys were obviously defending the full body scanners and pat-down searches at our airports! Their opinion, basically, was one of, "Come on! Someone having a grainy picture of your genitals is no big deal! I'd rather they see that than someone getting a bomb on my airline flight!", coupled with, "Like the TSA says... If you don't like it, just don't fly!"
That mentality is EXACTLY what gets us ever closer to Chinese style government and censorship, people!
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the Linux community will see this as a more important change than most people, due to their software options. (Obviously, Linux users aren't huge Internet Explorer users, nor do they use Safari browser as a rule. They're also more likely than others to use a version of the Opera browser.) But all in all? Apple was just recently pushing H.264 as one of their preferred codecs, so it'd be crazy for them to go along with pulling it from Safari. (Didn't they just recently convince YouTube to convert a whole bunch of former Flash based videos to H.264 format?)
I don't think Google Chrome has exactly taken the world by storm either, so their failure to support a popular codec like H.264 will just serve to further relegate the product to "niche use only". This would have MUCH more impact if FireFox was going to pull support for it, instead of Chrome doing so.
There's a lot of validity to it, too. Most of the software you see for, say, an iPhone or iPad, is relatively small in size and developed by a single person or very small team. When these same individuals decide to port it over to sell for OS X in the Mac online store? They're just re-using the same codebase with modifications for screen resolution and input devices, in most cases. (In fact, they may have even started out designing it to handle the larger screen resolution of a Mac anyway, if they were "future proofing" the iOS app for HD displays that might come along down the road.)
You're comparing this type of project to large commercial undertakings .... Two vastly different scenarios.
And in some of the big commercial projects? I'd argue that a lot of money is wasted, too. I've said before, for example, that too much money on modern game development is wasted on licensing "name brand" soundtracks. When I go to play the latest EA Sports title on my PS3, I don't need it to have a whole CD's worth of music tracks from bands like Nickelback or Fallout Boy on it. I'd rather have the game for $5-10 less, and just have original or royalty-free background music tracks in the thing. It doesn't have any effect on the quality of the gameplay itself. And documentation? That's almost laughable, considering practically ALL the software I ever purchased that I have real books or printed manuals for are 10+ years old now! Basically, as programs got more advanced and expensive, they tossed out the idea that good documentation was worth including. These days, they want you to basically figure it out on your own with the aid of built-in help dialogs, and to pay for training/support (often from the software vendor themselves) for help beyond that!
All your argument does is prove that piracy can act as free marketing for a product.
The same crowd that would use a pirated Photoshop when free or cheap shareware alternatives would have served them just as well are the ones perpetuating the idea that Photoshop is a "superior product" worth having. (At the same time, they obviously aren't the target market for Photoshop sales, and wouldn't resort to shelling out many hundreds of dollar for a legal license if it was forced upon them. They'd just make do with those cheaper or free alternatives.)
If only a small segment of true professionals ever installed and used Photoshop, I'd say Adobe would have to spend far more on advertising (cutting into their profits) to keep up the level of name recognition and respect they've gotten for free from all the "wanna be" users praising and passing around pirated copies.
I agree with you, except I'm pretty doubtful that MetroPCS *really* allows you to use unlimited amounts of data each month for the flat rate. If you read all the fine print, I'm willing to bet it's just like my Cricket Wireless account -- where "unlimited data" actually means a monthly limit of 2GB per month, that if exceeded, means you get throttled back to very SLOW transfer rates for all your remaining usage until that month is over. You don't get charged any overages though, which is the main thing I'm worried about. But in reality, they do meter your usage and limit you when you exceed a threshold.
As much as I strongly dislike DRM of all kinds, I'm willing to accept that like most things, it's a "tolerable disadvantage" to an offering, IF they manage to offer enough positives to offset it. In the case of Steam? I'm primarily a Mac OS X user these days, and this operating system has suffered from a lack of quality games written for it. When Steam promised Mac support, I was interested. I had Steam for years on my Windows PCs before that, but for Windows, it seemed like little more than a hassle.
Now, I look at it in a much more positive light on my Mac, because these guys were able to bring me several great games I was resigned to booting into Windows to play, previously; Team Fortress 2, Left for Dead 1 and 2, Portal, and Half Life 2. In all of these cases, the price was very reasonable too (especially for a Mac, where we're used to getting charged full retail price for a port of a game that's been out for over a year for Windows already!).
Now, it may be true that I "don't know for sure if I'll be allowed to play the games in 5 years", if Steam goes under or decides for whatever reason to deactivate the titles I paid for. But at the prices I paid for the OS X games I bought so far (about $10 for "Killing Floor", for example, and another $9.95 for Left for Dead), I really won't lose any sleep over it either. I got my entertainment dollar's worth out of all of them already. They even gave me free licenses for the games I'd bought previously on Steam, like Half Life 2.
On the flip side? There ARE some titles on Steam right now for the Mac I'd never buy through their system. Civilization 5 comes to mind immediately. They want about $50 for it. At that price? #1, I'm not even sure it's worth my money for a game that's really just an update to a game I've played MANY times before. But more importantly, $50 is too much to gamble/risk for a game tied to some company's online authentication system.
I really think you hold a distorted view of how U.S. citizens view things.
We're pretty evenly divided up between those who are BEGGING for more socialism in our government, and those who understand perfectly well that other forms of government are in a "functional, working" form despite being examples of "democratic socialism" YET don't want that for OUR government.
(I consider myself in the later of those 2 camps, BTW.)
The biggest problem we've got in today's USA? Government has grown too big and powerful, and it doesn't really matter which of the two major parties has a candidate in political office. Both of them are going to make political decisions that are #1. self-serving in some manner, and #2. increase the size and scope of government's control over its citizenry. The "pro socialism" camp out there doesn't even necessarily realize that's what they want. They simply like to vote in favor of any govt. program that promises it will do something for the "common man", the "poor", or will "penalize the rich" in some manner. In reality though - that pretty much gets translated to socialist policies each and every time. Meanwhile, anything promising to "level the playing field" by taking from the rich to give to the poor? There are plenty of loopholes in it that ensure any friends of politicians are exempted, and if anything? It selectively penalizes emerging competitors to companies in the favor of the people "calling the shots".
What you refer to as the "whole gun thing" is simply a case of many of us trying to retain a basic right to keep and bear arms that was specifically written in our Constitution. Again, if you're a fan of "democratic socialism", I don't really expect you to understand.... but it's a prime example of us valuing individual rights of people over some fuzzy, over-arching concept that the nation will be a "safer place" if people are prevented from possessing or using a certain type of personal property.
Sorry to hear that, but IMHO, you did the right thing nonetheless. If everyone they stopped like that demanded that their Constitutional rights be respected and followed - things would slowly change for the better. Every time people comply with this crap, because it's "the easier option", our rights whither away.
So thank you!
Umm... if they're so good at baseline driving, as you claim? How is it you're so aware of them being all over the roads you drive on?
I think your assertion that there's such a thing as a "trained drunk" is ridiculous. If you're not impaired enough to start operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe/improper/illegal manner -- then you're not impaired enough for it to be an issue.
Plenty of people have a drink or two with a meal at dinner and get in their car or truck and drive home after that. That's because the small increase in their blood alcohol level isn't that significant. Arguably, it may just be enough to relax them a bit and make them a SAFER driver.
Furthermore, it makes no sense to pretend everyone responds the same to the same amount of alcohol.... The concept of developing a tolerance is very real, among other factors.
I remember, for example, a radio show on a local rock FM station where they invited a police officer in to talk about the dangers of drinking and driving, and to illustrate the effects, live, on the air. He asked one of the DJ's to try to slap a button as quickly as possible when he heard a buzzer and measured his reaction time. Then, they repeated the test after he had a shot, and again after another shot was poured, etc. He wound up frustrating the officer because he actually did better in reaction time after he had 3 or 4 shots!
Obviously yes, drinking and driving is taking a risk and isn't a good idea. But ideas like "zero tolerance" are just as poorly conceived for this as they are for most situations. Very few things are as simple as "black and white". And if there is a small "window" where someone can be "just drunk enough to be a danger when something unexpected happens while driving, yet a perfectly good baseline driver"? That's just an unfortunate reality I think we have to deal with, and let such people suffer the consequences of their behavior AFTER they're caught. Yes, that could mean they've killed someone else.... but people who play with loaded guns, pointing them at their friends as a joke sometimes kill their friends too when the guns accidentally go off. Doesn't mean guns should be outlawed for everyone.
I don't get why so many people seem to have a problem with Sam's character changing his attitude after he's been inside the computer? Basically, at the start, he sounds like the typical rich kid who can get whatever he wants, EXCEPT for the things money can't buy (having his dad come back). After he's zapped into the Tron universe and experiences all of that (plus gets the chance to re-unite with his dad, which seemed to be the main thing depressing him), he comes out a changed person. Pretty sure an experience like that would change MY outlook on life too if it happened to me!
Your points are (mostly) technically accurate, but if you have to ask all of those things, Tron is not and was never the movie for you in the first place!
I mean, the entire premise is ridiculous on its face, ultimately. You're going to zap a person with a laser beam and somehow THAT is supposed to get them inside the computer, as part of the software code?
And for that matter? If Flynn's arcade was closed for that many years, wouldn't you think it's odd that the electricity was never shut off to the place? You'd think THAT would have put an end to the whole world of Tron evolving like it did!
You have to go into Tron accepting it as a fantasy film from the beginning, or else all those other questions you pose are just irrelevant additions to the big, initial ones that you're going to have, and not get decent explanations for!
If you REALLY want some of your questions addressed though, I'd say the following:
1. Supposedly, CLU has run amok on his mission to create perfection in the Tron universe. One individual wearing "earth clothes" would mess with the idea of unified clothing (where apparently, the color indicates whose side you're on), so it would need to be corrected.
2. Tron's world was supposed to be created by a video-game writer, originally from Earth, so why wouldn't he purposely WANT to create a lot of things that simulate what's on Earth? That would include thrusters that propel craft around, even if there's no real air or physical properties that would seem to require it. It's all just software, so the rules are pretty much unlimited.
3. The villain character ALWAYS thought he was just doing what needed to be done to create the best world possible. It's just that Flynn came to a realization that the pursuit of perfection at any cost wasn't a good idea after all and changed his views AFTER he created CLU and gave him all of the abilities he was given. (Apparently, they're implying that a "user" is able to change his/her mind about things, whereas a program is only capable of solving problems the way it was originally set up to do it. Sounds accurate to me.)
4. There's NO point in worrying over how software is supposed to come out of the portal and thrive in the real world, because it's no more ridiculous than the initial idea that a human can be zapped IN. If you can accept that your molecular structure can be disintegrated and re-assembled on the other end as software bits, why couldn't it go in the opposite direction? You're in the machine as software bits now, just like all the other programs are, so getting out involves re-forming the digital "you" back into a physical entity on the other side.
5. The ISOs were supposed to be fascinating because they spontaneously came into existence in the computer. I took them as being along the lines of "the chaos innately found in an ordered system". The ability to tangibly examine one would possibly have potential to unlock secrets of the origin of life in the real universe? Or maybe their ability to regenerate themselves in the digital world would translate over, when one is transported into the real world, and give scientists ideas on curing destructive diseases or aging? In any case, I don't think anyone in the movie ever stated they WOULD do any of those great things. It was only an idea that Flynn believed had a chance of being the case.
Ok, fine ... so I used a lot of quotation marks!
Still, I didn't put quotes around anything that wasn't subject to interpretation, an expression, or an actual statement an individual made. You, on the other hand, did so with the word movie (which you sarcastically put quotes around in your reply)!
(EG. When I put quotes around "packed full", that's because it's an expression that may or may not indicate anything absolute. I don't know for a fact that there were no more tickets available to the shows mentioned. I only know that people who went gave me a report that they were "packed full".)
I went to see it on Saturday night. I opted for the 3D version, and purchased tickets in advance, via "Fandango". Despite all the warnings I heard about the Friday opening being "packed full" -- it turns out I shouldn't have wasted the extra few bucks on service fees getting my tickets online, in advance. The theater for the 10:05PM show only had about 15-20 people in it!
Here's the stuff I found most notable:
1. As everyone else is saying, the visuals were top-notch. I really liked the "updated look" to the light cycles, and especially the ribbon trails they left behind them. The effect of people getting de-rezzed was amazingly good too. Even the re-imagination of the traditional Walt Disney castle logo at the beginning of the movie was very cool. The 3D was subtle, which I actually liked. If you were expecting to see Flynn chucking a disc so it looked like it was headed right out of the movie screen and into the theater? Nope... sorry. No gimmicks like that. Just a little added depth to the digital world. I think you won't lose any enjoyment if you skip the 3D version, but as long as you're paying today's ticket prices to see it on a big screen anyway? It's worth going with the 3D version, if it doesn't cost extra, or the extra fee is less than the price of a small soda!
2. The Daft Punk soundtrack fits the theme of the movie, and yes, it's not bad. But in certain spots, I thought it was mixed too loudly and becomes "overbearing", as if it's competing for your attention with what you're actually trying to watch on the screen.
3. I still have kind of mixed feelings on how "60's hippie" they tried to make the Tron world. I mean, Jeff Bridge's character's whole "zen" thing wasn't something I expected at all out of this sequel. Does it work? Yeah, because it helps explain a few questions you might be tempted to ask, like "If he's the creator of this whole universe and has the power to revise code, at will? Why has he been so restrained at doing proactive things to better the situation for the inhabitants?" But you couple all of that with the "Zeus" character who has that crazy David Bowie vibe going on, and arch-enemies who all do things in the vein of "big corporation" or "trying to take over the world" -- and you're looking pretty squarely at the hippie vs. establishment stereotypes.
4. There really wasn't much Tron in this Tron. He practically made a cameo appearance! Since he's many people's favorite character of the original, I thought he deserved a little more screen time.
Overall? I enjoyed/liked this movie, and I think they did a good job of trying to respect the original, instead of stomping all over it, like SO often happens when they sequel a movie that was made so much earlier. In the end though? Given the original's whole premise, I'm not sure how this could have been re-made to have a fully believable story-line or deep plot/message? Much of the "magic" of the original Tron came from the fact that back in the 80's, computers were still a brand new and fascinating thing for a lot of us. As kids, we saw Tron and said "Wow.... that's a pretty cool way to imagine what the inside of a computer would be like if you could really become a part of one!" Now, almost 30 years later? We've all progressed far past the extent of computer games being things as "basic" as a light-cycle or person vs. person battle with throwing discs, and computer have become as much of a commodity item as our washers or dryers. We've all seen plenty of movies covering more expansive concepts like the entire Internet (The Matrix, etc.), too. So in a sense, the magic has evaporated with time -- and the best they could do is try to give back a little with the visuals and some nostolgia.
I'm afraid I just don't agree.
The way I see it, ANY piece of hardware that has a built-in ability to receive some command that renders it completely non-functional is hardware with a DESIGN FLAW.
If it's in there someplace, you can be sure that eventually, the malware/spyware writers will devise some way to trigger it. (I can see the plan forming already. Software pops up and demands a random fee be paid online, or else it will kill your CPU.)
Most of us find the ability to remote kill a cellphone more acceptable, because those devices are relatively disposable. People often receive them at heavily discounted rates as part of a service contract for a year or two, and it's rare the user actually keeps the same unit after that contract is up for a renewal. Besides, if you quit paying for a monthly contract for a phone, you've got a barely useful device in your hands at that point, anyway. (The way contract phones are handled in the USA right now, they really could do just as well to lease the things to people.)
The cloud services you point out as growing in popularity with the masses are largely FREE services for their user-bases, and on top of that, primarily used for entertainment or convenience, rather than necessity.
Last time I checked, free handouts were ALWAYS really popular.
When you start talking about paid subscription services offered over the Internet? Popularity and satisfaction rates fall off a cliff. I have a number of clients who were sold Internet-based backup solutions (such as Carbonite or Mozy Pro) and even for that one specific purpose, they fail to please. Mozy users complain constantly of sluggish performance and stalls in the middle of any sizable restore operation. Mozy's official response? "That's why we can MAIL you the data on physical CDs or DVDs!" Carbonite and others are known for their software glitches and other performance problems. People I encounter who paid to use "Google Apps" constantly fail to get the whole business transitioned over to it. There's always something or other that Office/Outlook does that it can't do, or do as well, that makes it a "deal breaker" for somebody in charge of things. So what about just going with Microsoft's cloud computing options then? I barely know anyone too excited by that prospect either. "Let's see... You're telling me I can just BUY Office up-front, one time, and then I can use the thing forever if I like, OR I can keep paying month after month to use it via the "cloud" and have NO licensing rights left whatsoever, as soon as I quit paying? AND, I get the added "benefit" that if I have no Internet connectivity someplace, I'm unable to use it at all? Where do I sign up!?!"
But frankly, some of those systems, while very arguably "ugly", are anything BUT inefficient!
I work for a place that's stuck using one such app, and as much as I disliked it when I first started working here as network admin, I've come to realize the simplicity has many huge benefits too. For example, even when our bandwidth is saturated, that app keeps working pretty smoothly when it has to be accessed from our second location. The simple, all-text menus transfer easily even over very slow connections. Additionally, our salespeople who have used it for years can fly through the software using function keys and digits that select menu choices, pretty much in their sleep. When you watch them doing it while talking on the phone with a customer, you realize there's no way you can design a modern GUI based point-and-click app that could keep up as well. It's not nearly as user-friendly for a new user to learn, but we're not exactly a "revolving door" of sales and office staff, so years of greater efficiency for long-timers is worth a lot more than a longer initial training period for someone new.
In a strictly technical sense, of course you're correct. But I don't think most file-sharers mean what you think they mean, when they claim they "don't see what they're doing as illegal"?
It wasn't that long ago (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act didn't exist in the 90's, remember!), that copyright law made it pretty clear that an infringement wasn't even considered a criminal matter unless proof was there of an intent to gain financially from the infringement. (Not only that, but there was a minimum number of infringements of a given work that had to be proven, too. That means, even if Joe Blow burnt a CDR copy of a commercial software program he bought, and charged his friend a fee for his time and trouble to copy it for him as a favor? Nope... not a criminal infringement because he only made that 1 copy.)
I think a lot of us (myself included) think THAT law basically made sense. If someone is so bent out of shape that somebody else is passing around FREE copies of their work, or that someone copied a few things for a friend, or even a few good friends? Address the issue in civil court. File a lawsuit against them yourself to make them stop! Not worth your time and money for a lawyer, you say? Ah! Then it sure as hell isn't worth the TAXPAYERS' money either ... so quit asking federal govt. to do your bidding for you by making it a criminal offense!
That's exactly what the DMCA accomplished though, and that's why plenty of people think it's BAD legislation that isn't worth respecting or following.
In my experience? Heavy SCHOOLING leads to a superficial understanding about a lot of things, coupled with an arrogant attitude that "I know this stuff inside and out, because I spent $$$'s to learn it and have the grades to PROVE it!"
In that regard, I'm not sure heavy Internet use to learn things is any different, except there's no formal grading or large amount of money that changed hands?
The truth is, to really KNOW things well, you have to take and interest in actually working with them on a regular basis, besides just acquiring the knowledge. That means at some point, you have to get out in the real world and DO things with the information. Same problem for perpetual students as for Internet-addicted know-it-alls.
I know here in St. Louis, MO - I discovered the existence of one of these. Very interesting concept, so I read everything I could find about it on their web site and other related ones. I think one of their biggest problems though lies in lack of resources. For example, one of my friends is a sculptor/artist/handyman who also works part-time at a used computer/PC recycling store. This seemed right up his alley, so I forwarded him a link to it. His response? That's great ... but let me know when they get ahold of a 3D printer we can use as members. Then I'll sign right up! Until then, he has most of the equipment he needs already, in his own private workshop he's put together. Plus, by having his own stuff, he doesn't have to share with other people and waste gas and time making trips out there to work on projects.
Maybe other "hackerspaces" are a lot more elaborate and well-funded? But at least from what I saw, it's a great concept that in practice, is probably struggling a bit to remain viable.
That's interesting (because admittedly, I didn't read the contract back when I activated my iPhone). But would clauses like the one you mention keep me from signing up for service with the phone? Honestly, no... probably not. Why? Because any time a company puts unreasonable demands/statements in a contract, they're subject to legal challenge and typically, never really acted upon anyway.
For example, a long time ago, I purchased a copy of the DeLorme "Street Atlas USA" software bundled with one of their "Tripmate" battery powered GPS units that plugged into a computer's serial port. One day, I was bored and took the manual out of the CD jewel case and read the whole EULA. I was amazed to find a portion of it where DeLorme claimed that by purchasing the package, you agreed to ONLY use the GPS device with the INCLUDED SOFTWARE. How enforceable would THAT ever be??
You can put all sorts of insane things in a contract, but that doesn't make them legally binding. Typically, the attorneys hired to write up these documents go overboard, thinking (at least from THEIR point of view), it's always better to cover EVERYTHING conceivable, and let people fight it out in court later if they don't like it. (Lawyers get paid a second time if they get hired to write this stuff up initially, and then hired to defend it in a court battle later on!)
The last 2 posts in this thread mirror my experiences 100%.
As perhaps my most recent "why the hell can't Linux ever detect all the hardware properly?" moment? I had an old Acer laptop (circa 2002) that was in like-new condition. One of my customers dug it out of her closet and gave it to me, saying "It's so old, I don't want it anymore, but I rarely used it even when it was new .... so maybe you can do something constructive with it?" I upgraded the PC100 memory in it from 64MB to 256MB, so it at least had a CHANCE of doing something useful, and proceeded to install Linux on it. First, I tried Ubuntu -- but it ran PAINFULLY slow. Obviously not designed with a Pentium II based processor in mind, these days. Then I started doing research to find out which distro was recommended for a vintage machine like this. I settled on CrunchBang Linux, after looking at a LOT of options. Turns out neither the latest Ubuntu OR CrunchBang could detect the built-in sound on the machine though! It is REALLY so much to ask, for a Linux distro to auto-detect something as basic as a sound chipset on a laptop that they had 8 YEARS to get around to supporting properly??
The glossy screen, IMO, is one of the biggest issues ... but frankly, it's not an iPad exclusive issue either. I recently spent quite a bit on an in-car navigation solution custom-designed for my make/model of car. It fits in the dashboard in place of a boring, 2 line LCD display the original manufacturer included and looks like it came with the car, new. It allows quite a few nice features, including ability to watch movies on it, play music from MP3s on memory sticks inserted into a hub in the glovebox, etc. But unfortunately, it has horrible screen glare too. I can't even open my sunroof during the day or the sun shines right onto the display and totally washes it out!
Much of this problem can be reduced or eliminated, iPad or otherwise, by clever/proper mounting. The main thing seems to be finding a way to get some sort of plastic "hood" over the top of it (as many factory nav systems accomplish by recessing the screens fairly far back into the dashboard), or placing it low enough so direct light from your windows misses it. Tinted windows may help too.
Also, I think the interface issue with the iPad can be overcome if someone really thinks it through, and writes a custom app for the purpose? I'm rather surprised it hasn't already happened, really. Ideally, I'd like to see some kind of "front end" app you'd leave running that allows things like launching a GPS mapping app, launching one of those ODBII apps that talks to a bluetooth module plugged into the port under the dash and displays engine information like spark timing, oil pressure, etc., and has a simplified (big buttons) interface for things like playing video or music in your collection. I've always thought the iPad would make an excellent trip planner too, with the right app. You could essentially do a modern day take on those old AAA "Trip-tic" flip books they used to give you. Integrate the whole GPS thing with ability to easily make your hotel reservations, locate the cheapest nearby parking garages, suggestions of cool tourist attractions coming up on your route as you go, etc. etc.
Heh.... I remember one of the kids I hung out with in grade-school had one of those Radio Shack metal detectors too. (I think it was the low-end orange plastic-handled model that just emitted various pitched tones to tell you how close you were to an object, vs. having any kind of actual meter on it.) We tried to go in to the local Dairy Queen, carrying the detector with us, to buy ice cream and drinks, and got kicked out because the manager was afraid of the device!
Actually, I just had a reason to check sound card prices this morning, because I had a client call who wants their sound problem fixed on their PC. Seems someone yanked a pair of headphones out of the front audio jack suddenly and accidentally, damaging the jack itself. Now the PC only makes nasty buzzing sounds, if anything, when you plug any speakers or headphones into it. Since it uses integrated audio, my plan was to disable the on-board sound in the BIOS and just add a sound card to use instead.
It appears you can buy a Creative Labs branded card for around $30 these days from many sources online, so they're not premium priced like they once were.
And while I agree they loaded a bunch of "bloatware" with their installation discs, I suppose the biggest benefit to buying a Creative card today is the support. With a lot of these other cards, they just use various Crystal Semiconductor chipsets on a generic board design, and they can be a huge pain to get updated drivers for, if anything newer than whatever your version of Windows auto-detects/installs is ever released.
Yeah... primarily, I found myself agreeing with the very first post after this article, where the guy said, "Because we're not 15 anymore?" I'm 39 and some people seem surprised I even PLAY computer games at my age, but why wouldn't I? I've been into computers and I.T. since I was 10 or 11, and all I've seen over the years is gaming come more and more into the entertainment mainstream, to where they compete pretty evenly with Hollywood movie releases and such. Still, you get older and your priorities change. You have so many more responsibilities, you can't justify spending 20-30 hours on completing some video game when you had so many more important things you could/should have been doing with that "free time".
These days, I find I prefer games that have no "ending", other than your team winning a quick battle before going on to the next one (which you can exit at any time you like). I don't even care for playing many "single player" games anymore, because I'd rather feel I'm at least playing against other live human beings.
That said? I *also* know the feeling about some of these "boss battles" being insanely difficult and making me just quit playing a game completely. Seems like I run into that on my PS3 a lot more than I do the computer games, though. There seems to be a large group of console gamers out there who are *really* skilled at figuring out the exact way to move, shoot and press buttons in just the right sequences to get past these challenges, so to them, "the harder, the better!". (My ex-wife is re-married to a guy who is like that... He's *really* into console gaming and has beat every title someone threw at him, usually in the first day or two. At this point, he's looking for a title with a boss battle that's SO insane, it might actually keep him busy for a few days trying to get past it.) It just makes me go "Screw it!" and eject the disc! I remember feeling that way about "Conan" on the PS3, as well as a scene in "Heavenly Sword". Both good games I liked playing until I got to some part that just seemed to repetitious AND difficult compared to everything before it -- and I lost interest.
Except, I don't think most of the people making such statements are *really* idiots who don't get the obvious differences. I think (well, hope at least!) it's a matter of trying to caution/wake up people that nations like the United States are headed down a path that leads there, ultimately, if we don't stop and look at where we're going!
Just this morning, I heard a couple of radio DJs doing their show, and despite their repeated insistence on taking a "libertarian outlook on things" in the past? These guys were obviously defending the full body scanners and pat-down searches at our airports! Their opinion, basically, was one of, "Come on! Someone having a grainy picture of your genitals is no big deal! I'd rather they see that than someone getting a bomb on my airline flight!", coupled with, "Like the TSA says... If you don't like it, just don't fly!"
That mentality is EXACTLY what gets us ever closer to Chinese style government and censorship, people!