Brofist. I played the original a long time ago, I've been downloading OpenTTD since well before it hit 1.0, but I've avoided spending months on it so far. Got too many other games to play.

Just finished Long Live the Queen. If you want to be the little girl then that's the game for you. You're playing as a 14-year old anime princess trying to survive until your coronation. Your have to prevent or fight off assassins, rebellions and invasions. Surprisingly engrossing, be prepared to take notes because you're going to need to do some trial and error to determine what you need to survive.

Actually you do, the KS Terms of Service do require the projects to deliver or give the money back to whoever asks for it. Not doing so is breach of contract. We'll see what happens when that's tested, but there is standing.

Gaming in particular has become a very conservative industry, with remakes and sequels becoming more and more dominant. They're even making sequels to games that didn't do that well (Mirror's Edge) rather than make new IPs.

Brian Fargo tried to make Wasteland 2 a reality for a couple decades, he's a reasonably big name with a long history, yet he couldn't get anyone to sign off on it, he went to Kickstarter and now they're in the final stages of development of what looks to be pretty good. It's the same story with Obsidian and Project Eternity, experienced team with a decent track record (yes the games are buggy, but they're good despite that) and they couldn't get anyone to sign off on a Baldur's Gate successor either. What chance does a smaller team without a big name have?

I've backed a couple dozen projects and I haven't been disappointed yet, I don't doubt I will be someday, but that's why I only put the big money on proven names or finished products.

I'm not so certain that the old Communists weren't right about Capitalism being a stepping stone to Communism/Socialism (Yes I know there's a difference, but they're in the same category). I personally see the best option as a gradual shift towards reducing what's considered "full" employment, instead of 40 hours per week being considered the standard make it 35, then more people have to have jobs to pick up the slack. Raise wages to make up the difference in money for the lower-class, for the middle and upper classes perhaps just spend less on extravagances. Not sure that would work, at least not without enforcement by people who might have to take a paycut, but if it did it would solve a lot of employment issues. I'd also like to see a push for closed cycle living, recycling done on the backend where unskilled labor is absorbed by sorting through garbage to make sure that everything that can be recycled is.

Are you talking about Amazon or Newegg? If you're talking about Newegg I have to say that I'm proud to buy fro ma company that stands up to patent trolls and I think everyone else should be too.

My understanding is that most of the top sports car manufacturers aren't terribly profitable. I know that Lamborghini has been passed around and around losing money most of it's life. They make lots of revenue, but their costs keep them from making a profit. The risk that monitor manufacturers would have is the same, sure they make a lot of REVENUE, off of making a 300 ppi desktop monitor, but that doesn't mean they'll make much PROFIT. Maybe someone will try it and be a success, maybe not, but it's a big risk in a field without a lot of margin left.

/. is also home to nerds who are very concerned with maximizing their numbers and having a larger e-peen. I have never said (that I remember) and will never say (unless I'm drunk or high) that no one needs super-high resolution monitors, but a lot of the people that want them only want them because the numbers are higher, not because they have a real need. It's the same thing as people complaining that their new phone doesn't have a quad-core, they don't NEED it, they probably won't benefit from it, but their computer has a quad-core so damnit their phone should too!

There's a lot more "average" customers then non-average ones. The vast majority of people use their computers for Facebook and e-mail, they don't need a 4K 19" monitor and there's no benefit to them paying the price for it.

Whenever I see threads about resolution on /. I wonder how many of the people want higher resolution because they are actually going to see a tangible benefit from it, and how many want higher resolutions because it's a number on their computer and thus higher must be better. I suspect that a LOT of people are in the latter camp.

Apple charges a premium for their computers, phones and tablets, part of that premium is the display. It's not coming for free.

16:10 master race. Unfortunately dying, but still master race.

There's no reason why it can't, there's plenty of reasons why it shouldn't. Cost, yield, being largely unimportant for the vast majority of people, etc. The average customer will not benefit significantly from the changes the resolution queens want to bring about.

That's one type of AA (Supersampling), and the least common type. The most common type is Multisampling, that does things differently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multisample_anti-aliasing

The last one usually.

Yes.

I'm not certain I agree, idle cycles may not be as prominent as they once were, but procs don't slow to 0 when they're idle, they just ramp down a ways. My proce drops to (IIRC) 1.8Ghz at "idle" but I can assure you that my computer isn't using 4 1.8Ghz cores at idle.

It's a checkbox on advertisements. It's not that they need it, it's that it can be advertised as an advantage.





Also: Photoshop.