Thursday, September 02, 2010
PS3 Hacked. Not Sure I Care.
A couple of PS3 "Jailbreaks" have hit the news lately, giving rise to talk of piracy. Considering that the long ago hacked Xbox 360 has had no problem selling more games than the up until recently protected PS3, it seems to me the fear of piracy and it's impact on gaming is probably overblown. At least on consoles.
I have no qualms about downloading in general, but I have more games (purchased) than I have time to play, and I've got time. The need to try before buying is met by demos, as far as I'm concerned. And I have more of those than I make time to play, so going out of my way to download games is not high on my list of priorities. The complaint that games are too expensive are sometimes true, but six months down the line many of these end up somewhere between 20-30 bucks, instead of the 60 bucks they were initially priced at. I've even bought a few at ten dollars each. All new. I don't trust used discs for the most part. Had a bad experience.
Unlike the PSP which I happily applied custom firmware to back when I used it, the PS3 pretty much does everything I need it to except play MKVs (without the help of PS3 Media Server or MKV2VOB). So I'd have no reason to try one of these (or any more that are forthcoming) jailbreaks unless they offered something that Sony was reluctant to allow like MKVs or perhaps a way to play my Dark Side Of The Moon SACD in surround through optical as was allowed for about a week a couple of years ago.
Some folk would prefer PS2 backward compatibility on their newer model machines and others may want their Linux back. Linux was slow as hell on the PS3, and while I have BC, I haven't felt like playing any of my PS2 games in a while.
Basically these things just fill a vacuum created by Sony in the first place. Though no doubt, there will be people downloading more games than they would'a bought otherwise.
I have no qualms about downloading in general, but I have more games (purchased) than I have time to play, and I've got time. The need to try before buying is met by demos, as far as I'm concerned. And I have more of those than I make time to play, so going out of my way to download games is not high on my list of priorities. The complaint that games are too expensive are sometimes true, but six months down the line many of these end up somewhere between 20-30 bucks, instead of the 60 bucks they were initially priced at. I've even bought a few at ten dollars each. All new. I don't trust used discs for the most part. Had a bad experience.
Unlike the PSP which I happily applied custom firmware to back when I used it, the PS3 pretty much does everything I need it to except play MKVs (without the help of PS3 Media Server or MKV2VOB). So I'd have no reason to try one of these (or any more that are forthcoming) jailbreaks unless they offered something that Sony was reluctant to allow like MKVs or perhaps a way to play my Dark Side Of The Moon SACD in surround through optical as was allowed for about a week a couple of years ago.
Some folk would prefer PS2 backward compatibility on their newer model machines and others may want their Linux back. Linux was slow as hell on the PS3, and while I have BC, I haven't felt like playing any of my PS2 games in a while.
Basically these things just fill a vacuum created by Sony in the first place. Though no doubt, there will be people downloading more games than they would'a bought otherwise.
Labels: moments of incoherency, PS3, PSP, video games
Friday, August 27, 2010
Satoshi Kon's Last Words
A full translation here.
As referenced on AICN.
As referenced on AICN.
Labels: Anime, death, japanese, youtube and other video
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Ron Paul and Christopher Hitchens On The Mosque Mess...
Dr. Paul is probably the first high profile Republican to oppose the opposition to the building of the Park 51 Muslim center. I have a lot of respect for the Congressman. He actually strikes me as an honest politician (one I might've even voted for, given the chance), even if I don't agree with some of his views. His statement that this controversy is "all about hate and Islamaphobia" is another I disagree with along with a number of other things he has to say on the subject. But when he speaks, I don't suspect his motives.
"The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque."
The Doctor forgets that the 1st Amendment isn't limited to supporters of religion. As many of us said during the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day controversy, no one has a right not to be offended. However no-one (as far as I know) contested the rights of those to express their dis-satisfaction to what we were doing as long as threats of violence weren't being made and individual freedoms were not being violated. I find it odd then that those who support the community center aren't simply saying that they dis-agree with those who don't, they appear to be going just a little further by suggesting we just shut the fuck up.
"Islamaphobia"
Fear of Islam is certainly an issue, but it's not an irrational concern, which Mr. Hitchens articulates better than I could; *
"Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything "offensive" to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter …
As for the gorgeous mosaic of religious pluralism, it's easy enough to find mosque Web sites and DVDs that peddle the most disgusting attacks on Jews, Hindus, Christians, unbelievers, and other Muslims—to say nothing of insane diatribes about women and homosexuals. This is why the fake term Islamophobia is so dangerous: It insinuates that any reservations about Islam must ipso facto be "phobic." A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. Islamic preaching very often manifests precisely this feature, which is why suspicion of it is by no means irrational."
Defenders of Islam rightly point out that a very tiny minority are terrorists. That the vast majority do not take part in violent aggression against the west. But does that by itself necessarily mean that the majority of Muslims living here are moderates? That seems to be the assumption, but evidence points to the contrary.
* As seen on Cobb.
"The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque."
The Doctor forgets that the 1st Amendment isn't limited to supporters of religion. As many of us said during the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day controversy, no one has a right not to be offended. However no-one (as far as I know) contested the rights of those to express their dis-satisfaction to what we were doing as long as threats of violence weren't being made and individual freedoms were not being violated. I find it odd then that those who support the community center aren't simply saying that they dis-agree with those who don't, they appear to be going just a little further by suggesting we just shut the fuck up.
"Islamaphobia"
Fear of Islam is certainly an issue, but it's not an irrational concern, which Mr. Hitchens articulates better than I could; *
"Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything "offensive" to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter …
As for the gorgeous mosaic of religious pluralism, it's easy enough to find mosque Web sites and DVDs that peddle the most disgusting attacks on Jews, Hindus, Christians, unbelievers, and other Muslims—to say nothing of insane diatribes about women and homosexuals. This is why the fake term Islamophobia is so dangerous: It insinuates that any reservations about Islam must ipso facto be "phobic." A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. Islamic preaching very often manifests precisely this feature, which is why suspicion of it is by no means irrational."
Defenders of Islam rightly point out that a very tiny minority are terrorists. That the vast majority do not take part in violent aggression against the west. But does that by itself necessarily mean that the majority of Muslims living here are moderates? That seems to be the assumption, but evidence points to the contrary.
* As seen on Cobb.
Labels: bullshit, civil rights, DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER, everybody's a critic, Islam, politics
Monday, August 23, 2010
Medal Of Honor Vs. The Taliban? Cool!!!
Seems to be a minor controversy riled up by a Brit politician who's unaware that the game doesn't feature British soldiers. Also that in previous installations of the series players have assumed the role of Nazi soldiers in the multiplayer parts of the game. As was said, someone has to be the bad guy; cop vs robber, cowboy vs indian, etc. I'm just surprised that somebody is putting out a game that references Afghanistan at all. I might have to pick this up.
A previous game (from a different publisher and developer), Six Days In Fallujah, based on a real life battle in Iraq was cancelled outright, and later was cannibalized to make a new game called Breach (not out 'til early next year).
A previous game (from a different publisher and developer), Six Days In Fallujah, based on a real life battle in Iraq was cancelled outright, and later was cannibalized to make a new game called Breach (not out 'til early next year).
Labels: video games, youtube and other video
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Things People Believe
Putting into context the apparently shocking notion that 20% of U.S. citizens believe the President is a secret Muslim; Yglesias
Labels: funny-ass shit, religion, society, The President Is A Bad Muthafucka
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Quote
"I love people who think their first amendment rights means you can't have an opinion about what they say."
Robin Quivers on the Howard Stern Show, talking about Dr. Laura WhatsHerName, not the tiresome douches who are still pretending that there's a threat to freedom of religion in the opposition to the so called "Ground Zero Mosque."
Robin Quivers on the Howard Stern Show, talking about Dr. Laura WhatsHerName, not the tiresome douches who are still pretending that there's a threat to freedom of religion in the opposition to the so called "Ground Zero Mosque."
Labels: everybody's a critic, Islam, politics, Truth
Sunday, August 15, 2010
This Thing About The "Ground Zero Mosque"
Personally, I wouldn't want it where it's being proposed, even if it's two blocks away and around a corner as I've heard it described. Even if it's just a glorified museum with a prayer room for convenience. I signed on one of the petitions going around a while back and many people have expressed their opposition (in some cases using sentiments echoing opposition of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day - which makes me somewhat uncomfortable).
I know nothing about building codes and zoning laws except that it isn't usually considered easy to get a building permit in Manhattan. I seem to recall Donald Trump getting plenty of rejections back in the eighties and maybe nineties. But it seems there are no conflicts preventing this from happening, and no proof that laws have been broken to get this approved.
So... if this "cultural center" is gonna be built anyway, then why are politicians like NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg and President Obama stepping in to defend rights that haven't been, and apparently won't be violated?
On the President's part, it would've been nice to hear his voice when a US citizen found herself marked for murder for her expression of free speech. Instead, we get statements that were un-needed followed by the usual back tracking. On what seems to be a non-issue.
I dunno. Just trying to figure out what all this means.
I know nothing about building codes and zoning laws except that it isn't usually considered easy to get a building permit in Manhattan. I seem to recall Donald Trump getting plenty of rejections back in the eighties and maybe nineties. But it seems there are no conflicts preventing this from happening, and no proof that laws have been broken to get this approved.
So... if this "cultural center" is gonna be built anyway, then why are politicians like NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg and President Obama stepping in to defend rights that haven't been, and apparently won't be violated?
On the President's part, it would've been nice to hear his voice when a US citizen found herself marked for murder for her expression of free speech. Instead, we get statements that were un-needed followed by the usual back tracking. On what seems to be a non-issue.
I dunno. Just trying to figure out what all this means.
Labels: civil rights, DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER, everybody's a critic, Islam, politics, religion, rules and regulations, society
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
