Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Same as school exercise (Score 2) 304

by Ctrl+V (#39174295) Attached to: Active Video Games Don't Make Kids Exercise More

Many people do not know how to cook interesting food for cheap. Yes, it's something that they should learn, but it is entirely as much of a skill as algebra. It takes time to develop, is not really taught in schools, and if not taught at home is going to require a lot of self-motivation to pick up.

couldn't agree more. my attempt at learning found some good info online.

my wife makes fun of me, but I love this site: http://www.hillbillyhousewife.com/

Comment: Re:umm... (Score 1) 473

by Ctrl+V (#37696070) Attached to: iOS 5 Update Available
Thanks for the link. I was just checking over their service - sounds great until on their feature comparison page, I see the NO for linux support. Anyone know what the deal is with that? Just no native client? Have to use a few creative workarounds to work on linux?

Comment: Re:Statist abuse (Score 2, Insightful) 381

by Ctrl+V (#28022009) Attached to: Cory Doctorow Draws the Line On Net Neutrality

It depends. If the man you are discussing, is for instance a paedophile, Nazi, or terrorist, you are required to have a problem with them not just with their argument.

And if the "paedophile, Nazi, or terrorist" finds the answer to life, the universe, and Everything, you will reject his answer automatically?

Comment: Re:Ummmm (Score 3, Interesting) 769

by Ctrl+V (#27093599) Attached to: GM Cornered Into Defending the Volt

If they can't afford to make it commercially viable on their own, they shouldn't look to do it on the taxpayer dime.

Long-term, I agree.

However, this is a great example of a short-term subsidy that can help jump start the process until it _is_ commercially viable on it's own.

As it stands, the cost of the environmental impact is an externality to GM and the car buyer. By making cars (such as the Volt) that can drastically lower this impact, the cost is incorporated into the purchase price. Especially being new technology, this will initially have a much higher price point until efficiencies of scale/better production methods can eliminate the need for the subsidy.

At least, that's how it _could_ work :)

Comment: Re:Nothing bad to say about Sprint. (Score 1) 153

by Ctrl+V (#26542455) Attached to: Get Out of Sprint Free

Same here, been with Sprint since 1999, not too many problems. Coverage for me has always been great - though I'm always close to 'bigger' cities and along interstates.

Oddly enough, compared to many peoples' complaints about shitty Sprint Customer Service, I've had no hellish situations, and the single best customer service experience I've had was w/ a Sprint rep. I called up their normal CS number once to change my plan I believe. The guy that answered was extremely nice, knowledgeable, and discussed various options to get me the best priced plan. The thing about the call that really stuck in my mind was that he sounded like an older guy, not the typical 20/30ish rep that's clearly not happy working the phones. He spoke well and *conversed* with me, rather than spit out lines on a script. I've always suspected I got some guy who wasn't normally on the phones all day everyday, as if there was some program where high-level management took a few CS calls every now and again, just to stay connected w/ their customer base.

Comment: Re:Multiple interpretations (Score 1) 542

by Ctrl+V (#26212439) Attached to: The RIAA's Rocky Road Ahead

Screamer II was the epitomy of insane graphics - no PC on the market at the time of its release was fast enough to run it in its highest resolution and all the extras turned on. By the time computers caught up with it, it wouldn't run on them because it was a DOS game and running it in DOS mode had no sound.

IMO the PC gaming companies are insane. They write these games for rich kids, and rich kids only - you have to have thousands of dollars worth of equipment, then pay $60 and up for the game itself. It's madness. They should write for today's top end machines, not tomorrow's. They should write the games so that if you have a video card that costs twice what an Xbox costs you'll get the graphics, yet if you have a normal $50 video card the game will still play.

And they should sell them for a far lower price. A movie costs from millions to hundreds of millions of dollars to produce, but I can buy a DVD for between five and twenty bucks. It is a rare game that has a production budget of over ten million, yet they sell for three times what the most expensive DVD costs.

So am I the only one who thinks it's great that games might be designed with the ability to scale its graphics as new hardware comes out after the release of the game?

I mean, I understand where you're coming from about cost and target market re: rich kids. But 1) your numbers are outdated, you can get a screaming gaming machine for under $1k, and 2) that target market you mention is made of people for whom half the fun is building and overclocking their pc.

Poorly written/optimized code aside, it's not like you *have to* run a game with all the graphics options set to UltraHigh to enjoy it. At least if it's a game worth playing.

One good suit is worth a thousand resumes.

Working...