If there's one thing George Lucus loves is DVD/Blu-ray releases. Eventually he'll release it to make a few extra bucks.

GNU-Linux started as a command based OS, various GUIs were attempted, and now we're back to typing in what we want to do.

I had some sort of S3 card too, but since it couldn't really do 3d, I didn't count it as a "real" 3d card. I was really pissed because I was going back and forth between that crappy card and an original 3DFX monster add-on card. I chose the wrong one. The original monster could actually accelerate OpenGL games such as Quake.

I remember buying my first "real" 3d card. It was an ATI Rage Fury 128. It had a whopping 32 megs of memory. And shitty ass drivers. Good times, good times...

If there was no fall, there was no need for redemption. If there was no need for redemption, there was no need for a savior. And without a savior, there is no Christianity.

If Microsoft loses, we get to take joy in the loss. If Microsoft wins, we get to take joy at Microsoft for narrowing patent law to its own long-term disadvantage.

"Artist rendering of actual patent thicket"

"there is a VERY strong suggestion in your post that anyone who doesn't want a mouse for their TV is an idiot."

If that's how you interpret what I wrote, then I do deserve to be modded as troll. However, that was not my intent at all. My point was that in my experience, and as I've objectively explained, using a PC/Mouse combination is better. I've asked people to offer me a better solution, but no one ever has. (I've brought this up before. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1686750&cid=32578802 )

The fact that people irrationally believe that a remote is better than a mouse is completely meaningless to me. Subjective opinions do not change facts.

I guess instead of idiots I should have called them ignoramuses.

Nope, it's soft and comfortable. Go out and get a new blu-tooth laser mouse. As long as the surface is not shiny, it works.

Or sandy, it probably wouldn't work in sand. But most people don't have sand in their living rooms. So it's a moot point.

Yeah, idiots tend to think that way. If I were reading that, I'd naturally assume I was not one of the idiots.

"A consumer device needs to cater to consumers, not you specifically."

But I've already shown how a mouse is better. The fact that people don't recognize that is irrelevant.

"I didn't see that but can you see how most people don't want to do that?"

Why would most people not want to do that. With a remote you have to look at it and find the fast forward button, click it, and then wait and wait and wait.

With a mouse and scroll bar you just move the mouse to where you want to be and then click. You're instantly half way through the movie. That's objectively better.

"It might be less efficient that using a desktop to search hundreds of movies but what would be more efficient would be a command line"

How can you justify saying a "command line" would be more efficently to wade through hundreds of movies and hundreds of shows.

I specifically explained how fast using a mouse is to access my media. I asked anyone how they could access their media faster or more efficiently using a remote. No one has done that yet.

I'll just add, I've been using a PC connected to my TV since 1999. I've wasted a lot of time and money using numerous interfaces to access my media. A PC/mouse combination is the best.

Close your eyes, imagine how easy it would be simply mouse clicking to what you want, and then imagine doing the same thing with a clunky remote.

I'm marked "troll" because I succinctly defended my opinions? Is this what Slashdot has been reduced to?! God, I miss the old days before Digg.

"A mouse is better at a computer interface than a remote but most people don't want a computer interface when dealing with a media center"

But a computer in your living room necessarily is a computer interface. So what's the problem. And I don't care what "most people" think or want. Most people are idiots.

"If you're watching a show and you decide to fast forward, how do you do that with a mouse?"

God, can't you read?! I specifically addressed that. You use the scroll bar feature on the bottom of Media Player Classic.

"Also with a mouse you need some sort of surface."

The arm of the chair. Next to me on the couch. My leg. On the floor. We keep two blu-tooth mice around like remotes.

"Most consumers use remotes because it's rather simplified."

I've already explained how using a mouse is more simple. I can double click an icon on my "desktop" it opens and I have access to hundreds of movies. I then use the scroll wheel to find the one I want, double click it, and I'm watching. I can quickly skip through using the scroll bar on the button and not have to waste time fast forwarding or rewinding.

So I can access hundreds of movies or shows in under ten seconds. How fast could you do that with a remote?

"A mouse while workable isn't what they want."

Once again, I don't care what they want, but at least you agree that it's "workable."

I guess connecting a PC to your TV is simply too complicated? Those HDMI cables can be a real pain, can't they?!

I'll know what someone will say, the mouse and keyboard is too clunky for the living room.

First, you don't need a keyboard for day-to-day use.

Second, a mouse is infinitely better in your living room than a remote.

I have my media mapped as drives. So I can access hundreds of movies or shows with only a few mouse clicks. Using Media Player Classic's scroll-bar I can instantly jump to any portion of the video I want. I can control the volume by simply scrolling the up wheel or down.

By the time you picked up your remote, looked at the remote to find the right buttons to click (you never have to look at a mouse), scrolled and clicked through various menus to finally find what you wanted, I'd have already been watching.

And because I'm using a PC, I can play any format the world gives me and not have to pray and wait for some firmware update.

And one last thing, my computer is whisper quiet, much quieter than my 360 or PS3.

I didn't make myself clear. I should have said the "real data servers will be located elsewhere." So the police would be able to come in and shut down the net server and take away all the servers. But Wikileaks will be able to get the data back online within minutes from their hidden data server. That starts the police process all over again in different jurisdiction.