PA's humor is one of those things that carries quite a few prerequisites.
You have to be a fairly avid and experienced gamer to catch even half the allusions they make. You have to like sarcastic and satirical humor, as well as be able to understand and appreciate more juvenile humor (like the frequency of the word "wang" in their strips for a while).
There are a lot of PA strips that I don't laugh at, even when I see the humor. A few of them I just shrug my shoulders and move on to something more interesting. But they get out at least a couple a month that really make me laugh, and that's enough for me to spend a few minutes reading.
I miss ROTT. Deathmatch just hasn't been the same since.
Re:Sex, sex, sex, doesn't anyone just kill anymore
on
Pregnancy In Second Life
·
· Score: 2, Funny
fwiw, that crackpot Falwell doesn't like video games at all.
I still enjoy pointing out the fact that the cheerleaders at his school violate several points of the dress code. I guess when you're cheering for Liberty U you're exempt.
What I want to know is for instance whether there is any residual effect specifically related to the visual display besides the effect of adrenalin, how long the effect lasts (my guess is very short), and how they determined the validity of linking the responses to the scenario to their extravagant conclusions.
It's not a great leap to make some connection.
By definition, games are meant to be fun. Violent games stimulate us in ways similar to that of real violence. By associating the physiological response to violence with fun, a small group of people may engage in real-life violence as a result of the games' stimuli.
It's not going to make you or me suddenly break out into fits of violence, and the average teenager can deal with it in a semi-mature way and not kill anyone. We're talking about a handful of individuals who have other, larger problems than the influence of video games. Violent media may be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back in some situations.
"...youth growing up in violent homes and communities may become more physiologically aroused by media violence exposure, all youth appear to be at risk for potentially negative outcomes."
This isn't a study saying "games make you violent". This study is demonstrating that games elicit physiological responses associated with violence and that people more "familiar" with the subject have greater responses.
The same can be said of any media with violent content; it triggers a response similar to that one has when viewing or committing violence in real life. This obviously doesn't mean that games make people violent, but it does make a strong argument for the need for parental supervision and control of content available to minors.
"The Emmy for Best Programming Designed for Digital Distribution goes to..."
It's still a mouthful, but let's face it...there are some things you just can't trim down and still communicate their purpose. I think there are some Oscars titles that are quite long as well.
Rooster Teeth Productions has already made a huge splash in the independent film scene and has a lot of people taking machinima seriously because of the success of RvB. It's funny, is loaded with satire and tongue-in-cheek social commentary, and very, very original. Not to mention they sustain a volume of production that makes it more than just a short film.
Because some Christians are offended by the idea of evolution and think it is part of a coordinated assault by science on their faith. I hear it at church on a regular basis, it's rather absurd.
A lot of Christians don't understand that science is the study of the universe and its history. True science looks at the evidence available and forms theories based on that evidence. When new evidence is presented, theories are reevaluated and revised or replaced as is necessary. Right now, the best explanation of the evidence is that the universe is ~13.5B years old, the earth is ~4.5B years, life began between 3B and 4B years ago, and that all life evolved from simpler life forms, all the way back to the first self-replicating proteins. There is some degree of fill-in-the-blank in these beliefs; we have no direct evidence of abiogenesis, only that we are beginning to replicate what we think happened back then. But as I said, it's the "best fit" scenario given the evidence.
Scientists aren't innocent here, either. Quite a few preach evolution--and science in general--as immutable fact, which by definition it cannot be. There is always the chance that tomorrow someone will dig up a t-rex skeleton with a human inside it and completely change everything (okay, the odds of that happening are infintesimal, but you get my point). These scientists push their version of the truth as if it is absolute. To them, it's a faith.
These are the same guys that automatically dismiss anything that contradicts evolution rather than giving it a fair hearing and peer review and shoot it down scientifically. It seems that every few generations science develops an offshoot of "faithful" who believe that they know the facts on everything because it's what science tells them. Sounds like some religious people I know...
That's obvious to us, but I was thinking about the average "I just want it to work" user. If they get it in their head that they can install the OS themselves, they will likely wind up wondering why their PC doesn't do as much as their neighbor's that came with a preloaded OS.
You'd be surprised how many joint pain problems go away with low-impact exercise. I've got a bad knee (a trophy from my youth) and if I don't spend at least an hour every few days on a bike, it starts hurting.
Retail Windows is a very small fraction of their sales, I don't bother to keep up with it at all. If the EULA changed to require the sacrifice of the firstborn I'd never know it unless it got media attention.
I don't know what article you read, but it couldn't be the same one I read. Because what I read said that MS is hiring two people for the entire UK who will be available upon request to help OEMs sell licenses to customers who might otherwise buy PCs without licenses. Yes, they said they'd like to see "naked" PCs go away...but that doesn't mean the "double tax" you're talking about.
It's been a while since I worked closely with MS, but as I recall they have a program specifically for OEMs who deal with volume licensed customers. Even if they sold 100% preloaded systems, the volume license buyers wouldn't pay any more for their OS...I don't remember how it worked.
They aren't stupid. You don't get to be as big as MS is by stupidity. They know that making it more difficult or more expensive to maintain volume licensing would only serve to drive more buyers to alternative markets, either Apple or Linux. So don't think for a second that they'd actually attempt to push that. No, what they want is for OEMs to buy into their pitch that "naked" PCs represent a loss in sales revenue, and stop selling those.
If an employee works for me, I also make them sign a non-compete in exchange for a much higher income. If they don't want to sign with me, they can go make 50% of the money with some company that doesn't care.
You do know those are unenforcable, right?
I had an employer try. I worked for an OEM that had a non-comp agreement, and a headhunter grabbed me for another one the next county over. According to the contract, I couldn't work for any competition in that county or any neighboring county for 18 months...which would mean I'd have to travel 100+ miles to find work in my field.
I spent $300 on legal fees (which was about how much more I made in a week at my new job) to have a high-powered lawyer pick the contract apart and scare them out of the lawsuit they threatened me with.
I'm wondering the same thing. Here are a few ideas I've got:
1) The obvious risk that customers might install an unlicensed copy of Windows, whether they mean to (piracy) or not (they bought 30 licenses and have 31 installs because they weren't counting)
2) MS wants everyone to think their OS is the best, just like Apple does. So of course they're going to say that an alternative OS is a "risk". They wouldn't be very good salesmen if they didn't tell you their product was better.
3) Without an installed OS, end users don't get OS support from the OEM. So if you buy a "naked" Dell, Dell doesn't have to support any OS on the system, even if you buy an OEM copy of XP on your own. Less support generally means customers are less satisfied and might even be at greater risk of system failure or security problems.
4) A spinoff of #3...a Dell PC sold with XP comes with all the drivers and software it needs preconfigured to work as advertised. A Dell PC sold "naked" with XP installed later may not have the same functionality. So the consumer can actually be at risk of not getting full use of the product.
Some of those are a stretch, I know, but we're talking about marketing here.
It is well-verified that Microsoft strong-arm OEMs into buying Windows "or else."
That's odd, because in my experience dealing directly with MS as an OEM, that wasn't the case at all. Now, they did tell us when we told them we were switching to Linux for some apps that our unit prices would go up...but that should be expected when your purchase volume drops by 20%. They then flooded us with pamphlets telling us how much better Server 2003 is than Linux and how TCO for Linux was actually higher and so forth. We had that crammed down our throats for four months before I finally told our MS rep that it was customers who drove our switch to Linux, and we weren't going to push MS on them if they specifically requested the change.
The article most definitely is not "FUD"
So stating that MS will pay you a visit for not buying Windows with your new PC isn't FUD? It's even clearly stated in TFA that they have no intention of doing that.
In this instance, it is Microsoft who are employing this tactic by hinting that bad things will happen to OEMs and to consumers who buy OS-less machines.
Yes. Businesses will miss out on a chance at boosting their sales figures, and consumers will install Linux. That's pretty much what MS said.
Yeah, I'm a little confused by that. I have a feeling this apparent contradiction comes more from the watered-down nature of the article than any real policy. The original scanned article certainly acknowledges that a lot of naked PCs are purchased specifically for volume licensing...I'm having trouble reconciling that with the call to not offer naked PCs. Of course, no one has actually asked MS what their take on that is, so anything said at this point is pure speculation.
Basically, this is all just MS trying to get Windows on everything. Naked PCs are missed sales opportunities to them, and they want OEMs to see it the same way. OEMs are going to have to strike a balance between selling what the customer wants and maximizing sales by pushing a profitable OS like Windows as often as possible.
Until MS actually starts threatening companies for selling these so-called naked PCs, I don't see where this is anything more than an interesting marketing scheme.
What strongarm tactics are they using here? As I read it, they're putting a few consultants in place who can be requested by OEMs to help them sell licenses.
Damn you are so right, because I am risking my customers and my business by selling 5% less copies of their products for them.
I didn't say it's true, I said that's what MS said is true. They're trying to sell you on selling their product.
The veiled comes into effect because it could be interpreted as a threat, I took the section I considered to be the threat.
It's only a vieled threat taken out of context.
"It is...a risk to your business -- with specifically 5 percent fewer opportunities to market software and services"
I removed "a risk to your customers and..." because it's not explained and isn't relevant to what we're talking about here.
It's been my experience that software and services can be very profitable for OEMs. By selling Windows, you have the opportunity to sell other software packages preinstalled with the OS. You can pitch enhanced support services specific to the OS. There's an undeniable opportunity for profit in selling Windows.
Of course, there's the old adage "give the customer what they want". If I specifically say "I want the Dell blah blah blah with no OS" I would really prefer they not try to change my mind. I've stated I don't want an OS, I don't need a consultant from MS to spend half a day telling me how wonderful it would be if I ordered it with Windows after all.
This is one instance where I think MS is actually doing this right. They're making resources available to OEMs without pushing it on them so that the OEMs don't miss an opportunity at making a sale.
I was pointing out that context was thrown out the window when the quote was cut mid-sentence to make it sound menacing, when it really wasn't.
I don't know what MS is saying is the danger for end users, aside from the obvious that they want people to think that Linux is a risk (just like some Linux zealots say about MS) and are concerned about piracy.
From the scanned article linked in TFA:
1. To install their own software 2. To transfer software from an old machine 3. To install Linux 4. To take advantage of a volume licensing agreement
Now, you might make a great leap and infer that 1 and 2 point to piracy, but generally it's assumed that "their software" is legally theirs, and this old machine has a tranferable license (as in, non-OEM).
The point being made by the scanned article is that a lot of buyers are planning on using an "old" OS...I would assume non-XP is implied here. What they're wanting is for OEMs to determine why people are ordering naked PCs and see if they can find a way to pitch Windows to them. It's a win/win for MS and the OEM...both would turn a profit off the sale.
Slashdot Mirror
PA's humor is one of those things that carries quite a few prerequisites.
You have to be a fairly avid and experienced gamer to catch even half the allusions they make. You have to like sarcastic and satirical humor, as well as be able to understand and appreciate more juvenile humor (like the frequency of the word "wang" in their strips for a while).
There are a lot of PA strips that I don't laugh at, even when I see the humor. A few of them I just shrug my shoulders and move on to something more interesting. But they get out at least a couple a month that really make me laugh, and that's enough for me to spend a few minutes reading.
I miss ROTT. Deathmatch just hasn't been the same since.
fwiw, that crackpot Falwell doesn't like video games at all.
I still enjoy pointing out the fact that the cheerleaders at his school violate several points of the dress code. I guess when you're cheering for Liberty U you're exempt.
If this were a poll, I'd choose the CowboyNeal answer.
On Atari 2600. They've got the splash screen, but they can't figure out how to get the other 2 GB on the cartridge.
Wait...this *is* just a late 4/1/06 joke, right?
What I want to know is for instance whether there is any residual effect specifically related to the visual display besides the effect of adrenalin, how long the effect lasts (my guess is very short), and how they determined the validity of linking the responses to the scenario to their extravagant conclusions.
It's not a great leap to make some connection.
By definition, games are meant to be fun. Violent games stimulate us in ways similar to that of real violence. By associating the physiological response to violence with fun, a small group of people may engage in real-life violence as a result of the games' stimuli.
It's not going to make you or me suddenly break out into fits of violence, and the average teenager can deal with it in a semi-mature way and not kill anyone. We're talking about a handful of individuals who have other, larger problems than the influence of video games. Violent media may be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back in some situations.
This part bears repeating:
"...youth growing up in violent homes and communities may become more physiologically aroused by media violence exposure, all youth appear to be at risk for potentially negative outcomes."
This isn't a study saying "games make you violent". This study is demonstrating that games elicit physiological responses associated with violence and that people more "familiar" with the subject have greater responses.
The same can be said of any media with violent content; it triggers a response similar to that one has when viewing or committing violence in real life. This obviously doesn't mean that games make people violent, but it does make a strong argument for the need for parental supervision and control of content available to minors.
How about:
"The Emmy for Best Programming Designed for Digital Distribution goes to..."
It's still a mouthful, but let's face it...there are some things you just can't trim down and still communicate their purpose. I think there are some Oscars titles that are quite long as well.
And here I thought it was just so that they could sell more computers, and the switch by some to OSX would just be a bonus.
I've used OSX enough to know that it's not my cup of tea. But XP on that new iMac...then my wife wouldn't feel the need to hide the computers.
That's the NY Times for you. They (as part of the mainstream media) don't understand that other media players exist than the iPod.
'Nuff said.
Rooster Teeth Productions has already made a huge splash in the independent film scene and has a lot of people taking machinima seriously because of the success of RvB. It's funny, is loaded with satire and tongue-in-cheek social commentary, and very, very original. Not to mention they sustain a volume of production that makes it more than just a short film.
Because some Christians are offended by the idea of evolution and think it is part of a coordinated assault by science on their faith. I hear it at church on a regular basis, it's rather absurd.
A lot of Christians don't understand that science is the study of the universe and its history. True science looks at the evidence available and forms theories based on that evidence. When new evidence is presented, theories are reevaluated and revised or replaced as is necessary. Right now, the best explanation of the evidence is that the universe is ~13.5B years old, the earth is ~4.5B years, life began between 3B and 4B years ago, and that all life evolved from simpler life forms, all the way back to the first self-replicating proteins. There is some degree of fill-in-the-blank in these beliefs; we have no direct evidence of abiogenesis, only that we are beginning to replicate what we think happened back then. But as I said, it's the "best fit" scenario given the evidence.
Scientists aren't innocent here, either. Quite a few preach evolution--and science in general--as immutable fact, which by definition it cannot be. There is always the chance that tomorrow someone will dig up a t-rex skeleton with a human inside it and completely change everything (okay, the odds of that happening are infintesimal, but you get my point). These scientists push their version of the truth as if it is absolute. To them, it's a faith.
These are the same guys that automatically dismiss anything that contradicts evolution rather than giving it a fair hearing and peer review and shoot it down scientifically. It seems that every few generations science develops an offshoot of "faithful" who believe that they know the facts on everything because it's what science tells them. Sounds like some religious people I know...
That's obvious to us, but I was thinking about the average "I just want it to work" user. If they get it in their head that they can install the OS themselves, they will likely wind up wondering why their PC doesn't do as much as their neighbor's that came with a preloaded OS.
"OEM operating system licences live and die with each PC - they are not transferable"
OEM licenses have been that way for years. I'm talking about the "full-price" retail version.
You'd be surprised how many joint pain problems go away with low-impact exercise. I've got a bad knee (a trophy from my youth) and if I don't spend at least an hour every few days on a bike, it starts hurting.
If they did, I haven't heard of it.
Retail Windows is a very small fraction of their sales, I don't bother to keep up with it at all. If the EULA changed to require the sacrifice of the firstborn I'd never know it unless it got media attention.
Not to worry, they'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
I don't know what article you read, but it couldn't be the same one I read. Because what I read said that MS is hiring two people for the entire UK who will be available upon request to help OEMs sell licenses to customers who might otherwise buy PCs without licenses. Yes, they said they'd like to see "naked" PCs go away...but that doesn't mean the "double tax" you're talking about.
It's been a while since I worked closely with MS, but as I recall they have a program specifically for OEMs who deal with volume licensed customers. Even if they sold 100% preloaded systems, the volume license buyers wouldn't pay any more for their OS...I don't remember how it worked.
They aren't stupid. You don't get to be as big as MS is by stupidity. They know that making it more difficult or more expensive to maintain volume licensing would only serve to drive more buyers to alternative markets, either Apple or Linux. So don't think for a second that they'd actually attempt to push that. No, what they want is for OEMs to buy into their pitch that "naked" PCs represent a loss in sales revenue, and stop selling those.
If an employee works for me, I also make them sign a non-compete in exchange for a much higher income. If they don't want to sign with me, they can go make 50% of the money with some company that doesn't care.
You do know those are unenforcable, right?
I had an employer try. I worked for an OEM that had a non-comp agreement, and a headhunter grabbed me for another one the next county over. According to the contract, I couldn't work for any competition in that county or any neighboring county for 18 months...which would mean I'd have to travel 100+ miles to find work in my field.
I spent $300 on legal fees (which was about how much more I made in a week at my new job) to have a high-powered lawyer pick the contract apart and scare them out of the lawsuit they threatened me with.
I'm wondering the same thing. Here are a few ideas I've got:
1) The obvious risk that customers might install an unlicensed copy of Windows, whether they mean to (piracy) or not (they bought 30 licenses and have 31 installs because they weren't counting)
2) MS wants everyone to think their OS is the best, just like Apple does. So of course they're going to say that an alternative OS is a "risk". They wouldn't be very good salesmen if they didn't tell you their product was better.
3) Without an installed OS, end users don't get OS support from the OEM. So if you buy a "naked" Dell, Dell doesn't have to support any OS on the system, even if you buy an OEM copy of XP on your own. Less support generally means customers are less satisfied and might even be at greater risk of system failure or security problems.
4) A spinoff of #3...a Dell PC sold with XP comes with all the drivers and software it needs preconfigured to work as advertised. A Dell PC sold "naked" with XP installed later may not have the same functionality. So the consumer can actually be at risk of not getting full use of the product.
Some of those are a stretch, I know, but we're talking about marketing here.
It is well-verified that Microsoft strong-arm OEMs into buying Windows "or else."
That's odd, because in my experience dealing directly with MS as an OEM, that wasn't the case at all. Now, they did tell us when we told them we were switching to Linux for some apps that our unit prices would go up...but that should be expected when your purchase volume drops by 20%. They then flooded us with pamphlets telling us how much better Server 2003 is than Linux and how TCO for Linux was actually higher and so forth. We had that crammed down our throats for four months before I finally told our MS rep that it was customers who drove our switch to Linux, and we weren't going to push MS on them if they specifically requested the change.
The article most definitely is not "FUD"
So stating that MS will pay you a visit for not buying Windows with your new PC isn't FUD? It's even clearly stated in TFA that they have no intention of doing that.
In this instance, it is Microsoft who are employing this tactic by hinting that bad things will happen to OEMs and to consumers who buy OS-less machines.
Yes. Businesses will miss out on a chance at boosting their sales figures, and consumers will install Linux. That's pretty much what MS said.
Yeah, I'm a little confused by that. I have a feeling this apparent contradiction comes more from the watered-down nature of the article than any real policy. The original scanned article certainly acknowledges that a lot of naked PCs are purchased specifically for volume licensing...I'm having trouble reconciling that with the call to not offer naked PCs. Of course, no one has actually asked MS what their take on that is, so anything said at this point is pure speculation.
Basically, this is all just MS trying to get Windows on everything. Naked PCs are missed sales opportunities to them, and they want OEMs to see it the same way. OEMs are going to have to strike a balance between selling what the customer wants and maximizing sales by pushing a profitable OS like Windows as often as possible.
Until MS actually starts threatening companies for selling these so-called naked PCs, I don't see where this is anything more than an interesting marketing scheme.
What strongarm tactics are they using here? As I read it, they're putting a few consultants in place who can be requested by OEMs to help them sell licenses.
:)
Feel free to quote TFA and prove me wrong
Damn you are so right, because I am risking my customers and my business by selling 5% less copies of their products for them.
I didn't say it's true, I said that's what MS said is true. They're trying to sell you on selling their product.
The veiled comes into effect because it could be interpreted as a threat, I took the section I considered to be the threat.
It's only a vieled threat taken out of context.
"It is...a risk to your business -- with specifically 5 percent fewer opportunities to market software and services"
I removed "a risk to your customers and..." because it's not explained and isn't relevant to what we're talking about here.
It's been my experience that software and services can be very profitable for OEMs. By selling Windows, you have the opportunity to sell other software packages preinstalled with the OS. You can pitch enhanced support services specific to the OS. There's an undeniable opportunity for profit in selling Windows.
Of course, there's the old adage "give the customer what they want". If I specifically say "I want the Dell blah blah blah with no OS" I would really prefer they not try to change my mind. I've stated I don't want an OS, I don't need a consultant from MS to spend half a day telling me how wonderful it would be if I ordered it with Windows after all.
This is one instance where I think MS is actually doing this right. They're making resources available to OEMs without pushing it on them so that the OEMs don't miss an opportunity at making a sale.
I was pointing out that context was thrown out the window when the quote was cut mid-sentence to make it sound menacing, when it really wasn't.
I don't know what MS is saying is the danger for end users, aside from the obvious that they want people to think that Linux is a risk (just like some Linux zealots say about MS) and are concerned about piracy.
From the scanned article linked in TFA:
1. To install their own software
2. To transfer software from an old machine
3. To install Linux
4. To take advantage of a volume licensing agreement
Now, you might make a great leap and infer that 1 and 2 point to piracy, but generally it's assumed that "their software" is legally theirs, and this old machine has a tranferable license (as in, non-OEM).
The point being made by the scanned article is that a lot of buyers are planning on using an "old" OS...I would assume non-XP is implied here. What they're wanting is for OEMs to determine why people are ordering naked PCs and see if they can find a way to pitch Windows to them. It's a win/win for MS and the OEM...both would turn a profit off the sale.