Rolls Royce and Ferrari do not think or speak in terms of "market share." They have a core following that will always remain, and will always be small. The masses will always drive Chevys, Toyotas, or whatever.
Sure, great comparison. Let me get this straight...
Rolls Royce and Ferrari are $200k+ luxury automobiles for the affluent (or those who want you to believe they are affluent.) They also burn through fuel and require constant and extensive tuning and maintenance to run properly. Just like Firefox?
By comparison, Chevys and Toyotas are affordable and reliable cars that get decent mileage and can last for a decade or more as long as you remember to hit the Jiffy Lube. Just like, uh, Internet Explorer...
And anyway... I can understand Blizzard's positon. I mean, you wouldn't be able to use 'camping fag' as an insult anymore, and that could cause the world of online gaming to grind to a halt.
There's some truth in your joke. Online games- WOW included- are primarily the domain of 14-30 old men, a group not known for sensitivity. Consider how much words like gay, fag, cocksucker, etc. are thrown around as insults in just about every online game (because as we all know, "noobs", "campers" and "hackers" enjoy having relations with the same sex.) Even if a gay player had a sense of humor about it I would imagine this would get very old very fast, and I could see why they would gravitate towards their forming their own guilds/clans.
Considering how many different variations of customizable keyboards, mice and joysticks exist, wouldn't PC games be more appropriate for someone with a disability?
Did you notice that that one article has had many cases of vandalism? And I dare say beavers are not a controversial subject.
And the vandalism is always corrected quickly. Oh, and for obvious reasons ("Beaver. Heh heh.") it's an obvious target. And yes, more controversial subjects are subject to repeated revisions-- but the change logs are kept as well as a running discussion page, and those arguments can be just as informative as the article itself.
I remember the encyclopedias in my junior high library, they were covered with obscene little drawings and quotes. That's there forever (or until the volume is replaced, only to be immediately vandalized again.) Is that really a better model?
"In the end, really, the problem lies with clueless users who don't really understand how a computer works (or rather, how it is supposed to work) to have a smooth running system."
I disagree. Consumers will do exactly what they are told to do, as long as it's relatively simple and as long as it works. It's not because they are morons, it's because just about every other consumer appliance is designed to be "plug and play", and a Windows computer seems to be so too when you pull it out of the box. Unfortunately it isn't, and the means to make the operating system safe aren't particularly clear (i.e. no documentation is provided, and while the information is available online you have to dig through a pile of contradictions, technical discussions and ads for services that may do more harm than good to find it.)
At this point setting up a secure Windows machine is purely a word-of-mouth process, as in if you don't have a friend or relative who can show you how to do it the right way you're pretty much fucked. How is this acceptable, and how can we blame the consumer for that?
It would be simple to train users to operate as user instead of admin. Make it default, and explain why it is so in the setup screen. Make them get used to entering their password when installing new software and explain why in the warning window. (It's not like we're not used to typing passwords dozens of times a day already-- I mean how many times do you check your voice mail?)
As for it being a problem, I'm not convinced. Provided he never engages in acts with a minor himself (and even then there is a huge different between a 21 year old and a 14 year old versus a 40 year old and a 9 year old), I don't have a problem with it.
Well, I'll tell you why I have a problem with it. Any child depicted in pornography is there against their will, and the victim of a (quite possibly horrible) crime. Deriving sexual pleasure from watching a child being humiliated in such a way shows, at the very least, a total lack of compassion for the victim.
I'm not saying that this always leads to this person committing the act himself, or that he should be locked up simply for viewing it-- but I do maintain that this is antisocial behavior and morally wrong, and it should be shameful.
You make sense, in that someone who has an attraction to children can't help it. Often they were victims of sexual abuse themselves. But it's not just "a preference", as one might refer to homosexuality, simply because it does not involve consenting adults. It's a problem, and we as a society should not accept it. You can't say "Dan's a great salesman, a good poker buddy and gives to the church so he's an alright guy, despite the fact that he masturbates to 11 year olds."
And the fact remains-- and you seem to miss this point-- that child porn is illegal to create and illegal to possess. And rightfully so, as any child involved in its creation is certainly there against their will (and whatever back story brought them to those circumstances can't possibly be pretty.) So perhaps it does give those attracted to children a release, but that in no way justifies the horrible circumstances under which it is created. If the man (and it's usually a man) so attracted can't be satisfied by "barely legal" consenting adults in schoolgirl clothes-- which is legal to create and possess-- he has a problem, and we are right to call that a problem.
It's not. It's "gay-friendly." Meaning if you are of that orientation, you have a place to play that isn't loaded with 14-year olds making endless "fag" jokes. I would assume that even if you had a sense of humor about it, it would be grating after a while. It is for me and I'm straight.
Also, there are people who form real-world relationships (friendship and, uh, "other") from MMO's. Such a guild would facilitate such meetings, if only to let the players feel a little more safe to be themselves. I'd imagine it's pretty scary otherwise to admit you're gay to some random Orc. (and that might be one of the funniest sentences I've ever written...)
And anyway, who cares what prerequisites a guild (or clan) has? It's a junior high clique, not a business. You're not being denied an opportunity to advance in life, you just have a circle of people who don't want you as a friend. Should I have complained to my high school administration because the jocks didn't invite me to their parties?
Of course such a guild (I would assume) is going to attract more than its share of griefers... But if it's what they want to do, more power to them.
Of course, all that money that comes from China goes to an American company which keeps American's working.
I think this is an excellent point that seems to be missed. There WILL be search engines in China. Perhaps it is better that the profit from such goes to an American company. It could only be good for our economy, especially as we're seeing more and more of our tech jobs sent overseas.
Also, consider that the American position as leader in the global technology race is tenuous, if it still exists at all. And in a global economy, it's a cold fact that you will have to deal with questionable governments. Should Google also be kept out of Saudi Arabia, for example? Or Belarus?
I believe Google is thinking long-term here. Regimes change and the China of 20 years from now will not be the same China of today. It may be more free as the old guard dies, it may be worse if there is a crackdown, but it will change. But one thing is certain, and that is if Google does not establish a presence now it is not likely they will be able to tomorrow.
Consumer video cameras are migrating to USB. At least, some of them are, and some of those tend to be the ones with radical features that may or may not take (i.e. not MiniDV.) Sony, for example, is making a big push to eliminate Firewire, but at the same time Sony is famous for radical format changes (Digital 8, DVD camcorders.) Likewise MPEG-4 cameras are USB based, but those things really shouldn't be called "camcorders" anyway.
"Pro" cameras are and will continue to be Firewire. As are DV decks, which is the method most "pros" use to import (not a good idea to use the camera.) It's not going away this year or next... Frankly, USB 2.0 just isn't reliable enough for video. Streaming through a hub doesn't work. Of course this will change when something new comes along (and that "something new" may well have "USB" in its name) but that's not something that should concern any purchase today.
BTW, Lack of Firewire 800 ports does NOT MEAN Firewire 400 is going away (and neither does dropping it from the iPod.) Firewire 800 never really took off-- partly because Firewire 400 works, and 800 doesn't speed up processes in video editing, most of which are done in real time. 800 doesn't speed up rendering, importing or playback. Though HD may change this?
(I personally think (and could be wrong on this) the "MacBook" doesn't have 800 because it was rushed to market, not because Apple made a decision to drop it.)
I disagree. The derivative sequels, by and large, tend to be worse than the original.
There are sequels, even derivative ones that take what made the original great and improve on it. There are also ones that just extend the experience, but if it was a great game that left you wanting more that's not a bad thing. We accept that a TV series tells a new story in the same world each week, why can't a game series be episodic as well?
Then there are bad sequels. But there are also a load of terrible original games. We just tend to forget those because the disappointment factor wasn't so great.
(Actually, most games are a disappointment. But that goes for every other medium too-- movies, books, TV, music, whatever. I don't see it as a problem with sequels as much as the fact that it's just not easy to create something truly "great.")
Has Google ever claimed to represent freedom of speech, or that they are the be-all, end-all resource for true and factual information?
Goodies like mail and maps aside, all they really are is a business that facilitate indexing the web. They aren't "good" and they aren't "evil", they're a corporation that performs a service for profit. They didn't turn over the search records to the DoJ because that would be suicide in the freedom (and soft-core porn) loving American market-- no one would use Google if they thought their queries were being tracked by some mysterious government agency.
On the other hand, they will not be allowed to operate in China at all unless they comply with the government... So they do.
I don't know where this comes from, the idea that Google should be making a stand for free speech in a foreign country. If such a stand doesn't come from the populace themselves, it isn't going to happen (and it just might, as even with filters in place they will have more access than ever to the rest of the world.)
Nothing will kill a creative endeavor faster than wondering "Is it art?"
In fact, it's a very self-indulgent thing to ask. Most artists of note didn't set out to create "art", they were(are) inspired by the passion and drive to create, or because they just had something to say. They'd do it whether culture called it art or not (and in fact, many great artists who were lesser names did.)
So, who cares if games are "art" or not? That's not for the game creators to decide, that's for culture to sort out later. There certainly have been great games that create immersive and plausible worlds (or at least worlds that work on their own terms) and offer insights on human nature-- Fallout comes to mind, maybe Deus Ex, perhaps even Starcraft. I don't know if they're "art" (or perhaps "literature") or something else, but I do know these works attained a level of greatness and will be remembered for it.
And I believe, the first in-game movies sequences.
What's funny is how many times they've tried to build a world (and yes, cutscenes) out of Pac Man, and still keep trying to do so. It's not far off from your Tetris MMORPG.
I'll answer the second two first, purely my opinion and not speaking for any other Christian:
Why they believe one ascends to heaven immediately upon a man saying they are dead.
We don't really know what happens when you die. But forgive us if, when we try and imagine it, we opt for the positive and comforting.
Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth.
While I would not want to be kept alive in those circumstances, I understand those (and the realtives of those) who do... Especially one who has faith in miracles.
By the way, a certain case involving a certain family in Florida should not represent the whole of Christianity.
Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days
While most professors encourage honest debate and discourse in their classes, there are always some who use their captive audiences, and discretion in grading, to further their political agendas.
Prejudice in grading should be dealt with through whatever channels are available, of course, but how exactly does a professor really further his political agenda? When the class is over there's no requirement that a student thinks like he does, only that they understand how he thinks. If a student has a different position, then understanding the world as seen by the "other side" is a valuable experience.
You're paying for your education. You have a right to critique your professors.
A university education isn't cable TV. You can't "change the channel" if you don't like what's on. As a student you are paying for the opportunity to be educated, and part of "being educated" is having an open mind and being willing to listen to opinions different than yours.
It may be painful for a student with a liberal bent to be taught by someone with conservative opinions (or vice versa), but they will learn something about how others think and how to formulate their own opinions. Aside from pure technical facts, this is the most important thing you will learn in any school-- how to work with others, especially those of a different background and mindset than yours. It's a big world out there and everyone has opinions, and you won't get too far if you don't learn to deal with those who don't think like you do.
Checking her stats, 75% of her visitors used IE6 and 16% used Firefox. (6.6% Safari) Do the math. Is it worth it to support 3% of her visitors?
This is more of a devil's advocate argument and not in line with the rest of your post, but there are a lot of developers who would add the 6.6% Safari users to the pile of "too much of a minority to support."
Which would be a mistake, because those 6.6% are of course running Macs, and thus may be the customers who a) have disposable income and b) are easily turned off by a business that doesn't support them (Yes, it's a stereotype, but stereotypes often ring true.)
In your wife's case (and I realize she's not doing this, but I'll use her as an example anyway) excluding Mac users from her photography site would be a very bad decision. Those 6.6% are likely to be many times more valuable as potential customers than the 75% of IE users.
Not that I disagree, but I'm not sure comparing console to handheld games holds weight. They're two similar, but different markets... From the Game Boy days to the current DS, handheld carts have always cost less (with some exceptions, sure.) It may be because they're perceived as worth less because they aren't as complex, possibly just because they're just smaller.
Also, while they are sold used handheld games usually aren't available for rent.
I can't imagine it's worth it to Apple to maintain classic emulation. Really, it's a small demographic who use it today-- and probably all of them write for lowendmac.com. Sure there will be someone who can come up with a "but I still use Microsoft 5" or whatever, but they're exceptions, not the vast majority. That might suck for a few people, but it's just not enough to matter.
If there's a classic app you or someone else needs to use so badly, consider that you can pick up a 400mhz G4 tower or a G3 Powerbook for less than $200 (possibly less than $100) and run OS9 natively.
So, dollar coins flop as you can't really use them anywhere except in stores. And you generally buy more than a buck's worth of stuff in a store.
I recently got 15 dollar coins as change from a machine at the post office and they were a pain to get rid of. The guy at the mini-mart had never seen one and thought I was trying to pass a foreign coin, the guy at Quiznos begged me to use something else because their cash register tray didn't have a slot for them. I finally used them all but it was always with a grunt or look of dismay.
(They're also heavy in the pockets-- you know when you're carrying a few around.)
The only way a dollar coin is going to become accepted is if (a) we drop the paper dollar entirely and (b) the dollar is devalued to the point where we see them as we do quarters now-- i.e. not worth enough to pick up off the dresser. Right now the dollar is still worth something-- one might not buy you a cup of coffee (depending on where you go), but four or five will still buy you a meal.
The intel iMac supports spanning! I'm surprised Steve didn't make a big deal about this. There goes one more major reason for people to buy a powermac. Kudos for Ars for mentioning that on the first page.
I could be wrong, but I bet it only supports spanning because they didn't have time (or it wasn't worth the trouble) to cripple it.
I'd lay odds on the next generation of iMacs losing that feature. Which may explain why the Apple publicity machine is mum about it...
Coming to the US, I was surprised by the fact that they force two people to pay for each call and can get away with it.
Sorry, what? Most local phone companies in the US have blanket monthly costs for unlimited local calls, and the caller pays long distance. You either dealt with a radical exception or you're misinformed.
Cell calls do charge both parties, or at least drain both of their minutes, is that what you're talking about?
You have to assume there will be one and then start to protect yourself, not the opposite.
If there are no viruses or worms for the Mac then overprotection is costly, time-consuming and useless. Of course a firewall is a good idea as well as reasonable precautions like not opening a.dmg from a warez site and being attentive to the tech press and updates available... But buying a suite of worthless Mac antivirus programs (for example) is a waste of time and money.
It's a bit like stocking up on Tamiflu because a couple of kids across the world got the bird flu. It's a bitch to get, it's going to cost you a fortune and it probably won't work anyway.
With OS X there's even such a thing as being too quick to update. There are often bugs and flaws that cause problems-- for example a recent one permanently disabled the RAM on a smattering of 15" Powerbooks-- and it's best to let others sort the flaws out and hold off a few weeks. That's incredibly risky behavior in the Windows world, but nothing to sweat over on a Mac.
Why is there all this talk about running windows on it? Honestly, it's like buying a new Porsche and ripping out the engine and putting a Dodge Neon engine in it.
That's a tired analogy, and it also rings false... An Intel Mac and a Windows machine have essentially the same engine, an Intel processor.
As for why someone would want to run Windows, just because such a thing seems unnecessary in the world you've carved out for yourself doesn't mean it wouldn't be a boon to others (otherwise Virtual PC wouldn't be as successsful as it is, and Virtual PC ain't that great.) It goes beyond games, there are a lot of Windows-only programs that have and will never make it to the Mac, and some of us are forced to use them because of our employers.
Slashdot Mirror
Rolls Royce and Ferrari do not think or speak in terms of "market share." They have a core following that will always remain, and will always be small. The masses will always drive Chevys, Toyotas, or whatever.
Sure, great comparison. Let me get this straight...
Rolls Royce and Ferrari are $200k+ luxury automobiles for the affluent (or those who want you to believe they are affluent.) They also burn through fuel and require constant and extensive tuning and maintenance to run properly. Just like Firefox?
By comparison, Chevys and Toyotas are affordable and reliable cars that get decent mileage and can last for a decade or more as long as you remember to hit the Jiffy Lube. Just like, uh, Internet Explorer...
Maybe you should try again.
And anyway... I can understand Blizzard's positon. I mean, you wouldn't be able to use 'camping fag' as an insult anymore, and that could cause the world of online gaming to grind to a halt.
There's some truth in your joke. Online games- WOW included- are primarily the domain of 14-30 old men, a group not known for sensitivity. Consider how much words like gay, fag, cocksucker, etc. are thrown around as insults in just about every online game (because as we all know, "noobs", "campers" and "hackers" enjoy having relations with the same sex.) Even if a gay player had a sense of humor about it I would imagine this would get very old very fast, and I could see why they would gravitate towards their forming their own guilds/clans.
But I don't see how the artists can make money from such a scheme after the labels take 90% of the profits?
They'll make the same they do from CD sales, which is nearly zero. If an artist makes money it's from licensing, publishing, merchandise and touring.
Considering how many different variations of customizable keyboards, mice and joysticks exist, wouldn't PC games be more appropriate for someone with a disability?
Did you notice that that one article has had many cases of vandalism? And I dare say beavers are not a controversial subject.
And the vandalism is always corrected quickly. Oh, and for obvious reasons ("Beaver. Heh heh.") it's an obvious target. And yes, more controversial subjects are subject to repeated revisions-- but the change logs are kept as well as a running discussion page, and those arguments can be just as informative as the article itself.
I remember the encyclopedias in my junior high library, they were covered with obscene little drawings and quotes. That's there forever (or until the volume is replaced, only to be immediately vandalized again.) Is that really a better model?
"In the end, really, the problem lies with clueless users who don't really understand how a computer works (or rather, how it is supposed to work) to have a smooth running system."
I disagree. Consumers will do exactly what they are told to do, as long as it's relatively simple and as long as it works. It's not because they are morons, it's because just about every other consumer appliance is designed to be "plug and play", and a Windows computer seems to be so too when you pull it out of the box. Unfortunately it isn't, and the means to make the operating system safe aren't particularly clear (i.e. no documentation is provided, and while the information is available online you have to dig through a pile of contradictions, technical discussions and ads for services that may do more harm than good to find it.)
At this point setting up a secure Windows machine is purely a word-of-mouth process, as in if you don't have a friend or relative who can show you how to do it the right way you're pretty much fucked. How is this acceptable, and how can we blame the consumer for that?
It would be simple to train users to operate as user instead of admin. Make it default, and explain why it is so in the setup screen. Make them get used to entering their password when installing new software and explain why in the warning window. (It's not like we're not used to typing passwords dozens of times a day already-- I mean how many times do you check your voice mail?)
A little hand-holding would go a long way.
As for it being a problem, I'm not convinced. Provided he never engages in acts with a minor himself (and even then there is a huge different between a 21 year old and a 14 year old versus a 40 year old and a 9 year old), I don't have a problem with it.
Well, I'll tell you why I have a problem with it. Any child depicted in pornography is there against their will, and the victim of a (quite possibly horrible) crime. Deriving sexual pleasure from watching a child being humiliated in such a way shows, at the very least, a total lack of compassion for the victim.
I'm not saying that this always leads to this person committing the act himself, or that he should be locked up simply for viewing it-- but I do maintain that this is antisocial behavior and morally wrong, and it should be shameful.
You make sense, in that someone who has an attraction to children can't help it. Often they were victims of sexual abuse themselves. But it's not just "a preference", as one might refer to homosexuality, simply because it does not involve consenting adults. It's a problem, and we as a society should not accept it. You can't say "Dan's a great salesman, a good poker buddy and gives to the church so he's an alright guy, despite the fact that he masturbates to 11 year olds."
And the fact remains-- and you seem to miss this point-- that child porn is illegal to create and illegal to possess. And rightfully so, as any child involved in its creation is certainly there against their will (and whatever back story brought them to those circumstances can't possibly be pretty.) So perhaps it does give those attracted to children a release, but that in no way justifies the horrible circumstances under which it is created. If the man (and it's usually a man) so attracted can't be satisfied by "barely legal" consenting adults in schoolgirl clothes-- which is legal to create and possess-- he has a problem, and we are right to call that a problem.
Why should a guild be limited to GLBT?
It's not. It's "gay-friendly." Meaning if you are of that orientation, you have a place to play that isn't loaded with 14-year olds making endless "fag" jokes. I would assume that even if you had a sense of humor about it, it would be grating after a while. It is for me and I'm straight.
Also, there are people who form real-world relationships (friendship and, uh, "other") from MMO's. Such a guild would facilitate such meetings, if only to let the players feel a little more safe to be themselves. I'd imagine it's pretty scary otherwise to admit you're gay to some random Orc. (and that might be one of the funniest sentences I've ever written...)
And anyway, who cares what prerequisites a guild (or clan) has? It's a junior high clique, not a business. You're not being denied an opportunity to advance in life, you just have a circle of people who don't want you as a friend. Should I have complained to my high school administration because the jocks didn't invite me to their parties?
Of course such a guild (I would assume) is going to attract more than its share of griefers... But if it's what they want to do, more power to them.
Of course, all that money that comes from China goes to an American company which keeps American's working.
I think this is an excellent point that seems to be missed. There WILL be search engines in China. Perhaps it is better that the profit from such goes to an American company. It could only be good for our economy, especially as we're seeing more and more of our tech jobs sent overseas.
Also, consider that the American position as leader in the global technology race is tenuous, if it still exists at all. And in a global economy, it's a cold fact that you will have to deal with questionable governments. Should Google also be kept out of Saudi Arabia, for example? Or Belarus?
I believe Google is thinking long-term here. Regimes change and the China of 20 years from now will not be the same China of today. It may be more free as the old guard dies, it may be worse if there is a crackdown, but it will change. But one thing is certain, and that is if Google does not establish a presence now it is not likely they will be able to tomorrow.
Consumer video cameras are migrating to USB. At least, some of them are, and some of those tend to be the ones with radical features that may or may not take (i.e. not MiniDV.) Sony, for example, is making a big push to eliminate Firewire, but at the same time Sony is famous for radical format changes (Digital 8, DVD camcorders.) Likewise MPEG-4 cameras are USB based, but those things really shouldn't be called "camcorders" anyway.
"Pro" cameras are and will continue to be Firewire. As are DV decks, which is the method most "pros" use to import (not a good idea to use the camera.) It's not going away this year or next... Frankly, USB 2.0 just isn't reliable enough for video. Streaming through a hub doesn't work. Of course this will change when something new comes along (and that "something new" may well have "USB" in its name) but that's not something that should concern any purchase today.
BTW, Lack of Firewire 800 ports does NOT MEAN Firewire 400 is going away (and neither does dropping it from the iPod.) Firewire 800 never really took off-- partly because Firewire 400 works, and 800 doesn't speed up processes in video editing, most of which are done in real time. 800 doesn't speed up rendering, importing or playback. Though HD may change this?
(I personally think (and could be wrong on this) the "MacBook" doesn't have 800 because it was rushed to market, not because Apple made a decision to drop it.)
I disagree. The derivative sequels, by and large, tend to be worse than the original.
There are sequels, even derivative ones that take what made the original great and improve on it. There are also ones that just extend the experience, but if it was a great game that left you wanting more that's not a bad thing. We accept that a TV series tells a new story in the same world each week, why can't a game series be episodic as well?
Then there are bad sequels. But there are also a load of terrible original games. We just tend to forget those because the disappointment factor wasn't so great.
(Actually, most games are a disappointment. But that goes for every other medium too-- movies, books, TV, music, whatever. I don't see it as a problem with sequels as much as the fact that it's just not easy to create something truly "great.")
Has Google ever claimed to represent freedom of speech, or that they are the be-all, end-all resource for true and factual information?
Goodies like mail and maps aside, all they really are is a business that facilitate indexing the web. They aren't "good" and they aren't "evil", they're a corporation that performs a service for profit. They didn't turn over the search records to the DoJ because that would be suicide in the freedom (and soft-core porn) loving American market-- no one would use Google if they thought their queries were being tracked by some mysterious government agency.
On the other hand, they will not be allowed to operate in China at all unless they comply with the government... So they do.
I don't know where this comes from, the idea that Google should be making a stand for free speech in a foreign country. If such a stand doesn't come from the populace themselves, it isn't going to happen (and it just might, as even with filters in place they will have more access than ever to the rest of the world.)
Nothing will kill a creative endeavor faster than wondering "Is it art?"
In fact, it's a very self-indulgent thing to ask. Most artists of note didn't set out to create "art", they were(are) inspired by the passion and drive to create, or because they just had something to say. They'd do it whether culture called it art or not (and in fact, many great artists who were lesser names did.)
So, who cares if games are "art" or not? That's not for the game creators to decide, that's for culture to sort out later. There certainly have been great games that create immersive and plausible worlds (or at least worlds that work on their own terms) and offer insights on human nature-- Fallout comes to mind, maybe Deus Ex, perhaps even Starcraft. I don't know if they're "art" (or perhaps "literature") or something else, but I do know these works attained a level of greatness and will be remembered for it.
The shortest in-game movie sequences? pac man.
And I believe, the first in-game movies sequences.
What's funny is how many times they've tried to build a world (and yes, cutscenes) out of Pac Man, and still keep trying to do so. It's not far off from your Tetris MMORPG.
I'll answer the second two first, purely my opinion and not speaking for any other Christian:
Why they believe one ascends to heaven immediately upon a man saying they are dead.
We don't really know what happens when you die. But forgive us if, when we try and imagine it, we opt for the positive and comforting.
Why they believe that one who has no brain activity but body life might still be considered alive on this earth.
While I would not want to be kept alive in those circumstances, I understand those (and the realtives of those) who do... Especially one who has faith in miracles.
By the way, a certain case involving a certain family in Florida should not represent the whole of Christianity.
Why they celebrate birthdays and not conception days
Because sex is dirty?
While most professors encourage honest debate and discourse in their classes, there are always some who use their captive audiences, and discretion in grading, to further their political agendas.
Prejudice in grading should be dealt with through whatever channels are available, of course, but how exactly does a professor really further his political agenda? When the class is over there's no requirement that a student thinks like he does, only that they understand how he thinks. If a student has a different position, then understanding the world as seen by the "other side" is a valuable experience.
You're paying for your education. You have a right to critique your professors.
A university education isn't cable TV. You can't "change the channel" if you don't like what's on. As a student you are paying for the opportunity to be educated, and part of "being educated" is having an open mind and being willing to listen to opinions different than yours.
It may be painful for a student with a liberal bent to be taught by someone with conservative opinions (or vice versa), but they will learn something about how others think and how to formulate their own opinions. Aside from pure technical facts, this is the most important thing you will learn in any school-- how to work with others, especially those of a different background and mindset than yours. It's a big world out there and everyone has opinions, and you won't get too far if you don't learn to deal with those who don't think like you do.
Checking her stats, 75% of her visitors used IE6 and 16% used Firefox. (6.6% Safari) Do the math. Is it worth it to support 3% of her visitors?
This is more of a devil's advocate argument and not in line with the rest of your post, but there are a lot of developers who would add the 6.6% Safari users to the pile of "too much of a minority to support."
Which would be a mistake, because those 6.6% are of course running Macs, and thus may be the customers who a) have disposable income and b) are easily turned off by a business that doesn't support them (Yes, it's a stereotype, but stereotypes often ring true.)
In your wife's case (and I realize she's not doing this, but I'll use her as an example anyway) excluding Mac users from her photography site would be a very bad decision. Those 6.6% are likely to be many times more valuable as potential customers than the 75% of IE users.
Not that I disagree, but I'm not sure comparing console to handheld games holds weight. They're two similar, but different markets... From the Game Boy days to the current DS, handheld carts have always cost less (with some exceptions, sure.) It may be because they're perceived as worth less because they aren't as complex, possibly just because they're just smaller.
Also, while they are sold used handheld games usually aren't available for rent.
I can't imagine it's worth it to Apple to maintain classic emulation. Really, it's a small demographic who use it today-- and probably all of them write for lowendmac.com. Sure there will be someone who can come up with a "but I still use Microsoft 5" or whatever, but they're exceptions, not the vast majority. That might suck for a few people, but it's just not enough to matter.
If there's a classic app you or someone else needs to use so badly, consider that you can pick up a 400mhz G4 tower or a G3 Powerbook for less than $200 (possibly less than $100) and run OS9 natively.
So, dollar coins flop as you can't really use them anywhere except in stores. And you generally buy more than a buck's worth of stuff in a store.
I recently got 15 dollar coins as change from a machine at the post office and they were a pain to get rid of. The guy at the mini-mart had never seen one and thought I was trying to pass a foreign coin, the guy at Quiznos begged me to use something else because their cash register tray didn't have a slot for them. I finally used them all but it was always with a grunt or look of dismay.
(They're also heavy in the pockets-- you know when you're carrying a few around.)
The only way a dollar coin is going to become accepted is if (a) we drop the paper dollar entirely and (b) the dollar is devalued to the point where we see them as we do quarters now-- i.e. not worth enough to pick up off the dresser. Right now the dollar is still worth something-- one might not buy you a cup of coffee (depending on where you go), but four or five will still buy you a meal.
The intel iMac supports spanning! I'm surprised Steve didn't make a big deal about this. There goes one more major reason for people to buy a powermac. Kudos for Ars for mentioning that on the first page.
I could be wrong, but I bet it only supports spanning because they didn't have time (or it wasn't worth the trouble) to cripple it.
I'd lay odds on the next generation of iMacs losing that feature. Which may explain why the Apple publicity machine is mum about it...
Coming to the US, I was surprised by the fact that they force two people to pay for each call and can get away with it.
Sorry, what? Most local phone companies in the US have blanket monthly costs for unlimited local calls, and the caller pays long distance. You either dealt with a radical exception or you're misinformed.
Cell calls do charge both parties, or at least drain both of their minutes, is that what you're talking about?
You have to assume there will be one and then start to protect yourself, not the opposite.
.dmg from a warez site and being attentive to the tech press and updates available... But buying a suite of worthless Mac antivirus programs (for example) is a waste of time and money.
If there are no viruses or worms for the Mac then overprotection is costly, time-consuming and useless. Of course a firewall is a good idea as well as reasonable precautions like not opening a
It's a bit like stocking up on Tamiflu because a couple of kids across the world got the bird flu. It's a bitch to get, it's going to cost you a fortune and it probably won't work anyway.
With OS X there's even such a thing as being too quick to update. There are often bugs and flaws that cause problems-- for example a recent one permanently disabled the RAM on a smattering of 15" Powerbooks-- and it's best to let others sort the flaws out and hold off a few weeks. That's incredibly risky behavior in the Windows world, but nothing to sweat over on a Mac.
Why is there all this talk about running windows on it? Honestly, it's like buying a new Porsche and ripping out the engine and putting a Dodge Neon engine in it.
That's a tired analogy, and it also rings false... An Intel Mac and a Windows machine have essentially the same engine, an Intel processor.
As for why someone would want to run Windows, just because such a thing seems unnecessary in the world you've carved out for yourself doesn't mean it wouldn't be a boon to others (otherwise Virtual PC wouldn't be as successsful as it is, and Virtual PC ain't that great.) It goes beyond games, there are a lot of Windows-only programs that have and will never make it to the Mac, and some of us are forced to use them because of our employers.