I think the GP is referring to the fact that once we had a high resolution TV spec, pretty much all panel manufactuers decided that "what's good for TVs is good for computers" and no longer make any higher resolution than 1920x1080 unless you're willing to spend close to $1000 or more.

I see no reason to expect they'll do otherwise in the future, so any future TV resolution spec has immediate implications on future computer monitor resolutions.

you may have a point.

most people, myself included, complain because 1080 vertical lines of resolution is a regression from where we were headed in the mid-2000s. all of a sudden, circa 2009 or 2010, 1080 vertical lines of resolution was the maximum you could get, no matter what monitor size you purchased, unless you were willing to spend over $1000 on a monitor. It's like every panel manufactuer in existance decided to just quit. all of them were constantly increasing pixel density every few years and then they all quit. just... gave up. either that or moved to smartphones.

This new standard, while laughably high, at least gives me hope that pretty soon pixel densities on standard computer monitors might start going up again. 16x9 ratio monitors might indeed be "ok" if we had double the vertical resolution we have now.

LTE is not a high speed internet connection. not in any way that truly matters. Not while the standard cap is 1-2GB/month. yes you can buy more, have you seen the price on that? 5GB/month (which is still an absurdly low cap) contracts end up about the same as my CAR payment, several times higher than my landline internet.

LTE is a top fuel dragster. it's really impressive for a quarter mile. then you have to take it apart and rebuild it for a month.

"look how fast I can download over my phone!"
"yeah. that's great. you've already hit your cap for the month. it took 13 and half minutes."

what is the point of "high speed" internet that you can't use?

interestingly enough, the genesis (with it's CD and 32x) upgrades failed this criteria.
the n64 (with it's external ram upgrade) failed this criteria.
depending on what you want to run, ps3 fails this criteria.

get a 1080p monitor with multiple hdmi inputs. hook your modern gaming pc up to one input, and your ps3 or xbox up to the other. pull up a game released for both platforms. one of the call of duties, mass effect 3, whatever. go to the same scene on both platforms. flip back and forth. I guarantee you'll be amazed at how much better the pc version looks. it's easily a "generation" ahead. when you stop to consider that most of the time these games are programmed for console first, and then later retrofitted for pc, it's even more amazing. there's a big difference. I speak from experience because I did exactly that.

This I'll agree with. you can make them prettier, but not -better-. you either have a good gaming idea or you don't. the platform just decides what it looks like once you impliment it. although, that said, most people don't have keyboard and mouse for consoles, and certain types of games are way better with keyboard and mouse (fps, rts, mmo).

there's no new sony console in sight cause sony is -still- recouping costs for the rediculous development cost of the PS3.

no idea what MS's excuse is.

honestly, I'm not sure why either one of them doesn't just grab the cheapest phenom quad core, slap in a GTX650 and 8gb of ram, write "legitmately 5x faster than waht you've got now", and sell it for $250.

i mean seriously, the existing consoles have a tri-core that nobody can program for, and the rough equivilent of an geforce 7800 (although with unified shaders in the xbox, so more like an 8600).

damn near anything off the shelf is way faster nowadays.

Exactly. And what did you learn from that experience?

What does that have to do with anything?

If everybody had to raise their own cow, feed it, water it, slaughter it, and butcher it... how many hamburgers do you think they'd eat?

Hell, most people wouldn't even want to get their appendix removed if they had to watch it.

people are squeamish... at least until you spend time in the bowels of the internet.

adoption?
of course!
why didn't I think of that?

now if only we can figure out what to do with the 600,000 (minimum) extra babies -per year- that would be piling up assuming even the most generous estimates for adoption-seekers vs abortions....

http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/cduncan/230/adoption.htm

Ever been pregnant?
me neither.
Wife was though.
Looked pretty damn unpleasant.

you ever given birth?
me neither.
seen it though.
looks like it hurts a whole hell of a lot.

also, you know, there's that whole "now I've got a kid I don't want" thing, that's pretty harsh too.

ever had a kid? I have. they're expensive, they're a pain in the ass, and they completely destroy your life. the only thing that makes them bearable is that you love the flying fuck out of them. Now take away that part where you want the kid and add in the part where you're constantly reminded of one of the worst experiences of your life every time you look at them.

now tell me again how that's not harsh fucking punishment?

You know that it is possible to use facebook without sacrificing too much in the way of privacy and personal details.

1. don't put much (or any) personal details up on your page. I think mine knows the city and state I currently live in, the city and state I was born in, who I'm married to, and my birthday. that's it. FB doesn't have my detailed address or phone numbers. It doesn't know where I went to school. It doesn't know where I work or have worked. It doesn't know what I'm interested in. I'm a member of no "groups". I don't "like" any companies, brands, or corporations. I run no apps.

2. noscript and other addons means FB doesn't get to snoop on my browsing habits elsewhere.

FB doesn't know anything about me that isn't public record already. Small price to pay for what is, when you think about it, probably the most underappreciated interpersonal communication tool ever developed. (which also makes you sad to see how it is used, when you think even further about said topic)

hell, with these "privacy concerns", you better take off the headset before using facebook or even google!

galaxy s3 = $599
ouya = $109

I -know- there are some people on here who remember that there were games before ansiotropic filtered bump mapped motion blured LOD textured polygons.

I even seem to remember enjoying a few of them. Super metroid anyone? Final Fantasy II and III (4j and 6j)? mario kart, ice hockey, bubble bobble, zelda(s), sonic(s), punch out, tecmo bowl, come on how long do I have to go?

there are a ton of good 2d sprite games on the android market. 2d doesn't -need- to be dead.

Not to mention that "underpowered" is relative. This thing is roughly as powerful, give or take, as the original xbox or ps2, and I'm pretty sure there were some good enjoyable 3D games for them as well.

To be fair, I don't have any 14-year-old friends, so I'll have to take your neice's word for it.

I wonder what it says about a generation however that prefers to communicate with each other in 140 word snippets?

also, I wonder if facebook's age "requirement" affects the distribution curve at all?