1. It does not have the same graphics capablities. It is an 8 core CPU that is also x86/64 compatible. The graphics chip is capable of 1.2 teraflops. A dramatic difference when compared to the 360. 8 gb of ram vs. 512 mb. It is a significant improvement in performance...
2. Nvidia never made processors CPU's for game consoles. They make graphics processors "GPU's," The switch from Nvidia to AMD is not the reason for the lack of backwards compatibility. Switching to the x86/64 architecture is the reason and considering that the PS4 is based on x86/64 this will actually benefit game development significantly. What this also means is that you should just go for a gaming PC as games will be easier and cleaner to port to PC now.
3. Activation fees are for used games not new games. The retailer pays this fee so your used games will be more expensive but it is not pay for game, then pay activation as you say. I too think it is lame, however it is important to be accurate.
I have no love for Apple either but my initial reaction was similar to yours.
Until I visited the site and noticed that if you resize the page to smaller than the minimum vertical height, it clips off the navigation menus from the top yet still maintains the bottom of the page at all times being just above the statement.
Apple sacrificed their navigation menus? That just doesn't strike my as part of an unrelated design change, it's very un-Apple...
Then I realized that John Lasseter is now head of all things creative "Chief Creative Officer" at Disney. He's past his days as a director, however the man knows good story telling and if there's anyone I trust to figure out what to do with Star Wars, it's him.
I had similar issues with the Mars500 project. One of the goals was to test the psychological effects of such a trip. However, I can't imagine how you actually test the psychological effects until the people involved believe there is no turning back. All the people involved know if something goes very wrong that they will be able to step out of the experiment and back into the real world. There's no doing that on a real trip to Mars and I'd imagine the psychological conditions under that stress to be very different.
Did you know that 99.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot?...
In all fairness where does this 75% figure come from? I know a lot of developers as well and the impression I've drawn is not that they believe patents are fundamentally wrong but that they are abused, often far too broad and the system is in serious need of an overhaul.
Patents aren't bad. Our patent system is bad. Patents do protect investment in expensive R&D. Some of the patents that will be auctioned off come from my brother. The cost of the work behind those patents is astounding and that needs to be considered fairly.
I just have to comment on one more aspect that Mike touched on in his commentary. She said she thinks "that's a pretty quick jump" to assume that kids will feel ostracized if their peers are allowed on Facebook and they are not.
Does she remember being a kid or listen to anything they say when she studies them? When I was in sixth grade "In Living Color" was the new cool show on TV. Sunday night you had to watch it so that Monday morning you could talk about it in school. There was a kid in my class who's Father was a Pastor and that child was not allowed to watch the show. On Monday morning he couldn't interact with everyone else. When he tried to he would be shot down and made fun of for not being allowed to watch the show. He was ostracized for something far less socially relevant than Facebook is today.
She refers to "research" she's done multiple times. However, at no point do she offer any substantive facts. Why didn't her research result in any statistics on this topic? What I hear is someone who is desperately trying to support their existing views and not evaluate both the positive and negative consequences. She contradicts herself regarding the role of the parent vs. the role of facebook and is unwilling to consider any possible negative consequences to her suggestions.
Another thing worth noting; She is very nervous and her body language suggests she is unsure of her own position. Anyone feel like suffering through that video again to count the "Um's?"
I recently picked up DC Universe since it became free to play. After a weekend of playing I decided I liked the game and I wanted the middle tier membership which you receive permanently for spending 5 bucks on in game items.
I ended up spending 20 bucks on in-game items...
I realized later how significant that was. I had never bought an in-game item before. Because this was free I figured it was a pretty good deal to spend twenty bucks on a game that I liked and get some cool stuff as well.
That shouldn't have worked on me, I'm pretty shrewd about this sort of thing. However, it not only worked and got me to spend some cash, I actually felt good about it...
I can't wait to give my money to Kevin Smith. He has now established himself as a role model for the 21st century artist. I hope that in the end this approach makes him filthy rich. As long as his writing continues to hold up I intend to help make that happen...
You could write an entire essay on why an endorsement from Quentin Tarantino is so significant and what that means for the future of lesser/unknown artists attempting similar strategies.
I couldn't agree more... I have a pretty huge Steam library. When Origin came out and announced title exclusivity I was pretty annoyed. They caused a game I bought to get yanked out of my preferred service "Crysis 2 yanked from Steam" and to get it back I had to download and install Crysis 2 from Origin.
That's it... Origin is off my system and will not be retuning. I'm a huge bc2 fan but I will not be getting battlefield 3 or any other Origin exclusive titles. I play with 6 other guys who are also big bc2 fans. They are going to do the same. Convince your friends not to get any Origin exclusive titles and it will eventually go away...
So... That means she's basically threatening South Park. Ya know, those guys who basically challenged The Church of Scientology to sue them.
There are a few people in entertainment I would not challenge.
1. Matt Stone and Trey Parker: South Park
2. Joe Rogan: Just check out You Tube videos. That guy will tear you apart psychologically and if necessary physically as well.
3. Kevin Smith. Who wants to mess with Kevin Smith?
So she better hope they lose interest before the next season comes out...