Eltopia, WA? You don't have running water in Eltopia, WA?!? And you're making one dumb ass false dichotomy. "Leaving the disenfranchised communities behind" by having net neutrality and thus hindering the incentive for telco companies to invest in infrastructure there won't make anything else magically better, that's completely unrelated.
The emphasis on storytelling? Really?? Please tell me you're kidding. Have you played any Call of Duty or GTA game lately? Basically they're more like interactive movies more than games. Really.
Yawn, alright that's an old debate but since you've been modded up...
1. Big deal, crack the games (even if you bought them) and see if that's such a big deal. Now trying pirating games on consoles (if you're opposed to pirating then it's a moot point for you though).
2. You already have a PC, so that's a dishonest point to make. Everybody has a PC, no matter whether or not they want to play video games. And even if you have a 3 year old PC with an integrated Intel graphics chip it won't take you more than $300 to have a machine that overpowers the Xbox 360. And PC games are priced cheaper than console games. Also, I can play PS2 and Wii games with my PC. Can your Xbox do that?
3. Bullshit. Consoles are basically cheap PCs (what's the Xbox 360 but a glorified PC with a special OS?) and even share the same hardware. And for all you care, your average PC will kick the arse of any console currently out there. You might say that theoretically things would work better on consoles since the hardware configurations are unified but these days that's a bullshit point to make. And if you disagree well you can keep your Red Ring of Death Xbox and I'll keep playing games flawlessly on my PC.
No that's a biased way of looking at it because the Dreamcast didn't have any successor (and it came out in 1999, not 1998). Look at it this way, PS2 (2000) to PS3 (2006), 6 years, GameCube (2001) to Wii (2006), 5 years, Xbox (2001) to Xbox 360 (2005), 4 years. So the average periodicity for this previous generation was 5 years. It's not THAT short but on the other hand I don't think it's ever been shorter.
Well you're correct in that we're reaching the limits for certain things such as resolution (where the apparent angle of a pixel on the screen is smaller than your best eye resolving power (28 seconds of arc) at a typical viewing distance, or where bit depth is about as good as needed (although I think we may be able to see RGB 888 from anything superior in low contrast gradients without any dithering. Which IMHO is why Photoshop always dithers its gradients (or just about anything it does), but then there are always other limits to push.
For example, screens with a higher contrast (i.e. darker darks) can make a big difference, or if we're gonna talk about colour, the gamut can be increased, or yet we could have more range than 0-255 (i.e. extra range for brighter lights for higher dynamic ranges, for example, a screen that would almost blind you when you look at the in-game sun to represent light intensities correctly. Although I'm not sure this is in any way desirable... Well time will tell). And of course, it's not like we see video games stereoscopically (except for a few ones but it's marginal), or we also have a very limited FOV (our screens probably occupy less than 30 of or FOV while representing sometimes over 90), and so on...
And on top of that of course we can still see individual polygons, individual pixels in textures, lackluster real-time shadowing, unnatural motion and transitions, etc... We push old limits and are left with new (or not so new) ones.
Oh give me a break, people like you just love to pretend like any crime committed by minors can be completely averted with "better parenting" and that type of crap. It can't, because children are no better than adults, that's why there are laws.
My bad, you're not as incredibly stupid as I thought, you just sound that stupid (I'm actually being very serious). That's why your original post was modded troll. You're a misunderstood man, cause you suck at making yourself understood. Cause you actually make a fine point, but this last post of yours is the only time you made it correctly.
Given how little Photoshop has actually evolved in the last decade, and the excitement generated by Photoshop, it would undermine GIMP, create a project dedicated to improving the old Photoshop and ultimately it would give Adobe a free competitor to Photoshop that's nowhere near as bloated and probably better.
People keep telling me that I should have an open source scheme for my program (see Homepage link) but yeah, all it would do would help people make a free competitor. See it's fine to do it with a game because to Carmack what sold Quake 2 was the content (which is still not free), not the engine. Open sourcing an entire program isn't the same thing, as you give it all away.
Yes, if I'm gonna lose personal data I want it to be to my own flawed backup strategy! To hell with professionals whose job and business is to do just that!
No you fucking moron you still don't fucking get it. No one's going to pay for anyone's broad band you triple fucknut. It's about the government making sure most people *can* subscribe to broadband, as in, ensure it's available. I'm truly humbled by your idiocy, even when told right in your face that you've got it wrong and why, you still don't listen and cling on to your poor and idiotic initial grasp of what you thought you saw at first. No one's going to pay broadband through taxes, what kind of half-baboon would imagine something as stupid to begin with? Please tell me you're a meth head or something.
Well it depends on your definition of remote I suppose. I still don't see how it's going to be translated into taxes though, ISPs are private companies and their infrastructure isn't paid by taxes now is it?
If something is a legal right, I imagine it would take (at the very least) conviction criminal court before it could be denied to you.
Oh yeah I was initially thinking that, before the discussion was taken over by halfwits who only see what they want to see, maybe that means you can't get anyone disconnected off the Internet if it's a legal right, and hence get in the way of "Big Copyright" and their "pull the plug on pirates" strategy. Can't tell from TFA if that would be the case though.
Fucking dumbass, if you had more than a half functioning brain you would have understood that it's never been about the government giving you broadband for free. Why would anyone even think that? That's a preposterously stupid idea. Fucking moron.
What the hell are you drivelling about?? Redistribution of the fruits of productive labor?!? Where the hell is that coming from? This is about ensuring that most (not all, RTFA for details) people in the country can have access to broadband. No idea what you understood, but you're not the only puzzlewit around here who got it all wrong and started raving and ranting.
Oh wow wait, he thought it was supposed to be free?? lol, what's free? No one's gonna buy your food, your clothes or pay your rent, so I really don't see why anyone would have assumed it was about free broadband for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Eltopia, WA? You don't have running water in Eltopia, WA?!? And you're making one dumb ass false dichotomy. "Leaving the disenfranchised communities behind" by having net neutrality and thus hindering the incentive for telco companies to invest in infrastructure there won't make anything else magically better, that's completely unrelated.
The emphasis on storytelling? Really?? Please tell me you're kidding. Have you played any Call of Duty or GTA game lately? Basically they're more like interactive movies more than games. Really.
Yawn, alright that's an old debate but since you've been modded up...
1. Big deal, crack the games (even if you bought them) and see if that's such a big deal. Now trying pirating games on consoles (if you're opposed to pirating then it's a moot point for you though).
2. You already have a PC, so that's a dishonest point to make. Everybody has a PC, no matter whether or not they want to play video games. And even if you have a 3 year old PC with an integrated Intel graphics chip it won't take you more than $300 to have a machine that overpowers the Xbox 360. And PC games are priced cheaper than console games. Also, I can play PS2 and Wii games with my PC. Can your Xbox do that?
3. Bullshit. Consoles are basically cheap PCs (what's the Xbox 360 but a glorified PC with a special OS?) and even share the same hardware. And for all you care, your average PC will kick the arse of any console currently out there. You might say that theoretically things would work better on consoles since the hardware configurations are unified but these days that's a bullshit point to make. And if you disagree well you can keep your Red Ring of Death Xbox and I'll keep playing games flawlessly on my PC.
No that's a biased way of looking at it because the Dreamcast didn't have any successor (and it came out in 1999, not 1998). Look at it this way, PS2 (2000) to PS3 (2006), 6 years, GameCube (2001) to Wii (2006), 5 years, Xbox (2001) to Xbox 360 (2005), 4 years. So the average periodicity for this previous generation was 5 years. It's not THAT short but on the other hand I don't think it's ever been shorter.
Well you're correct in that we're reaching the limits for certain things such as resolution (where the apparent angle of a pixel on the screen is smaller than your best eye resolving power (28 seconds of arc) at a typical viewing distance, or where bit depth is about as good as needed (although I think we may be able to see RGB 888 from anything superior in low contrast gradients without any dithering. Which IMHO is why Photoshop always dithers its gradients (or just about anything it does), but then there are always other limits to push.
For example, screens with a higher contrast (i.e. darker darks) can make a big difference, or if we're gonna talk about colour, the gamut can be increased, or yet we could have more range than 0-255 (i.e. extra range for brighter lights for higher dynamic ranges, for example, a screen that would almost blind you when you look at the in-game sun to represent light intensities correctly. Although I'm not sure this is in any way desirable... Well time will tell). And of course, it's not like we see video games stereoscopically (except for a few ones but it's marginal), or we also have a very limited FOV (our screens probably occupy less than 30 of or FOV while representing sometimes over 90), and so on...
And on top of that of course we can still see individual polygons, individual pixels in textures, lackluster real-time shadowing, unnatural motion and transitions, etc... We push old limits and are left with new (or not so new) ones.
Stay anonymous.
Oh give me a break, people like you just love to pretend like any crime committed by minors can be completely averted with "better parenting" and that type of crap. It can't, because children are no better than adults, that's why there are laws.
Isn't that identity theft/fraud? That's very different and much more serious (not to mention defamation).
Don't ask "word geeks", do like "word geeks", open up a fucking dictionary.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/occult
Oh shut up, you spider hugger lol.
Insects. That's the line.
Well if they provide a commercial service and have concurrence then they should care about their reputation.
My bad, you're not as incredibly stupid as I thought, you just sound that stupid (I'm actually being very serious). That's why your original post was modded troll. You're a misunderstood man, cause you suck at making yourself understood. Cause you actually make a fine point, but this last post of yours is the only time you made it correctly.
Oh noes, thirsty insects, teh horror! Unrelatedly today I've squished 4 insects before breakfast.
Already done, kind of http://cnn.technology.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+'Brain'+in+a+dish+flies+flight%A0simulator+-+Nov+4%2C+2004&expire=-1&urlID=12174447&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2004%2FTECH%2F11%2F02%2Fbrain.dish%2Findex.html&partnerID=2016
Given how little Photoshop has actually evolved in the last decade, and the excitement generated by Photoshop, it would undermine GIMP, create a project dedicated to improving the old Photoshop and ultimately it would give Adobe a free competitor to Photoshop that's nowhere near as bloated and probably better.
People keep telling me that I should have an open source scheme for my program (see Homepage link) but yeah, all it would do would help people make a free competitor. See it's fine to do it with a game because to Carmack what sold Quake 2 was the content (which is still not free), not the engine. Open sourcing an entire program isn't the same thing, as you give it all away.
Yes, if I'm gonna lose personal data I want it to be to my own flawed backup strategy! To hell with professionals whose job and business is to do just that!
Yeah, I don't know how a convinction would affect that new right. I guess it all depends on how that right is defined?
No you fucking moron you still don't fucking get it. No one's going to pay for anyone's broad band you triple fucknut. It's about the government making sure most people *can* subscribe to broadband, as in, ensure it's available. I'm truly humbled by your idiocy, even when told right in your face that you've got it wrong and why, you still don't listen and cling on to your poor and idiotic initial grasp of what you thought you saw at first. No one's going to pay broadband through taxes, what kind of half-baboon would imagine something as stupid to begin with? Please tell me you're a meth head or something.
Well it depends on your definition of remote I suppose. I still don't see how it's going to be translated into taxes though, ISPs are private companies and their infrastructure isn't paid by taxes now is it?
If something is a legal right, I imagine it would take (at the very least) conviction criminal court before it could be denied to you.
Oh yeah I was initially thinking that, before the discussion was taken over by halfwits who only see what they want to see, maybe that means you can't get anyone disconnected off the Internet if it's a legal right, and hence get in the way of "Big Copyright" and their "pull the plug on pirates" strategy. Can't tell from TFA if that would be the case though.
Fucking dumbass, if you had more than a half functioning brain you would have understood that it's never been about the government giving you broadband for free. Why would anyone even think that? That's a preposterously stupid idea. Fucking moron.
Or, am I being too picky?
No, you're being too pedantic. And so am I.
What the hell are you drivelling about?? Redistribution of the fruits of productive labor?!? Where the hell is that coming from? This is about ensuring that most (not all, RTFA for details) people in the country can have access to broadband. No idea what you understood, but you're not the only puzzlewit around here who got it all wrong and started raving and ranting.
Oh wow wait, he thought it was supposed to be free?? lol, what's free? No one's gonna buy your food, your clothes or pay your rent, so I really don't see why anyone would have assumed it was about free broadband for everyone.