You have a choice, you can choose to move to where there is a different ISP.
Like Canada.
Re:it's the monetary system stupid..
on
If I Had a Hammer
·
· Score: 1
Translation: let's ignore economics and just magically give me everything I want.
Need vs want. Don't confuse them.
Their is no limit to what I want, but there is a pretty modest limit to what I need.
The idea is that the welfare state could be sustained purely on the backs of robots. Capitalism would sit on top of that.
The underlying problem is that when everyone is taking more than they give, then there's nobody to give.
How is that the underlying problem? The premise is the robots are generating the production for the welfare state, and its more than the population actually needs.
Re:it's the monetary system stupid..
on
If I Had a Hammer
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Let me guess: the way out is an outdated system from the 19th century that was discredited again and again in the 20th, and yet is inexplicably popular among university professors of the 21st.
sure lets go off the deepend here lets imagine a sort of
"neo-communism"
where there's enough automated production to support people doing whatever they want; so it becomes entirely viable that some will pursue art, others will pursue getting high, and others will pursue science, research, and increasing the efficiency of the already automated means of production... not because they need to survive, but because they want to.
Everyone gets a home. Everyone gets food. Everyone gets medicare. Doesn't matter what the fuck they do. Theres enough automated production to meet that demand.
Then you can go earn whatever you want beyond that however you like tax free, if you like... or you can live in a basic home, on a basic food stipend, with your free medicare and get high for the rest of your life... or read bad star trek fan-fic while dressed like a romulan stripper... whatever floats your boat.
Its not "tax and redistribute" because the base means of production for that base layer was realized entirely by automation. They took that production from the "robots". Not from you.
All that has to happen is that there be enough of a national infrastructure to ensure that theres enough publically owned robotic production to meet the basic needs of the population, and the political will to ensure it isn't dismantled.
Utopian fantasy? Hard to say. But if, as you argue, technology brings ever more production per human then at some point its almost inevitable that it would be very achievable. Our basic needs are relatively inflexible in the face of a means of production that is growing without bound. Do the math.
See, I can stand the win 8 integrated video app. It has ads in it. I dont want my computer to become an ad machine for Microsoft.
Ads? I've never seen one, ever?! And I don't recall having done anything that I can think of to disable them. I only launch it currently by double clicking avi etc files from the desktop. Maybe that's why? It just starts and plays my video... that's it.
So we're talking about the same metro app that plays.avi files etc right? Or are you talking about something else.
That said, I agree, ads would be a dealbreaker for me too. And if I saw one, I'd switch to something else. VLC is working on a metro app, and once that's ready or i run into something else i don't like about the default player I'll likely switch to it.
Sounds like Windows Media Center before it was turned into the Start Menu.
Pretty much.
Except that a) its not limited to media center and a handful of plugins because b) metro apps are a lot more varied and c) metro apps also work on tablets and windows phones. and d) windows media center was, if anything, even far more klutzy then metro is
Honestly, I think this argument can be put to rest. The sales figures do not lie.
The sales figures miss the point.
While It's nice for you that you are happy with Metro, the interface is not moving computers off the shelves.
Why on earth would it? People are happy with Win 7 and even XP. And 8 is priced at $120+ to upgrade the home edition. If you want pro then its $250. The fact that nobody is buying a whole new computer or paying hundreds to upgrade an existing one to 8 doesn't really tell us anything about the usability of 8 at all. All it tells us is that 8 isn't a compelling upgrade at the rather steep price of entry.
The fact that computer sales are slumping overall isn't all on the feet of 8, that's a part of it for sure, but its mostly resting on the fact that computers are lasting longer, people don't need as many as they used to due to as tablets and phones filling more casual use niches, and there is just nothing terribly compelling to justify an upgrade.
"Bringing back 7" or making 9 like 7 isn't going stop the over all trend away from desktops lasting longer, and already doing what is needed.
The bottom line is that operating systems don't really drive sales.
Windows fan boy or not, there is no arguing that MS has built a flop. Time to move on. The train has left the station.
Hence we have 9 on the way. If we judge 8 as a "mover of boxes" then yes, it was a flop. But judging it on that criteria is stupid. XP didn't move boxes either. Was it a flop? Was there a huge surge in PC sales when win 7, arguably the best OS MS has ever released, came out? Also no. Was it a flop?
8.1 is perfectly fine, but no, its certainly not driving sales. If you wanted a kick start to sales in the PC market then 8 was a flop. If you just want to buy a computer with a perfectly functional and reliable OS on it, then 8 is just fine.
When it comes to Apple its the same thing. Was mavericks a compelling upgrade? Or even Mountain lion? Hardly. I still haven't bothered to upgrade my Mac to Mavericks. A lot of people I know actually have, and its FREE. Is mavericks a flop?
As for me, I have 2 XP boxes, a win 7 desktop, plus a copy of XP in parallels on my mac laptop, my wife and kids have a win 7 laptop, a vista laptop, and an xp laptop. I'd upgrade them all to 8.1 pro without hesitation. The HTPC I mentioned initially is licensed for win7 but running the 8.1 preview. So that's 8 boxes that I'd put 8.1 pro on without hesitation.
But MS wants $2000 for me to do that and that's not going to happen. Ever. And I like windows 8 just fine, but its still not worth anywhere near 2 grand for me to upgrade to it.
The idea that everyone wants one interface is a problem that does not exist, and is not looking for a solution.
The idea that people want to buy something for their phone and have it work on their tablet and PC is absolutely something people want. I have lots of apps on my phone that I find it truly daft that I can't have them running in a window on my PC too.
Metro is actually quite nice on an HTPC (large screen, but operated from 10 feet away. (So fine mouse movement + control is a bit of a PITA... even just to see the mouse cursor) So I'd say leave it entirely up to the user.
I'm not the person you replied to but I like it on my HTPC for netflix, and the metro video player.
The large start menu, and automatically going full screen for movie playback is great on the big screen at 10 feet away.
I could see a few other metro apps being useful in that setup, although I haven't gotten around bothering to look for any myself. (A "file explorer" would be good for example; I'd probably even consider a metro browser... I hear firefox has one... I should look at that too. As both those activities are a bit painful from the couch using the desktop apps.)
As for my actual desktop on my actual desk...
I've also really got nothing against the new start screen for the desktop use case either. I rarely use the start menu; having pinned my apps to custom toolars. Right clicking on the start button brings up pretty much everything I ever used from the old start menu and more.
But yes, I have little to no use for metro apps there. However, I just don't launch them and they don't bother me.
I had to change the default picture viewer and video player away from the metro version to the desktop version, and then it was good. IMO those are bad defaults.
If they gave win+r the autocomplete+search functionality of the win7 start menu widget I'd really have no complaints about 8.
I don't use classic shells etc, they really aren't necessary at all, and just preserve a lot of the legacy mistakes that the win7 start menu has accumulated. Just because you are used to it, doesn't mean it was good.
$2 billion/year x 10 years = $20 billion > $15 billion
Math, do it.
Sure, the dollar argument is net positive for the cuts.
But you are missing the point.
Is it really worth cutting spending by 20B in one place to pick up 15B in another place? Especially when the other place is "healthcare"? That means the 20B you cut made a LOT of people sick.
An equivalent scenario would be if you ran a nuclear plant. The bean counters come up to you and said, we can save 20B in costs over the next decade by violating these safety stands, using substandard shielding and equipment here, here, and here. Our insurance costs will skyrocket and we'll pay some hefty fines and lawsuits as a result of cancer, radiation poisoning, etc... but we calculate that will only cost us 19B at most.
That's a 100 million saved a year.
Clearly we should do this? Or is there perhaps more than just the money that's worth looking at...?
To make an analogy, its the same as if they were signing up to magazine subscriptions etc and using your mailing address.
Is there any reason you can think of that suggests you shouldn't be allowed to cancel or modify the subscription if you don't want the magazines.
If they want an account they should sign up for it with their own email address, not mine.
That said I agree with you to the point that oen shouldn't just be malicious and nasty and steal or deface their content etc. But if they registered accounts in your name, with your address, you should absolutely be allowed to cancel them to the extent that you can.
And I've already said that was an area the consoles have the advantage. That its the reason I own a Nintendo etc. I'm not sure what your argument here is.
If you are buying a console for local multiplayer right now today, then that makes perfect sense.
So apart from the Steam Machine, which platform is best for indie games designed around local multiplayer?
Which platform is best in terms of availability right now today of indie games designed around local multiplayer?
Or which platform is the best in terms of supporting indie developers creating games designed around local multiplayer?
The former is clearly consoles. The latter? PC with or without steam is probably the best. XBLA and Nintendo VC etc are good, but there's a more roadblocks ahead of the developer.
The only store compatible with Windows RT is Microsoft's own.
And windows RT isn't a PC.
Bringing up RT here is like me saying locked down consoles and devices suck, and you saying but what about RT... and that all i can say is "so what about RT? Its another locked down device. Its not a PC and it sucks."
In my experience, one copy of a console game that allows up to four players in one household is cheaper than two to four copies of a PC game that requires a separate PC per player.
a) I routinely buy PC games for less than 1/2 or 1/4 what a single console game costs... often for the same title.
b) Tons of xbox games do not support split screen play
c) All that said, that's precisely one of the reasons why I have the Wii and Wii U. It is better for local coop.
The roadblocks were put in place because in 1983, a flood of me-too titles from startup developers was causing the median quality of Atari 2600 games to become unacceptable.
And yet Steam and GoG and other online stores are doing just fine. Multiple curated stores work fine to keep it from being a crapflood.
How would you propose to improve median game quality while still allowing indie developers?
Any 5 year old can write software for the PC. That doesn't mean its going to get onto steam, or another major store. It doesn't matter how many roadblocks steam puts up, because the platform itself is open. So if I want to run that 5 year old kids software I can, but its not going to clog up the popular stores.
Other than by using the disc or the console as the root of trust, how would you propose instead to verify that a single purchased copy of a computer program isn't being used on more offline machines than for which it is licensed?
Trusting the customer. Pricing things and providing support (server player matching, free updates, dlc, etc... so they are motivated to buy even if they can get it for free.)
Working for GoG.
Armed service members who are deployed often don't have Internet access to phone home daily
This is the single most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.
You can't possibly expect to convince anyone that deployed troops need to access to the latest triple AAA video games is a valid reason for oppresive Disc based DRM.
You do realize the publishers could solve that simply by removing the DRM. Support our troops EA, Microsoft, Sony! Remove the DRM! Then our troops won't have to carry a backpack full of easily scratched discs around in sandholes in the middle east where replacement are hard to come by.
As opposed to PC games, many of which impose arbitrary limitations on how many controllers a game recognizes at once as a way to sell more copies.
Its not to sell more copies, its because at present very few people are setup to even play PC games multiplayer locally. The steambox push may well put a lot more PCs on TVs with controllers and energize the PC market for more local / split screen coop.
Microsoft in fact requires games to be XInput-only if they're made for Windows RT or otherwise sold through Windows Store
The beauty of PC gaming is that there are other stores than the one store store with stupid rules that the vendor wants to push.
The hardware in the Game Boy Advance and Nintendo DS
Handhelds are an entirely separate conversation, and right now they are having their lunch eaten by mobile phones and tablets. My kids have a 3DS, and it makes more sense than a mobile smartphone contract for a 7 year old. And they enjoy them (hello pokemon) but angry birds, tiny wings, candy crush... whatever is sucking back a lot of their time too now too. And adults have largely dropped handhelds for mobile phones. Yeah the controls aren't as good, and the games aren't usually as deep... but for a lot of them its good enough, and they already have it in their pocket.
Two of the things I love about consoles are never having to check "System Requirements" or upgrade to support a new game.
Offset by 10 of the things I hate about consoles:
1) completely locked down 2) loaded with ads 3) games that are substantially more expensive 4) charge premiums for access basic features (e.g xbox gold) 5) artificial roadblocks to indie developers 6) artificial roadblocks to mods 7) demanding I have the disc in the drive, despite installing it to the hard drive 8) locking my online purchases to single physical console 9) arbitrary limitations on what controllers are available 10) 5 years out of date hardware on launch day
So, yeah, I can live with checking the box for requirements. To each their own, but I think that's the worst reason going to choose consoles.
For what its worth, I -do- have a Wii and WiiU, and I like them. For the last several generations now, Nintendo has had the least idiotic restrictions, and its relatively unique games library, and local multiplayer options have won me over my complaints. But the last playstation I owned was the PS1, and I've yet to have any interest in an xbox.
PC gaming had a rough batch of years for a while after the collapse of the retail market for games (when eb / gamestop etc all reduced their PC offering to one tiny shelf with some overpriced obsolete PC titles in beat up boxes).
But now, between Steam, GoG, Desura, Humble bundles, and the levelling off of the pc performance curve enabling gaming rigs to go for years without needing hardware to play... the selection of games is enormous, and the prices are stupidly low.
Add in the maturity and ease of use of voice chat, readily available game servers etc. PC Multiplayer still lags behind consoles in terms of user friendly... but its no longer anywhere near the chore it once was to setup.
Right now we are in a new golden age of PC games!
Now just give me a good joystick Space Sim in the vein of Privateer!
My sense is that it was momentum from the earliest PC days when you had 2 player multiplayer off a single PC.
Player 1 used the arrow keys/number pad. Player 2 used WASD.
WASD was the closest thing to the inverted-T on the furthest left. (Because with 2 players on one keyboard things were cramped.
ESDF fails both criteria... its not as close to the inverted T shape, and its not as far left. WASD was the natural choice.
Then as things went on, most games had default single player keymaps on the left and right using the arrow keys/numberpad and wasd. As games got more complicated the numberpad started getting seriously neglected, since there weren't a lot of keys that were easily reachable from the numberpad (especially from the index finger of a right handed person) vs the half the keyboard you could reach from WASD, plus the number keys on top... it was no surprise that gradually the "numpad" mapping became a useless afterthought -- where developers would omit key functionality from the numberpad mapping (2ndary functions like reload, or zoom, or toss grenade, change weapon fire mode... 2ndary, but still crucial were omitted making the numpad mapping useless without them.
Some sort of no-fault insurance that all driverless car owners would pay into that accepts responsibility for and pays out damages on accidents seems like the obvious solution here.
If the cars are genuinely significantly safer than it would be cheaper than current insurance. And if there is an accident, the damages are covered, and there's no penalty to the owner.
This doesn't seem like an intractable problem at all.
Its an interesting catch22; moving the data out of the US theorectically elevates the legitimacy of any NSA attack on it, since its now a legitimate attack on 'foreign signals'.
On the other hand thanks to the rampant domestic abuse, and undermining of local legal protection, at least moving it outside the country requires the NSA actually attack it rather than just help themselves.
All that is assuming the Canadian's won't be complict sharing the data; but to my knowledge at least, that would still require somebody attack it as Canada doesn't seem to have quite the same degree of "give us your all data, don't tell anyone you are doing it, because: national security".
Is it a marketing move? Absolutely.
But it does still have some real impact; and really if you want the US to change its habits, an economic angle is really the best way to get their attention.
Suicides by guns would become suicides by other means in the absence of guns.
Not true. A large portion of them would be failed attempted suicides. A large portion of them would not occur at all, as the extra time and effort is the time they need to get through wanting to die that badly.
20000 accidental shootings in a 300 million people country with 600 deaths is a very low number, much much lower than the number of car accidents, for example.
Except we regulate cars quite heavily. What is your argument here?
67K reported defensive actions on the other hand are 67K people that weren't hurt, or raped or killed because they had a gun
No, actually it is not. Read the study. It includes people who were victimized despite having a gun. It includes people who drew a gun in self defense after the criminals had already fled. (e.g. you got home saw the door was open to your home, pulled your gun and went inside... criminals were gone - that counted for the study.)
To prohibit people to do or have things in a democracy ideally you should need to have a very compelling reason and your reason is very weak at best.
Good soundbite. Lousy argument. This is not an attack on democracy.
Someone who has demonstrated they do not follow or even know common sense safety and handling of a firearm shouldn't have one. Demonstrate you aren't an idiot and you can have a gun.
Look it up. An average of ~67,000 times per year. And that includes cases where the victim was still victimized despite having a gun (ie having a gun didn't help), and includes cases where a gun wasn't required at all (ie where they heard noises downstairs or something and they went for their gun out but the criminals had already fled etc...)
I never said they did. That's why I called them suicides. Not accidents. Not crimes.
. Those numbers represent citizens who made decisions that you disapprove of,
Nothing at all to do with what I approve or disapprove of.
Most made snap decisions in unhealthy mental states that they would have themselves lived to regret... if they'd lived.
One only has to talk to the thousands of people who attempted suicide but did not succeed to know that. There are exceptions of course, and I'm not even against suicide, assisted suicide, nor even euthanasia but you have to have your head shoved up your own ass pretty far to glibly imply that most suicides represent "citizens who made decisions while sound of body and mind".
It was the first version with the "Nightmare" skill level, as well as not having yet removed the swastika room. Many, many little changes were made to Doom up until v1.9, which was the final one.
Aha I just played through Doom 1 and I was damned sure when I lowered that particular patform that it formed a swastika and was confused by its slightly different shape. I wondered if I misremembered it. Thanks for clearing that up.
As for streamed games relative to versions that ship has sailed. Steam only sends you the latest version, and sure you can disable updates but what does that really get you exactly? You can't easily go backwards or install an old version later, and you usually need the new version to do any kind of multiplayer.
And the same stuff applies to disc based console games too. Sure you have the disk... 1.0 but if 1.2 was the best and 1.9 is the current... you have 1.0 or 1.9... good luck ever getting 1.2 on your xbo?? or ps??.
Even so I dislike intensely streamed games for many scenarios. But it might not be all bad for certain competitive genres if the lag is reduced enough -- as it can dramatically reduce cheating.
So you add lots of personal interpretation to the "like" button but don't give the same leeway to other statements?
Context is everything.
When facebook presents an ad, and says XY likes Z, they give it a specific context that did not exist with the mere fact of the fact that XY clicked like on page Z.
But there is only one reasonable interpretation for why facebook is showing that ad with that image with that caption, and its not because they want me to think my friend XY accidently clicked like on the page for Z.
It's interesting how you support more freedom in every way except gun ownership.
Does anyone think that we aren't free enough to own guns? I mean, aside from the contingent that's upset by the prohibition of vehicle mounted machine guns on their Ford F-150, or the distinct lack of Stinger missiles on walmart shelves?
If the government doesn't produce citizens responsible enough to own guns, then it desperately needs its citizens to own guns.
Good sound bite, but how does that follow? Any society is going to produce at least some irresponsible idiots who shouldn't be left alone with a spoon never mind a firearm. That's hardly a desperate call for more citizens with guns.
Slashdot Mirror
You have a choice, you can choose to move to where there is a different ISP.
Like Canada.
Translation: let's ignore economics and just magically give me everything I want.
Need vs want. Don't confuse them.
Their is no limit to what I want, but there is a pretty modest limit to what I need.
The idea is that the welfare state could be sustained purely on the backs of robots. Capitalism would sit on top of that.
The underlying problem is that when everyone is taking more than they give, then there's nobody to give.
How is that the underlying problem? The premise is the robots are generating the production for the welfare state, and its more than the population actually needs.
Let me guess: the way out is an outdated system from the 19th century that was discredited again and again in the 20th, and yet is inexplicably popular among university professors of the 21st.
sure lets go off the deepend here lets imagine a sort of
"neo-communism"
where there's enough automated production to support people doing whatever they want; so it becomes entirely viable that some will pursue art, others will pursue getting high, and others will pursue science, research, and increasing the efficiency of the already automated means of production... not because they need to survive, but because they want to.
Everyone gets a home. Everyone gets food. Everyone gets medicare. Doesn't matter what the fuck they do. Theres enough automated production to meet that demand.
Then you can go earn whatever you want beyond that however you like tax free, if you like... or you can live in a basic home, on a basic food stipend, with your free medicare and get high for the rest of your life... or read bad star trek fan-fic while dressed like a romulan stripper... whatever floats your boat.
Its not "tax and redistribute" because the base means of production for that base layer was realized entirely by automation. They took that production from the "robots". Not from you.
All that has to happen is that there be enough of a national infrastructure to ensure that theres enough publically owned robotic production to meet the basic needs of the population, and the political will to ensure it isn't dismantled.
Utopian fantasy? Hard to say. But if, as you argue, technology brings ever more production per human then at some point its almost inevitable that it would be very achievable. Our basic needs are relatively inflexible in the face of a means of production that is growing without bound. Do the math.
See, I can stand the win 8 integrated video app. It has ads in it. I dont want my computer to become an ad machine for Microsoft.
Ads? I've never seen one, ever?! And I don't recall having done anything that I can think of to disable them. I only launch it currently by double clicking avi etc files from the desktop. Maybe that's why? It just starts and plays my video... that's it.
So we're talking about the same metro app that plays .avi files etc right? Or are you talking about something else.
That said, I agree, ads would be a dealbreaker for me too. And if I saw one, I'd switch to something else. VLC is working on a metro app, and once that's ready or i run into something else i don't like about the default player I'll likely switch to it.
Sounds like Windows Media Center before it was turned into the Start Menu.
Pretty much.
Except that
a) its not limited to media center and a handful of plugins because
b) metro apps are a lot more varied and
c) metro apps also work on tablets and windows phones.
and
d) windows media center was, if anything, even far more klutzy then metro is
Honestly, I think this argument can be put to rest. The sales figures do not lie.
The sales figures miss the point.
While It's nice for you that you are happy with Metro, the interface is not moving computers off the shelves.
Why on earth would it? People are happy with Win 7 and even XP. And 8 is priced at $120+ to upgrade the home edition. If you want pro then its $250. The fact that nobody is buying a whole new computer or paying hundreds to upgrade an existing one to 8 doesn't really tell us anything about the usability of 8 at all. All it tells us is that 8 isn't a compelling upgrade at the rather steep price of entry.
The fact that computer sales are slumping overall isn't all on the feet of 8, that's a part of it for sure, but its mostly resting on the fact that computers are lasting longer, people don't need as many as they used to due to as tablets and phones filling more casual use niches, and there is just nothing terribly compelling to justify an upgrade.
"Bringing back 7" or making 9 like 7 isn't going stop the over all trend away from desktops lasting longer, and already doing what is needed.
The bottom line is that operating systems don't really drive sales.
Windows fan boy or not, there is no arguing that MS has built a flop. Time to move on. The train has left the station.
Hence we have 9 on the way. If we judge 8 as a "mover of boxes" then yes, it was a flop. But judging it on that criteria is stupid. XP didn't move boxes either. Was it a flop? Was there a huge surge in PC sales when win 7, arguably the best OS MS has ever released, came out? Also no. Was it a flop?
8.1 is perfectly fine, but no, its certainly not driving sales. If you wanted a kick start to sales in the PC market then 8 was a flop. If you just want to buy a computer with a perfectly functional and reliable OS on it, then 8 is just fine.
When it comes to Apple its the same thing. Was mavericks a compelling upgrade? Or even Mountain lion? Hardly. I still haven't bothered to upgrade my Mac to Mavericks. A lot of people I know actually have, and its FREE. Is mavericks a flop?
As for me, I have 2 XP boxes, a win 7 desktop, plus a copy of XP in parallels on my mac laptop, my wife and kids have a win 7 laptop, a vista laptop, and an xp laptop. I'd upgrade them all to 8.1 pro without hesitation. The HTPC I mentioned initially is licensed for win7 but running the 8.1 preview. So that's 8 boxes that I'd put 8.1 pro on without hesitation.
But MS wants $2000 for me to do that and that's not going to happen. Ever. And I like windows 8 just fine, but its still not worth anywhere near 2 grand for me to upgrade to it.
The idea that everyone wants one interface is a problem that does not exist, and is not looking for a solution.
The idea that people want to buy something for their phone and have it work on their tablet and PC is absolutely something people want. I have lots of apps on my phone that I find it truly daft that I can't have them running in a window on my PC too.
large screen = desktop
Metro is actually quite nice on an HTPC (large screen, but operated from 10 feet away. (So fine mouse movement + control is a bit of a PITA... even just to see the mouse cursor) So I'd say leave it entirely up to the user.
I'm not the person you replied to but I like it on my HTPC for netflix, and the metro video player.
The large start menu, and automatically going full screen for movie playback is great on the big screen at 10 feet away.
I could see a few other metro apps being useful in that setup, although I haven't gotten around bothering to look for any myself. (A "file explorer" would be good for example; I'd probably even consider a metro browser... I hear firefox has one... I should look at that too. As both those activities are a bit painful from the couch using the desktop apps.)
As for my actual desktop on my actual desk...
I've also really got nothing against the new start screen for the desktop use case either. I rarely use the start menu; having pinned my apps to custom toolars. Right clicking on the start button brings up pretty much everything I ever used from the old start menu and more.
But yes, I have little to no use for metro apps there. However, I just don't launch them and they don't bother me.
I had to change the default picture viewer and video player away from the metro version to the desktop version, and then it was good. IMO those are bad defaults.
If they gave win+r the autocomplete+search functionality of the win7 start menu widget I'd really have no complaints about 8.
I don't use classic shells etc, they really aren't necessary at all, and just preserve a lot of the legacy mistakes that the win7 start menu has accumulated. Just because you are used to it, doesn't mean it was good.
$2 billion/year x 10 years = $20 billion > $15 billion
Math, do it.
Sure, the dollar argument is net positive for the cuts.
But you are missing the point.
Is it really worth cutting spending by 20B in one place to pick up 15B in another place? Especially when the other place is "healthcare"? That means the 20B you cut made a LOT of people sick.
An equivalent scenario would be if you ran a nuclear plant. The bean counters come up to you and said, we can save 20B in costs over the next decade by violating these safety stands, using substandard shielding and equipment here, here, and here. Our insurance costs will skyrocket and we'll pay some hefty fines and lawsuits as a result of cancer, radiation poisoning, etc... but we calculate that will only cost us 19B at most.
That's a 100 million saved a year.
Clearly we should do this? Or is there perhaps more than just the money that's worth looking at...?
To me, the Steam Machine (a Linux PC designed for set-top use) appears to be the most viable way to turn this around.
I think we are in agreement here; as I agree with everything in your post.
Someone should tell that to whoever manages Microsoft's web site. I too was surprised when Microsoft described RT tablets as Windows RT PCs.
Way to go microsoft! Because calling it Windows didn't confuse enough people.
To make an analogy, its the same as if they were signing up to magazine subscriptions etc and using your mailing address.
Is there any reason you can think of that suggests you shouldn't be allowed to cancel or modify the subscription if you don't want the magazines.
If they want an account they should sign up for it with their own email address, not mine.
That said I agree with you to the point that oen shouldn't just be malicious and nasty and steal or deface their content etc. But if they registered accounts in your name, with your address, you should absolutely be allowed to cancel them to the extent that you can.
And tons do.
And I've already said that was an area the consoles have the advantage. That its the reason I own a Nintendo etc. I'm not sure what your argument here is.
If you are buying a console for local multiplayer right now today, then that makes perfect sense.
So apart from the Steam Machine, which platform is best for indie games designed around local multiplayer?
Which platform is best in terms of availability right now today of indie games designed around local multiplayer?
Or which platform is the best in terms of supporting indie developers creating games designed around local multiplayer?
The former is clearly consoles. The latter? PC with or without steam is probably the best. XBLA and Nintendo VC etc are good, but there's a more roadblocks ahead of the developer.
The only store compatible with Windows RT is Microsoft's own.
And windows RT isn't a PC.
Bringing up RT here is like me saying locked down consoles and devices suck, and you saying but what about RT... and that all i can say is "so what about RT? Its another locked down device. Its not a PC and it sucks."
In my experience, one copy of a console game that allows up to four players in one household is cheaper than two to four copies of a PC game that requires a separate PC per player.
a) I routinely buy PC games for less than 1/2 or 1/4 what a single console game costs... often for the same title.
b) Tons of xbox games do not support split screen play
c) All that said, that's precisely one of the reasons why I have the Wii and Wii U. It is better for local coop.
The roadblocks were put in place because in 1983, a flood of me-too titles from startup developers was causing the median quality of Atari 2600 games to become unacceptable.
And yet Steam and GoG and other online stores are doing just fine. Multiple curated stores work fine to keep it from being a crapflood.
How would you propose to improve median game quality while still allowing indie developers?
Any 5 year old can write software for the PC. That doesn't mean its going to get onto steam, or another major store. It doesn't matter how many roadblocks steam puts up, because the platform itself is open. So if I want to run that 5 year old kids software I can, but its not going to clog up the popular stores.
Other than by using the disc or the console as the root of trust, how would you propose instead to verify that a single purchased copy of a computer program isn't being used on more offline machines than for which it is licensed?
Trusting the customer. Pricing things and providing support (server player matching, free updates, dlc, etc... so they are motivated to buy even if they can get it for free.)
Working for GoG.
Armed service members who are deployed often don't have Internet access to phone home daily
This is the single most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.
You can't possibly expect to convince anyone that deployed troops need to access to the latest triple AAA video games is a valid reason for oppresive Disc based DRM.
You do realize the publishers could solve that simply by removing the DRM. Support our troops EA, Microsoft, Sony! Remove the DRM! Then our troops won't have to carry a backpack full of easily scratched discs around in sandholes in the middle east where replacement are hard to come by.
As opposed to PC games, many of which impose arbitrary limitations on how many controllers a game recognizes at once as a way to sell more copies.
Its not to sell more copies, its because at present very few people are setup to even play PC games multiplayer locally. The steambox push may well put a lot more PCs on TVs with controllers and energize the PC market for more local / split screen coop.
Microsoft in fact requires games to be XInput-only if they're made for Windows RT or otherwise sold through Windows Store
The beauty of PC gaming is that there are other stores than the one store store with stupid rules that the vendor wants to push.
The hardware in the Game Boy Advance and Nintendo DS
Handhelds are an entirely separate conversation, and right now they are having their lunch eaten by mobile phones and tablets. My kids have a 3DS, and it makes more sense than a mobile smartphone contract for a 7 year old. And they enjoy them (hello pokemon) but angry birds, tiny wings, candy crush... whatever is sucking back a lot of their time too now too. And adults have largely dropped handhelds for mobile phones. Yeah the controls aren't as good, and the games aren't usually as deep... but for a lot of them its good enough, and they already have it in their pocket.
Two of the things I love about consoles are never having to check "System Requirements" or upgrade to support a new game.
Offset by 10 of the things I hate about consoles:
1) completely locked down
2) loaded with ads
3) games that are substantially more expensive
4) charge premiums for access basic features (e.g xbox gold)
5) artificial roadblocks to indie developers
6) artificial roadblocks to mods
7) demanding I have the disc in the drive, despite installing it to the hard drive
8) locking my online purchases to single physical console
9) arbitrary limitations on what controllers are available
10) 5 years out of date hardware on launch day
So, yeah, I can live with checking the box for requirements. To each their own, but I think that's the worst reason going to choose consoles.
For what its worth, I -do- have a Wii and WiiU, and I like them. For the last several generations now, Nintendo has had the least idiotic restrictions, and its relatively unique games library, and local multiplayer options have won me over my complaints. But the last playstation I owned was the PS1, and I've yet to have any interest in an xbox.
PC gaming had a rough batch of years for a while after the collapse of the retail market for games (when eb / gamestop etc all reduced their PC offering to one tiny shelf with some overpriced obsolete PC titles in beat up boxes).
But now, between Steam, GoG, Desura, Humble bundles, and the levelling off of the pc performance curve enabling gaming rigs to go for years without needing hardware to play ... the selection of games is enormous, and the prices are stupidly low.
Add in the maturity and ease of use of voice chat, readily available game servers etc. PC Multiplayer still lags behind consoles in terms of user friendly ... but its no longer anywhere near the chore it once was to setup.
Right now we are in a new golden age of PC games!
Now just give me a good joystick Space Sim in the vein of Privateer!
I don't know why WASD "won"
My sense is that it was momentum from the earliest PC days when you had 2 player multiplayer off a single PC.
Player 1 used the arrow keys/number pad. Player 2 used WASD.
WASD was the closest thing to the inverted-T on the furthest left. (Because with 2 players on one keyboard things were cramped.
ESDF fails both criteria... its not as close to the inverted T shape, and its not as far left. WASD was the natural choice.
Then as things went on, most games had default single player keymaps on the left and right using the arrow keys/numberpad and wasd. As games got more complicated the numberpad started getting seriously neglected, since there weren't a lot of keys that were easily reachable from the numberpad (especially from the index finger of a right handed person) vs the half the keyboard you could reach from WASD, plus the number keys on top... it was no surprise that gradually the "numpad" mapping became a useless afterthought -- where developers would omit key functionality from the numberpad mapping (2ndary functions like reload, or zoom, or toss grenade, change weapon fire mode... 2ndary, but still crucial were omitted making the numpad mapping useless without them.
That only works if you happen to "freeze" at the right version.
Some sort of no-fault insurance that all driverless car owners would pay into that accepts responsibility for and pays out damages on accidents seems like the obvious solution here.
If the cars are genuinely significantly safer than it would be cheaper than current insurance. And if there is an accident, the damages are covered, and there's no penalty to the owner.
This doesn't seem like an intractable problem at all.
Its an interesting catch22; moving the data out of the US theorectically elevates the legitimacy of any NSA attack on it, since its now a legitimate attack on 'foreign signals'.
On the other hand thanks to the rampant domestic abuse, and undermining of local legal protection, at least moving it outside the country requires the NSA actually attack it rather than just help themselves.
All that is assuming the Canadian's won't be complict sharing the data; but to my knowledge at least, that would still require somebody attack it as Canada doesn't seem to have quite the same degree of "give us your all data, don't tell anyone you are doing it, because: national security".
Is it a marketing move? Absolutely.
But it does still have some real impact; and really if you want the US to change its habits, an economic angle is really the best way to get their attention.
Landmines can automatically select a target and fire (though not very intelligently), and they've been around for 100 years.
And look how the civilized world responded to that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_Ban_Treaty
Of course the US didn't sign it.
Suicides by guns would become suicides by other means in the absence of guns.
Not true. A large portion of them would be failed attempted suicides. A large portion of them would not occur at all, as the extra time and effort is the time they need to get through wanting to die that badly.
20000 accidental shootings in a 300 million people country with 600 deaths is a very low number, much much lower than the number of car accidents, for example.
Except we regulate cars quite heavily. What is your argument here?
67K reported defensive actions on the other hand are 67K people that weren't hurt, or raped or killed because they had a gun
No, actually it is not. Read the study. It includes people who were victimized despite having a gun. It includes people who drew a gun in self defense after the criminals had already fled. (e.g. you got home saw the door was open to your home, pulled your gun and went inside... criminals were gone - that counted for the study.)
To prohibit people to do or have things in a democracy ideally you should need to have a very compelling reason and your reason is very weak at best.
Good soundbite. Lousy argument. This is not an attack on democracy.
Someone who has demonstrated they do not follow or even know common sense safety and handling of a firearm shouldn't have one. Demonstrate you aren't an idiot and you can have a gun.
Look it up. An average of ~67,000 times per year. And that includes cases where the victim was still victimized despite having a gun (ie having a gun didn't help), and includes cases where a gun wasn't required at all (ie where they heard noises downstairs or something and they went for their gun out but the criminals had already fled etc...)
they do not represent crimes.
I never said they did. That's why I called them suicides. Not accidents. Not crimes.
. Those numbers represent citizens who made decisions that you disapprove of,
Nothing at all to do with what I approve or disapprove of.
Most made snap decisions in unhealthy mental states that they would have themselves lived to regret... if they'd lived.
One only has to talk to the thousands of people who attempted suicide but did not succeed to know that. There are exceptions of course, and I'm not even against suicide, assisted suicide, nor even euthanasia but you have to have your head shoved up your own ass pretty far to glibly imply that most suicides represent "citizens who made decisions while sound of body and mind".
It was the first version with the "Nightmare" skill level, as well as not having yet removed the swastika room. Many, many little changes were made to Doom up until v1.9, which was the final one.
Aha I just played through Doom 1 and I was damned sure when I lowered that particular patform that it formed a swastika and was confused by its slightly different shape. I wondered if I misremembered it. Thanks for clearing that up.
As for streamed games relative to versions that ship has sailed. Steam only sends you the latest version, and sure you can disable updates but what does that really get you exactly? You can't easily go backwards or install an old version later, and you usually need the new version to do any kind of multiplayer.
And the same stuff applies to disc based console games too. Sure you have the disk... 1.0 but if 1.2 was the best and 1.9 is the current... you have 1.0 or 1.9... good luck ever getting 1.2 on your xbo?? or ps??.
Even so I dislike intensely streamed games for many scenarios. But it might not be all bad for certain competitive genres if the lag is reduced enough -- as it can dramatically reduce cheating.
So you add lots of personal interpretation to the "like" button but don't give the same leeway to other statements?
Context is everything.
When facebook presents an ad, and says XY likes Z, they give it a specific context that did not exist with the mere fact of the fact that XY clicked like on page Z.
But there is only one reasonable interpretation for why facebook is showing that ad with that image with that caption, and its not because they want me to think my friend XY accidently clicked like on the page for Z.
It's interesting how you support more freedom in every way except gun ownership.
Does anyone think that we aren't free enough to own guns? I mean, aside from the contingent that's upset by the prohibition of vehicle mounted machine guns on their Ford F-150, or the distinct lack of Stinger missiles on walmart shelves?
If the government doesn't produce citizens responsible enough to own guns, then it desperately needs its citizens to own guns.
Good sound bite, but how does that follow? Any society is going to produce at least some irresponsible idiots who shouldn't be left alone with a spoon never mind a firearm. That's hardly a desperate call for more citizens with guns.