To add to Mizume's post, don't let the fanboys fool you - this is a Subaru mechanically with the styling done by Toyota. It is essentially a later revision engine in Subaru's line of completely computer designed engines, starting with the EZ30. Reliability, weight, clearances and overall size have been optimized for the application and this is part of the reason 0w-20 oil is specified.

People would try to convince you that its "Toyotas" direct injection design but this is not entirely true. The specifications for the components in "Toyotas" direct injection setup are from the same suppliers that other auto makers have access to. To give you a similar scenario know that the engine computer from an Evolution of recent years are nearly the same as the engine computer from an STi.

While not sharing parts directly it is obvious that the FA20 (BRZ engine) and the FB20 (Impreza engine) are of the same design. There are already plans for an "FB20 Turbo" so it is only a management decision holding up a turbo BRZ.

I'd argue the biggest issue holding up tuners from making big changes is the gasoline direct injection. Yes there are people who have dealt with GDI tuning but this is a relatively new field.

>> ^jmzero:

My point was that, if you buy "nice" enough parts (like all parts of an Apple system are "nice"), you end up with a PC that costs about the same as a Mac.

OK, your point is way, way stupider than I thought it was. "Nice".


The fuck is your problem man? Fanboy idiot.

? Well, that wasn't my point so I still don't know why you wanna laugh @budzos.

My point was that, if you buy "nice" enough parts (like all parts of an Apple system are "nice"), you end up with a PC that costs about the same as a Mac.

Lol @ you.


>> ^jmzero:

I was gonna list my PC specs and their costs and then realized what a waste of time that is. Just for one example my case cost $400+, not $250. It's a big giant black hunk of brushed aluminum. It's bad-ass.

Meh, if you'd finished your price list, and assuming you went about "$400 case level" on all your components, I think what you would have demonstrated is how much more PC you can get for $2500 (just as I demonstrated how you can get that same hardware for much cheaper).
And I wasn't lol'ing at you for being a Mac fanboy or something. I was laughing at the idea that there's general price parity between Macs and PCs. There just isn't.
(Again, to avoid some pedantry, that doesn't mean people shouldn't get a Mac If you will be happier on a Mac, the price premium you pay on a model like this will almost certainly pay itself over the years.)

I was gonna list my PC specs and their costs and then realized what a waste of time that is. Just for one example my case cost $400+, not $250. It's a big giant black hunk of brushed aluminum. It's bad-ass.



Meh, if you'd finished your price list, and assuming you went about "$400 case level" on all your components, I think what you would have demonstrated is how much more PC you can get for $2500 (just as I demonstrated how you can get that same hardware for much cheaper).

And I wasn't lol'ing at you for being a Mac fanboy or something. I was laughing at the idea that there's general price parity between Macs and PCs. There just isn't.

(Again, to avoid some pedantry, that doesn't mean people shouldn't get a Mac If you will be happier on a Mac, the price premium you pay on a model like this will almost certainly pay itself over the years.)

Lol @ me? I'm a PC user, but not a fanboy either way. I have never used Apple because (in the past few years) I find their marketing obnoxious and I like to tinker with my PC. I do have an iPad and an iPhone.

I was gonna list my PC specs and their costs and then realized what a waste of time that is. Just for one example my case cost $400+, not $250. It's a big giant black hunk of brushed aluminum. It's bad-ass. Never have I looked at an Apple product and thought "bad-ass."


>> ^jmzero:

Or you could buy good PCs and see the price is pretty much the same.

Lol @budzos. Mac people have always said this, and it has always been funny. They used to have some magic wiggle room because so many parts were different (different processor, especially) - but that's mostly gone now. OK, so here you can get a quad core Mac Pro for $2499. Let's see what those parts it lists are worth:
Processor: $316 (here's the specific model)
Graphics Card: $109 (here's actually a slightly better model)
6GB of RAM: $100 (good RAM for that premium)
1TB hard disk: $100 (decent hard disk for that)
Motherboard: $250 (let's get a nice one)
Case: $250 (let's get a nice one)
Optical drive: $100
So far we're at $1225. Maybe they've got some Apple magic (whoo! Superdrive!) to make up a couple hundred more dollars - but it's going to take a lot to spend another $1275 (ie. more than double). If you prefer a Mac, go ahead and get one - but pretending they're the same price is silly.
To be clear, I don't hate Apple and some of their products are reasonably priced now. A Macbook Air, for example, has been a good deal for a while and is still much nicer than its competitors. But their hardware has historically been way more expensive, and lots of it still has a significant premium attached.

You make some interesting points probie! Half-life is my top game of all time too and I'm a bigtime Valve fanboy of course.

I basically agree with everything you said, the games have become more broad, L4D2 and Portal 2, while both excellent, were a little underwhelming... but I guess comparing them to the greatest game of all time is bound to lead to disappointment too...

For the most part though, I think that Valve's overall approach; releasing software for free, bridging the gap between developers and gamers with Steam, and their system of game development in general, is a great approach and it's one that's given me a lot of joy and fulfilment as a consumer.

I'm using their Source Filmmaker software right now to create a short film and all along the way Valve employee's been answering questions on forums, blogging about their favorite videos so far, releasing new content every week etc...

Sure they're just a company and ultimately they want our money but when I look at Valve compared to most other developers/publishers, it's like night and day. Valve releases DLC all the time, for free. Every time I play TF2 (which is now free too) there's always new maps and new weapons. L4D1 and 2 both got new campaigns, in fact another one JUST came out for L4D2, for free! Compare that with almost every other game company and they're charging you for DLC before the game is even out. Or they split their game into 3 separate games! *cough* Blizzard *cough*

I just think there's something they 'get' about where gaming and software is going in general and I for one hope they continue on this ride!

Yes I know I'm a huge fanboy...

>> ^probie:

Still my #1 game of all time. I've always been a fan of the Twilight Zone, Amazing Stories, Weird Tales, etc., so the idea of an every man unleashing who-knows-what-upon-the-world was really appealing. Not to mention the variety of guns, the variety and originality of the monsters, the way each section felt like a real place. [spoiler]You race to the surface dependent on being rescued only to be driven back down underground, realizing as you wander through areas of the facility that no one normally goes that you're now entirely self-reliant. Top that off with other little psychological tricks they used: passage of time (when you first run into the military it's sunny, the next time you hit the surface it's night time), mortality (getting caught and thrown to your doom in the trash compactor, knowing you're about to become a footnote, only to escape again). I still get tingles when I remember dropping down off the roof into that pit of water, hoisting myself up into the pipe and starting to scurry down it when, at the other end, I see a soldier pop open the door and throw in a satchel charge. (Read: OH SHIT!!! backpedal backpedal ) Hell, I'm pretty sure I even held my breath in real life when I dropped back into the water; that's how engrossing the experience was. [/spoiler]

Unfortunately, I think Valve took the idea of spit and polish to absurd levels in every game they've made since, with it culminating in Portal 2. I'm not talking about the story; that was great. I'm talking about the "Here, let us spoon feed you each level by pointing out that this is the only wall that you can put a portal on, oh good, you did it, see? Aren't you having fun?"-type gameplay. The only way they could have been more direct is by putting a giant, flashing sign that says "DO THIS NEXT". [spoiler]To be fair, I felt a small tinge of it again in Half-Life 2, when you reach the bridge and have to make your way across the under-belly of it. I think this was do to the fact that there was nothing there (ie. a convenient arrow sign) to indicate that's what you needed to do. I remember looking around, seeing the path leading down behind the house, following it with my eye to the bridge and thinking "Are you serious??" Sure enough, 2 minutes later I'm grasping on the rusted metal and cursing under my breath at the developers. [/spoiler]
Regardless, something has gotten lost in the translation since Half-Life. Gone is the wonder and sense of freedom I felt; now I feel that I'm only playing the game the way they require me to, and not on my own. They may have been directing me where to go in Half-Life, but they did it with such slyness that it never felt forced, or blatant.
Sadly, I think their cabal process has become a double-edged sword, allowing them to create some of the most memorable video games, but tailoring it to the lowest common denominator. (A great read if you have a minute or two.)
And on that note, I'm off to hunt down some really, really good weed that will make me forget about everything I liked about Half-Life 1. Just so I can replay it again.

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

lol @ fanboy. pump the brakes a little, pal! the performance is good, but the "soul" plays as a bit manufactured. as a cover there is nothing special here - just someone playing a song i've heard many times. i think the word "amazing" is overhyping it, and turning into chris crocker about it would definitely be overkill.
it's good. it's not amazing.


I'm going to go ahead and agree. It just goes to show how far reasonable production quality can go towards making mediocre performers appear "amazing."

lol @ fanboy. pump the brakes a little, pal! the performance is good, but the "soul" plays as a bit manufactured. as a cover there is nothing special here - just someone playing a song i've heard many times. i think the word "amazing" is overhyping it, and turning into chris crocker about it would definitely be overkill.

it's good. it's not amazing.

No you wrong. Bush spent like a Democrat. Obama made the mess bigger. >> ^harpom:

>> ^bobknight33:
There is more important issues at stake this election than same sex marriage. I'm not a fanboy of Mitt but Obama has done such a lousy job that he has to go.
Obama Was the great HOPE and CHANGE president and he as done nothing for gays, illegal alien and Club Gitmo, the economy, jobs and anything else you can think. He promised the sky and delivered nothing.

Don't forget, he followed the first retarded President of the US. He had one hell of a mess to clean up.

>> ^bobknight33:

There is more important issues at stake this election than same sex marriage. I'm not a fanboy of Mitt but Obama has done such a lousy job that he has to go.
Obama Was the great HOPE and CHANGE president and he as done nothing for gays, illegal alien and Club Gitmo, the economy, jobs and anything else you can think. He promised the sky and delivered nothing.


Don't forget, he followed the first retarded President of the US. He had one hell of a mess to clean up.

There is more important issues at stake this election than same sex marriage. I'm not a fanboy of Mitt but Obama has done such a lousy job that he has to go.

Obama Was the great HOPE and CHANGE president and he as done nothing for gays, illegal alien and Club Gitmo, the economy, jobs and anything else you can think. He promised the sky and delivered nothing.

Blizzard has this marketing/astroturfing thing nailed. They've moved insane numbers of some of the shittiest games ever made while some of the best games of all time do fractions of the business, all because of a large base of clueless rabid fanboys.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

http://blog.videosift.com/dag/Apple-Fanboy-Since-1983
>> ^direpickle:

>> ^dag:
Are you implying that Apple would copy the UI from another software vendor? That's unpossible.>> ^direpickle:
>> ^dag:
Fruity Loops http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FL_Studio
Looks a lot like Logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_Studio

And Fruity Loops is ten years older than Logic.


Haha, sorry. I kinda thought you were trying to imply the opposite, for a moment.

>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry
Please keep in mind when you answer me that I’m not asking you for the details because it’s an interesting story and I want to know all of the lore like a Star Wars fanboy. I’m asking because -- unlike the majority of people you probably speak with -- I’m giving your faith every benefit of the doubt I reasonably can as a rational person. For me to accept the story, it must hold together. For it to hold, all apparent problems must be resolved without relying on tautology.
My main thrust in this particular comment thread is dealing with the issue that for everything that appears impossible or utterly fantastic to me, when I raise it, you explain it, but with something else equally fantastic (Asserting that God has to punish us for our sins is just as fantastical as asserting that God doesn’t want to punish us), so I’m not left understanding things any better. So, I challenge that new thing, and on it goes until you run out of scripture.
Then, although my questions are as valid as before, you have no real answers. At these times you give quasi-answers: you phrase your answers in the passive voice (“…what was required…”); you answer with a leading question that asserts a comparison without your having to say they're equal (“Wouldn’t you…?”), with a rhetorical question (“Could it be that…?”), or a poor analogy rather than a declarative (The King’s law about adultery, or comparing rapists going to prison with lapsed church-goers (one example of a mortal sin) being sent to Hell); or you criticize how I’m thinking (“…instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it.”; and, “use some common sense”). So my question doesn't get answered.
So, as you're talking to a group of mostly logical, scientific-minded sceptics here, why not frame your answers so they make sense to your audience? Ask yourself the next logical sceptical question that springs from the answer you just gave until you arrive at something that really makes sense.


I gave you quite a bit to work with in my replies. The reason I suggested reading the works of theologians is because they discuss the very things you are inquiring about "Why did God do X?", and that very in depth. These are issues which are not entirely concrete because God does not always tell us why He does "X". Some things can be inferred, some things can be logically deduced, and some things are yet a mystery.

@shinyblurry

Please keep in mind when you answer me that I’m not asking you for the details because it’s an interesting story and I want to know all of the lore like a Star Wars fanboy. I’m asking because -- unlike the majority of people you probably speak with -- I’m giving your faith every benefit of the doubt I reasonably can as a rational person. For me to accept the story, it must hold together. For it to hold, all apparent problems must be resolved without relying on tautology.

My main thrust in this particular comment thread is dealing with the issue that for everything that appears impossible or utterly fantastic to me, when I raise it, you explain it, but with something else equally fantastic (Asserting that God has to punish us for our sins is just as fantastical as asserting that God doesn’t want to punish us), so I’m not left understanding things any better. So, I challenge that new thing, and on it goes until you run out of scripture.

Then, although my questions are as valid as before, you have no real answers. At these times you give quasi-answers: you phrase your answers in the passive voice (“…what was required…”); you answer with a leading question that asserts a comparison without your having to say they're equal (“Wouldn’t you…?”), with a rhetorical question (“Could it be that…?”), or a poor analogy rather than a declarative (The King’s law about adultery, or comparing rapists going to prison with lapsed church-goers (one example of a mortal sin) being sent to Hell); or you criticize how I’m thinking (“…instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it.”; and, “use some common sense”). So my question doesn't get answered.

So, as you're talking to a group of mostly logical, scientific-minded sceptics here, why not frame your answers so they make sense to your audience? Ask yourself the next logical sceptical question that springs from the answer you just gave until you arrive at something that really makes sense.