Steam's one of the few to get it right. Honestly, I've yet to have a problem with any of their games. I know people DO have problems, but I have yet to experience them. They provide exactly what I'm looking for -- unfettered access to my game with minimal hassle.
I love the Wii. I really do. However, the innovative qualities of the system have led to several irritating side effects, and the system itself has some drawbacks that irk me.
1. Aside form several specific examples, the only true blockbuster games on the system are whatever Nintendo makes. I'm mostly okay with this; I admit, I'd buy the system just for Mario and Zelda.
2. While innovative, the control method is also very much like a fad. It has led to the rise of a huge number of absolutely horrible games that make it out only because the use the Wii controller.
3. Call me shallow, but I really don't like scaling applied to my games.. The graphics quality doesn't matter that much to me, but the Wii simply looks like ass on an LCD TV. Lower texture resolutions are fine, my game looking like I'm not wearing contacts is not.
The end result is that I play my 360 a hell of a lot more than I play my Wii. The system has a lot of potential, but the games that come out just aren't worth much in general.
I dunno... possibly because it's a fantasy based on the well-documented connection between Nazis and the occult? I'm not sure where you jumped in on the series, but the game has always been about the Nazi connection to the occult.
The first game in the "series", before Wolfenstein 3D, was Spear of Destiny. That's what the entire game was about.
Personally, I'm happy to see them return more to the roots of the series. We have enough bland, boring war games as it is.
To think that all this time, I was simply hitting the key to get my BIOS boot device selection menu after installing the OSes I wanted individually!
Your premise is entirely sound, except for the fact that the ISP market does not function like a typical market would. I am typically against all government intervention, except for the fact that there are some differences to these markets.
The phone companies and cable companies are an oligopoly. Competition is non-existent from new market contenders, and entry is so prohibitively expensive that we will not likely see very many, if any competitors. This results in copycat competition whereby we all receive common denominator service and any innovation occurs only as an upgrade to existing features, much like the cell phone market. Bigger screens, snazzier phones -- same horrible data service, same call difficulties. They don't have to truly change or upgrade because there is no alternative, and they simply entice people with eye candy. In the end I'm still doing the same thing with my phone that I did 10 years ago.
If the ISPs wish to change how they do business, it should be in addition to the service they've already committed to providing, not at the expense of what they're providing, especially in a market where competition does not exist. A base service was agreed upon when I entered into an agreement to pay for services. Under normal circumstances I could simply leave once the terms changed and go with a competitor who will give me what I want, but that's not possible in this case. I have no choice, and if they get paid from businesses to do this, why wouldn't they simply marginalize all of their traffic and turn the internet into a modern day television where the content is controlled entirely by companies who are willing to pay up?
You see Net Neutrality as a way to hinder future progress; I see it as a way to hinder future disaster. Given the track record of these companies, I have very little faith in them using it for anything but their own benefit, and that will always come down to whoever is willing to pay the largest toll.
As a small side note, I fully believe AT&T and Verizon would still be deploying their fiber networks, because those networks are a direct result of -real- competition between television providers and the phone companies. They all realize that the old television networks are going to change in the future, and they are engaged in a race to get there first. Television at some point will cease to be broadcast and become a choice for the consumer to watch on their own schedules. The end result of this competition for us is higher bandwidth, more choice, and more flexibility.
Well, I'm hoping that this wasn't a troll... and if it isn't, I hope that you spend a little time reading up on what net neutrality is before approving or disapproving it.
The reason so many people here are for net neutrality is because it is essentially enforced non-regulation of the internet. It -is- rather awkward to have a regulation that states you cannot regulate, but the main purpose behind it is to prevent private interests from dictating the essential freedom of information on the internet.
More importantly is that without it, service providers are allowed dictate priority on traffic, which leads to all sorts of chilling competitive implications, especially given that there are so few providers in the US.
Let's take internet radio for example (a good example, given the payola fiasco!). You really enjoy listening to free indie internet radio. However, your ISP has decided to make some extra money by allowing people to purchase "high priority" traffic. Unfortunately for you, ClearChannel has purchased a great deal of it for their streaming of terrestrial radio stations. Your free indie internet radio station now stutters or is completely unreachable during times of high traffic because ClearChannel has essentially paid the ISP to make their radio stations more important than yours.
Enjoy watching free internet TV? Too bad, FOX just purchased priority.
You and your girlfriend like a little personal time with some "erotic entertainment"? Well, your ISP just decided they're going to become family friendly, so that's the end of that.
The core of all this is allowing for the possibility of private corporations to influence the flow of information purely through monetary means. We've already seen what it has done to our political system... I don't see why anyone would want that with the internet.
You can put forth all of the logical reasons you want to switch to Linux, but in the end, you're just preaching to choir. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on all points, but the real heart of the issue is a great deal simpler than all that.
Your average, ordinary person does not care. You can't start with them, because they have no motivation to do anything except what they've always done, and like it or not, XP and Vista do that just fine and for most people. I don't blame them, if it wasn't my hobby and career, I wouldn't care either.
The ordinary person will care when they are forced to use it, such as at their workplace. This is where you'll have to start; the problem is that Linux lacks a great deal of the fine-tune control that Windows has. I know that sounds silly, but features such as GPOs are huge. What ends up happening is Linux gets implemented on the back end, transparently, and then an AD infrastructure is implemented to provide the fine tune desktop control.
So provide corporations with a reason why to leverage Linux on the desktop, and the users will naturally begin to want to run the same thing at home as they do at work. They'll be encouraged to seek it out without alienating them by preaching to them.
As for the gamers... most of us are geeks, anyway. We'll all simply dual-boot while the market shifts and Linux becomes a viable gaming platform.
Link to Original Source