Do you honestly believe oil consumption is a necessity of life? Oil consumption is a luxury that can easily be reduced
Right, because we have ways to magically ship products across the country with the wave of a wand, right? Let me outline why I think why high gas prices are a net negative for society:
1 - America is organized into horrifying suburbs. I'm not going to get into a I-told-you-so about the wonders of urbanization, but what we've created is a country where living without motorized transport is IMPOSSIBLE, unless you're part of the tiny minority that live in a major urban center.
2 - So, we need motorized transport, but we don't want cars. Public Transit in most American cities is truly horrendous. It is either non-existent, or disproportionately geared towards commuters (naturally, where the money is). The transportation needs of your average family goes a lot further than just going to work. Timmy needs to go to soccer practice, we need groceries... I can go on. Suggesting that even a sizable chunk of America can get rid of their car, even within the next 10 years, is as realistic as converting all our cars to hydrogen overnight.
The public transit problem can be fixed, but it will require a massive new paradigm. We need to get rid of suburbs, big houses, and giant lawns. We need to get into condos, so that public transit can be more pervasive and get you not only to work, but also everywhere else you need to go, faster. Simply buying more buses to cover more ground is never going to solve the issue.
So, Joe Average and his family MUST keep their car, even if Joe himself can take public transit to work. High gas prices are still going to put a heavy load on their finances, and they will start substituting consumption with inferior goods, leading not only to unhappiness but also very real consequences in the future.
We need to pour all of our available resources into alternate energy, I agree, but pushing Americans into poverty with high oil prices is not the answer. We need solid plans in the long run to wean ourselves off oil, but in the short run economic activity MUST continue, and oil prices MUST be lowered.
More environmentalist nonsense. Do you really think that the high oil prices really drives down consumption? Gas is a requirement for LIFE, if its price rises, all it's going to do is drive down consumption of everything ELSE - medicine, food, and anything else that is not completely essential to survival.
Instead of eating quality food, the population will start eating crap just to survive, driving up health care costs, further increasing the number of people who cannot afford basic health care. People will reduce the quantity and quality of their consumption in everything EXCEPT gasoline. Sure, we might decrease oil consumption by a MARGINAL amount from people who will give up optional driving (yay for even less quality of life!), but people can't cut back on required driving.
Cheap oil is good for everyone. Less oil consumption is good too. But you have made a false association between cheap oil and high consumption. Low oil prices reduces transportation cost, creating a more mobile population and creating economic opportunity, whose products we can use to drive development in new fuels. The solution to the oil problem isn't to stop consuming gas, it's to continue living as we do, while actively searching for alternatives.
IMHO we'll see a resurgence of trains in the near future. Airline prices are shooting through the roof (it just cost me $700 round trip to fly my gf from the east coast to the west), and eventually trains will become competitive in the short to mid haul routes. Coast-to-coast will always be in airline territory, but I can totally see a revitalized railroad industry gutting the short-to-mid haul travel.
Here's the deal. With airplanes I have to put up with annoying security, crappy service, high prices, noisy interiors, cramped seats... the only real advantage I get over trains is that I get there faster.
But, as we know, almost all of the eastern seaboard airports are stuffed beyond comprehension. Delays are rampant, and increased security only adds to travel time. Compare with a train where I can walk on, sit down, and go. As the airport congestion and security problem gets worse, we'll get to a point where taking the train for mid-haul routes is time-competitive with flying. Add the recent advances in high-speed rail, and we can make the "effective distance" of trains pretty far indeed.
And I bet you burn a HECK of a lot more fuel (dollar per passenger) between Boston and NY by flying, than by train.
The trick here is governmental assistance. We don't have the rail capacity in the country anymore to handle mass passenger rail like the old days. This is not a problem that rail companies themselves can resolve - there needs to be a concerted national effort to modernize and expand our rail infrastructure.
I've posted this before: when I worked in Ottawa, Canada, I used to travel back to Toronto fairly regularly. It costs about $150 round-trip, for about 500km of travel. That's already cheaper than flying, and rolling in check-in, security, and the requisite delays, the train only arrived about an hour later than the plane, which is fine by me. In exchange? I get a big seat, much legroom, WiFi on-board, a plug, and a soft click-clack instead of the roar of a jet engine.
"The Man" knows this, but his monkey henchmen don't, nor do I believe that they have the capacity of ever learning enough IT to be able to do anything with this information. After all, if they knew that much about computers, they'd be doing something other than hassling you in the security/customs line up.
They aren't missing the point. You are. There's only so much information you can pack into a 'star rating'
IMHO the problem is that critics ask the question "is this movie groundbreakingly brilliant?" whereas the average news reader is more interested in "is this movie entertaining and fun?". It's a fundamental disconnect between the two, and the fact that movie critics sell their reviews as good gauges for seeing a movie it just doesn't work out.
Right, so I object to the comparison between this (IMHO valid) cultural phenomenon to something like child abuse.
Also, I've met many of these children raised in red China's education system. None like the government all too much, but none will do anything about it, so long as the gravy train keeps rolling. There's no great love for the CCP government in China, the party rules on the tacit understanding that things are getting better, and will continue to get better.
You could say that a Porsche is cheaper than a Hundai, as long as you restrict the class of automobiles to those in the Porsche's class...
Of course you can. If Hyundai made sports cars and they turned out to be more expensive than Porsches, then I could certainly make that claim.
The converse is also true. Just because Porsche doesn't make cheap family sedans doesn't mean "Porsche is more expensive than Hyundai". The two exist in different markets, and the only worthwhile comparison is where their markets overlap. For Apple vs. the world this is generally in the high-end laptop, high-end desktop market.
I'm a bit wary of your obvious biases, comparing Chinese mentality to that of abused children. This aspect of Chinese culture (valuing stability and prosperity of the nation above individual rights) has been there for a VERY long time. It was there before the communists came along, and it will be there long after they're dead and gone. This is one aspect of Chinese culture that isn't indoctrinated.
Live dirt poor on subsistence crops in a tree-huggers paradise, or industrialize and actually compete on the world stage? Difficult decision, really. Let's not forget that Britain also thoroughly destroyed their environment during the industrial revolution.
But hey, that was then!
Yes, that was. Despite being ruled by the CCP, the Chinese government that exists now is nothing like the hardline Maoist government that reigned through the cultural revolution and the disastrous Great Leap Forward. These guys are savvy, know their economics, and are willing (and able) to play the capitalism game. The Maoist government of yesterday wouldn't know WTF to do if a big disaster hit - they had neither the resources nor economic development to mount any semblance of an effective rescue effort. That was then, this is now.
One way to eliminate some bias... Give the same survey to recently immigrated Chinese-Americans. The fear of reprisal is no longer present, so maybe you'll get something closer to the truth.
I'm a bit wary at your use of "sheep mentality". As a Chinese-Canadian who's been on both sides of the fence, I think a little bit of cultural understanding is in order, and less xenophobia.
The Chinese value prosperity and stability above all else. This is a cultural difference that is neither indoctrinated nor "sheep minded". Historically China has always been an incredibly chaotic, war-torn nation, and the livelihood of the people has been rock bottom for a very long time. People are more interested in improving their lot, having opportunities, and sending their kids to school, than having the ability to yell at the government. Staying out of harm's way is easy enough (hint: don't criticize the government), so they'll gladly tread a bit carefully in exchange for an economic explosion that they haven't seen in generations.
So yeah, if they believe that censorship leads to stability and guarantees that the status quo (rapid economic growth) stays intact, then they'll gladly support it. It's a cultural thing, and less to do with brainwashing, indoctrination, or any other excuse western media likes to come up with.
I was born in Taiwan, raised in Canada, and have been dating a Chinese girl for a while now. I think I have some insights into the situation.
I also have to agree with GP, his description of the Chinese people's priorities are pretty much on the money. Keep in mind also that while there are some cultural differences between Taiwanese and Chinese (particularly the stuff that came about after the split), the fear of chaos and disorder is something that has been ingrained in the Chinese mentality for perhaps thousands of years.
If you dig into a Chinese history text you can easily see why the people see it this way. For a very long time China has been made up of multiple warring factions, along with regional warlords hell bent on destroying each other. This obviously is not great for the population at large, what with being drafted, raped, pillaged, killed, etc etc. The people crave stability, and are willing to pay a heavy price for it.
Were you in places with heavy recent Chinese immigration such as Taipei, or further south with a more Taiwanese natives and more of those that originally fled there from Chinese communism?
Er, are we talking about the same Taiwan? Southern Taiwan is consisted mostly of "native" Taiwanese (i.e. Chinese who have immigrated over hundreds of years, not due to the communist thing). Northern Taiwan like Taipei is consisted of Chinese who had fled the communists.
I didn't get the impression that anyone there wanted to tolerate oppression, even with just a few years spent in northern Taiwan.
They tolerated decades of martial law, police firing on protesters, and a whole slew of other oppressive actions. Why? Because the country was dirt-ass poor. People were willing to put up with almost anything if it meant their livelihoods were improving. China is much the same way. If and when the majority of them become relatively well off, freedom will become an issue.
I suppose... Freedom is for people who have something to eat, somewhere to sleep, and a whack of spare time to ponder philosophy.:)
MS has no real hope of winning the 3D software industry over at this point, short of a total refactoring of Windows.
Practically every major 3D software package out there has a Windows version - one that is strictly limited to hobbyists, not industrial and production use. I worked at a 3D tools developer not so long ago, and the impression I got was that the majority of production use was on Linux and OS X (moreso Linux, surprisingly).
Why? Because renderers are built to run on 'nix farms, and artist tools need to interface with all of this "back end" infrastructure. These artist guys don't really need to know how the OS works, so the intricacies (and often usability problems) of Linux are a non-issue, since the user is unlikely to even leave the 3D software at any point.
Until MS can make Windows run so lean that we start running render farms on them, they will always be a very minor, strictly hobbyist platform for 3D apps. Toolchain is king in all production companies, and interfacing all this 'nix backend with Windows is just not worth the trouble. Especially when the alternative costs you nothing, both in terms of lost productivity or money.
Now, if Adobe ported Photoshop and After Effects to Linux, Apple would lose out badly in this market segment. Many people I know run OS X in a production environment ONLY because they want their compositing app, 3D app, and image editor running simultaneously.
Banks, contrary to what they advertise and tell you, do not give a rats ass if someone steals your money or identity. So they will do as little as possible to make sure information is secure. If it costs them money, they will do everything possible to not do it.
Except, of course, that the cost of card fraud is borne by the card issuer, not the cardholder. VISA and MC both lose a lot of money each year due to fraud, and you can bet your buttons they're doing something about it.
There's nothing stopping either of those places from moving towards Independence if the population was so inclined.
I thought the Civil War has already decided the de facto stance the US has regarding secession of states? States are basically allowed self-rule, up to the point of seceding, and then all hell breaks loose.
Most of your examples are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. DirectX 4 games don't run so well on modern systems? Well gee, I suppose you want your old NES games to run on a Wii? Or you demand that old DOS games be maintained for compatibility indefinitely? There's a HUGE line between a product becoming incompatible with time, than to disable it artificially through DRM.
Or Blizzard... They stopped people from producing their own server... while the official service was still running. They did not disable the advertised game experience in any way whatsoever. Questionable or not, this is NOT the same at all as DRM.
And the formats you're talking about are NOT unplayable due to DRM, they are unplayable due to being an old file format that nobody uses anymore. This is, again, completely different from disabling features via DRM.
Technology changes, you can't avoid that. Accept the fact that, unless you want to keep a basement full of old hardware, there will always be files and content you cannot get to in a decade's time.
Not to mention... If we're not willing to prosecute embezzlers, liars, and war profiteers from our government... Who are we to prosecute someone for *gasp* downloading warez?
That to me seems a bit ass-backwards. The target audience of mplayer are clearly people who are going to be... er... watching videos. To me sacrificing some visual correctness for an acceptable framerate should be the *default*, especially considering how much horsepower it takes to do correct, high framerate playback. The hacks should be disable-able for people who have the niche requirement of visual acuity.
Thank God. That was a match made in hell. MS doesn't have any strengths in their own company that would be a good match with Yahoo's products and expertise. The move was nothing more than a panic buy to "compete" against Google.
And anyone who's played the original board game will quickly realize how bad of an idea this would be in real life. Ever shot out a mech's legs, have it fall over, and roll 2d6 to try and stand?
Meanwhile the tracked vehicle that cost less resources to deploy is still happily blasting away.
Bipeds are only useful for negotiating tough terrain... Huge mechs are pretty pointless. Their firepower can be carried by a tank, without any of their tendencies to fall over.
I respectfully disagree on the Elder Scroll claim. I tried to get into it, being one of the highest rated games on the 360 ever, but I simply could not. The world doesn't feel like a world, and side quests do not feel like they are part of the world, allow me to explain.
Oblivion has a very straightforward main storyline, and one can follow this through without doing the vast majority of side quests. The characters in it are well voice-acted, but the animation and the characterization was simply very poorly done. Characters felt wooden, and you never established a real connection to any of them beyond the cursory back story the game throws at you. Compare with GTA, full of zany, wacky, and sometimes downright loathsome characters that you grow to care about by the end of the game.
Rockstar, IMHO, are infinitely better story crafters than Bethesda could ever hope to be. Not to mention that the GTA world feels *alive* in ways that Oblivion could not match, despite its massive geographic size.
I would still say that the recent GTA games (i.e. since GTA3) are the finest examples of sandbox gaming available. This doesn't include Civilization, since Civ isn't really a sandbox game, it's a God game, which is an entirely different genre that's more like Sim City than GTA.
Not only that... One might assume many of the "weak points" the software aims to plug are due to lack of security in those areas. By pulling security to these areas, will we not be exposing other areas to breach?
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because we have ways to magically ship products across the country with the wave of a wand, right? Let me outline why I think why high gas prices are a net negative for society:
1 - America is organized into horrifying suburbs. I'm not going to get into a I-told-you-so about the wonders of urbanization, but what we've created is a country where living without motorized transport is IMPOSSIBLE, unless you're part of the tiny minority that live in a major urban center.
2 - So, we need motorized transport, but we don't want cars. Public Transit in most American cities is truly horrendous. It is either non-existent, or disproportionately geared towards commuters (naturally, where the money is). The transportation needs of your average family goes a lot further than just going to work. Timmy needs to go to soccer practice, we need groceries... I can go on. Suggesting that even a sizable chunk of America can get rid of their car, even within the next 10 years, is as realistic as converting all our cars to hydrogen overnight.
The public transit problem can be fixed, but it will require a massive new paradigm. We need to get rid of suburbs, big houses, and giant lawns. We need to get into condos, so that public transit can be more pervasive and get you not only to work, but also everywhere else you need to go, faster. Simply buying more buses to cover more ground is never going to solve the issue.
So, Joe Average and his family MUST keep their car, even if Joe himself can take public transit to work. High gas prices are still going to put a heavy load on their finances, and they will start substituting consumption with inferior goods, leading not only to unhappiness but also very real consequences in the future.
We need to pour all of our available resources into alternate energy, I agree, but pushing Americans into poverty with high oil prices is not the answer. We need solid plans in the long run to wean ourselves off oil, but in the short run economic activity MUST continue, and oil prices MUST be lowered.
More environmentalist nonsense. Do you really think that the high oil prices really drives down consumption? Gas is a requirement for LIFE, if its price rises, all it's going to do is drive down consumption of everything ELSE - medicine, food, and anything else that is not completely essential to survival.
Instead of eating quality food, the population will start eating crap just to survive, driving up health care costs, further increasing the number of people who cannot afford basic health care. People will reduce the quantity and quality of their consumption in everything EXCEPT gasoline. Sure, we might decrease oil consumption by a MARGINAL amount from people who will give up optional driving (yay for even less quality of life!), but people can't cut back on required driving.
Cheap oil is good for everyone. Less oil consumption is good too. But you have made a false association between cheap oil and high consumption. Low oil prices reduces transportation cost, creating a more mobile population and creating economic opportunity, whose products we can use to drive development in new fuels. The solution to the oil problem isn't to stop consuming gas, it's to continue living as we do, while actively searching for alternatives.
IMHO we'll see a resurgence of trains in the near future. Airline prices are shooting through the roof (it just cost me $700 round trip to fly my gf from the east coast to the west), and eventually trains will become competitive in the short to mid haul routes. Coast-to-coast will always be in airline territory, but I can totally see a revitalized railroad industry gutting the short-to-mid haul travel.
Here's the deal. With airplanes I have to put up with annoying security, crappy service, high prices, noisy interiors, cramped seats... the only real advantage I get over trains is that I get there faster.
But, as we know, almost all of the eastern seaboard airports are stuffed beyond comprehension. Delays are rampant, and increased security only adds to travel time. Compare with a train where I can walk on, sit down, and go. As the airport congestion and security problem gets worse, we'll get to a point where taking the train for mid-haul routes is time-competitive with flying. Add the recent advances in high-speed rail, and we can make the "effective distance" of trains pretty far indeed.
And I bet you burn a HECK of a lot more fuel (dollar per passenger) between Boston and NY by flying, than by train.
The trick here is governmental assistance. We don't have the rail capacity in the country anymore to handle mass passenger rail like the old days. This is not a problem that rail companies themselves can resolve - there needs to be a concerted national effort to modernize and expand our rail infrastructure.
I've posted this before: when I worked in Ottawa, Canada, I used to travel back to Toronto fairly regularly. It costs about $150 round-trip, for about 500km of travel. That's already cheaper than flying, and rolling in check-in, security, and the requisite delays, the train only arrived about an hour later than the plane, which is fine by me. In exchange? I get a big seat, much legroom, WiFi on-board, a plug, and a soft click-clack instead of the roar of a jet engine.
"The Man" knows this, but his monkey henchmen don't, nor do I believe that they have the capacity of ever learning enough IT to be able to do anything with this information. After all, if they knew that much about computers, they'd be doing something other than hassling you in the security/customs line up.
IMHO the problem is that critics ask the question "is this movie groundbreakingly brilliant?" whereas the average news reader is more interested in "is this movie entertaining and fun?". It's a fundamental disconnect between the two, and the fact that movie critics sell their reviews as good gauges for seeing a movie it just doesn't work out.
Right, so I object to the comparison between this (IMHO valid) cultural phenomenon to something like child abuse.
Also, I've met many of these children raised in red China's education system. None like the government all too much, but none will do anything about it, so long as the gravy train keeps rolling. There's no great love for the CCP government in China, the party rules on the tacit understanding that things are getting better, and will continue to get better.
Of course you can. If Hyundai made sports cars and they turned out to be more expensive than Porsches, then I could certainly make that claim.
The converse is also true. Just because Porsche doesn't make cheap family sedans doesn't mean "Porsche is more expensive than Hyundai". The two exist in different markets, and the only worthwhile comparison is where their markets overlap. For Apple vs. the world this is generally in the high-end laptop, high-end desktop market.
ThinkPads are also more expensive than similarly-equipped Dells or HPs. You pay for superior design, whether it's coming from Apple or Lenovo/IBM.
I'm a bit wary of your obvious biases, comparing Chinese mentality to that of abused children. This aspect of Chinese culture (valuing stability and prosperity of the nation above individual rights) has been there for a VERY long time. It was there before the communists came along, and it will be there long after they're dead and gone. This is one aspect of Chinese culture that isn't indoctrinated.
Live dirt poor on subsistence crops in a tree-huggers paradise, or industrialize and actually compete on the world stage? Difficult decision, really. Let's not forget that Britain also thoroughly destroyed their environment during the industrial revolution.
But hey, that was then!Yes, that was. Despite being ruled by the CCP, the Chinese government that exists now is nothing like the hardline Maoist government that reigned through the cultural revolution and the disastrous Great Leap Forward. These guys are savvy, know their economics, and are willing (and able) to play the capitalism game. The Maoist government of yesterday wouldn't know WTF to do if a big disaster hit - they had neither the resources nor economic development to mount any semblance of an effective rescue effort. That was then, this is now.
One way to eliminate some bias... Give the same survey to recently immigrated Chinese-Americans. The fear of reprisal is no longer present, so maybe you'll get something closer to the truth.
I'm a bit wary at your use of "sheep mentality". As a Chinese-Canadian who's been on both sides of the fence, I think a little bit of cultural understanding is in order, and less xenophobia.
The Chinese value prosperity and stability above all else. This is a cultural difference that is neither indoctrinated nor "sheep minded". Historically China has always been an incredibly chaotic, war-torn nation, and the livelihood of the people has been rock bottom for a very long time. People are more interested in improving their lot, having opportunities, and sending their kids to school, than having the ability to yell at the government. Staying out of harm's way is easy enough (hint: don't criticize the government), so they'll gladly tread a bit carefully in exchange for an economic explosion that they haven't seen in generations.
So yeah, if they believe that censorship leads to stability and guarantees that the status quo (rapid economic growth) stays intact, then they'll gladly support it. It's a cultural thing, and less to do with brainwashing, indoctrination, or any other excuse western media likes to come up with.
I was born in Taiwan, raised in Canada, and have been dating a Chinese girl for a while now. I think I have some insights into the situation.
I also have to agree with GP, his description of the Chinese people's priorities are pretty much on the money. Keep in mind also that while there are some cultural differences between Taiwanese and Chinese (particularly the stuff that came about after the split), the fear of chaos and disorder is something that has been ingrained in the Chinese mentality for perhaps thousands of years.
If you dig into a Chinese history text you can easily see why the people see it this way. For a very long time China has been made up of multiple warring factions, along with regional warlords hell bent on destroying each other. This obviously is not great for the population at large, what with being drafted, raped, pillaged, killed, etc etc. The people crave stability, and are willing to pay a heavy price for it.
Were you in places with heavy recent Chinese immigration such as Taipei, or further south with a more Taiwanese natives and more of those that originally fled there from Chinese communism?Er, are we talking about the same Taiwan? Southern Taiwan is consisted mostly of "native" Taiwanese (i.e. Chinese who have immigrated over hundreds of years, not due to the communist thing). Northern Taiwan like Taipei is consisted of Chinese who had fled the communists.
I didn't get the impression that anyone there wanted to tolerate oppression, even with just a few years spent in northern Taiwan.They tolerated decades of martial law, police firing on protesters, and a whole slew of other oppressive actions. Why? Because the country was dirt-ass poor. People were willing to put up with almost anything if it meant their livelihoods were improving. China is much the same way. If and when the majority of them become relatively well off, freedom will become an issue.
I suppose... Freedom is for people who have something to eat, somewhere to sleep, and a whack of spare time to ponder philosophy. :)
MS has no real hope of winning the 3D software industry over at this point, short of a total refactoring of Windows.
Practically every major 3D software package out there has a Windows version - one that is strictly limited to hobbyists, not industrial and production use. I worked at a 3D tools developer not so long ago, and the impression I got was that the majority of production use was on Linux and OS X (moreso Linux, surprisingly).
Why? Because renderers are built to run on 'nix farms, and artist tools need to interface with all of this "back end" infrastructure. These artist guys don't really need to know how the OS works, so the intricacies (and often usability problems) of Linux are a non-issue, since the user is unlikely to even leave the 3D software at any point.
Until MS can make Windows run so lean that we start running render farms on them, they will always be a very minor, strictly hobbyist platform for 3D apps. Toolchain is king in all production companies, and interfacing all this 'nix backend with Windows is just not worth the trouble. Especially when the alternative costs you nothing, both in terms of lost productivity or money.
Now, if Adobe ported Photoshop and After Effects to Linux, Apple would lose out badly in this market segment. Many people I know run OS X in a production environment ONLY because they want their compositing app, 3D app, and image editor running simultaneously.
Except, of course, that the cost of card fraud is borne by the card issuer, not the cardholder. VISA and MC both lose a lot of money each year due to fraud, and you can bet your buttons they're doing something about it.
I thought the Civil War has already decided the de facto stance the US has regarding secession of states? States are basically allowed self-rule, up to the point of seceding, and then all hell breaks loose.
Not so different from Tibet.
Most of your examples are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. DirectX 4 games don't run so well on modern systems? Well gee, I suppose you want your old NES games to run on a Wii? Or you demand that old DOS games be maintained for compatibility indefinitely? There's a HUGE line between a product becoming incompatible with time, than to disable it artificially through DRM.
Or Blizzard... They stopped people from producing their own server... while the official service was still running. They did not disable the advertised game experience in any way whatsoever. Questionable or not, this is NOT the same at all as DRM.
And the formats you're talking about are NOT unplayable due to DRM, they are unplayable due to being an old file format that nobody uses anymore. This is, again, completely different from disabling features via DRM.
Technology changes, you can't avoid that. Accept the fact that, unless you want to keep a basement full of old hardware, there will always be files and content you cannot get to in a decade's time.
Good point, my mistake. Though... somehow I still think we have bigger fish to fry.
Not to mention... If we're not willing to prosecute embezzlers, liars, and war profiteers from our government... Who are we to prosecute someone for *gasp* downloading warez?
That to me seems a bit ass-backwards. The target audience of mplayer are clearly people who are going to be... er... watching videos. To me sacrificing some visual correctness for an acceptable framerate should be the *default*, especially considering how much horsepower it takes to do correct, high framerate playback. The hacks should be disable-able for people who have the niche requirement of visual acuity.
You were under the impression that Jack Thompson makes sense?
Thank God. That was a match made in hell. MS doesn't have any strengths in their own company that would be a good match with Yahoo's products and expertise. The move was nothing more than a panic buy to "compete" against Google.
And anyone who's played the original board game will quickly realize how bad of an idea this would be in real life. Ever shot out a mech's legs, have it fall over, and roll 2d6 to try and stand?
Meanwhile the tracked vehicle that cost less resources to deploy is still happily blasting away.
Bipeds are only useful for negotiating tough terrain... Huge mechs are pretty pointless. Their firepower can be carried by a tank, without any of their tendencies to fall over.
A quadruped maybe...
I respectfully disagree on the Elder Scroll claim. I tried to get into it, being one of the highest rated games on the 360 ever, but I simply could not. The world doesn't feel like a world, and side quests do not feel like they are part of the world, allow me to explain.
Oblivion has a very straightforward main storyline, and one can follow this through without doing the vast majority of side quests. The characters in it are well voice-acted, but the animation and the characterization was simply very poorly done. Characters felt wooden, and you never established a real connection to any of them beyond the cursory back story the game throws at you. Compare with GTA, full of zany, wacky, and sometimes downright loathsome characters that you grow to care about by the end of the game.
Rockstar, IMHO, are infinitely better story crafters than Bethesda could ever hope to be. Not to mention that the GTA world feels *alive* in ways that Oblivion could not match, despite its massive geographic size.
I would still say that the recent GTA games (i.e. since GTA3) are the finest examples of sandbox gaming available. This doesn't include Civilization, since Civ isn't really a sandbox game, it's a God game, which is an entirely different genre that's more like Sim City than GTA.
Funny, I would have thought that turkeys would say "bok bok b'gawk!"
Not only that... One might assume many of the "weak points" the software aims to plug are due to lack of security in those areas. By pulling security to these areas, will we not be exposing other areas to breach?