You must be a few years younger than me. I'm 33, and when I first started driving, all petrol stations measured in gallons. However, as you previously said... that's even more confusing, since our gallons were different to America's. Unless we'd been forced to change to litres by Europe, we wouldn't have.
Even now, most people understand mpg. No one I know intuitively understands or uses l/km. I mean, we still use miles for everything anyway (we got an exemption for miles and pints and a couple of other things from Europe, but know that these excemptions are under threat).
$9 is about £6, btw... without looking... hope I'm not way off (I did just check... it's more like £5.50). My current car unfortunately has been doing about 200 miles to a tank. It's a little 1.8 litre. It doesn't help that I drive it like a lunatic though, or that it's an Integra type R. Yep, you heard that right... I'm using about 25 pence (about 40 cents) for every mile I drive, just on fuel, with a 1.8 litre car (note to Americans - that's just over 100 cubic inches... had to look that one up, because despite using gallons for fuel, I've never ever dealt with cubic inches)
As a little aside... I'm also an HGV driver. One of my runs is about 375 miles, and that uses almost £250 of diesel daily.
My 13 year old hot hatch has had its stock brethren do the nurburgring in 8:43.... the Integra Type R. Here is a youtube vid of a slightly modded one doing it in 8:44. Here is a nice list. What's interesting to note is that the only car less powerful but quicker on that list is the Exige, and that's over 350kg lighter, and 1 second faster.
I've been surviving on mobile broadband at home for over a year. The reason for this is cost - £15 a month for 15gb. I don't have a landline, or television... so I went for the cheapest option. It's tear you hair out annoying sometimes, not because you can't get connection, I have a good connection to the tower, but just the service is so bad. I've gotten used to disconnecting and reconnecting very often, because that (sometimes) fixes it. Currently I'm downloading something from Steam at about 200KB/S (HSPA), which is generally better than average for me.
Anyway, I do use it for the internet, and television (a TV license is only required in the UK if you watch TV as broadcast - using the iPlayer afterwards is exempt). 15gb is a decent allowance too, and most of the time it streams ok. One thing that does seem weird to me is that it does not deliberately drop the connection... ever. I've forgotten to disconnect a few times, and it's been up and running when I get back to my house days later.
How many times can an item be returned before it loses its "new" status? Just once, twice, or a lot more? Seriously, new means new, not as new. Personally I'm happy with buying returned items, as long as I know about it. If the company is advertising items that may have been previously used as new, that's technically fraud. Also, I'm happy with companies using relatively draconian returns policies - I don't want to pay for someone who realises what they bought wasn't quite what they wanted.
Anything so close to consciousness that we can't tell the difference for all intents and purposes IS consciousness.
Yes.... but nothing artificial has come very close yet. Dogs and cats I know have thoughts and ideas, because of all of the evidence that supports this - it's patently obvious, communication is the bottleneck. I've not seen similar behaviour in anything artificial yet, which are designed explicitly to allow easy communication.
Anything so close to consciousness that we can't tell the difference relies _entirely_ upon our ability to communicate with it. It's a dangerous precedent since it focuses exclusively upon ourselves, and ignores ability.
You're missing the physiological reflexes. Without any kind of expectation of emotional connection, touch can be comforting. There doesn't need to be an emotional connection there. For example.... when I get home cold, wrap myself up in my duvet, that is comforting. The touch of familiar things is comforting despite knowing those familiar things have no empathy (though if I don't wash my duvet soon some may argue otherwise).
Robots automatically creep people out currently, especially when simulating humans. However, they could at some point become so ubiquitous that comfort is not seen as unnatural or weird. You could claim that automatic massagers are at that kind of point already for some - they're not empathetic nor kind, but they make some users feel better.
I agree wholeheartedly. Many gamers spend too much on their video card, but if you've got an otherwise decent PC, getting a $100-$150 video card will turn it into a perfectly fine gaming machine.
I absolutely disagree. Gamers on a budget can spend a full half of their system price on the graphics card alone, and be right in doing so. The rest of the system does not matter with regards to games usually. My system is cheap - but I just hit almost 1000 on the heaven benchmark, without overclocking anything. I've also fakeraid striped my two main drives, which probably isn't for most people, but increases data transfer times _way_ more than fast, expensive hard drives. You can build a good gaming system for $500 from scratch. One of the big new costs though is upgrading your PSU to support your graphics card - Fortunately I went a little overkill when I bought my previous PC, and got a decent 600W one. That is supposedly borderline with a 460gtx.... not for the maximum draw, but loads of cheap PSUs go wayward when required to spit out their quoted wattage, and voltages go awry, amongst many things. My system is pretty much 100% stable with Vista... 1051 hours current uptime isn't too bad for a home computer. (I turn it off when I'm not using it during the summer... a little heater in the corner of the room is not welcome then). Amusingly the lowest temperature I've recorded for my gtx460 core is 10c, which I know is pretty accurate... always on, stock cooler (my house gets cold when I'm not there during the day - this was back in December in the UK, which was a cold month by most people's standards). Highest temperature recorded is about 70.
I generally spend a little more than that and generally have a PC that will run anything thrown at it. I bought a geforce ti4200 when they were first out. I didn't upgrade for about 6 years from that card - when I did upgrade, it was still outperforming some cards which were retailing at the $100 mark. I did get lucky with that though, I went to an 8800GT with proper crap cooling (it ran at just under 100c under load). It was usable, and performed very well in many circumstances, and now my mum's got it, because I've got this new(ish) gtx460 from them.
The two games I'm most excited about learning about and playing now are Deus Ex, and Dwarven Fortress. I could just ditch my rig and use any old crap machine for these two... but that is part of the magic of PC gaming.
Except precise controls have never been something that most people who play video games cares about. It's really not that much of an advantage except in twitch games like multiplayer COD. You certainly don't need pin point precision for rpg games, platformers, action adventure games, ect. They just need to be good enough.
A little while back, Football Manager 2011 topped the games charts in the UK as a PC only release. This was in a week in which a couple of the biggest selling franchises released multi-platform titles. You don't need pin point precision to run it, but I can't imagine how annoying it would be without a mouse. Also, FM11 would be crap running without large databases, which current consoles can't provide.
I annoys me that 99% of the posts so far are about control methods. That's not what this article is about, there's plenty of other topics to flame therein (mouse does win in just about all circumstances, imo). This article is about how far behind current PC hardware current console hardware is, and how that is actually beginning to noticeably affect current game engine design.
The biggest perceived advantage that a console has over a PC is ease of use. There is no installation to worry about. You simply put the CD in the drive and play. You also don't have to worry about spending hundreds of dollars on upgrades in order to play the latest games. I don't know if this last point is true or not, but that perception is pretty prevalent in my experience.
I admittedly did upgrade my graphics card on my PC recently, to a gtx460. It cost about a third of what my ps3 cost when I bought it. The rest of my PC I _already have_, and would already have even if I didn't use it for gaming at all. Most people's poor results gaming on PCs are due to buying overpriced general use systems not intended for gaming at all. Nearly all of the time, gaming is throttled by the graphics card. Nearly all of the time, mass produced PC systems skimp on the graphics card because they are expensive.
Another problem comparing PCs with consoles is the resolution. I play games at 1920*1200 on my PC. That's well over double the pixel count of 1280*720, which only _some_ console games manage. Admittedly some console games will run at 1920*1080, but they are very few and far between. If you want to compare graphics, you've got to set up like for like comparisons.
There's no resource in space that is not available here, on Earth, at a vastly lower price point. There is no territory in space that is more cost effective to inhabit than any existing uninhabited area on Earth.
Solar power is one possible example. It is currently available on Earth at a vastly lower price point than sending collectors into space. However, space-based solar power is inherently better than trying to do it on Earth, for masses of reasons.
I'm not idealising what is out there, I know it's almost all basically boring rocks with nothing in between. The vastly lower price point is our current situation. The point I was making was that at some point I believe throwing crap into space will become a relatively negligent cost, and the "barrier" will become a non-issue.
I mean, it's kind of an obvious answer, and it's not inconceivable that when we were racing into space, someone set aside a large sum of money to fix a "Space problem" that had already been solved.
It is an obvious answer to some... but a bad one. Pencils in a zero gravity high oxygen electronic dependant sealed environment. Can you really not see any problems with pencils in this kind of environment?
I read something a little while back about the threshold theory (not sure if it was actually called this, but it's my post any I'll cry if I want to). Essentially, human space travel now, and in the past, is experimental and by drips and drabs because there is no obvious short term return. We need to rely upon governmental pioneers with massively funded projects with no financial results (note - this IMO is one of the primary reasons for government). We will reach a tipping point at some point in which private investors see financial gain outweighing the outlays. This doesn't _seem_ like happening soon, but with cheaper, better and more reliable ascents to Earth orbits, it's not massively far off IMO. Once the benefits of going into space outweigh the costs, _everyone_ will be doing it, and we'll be worried about unregulated access in space.
We've seen this to some degree with satellites - Originally only governmental agencies stuck them up there... it was assumed that the prohibitative cost of sticking a sattelite in orbit around the earth would deter companies. Now satellite communications are massive business, and commonplace.
Also, and to contradict any point about manned space flight being somehow special, I'd point out deep sea explorations and technologies. Most of the best divers in the world are employed by companies concerned about their assets.
The reason why is just to pump money at it until we hit the threshold when it becomes benficial. Because, (and I'm not being nostradamus-esque here), there will be a point when it will be profitable to send people into space. And all the governmental pushes, which returned crap all direct financial benefit will be used.
This is as spoken by a relatively socialist libertarian, anti big government.
The Archos I owned I was only puzzled by the idiotic touchscreen wheel scrolling. Everything else was ok - it would have been a good device if it had a semi-decent way to navigate directories and files. Seriously, whoever thought that was a good idea should be shot. In my opinion, a good UI for a mp3 player is one you can use without looking at it - the Archos required you to use both hands (for those who can use one one handed I salute you), and look at the device.
Isn't it wonderful? that we, in today's age, have people actually proud of their own ignorance. Simply magnificent.
Isn't it wonderful? That we, in today's age have people who actually assume that ignorance is not inevitable. Ok... I'll put it like this : there is nothing that you know about of significance that someone else doesn't know a lot more about unless you've spent your life on the subject (and even then others will have probably done the same). Knowing your ignorance is essential before knowing your knowledge.
Before iTunes would take multiple apps to rip, organize, and play your mp3s. Even then you'd still probably be moving them all about manually file by file.
iTunes is crap for ripping, organising and playing mp3's. Especially if you (god forbid) want to transfer your purchased music about to other devices. There are big players in the market now selling unencumbered mp3's (amazon, for one), which you can do with as you will. I'm happy having a seperate ripper and seperate player - having all the functionality tied badly to one DRM riddled program strikes me as idiotic.
In an analogy: Ford did not invent the automobile, nor did he invent assembly line production, and his first product was limited in capability and appearance but the price was such that almost anyone could buy it.
Massive analogy fail. Apple's products have consistently been more expensive than similarly specified competitors. The attraction of Apple's products is _not_ the low price.
Anyone who can buy an iPad, iPod, or iPhone can buy similar products cheaper elsewhere. I'm not denigrating Apple's marketing and/or software here, I'm just pointing out that their products are entirely dependent upon marketing/software (though some could argue aesthetics play a part, I'd throw that under marketing).
The Ford Model T, which I assume you were referring to, succeeded because it was cheap. It wasn't pretty, it wasn't fashionable, it was about the worst car anyone could have. But it worked, and it was the only car many people could have. It filled an entirely different market sector.
The first is that non-technical users simply don't understand the concept of right or left clicking
This takes literally 1/2 an hour to learn at most. I've taught this to people I've introduced to computers. The thing that confuses new users IMO is where to double click, and where to single click. I've seen people who've used computers for years not know this, because there is no consistent application of double/single click in Windows.
Finally, people who want multibutton mice generally have a strong brand preference anyway
No.... basic buttons across all windows mice are standard - left click, right click, wheel (most of the time). I've got a few other buttons on my mouse, but the standards mean I can use someone else's mouse very easily. Like I said before, left/right click is not difficult to learn in the slightest and it adds functionality.
ps. I'll give you my Logitech MX518 when you prise it from my cold, dead hands (yes, I know it's oldish)
My Gigabyte gtx460 is 100% stable and runs relatively cool. Under load it'll sometimes get up to 60-70 degrees (with pretty crappy case cooling ATM - my front fan has given up). The lowest I've ever seen it at was 10 degrees. That was in December, when it was cold out, and I don't heat my house when I'm at work. My PC is on 24/7 though... I was suprised it was running so cold - the CPU was at about 15 degrees IIRC. I'm guessing ambient temperature must have been about 5 degrees.
I had a look at all the options when I bought it, and bang for buck the GTX460 was the best card for me. I usually buy just below cutting edge.
The PC market has rarely been defined by "good enough". PCs are sold not by what they can do, but by specifications, even to consumers who know next to nothing about those specifications. I'd guess 90% of PCs being used now could be replaced with something with half the computational power, and the user would not notice. The point I'm making is that technobabble sells, and if someone tells your layman that for a hundred bucks more they could double the processor speed, despite that having little to no effect on real world performance, they'll go for it.
Personally, I'm a gamer, so this is all a little irrelevant to me.
Grammar Nazis' --- I'm assuming that was deliberate.
No. That is so, so wrong. The last two authors I've read which are generally classed as "fantasy" are China Meiville and George R R Martin. Neither fits into your definitions. Perhaps you should be reading something better?
If you're looking for real science fiction, I advise Alastair Reynolds, who I absolutely rate. He weirdly has even referenced slashdot in earlier novels (slightly strangely, but I'll forgive him that).
Anything which isn't pro-pirating is generally negatively moderated
False. Just about any pure pro-pirating post here gets modded down to nothing. Take a look. I mean, seriously, look at the posts which advocate complete removal of copyright, and see how they are modded.
There are _loads_ of people here though who think current copyright laws are absurd though, and the penalties for breaking them are disproportionate. That doesn't mean that they don't believe in copyright as a system.
I'm happy with google pointing me to the things that everyone else is looking for in many cases. The thing is, it doesn't. Searching for obscure drivers is almost impossible with google, because all the primary results are link farms which have nothing to do with anything I was looking for - they just managed to get a high rank for an obscure driver, without _any_ information about that driver, nor the driver itself.
The pagerank system is 100% broken in those cases. No one wants to go to those sites when they do a search for a specific driver. The main results are useless, and you've got to head to page 2 or 3 to actually get the results you want.
Seriously, Apple products are more expensive. Often significantly. Sure, you can show how some macbook is nearly as quick as a dell and doesn't cost much more, but generally the gap is much wider.
The horrid design thing is another issue... the point with paying the premium for the mac is that you're not dealing with that horrid design. God forbid you went for a cheap-ass phone that couldn't make calls when you hold it wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly, they're going back to smaller turbocharged engines from 2013, along with a host of other regulation changes.
You must be a few years younger than me. I'm 33, and when I first started driving, all petrol stations measured in gallons. However, as you previously said... that's even more confusing, since our gallons were different to America's. Unless we'd been forced to change to litres by Europe, we wouldn't have.
Even now, most people understand mpg. No one I know intuitively understands or uses l/km. I mean, we still use miles for everything anyway (we got an exemption for miles and pints and a couple of other things from Europe, but know that these excemptions are under threat).
$9 is about £6, btw... without looking... hope I'm not way off (I did just check... it's more like £5.50). My current car unfortunately has been doing about 200 miles to a tank. It's a little 1.8 litre. It doesn't help that I drive it like a lunatic though, or that it's an Integra type R. Yep, you heard that right... I'm using about 25 pence (about 40 cents) for every mile I drive, just on fuel, with a 1.8 litre car (note to Americans - that's just over 100 cubic inches... had to look that one up, because despite using gallons for fuel, I've never ever dealt with cubic inches)
As a little aside... I'm also an HGV driver. One of my runs is about 375 miles, and that uses almost £250 of diesel daily.
My 13 year old hot hatch has had its stock brethren do the nurburgring in 8:43.... the Integra Type R. Here is a youtube vid of a slightly modded one doing it in 8:44. Here is a nice list. What's interesting to note is that the only car less powerful but quicker on that list is the Exige, and that's over 350kg lighter, and 1 second faster.
DRM that works can reduce losses from piracy.
Ineffective and DRM free games get pirated equally.
I don't really need to say anything, do I?
I've been surviving on mobile broadband at home for over a year. The reason for this is cost - £15 a month for 15gb. I don't have a landline, or television... so I went for the cheapest option. It's tear you hair out annoying sometimes, not because you can't get connection, I have a good connection to the tower, but just the service is so bad. I've gotten used to disconnecting and reconnecting very often, because that (sometimes) fixes it. Currently I'm downloading something from Steam at about 200KB/S (HSPA), which is generally better than average for me.
Anyway, I do use it for the internet, and television (a TV license is only required in the UK if you watch TV as broadcast - using the iPlayer afterwards is exempt). 15gb is a decent allowance too, and most of the time it streams ok. One thing that does seem weird to me is that it does not deliberately drop the connection... ever. I've forgotten to disconnect a few times, and it's been up and running when I get back to my house days later.
How many times can an item be returned before it loses its "new" status? Just once, twice, or a lot more? Seriously, new means new, not as new. Personally I'm happy with buying returned items, as long as I know about it. If the company is advertising items that may have been previously used as new, that's technically fraud. Also, I'm happy with companies using relatively draconian returns policies - I don't want to pay for someone who realises what they bought wasn't quite what they wanted.
Anything so close to consciousness that we can't tell the difference for all intents and purposes IS consciousness.
Yes.... but nothing artificial has come very close yet. Dogs and cats I know have thoughts and ideas, because of all of the evidence that supports this - it's patently obvious, communication is the bottleneck. I've not seen similar behaviour in anything artificial yet, which are designed explicitly to allow easy communication.
Anything so close to consciousness that we can't tell the difference relies _entirely_ upon our ability to communicate with it. It's a dangerous precedent since it focuses exclusively upon ourselves, and ignores ability.
You're missing the physiological reflexes. Without any kind of expectation of emotional connection, touch can be comforting. There doesn't need to be an emotional connection there. For example.... when I get home cold, wrap myself up in my duvet, that is comforting. The touch of familiar things is comforting despite knowing those familiar things have no empathy (though if I don't wash my duvet soon some may argue otherwise).
Robots automatically creep people out currently, especially when simulating humans. However, they could at some point become so ubiquitous that comfort is not seen as unnatural or weird. You could claim that automatic massagers are at that kind of point already for some - they're not empathetic nor kind, but they make some users feel better.
I agree wholeheartedly. Many gamers spend too much on their video card, but if you've got an otherwise decent PC, getting a $100-$150 video card will turn it into a perfectly fine gaming machine.
I absolutely disagree. Gamers on a budget can spend a full half of their system price on the graphics card alone, and be right in doing so. The rest of the system does not matter with regards to games usually. My system is cheap - but I just hit almost 1000 on the heaven benchmark, without overclocking anything. I've also fakeraid striped my two main drives, which probably isn't for most people, but increases data transfer times _way_ more than fast, expensive hard drives. You can build a good gaming system for $500 from scratch. One of the big new costs though is upgrading your PSU to support your graphics card - Fortunately I went a little overkill when I bought my previous PC, and got a decent 600W one. That is supposedly borderline with a 460gtx.... not for the maximum draw, but loads of cheap PSUs go wayward when required to spit out their quoted wattage, and voltages go awry, amongst many things. My system is pretty much 100% stable with Vista... 1051 hours current uptime isn't too bad for a home computer. (I turn it off when I'm not using it during the summer... a little heater in the corner of the room is not welcome then). Amusingly the lowest temperature I've recorded for my gtx460 core is 10c, which I know is pretty accurate... always on, stock cooler (my house gets cold when I'm not there during the day - this was back in December in the UK, which was a cold month by most people's standards). Highest temperature recorded is about 70.
I generally spend a little more than that and generally have a PC that will run anything thrown at it. I bought a geforce ti4200 when they were first out. I didn't upgrade for about 6 years from that card - when I did upgrade, it was still outperforming some cards which were retailing at the $100 mark. I did get lucky with that though, I went to an 8800GT with proper crap cooling (it ran at just under 100c under load). It was usable, and performed very well in many circumstances, and now my mum's got it, because I've got this new(ish) gtx460 from them.
The two games I'm most excited about learning about and playing now are Deus Ex, and Dwarven Fortress. I could just ditch my rig and use any old crap machine for these two... but that is part of the magic of PC gaming.
Except precise controls have never been something that most people who play video games cares about. It's really not that much of an advantage except in twitch games like multiplayer COD. You certainly don't need pin point precision for rpg games, platformers, action adventure games, ect. They just need to be good enough.
A little while back, Football Manager 2011 topped the games charts in the UK as a PC only release. This was in a week in which a couple of the biggest selling franchises released multi-platform titles. You don't need pin point precision to run it, but I can't imagine how annoying it would be without a mouse. Also, FM11 would be crap running without large databases, which current consoles can't provide.
I annoys me that 99% of the posts so far are about control methods. That's not what this article is about, there's plenty of other topics to flame therein (mouse does win in just about all circumstances, imo). This article is about how far behind current PC hardware current console hardware is, and how that is actually beginning to noticeably affect current game engine design.
The biggest perceived advantage that a console has over a PC is ease of use. There is no installation to worry about. You simply put the CD in the drive and play. You also don't have to worry about spending hundreds of dollars on upgrades in order to play the latest games. I don't know if this last point is true or not, but that perception is pretty prevalent in my experience.
I admittedly did upgrade my graphics card on my PC recently, to a gtx460. It cost about a third of what my ps3 cost when I bought it. The rest of my PC I _already have_, and would already have even if I didn't use it for gaming at all. Most people's poor results gaming on PCs are due to buying overpriced general use systems not intended for gaming at all. Nearly all of the time, gaming is throttled by the graphics card. Nearly all of the time, mass produced PC systems skimp on the graphics card because they are expensive.
Another problem comparing PCs with consoles is the resolution. I play games at 1920*1200 on my PC. That's well over double the pixel count of 1280*720, which only _some_ console games manage. Admittedly some console games will run at 1920*1080, but they are very few and far between. If you want to compare graphics, you've got to set up like for like comparisons.
There's no resource in space that is not available here, on Earth, at a vastly lower price point. There is no territory in space that is more cost effective to inhabit than any existing uninhabited area on Earth.
Solar power is one possible example. It is currently available on Earth at a vastly lower price point than sending collectors into space. However, space-based solar power is inherently better than trying to do it on Earth, for masses of reasons.
I'm not idealising what is out there, I know it's almost all basically boring rocks with nothing in between. The vastly lower price point is our current situation. The point I was making was that at some point I believe throwing crap into space will become a relatively negligent cost, and the "barrier" will become a non-issue.
I mean, it's kind of an obvious answer, and it's not inconceivable that when we were racing into space, someone set aside a large sum of money to fix a "Space problem" that had already been solved.
It is an obvious answer to some... but a bad one. Pencils in a zero gravity high oxygen electronic dependant sealed environment. Can you really not see any problems with pencils in this kind of environment?
I read something a little while back about the threshold theory (not sure if it was actually called this, but it's my post any I'll cry if I want to). Essentially, human space travel now, and in the past, is experimental and by drips and drabs because there is no obvious short term return. We need to rely upon governmental pioneers with massively funded projects with no financial results (note - this IMO is one of the primary reasons for government). We will reach a tipping point at some point in which private investors see financial gain outweighing the outlays. This doesn't _seem_ like happening soon, but with cheaper, better and more reliable ascents to Earth orbits, it's not massively far off IMO. Once the benefits of going into space outweigh the costs, _everyone_ will be doing it, and we'll be worried about unregulated access in space.
We've seen this to some degree with satellites - Originally only governmental agencies stuck them up there... it was assumed that the prohibitative cost of sticking a sattelite in orbit around the earth would deter companies. Now satellite communications are massive business, and commonplace.
Also, and to contradict any point about manned space flight being somehow special, I'd point out deep sea explorations and technologies. Most of the best divers in the world are employed by companies concerned about their assets.
The reason why is just to pump money at it until we hit the threshold when it becomes benficial. Because, (and I'm not being nostradamus-esque here), there will be a point when it will be profitable to send people into space. And all the governmental pushes, which returned crap all direct financial benefit will be used.
This is as spoken by a relatively socialist libertarian, anti big government.
The Archos I owned I was only puzzled by the idiotic touchscreen wheel scrolling. Everything else was ok - it would have been a good device if it had a semi-decent way to navigate directories and files. Seriously, whoever thought that was a good idea should be shot. In my opinion, a good UI for a mp3 player is one you can use without looking at it - the Archos required you to use both hands (for those who can use one one handed I salute you), and look at the device.
If you want to push an app onto the store though, or onto your own personal phone (with no app approval), then it is $99 per year.
This. Any company that wants to charge me for running something I've written on my phone is a company I'm wary of.
Isn't it wonderful? that we, in today's age, have people actually proud of their own ignorance. Simply magnificent.
Isn't it wonderful? That we, in today's age have people who actually assume that ignorance is not inevitable. Ok... I'll put it like this : there is nothing that you know about of significance that someone else doesn't know a lot more about unless you've spent your life on the subject (and even then others will have probably done the same). Knowing your ignorance is essential before knowing your knowledge.
Before iTunes would take multiple apps to rip, organize, and play your mp3s. Even then you'd still probably be moving them all about manually file by file.
iTunes is crap for ripping, organising and playing mp3's. Especially if you (god forbid) want to transfer your purchased music about to other devices. There are big players in the market now selling unencumbered mp3's (amazon, for one), which you can do with as you will. I'm happy having a seperate ripper and seperate player - having all the functionality tied badly to one DRM riddled program strikes me as idiotic.
In an analogy: Ford did not invent the automobile, nor did he invent assembly line production, and his first product was limited in capability and appearance but the price was such that almost anyone could buy it.
Massive analogy fail. Apple's products have consistently been more expensive than similarly specified competitors. The attraction of Apple's products is _not_ the low price.
Anyone who can buy an iPad, iPod, or iPhone can buy similar products cheaper elsewhere. I'm not denigrating Apple's marketing and/or software here, I'm just pointing out that their products are entirely dependent upon marketing/software (though some could argue aesthetics play a part, I'd throw that under marketing).
The Ford Model T, which I assume you were referring to, succeeded because it was cheap. It wasn't pretty, it wasn't fashionable, it was about the worst car anyone could have. But it worked, and it was the only car many people could have. It filled an entirely different market sector.
The first is that non-technical users simply don't understand the concept of right or left clicking
This takes literally 1/2 an hour to learn at most. I've taught this to people I've introduced to computers. The thing that confuses new users IMO is where to double click, and where to single click. I've seen people who've used computers for years not know this, because there is no consistent application of double/single click in Windows.
Finally, people who want multibutton mice generally have a strong brand preference anyway
No.... basic buttons across all windows mice are standard - left click, right click, wheel (most of the time). I've got a few other buttons on my mouse, but the standards mean I can use someone else's mouse very easily. Like I said before, left/right click is not difficult to learn in the slightest and it adds functionality.
ps. I'll give you my Logitech MX518 when you prise it from my cold, dead hands (yes, I know it's oldish)
My Gigabyte gtx460 is 100% stable and runs relatively cool. Under load it'll sometimes get up to 60-70 degrees (with pretty crappy case cooling ATM - my front fan has given up). The lowest I've ever seen it at was 10 degrees. That was in December, when it was cold out, and I don't heat my house when I'm at work. My PC is on 24/7 though... I was suprised it was running so cold - the CPU was at about 15 degrees IIRC. I'm guessing ambient temperature must have been about 5 degrees.
I had a look at all the options when I bought it, and bang for buck the GTX460 was the best card for me. I usually buy just below cutting edge.
The PC market has rarely been defined by "good enough". PCs are sold not by what they can do, but by specifications, even to consumers who know next to nothing about those specifications. I'd guess 90% of PCs being used now could be replaced with something with half the computational power, and the user would not notice. The point I'm making is that technobabble sells, and if someone tells your layman that for a hundred bucks more they could double the processor speed, despite that having little to no effect on real world performance, they'll go for it.
Personally, I'm a gamer, so this is all a little irrelevant to me.
Grammar Nazis' --- I'm assuming that was deliberate.
No. That is so, so wrong. The last two authors I've read which are generally classed as "fantasy" are China Meiville and George R R Martin. Neither fits into your definitions. Perhaps you should be reading something better?
If you're looking for real science fiction, I advise Alastair Reynolds, who I absolutely rate. He weirdly has even referenced slashdot in earlier novels (slightly strangely, but I'll forgive him that).
Anything which isn't pro-pirating is generally negatively moderated
False. Just about any pure pro-pirating post here gets modded down to nothing. Take a look. I mean, seriously, look at the posts which advocate complete removal of copyright, and see how they are modded.
There are _loads_ of people here though who think current copyright laws are absurd though, and the penalties for breaking them are disproportionate. That doesn't mean that they don't believe in copyright as a system.
I'm happy with google pointing me to the things that everyone else is looking for in many cases. The thing is, it doesn't. Searching for obscure drivers is almost impossible with google, because all the primary results are link farms which have nothing to do with anything I was looking for - they just managed to get a high rank for an obscure driver, without _any_ information about that driver, nor the driver itself.
The pagerank system is 100% broken in those cases. No one wants to go to those sites when they do a search for a specific driver. The main results are useless, and you've got to head to page 2 or 3 to actually get the results you want.
Really? I mean really?
Seriously, Apple products are more expensive. Often significantly. Sure, you can show how some macbook is nearly as quick as a dell and doesn't cost much more, but generally the gap is much wider.
The horrid design thing is another issue... the point with paying the premium for the mac is that you're not dealing with that horrid design. God forbid you went for a cheap-ass phone that couldn't make calls when you hold it wrong.