awmazz
Mar 15, 10:59 AM
I don't think you understand
What the hell are you talking about? You don't even make any sense.
Do you have the slightest inkling..? Do you have an inkling ..?
Do you think the reactor is a jar of cookies?
Any idea?
you think 9/11 was a hoax too, right?
Might need an extra layer of tinfoil on that hat of yours.
who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that?
Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?
You're really being out of line.
No, of course he didn't. If he tried to, he surely didn't understand it.
I think you're a very paranoid individual
I'm guessing you also don't understand
I haven't seen you try to take down any of the nuclear experts posted, or address a single bit of science
I don't even know why I waste my time.
I know exactly why you waste your time. Because it makes you feel intellectually superior.
Like I said. You may know atomics. I know people. :cool:
What the hell are you talking about? You don't even make any sense.
Do you have the slightest inkling..? Do you have an inkling ..?
Do you think the reactor is a jar of cookies?
Any idea?
you think 9/11 was a hoax too, right?
Might need an extra layer of tinfoil on that hat of yours.
who would try to build a lousy wall to combat that?
Are you sure they weren't mistaking a levy for a "tsunami wall"?
You're really being out of line.
No, of course he didn't. If he tried to, he surely didn't understand it.
I think you're a very paranoid individual
I'm guessing you also don't understand
I haven't seen you try to take down any of the nuclear experts posted, or address a single bit of science
I don't even know why I waste my time.
I know exactly why you waste your time. Because it makes you feel intellectually superior.
Like I said. You may know atomics. I know people. :cool:
superleccy
Sep 20, 06:14 AM
All these calls for adding tuners, hard drives and burners are missing the point. Those functions belong in the host computer. iTV is just a method of getting the content from your Mac/PC to your stereo or TV.
Agreed. If you want a Mac Mini on the shelf under your TV, then, er, buy a Mac Mini!
If it's got a hard disk in it that's used for anything more than caching your iTunes Library file and thumbnails, I'd be very surprised.
Agreed again. If the HD was to be used for anything more than this, Steve would have made a bigger deal of it at the presentation.
Cheers!
SL
Agreed. If you want a Mac Mini on the shelf under your TV, then, er, buy a Mac Mini!
If it's got a hard disk in it that's used for anything more than caching your iTunes Library file and thumbnails, I'd be very surprised.
Agreed again. If the HD was to be used for anything more than this, Steve would have made a bigger deal of it at the presentation.
Cheers!
SL
sawah
Mar 18, 08:49 AM
Some of the responses on this thread are really amusing.
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
The way that the current data plans are priced and more importantly *marketed* to customers, charging for tethering is double charging for data.
The correct thing to do would be to have multiple (at least 3) tiers of data and stop differentiating between tethered service. If the tetherers are using too much data then charge them appropriately. What AT&T is currently doing is telling you that you can use up to 2GB of data, and then trying to charge you extra when they see that you might actually use that much (due to tethering).
I don't agree with some of at&t's policies such as this. BUT I signed their contract and I abide by them. If you didn't like what you were signing and weren't planning on following it, you shouldn't have signed it.
They are NOT charging you extra to use the 2 gigs of data, they are charging you extra to use the data on a different device. I'm not sure how you feel like you are entitled to use it wherever you want. They are a cell phone company. If you want home internet, call a internet company.
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
The way that the current data plans are priced and more importantly *marketed* to customers, charging for tethering is double charging for data.
The correct thing to do would be to have multiple (at least 3) tiers of data and stop differentiating between tethered service. If the tetherers are using too much data then charge them appropriately. What AT&T is currently doing is telling you that you can use up to 2GB of data, and then trying to charge you extra when they see that you might actually use that much (due to tethering).
I don't agree with some of at&t's policies such as this. BUT I signed their contract and I abide by them. If you didn't like what you were signing and weren't planning on following it, you shouldn't have signed it.
They are NOT charging you extra to use the 2 gigs of data, they are charging you extra to use the data on a different device. I'm not sure how you feel like you are entitled to use it wherever you want. They are a cell phone company. If you want home internet, call a internet company.
myamid
Sep 12, 06:24 PM
The Eye Home does not have Component and HDMI inputs.
Wireless isn't built in.
It's not an Apple product that will work better with Front Row than Eye Home will.
Not completely accurate... EyeHome has component out - with a pretty decent 1080i Software Upconvert over Component to an HDTV set...
Wireless isn't built in.
It's not an Apple product that will work better with Front Row than Eye Home will.
Not completely accurate... EyeHome has component out - with a pretty decent 1080i Software Upconvert over Component to an HDTV set...
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 08:18 AM
The "Apple first" nuts in this thread are the the ones that give the Mac community a bad name. "Digital rights management" blows.Excuse me?!?!
I, sir, am a NeXT nut! It just so happens that Apple currently owns them! ;)
Seriously, though, Apple's in a tough spot - they currently have the most permissive form of DRM that the record companies will allow. Remember, also, that they took a lot of flack from said companies when the iPod originally came out because the only copy protection on it is that the music files are in a hidding folder to make it harder to copy from one Mac/PC to another. (something easily defeated though) DRM does suck - but it's "not that bad" and CD's are cheap enough that you can rip 'em for near the same cost. The biggest problem I have with iTMS is that the files are compressed. Some tracks need higher bitrates (thus I buy them). But for 90% of the music out there, it's good enough.
Don't confuse Apple fanaticism with people who just want the facts kept straight: iTMS TOS says you must use iTunes to purchase music from it - use anything else and you've broken that agreement. The arguement (at least from me) would be exactly the same if it was MTV, Dell or WalMart's music store's TOS in question.
I seriously think that if every Linux user would just send an email to Apple every time they bought a track off another service or bought a CD when they would have done so on iTMS but couldn't, that they'd get the hint.
I, sir, am a NeXT nut! It just so happens that Apple currently owns them! ;)
Seriously, though, Apple's in a tough spot - they currently have the most permissive form of DRM that the record companies will allow. Remember, also, that they took a lot of flack from said companies when the iPod originally came out because the only copy protection on it is that the music files are in a hidding folder to make it harder to copy from one Mac/PC to another. (something easily defeated though) DRM does suck - but it's "not that bad" and CD's are cheap enough that you can rip 'em for near the same cost. The biggest problem I have with iTMS is that the files are compressed. Some tracks need higher bitrates (thus I buy them). But for 90% of the music out there, it's good enough.
Don't confuse Apple fanaticism with people who just want the facts kept straight: iTMS TOS says you must use iTunes to purchase music from it - use anything else and you've broken that agreement. The arguement (at least from me) would be exactly the same if it was MTV, Dell or WalMart's music store's TOS in question.
I seriously think that if every Linux user would just send an email to Apple every time they bought a track off another service or bought a CD when they would have done so on iTMS but couldn't, that they'd get the hint.
skunk
Apr 24, 07:20 PM
Those verses you quoted are, as I said, historical.They purport to be the historical record of the exhortations to kill of El himself, much as the Quran.
CaoCao
Mar 24, 06:52 PM
The Catholic Church doesn't hate homosexuals
AppliedVisual
Oct 20, 02:36 PM
So the high end will no longer be at 3ghz?
How hard can an extra 333mhz be to attain? Especially with these cool-running Intel chips.
It will come, just not with the initial production models. With the quad-core chips, Intel is already running into FSB bandwidth issues as it is. The Clovertowns are essentially dual Woodcrest CPUs stuck on the same die, sharing the same FSB and communication between the first duo-core CPU and the second duo-core CPU on that die must travel onto the FSB and into the other CPU. Between the two cores that are linked directly, data sharing can be handled through the L1 cache. So, depending on your application, the 8-core may be no better than a 4-core system -- if what your'e doing is already maxing out your CPU bus bandwidth. Somwhere down the road as Intel shifts to its 45nm production process and fully integrates all 4 cores on a single CPU (and later, 8 cores on die), we will see massive improvements in inter-core bandwidth. They will have to step-up on the FSB bandwidth though... Possibly by increasing the MHz, but more than likely we'll see some of that combined with increasing the width of the data path and possibly using multiple parallel FSB designs. ...Going to be interesting, that's for sure. And with Intel's new process and the plans for continuously jamming more cores onto a die at higher speeds, I think we're in for a real ride over the next 5 years or so.
How hard can an extra 333mhz be to attain? Especially with these cool-running Intel chips.
It will come, just not with the initial production models. With the quad-core chips, Intel is already running into FSB bandwidth issues as it is. The Clovertowns are essentially dual Woodcrest CPUs stuck on the same die, sharing the same FSB and communication between the first duo-core CPU and the second duo-core CPU on that die must travel onto the FSB and into the other CPU. Between the two cores that are linked directly, data sharing can be handled through the L1 cache. So, depending on your application, the 8-core may be no better than a 4-core system -- if what your'e doing is already maxing out your CPU bus bandwidth. Somwhere down the road as Intel shifts to its 45nm production process and fully integrates all 4 cores on a single CPU (and later, 8 cores on die), we will see massive improvements in inter-core bandwidth. They will have to step-up on the FSB bandwidth though... Possibly by increasing the MHz, but more than likely we'll see some of that combined with increasing the width of the data path and possibly using multiple parallel FSB designs. ...Going to be interesting, that's for sure. And with Intel's new process and the plans for continuously jamming more cores onto a die at higher speeds, I think we're in for a real ride over the next 5 years or so.
Moyank24
Mar 18, 01:43 AM
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer and your carrier designed it.
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Do napster and limewire even exist anymore?
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Do napster and limewire even exist anymore?
Azadre
Apr 20, 08:07 PM
Windows is the castle for Microsoft. Office and everything else for the most part was the moat.
Google's castle is advertising, and everything else including android is the moat.
Android is not Windows.
Google's castle is advertising, and everything else including android is the moat.
Android is not Windows.
T-Bone
Sep 12, 04:16 PM
I bought a DVI->S-Video adapter for $15 and an S-Video cable for about $20. Guess what. I can watch TV shows and movies downloaded to my hard drive on my TV. Sooooo.... $35 vs. $300. Let me see.
I realize they are saying that you're getting high-def, and it's wireless, but I have a hard time believing that a movie you can download in a half hour will be as good of quality as a DVD which is nearly 8gb in size. And yes, I realize part of those 8gb are extras and such, which of course you won't be getting even though you are paying close to what you would pay for a brand new DVD. Also, I have wires running all over the place already (cable, phone, speakers, electrical, etc.) so one more wire isn't killing me.
I'm sure there will be people that buy into this. How many? I predict very few.
I realize they are saying that you're getting high-def, and it's wireless, but I have a hard time believing that a movie you can download in a half hour will be as good of quality as a DVD which is nearly 8gb in size. And yes, I realize part of those 8gb are extras and such, which of course you won't be getting even though you are paying close to what you would pay for a brand new DVD. Also, I have wires running all over the place already (cable, phone, speakers, electrical, etc.) so one more wire isn't killing me.
I'm sure there will be people that buy into this. How many? I predict very few.
Lone Deranger
Apr 9, 01:10 PM
Hard core gaming is PC gaming. Why because you have to really care about the quality of your games to go out and spend 1000 plus just to play games.
Second iOS devices are not competing with nintendo or Sony's portables. People buy an iPhone as a phone, not to play games and the same goes with all the iOS devices. People Pick up a Portable game like a DS or PSP to play games not to listen to music not to surf the web or watch movies. You are comparing a device that does gaming as a secondary function to something that was developed for the one purpose of gaming.
Nintendo and Sony beg to differ....
Second iOS devices are not competing with nintendo or Sony's portables. People buy an iPhone as a phone, not to play games and the same goes with all the iOS devices. People Pick up a Portable game like a DS or PSP to play games not to listen to music not to surf the web or watch movies. You are comparing a device that does gaming as a secondary function to something that was developed for the one purpose of gaming.
Nintendo and Sony beg to differ....
PghLondon
Apr 28, 01:40 PM
Really?
So I can take an iPad out of the box and use it without ever involving a "pc?"
If so, I must have a defective iPad since mine was completely useless until I connected it to iTunes ON A PC... :eek:
As has been stated (literally) hundreds of times:
Any Apple retailer will do your initial sync, free of charge.
So I can take an iPad out of the box and use it without ever involving a "pc?"
If so, I must have a defective iPad since mine was completely useless until I connected it to iTunes ON A PC... :eek:
As has been stated (literally) hundreds of times:
Any Apple retailer will do your initial sync, free of charge.
jaguarx
Oct 31, 02:24 AM
I've always found UBS2 HDs to be on average a little slower than FW400 but then FW800 kicks the **** out of it. If you needs the IO it's SATA through.
milbournosphere
Apr 15, 09:08 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers. That said, props to the employees.
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 11:58 PM
that's prolly why sj goes ballistic when any reporter mentions anything to that effect...it may be true or ...maybe... apple and steve jobs may be with motorola 100% percent and hate the "ibm talk" because of how it undermines the high end computing relationship they have now
on the low end, the G3 has had a pretty good run and now with the G3fx and 512k level 2 cache, things are good in that sector for some time to come...hopefully
on the low end, the G3 has had a pretty good run and now with the G3fx and 512k level 2 cache, things are good in that sector for some time to come...hopefully
Sydde
Mar 25, 11:50 PM
[QUOTE=CaoCao;12258425]Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public/QUOTE]
Because it is basically unsanitary. Similar to urinating on the sidewalk (urine is sterile upon exiting the body, but it does not stay that way very long).
Because it is basically unsanitary. Similar to urinating on the sidewalk (urine is sterile upon exiting the body, but it does not stay that way very long).
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 08:18 AM
The "Apple first" nuts in this thread are the the ones that give the Mac community a bad name. "Digital rights management" blows.Excuse me?!?!
I, sir, am a NeXT nut! It just so happens that Apple currently owns them! ;)
Seriously, though, Apple's in a tough spot - they currently have the most permissive form of DRM that the record companies will allow. Remember, also, that they took a lot of flack from said companies when the iPod originally came out because the only copy protection on it is that the music files are in a hidding folder to make it harder to copy from one Mac/PC to another. (something easily defeated though) DRM does suck - but it's "not that bad" and CD's are cheap enough that you can rip 'em for near the same cost. The biggest problem I have with iTMS is that the files are compressed. Some tracks need higher bitrates (thus I buy them). But for 90% of the music out there, it's good enough.
Don't confuse Apple fanaticism with people who just want the facts kept straight: iTMS TOS says you must use iTunes to purchase music from it - use anything else and you've broken that agreement. The arguement (at least from me) would be exactly the same if it was MTV, Dell or WalMart's music store's TOS in question.
I seriously think that if every Linux user would just send an email to Apple every time they bought a track off another service or bought a CD when they would have done so on iTMS but couldn't, that they'd get the hint.
I, sir, am a NeXT nut! It just so happens that Apple currently owns them! ;)
Seriously, though, Apple's in a tough spot - they currently have the most permissive form of DRM that the record companies will allow. Remember, also, that they took a lot of flack from said companies when the iPod originally came out because the only copy protection on it is that the music files are in a hidding folder to make it harder to copy from one Mac/PC to another. (something easily defeated though) DRM does suck - but it's "not that bad" and CD's are cheap enough that you can rip 'em for near the same cost. The biggest problem I have with iTMS is that the files are compressed. Some tracks need higher bitrates (thus I buy them). But for 90% of the music out there, it's good enough.
Don't confuse Apple fanaticism with people who just want the facts kept straight: iTMS TOS says you must use iTunes to purchase music from it - use anything else and you've broken that agreement. The arguement (at least from me) would be exactly the same if it was MTV, Dell or WalMart's music store's TOS in question.
I seriously think that if every Linux user would just send an email to Apple every time they bought a track off another service or bought a CD when they would have done so on iTMS but couldn't, that they'd get the hint.
leomac08
Mar 11, 01:09 AM
Dam... I hope that damage isn't that bad, but it being 8.9 I won't hold my breathe.
I'm seeing CNN, and the images are just horrifying, images from Sri Lanka and Indonesia from the 2004 Tsunami come back:eek:
I'm seeing CNN, and the images are just horrifying, images from Sri Lanka and Indonesia from the 2004 Tsunami come back:eek:
G58
Feb 22, 01:37 PM
...I don't think Apple has done anything exceptional. They built off of their popular iPod brand. Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod. Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start.
I don't really know where to begin to reply to this simplistic tripe.
In your world, are the policemen made of sugar by any chance?
You: "don't think Apple has done anything exceptional." Buy a Nexus one then.
"They built off of their popular iPod brand."
How did they create the touchscreen iPhone BRAND from the iPod Touch BRAND - a product that was launches after it?
iPhone Release date: June 29, 2007
iPod Touch 1st generation Release date: September 13, 2007
Brands don't build technology. Brands only build limited awareness and trust. But if the iPhone wasn't as good as it is, and as new as it was when it was first released, it would not only not have benefited from any brand benefits created by previous iPod model, it would have failed, and damaged the iPod brand too.
"Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod."
If this was the case, it would be Nokia and RIM duking it out now. Your entire theory is immature and utterly flawed. It's Apple's business model that created this situation, aided and abetted by an utterly moribund mobile phone market prior to their intervention.
"Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start."
Here I agree, but not for any of the reasons you've proposed. Apple's ace is OS X. The version used to power the iPhone is a cut down version of the full OS with a touch screen UI. Every other mobile manufacturer was always going to be at a disadvantage as soon as Apple decided to play in their pool.
I don't really know where to begin to reply to this simplistic tripe.
In your world, are the policemen made of sugar by any chance?
You: "don't think Apple has done anything exceptional." Buy a Nexus one then.
"They built off of their popular iPod brand."
How did they create the touchscreen iPhone BRAND from the iPod Touch BRAND - a product that was launches after it?
iPhone Release date: June 29, 2007
iPod Touch 1st generation Release date: September 13, 2007
Brands don't build technology. Brands only build limited awareness and trust. But if the iPhone wasn't as good as it is, and as new as it was when it was first released, it would not only not have benefited from any brand benefits created by previous iPod model, it would have failed, and damaged the iPod brand too.
"Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod."
If this was the case, it would be Nokia and RIM duking it out now. Your entire theory is immature and utterly flawed. It's Apple's business model that created this situation, aided and abetted by an utterly moribund mobile phone market prior to their intervention.
"Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start."
Here I agree, but not for any of the reasons you've proposed. Apple's ace is OS X. The version used to power the iPhone is a cut down version of the full OS with a touch screen UI. Every other mobile manufacturer was always going to be at a disadvantage as soon as Apple decided to play in their pool.
ender land
Apr 23, 04:30 PM
This makeup of this forum's members intrigues mean slightly. Why are most of the posters here Atheists? Is it part of the Mac using demographic, the Internet in general's demographic, or are Atheists just the most interested in Politics, Religon, and Social Issues?
A possible reason is that any time someone puts forth a theistic belief they get mocked, trolled, laughed at, ganged up against in threads, etc. The overall PRSI attitude of "religion is wrong, the only way to go forward or intelligent is to become free of religion" probably does not help any.
I do not bother actively putting forth my theistic beliefs because I have absolutely zero desire to waste my time arguing with people I will not ever meet in person. Not to mention I do not waste time arguing over anything - I wil have a discussion fine, but 99% of online "religion" threads are not discussions but rather a "you are wrong LOL IDIOT" fest. No thanks.
I have personally thought through my beliefs extensively (likely more and more frequently than most of you have thought through your respective beliefs) and have no need for someone else to tell me I have not or am mindlessly following a system I grew up in or am less intelligent. Especially considering I am not mindlessly religious, I did not grow up religious, and according to all standards of the USA I am quite intelligent.
A possible reason is that any time someone puts forth a theistic belief they get mocked, trolled, laughed at, ganged up against in threads, etc. The overall PRSI attitude of "religion is wrong, the only way to go forward or intelligent is to become free of religion" probably does not help any.
I do not bother actively putting forth my theistic beliefs because I have absolutely zero desire to waste my time arguing with people I will not ever meet in person. Not to mention I do not waste time arguing over anything - I wil have a discussion fine, but 99% of online "religion" threads are not discussions but rather a "you are wrong LOL IDIOT" fest. No thanks.
I have personally thought through my beliefs extensively (likely more and more frequently than most of you have thought through your respective beliefs) and have no need for someone else to tell me I have not or am mindlessly following a system I grew up in or am less intelligent. Especially considering I am not mindlessly religious, I did not grow up religious, and according to all standards of the USA I am quite intelligent.
vincenz
Mar 18, 08:16 AM
I'm just surprised they haven't done this sooner :eek:
mixel
Apr 10, 10:36 AM
Except . . . it is.
The REAL story here isn't whether mobile gaming - the likes of which we see *currently* and the likes of which we will see in the *near future* (this is just the tip of the iceberg) will be a major force in gaming (it already is) but rather, that "hardcore gamers" feel so threatened by this.
No they don't, they don't see it as a legitimate threat because it has very little industry support. Hardcore gamers would probably welcome a new serious player in the market. Bring it on Apple.. Many of us want buttons but there are good uses for touch screens too. People were the same before Sony AND MS entered the market.. Largely dismissive.
I would be worried if touch was going to "supercede" buttons/sticks/etc, but that is seriously never going to happen. tactile controls are actually more intuitive than remappable non-buttons that work differently for every title.
And here's an even deeper fear of theirs, buried in the subtext: that in time, console gaming will shift to a touch-based tablet paradigm - possibly not in terms a complete replacement for consoles, but in terms of the way developers (and big-name developers) shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles, in order to enjoy possibly far greater profits thanks to a much larger audience. After all, consoles are severely limited in their current state. Gaming and maybe Blu Ray playback. Mobile devices, however, offer a galaxy of possibilities - soon to be indispensable tools for nearly everyone.
I don't think anyone's seriously worried about that. It would be a bad thing but i'd not call it threatening. How will they make much larger profits in a market where everything's competing to charge minute amounts? You realise how much money is in the games industry as it is? They've had long enough to start to "shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles" - Why isn't there any sign that this is actually happening? At all? Show us the games.. I want them. XD
Imagine big-name, premier titles appearing on mobile devices first before being ported over to that box you hook up to the TV with the big-button controller that RROD'd just last month?
It's really amusing.
Welcome, gamers.
Seriously.
You seem to have no idea how game development works. They aren't going to be building for mobile devices then scaling up to much more powerful home consoles at any point in the foreseeable future.. It would make absolutely NO sense.
There's space in the market for multiple players and various control schemes. :)
Kinect being the fastest selling consumer electronic device in history tells you a lot about the legitimacy of the non-Apple gaming market. And the crazy sales of the Wii, DS etc. Even the PSP is selling in massive amounts in Japan still. The crazy Apple-centric perspective of so many people here is frustrating. There is more stuff going on in technology than what Apple dictates.
The REAL story here isn't whether mobile gaming - the likes of which we see *currently* and the likes of which we will see in the *near future* (this is just the tip of the iceberg) will be a major force in gaming (it already is) but rather, that "hardcore gamers" feel so threatened by this.
No they don't, they don't see it as a legitimate threat because it has very little industry support. Hardcore gamers would probably welcome a new serious player in the market. Bring it on Apple.. Many of us want buttons but there are good uses for touch screens too. People were the same before Sony AND MS entered the market.. Largely dismissive.
I would be worried if touch was going to "supercede" buttons/sticks/etc, but that is seriously never going to happen. tactile controls are actually more intuitive than remappable non-buttons that work differently for every title.
And here's an even deeper fear of theirs, buried in the subtext: that in time, console gaming will shift to a touch-based tablet paradigm - possibly not in terms a complete replacement for consoles, but in terms of the way developers (and big-name developers) shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles, in order to enjoy possibly far greater profits thanks to a much larger audience. After all, consoles are severely limited in their current state. Gaming and maybe Blu Ray playback. Mobile devices, however, offer a galaxy of possibilities - soon to be indispensable tools for nearly everyone.
I don't think anyone's seriously worried about that. It would be a bad thing but i'd not call it threatening. How will they make much larger profits in a market where everything's competing to charge minute amounts? You realise how much money is in the games industry as it is? They've had long enough to start to "shift their attention to mobile gaming at the expense of consoles" - Why isn't there any sign that this is actually happening? At all? Show us the games.. I want them. XD
Imagine big-name, premier titles appearing on mobile devices first before being ported over to that box you hook up to the TV with the big-button controller that RROD'd just last month?
It's really amusing.
Welcome, gamers.
Seriously.
You seem to have no idea how game development works. They aren't going to be building for mobile devices then scaling up to much more powerful home consoles at any point in the foreseeable future.. It would make absolutely NO sense.
There's space in the market for multiple players and various control schemes. :)
Kinect being the fastest selling consumer electronic device in history tells you a lot about the legitimacy of the non-Apple gaming market. And the crazy sales of the Wii, DS etc. Even the PSP is selling in massive amounts in Japan still. The crazy Apple-centric perspective of so many people here is frustrating. There is more stuff going on in technology than what Apple dictates.
citizenzen
Mar 27, 09:35 PM
Fr. Harvey and his colleagues try to help people who feel same-sex attraction live holy, chaste, celibate lives.
Yet he doesn't try to help people who feel opposite-sex attraction to live chaste, celibate lives.
This is a clear distinction that you don't seem to appreciate.
There is no rational reason to steer people away from engaging in gay sexual relations.
Can you argue otherwise?
But what if changed thoughts and changed behaviors would make people even happier than than they would be without the changes?
What if you could make people happier by not condemning their sexual orientation and vilifying their sexual acts?
Would their happiness be as important to you then?
Yet he doesn't try to help people who feel opposite-sex attraction to live chaste, celibate lives.
This is a clear distinction that you don't seem to appreciate.
There is no rational reason to steer people away from engaging in gay sexual relations.
Can you argue otherwise?
But what if changed thoughts and changed behaviors would make people even happier than than they would be without the changes?
What if you could make people happier by not condemning their sexual orientation and vilifying their sexual acts?
Would their happiness be as important to you then?
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar