Not if I do not allow those specific updates or disable all updates.
Not if I do not allow those specific updates or disable all updates.
Well, I mostly am alone and play games alone, so a PC works for me just fine in that regard. As for simplicity - that might have been a good argument a very long time ago, but not now, since I already know how to build a PC (and a server) etc. Also, for me a console would be a "gaming station" - that is, I would need to get up from my PC, go to where the TV is (don't forget the headphones if it's at night) and play instead of just starting the game on my PC.
As for social time, when we get together with friends, we play board games:). Computer games are good enough to play over the internet (with the same friends) and it is easier to arrange. Also, AFAIK pretty much none of my friends has a new console. One has a PS2, specifically for the PS2 exclusive games.
As for keyboard+mouse control - I watched a lets play of Dead Space 2, the guy previously recorded the first Dead space on the same console and seems in general a console player. He had terrible time hitting the enemies and frequently ran out of ammo. Well, the game seemed interesting enough, so I tried it on my PC (same difficulty) - I managed to hit the enemies much better and actually ran out of inventory space for ammo a few times.
To me, it seems that a mouse is the better input device for precise and fast aiming, like in shooters. Also, you only get auto aim on consoles, which means that the developers think that PCs don't need it and consoles do. Which kinda proves my point.
The only game I though would be better with a game pad was Chantelise (though it is PC only), I almost bought a game pad for it, but then managed to learn to play using only the keyboard.
you say you're into "adventure games" but this is so generic.
Games like Dreamfall or Syberia.
Auto aim? What fun is playing an FPS with auto aim on?
To me, a mouse is the best input device for aiming in an FPS. To you it may be different, to each his own. While my PCs are more expensive than a console, a PC can be used for other things beside gaming. I can record and edit audio files, browse the net, create and read documents, control servers using SSH and so on.
I may be biased here - I only had one console - a Soviet or Chinese (I do not remember which, but it looked like a Famicom, but was gray color) copy of the NES over 20 years ago. After that, it's been PCs only. I recently got an Xbox (the original one) and ordered a gamepad on ebay (I got just the console, no gamepad) . When it arrives, I'll give it a try, it seems that it is possible to play NES ROMs on it, so at least I'll get to remember the old games I used to play.
Do those games support keyboard+mouse controls?
I mostly play FPS and adventure games by the way. Keyboard and mouse are the best controls for them.
So, I guess Windows 7 will be the last Windows OS that I use. Hopefully by the time new games stop supporting it, Linux will have the support of new games.
(read: muzzle loaders, not bushmaster ARs)
Yes, the latest and greatest weapons of the time, used by the army too.
So, today it should be machine guns and whatever else the army has access to.
Well, the alternative to that is "democracy" where you get groups like the "Muslim Brotherhood" given power. Or that the people who have no understanding of democracy elect a weak government that is less organized than the terrorists.
So, yea, iron fist is better for those people. As much as it would suck to live in North Korea, I haven't heard of any bombings or shootings carried out by the North Korean terror groups in other countries. So, if the people in Syria or Iraq cannot live like normal people, maybe they need someone like Kim or Stalin to "guide" them.
So first iron-fisted tyranny gets people used to cruelty and violence as the "normal" way of life
The hope here is that anyone with terrorist leanings or does not conform to the will of Dear Leader is put to death. After a while, only conformers should be left.
I think they just want to die and get the virgins they were promised. Since the US only does precision strikes, ticking off Russia seemed like a good bet of a bigger bomb. That hasn't happened (yet), so now they attacked France.
Will someone nuke them already? Or will they have to go on TV and literally say "please nuke us, we want to meet allah but are forbidden to kill ourselves if it does not also kill infidels"?
Now of course, we don't deliberately target civilians, they are just an *inevitable* outcome from prosecuting a war/blockade, so that let's us off the hook for literally any number of civilian casualties we cause.
Because war is not the simplified version the West wants to believe in (now). The World Wars were won not by picking off soldiers by snipers (it was done though), but by bombing the factories, the supply lines and yes, the civilians in addition to killing soldiers.
And that was done in wars where there was a front line and clearly marked soldiers.
If you do not want to bomb civilians, then the terrorists will just try to be near civilians all the time, so you cannot bomb them, so you will have to pick them off with sniper rifles on by one. Slowly, since the terrorist fighters are not clearly marked as soldiers are. So you war is going to take a very long time (in WW2 took only 6 years to make Germany run out of tanks and soldiers and Germany was much stronger than ISIS is now). While the war is going on, more and more of the civilians you so much want to protect will join the ranks of the fighters (either by free will or they will be indoctrinated to join the "holy war" or just forced to), so, the war is going to take even longer.
Instead of using extremely precise (and small, but expensive) bombs, why not just lay waste to the territory? If you do not want to use nukes or gas, why not use hundreds of tons or conventional bombs and just carpet bomb the hell out of that place. You will destroy the terrorists you know about, the terrorists that were hiding and the future terrorists.
I mean, for example, isn't the belief that God does not exist as dogmatic as believing God does exist? It's an objective question.
There is a difference usually. I cannot speak for everyone, but if someone proved the existence of god (I do not really know how they would do that but let's say it can be done) to me I would start believing it. As it is now, there are thousands of different "the only correct one" religions, that I refuse to choose any of them. If bad things started to happen to the followers of all religions except one (and they were not caused by the actions of people) then I may start believing that "the one" religion may be correct. Or someone explained to me how all those different religions can exist without interfering with each other (for the most part) - maybe each location on Earth has its own god so that if I am in Italy, I have to pray to the Christian god (or the ancient Roman gods) but if I travel to, say, India, I now have to pray to their gods because the Christian/Roman gods have no power over India.
That is the same as my non-belief in aliens from other planets on Earth. If I ever see one (and can be certain I am not hallucinating) I will start believing in them. I can believe in the existence of an electron because the model works. It may not be perfect, but the CRT in my monitor and the vacuum tubes in my amp work like the model say they should. The model may not be perfect (and quantum theory says that electrons are not little spheres etc) but it is a good enough approximation with scientists trying to make it more precise.
On the other hand, at least in the past, whenever there was a war, both sides would pray to their gods for help and yet, one side would still lose. In addition, the side that won was not always with the same religion. So, I guess the prayer model does not work or nobody has found the right words yet.
In the USA, however, guns are easier to get ahold of than a driving license so try to imagine the possibilities.
However, the advantage of the US system is that more "normal" people have guns compared to France or Germany where only the criminals have them. So, if a terrorist started randomly shooting in the middle of a street (especially in the more gun friendly states), he would not live very long.
All those school shootings happened in places where normal people are forbidden to carry guns.
Best case scenario in Syria would be someone like Assad (but not necessarily him) to rule it with an iron fist and ensure that no terrorists are allowed to breed there.
Nuclear powers actively attacking in Syria at the moment: Russia, Israel, United States, France, UK. Near-nuclear-power Iran is heavily involved, as is Saudi Arabia, who is believed to have an agreement with Pakistan to be able to rapidly acquire nuclear warheads if desired in exchange for having funded over half of Pakistan's nuclear program. All sides have missiles that could hit all of their potential foes except Iran->US. Fun times...
So, they all need to just agree to nuke ISIS and not nuke each other. And since ISIS does not have any nukes there won't be a problem.
No, we will not. You do not exterminate cockroaches with a sniper rifle. You may shoot a few of them like that for fun, but they breed much faster than you can kill them. Gas or a nuke would be much more effective. It only took two nukes to impress Japan enough to abandon its "no surrender" policy. With ISIS it may take more, but either all the terrorists will be afraid or they all die - a good result anyways.
As for the refugees in Europe - drop the sanctions on Russia in exchange for sending all the refugees to Siberia - Russia can probably place them somewhere at least 1000km away from the nearest village and without cars or trains they will stay put (or become bear food).
Ok, so use nerve gas to kill all the cockroaches
Why wouldn't you just switch to recording on DVD/flash drive?
DVD cannot be rewound and recorded over to fix the "oh crap" moment of pressing the button too early. Also, I do not know what the latency between "pressing the button" and "recording" is for a DVD recorded. For a VHS recorded (the ones I have) it's about one second (or 3 seconds for the pro VCR I use now - to allow for seamless joining).
Also, recorded DVDs do not last as long as VHS tapes.
Flash or hard drive is better, however, are there any recorders that record the video and not add DRM to it, so I can play the recording on a PC or some other device? No, I do not want to use a PC with composite input card to record live video - too many problems led me to buy my first VCR in 2008.
"For the love of phlegm...a stupid wall of death rays. How tacky can ya get?" - Post Brothers comics