"Taxation is theft, it is uncivilised by definition. Why is it wrong for one person to rob another but its called "good government" if a million people say it's okay to steal? You're propagating pure nonsense." I pay my taxes willingly, even though I know some portion of the funds go to causes I do not support. It's part of the whole social contract... and I console myself to the fact that I don't support all of the things we fund by reminding myself that other people do not support my right to not be a christian ... yet the same government that funds things I do not approve of protects my right in that regard. Are you really making the argument that if the government didn't provide basic services, someone else would, in some magical capitalistic way? IE toll road would be everywhere, private police would keep people safe (Yes police can be corrupt and make mistakes, but the vast majority of police actions are reasonable, even if those actions don't make the headlines as much as sh** like the Rodney King episode). Yes, if taxes and the government were so great, it would be voluntarily funded ... right ... because surely there are no greedy people who want these things but realize that if they just let others fund them, they can still reap the rewards ...without the cost. Yes, we live in utopia, welcome. As for the military budget, why I happen to agree with you, it's hardly civilized! Let's work on that ... I suggest we scrap the whole 'war' machine in favor of a 'defense' machine, but keep taxes around to pay for it ... and the roads I use to get work.

Sorry, I don't consider this a valid argument - who (among PC gamers) buys games at a store anymore? Why would there be shelf space in a brick and morter store for PC games ... when PC gamers download their games? The point has been brought up many times in this thread, PC gamers use services like Steam - and there are other companies trying to compete. PC gaming is not on the decline, from what I see - it's just changing, in part, to a service based model, like WOW. I suspect if you try to claim that PC gaming is spiraling downward ... while standing in the Blizzard offices ... you'd just get laughed at.

I hope you're kidding! If not, all I'll say (and you'll get it, eventually, if you don't today) is .... "But will it play Crysis 3?"

Personally, I don't care about the human side of the input lag question. That's irrelevant to me because at present that line of questioning is unlikely to lead anywhere. I don't see any evidence for the argument that "looking at the entire loop ... is the only way to make informed choices about ...". As I see it, I can make an informed choice by looking at the display alone - choosing the right display will result in a clear, measurable improvement. It sounds like choosing the right platform will have a similar effect. I can't choose the right human ... or my age ... so those considerations seem useless. How does knowing my own input lag make any difference? Whether it's 150 ms or 1,500 ms, I can't change it, and everyone else in my age group is on the same playing field. Now, I'm not saying that it's not interesting to know. It just doesn't make a difference in my gaming experience if I know my own latency. It also doesn't make a difference to me whether the 20 ms I shave off of my experienced latency by a certain hardware choice constitutes 10% or 50% of the "total" latency involved.

I see a lot of people suggesting that marketing is necessary for the success of not only the too-crappy-to-succeed-on-their-own games but also the truly quality titles. I disagree, based upon personal experience (which, really, means little, unless many of you agree with me): I have only played one game, ever, based upon marketing. My standard procedure for finding a game goes something like this: 1) Notice I have more free time for some reason OR finish a game 2) Go to a variety of video game review web sites - adblock is enabled. I see text and occationally a picture or two. I avert my eyes from the ads (sad, but true) out of principle. 3) Find a a game that meets my style and is affordable. 4) Will my hardware run it? Check! 5) Does it have DRM that has caused problems for other people? If so, skip or thoroughly research it. 6) Play. I have only once responded to an ad for a game. I had read quite a bit about the game by the time I saw the ad, but it did push me over the edge - because it offered a free trial. I think the real reason we see so much advertising expenditures has to do with how the market has come to be what it is. We used to have many smaller game producers - you would often hear of a game developed by some studio you've never heard of. Now, you might still hear about new studios, but they're more likely than not being published by EA (at least, in the PC world). Numerous companies have been bought up - leaving voids which could easily be filled by new, innovative startups ... if only there wasn't so much advertising money going out of the big companies. By advertising so heavily, these large companies prevent new competition from developing - who wants to spend 2 profitless years developing a game if it's a complete hit or miss? A truly good game won't get ignored, trust me - there's too much of a gaming culture. A mediocre game, however, that nevertheless deserves some fair profit, will have a much harder time if it's competing against similarly mediocre games ... with multi-million dollar advertising campaigns backing them. And if your startup has just created a mediocre game, it's likely that you cut some corners to get things done. You don't have millions to spend in the hopes that your advertising campaign will compete. If my interpretation is correct, the purpose and effect of these massive advertising budgets is not, as popular opinion holds, to allow them to create average but still successful games so much as it is to stifle competition. I'm sure EA would love for every game to be a hit, and they'd even be willing to pay for it. After all, they must surely know that a truly good game will rake in the cash even if the marketing isn't spectacular, so they would be willing to spend, say, 1/3 of their marketing money on development - if it would help. Which it won't. You can't pay a developer more and get more inspiration out of him/her (who am I kidding? Out of him). You can't hire more developers and expect a more polished game - unless you're hiring the developers to bug test, or unless you were understaffed to begin with). You can, however, guarantee that your mediocre game will be the one to rake in a modest, average profit, and not your competitors - if they don't advertise.

Sounds like an interesting idea. However, it might be cheaper to build less durable, higher-yield solar panels ... and then to simply put them on top (as a roof) of our roads, perhaps blocking only 50 or 30% of the light from hitting the road itself. You would, in addition, most likely: 1) produce more energy per area of solar panels - no cars driving over them, less degradation 2) shade the cars driving below. I suspect AC energy usage in cars is, overall, greater than energy usage for heating the car. This would reduce AC uses, perhaps resulting in less fuel being burned overall. 3) reduce the intensity of the sun shining into the eyes of drivers in the morning and in the evening. Some of the time, at least. Perhaps this could reduce accident rates somewhat. Additionally, while I liked the idea of running cables through the road at first, the more I think about it the less I like it. Damage to the road could result in power or data service loss. Upgrades and maintenance could prove annoying, lacking sufficient redundancy.

"If this was anything except 1984, this wouldn't have been news at all." I completely disagree. Let's not give up the right to keep the information we buy entirely - it's bad enough that future generations may not own an encyclopedia, dictionary, thesaurus, or, potentially, ANY books/information that cannot be instantly taken away by certain companies or even the government or hackers. Sure, if there was some absolute guarantee that this would only happen in cases where a retailer sold something they did not have the right to sell, few people would care much. It's still bad, in that case, but the real worry is that, to pull a crazy hypothetical out of my *ss, Bush got re-elected for a 3rd term in the last election, decided to invade iran, invoked some war powers act to silence the media from complaining about it, and later started quietly pulling books from the virtual shelves ... books that might start dangerous thoughts. As crazy as it may sound, it's hardly crazy at all. People who want to do this exist - these types have been in power in various countries ... these types are IN power in some countries (N. Korea, anyone? And they're not alone - the media in Iran isn't all that free, is it?) In my opinion, this ability needs to be removed from the hardware - through the law. Simply having people complain enough that companies don't do this won't solve anything, backdoors will still exist.

I have experienced the same thing. Of course, we should remember that not all microwaves are identical - some may very well be much better shielded. I never experience interference with my current microwave - I have no idea whether this is due to the channels my wifi is using, or the microwave itself.