catscratch

Well, well, looks like the preorder numbers have spoken. It's always funny to see interviews with M$ staff where they say that the always-online component is central to the system, and then have that component taken away within days of the preorder numbers reveal. So much for positive PR. I think this is a good turn of events. It doesn't address every concern with the system, the main one of course being that it is a less powerful machine that comes bundled with technology that you don't need which has the potential for privacy violations. I just wish someone would put up as big a stink on the PC over Steam. I don't get why people aren't in more of a rut over Steam. Actually, I do get it, if you put enough sales on Steam you make people forget that they are actually not buying anything. Of course given Sony's history they very much reserve the right to fuck up everything. I think I'm still sticking mainly to PC, and maybe with a PS4 for some fighting games.

That's the attitude that lets companies like M$ win. This should not blow over. Letting it blow over is how we let DRM rule over PC and how we are losing the ability to own games. What should happen is big losses in sales over practices that you, as a consumer, do not want to see. Vote with your dollar. If you think "well... I don't like where the XB1 is heading but I'm going to buy one anyway" you're actually supporting where it is heading, and then you have no right to complain. Actually, "right" is an irrelevant concept, but letting your money speak for you isn't.

It's not quite the same thing. The use you get out of a movie is significantly limited compared to the use you get out of a game. Yes, a lot of modern single-player games are very cinematic, and usually have a short campaign that, once you're done with it, offers no real replay value. But for games that do offer a replay value, and for games that you would want to come back to, time and again, you will want the ability to play anywhere, regardless of having an online connection or being tied to an account. I've lost count of the times I couldn't play the single-player games I paid for on Steam because Steam failed to save my authentication data properly and I had to connect to re-authenticate, at a time or place where I had no connection. It has completely soured me on Steam, and I make a point to not buy something that's tied to Steam or any kind of DRM if I can. Some people will get over it. Some people will not. PC gaming is not doing as well as it could. I wonder if creating an environment that punishes paying customers with needless restrictions and abusive business models has anything to do with that, when there's a cheaper, less hassle-ridden alternative nearby. And to get back to the the original issue with the XB1, it looks like PC hassles are migrating there too, and that's what I don't want to see.

Include me out for XB1 too. I don't want to see consoles going in the direction of DRM, and I don't trust M$ to include all the sales and extra content that Steam does to make you forget that you're paying for a license to play a game on an account, not an actual copy of the game. I want to own my games, not buy a license. Plus, paying extra for Kinect, which I know I won't use and will generally hate, is a deal-breaker. Then there are security concerns with Kinect, which are probably more paranoia than actual concerns, but as someone that hates being on camera, the last thing that I want is to always be on camera. I don't know what I'll do once Google Glass comes out, heh. Probably avoid public places more than I do already. Privacy is obsolete. Besides, I play QuakeLive, which means keyboard + mouse. Playing shooters on a controller is about as fun as a dental appointment.

This. I admit I probably would have driven by because of this sort of setup, unless it was absolutely certain that it was impossible. And if you do stop to help, and by accident damage something, will you get sued over it afterwards? And if you don't damage something, will you get sued anyway on some bullshit excuse? I'm paranoid, and it's because I've been messed with too many times. I'm a gullible sucker that has learned his lesson. If the state had concealed carry laws, I'd probably be packing. Not because it offers any kind of protection, but at the very least for the confidence that it would give me, which would probably allow me to do things I want to do with less fear of doing it. I've offered jump starts to people, and the first reaction in them is always fear and suspicion. And if/when you do something nice in the last are I lived in, people actually act surprised that you didn't try to screw them over in some way. It's a pretty sad state of affairs, but then again I lived in a communist country too, and am named after an uncle that spent a decade as a political prisoner. It could be worse.

Well according to this is it, if that's the lens they're listing. I wasn't sure. My friend actually has a Yashica 50 that has a thorium rear element, and we measured it with a Geiger counter, but since that only measured beta and gamma radiation, we didn't pick much of anything up. Good to know they're not dangerous.

Thanks Jon. I'll look into it. Isn't the FD 55 1.2 radioactive? And am I totally overestimating the risks of that? Lastly, would it be risky to take a lens like that through airport security? I do travel a lot when shooting. Great shot BTW. So far I'm managing MF with live view and a hood loupe, but it's a lengthy process for sure. Decent when you're composing a scene on a tripod for minutes, not good when you're trying to do an HDR panorama in fast moving light.

Some advice needed... What are some good options for vintage 50/55mm f1.2 primes that fit on a 5D Mk2? And by good I mean sensible, not crap optically, not absurdly rare/expensive, and not radioactive enough to grow a second head. Right now I'm looking at the Nikkor 50 1.2 AIS, it's available new, and it shouldn't suffer too much optical degradation or have issues focusing to infinity. I mostly want to do silly bokeh shots and want a lens that's sharp enough at the center wide-open but also has a good character to its bokeh. Canon's own 50L is far too expensive though for what is going to be mostly a one-trick lens, and not good enough to justify the price when stopped down.

I have tried the Momentum recently and it's quite nice. By that I mean that it's a closed circum-aural that doesn't suck, and that in itself is impressive. Pretty typical Senn-like tonality (by which I mean more HD600/650 than HD800), very nice bass and mids, and highs that are a bit unrefined but not harsh or grating at all. It can also do soundstage fairly nicely, it doesn't suffer from a congested in-your-head sort of sound at all. I don't think it's audiophile grade, it doesn't have the transparency or resolution, but it's not far off. The biggest negative was the size of the earcups, if you're team melonhead or have large ears, they may not seal properly, and while overall clamping force is OK, there isn't enough clamping force at the bottom of the earcup. So, they're not exactly comfortable, but passable. Build quality is upscale and the looks are elegant, which is pretty rare with today's flash and glitz teeny bopper headphones. I think IEMs give you better resolution, but if you want headphones, this is not a bad way to go.

That's why mirrorless APS-C cameras like the Nex 6/7 are so brilliant - you get the small size factor of micro 4/3 with the controls of an SLR, and a ton of lens compatibility too. Of course I still hate not having an optical viewfinder, contrast-detect AF sucks as has been noted, and not having the durability and weathersealing of a pro SLR is a big no-no for what I do.

Good article, I hope more people read it. Somehow we need to show Sennheiser that this is the sort of headphone we want, not the HD700. I like both the HD600 and HD650 a lot, and I generally dislike dynamics altogether. I think the HD650 is a bit more detailed and technically capable, but the voicing on the HD600 makes it more suited to a wider variety of genres. Regardless, both aren't quite as far from neutral as popular hearsay makes them out to be, at least when driven well.

Causa Sui - Summer Sessions (volumes 1 and 2), Pewt'r Sessions (volume 1) Um, yeah. Because this: Basically, this is how you do blues rock, at least based around a sustained bass line. Also, this band is how you do instrumental improvisational prog rock:

Rule of Acquisition #10: greed is eternal.

I've been thinking. Bad habit, I know... The PC, as a gaming platform, is superior to consoles. It is more powerful and more customizable, it offers unparalleled support for third party controllers as well as support for independent developers. It is cheaper to develop for, and its native keyboard and mouse interface is significantly more precise than a dual analog stick controller. But all of this comes at a cost - a good gaming PC is a lot more expensive than a console, and it also requires time to set up as well as some technical skill on part of the user. Consoles, in the meanwhile, are cheap, easy to use, require almost no effort to set up, and offer a platform that is at once uniform for everybody and also gives large publishers near total control over content. In the long term, if you want to make a lot of money, cheap usually wins out over good. But, given that PCs cannot compete on price, they need to offer a superior gaming experience over consoles in order to justify their price (and effort) premium. They certainly have the power to do this, but are game developers and publishers willing to take advantage of that power in order to justify the PC's increased cost? More and more AAA titles for the PC are simply console ports that don't offer anything over their console versions - in fact, many offer less. There are a few PC-specific things that are key to the gaming experience on the PC that don't really exist on console - things like FOV sliders in 1st and 3d person games, re-bindable controls, support for high frame rates, and customizable graphics settings - and which are commonly not addressed in a typical console port. Then, PC-exclusive AAA titles are more commonly bound up with draconian DRM - as we've seen in Diablo 3 and now Sim City, just to name a few standout examples. All of this creates frustration for the gamer, and hurts the gaming experience. Still, I think this is not even the worst of it. Games are becoming more and more dumbed-down. This is not a sinister conspiracy, it's simply the side-effect of games that are made with consoles in mind. The typical console controller has less buttons and generally less precision than a keyboard and mouse setup, and a game that is made with that controller in mind has to have by necessity a simpler interface, and more importantly, simpler mechanics. The FPS genre is a great example. In the past, we've had games with complex mechanics, like the movement in the Quake or Unreal games, which are only possible on keyboard and mouse. But now, with developers like Bungie flat-out stating that most players are preferring to play shooters on a console, such mechanics are largely going to be a thing of the past. Now, I'm not enough of a gamer to list off every single example of mechanics being simplified for consoles, but if even I have noticed it, then it has to be a pretty significant issue. Entire genres of gaming are now at risk - things like traditional RTS or complex simulation games like the combat flight sims of yore. In essence, this leads me to believe that in order for the PC to survive and indeed thrive as a gaming platform, it needs developers to take advantage of PC-specific strengths, which is unlikely with games that are made with cross-platform compatibility in mind. Unfortunately, this is not the last of it. Given how far tablets and smartphones have come, I simply don't see the need for a casual user to even own a PC. There really is no reason why you can't do social networking from a tablet just as easily, and a tablet is a lot cheaper, easier to use, and one heck of a lot more convenient than a PC. This, together with the price factor, is why I believe the PC is likely to become a much more niche thing in the future. Being a niche thing is fine, but being a expensive, high-performance niche is very dangerous. In order to take advantage of the power, you need large developers with extensive budgets making AAA titles. In order for those titles to justify their development cost, there needs to be a more extensive market. A high-performance, expensive platform does not lend itself well to supporting an extensive market, and this is why I'm worried. Some part of my pessimism is selfish - I'm an FPS player, and I like strategy games as well, both turn-based and real-time. I also have a lot of nostalgia for the old-school space sims and combat flight sims. All of these are genres that are either inferior or straight-up impossible to do on console. Now, there are still games that I enjoy on console - like fighting games, which is probably where I'll migrate to eventually - but I don't want to see the games I enjoy most disappear, or become dumbed-down to the point where I no longer enjoy them, which has already happened with modern FPS. Thoughts? Am I totally off-base here? What is the way for PC to justify its increased cost and survive as a gaming platform in the future? Will all of this be fixed simply and elegantly with a console that offers native keyboard and mouse support and allows me to play the kinds of games I want to play? Is independent development going to carry the PC, inferior budgets and all, or will somebody make a console that's indie-friendly, thus removing even this market from PC exclusivity? And am I alone in thinking that things like DRM and Microtransactions irritate the hardcore gamer to the point where they consider not buying the games they would otherwise buy in the first place?

Another episode that's only decent. The BRZ/FRS review was pretty good and the interview was ok, but the main film was, dare I say it, a bit boring. Besides, Clarkson's anti-American rant is getting a bit old by now.

Pretty good episode, though a bit too much silliness in places. I'm definitely a fan of the LFA. Beautiful filming, even more so than the norm. As a laser tag player the fact that they called laser tag Laser Quest - since Quest is my most universally hated laser-tag system ever - made me rage a little.

Well AFAIK the chassis is basically the Zonda R, so I would have expected an even faster time. But then again it's not on slicks and is probably set up quite softly for the road. Also that was a damp track in parts. Still, the time is less impressive when you consider that the Ultima GTR did a 1:12.8 on road tires, and without a Stig at the wheel. It did a 1:09.9 on slicks. Now that's a glorified kit car so it doesn't have to put up with the same set of regulations as a production car, but still, it puts things into perspective. Great episode on the whole. The last 5 minutes may have been a bit idiotic but the rest felt like straight-up old-school Top Gear from before season 9. [Edit: the Pagani does seem to take its inspiration from the coachbuilt luxury cars from the late 30s - the Talbot-Lagos, Delahayes, Bugattis, and so on. It certainly has that obsessive level of detail, and it's quite an engineering feat that in today's world of regulations - one in which small car manufacturers are intentionally almost incapable of surviving - such a car even exists at all. I'm not the supercar type, I'll never have one and I never did have those Ferrari and Lamborghini posters when I was 10. I never cared. But I do understand why this thing is so magical, and if I ever lusted after a supercar, it would be something like this. Just change the damn name. I thought the Ruf Porsches were already ridiculous - the only car name that can be pronounced by a dog. This Huayra can be pronounced by a dog... vomiting.]

Bad shill is bad. I suggest heading over to head-fi to learn to do it properly.

There's also the argument that not being able to tell the difference in commercially available vodkas has as much to do with the quality of (most of) said vodkas as does the palate of the drinker. I did a double blind test on many popular vodkas, but because the testing methodology was so flawed essentially I concluded that the vodkas I liked were the vodkas I don't usually like. Failed experiments aside, I like Nemiroff Honey and Pepper vodka, and did kinda like 3, which probably means I'm partial to things that burn like a flamethrower. Luksusowa is pretty good too, very smooth.

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-town-allows-teachers-carry-concealed-guns-081017416.html Looks like you're not alone in your thinking Larry.

Agree on the war on drugs issue, but that's a totally different story. I'm pretty sure history will look at prohibition and everything associated with it as one of the major repressions of the 20th and 21st centuries. Right now the issue to me seems to be limiting crimes of opportunity vs penalizing legitimate, responsible gun ownership. If there is a way to do the former without infringing upon the latter - such as stricter gun control for people with a history of mental problems, or perhaps making it a crime to allow guns to fall into the hands of relatives/friends with mental problems - I'd be all for it. Otherwise, I'm fairly strictly in the pro-gun camp. Background-wise, I'm from a family of immigrants that left Russia right after the fall of the Soviet Union, or more specifically political dissidents that were persecuted during Soviet times and which were very fortunate to be able to leave. I'm named after an uncle that spent a fair amount of time in prison for so-called political crimes. So if I'm a little gung-ho about "liberty," whatever it means, there's an understandable reason for it.

Comparing gun ownership to slavery is, I think, a little over the top. Agree with the mental health issue, and there's something else I've been wondering: was the shooter on SSRIs or prescription amphetamines? Amphetamine psychosis is a very real thing, and I've always wondered how much connection there was between documented SSRI side effects and a possibility for this sort of behavior. Given how psychiatric med-happy this country is, it's probably something that needs to be looked into.

Don't worry about it, and feel free to call me out on anything. It's fine. It's not just that I disagree with gun control in principle, I simply don't think that it will be effective, or that it will fly politically. Gun ownership is too culturally ingrained. Regardless, America is not the only country with this kind of prevalence of available guns, yet there seems to be a cultural difference in America that makes it statistically more likely for this sort of behavior to occur, and I'll be damned if I know what that is. Anyway. Sorry about perpetuating this discussion - I agree that now is not the time.

I'm with Dusty on this one. Yes, this is a very messed up thing to happen, but if we over-react and institute some sort of draconian law that negatively affects absolutely everyone, these guys win. While my heart, such as it is, does go out to the families affected by this, this doesn't automatically mean that all of our children, everywhere, are at suddenly at mortal risk. The worst thing we can do is screw up the school environment even more because of this. On the other hand, some basic emergency response training for teachers should probably be mandatory, if it isn't already. Plus, it's easy to point at this incident and say "see, this is why we need stricter gun control," but the people that want to get their hands on guns are going to get their hands on guns anyway. I don't think that's the answer. What the answer is, and if there is one, I don't really know.

I like Bourdain. I've been on a No Reservations binge lately. It's always nice to see a series that hasn't been dumbed down or over-Americanized, and Bourdain himself has a ton of charisma. It's a good series if you need a vicarious living fix, and occasionally it does make you think. Great soundtrack too in a lot of episodes.