I’m 50 so I’m old enough to remember older systems just fine. But I said new systems sound as good or better for less after you figure in inflation plus have a lot of better features.

A)I was not referring to the bottom line or profits. I was referring to the fact that the resources are just as finite as electricity, but meter tampering is still considered theft. There are only so many people that they can serve without paying, before the costs become too much to handle and they are forced to…

And now you ad ad hom to your repetroir of logical fallacies. What a surprise!

““Opinions” of a judge, written as an official legal ruling, are actually legally important in this world”

Of course, that doesn’t make them valid - as slavery being legal demonstrates. In other words, even when it comes to “important” legal…

“I’m saying that, as a consumer, I am perfectly allowed to complain and not buy games”

Except that’s NOT what you are doing. You are using the complaint to justify theft - of taking the effort of others in contradiction to their consent. It’s like saying you’re allowed to complain if a woman doesn’t want to have sex…

Then don't buy the game if you don't think it's worth it. Don't steal it.

Poor people should be allowed to enjoy games, music, and movies as well, as anyone else. No one should be denied something because they can’t afford it.

“if you want an independent games press that covers stories we think are interesting and/or important — even if developers and publishers don’t want those stories getting out — welcome to Kotaku!”

“How do you go from wandering into an office building and enjoying a free lunch to rape and murder?”

Thank you for demonstrating you don’t understand the meaning of the term “principle”. The principle you advocate is ‘the ends justify the means’. It doesn’t matter HOW you get a story. All that matters is THAT you get…

“Good shit, Jason. I come here to learn everything I can” because it doesn’t matter HOW one learns something. Trespass, theft, rape, murder? Irrelevant. The ends JUSTIFY the means.

Always amazing to see people make such nonchalant appeals to blatant immorality. (But then again, it shouldn’t be - this is, after all,…

“Two thumbs up!” to the principle ‘the ends justify the means’! It doesn’t matter HOW one gets a story. Trespass, theft, rape, murder? Who cares?! Demanding not JUST “paid advertising” means justifying any and all means of getting a story.

Journalistic ethics?! What are those? Morality? Doesn’t matter. All that matters…

PREACH IT! The ends justify the means! Journalistic ethics? What are those? It doesn’t matter HOW one gets the story - trespass, theft, rape, murder - who cares?! Hell, a juicy murder would get them some great free publicity!

Jason has no problem with HOW you get your information. Theft? So long as its for “stories we think are interesting and/or important” the MEANS don’t matter. ONLY the ends matter. The ends JUSTIFY the means.

By Jason’s principle, it wouldn’t matter if a person was MURDERED to get the information. “stories we think are…

“Really...morally wrong? Come on.”

Its morally right for anybody to enter your house through a window you didn’t happen to lock, talk to your kids, play with your dog, watch your tv, while sneaking food out of your refrigerator for a meal. Hey, he exposed a security weakness and shared all the porn under your bed and…

They aren’t reporting the crime angle, they are using the fruit from the crime. Is there any mention in there that what he did was illegal?

So the dev’s don’t want this getting out and you decided is was a good idea to post it on Kotaku? Seems like the guy who snuck in and stole food isn’t the only douche bag around. Whatever it takes to get a story I guess.

Who cares?! Kotaku has clicks to obtain!

Seriously, if this guy is a jerk, so is Schreier.

Well, $800 in 1979 would equal $2,575 in 2015 dollars and you said to get audio quality equal to the CR 2020 would cost you $2k to $3k today. And undoubtedly the receiver costing that much would have a boatload of features that didn't even exist in 1979.

I did read the article...and I just re-read it after seeing your comment to see if I had read it incorrectly. They didn't test the SX 1980 against anything "very high end". They tested it against one of the better mid-level (mainstream) home theater receivers and a run-of-the-mill mid-level HT receiver.

But that's not what they said the testing showed. They said that the 30 year old equipment tested out and was able to "go toe to toe" with the new stuff. Which means it was comparable. If the old equipment was beating the new in sound quality, then yeah, I'd be bitching, but if it's about the same, I'll take the new…

The conclusions here seem misguided. The tone of the article implies that sound quality is suffering due to tech advancement...but it sounds more like sound quality has remained about the same, but we are now getting a lot more bang for the buck. This is particularly true when you consider that $300 in 1981 (30 years…