I read this article yesterday, and it's sad, really, that nazipedophilesodomyisgreat@yahoo.com is allowed, but nancycallahan@yahoo.com is not. It's an example of an idea that probably started as a noble concern. (I would imagine that someone tried to sign up for deathtoallah@yahoo.com in order to troll on a forum somewhere.) But in the processm you come up with something that is really unsolvable.
Unsolvable? I can think of several things that could be done to work around this. First, you could have a more evolved filter, that might reject most instances of "allah" but allow specific, common ones, such as "callahan." In addition, there could be a workaround where if you desire a screen name containing the string "allah," and are willing to wait a short time (a week, perhaps), it can be reviewed manually to ensure it is appropriate and approved on a case-by-case basis. Once you get the name you can keep it indefinitely, so it wouldn't be an unreasonable process...especially considering the alternative.
Yes, both of these would require additional manpower, which is why they aren't going to happen. It's just easier to screw over people who innocently want to use their last name in order to kiss the Muslim world's collective arse. But that certainly doesn't make the problem unsolvable.
Damn, it's almost as if they weren't even trying and just picked up some random games, and adding to their Indy cred with including that japanese only game.
Well, they did mention in the article that they were listing games that were more obscure, under the assumption that general Mario/Zelda type games were already going to be done. Hence the randomness.
Thought I agree that the Cruisin' games, while not quite up to Hitler levels, were pretty bad.
I don't get it, what is wrong with a store saying "Sure I will sell you this thing you really want, but at the price I want to charge. I will even include some crap you don't really want, but you still have to pay the price I want to charge"
Well, if that price is above MSRP ($399.00 for an Xbox 360), it could be seen as a massive retailer abusing their market position to force customers to pay more than retail price on a scarce product. That is "frowned upon."
Add in that they advertised the Xbox 360 at $399.00, then when customers waste time and gas driving to their store they inform them that no, you must buy a bundle. But you're still getting the Xbox 360 portion of that bundle for $399.00, so it's fair, right?
Oh, and the one store listed in the article that advertised the Xbox 360 at $299.00, and posted a notice at the door explaining that it was a misprint. I wonder just how many hundred-dollar misprints that store has in a given year, and how many are for high-demand items on release date. I'm guessing in 2005 that number was one, and it was the Xbox 360.
Oh, and as for:
Seems that if you don't want to pay the price you go elsewhere or you don't buy the product.
On a major release such as this, that isn't always an option...sometimes there isn't anywhere else with any in stock. Hence the reason that retailers think they can get away with crap like this.
With my county-wide lending network, I can order pretty much any movie (selection that blows away NF and Blockbuster combined), including the foreign films I prefer.
I'm guessing you don't live in East Nowhere County, WY. I'm sure my county has a county-wide lending network too, but that network only includes about 3 (small) libraries.
There are a large number of people for whom the selection at NetFlix was _much_ better than what was available locally.
They may realize it, but they're not going to have the motivation to change their business model until people STOP buying every oddball (to use your example) Beatles release out there. Besides, the companies have it down now. Paying $20 for that Lord of the Rings DVD looked real good, until the mondo extended version came out two months later. I know several people who bought the regular versions of the movies knowing the extended versions weren't far off, plus the extended versions once they came out. Lord only knows how many copies of different books they bought (I've got two or three Lord of the Rings trilogy books/book sets, I'm as guilty as anybody)
The largest hurdle that UMD (and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray) face is that to convince consumers that it is worth it to buy the same content in a new format, that format much significantly outperform the old. And not just in A/V quality. I never felt as apprehensive about buying CD's of albums that I owned on either cassette or vinyl, because the CD format offered more than just an increase in audio quality; it was a format that would not degrade with repeated plays and was easy to store. Same with DVD's vs. VHS. The downloading of music (both illegal and legal) has has really shown this...the quality of 128kbps records are horrid. It was about the other improvements that the format offered.
While UMD offers portability, that portability is linked to an expensive player, and there are plenty of other options available that don't require repurchase (even on that same player!)...so I think it is doomed to be a niche product for those with too much money in their pockets. I'd say the current strategy of including them for a small fee (according to TFA about 3 bucks added to the MSRP) with standard DVDs is about the only way Sony will ever move these things in bulk.
Personally, what amuses me the most about media companies wanting to sell me the same content twice in different formats (such as VHS/DVD, CD/Cassette, etc.) is how silly it looks now. I mean, before Napster you never heard record companies crying about how it was a "license to the content" you were buying, not the CD. It was treated as physical property, not intellectual. Yeah, they went after bootleggers, but in most areas of the US that wasn't a huge issue. So now that we're all about content licenses, I want my $5 upgrade fee to trade my VHS movies in for DVD. It can even be a "no-frills" just-the-movie-on-a-disc DVD. And yes, while some DVD's are that cheap, many still are not...and some studios will likely -never- put DVD's that cheap out (Disney, I'm looking at you).
But no, now companies try to alternate between treating movies/music as intellectual OR physical property, whichever happens to benefit them most at the time.
"With open markets and a level playing field, no one can out-produce or out-compete the American worker." - President Bush, Feb.1, 2006
This is absolutely true. The problem is that there are in fact ten somebodies over in Asia willing to do the work, for a combined total of less than one American worker. No one can...
Just create a playlist that selects a random 1 or 2 Gig and loads them onto the iPod. Delete all the songs from the playlist and it grabs another random 1 or 2 Gig and reloads the iPod. You can customize the playlists pretty well, so talk, podcasts, etc. aren't included unless you want them to.
No, you just use a "Recently Played" smart playlist to remove songs that you play through to the end (or use the click-wheel to scroll to the end of if you don't feel like listening to it). Just make the smart playlist that is selecting songs to go on your iPod to "Playlist is not Recently Played," and songs will rotate through automatically without having to re-update the WHOLE thing. Every week or two, when you get a too many songs that you just keep skipping on there, you wipe and put a whole new batch.
If I had a Nano, I'd probably use half for that random playlist and the other half would be a playlist containing all hand-picked songs...and, of course, there'd be a playlist combining the two. Or possibly a playlist that I'd treat as a CD changer and drag several whole albums into in addition to the random one.
As it is, I have a 1 GB Shuffle. I have a majority of my songs (and a vast majority of those that I like) rated. I have six playlists, each representing three different sets of genres, at two ratings levels (one for 4/5 star, one for 3 star and unrated...to keep some variety in there). The most recently played 300 songs are exempted. So I basically have to listen to an entire Shuffle full of songs to hear the same ones again. But the beauty is that each time a song is played, and I update, it is replaced with a song of the same genre and rating level. So if I play a 4/5-star punk song, I get another 4/5-star punk song to replace it, keeping the mix the same.
It's beautiful. It's like a radio that only plays songs that I at least somewhat like. Of course, it wasn't possible (without hackery) until either iTunes 5 or 6, when they finally set it to set the "Last Played" flag of songs updated from a Shuffle to the time of update (as the Shuffle has no clock), instead of just increasing the play count and calling it good.
Obviously, I went through a few months where I had a LOT of time on my hands though. As I obviously did right now, looking at the novel I just wrote. I just hope they don't trash the Shuffle...I like having an iPod that A) isn't expensive, B) doesn't have a screen to break, and C) keeps me from obsessively choosing individual songs, and thus allows me to hear music from my collection I had damn near forgotten about.
Granted, I still keep a 15 GB around for long road trips and such. And, in a pinch, it makes a decent (if expensive) pocket HD.
A garden variety beat-em-up like Devil May Cry, which is low on the purely objectionable content and which would be rated PG-13 as a movie, gets the same "M" rating as muder simulator Manhunt.
Let's not forget that the ESRB is still new...the MPAA did not always have a PG-13 rating either. They used to have G, PG, and R, much like E, T, and M. And they had the same problem: movies that walked the thin line between that which is appropriate for children and that which is not had to be filtered into either the PG or R ratings, and often the rating would end up seeming inappropriate.
Your example of Pirates! seems a little off, though...I think Pirates! is actually a game that warrants a T rating, just not the same T rating as many other more mature games get. And Devil May Cry might seem a little harmless to get an M, but neither would I give it a T and lump it in with a game like Pirates!.
Basically, the ESRB needs a PG-13. Maybe call it LT for late teens, or whatever. But, just as with movies, more than three ratings are needed to properly categorize videogames...four would work a lot better. (Note that I am dismissing both the NC-17 ratings and the AO rating, as both seem to have more to do with pressuring a company to change their movie/game than actually rating what is there...they really aren't, in general, functional ratings)
Oh, and yes I know that the movie ratings system is far from perfect, with the constant push to get everything a PG-13 rating (because it allows kids in but doesn't have the same stigma as a PG movie), and blah blah blah. I still say that, within reason, more ratings levels are better than less.
Before these parent groups start complaining about the ESRB, they should actually pay attention to the ratings these games get. GTA was rated 'M', which, according to ESRB's website, is "... suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language." 'AO' rating is "... content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older." Only 1 year difference.
The beauty of the AO rating is that it has almost nothing at all to do with the age at which it becomes appropriate (since we're talking a 1-year difference from M), or the content in the game.
It's really just a political tool to keep "objectionable" games from being released without modification. Threaten a game with an AO rating, and the publisher will more often than not do what needs to be done to get an M...because it's not about whether or not the vital 17-year-old to 17-year-and-364-day old market can purchase your game. It's about censorship by proxy, because a vast majority of retailers will not carry an AO game, making it an almost guaranteed financial death sentence for the game. Much like the NC-17 rating is used to keep movies with certain content from ever seeing wide theatrical release without being edited.
Except in the case of games, there isn't generally an "unrated director's cut" that comes out later.
There are a lot of outlets for parents to find out about the games they buy their kids. However, as usual, the media and "family values" groups are looking for sound bites and blaming the industry itself. Far more useful ones than a sticker/label on the box.
Hell, the sticker/label on the box was pretty damn useful. I know for a fact it said "M," "Mature," and "17+." I do not know what specific content descriptors it contains, but I'd bet they make it clear that the game is quite simply not appropriate for most people under 17. How much more informative do you want the label to be?
You'd have to be a pretty sheltered 17-year-old for the "Hot Coffee" mod to do any real damage. If the child in question is under 17 and the parent is all pissed off, then they probably should never have bought their kid an M-rated game in the first place, or allowed it to be bought for them. I mean, how can anybody do the whole "protect the children" dance when the software in question, based on the rating given by the ESRB (marketing by Rockstar aside), was never meant for children. The ESRB did their job perfectly in this case, period.
"Hot Coffee" mod or no, GTA is not porn, and should not be treated as such (which an AO rating would've done). It is no worse than many R-rated movies. The end.
They don't sell R-rated movies to a 14 year old. They don't sell "explicit lyrics" records to 14 year old. But they'll sell an M-17 game to the same kid. If retailers would adhere to the voluntary ratings of games the same way they adhere to the voluntary ratings of movies, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
All the stores in my area actually do adhere to them. The problem, much like with tobacco, is that they need only find someone 17 or older to buy it for them. This can be an older sibling, friend of a friend, sibling of a friend, guy on the street they gave 10 bucks to (I've actually been offered this before), or whoever. Funny part is, it seems like more often than not the adult buying the game for them is their parent. Ignorance is bliss, and the US is full of some happy people.
I have a hard time buying the whole "Stealing things they're broadcasting anyway" theory. Sure, the stations are not getting commercial revenue and that is a legitimate gripe, but that seems more of a problem of rating systems not keeping up with technology and broadcasters hesitant to embrace a new medium.
No, it isn't. Ratings have nothing to do with it, as the whole point of ratings is to determine how many eyeballs are seeing the commercials, not the show. Since every TV show I've ever grabbed a torrent of had the commercials removed, those downloads shouldn't add to the ratings...at least not much (as it is possible that you'll watch a broadcast in the future). And legal methods, such as the iTMS (where customers are paying to watch the show directly) are actually starting to affect ratings.
Ratings are about revenue. If you are downloading torrents of the shows and never watching the commercials, and not purchasing the DVD when released, you are not contributing to the revenue stream, thus you should not be counted.
About embracing a new revenue stream, that I can see. Imagine if networks would release their own torrents, at the same resolution or better, encoded professionally by the studio...with the commercials (the nationals, at least) intact. I'd have no problem downloading the extra 100MB of commercials to get a higher-quality recording. And when my laptop is across the room hooked up to the TV, I'd probably even end up watching them.
Of course, this is all horribly off-topic. Downloading shows over having cable makes some amount of sense as a money-saver, despite the questionable legality. Though, depending on how much you value your time (and the local prices), you might actually be better off just getting basic cable. It'll probably run less than running four computers 24/7.
1. Compact flourescents. Been mentioned all over here, but can't be stressed enough. Modern bulbs work on standard sockets, produce a fairly decent color of light, and no flicker. Also, most large stores carry "value packs," which run $2 US or less (imagine prices can't be that much different there). I know where I live the local utility will rebate you for a certain number of these as well. I saw about 75kWh reduction in my bill over the course of a month by replacing every light I could with these. Note: you generally only want to replace lights that you run for at least an hour at a time with these. These will pay for themselves in six months or less.
2. Programmable thermostats. Run $35 US or less here. Again, many utilities will rebate you, but YMMV. This is also the kind of improvement that landlords generally won't complain about, and it will more than likely pay for itself over a winter.
3. Shorten your showers.
Finally, about those computers. I do not know why you need four running 24/7, but you should reconsider this. Assuming they are desktops, you are drawing a LOT of power this way. I would recommend if you are using any of them for general uploading/downloading of "stuff" you should consider picking up a laptop with a broken screen and run it either headless or through a KVM switch. Attach a large hard drive, your printer, etc. and network it. Then keep all the other computers on standby (or hibernate...I'm assuming you want them to come on as fast as possible, though). The power you save over a year will probably pay for the laptop, hard drive, and any networking accessories you end up needing to buy. Look around, and you can probably find a laptop with more than enough power for fileserving, print serving, and P2P for dirt cheap...and it will draw a fraction of what even one of those desktops draws.
The Playstation 2 Dual Shock controller was more or less an exact copy of the original Playstation model except with few minor alterations. After the Nintendo 64 introduced a rumble pack peripheral, Sony went ahead and made rumble standard in all of its controllers. The two analog sticks now also feature touch sensitivity. This allowed you to press down on the analog stick to make it perform a different move. Essentially it allowed for two new control options for developers while retaining the same amount of buttons.
I could swear that the original Dual Shock (for the PlayStation) allowed use of both sticks as additional buttons...it was just a horribly underused feature, as PlayStation developers couldn't count on players having a Dual Shock controller (due to the large number of original controllers out there). The PS2 saw much more use of them, because Dual Shock (or even Dual Shock 2) controllers were a prerequisite for pretty much any PS2 game.
Also, no mention of the fact that (again, if I remember correctly) the Dual Shock 2 had pressure sensitive buttons, allowing for "analog" input from every button on the controller. This ended up being the underused feature of this controller, as a majority of players were still using the old Dual Shocks as backups (after all, the main selling point of the PS2 was backwards compatibility, and not just for games!)...so not too many games required the Dual Shock 2. Some did, however (I seem to remember couple sports games that required Dual Shock 2 controllers and made heavy use of the "analog" buttons).
I put analog in quotes, because I'm pretty sure the buttons didn't have all that many postions...but definitely more than just "pressed" and "not." If I didn't have class in about 10 minutes I'd actually go look this stuff up.
I have yet to hear (from friends, in the press, whatever) from any parent who claimed that he was unable to stop his child from playing these kinds of games and therefore needed a law like this one.
They aren't...at least not anymore. In a vast majority of places, it is pretty difficult for a minor to purchase an M-rated game without an *adult* present. Might not be the parent, mind you...but in a vast majority of cases it *is*. Having worked both retail and video stores, I've seen what parents rent and buy for their kids, regardless of how young the child may be.
About the only logical next step is to start restricting, by law, *where* such things can be sold...much the same way hardcore porn is treated in many areas. But if ostracizing Grand Theft Auto to "adult stores" while leaving Pulp Fiction on the shelf isn't silly, I don't know what is.
It's almost as if the people proposing these laws are still stuck in 1993.
Though to be fair the two states I've seen mentioned are Utah and Iowa...so that could have something to do with it.
Some good points there, but I'm not with you on all of them.
First off, there are two genres that really, in my opinion, don't leave much room for originality...FPS's and sports. Sports more so, because once you have emulated the real-life sport, how much more is there really to do? You can adjust control schemes, improve graphics, make an even MORE in-depth "team management" engine (which many players actually don't like...some of us just want to play some hockey), and update rosters. I mean, what are you chances of actually successfully re-inventing the football game?
FPS's aren't quite as bad, but really you're still going to run into a bit of a wall as far as original ideas. You can change the weapons around a bit, add vehicles, have distinct character classes, or have some sort of levelling system for single-player mode. All of these have been done. Go much farther than that and you run a strong risk of departing from what fans of the genre actually enjoy.
Really, games just aren't much different than other forms of entertainment like movies or music: you have the occasional gem surrounded by a lot of derivitive crap. However, sequels specifically aren't really a bad thing by their nature. I really don't mind when a developer takes a game and refines it in the form of a sequel. It serves two purposes:
First, it gives gamers who did not play the previous games a chance to enjoy the experience in a "modern" form. As a newcomer to the series, I have a much greater chance of enjoying Simcity 4 or Civilization 4 than I would playing the originals...in both cases -I- have played every game in the series, and looking back each iteration, especially the first ones, while amazing at the time, are much too simplistic for my current tastes, as well as -badly- graphically outdated.
Second, it gives fans of previous games a chance to enjoy the core experience again, often with added/improved features...sometimes with drastically different gameplay. Again I'll fall back on Simcity 4, Civ 4. In each of these series, elements were added that drastically changed the gameplay. The addition of cultural victories in Civilization, for instance, or the use of a region in Simcity 4 which allows a player to create large "metro areas." No, if you didn't like the originals these features are far from guaranteed to interest you, but for a current fan of the series these features are more than worth the money for the new game.
And let's not forget "sequels" like Metroid Prime, which manage to fundamentally change the genre/gameplay, while simply keeping some of the core ideas of the franchise. And sequels in name/gameplay type only like the aforementioned Final Fantasy series.
And with all these sequels, let's not forget that at one point every one of them was an "original" game. At one point there was no Devil May Cry 2, or Gran Turismo 3, or Burnout 3, or Project Gotham Racing 3, or Halo 2. Just because a sequel was made afterwards does not retroactively make the orignal less...well, original.
Combine everything I said above with the number of original non-franchises that come out every year (which, while not a majority, is also a non-trivial number), and the whole problem of sequels seems to be a bit overstated to me.
I think that slashdot is stylistically more akin to a mailing list or blog than to the NYT or WSJ. We are informal. Which is what I want Slashdot to be. Casual. To hire a copy editor and purge all these things from Slashdot changes the tone of the site. It shifts us to another place. Some people think that change is good. I think that change is bad. This is a place where a dozen voices are heard on one page. Some will make a typo. Others a grammar error.
I agree with you here. The odd mispelling or misplaced comma does not, for a majority of people, create a huge problem. This really isn't the New York times. However, I have seen plenty of stories where, either from inappropriate sentence structure or unfortunate punctuation errors, the actual meaning of the article summary is either lost or easily misread. The kind of thing that I would hope just about anybody with a mastery of the English language would have caught, because when read it simply doesn't make sense. Mispelled words I can overlook, but these extreme cases I cannot.
That said, I spot one like that once a week at most. Less, actually. So I guess it could be worse.
Anyway the whole point is really silly. A free one year subscription would raise the overall costs of the computer, which is a disservice to those who do not want or need.Mac. Anyone who wants to can already get a free 60 trail, and if they find the service useful pay for the year. As long as Apple continues to raise the value fo the service, without raising the price, I am happy.
Amen. I have no desire for.Mac at the moment, so I'm ecstatic that I didn't have to pay for it in the price of my PowerBook. There is no such thing as something included "for free" with the purchase of a computer...that's basic economics. Unless all you geeks out there want to believe that I'm really getting Windows "for free" when I buy a Dell.
Didn't think so.
At the moment, I'd say that 8.33 a month seems a little pricey for what.Mac offers, but obviously the needs of users will vary. Some would probably pay more. But please, Apple, do not listen to the naysayers. Continue to let us have the choice.
I think it is funny when people suggest that anything Apple sells is "too expensive." As if the market is in some way broken, allowing Apple to charge whatever they want for anything while other companies have to compete on price. Apple computers cost more because they are worth more, plain and simple. Whether that value comes from ease of use, beauty of design, or whatever, they are most definitely worth more. Whether they are worth more to an individual is up for debate, as is whether an individual can afford it.
.Mac is worth $100 a year. I can say that because people pay $100 a year for it. It isn't worth $100 a year to me, so I don't. But Apple's goal is not, and should not, be to get every Mac user to subscribe to.Mac...it should be to maximize profits. I have a feeling there are people working at Apple who have probably done a lot more computation, market study, and analysis on the subject than the average Slashdot reader, or even Dan Farber.
That should get me a Pentium 4 system (2.4-2.8Ghz), name brand motherboard, 1GB ram, a nice power supply and a somewhat cheesy but servicable case, a budget dual head video card, a 80-120GB drive, and the DVD burner. Yeah, I did go a bit over the budget (by about $50 each), and these systems certainly aren't going to be as powerful as the iMac, but the original poster said "nice Intel system" and not "an Intel system just like the iMac". And I would consider a system like this "nice" as in it is fast, inexpensive, expandable, and reliable. And I have two of them.
A computer without software is just a very expensive, horribly inefficient, space heater. Yes, you could run Linux, but a vast majority of computer users are going to want Windows on there. Also, apples to apples would require you to install commercial software as well. And, since we want apples to apples, that means two copies of XP Pro (because OSX does not compare to Home). And a suite of software as good as iLife (which shareware/freeware is not going to readily replace). Times two.
So, $900 for monitor/keyboard. Call it $250 for software (I'm being conservative, there...WinXP Pro alone is going to run you $100). So $1150 each. Now you don't have two of them anymore. You DO save $550. Which is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
However, you are giving up better customer support, smaller form factor, probably lower power consumption, and better design. And you're running Windows instead of OSX. And you admitted that the machine you designed wasn't quite as good as the iMac 20". It was just close.
Are Macs (to include the new Intel variety) more expensive? Yes. Are they twice as expensive. Hell no. Are they worth the added expense? In the opinions of growing numbers of people, most obviously yes.
Has there been any serious consideration of how the design of the vehicle effects your likeliness to be in a crash? It seems to me that SUV's, by blocking the ability of anyone around them to see in traffic (especially since they always seem to have the darkest of the dark tinted windows), might concievably cause accidents just by being on the road, regardless of how they are driven. (The same argument could be used for some small cars with horrible blind spots; anyone ever driven a Paseo, so I'm somewhat unfairly picking on SUV's here.)
No, you are NOT unfairly picking on SUV's on this point...because while other cars may have blind spots, they don't generally give those blind spots _to_others_. Trying to drive in a small car surrounded by SUV's (and to a small extent heavier trucks, since even their beds sit high enough to block vision in traffic sometimes) can feel like driving blind. All you can see are the cars immediately surrounding you.
And don't get me started about SUV's parralel parked on corners. This should be illegal. I've pulled through many (2-way) stop signs "on faith" before, because in order to be able to see if any traffic was coming, I was going to have to pull halfway out into the street anyway. I suppose putting it in park, getting out, and walking out to check the traffic might be an option...except that conditions would change in the time it took me to get back in my car. I swear there is a corner in my college town where you are crossing over a one-way street, and there is _always_ some Durango or Suburban with limo-tint parked on the corner in the direction traffic comes from.
Band managers just don't put much effort into getting the kiddies to go to shows, and I wouldn't be surprised if their little manufactured primadonna acts don't really have much of a taste for the smelly grind on the road. It's much easier to buy off MTV/ClearChannel and brainwash the kids remotely, then hit em up at the record store. Those sorts of overheads are minimal.
This is mostly only true of "pop" acts. A lot of more "modern rock" acts actually spend quite a bit of time on the road, and the kids go to the shows. Linkin Park would be an example off the top of my head. I am not a fan of the band, and haven't even downloaded, let alone bought, their CDs, but I went to their show on a friend's reccomendation, and did enjoy myself. Except for the part where I was surrounded by freakin' teenagers.
And that's just the major-label top-40 bands...let's not forget the other indie (and former indie) bands that tour constantly, such as O.A.R.
Anyway, I just get sick of the generalization that all the music being sold today is either The Beatles or Britney, and nothing in between.
Do yourself a favor: pick up a used PS2 somewhere, and start hitting the back-catalog. It'll be the best value you've ever experience, fun/dollar-wise. There are enough PS2 exclusives that were well worth playing, most of which are pretty old now, and thus available cheaply.
I'd start by finding yourself a copy of Ico. But there are also several RPGs you should look into.
I just thought this whole Soul Calibur 3 thing was bullshit because there were a couple reasons that the PS2 version of Soul Calibur 2 was the worst: A) the system was grossly underpowered compared to the other two, and it showed, and B) the special character for the PS2 version (Heihachi, if I remember correctly) sucked compared to Link and Spawn. Of course, that second part is just my opinion.
I think Namco shot themselves in the foot on this one, because by releasing it for PS2 only they haven't fixed the problem, just made sure a lot less people will buy the game. I think they figured that multi-platformers like myself would just pick it up for PS2 if that is the only system it was available for...except that given the choice between playing SC3 on my PS2 or just continuing to play SC2 on my Cube (and keeping my fifty bucks), I'll go with the latter every time. I'm guessing a lot of people who own the Xbox version feel the same.
You shouldnt have modded parent down, he's right you know. Sony forked out a wad of cash for exclusivity, nothing else. Theres no other reason why Namco woulda backstabbed all the loyal fans with Xbox/GC that bought SC2 in huge numbers.
I don't feel backstabbed...I'll just continue to enjoy SCII on my Cube. SCIII doesn't sound that amazing anyway, in comparison. The only ting I wonder is why would Sony bother to do such a thing? Isn't it a little late in the game to worry about moving PS2s?
There were several shots where it was obvious they fucked up the color process. (For example, when they were standing on the ridge, there was a close-up of the childrens' faces with mountains behind them. They obviously looked out of place.)
My wife actually nudged me at that point and said it was the most fake-looking shot she had seen in a long time. Overall the effects weren't bad, but there were a few spots like this where the look didn't match the budget.
Slashdot Mirror
I read this article yesterday, and it's sad, really, that nazipedophilesodomyisgreat@yahoo.com is allowed, but nancycallahan@yahoo.com is not. It's an example of an idea that probably started as a noble concern. (I would imagine that someone tried to sign up for deathtoallah@yahoo.com in order to troll on a forum somewhere.) But in the processm you come up with something that is really unsolvable.
Unsolvable? I can think of several things that could be done to work around this. First, you could have a more evolved filter, that might reject most instances of "allah" but allow specific, common ones, such as "callahan." In addition, there could be a workaround where if you desire a screen name containing the string "allah," and are willing to wait a short time (a week, perhaps), it can be reviewed manually to ensure it is appropriate and approved on a case-by-case basis. Once you get the name you can keep it indefinitely, so it wouldn't be an unreasonable process...especially considering the alternative.
Yes, both of these would require additional manpower, which is why they aren't going to happen. It's just easier to screw over people who innocently want to use their last name in order to kiss the Muslim world's collective arse. But that certainly doesn't make the problem unsolvable.
Damn, it's almost as if they weren't even trying and just picked up some random games, and adding to their Indy cred with including that japanese only game.
Well, they did mention in the article that they were listing games that were more obscure, under the assumption that general Mario/Zelda type games were already going to be done. Hence the randomness.
Thought I agree that the Cruisin' games, while not quite up to Hitler levels, were pretty bad.
I don't get it, what is wrong with a store saying "Sure I will sell you this thing you really want, but at the price I want to charge. I will even include some crap you don't really want, but you still have to pay the price I want to charge"
Well, if that price is above MSRP ($399.00 for an Xbox 360), it could be seen as a massive retailer abusing their market position to force customers to pay more than retail price on a scarce product. That is "frowned upon."
Add in that they advertised the Xbox 360 at $399.00, then when customers waste time and gas driving to their store they inform them that no, you must buy a bundle. But you're still getting the Xbox 360 portion of that bundle for $399.00, so it's fair, right?
Oh, and the one store listed in the article that advertised the Xbox 360 at $299.00, and posted a notice at the door explaining that it was a misprint. I wonder just how many hundred-dollar misprints that store has in a given year, and how many are for high-demand items on release date. I'm guessing in 2005 that number was one, and it was the Xbox 360.
Oh, and as for:
Seems that if you don't want to pay the price you go elsewhere or you don't buy the product.
On a major release such as this, that isn't always an option...sometimes there isn't anywhere else with any in stock. Hence the reason that retailers think they can get away with crap like this.
With my county-wide lending network, I can order pretty much any movie (selection that blows away NF and Blockbuster combined), including the foreign films I prefer.
I'm guessing you don't live in East Nowhere County, WY. I'm sure my county has a county-wide lending network too, but that network only includes about 3 (small) libraries.
There are a large number of people for whom the selection at NetFlix was _much_ better than what was available locally.
They may realize it, but they're not going to have the motivation to change their business model until people STOP buying every oddball (to use your example) Beatles release out there. Besides, the companies have it down now. Paying $20 for that Lord of the Rings DVD looked real good, until the mondo extended version came out two months later. I know several people who bought the regular versions of the movies knowing the extended versions weren't far off, plus the extended versions once they came out. Lord only knows how many copies of different books they bought (I've got two or three Lord of the Rings trilogy books/book sets, I'm as guilty as anybody)
The largest hurdle that UMD (and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray) face is that to convince consumers that it is worth it to buy the same content in a new format, that format much significantly outperform the old. And not just in A/V quality. I never felt as apprehensive about buying CD's of albums that I owned on either cassette or vinyl, because the CD format offered more than just an increase in audio quality; it was a format that would not degrade with repeated plays and was easy to store. Same with DVD's vs. VHS. The downloading of music (both illegal and legal) has has really shown this...the quality of 128kbps records are horrid. It was about the other improvements that the format offered.
While UMD offers portability, that portability is linked to an expensive player, and there are plenty of other options available that don't require repurchase (even on that same player!)...so I think it is doomed to be a niche product for those with too much money in their pockets. I'd say the current strategy of including them for a small fee (according to TFA about 3 bucks added to the MSRP) with standard DVDs is about the only way Sony will ever move these things in bulk.
Personally, what amuses me the most about media companies wanting to sell me the same content twice in different formats (such as VHS/DVD, CD/Cassette, etc.) is how silly it looks now. I mean, before Napster you never heard record companies crying about how it was a "license to the content" you were buying, not the CD. It was treated as physical property, not intellectual. Yeah, they went after bootleggers, but in most areas of the US that wasn't a huge issue. So now that we're all about content licenses, I want my $5 upgrade fee to trade my VHS movies in for DVD. It can even be a "no-frills" just-the-movie-on-a-disc DVD. And yes, while some DVD's are that cheap, many still are not...and some studios will likely -never- put DVD's that cheap out (Disney, I'm looking at you).
But no, now companies try to alternate between treating movies/music as intellectual OR physical property, whichever happens to benefit them most at the time.
"With open markets and a level playing field, no one can out-produce or out-compete the American worker." - President Bush, Feb.1, 2006
This is absolutely true. The problem is that there are in fact ten somebodies over in Asia willing to do the work, for a combined total of less than one American worker. No one can...
Just create a playlist that selects a random 1 or 2 Gig and loads them onto the iPod. Delete all the songs from the playlist and it grabs another random 1 or 2 Gig and reloads the iPod. You can customize the playlists pretty well, so talk, podcasts, etc. aren't included unless you want them to.
No, you just use a "Recently Played" smart playlist to remove songs that you play through to the end (or use the click-wheel to scroll to the end of if you don't feel like listening to it). Just make the smart playlist that is selecting songs to go on your iPod to "Playlist is not Recently Played," and songs will rotate through automatically without having to re-update the WHOLE thing. Every week or two, when you get a too many songs that you just keep skipping on there, you wipe and put a whole new batch.
If I had a Nano, I'd probably use half for that random playlist and the other half would be a playlist containing all hand-picked songs...and, of course, there'd be a playlist combining the two. Or possibly a playlist that I'd treat as a CD changer and drag several whole albums into in addition to the random one.
As it is, I have a 1 GB Shuffle. I have a majority of my songs (and a vast majority of those that I like) rated. I have six playlists, each representing three different sets of genres, at two ratings levels (one for 4/5 star, one for 3 star and unrated...to keep some variety in there). The most recently played 300 songs are exempted. So I basically have to listen to an entire Shuffle full of songs to hear the same ones again. But the beauty is that each time a song is played, and I update, it is replaced with a song of the same genre and rating level. So if I play a 4/5-star punk song, I get another 4/5-star punk song to replace it, keeping the mix the same.
It's beautiful. It's like a radio that only plays songs that I at least somewhat like. Of course, it wasn't possible (without hackery) until either iTunes 5 or 6, when they finally set it to set the "Last Played" flag of songs updated from a Shuffle to the time of update (as the Shuffle has no clock), instead of just increasing the play count and calling it good.
Obviously, I went through a few months where I had a LOT of time on my hands though. As I obviously did right now, looking at the novel I just wrote. I just hope they don't trash the Shuffle...I like having an iPod that A) isn't expensive, B) doesn't have a screen to break, and C) keeps me from obsessively choosing individual songs, and thus allows me to hear music from my collection I had damn near forgotten about.
Granted, I still keep a 15 GB around for long road trips and such. And, in a pinch, it makes a decent (if expensive) pocket HD.
A garden variety beat-em-up like Devil May Cry, which is low on the purely objectionable content and which would be rated PG-13 as a movie, gets the same "M" rating as muder simulator Manhunt.
Let's not forget that the ESRB is still new...the MPAA did not always have a PG-13 rating either. They used to have G, PG, and R, much like E, T, and M. And they had the same problem: movies that walked the thin line between that which is appropriate for children and that which is not had to be filtered into either the PG or R ratings, and often the rating would end up seeming inappropriate.
Your example of Pirates! seems a little off, though...I think Pirates! is actually a game that warrants a T rating, just not the same T rating as many other more mature games get. And Devil May Cry might seem a little harmless to get an M, but neither would I give it a T and lump it in with a game like Pirates!.
Basically, the ESRB needs a PG-13. Maybe call it LT for late teens, or whatever. But, just as with movies, more than three ratings are needed to properly categorize videogames...four would work a lot better. (Note that I am dismissing both the NC-17 ratings and the AO rating, as both seem to have more to do with pressuring a company to change their movie/game than actually rating what is there...they really aren't, in general, functional ratings)
Oh, and yes I know that the movie ratings system is far from perfect, with the constant push to get everything a PG-13 rating (because it allows kids in but doesn't have the same stigma as a PG movie), and blah blah blah. I still say that, within reason, more ratings levels are better than less.
Before these parent groups start complaining about the ESRB, they should actually pay attention to the ratings these games get. GTA was rated 'M', which, according to ESRB's website, is "... suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language." 'AO' rating is "... content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older." Only 1 year difference.
The beauty of the AO rating is that it has almost nothing at all to do with the age at which it becomes appropriate (since we're talking a 1-year difference from M), or the content in the game.
It's really just a political tool to keep "objectionable" games from being released without modification. Threaten a game with an AO rating, and the publisher will more often than not do what needs to be done to get an M...because it's not about whether or not the vital 17-year-old to 17-year-and-364-day old market can purchase your game. It's about censorship by proxy, because a vast majority of retailers will not carry an AO game, making it an almost guaranteed financial death sentence for the game. Much like the NC-17 rating is used to keep movies with certain content from ever seeing wide theatrical release without being edited.
Except in the case of games, there isn't generally an "unrated director's cut" that comes out later.
There are a lot of outlets for parents to find out about the games they buy their kids. However, as usual, the media and "family values" groups are looking for sound bites and blaming the industry itself. Far more useful ones than a sticker/label on the box.
Hell, the sticker/label on the box was pretty damn useful. I know for a fact it said "M," "Mature," and "17+." I do not know what specific content descriptors it contains, but I'd bet they make it clear that the game is quite simply not appropriate for most people under 17. How much more informative do you want the label to be?
You'd have to be a pretty sheltered 17-year-old for the "Hot Coffee" mod to do any real damage. If the child in question is under 17 and the parent is all pissed off, then they probably should never have bought their kid an M-rated game in the first place, or allowed it to be bought for them. I mean, how can anybody do the whole "protect the children" dance when the software in question, based on the rating given by the ESRB (marketing by Rockstar aside), was never meant for children. The ESRB did their job perfectly in this case, period.
"Hot Coffee" mod or no, GTA is not porn, and should not be treated as such (which an AO rating would've done). It is no worse than many R-rated movies. The end.
They don't sell R-rated movies to a 14 year old. They don't sell "explicit lyrics" records to 14 year old. But they'll sell an M-17 game to the same kid. If retailers would adhere to the voluntary ratings of games the same way they adhere to the voluntary ratings of movies, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
All the stores in my area actually do adhere to them. The problem, much like with tobacco, is that they need only find someone 17 or older to buy it for them. This can be an older sibling, friend of a friend, sibling of a friend, guy on the street they gave 10 bucks to (I've actually been offered this before), or whoever. Funny part is, it seems like more often than not the adult buying the game for them is their parent. Ignorance is bliss, and the US is full of some happy people.
I have a hard time buying the whole "Stealing things they're broadcasting anyway" theory. Sure, the stations are not getting commercial revenue and that is a legitimate gripe, but that seems more of a problem of rating systems not keeping up with technology and broadcasters hesitant to embrace a new medium.
No, it isn't. Ratings have nothing to do with it, as the whole point of ratings is to determine how many eyeballs are seeing the commercials, not the show. Since every TV show I've ever grabbed a torrent of had the commercials removed, those downloads shouldn't add to the ratings...at least not much (as it is possible that you'll watch a broadcast in the future). And legal methods, such as the iTMS (where customers are paying to watch the show directly) are actually starting to affect ratings.
Ratings are about revenue. If you are downloading torrents of the shows and never watching the commercials, and not purchasing the DVD when released, you are not contributing to the revenue stream, thus you should not be counted.
About embracing a new revenue stream, that I can see. Imagine if networks would release their own torrents, at the same resolution or better, encoded professionally by the studio...with the commercials (the nationals, at least) intact. I'd have no problem downloading the extra 100MB of commercials to get a higher-quality recording. And when my laptop is across the room hooked up to the TV, I'd probably even end up watching them.
Of course, this is all horribly off-topic. Downloading shows over having cable makes some amount of sense as a money-saver, despite the questionable legality. Though, depending on how much you value your time (and the local prices), you might actually be better off just getting basic cable. It'll probably run less than running four computers 24/7.
1. Compact flourescents. Been mentioned all over here, but can't be stressed enough. Modern bulbs work on standard sockets, produce a fairly decent color of light, and no flicker. Also, most large stores carry "value packs," which run $2 US or less (imagine prices can't be that much different there). I know where I live the local utility will rebate you for a certain number of these as well. I saw about 75kWh reduction in my bill over the course of a month by replacing every light I could with these. Note: you generally only want to replace lights that you run for at least an hour at a time with these. These will pay for themselves in six months or less.
2. Programmable thermostats. Run $35 US or less here. Again, many utilities will rebate you, but YMMV. This is also the kind of improvement that landlords generally won't complain about, and it will more than likely pay for itself over a winter.
3. Shorten your showers.
Finally, about those computers. I do not know why you need four running 24/7, but you should reconsider this. Assuming they are desktops, you are drawing a LOT of power this way. I would recommend if you are using any of them for general uploading/downloading of "stuff" you should consider picking up a laptop with a broken screen and run it either headless or through a KVM switch. Attach a large hard drive, your printer, etc. and network it. Then keep all the other computers on standby (or hibernate...I'm assuming you want them to come on as fast as possible, though). The power you save over a year will probably pay for the laptop, hard drive, and any networking accessories you end up needing to buy. Look around, and you can probably find a laptop with more than enough power for fileserving, print serving, and P2P for dirt cheap...and it will draw a fraction of what even one of those desktops draws.
Playstation 2 Dual Shock 2
The Playstation 2 Dual Shock controller was more or less an exact copy of the original Playstation model except with few minor alterations. After the Nintendo 64 introduced a rumble pack peripheral, Sony went ahead and made rumble standard in all of its controllers. The two analog sticks now also feature touch sensitivity. This allowed you to press down on the analog stick to make it perform a different move. Essentially it allowed for two new control options for developers while retaining the same amount of buttons.
I could swear that the original Dual Shock (for the PlayStation) allowed use of both sticks as additional buttons...it was just a horribly underused feature, as PlayStation developers couldn't count on players having a Dual Shock controller (due to the large number of original controllers out there). The PS2 saw much more use of them, because Dual Shock (or even Dual Shock 2) controllers were a prerequisite for pretty much any PS2 game.
Also, no mention of the fact that (again, if I remember correctly) the Dual Shock 2 had pressure sensitive buttons, allowing for "analog" input from every button on the controller. This ended up being the underused feature of this controller, as a majority of players were still using the old Dual Shocks as backups (after all, the main selling point of the PS2 was backwards compatibility, and not just for games!)...so not too many games required the Dual Shock 2. Some did, however (I seem to remember couple sports games that required Dual Shock 2 controllers and made heavy use of the "analog" buttons).
I put analog in quotes, because I'm pretty sure the buttons didn't have all that many postions...but definitely more than just "pressed" and "not." If I didn't have class in about 10 minutes I'd actually go look this stuff up.
I have yet to hear (from friends, in the press, whatever) from any parent who claimed that he was unable to stop his child from playing these kinds of games and therefore needed a law like this one.
They aren't...at least not anymore. In a vast majority of places, it is pretty difficult for a minor to purchase an M-rated game without an *adult* present. Might not be the parent, mind you...but in a vast majority of cases it *is*. Having worked both retail and video stores, I've seen what parents rent and buy for their kids, regardless of how young the child may be.
About the only logical next step is to start restricting, by law, *where* such things can be sold...much the same way hardcore porn is treated in many areas. But if ostracizing Grand Theft Auto to "adult stores" while leaving Pulp Fiction on the shelf isn't silly, I don't know what is.
It's almost as if the people proposing these laws are still stuck in 1993.
Though to be fair the two states I've seen mentioned are Utah and Iowa...so that could have something to do with it.
Some good points there, but I'm not with you on all of them.
First off, there are two genres that really, in my opinion, don't leave much room for originality...FPS's and sports. Sports more so, because once you have emulated the real-life sport, how much more is there really to do? You can adjust control schemes, improve graphics, make an even MORE in-depth "team management" engine (which many players actually don't like...some of us just want to play some hockey), and update rosters. I mean, what are you chances of actually successfully re-inventing the football game?
FPS's aren't quite as bad, but really you're still going to run into a bit of a wall as far as original ideas. You can change the weapons around a bit, add vehicles, have distinct character classes, or have some sort of levelling system for single-player mode. All of these have been done. Go much farther than that and you run a strong risk of departing from what fans of the genre actually enjoy.
Really, games just aren't much different than other forms of entertainment like movies or music: you have the occasional gem surrounded by a lot of derivitive crap. However, sequels specifically aren't really a bad thing by their nature. I really don't mind when a developer takes a game and refines it in the form of a sequel. It serves two purposes:
First, it gives gamers who did not play the previous games a chance to enjoy the experience in a "modern" form. As a newcomer to the series, I have a much greater chance of enjoying Simcity 4 or Civilization 4 than I would playing the originals...in both cases -I- have played every game in the series, and looking back each iteration, especially the first ones, while amazing at the time, are much too simplistic for my current tastes, as well as -badly- graphically outdated.
Second, it gives fans of previous games a chance to enjoy the core experience again, often with added/improved features...sometimes with drastically different gameplay. Again I'll fall back on Simcity 4, Civ 4. In each of these series, elements were added that drastically changed the gameplay. The addition of cultural victories in Civilization, for instance, or the use of a region in Simcity 4 which allows a player to create large "metro areas." No, if you didn't like the originals these features are far from guaranteed to interest you, but for a current fan of the series these features are more than worth the money for the new game.
And let's not forget "sequels" like Metroid Prime, which manage to fundamentally change the genre/gameplay, while simply keeping some of the core ideas of the franchise. And sequels in name/gameplay type only like the aforementioned Final Fantasy series.
And with all these sequels, let's not forget that at one point every one of them was an "original" game. At one point there was no Devil May Cry 2, or Gran Turismo 3, or Burnout 3, or Project Gotham Racing 3, or Halo 2. Just because a sequel was made afterwards does not retroactively make the orignal less...well, original.
Combine everything I said above with the number of original non-franchises that come out every year (which, while not a majority, is also a non-trivial number), and the whole problem of sequels seems to be a bit overstated to me.
...back in September. So in other words, just about forever ago.
I think that slashdot is stylistically more akin to a mailing list or blog than to the NYT or WSJ. We are informal. Which is what I want Slashdot to be. Casual. To hire a copy editor and purge all these things from Slashdot changes the tone of the site. It shifts us to another place. Some people think that change is good. I think that change is bad. This is a place where a dozen voices are heard on one page. Some will make a typo. Others a grammar error.
I agree with you here. The odd mispelling or misplaced comma does not, for a majority of people, create a huge problem. This really isn't the New York times. However, I have seen plenty of stories where, either from inappropriate sentence structure or unfortunate punctuation errors, the actual meaning of the article summary is either lost or easily misread. The kind of thing that I would hope just about anybody with a mastery of the English language would have caught, because when read it simply doesn't make sense. Mispelled words I can overlook, but these extreme cases I cannot.
That said, I spot one like that once a week at most. Less, actually. So I guess it could be worse.
Anyway the whole point is really silly. A free one year subscription would raise the overall costs of the computer, which is a disservice to those who do not want or need .Mac. Anyone who wants to can already get a free 60 trail, and if they find the service useful pay for the year. As long as Apple continues to raise the value fo the service, without raising the price, I am happy.
.Mac at the moment, so I'm ecstatic that I didn't have to pay for it in the price of my PowerBook. There is no such thing as something included "for free" with the purchase of a computer...that's basic economics. Unless all you geeks out there want to believe that I'm really getting Windows "for free" when I buy a Dell.
.Mac offers, but obviously the needs of users will vary. Some would probably pay more. But please, Apple, do not listen to the naysayers. Continue to let us have the choice.
.Mac is worth $100 a year. I can say that because people pay $100 a year for it. It isn't worth $100 a year to me, so I don't. But Apple's goal is not, and should not, be to get every Mac user to subscribe to .Mac...it should be to maximize profits. I have a feeling there are people working at Apple who have probably done a lot more computation, market study, and analysis on the subject than the average Slashdot reader, or even Dan Farber.
Amen. I have no desire for
Didn't think so.
At the moment, I'd say that 8.33 a month seems a little pricey for what
I think it is funny when people suggest that anything Apple sells is "too expensive." As if the market is in some way broken, allowing Apple to charge whatever they want for anything while other companies have to compete on price. Apple computers cost more because they are worth more, plain and simple. Whether that value comes from ease of use, beauty of design, or whatever, they are most definitely worth more. Whether they are worth more to an individual is up for debate, as is whether an individual can afford it.
That should get me a Pentium 4 system (2.4-2.8Ghz), name brand motherboard, 1GB ram, a nice power supply and a somewhat cheesy but servicable case, a budget dual head video card, a 80-120GB drive, and the DVD burner. Yeah, I did go a bit over the budget (by about $50 each), and these systems certainly aren't going to be as powerful as the iMac, but the original poster said "nice Intel system" and not "an Intel system just like the iMac". And I would consider a system like this "nice" as in it is fast, inexpensive, expandable, and reliable. And I have two of them.
A computer without software is just a very expensive, horribly inefficient, space heater. Yes, you could run Linux, but a vast majority of computer users are going to want Windows on there. Also, apples to apples would require you to install commercial software as well. And, since we want apples to apples, that means two copies of XP Pro (because OSX does not compare to Home). And a suite of software as good as iLife (which shareware/freeware is not going to readily replace). Times two.
So, $900 for monitor/keyboard. Call it $250 for software (I'm being conservative, there...WinXP Pro alone is going to run you $100). So $1150 each. Now you don't have two of them anymore. You DO save $550. Which is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
However, you are giving up better customer support, smaller form factor, probably lower power consumption, and better design. And you're running Windows instead of OSX. And you admitted that the machine you designed wasn't quite as good as the iMac 20". It was just close.
Are Macs (to include the new Intel variety) more expensive? Yes. Are they twice as expensive. Hell no. Are they worth the added expense? In the opinions of growing numbers of people, most obviously yes.
Has there been any serious consideration of how the design of the vehicle effects your likeliness to be in a crash? It seems to me that SUV's, by blocking the ability of anyone around them to see in traffic (especially since they always seem to have the darkest of the dark tinted windows), might concievably cause accidents just by being on the road, regardless of how they are driven. (The same argument could be used for some small cars with horrible blind spots; anyone ever driven a Paseo, so I'm somewhat unfairly picking on SUV's here.)
No, you are NOT unfairly picking on SUV's on this point...because while other cars may have blind spots, they don't generally give those blind spots _to_others_. Trying to drive in a small car surrounded by SUV's (and to a small extent heavier trucks, since even their beds sit high enough to block vision in traffic sometimes) can feel like driving blind. All you can see are the cars immediately surrounding you.
And don't get me started about SUV's parralel parked on corners. This should be illegal. I've pulled through many (2-way) stop signs "on faith" before, because in order to be able to see if any traffic was coming, I was going to have to pull halfway out into the street anyway. I suppose putting it in park, getting out, and walking out to check the traffic might be an option...except that conditions would change in the time it took me to get back in my car. I swear there is a corner in my college town where you are crossing over a one-way street, and there is _always_ some Durango or Suburban with limo-tint parked on the corner in the direction traffic comes from.
Band managers just don't put much effort into getting the kiddies to go to shows, and I wouldn't be surprised if their little manufactured primadonna acts don't really have much of a taste for the smelly grind on the road. It's much easier to buy off MTV/ClearChannel and brainwash the kids remotely, then hit em up at the record store. Those sorts of overheads are minimal.
This is mostly only true of "pop" acts. A lot of more "modern rock" acts actually spend quite a bit of time on the road, and the kids go to the shows. Linkin Park would be an example off the top of my head. I am not a fan of the band, and haven't even downloaded, let alone bought, their CDs, but I went to their show on a friend's reccomendation, and did enjoy myself. Except for the part where I was surrounded by freakin' teenagers.
And that's just the major-label top-40 bands...let's not forget the other indie (and former indie) bands that tour constantly, such as O.A.R.
Anyway, I just get sick of the generalization that all the music being sold today is either The Beatles or Britney, and nothing in between.
Do yourself a favor: pick up a used PS2 somewhere, and start hitting the back-catalog. It'll be the best value you've ever experience, fun/dollar-wise. There are enough PS2 exclusives that were well worth playing, most of which are pretty old now, and thus available cheaply.
I'd start by finding yourself a copy of Ico. But there are also several RPGs you should look into.
I just thought this whole Soul Calibur 3 thing was bullshit because there were a couple reasons that the PS2 version of Soul Calibur 2 was the worst: A) the system was grossly underpowered compared to the other two, and it showed, and B) the special character for the PS2 version (Heihachi, if I remember correctly) sucked compared to Link and Spawn. Of course, that second part is just my opinion.
I think Namco shot themselves in the foot on this one, because by releasing it for PS2 only they haven't fixed the problem, just made sure a lot less people will buy the game. I think they figured that multi-platformers like myself would just pick it up for PS2 if that is the only system it was available for...except that given the choice between playing SC3 on my PS2 or just continuing to play SC2 on my Cube (and keeping my fifty bucks), I'll go with the latter every time. I'm guessing a lot of people who own the Xbox version feel the same.
You shouldnt have modded parent down, he's right you know. Sony forked out a wad of cash for exclusivity, nothing else. Theres no other reason why Namco woulda backstabbed all the loyal fans with Xbox/GC that bought SC2 in huge numbers.
I don't feel backstabbed...I'll just continue to enjoy SCII on my Cube. SCIII doesn't sound that amazing anyway, in comparison. The only ting I wonder is why would Sony bother to do such a thing? Isn't it a little late in the game to worry about moving PS2s?
There were several shots where it was obvious they fucked up the color process. (For example, when they were standing on the ridge, there was a close-up of the childrens' faces with mountains behind them. They obviously looked out of place.)
My wife actually nudged me at that point and said it was the most fake-looking shot she had seen in a long time. Overall the effects weren't bad, but there were a few spots like this where the look didn't match the budget.