For science and technology, that's just not valued much by our culture. Americans like entertainment and instant gratification, and think the more of that they have the better they will be.
You can combine entertainment and instant gratification and simply say that Americans like *money.* They will work long hours, ignore their families, even have both parents work long hours and essentially abandon their children to get more of it. And I'm not talking about the minimum wage workers where both mom and dad have to work to put food on the table. I'm talking about the families where both parents are making acceptable middle-class salaries, where either one could feed the family and even still save for retirement, but where both work so they can have a larger house and a new Suburban.
I think Americans in general have a very hard time finding value in, or placing value on, things that aren't easily quantified. You can't put a dollar value on time with your family...and it's hard to show it off to the neighbors. Another example: privacy. Hollywood stars complain about the papparazzi, and people always getting into their personal lives, without realizing that that is one of the hidden costs in their job...and in my opinion a perfectly reasonable one at that. A movie star doesn't bring in a few million dollars just for the time they put in on the set and promoting the movie. They've sold their privacy...and gotten quite a bit of money for it. And whether they admit it or not, they knew they were doing it. Again, Americans have a hard time fully understanding that there are both costs and benefits involved in careers that cannot be tracked by accountants.
What does this have to do with science and tech? I think this materialism is a greater threat to science in the US than all the Christian lobbyists in Washington. Unless you're fairly lucky, there is not a lot of money in science. At least not the kind of money most Americans seem to want. So it's not percieved as glamorous. And it isn't as if intelligence by itself is prized by our culture...only when it leads to money. Look at the tech stampede...kids saw money in technology, and suddenly they're taking math classes they never would have bothered with, and pushing themselves harder than they otherwise would have, not because of a love of technology, or a love of learning...but because they think they're money to be made. Of course, now it appears the money isn't there anymore, and you can bet that kids will continue to abandon tech-related degrees in favor of ones that promise more money. And if they require less actual "learning"...so much the better. After all, it's hard to put an actual value on intelligence...easier to just count money.
Right about the age that kids start to realize that things cost money, you'll notice that they start to move from wanting to be astronauts to wanting to be sports stars. Not that there are many astronauts on welfare or anything...but they don't tend to show up on MTV Cribs either.
I wish it was as easy as putting more money into science, and thus making it more glamorous...but we all know, for purely economic reasons, that this will never happen. It takes far too many scientists far too long to come up with any real results. It only takes one guy to throw a football, and there aren't many doing it professionally. So that one guy will always make more. To change this situation would require changing the actual values that are causing the problem...to make Americans value things that can't be bought or sold or put in a bank account. I don't see this happening anytime soon.
How many cross-platform games took advantage of the xbox HD beyond save-game storage? I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm guessing that the ratio of xbox 360 games that take advantage of the hard-drive to those that don't is similar...
More than you'd probably think. The two other major uses of the HD I could think of were custom soundtracks (I own a couple that use this) and downloadable Live content, such as maps, vehicles, etc. Granted, most people didn't utilize these features, but they WERE there on many titles.
I find it somewhat depressing that a rating of 79% is considered poor. There are 100 percentage points (obviously), and rating all games between 70 and 100 seems something of a waste of numbers. Last time I bought a game magazine (about 10 years ago) one of the games was given 27% - a score which really shows you that it's not worth buying (Lemmings 3D, as I recall).
The idea is that most games that are actually produced, marketed, and bought by a fair number of people should probably be 70%+ games...anything scoring 50% or less is probably so bad it just should not have even been made. So what a 79% says about a game like Madden is that, while no "Spyro: (whatever the first one for PS2 was)" or "18 Wheeler - American Pro Trucker", it is for a major title a bit of a disappointment.
And unless I'm mistaken, many games do still recieve sub 50% reviews...but chances are you aren't reading them because they are titles you would never have considered buying anyway. With the number of titles out there to cover, most magazines aren't going to waste pagespace on them, so such reviews are stuck deep in the bowels of gaming websites.
Granted, there is a bit of grade inflation going on here...5 years ago this game probably would have scored a good 10 points lower, and many games scoring in the 90's would have been in the 80's. But it's just not as bad as you're making out.
This is just in.. a game got a bad user review. What will happen next? Will hollywood produce mediocre movies? Will someone write a book that is only mildly entertaining? The world is coming to an end!!!
I think you missed the point. It isn't that a game got bad reviews overall...it's that said game, due to exclusivity contract, will be the only game available in it's genre for the entire year. That plus the fact that it is apparently not all that nor bag of chips brings up the idea that maybe a league granting exclusivity to one company is a bad thing. THAT's the point.
I agree. I don't really have much desire to spend $40/$50 on a game that really only updates the stats that it draws upon. However, I may be interested in buying a game that had updates that cost say around $10 per year. That way, I cut down on my expenses, get to play a game that has up to date stats and not have to re-learn a new game.
Here is an idea that might make me interested in sports games again. I can see it now...all the team/player information is kept in a consistant database across versions (perhaps even uniform textures, if storage space allows). That data can be downloaded via a service such as Xbox Live (or the publisher's own service), allowing updates of data across versions...so 2005, 2006, 2007, and so on could all draw from the same standardized database. Then players could actually stick with the version they enjoy (which for many is NOT the current one), and just update the rosters.
Granted, this will never happen. They LIKE making you pay 50 dollars every year. At least, EA does. But imagine you are a small/independant publisher...you could put all the development time in just once (maybe twice) over the course of a console generation, and still bring in small yearly update revenues in addition to actual title sales. Every year you could press a new copy with the updated database, to keep the rental market fresh. And if your graphics/controls were good, you might find yourself selling a lot more copies than you'd expect. I think a majority of people want off the EA treadmill.
Of course, the rosters and team data are property of the league, so you'd have to find a way to woo them away from EA (or at least get them to cheat on EA)...and I imagine most leagues are an expensive mistress.
Anyway, I imagine there are a lot of people like me who don't buy sports games anymore. And it isn't really even the price...usually I find I don't like the newest version as much as some of the older versions, but I want updated rosters. Since that simply isn't available to me at any price, I choose to keep my money. Haven't bought/rented a sports game for about two years now.
If you don't have power, it's unlikely you'll be able to use your computer. And if you have a laptop, what is powering your wireless router?
Um...a UPS? Or small personal generator? An inverter hooked up through your car (I actually used this once for temporary power when the power was out in my house, in conjunction with a long extension cable, because I couldn't find a wired phone). All you have to do is think outside the box, and you could easily have power to your router/modem during an outage for quite some time.
Besides, if there's a major earthquake or something, I think internet connection should be pretty low on your list of priorities.
True, unless you are using VOIP for your primary phone line and you have the sudden desire/burning need to call 911. Which, of course, is why using VOIP for a primary phone line is not always the best idea. Disaster-proofing in general is just a giant game of whack-a-mole anyway, though...it's pretty difficult to implement truly disaster-proof comms. I can think of a couple ways that would be better than underground cable, but even those have their own weaknesses. Eventually you have to settle for "good enough."
I'm not trolling. These are fair and honest questions. The Net is a great informational tool, but are that many people unhappy with their bandwidth? Is broadband *that* important for enough people that this should be considered a crisis?
Are that many people unhappy with their bandwidth? I'll go with yes and no. Large numbers of people are, and larger numbers would be given a real taste of the alternative. Is it a crisis, though? I'm probably with you on this in saying no. But it is something we should probably be looking into.
Where's the next revolution here? Is there one? Content delivery? Whoopee. How's that improve my day to day life? How does that make the mundane drudgery of existence smoother.
Perhaps we differ, but on-demand content delivery (whether video, audio, or text) is something that would certainly make the mundane drudgery of existance easier for me to handle. I'll take choosing what I want to watch or listen to at any given point over having it dictated by our television and radio overlords. And I certainly don't think the average selection of shows available on television at any given time is helping society any.
Granted, we're talking about a pretty high level on the ol' heirarchy of needs here. But I'm fed, housed, and in decent health, so honestly entertainment is a concern to me. Higher broadband penetration would improve it drastically.
The major fear I have is that on-demand content delivery would lead to more crap like Fear Factor or American Idol, rather than a convenient way around it.
Not only are you seeing more flash, animated images, and other "heavy" items on web pages, but you are seeing sites move away from keeping seperate "light" versions of the same page. Many also don't take the time to make sure a page degrades well (remember back in the day when most pages would still load acceptably in a text-only browser?).
I recently had the singular joy of web browsing on a high-latency (1600ms average), high packet loss (usually about 60-70%), low bandwidth (128kbps or less) connection. Most web sites were downright unbrowsable unless you had a LOT of time on your hands. But some, such as those with text-only versions or which at least degraded well with images and such turned off, were still fine.
Now, my birth mother in Lance Creek, WY, well, they'd probably have to use satellite-based service. If you know where Lance Creek, WY, is, you'll understand why cable, telco DSL, 3G, et al., will NEVER reach a good third of the US physically (i.e., between the front range of the Rocky Mts and the Mississippi River, not withstanding major metropolitan areas like Denver or Kansas City.
It's getting better in the mountain west, actually. Wyoming is probably a bit worse, as there are less sizeable towns in the state, but pretty much any major town or minor city in Montana has at least one broadband option, if not multiple. We certainly aren't talking about major metros, either. From the larger towns of Missoula, Helena, or Bozeman to the smaller ones like Livingston or Miles City, it isn't that hard to get some form of broadband (sometimes actually at a reasonable price as well).
Granted, a majority of the physical space is still not covered, so you have a point...but most of the population is. The problem is still low adoption rates, which I think is a combination of generally higher prices in these areas combined with a general attitude that still prevails that broadband is unneccessary. But a majority of people without broadband in Montana are not without it for lack of access.
A decent computer will waste any of the upcoming consoles for average applications.
Except that a 400 dollar Dell (which is the kind of computer we were talking about here) will NOT waste any of the upcoming consoles for playing games. Which some people still want to do on these things.:)
How many different hardware configurations were there for the gamecube?
Only one version was sold, obviously, but the addition of the broadband (as well as dial-up) adapters created what amounted to two installed bases, those with networking and those without. Same with the PS2...the addition of the HDD kit and ethernet adapters created multiple versions in the hands of end users. To my knowledge there are no major hardware additions to the Xbox, as it was already a complete system as sold at launch.
That, or have absolutely no titles on the shelves next to the console, which is kinda primo retarted when you think about it.
All these young whippersnappers whining about launch titles...back in my day, you were lucky if there were ANY launch titles, dammit. You bought the console, took it home, hooked it to the TV, and waited. And you liked it, dammit! Just kept the damn thing dusted, because you knew the titles would come out someday.
Okay, maybe that's a little over the top. But am I the only one who remembers the days of single-digit launch titles? Where you counted yourself lucky to have MULTIPLE launch titles?
This seems rather polar.. you either get bargain basement or everything they can cram into it.. and no in betweens?
Considering there is only a 100 dollar difference between the two, seems reasonable. This is a game console, not a Dell...
I personally wish they only had one model. That's one of the things I always liked about consoles. I like walking in and not having to worry about which model I buy. I like the biggest decision to be color. That's the point of console gaming, in my opinion. If I wanted choices, I'd stick to PC.
And as I've mentioned before, Xbox was the only one last generation that didn't have any significantly different hardware configurations, and it's one thing I liked about them. I guess they aren't so good at learning from the mistakes of others, which isn't surprising. It's always easier to learn from your own.
And that's the problem: For every other country whose government's have committed mass murder, whether justifiable or not, there is a sense of history, of ownership of the bad as well as the good, there is a conceivability that they are as much responsible for the past as they are for the present and future.
We dropped a bomb on a city of a nation we were currently at war with. Yeah, it was a big bomb. But at the time, the whole stigma against nuclear weapons wasn't widespread yet, since they hadn't yet been used. So the fact remains...all we did in this instance was drop a bomb on the enemy.
You want dwell on past murders and atrocities that were justified by the US government, then let's talk about slavery. I'll buy that one. But the use of nuclear weapons, in the grand scheme of things, really wasn't that special. We had killed nearly as many civilians in previous bombings of other cities using conventional means, as had everybody else. It was an accepted tactic at the time. The fact that this was one (or rather, two) big bombs rather than lots of smaller ones just never seemed to make a lot of difference in my eyes.
You would never have gotten away with that at Fry's. The Fry's stores here in Texas practically treat you as if you've already ripped them off. Everything is meticulously disassembled and de-packaged, and the Fry's laborers are not above putting on an accusatory tone when interrogating you about your return. In fact, you're accosted as soon as you enter the store, funneled off to the side and watched very carefully lest you actually have the cajones to walk onto the retail floor with a previously-purchased item.
I've done returns/exchanges at least 10 times (1 in Sacramento, CA and the rest in Phoenix, AZ), and I've never had any of these problems...well, except that last one, but I never felt I was watched all that carefully.
Sounds like the people at your local Fry's are just dicks. Though from what else I've heard you aren't alone. I guess I was just lucky...
The only time an exchange even took all that long for me was when I had a faulty power supply that took several other parts of the computer I had built down with it...and that was just because they wanted to test each part to make sure they weren't replacing anything that still worked. Which is fair, I'd say.
basically helping yourself to an extended warranty.
No, since he said he does it when the item is within the normal 15 day return window, he's helping himself to a reasonable return policy. See the difference?
Is it dishonest? Yep. But I'd definitely put it a few pegs above shoplifting. And personally, I the the store in question is probably equally sleazy. Many stores carry items they know are crap, that they know are unreliable. That's part of the reason they only do same-item exchanges and charge restocking fees if you want something different. If stores wouldn't carry items that have a high rate of returns, they wouldn't run into this issue.
If I have a reciept, bought the item in the last two weeks, and it turned out to be defective, I should be able to get a DIFFERENT item, with no penalty. Why would I want another one of the same item, if the first one was crap? If that happens too often for their tastes, they should stop carrying the crap item(s).
Re:Employees are the biggest source of retail thef
on
Retail Fraud on the Rise
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
(many places only give employees 10% off, if that... It barely negates sales tax)
I know that one reason many big-box chains don't give larger employee discounts is that if they gave more than 10% they would actually lose money on many items. This is also the reason that Target, for instance, doesn't let you use a non-Target credit card in conjunction with your employee discount...the extra few percent they'd lose in CC fees would push many sales into losses for them.
I would never argue that they shouldn't pay more, though...I'm with you on that. Especially because while people won't generally work harder for a better employee discount, many people WILL work harder for more pay. So if they paid more, they would see some of that money returned to them in the form of better productivity.
Even the games are complete turds people are going to lap it up because they have the jump on the next gen.
This has been proven time and time again, and in my opinion never more so than with the launch of the PS2. So I'm guessing Sony would know better than to let anybody get the jump on them this next generation...look how well that lead worked out for them with the PS2.
Another way to look at it: I live at intersection B which has had thirty pedestrian fatalities in the last year from DWIs. Should my employer be able to fire me because the illegal activities of others may inconvenience him if I get hit on the way home?
But I already wrote:
Granted, somebody might want to make the same argument for dangerous actions like skydiving or skiing...they could lead to injury (or possibly death), and affect your employer. But for that person I will go ahead and lay out the difference (yes, I know most of you already know it): those actions aren't illegal.
So I'm pretty sure I already answered that particular question. Living on intersection B, like skiing or skydiving, is not illegal, and well within your rights.
As for why the legality makes a difference, I'll go with this. Keep in mind, this is only my opinion, and you are entitled to yours. The reason I think illegal actions should be your employer's business, as I already stated, is that you have no right whatsoever to engage in them. In fact, you could say you literally have the legal obligation to not engage in them. And their very illegality is likely to at some point have a negative impact on your work performance, as you cannot show up to work if you end up in jail/prison. Oh, and I'm really only referring to those crimes that are likely to lead to being arrested/imprisoned...I'm not talking about minor traffic violations here.
You have every right to live at intersection B, or go bungee jumping, or partake in any of the multitude of activities that could theoretically lead to your injury or death, and thus negatively impact your employer. You do not, however, have the right (in the US, at least) to deal drugs, or steal cars, or burglarize houses, or run an illegal sports book from your home. So if your employer decides to terminate your employement because you're doing any of these things, I'm not going to feel bad for you...and I don't think the government should either.
Probably one of the few situations where I consider myself to be a conservative. Maybe it's because, as the manager of a store, I've had employees unable to show up because they were in jail.
*ANY* action (legal or not), if it doesn't affect you on work time and doesn't use work resources shouldn't matter.
Except that in the case of illegal substance abuse or general crime, you run the risk of being arrested and thrown in prison. In this situation, it is unlikely you'll be able to give a two week notice, and they are going to have to replace you. Training your replacement costs money. Lost productivity while that replacement is being trained, and you're in the clink, might cost them even more.
So the point is that while your illegal activities may not *currently* be affecting you on work time, there is a much higher probability that they *will* at some point. And since the activities are, as stated, illegal, they're probably not protected by any particular government acts. So yeah, your employer should be able to can you for illegal activities, even if they are off the clock and don't directly affect the company.
Granted, somebody might want to make the same argument for dangerous actions like skydiving or skiing...they could lead to injury (or possibly death), and affect your employer. But for that person I will go ahead and lay out the difference (yes, I know most of you already know it): those actions aren't illegal.
So, they view it as a useful wishlist, they are implementing lots of stuff from it, but they don't expect full compliance for the scheduled release (which is scheduled to be long before the Vista release, possibly this year). From my perspective, this is quite a bit from "screw it, we're not going to waste our time just to pass that."
Very true. Actually, it's more a case of not having time to waste, rather than not wasting time. Personally, I wish they had either started sooner or would take longer, and do it right...but they didn't really have the incentive to start sooner (no competition), and taking longer isn't really an option when you're playing catch-up.
Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on them, either. They are finally taking large steps in the right direction, and it's probably best to at least save the bashing for AFTER the product is released.
Sometimes I have this knee-jerk reaction to unload with both barrels on them, though...mostly because I do truly hate IE as it is now. Granted, that doesn't exactly put me in the minority around here, but sometimes it does make me fill a little silly afterward.
Funny how quickly the MS bashing begins, yet when I just tried the Acid2 test with Firefox (my browser of choice btw), the results were far from impressive. And correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know Acid2 isn't an officially accepted standard, it's a *proposed* standard.
Acid2 is a test of the CSS standard, not the standard itself. And no, Firefox doesn't pass. But the Firefox team has made it a goal TO pass, unlike the IE team which has apparently said, "screw it, we're not going to waste our time just to pass that." IE is shooting for "good enough."
Considering the amount of money Microsoft could theoretically pump into development on the next version of IE, wouldn't it make more sense for them to be the first to pass the test (and by doing so provide implied compliance with the standard)?
When they haven't renounced their citizenship by joining the military of a nation currently engaged in hostilities with the US? Granted the US was a little lenient with Johnny (Lindh) Taliban, but they needn't have been.
Except that according to the info I could find, Padilla didn't do this. See, for that clause to apply, you have to join the military of a foreign nation, not join a terrorist network. The administration is holding him as an "illegal combatant," and they have asserted their right to do this even though he is still a US citizen. They are defending their right to hold US citizens as illegal combatants in court.
And according to a little quick research (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), the government has actually lost in court, and been ordered to release Padilla...but they've recieved a stay of that order pending their appeal* (and this is the second time they've lost, in two different courts; the Supreme Court, rather than rule on the case, ruled that New York was an inappropriate venue for the case, and ordered it tried in South Carolina, where he's being held...where they lost again, and are now appealing).
So yeah, he's still a US citizen, being held pretty much indefinitely without trial. And no, the rest of us have no assurances that it couldn't happen to use as well. Innocence helps, of course, but is far from a guarantee.
* - I will say this makes sense, considering the nature of the case...once they release this guy, he is likely to disappear very quickly. But personally I'd rather we eventually let this guy go, and he disappear, than we become the kind of country that can hold its citizens indefinitely without trial.
Note: The only sources I had time to check on this were Wikipedia, and a couple articles on CNN and The New York Times. Not exactly hard-core research. Feel free to let me know if my facts are wrong. But I'm pretty sure if nothing else that Padilla is still considered a US citizen, which is the main point I'm addressing here.
Slashdot Mirror
For science and technology, that's just not valued much by our culture. Americans like entertainment and instant gratification, and think the more of that they have the better they will be.
You can combine entertainment and instant gratification and simply say that Americans like *money.* They will work long hours, ignore their families, even have both parents work long hours and essentially abandon their children to get more of it. And I'm not talking about the minimum wage workers where both mom and dad have to work to put food on the table. I'm talking about the families where both parents are making acceptable middle-class salaries, where either one could feed the family and even still save for retirement, but where both work so they can have a larger house and a new Suburban.
I think Americans in general have a very hard time finding value in, or placing value on, things that aren't easily quantified. You can't put a dollar value on time with your family...and it's hard to show it off to the neighbors. Another example: privacy. Hollywood stars complain about the papparazzi, and people always getting into their personal lives, without realizing that that is one of the hidden costs in their job...and in my opinion a perfectly reasonable one at that. A movie star doesn't bring in a few million dollars just for the time they put in on the set and promoting the movie. They've sold their privacy...and gotten quite a bit of money for it. And whether they admit it or not, they knew they were doing it. Again, Americans have a hard time fully understanding that there are both costs and benefits involved in careers that cannot be tracked by accountants.
What does this have to do with science and tech? I think this materialism is a greater threat to science in the US than all the Christian lobbyists in Washington. Unless you're fairly lucky, there is not a lot of money in science. At least not the kind of money most Americans seem to want. So it's not percieved as glamorous. And it isn't as if intelligence by itself is prized by our culture...only when it leads to money. Look at the tech stampede...kids saw money in technology, and suddenly they're taking math classes they never would have bothered with, and pushing themselves harder than they otherwise would have, not because of a love of technology, or a love of learning...but because they think they're money to be made. Of course, now it appears the money isn't there anymore, and you can bet that kids will continue to abandon tech-related degrees in favor of ones that promise more money. And if they require less actual "learning"...so much the better. After all, it's hard to put an actual value on intelligence...easier to just count money.
Right about the age that kids start to realize that things cost money, you'll notice that they start to move from wanting to be astronauts to wanting to be sports stars. Not that there are many astronauts on welfare or anything...but they don't tend to show up on MTV Cribs either.
I wish it was as easy as putting more money into science, and thus making it more glamorous...but we all know, for purely economic reasons, that this will never happen. It takes far too many scientists far too long to come up with any real results. It only takes one guy to throw a football, and there aren't many doing it professionally. So that one guy will always make more. To change this situation would require changing the actual values that are causing the problem...to make Americans value things that can't be bought or sold or put in a bank account. I don't see this happening anytime soon.
How many cross-platform games took advantage of the xbox HD beyond save-game storage? I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm guessing that the ratio of xbox 360 games that take advantage of the hard-drive to those that don't is similar...
More than you'd probably think. The two other major uses of the HD I could think of were custom soundtracks (I own a couple that use this) and downloadable Live content, such as maps, vehicles, etc. Granted, most people didn't utilize these features, but they WERE there on many titles.
I find it somewhat depressing that a rating of 79% is considered poor. There are 100 percentage points (obviously), and rating all games between 70 and 100 seems something of a waste of numbers. Last time I bought a game magazine (about 10 years ago) one of the games was given 27% - a score which really shows you that it's not worth buying (Lemmings 3D, as I recall).
The idea is that most games that are actually produced, marketed, and bought by a fair number of people should probably be 70%+ games...anything scoring 50% or less is probably so bad it just should not have even been made. So what a 79% says about a game like Madden is that, while no "Spyro: (whatever the first one for PS2 was)" or "18 Wheeler - American Pro Trucker", it is for a major title a bit of a disappointment.
And unless I'm mistaken, many games do still recieve sub 50% reviews...but chances are you aren't reading them because they are titles you would never have considered buying anyway. With the number of titles out there to cover, most magazines aren't going to waste pagespace on them, so such reviews are stuck deep in the bowels of gaming websites.
Granted, there is a bit of grade inflation going on here...5 years ago this game probably would have scored a good 10 points lower, and many games scoring in the 90's would have been in the 80's. But it's just not as bad as you're making out.
This is just in.. a game got a bad user review. What will happen next? Will hollywood produce mediocre movies? Will someone write a book that is only mildly entertaining? The world is coming to an end!!!
I think you missed the point. It isn't that a game got bad reviews overall...it's that said game, due to exclusivity contract, will be the only game available in it's genre for the entire year. That plus the fact that it is apparently not all that nor bag of chips brings up the idea that maybe a league granting exclusivity to one company is a bad thing. THAT's the point.
I agree. I don't really have much desire to spend $40/$50 on a game that really only updates the stats that it draws upon. However, I may be interested in buying a game that had updates that cost say around $10 per year. That way, I cut down on my expenses, get to play a game that has up to date stats and not have to re-learn a new game.
Here is an idea that might make me interested in sports games again. I can see it now...all the team/player information is kept in a consistant database across versions (perhaps even uniform textures, if storage space allows). That data can be downloaded via a service such as Xbox Live (or the publisher's own service), allowing updates of data across versions...so 2005, 2006, 2007, and so on could all draw from the same standardized database. Then players could actually stick with the version they enjoy (which for many is NOT the current one), and just update the rosters.
Granted, this will never happen. They LIKE making you pay 50 dollars every year. At least, EA does. But imagine you are a small/independant publisher...you could put all the development time in just once (maybe twice) over the course of a console generation, and still bring in small yearly update revenues in addition to actual title sales. Every year you could press a new copy with the updated database, to keep the rental market fresh. And if your graphics/controls were good, you might find yourself selling a lot more copies than you'd expect. I think a majority of people want off the EA treadmill.
Of course, the rosters and team data are property of the league, so you'd have to find a way to woo them away from EA (or at least get them to cheat on EA)...and I imagine most leagues are an expensive mistress.
Anyway, I imagine there are a lot of people like me who don't buy sports games anymore. And it isn't really even the price...usually I find I don't like the newest version as much as some of the older versions, but I want updated rosters. Since that simply isn't available to me at any price, I choose to keep my money. Haven't bought/rented a sports game for about two years now.
Does that make me slashdot-worthy?
Will it run Linux?
If you don't have power, it's unlikely you'll be able to use your computer. And if you have a laptop, what is powering your wireless router?
Um...a UPS? Or small personal generator? An inverter hooked up through your car (I actually used this once for temporary power when the power was out in my house, in conjunction with a long extension cable, because I couldn't find a wired phone). All you have to do is think outside the box, and you could easily have power to your router/modem during an outage for quite some time.
Besides, if there's a major earthquake or something, I think internet connection should be pretty low on your list of priorities.
True, unless you are using VOIP for your primary phone line and you have the sudden desire/burning need to call 911. Which, of course, is why using VOIP for a primary phone line is not always the best idea. Disaster-proofing in general is just a giant game of whack-a-mole anyway, though...it's pretty difficult to implement truly disaster-proof comms. I can think of a couple ways that would be better than underground cable, but even those have their own weaknesses. Eventually you have to settle for "good enough."
I'm not trolling. These are fair and honest questions. The Net is a great informational tool, but are that many people unhappy with their bandwidth? Is broadband *that* important for enough people that this should be considered a crisis?
Are that many people unhappy with their bandwidth? I'll go with yes and no. Large numbers of people are, and larger numbers would be given a real taste of the alternative. Is it a crisis, though? I'm probably with you on this in saying no. But it is something we should probably be looking into.
Where's the next revolution here? Is there one? Content delivery? Whoopee. How's that improve my day to day life? How does that make the mundane drudgery of existence smoother.
Perhaps we differ, but on-demand content delivery (whether video, audio, or text) is something that would certainly make the mundane drudgery of existance easier for me to handle. I'll take choosing what I want to watch or listen to at any given point over having it dictated by our television and radio overlords. And I certainly don't think the average selection of shows available on television at any given time is helping society any.
Granted, we're talking about a pretty high level on the ol' heirarchy of needs here. But I'm fed, housed, and in decent health, so honestly entertainment is a concern to me. Higher broadband penetration would improve it drastically.
The major fear I have is that on-demand content delivery would lead to more crap like Fear Factor or American Idol, rather than a convenient way around it.
Not only are you seeing more flash, animated images, and other "heavy" items on web pages, but you are seeing sites move away from keeping seperate "light" versions of the same page. Many also don't take the time to make sure a page degrades well (remember back in the day when most pages would still load acceptably in a text-only browser?).
I recently had the singular joy of web browsing on a high-latency (1600ms average), high packet loss (usually about 60-70%), low bandwidth (128kbps or less) connection. Most web sites were downright unbrowsable unless you had a LOT of time on your hands. But some, such as those with text-only versions or which at least degraded well with images and such turned off, were still fine.
Now, my birth mother in Lance Creek, WY, well, they'd probably have to use satellite-based service. If you know where Lance Creek, WY, is, you'll understand why cable, telco DSL, 3G, et al., will NEVER reach a good third of the US physically (i.e., between the front range of the Rocky Mts and the Mississippi River, not withstanding major metropolitan areas like Denver or Kansas City.
It's getting better in the mountain west, actually. Wyoming is probably a bit worse, as there are less sizeable towns in the state, but pretty much any major town or minor city in Montana has at least one broadband option, if not multiple. We certainly aren't talking about major metros, either. From the larger towns of Missoula, Helena, or Bozeman to the smaller ones like Livingston or Miles City, it isn't that hard to get some form of broadband (sometimes actually at a reasonable price as well).
Granted, a majority of the physical space is still not covered, so you have a point...but most of the population is. The problem is still low adoption rates, which I think is a combination of generally higher prices in these areas combined with a general attitude that still prevails that broadband is unneccessary. But a majority of people without broadband in Montana are not without it for lack of access.
A decent computer will waste any of the upcoming consoles for average applications.
:)
Except that a 400 dollar Dell (which is the kind of computer we were talking about here) will NOT waste any of the upcoming consoles for playing games. Which some people still want to do on these things.
How many different hardware configurations were there for the gamecube?
Only one version was sold, obviously, but the addition of the broadband (as well as dial-up) adapters created what amounted to two installed bases, those with networking and those without. Same with the PS2...the addition of the HDD kit and ethernet adapters created multiple versions in the hands of end users. To my knowledge there are no major hardware additions to the Xbox, as it was already a complete system as sold at launch.
That, or have absolutely no titles on the shelves next to the console, which is kinda primo retarted when you think about it.
:).
All these young whippersnappers whining about launch titles...back in my day, you were lucky if there were ANY launch titles, dammit. You bought the console, took it home, hooked it to the TV, and waited. And you liked it, dammit! Just kept the damn thing dusted, because you knew the titles would come out someday.
Okay, maybe that's a little over the top. But am I the only one who remembers the days of single-digit launch titles? Where you counted yourself lucky to have MULTIPLE launch titles?
Maybe I'm just old
This seems rather polar.. you either get bargain basement or everything they can cram into it.. and no in betweens?
Considering there is only a 100 dollar difference between the two, seems reasonable. This is a game console, not a Dell...
I personally wish they only had one model. That's one of the things I always liked about consoles. I like walking in and not having to worry about which model I buy. I like the biggest decision to be color. That's the point of console gaming, in my opinion. If I wanted choices, I'd stick to PC.
And as I've mentioned before, Xbox was the only one last generation that didn't have any significantly different hardware configurations, and it's one thing I liked about them. I guess they aren't so good at learning from the mistakes of others, which isn't surprising. It's always easier to learn from your own.
And that's the problem: For every other country whose government's have committed mass murder, whether justifiable or not, there is a sense of history, of ownership of the bad as well as the good, there is a conceivability that they are as much responsible for the past as they are for the present and future.
We dropped a bomb on a city of a nation we were currently at war with. Yeah, it was a big bomb. But at the time, the whole stigma against nuclear weapons wasn't widespread yet, since they hadn't yet been used. So the fact remains...all we did in this instance was drop a bomb on the enemy.
You want dwell on past murders and atrocities that were justified by the US government, then let's talk about slavery. I'll buy that one. But the use of nuclear weapons, in the grand scheme of things, really wasn't that special. We had killed nearly as many civilians in previous bombings of other cities using conventional means, as had everybody else. It was an accepted tactic at the time. The fact that this was one (or rather, two) big bombs rather than lots of smaller ones just never seemed to make a lot of difference in my eyes.
You would never have gotten away with that at Fry's. The Fry's stores here in Texas practically treat you as if you've already ripped them off. Everything is meticulously disassembled and de-packaged, and the Fry's laborers are not above putting on an accusatory tone when interrogating you about your return. In fact, you're accosted as soon as you enter the store, funneled off to the side and watched very carefully lest you actually have the cajones to walk onto the retail floor with a previously-purchased item.
I've done returns/exchanges at least 10 times (1 in Sacramento, CA and the rest in Phoenix, AZ), and I've never had any of these problems...well, except that last one, but I never felt I was watched all that carefully.
Sounds like the people at your local Fry's are just dicks. Though from what else I've heard you aren't alone. I guess I was just lucky...
The only time an exchange even took all that long for me was when I had a faulty power supply that took several other parts of the computer I had built down with it...and that was just because they wanted to test each part to make sure they weren't replacing anything that still worked. Which is fair, I'd say.
basically helping yourself to an extended warranty.
No, since he said he does it when the item is within the normal 15 day return window, he's helping himself to a reasonable return policy. See the difference?
Is it dishonest? Yep. But I'd definitely put it a few pegs above shoplifting. And personally, I the the store in question is probably equally sleazy. Many stores carry items they know are crap, that they know are unreliable. That's part of the reason they only do same-item exchanges and charge restocking fees if you want something different. If stores wouldn't carry items that have a high rate of returns, they wouldn't run into this issue.
If I have a reciept, bought the item in the last two weeks, and it turned out to be defective, I should be able to get a DIFFERENT item, with no penalty. Why would I want another one of the same item, if the first one was crap? If that happens too often for their tastes, they should stop carrying the crap item(s).
(many places only give employees 10% off, if that... It barely negates sales tax)
I know that one reason many big-box chains don't give larger employee discounts is that if they gave more than 10% they would actually lose money on many items. This is also the reason that Target, for instance, doesn't let you use a non-Target credit card in conjunction with your employee discount...the extra few percent they'd lose in CC fees would push many sales into losses for them.
I would never argue that they shouldn't pay more, though...I'm with you on that. Especially because while people won't generally work harder for a better employee discount, many people WILL work harder for more pay. So if they paid more, they would see some of that money returned to them in the form of better productivity.
Even the games are complete turds people are going to lap it up because they have the jump on the next gen.
This has been proven time and time again, and in my opinion never more so than with the launch of the PS2. So I'm guessing Sony would know better than to let anybody get the jump on them this next generation...look how well that lead worked out for them with the PS2.
You wrote:
Another way to look at it: I live at intersection B which has had thirty pedestrian fatalities in the last year from DWIs. Should my employer be able to fire me because the illegal activities of others may inconvenience him if I get hit on the way home?
But I already wrote:
Granted, somebody might want to make the same argument for dangerous actions like skydiving or skiing...they could lead to injury (or possibly death), and affect your employer. But for that person I will go ahead and lay out the difference (yes, I know most of you already know it): those actions aren't illegal.
So I'm pretty sure I already answered that particular question. Living on intersection B, like skiing or skydiving, is not illegal, and well within your rights.
As for why the legality makes a difference, I'll go with this. Keep in mind, this is only my opinion, and you are entitled to yours. The reason I think illegal actions should be your employer's business, as I already stated, is that you have no right whatsoever to engage in them. In fact, you could say you literally have the legal obligation to not engage in them. And their very illegality is likely to at some point have a negative impact on your work performance, as you cannot show up to work if you end up in jail/prison. Oh, and I'm really only referring to those crimes that are likely to lead to being arrested/imprisoned...I'm not talking about minor traffic violations here.
You have every right to live at intersection B, or go bungee jumping, or partake in any of the multitude of activities that could theoretically lead to your injury or death, and thus negatively impact your employer. You do not, however, have the right (in the US, at least) to deal drugs, or steal cars, or burglarize houses, or run an illegal sports book from your home. So if your employer decides to terminate your employement because you're doing any of these things, I'm not going to feel bad for you...and I don't think the government should either.
Probably one of the few situations where I consider myself to be a conservative. Maybe it's because, as the manager of a store, I've had employees unable to show up because they were in jail.
*ANY* action (legal or not), if it doesn't affect you on work time and doesn't use work resources shouldn't matter.
Except that in the case of illegal substance abuse or general crime, you run the risk of being arrested and thrown in prison. In this situation, it is unlikely you'll be able to give a two week notice, and they are going to have to replace you. Training your replacement costs money. Lost productivity while that replacement is being trained, and you're in the clink, might cost them even more.
So the point is that while your illegal activities may not *currently* be affecting you on work time, there is a much higher probability that they *will* at some point. And since the activities are, as stated, illegal, they're probably not protected by any particular government acts. So yeah, your employer should be able to can you for illegal activities, even if they are off the clock and don't directly affect the company.
Granted, somebody might want to make the same argument for dangerous actions like skydiving or skiing...they could lead to injury (or possibly death), and affect your employer. But for that person I will go ahead and lay out the difference (yes, I know most of you already know it): those actions aren't illegal.
Or are you going to be sensible and see which has the better games first?
:)
But I thought the only way to tell which game is better is by number of polygons, detail of textures, frame rates, and screen resolution!
So, they view it as a useful wishlist, they are implementing lots of stuff from it, but they don't expect full compliance for the scheduled release (which is scheduled to be long before the Vista release, possibly this year). From my perspective, this is quite a bit from "screw it, we're not going to waste our time just to pass that."
Very true. Actually, it's more a case of not having time to waste, rather than not wasting time. Personally, I wish they had either started sooner or would take longer, and do it right...but they didn't really have the incentive to start sooner (no competition), and taking longer isn't really an option when you're playing catch-up.
Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on them, either. They are finally taking large steps in the right direction, and it's probably best to at least save the bashing for AFTER the product is released.
Sometimes I have this knee-jerk reaction to unload with both barrels on them, though...mostly because I do truly hate IE as it is now. Granted, that doesn't exactly put me in the minority around here, but sometimes it does make me fill a little silly afterward.
Funny how quickly the MS bashing begins, yet when I just tried the Acid2 test with Firefox (my browser of choice btw), the results were far from impressive. And correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know Acid2 isn't an officially accepted standard, it's a *proposed* standard.
Acid2 is a test of the CSS standard, not the standard itself. And no, Firefox doesn't pass. But the Firefox team has made it a goal TO pass, unlike the IE team which has apparently said, "screw it, we're not going to waste our time just to pass that." IE is shooting for "good enough."
Considering the amount of money Microsoft could theoretically pump into development on the next version of IE, wouldn't it make more sense for them to be the first to pass the test (and by doing so provide implied compliance with the standard)?
When they haven't renounced their citizenship by joining the military of a nation currently engaged in hostilities with the US? Granted the US was a little lenient with Johnny (Lindh) Taliban, but they needn't have been.
Except that according to the info I could find, Padilla didn't do this. See, for that clause to apply, you have to join the military of a foreign nation, not join a terrorist network. The administration is holding him as an "illegal combatant," and they have asserted their right to do this even though he is still a US citizen. They are defending their right to hold US citizens as illegal combatants in court.
And according to a little quick research (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), the government has actually lost in court, and been ordered to release Padilla...but they've recieved a stay of that order pending their appeal* (and this is the second time they've lost, in two different courts; the Supreme Court, rather than rule on the case, ruled that New York was an inappropriate venue for the case, and ordered it tried in South Carolina, where he's being held...where they lost again, and are now appealing).
So yeah, he's still a US citizen, being held pretty much indefinitely without trial. And no, the rest of us have no assurances that it couldn't happen to use as well. Innocence helps, of course, but is far from a guarantee.
* - I will say this makes sense, considering the nature of the case...once they release this guy, he is likely to disappear very quickly. But personally I'd rather we eventually let this guy go, and he disappear, than we become the kind of country that can hold its citizens indefinitely without trial.
Note: The only sources I had time to check on this were Wikipedia, and a couple articles on CNN and The New York Times. Not exactly hard-core research. Feel free to let me know if my facts are wrong. But I'm pretty sure if nothing else that Padilla is still considered a US citizen, which is the main point I'm addressing here.