Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
XBox (Games)

First 1080p Xbox 360 Games Announced 145

Posted by Zonk from the really-quite-shiny dept.
rwven writes "In the October firmware update to the Xbox 360, Microsoft added the capability for their new console to reach the coveted 1080 resolution. EA and Sega have both announced new titles that will reach that resolution, the first for the system. They're not the most visually intense games (NBA Street Homecourt, and Virtua Tennis 3), but this is another symptom of the tight race between all three consoles. Does this change the playing field at all between Sony and Microsoft?" Moreover, does the resolution of a title matter all that much to you yet? Do you have an HDTV that can even reach 1080p? If you do, does reaching 1080p make you more likely to buy a game?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First 1080p Xbox 360 Games Announced More

First 1080p Xbox 360 Games Announced

Comments Filter:
  • With a really high-res video game, especially a game like basketball, I think you'd notice the lack of realism after a certain point. For example, you'd see clearly that the edges are being rendered by a computer, versus if they're a bit fuzzy, and that fuzzy effect is used to its advantage, then it might look a bit more like a regular tv broadcast of a basketball game.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Wordplay ( 54438 )
      Between anti-aliasing and judicious use of lighting effects, this really isn't that much of an issue. It's more of one at lower resolutions. Low-res fixed-pixel displays don't make the picture fuzzy, they make it blocky and more obviously pixelated. It's true that SDTV CRT televisions tended to hide jaggies and pixelation, but that was because of the tech (electron guns and phosphors aren't completely precise), not because of the resolution.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sqlrob ( 173498 )
        Actually, it is an issue.

        As graphics get better, your brain gets less forgiving and it looks wrong. Worse graphics (too a point) will look better than more realistic graphics.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Wordplay ( 54438 )
          That's plainly not true by any definition of "more realistic," since "more realistic" implies that it looks like the real thing. We're just now getting to the more realistic graphics. Think Sin City and Sky Captain, not Doom and Prey. Obviously, we're a ways off from competing with the render farms, but the techniques are filtering down as consumer graphics hardware gets more able . Compare Fight Night 3 for X360 or PS3 to Fight Night for PS2--there's a huge jump in realism that's not explained by the r

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by sqlrob ( 173498 )
            More realistic as I meant it was more realistic by mathematic comparisons to a real object. Mathematically, it's been getting closer. But, the pattern detectors in the brain are magnifying the differences from expected. We're designed to detect differences from normal, it's a survival trait.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Assmasher ( 456699 )
      Prior to the introduction of shaders this was a very likely scenario; however, there are approaches to pixel shading which result in polygonal edges which mitigate this (potentially very well). It is also important to remember that on most models, only certain areas (i.e. on humans look at elbows/forearms, shoulder joints depending upon the animation) where edge issues are actually prominent or provide the ability to become prominent. A greater angle of incidence (which is usually the current solution, an

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday February 09, 2007 @09:25AM (#17947466)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by tomstdenis ( 446163 )
      You could try playing sports in RL, the graphics are much higher resolution.

      Tom
      • Yeah, it's only been -4 degrees out lately let me round up some folks for a pickup game. Plus with work and a family I'm sure they'll be good to start at 10pm and be willing to stop every time the baby cries. Thanks for that fantastic suggestion!

        • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

          by tomstdenis ( 446163 )
          No problem! I do what I can to help!

          Cuz I'm sure the vast majority of people who play video games are incapable of scheduling an hour long game into their week somewhere. I'm so definitely sure that every waking moment is already occupied with things of the utmost priority.

          Right.

          Tom

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by AcidLacedPenguiN ( 835552 )
        What is this RL you speak of, and please give me its web address so I can subscribe to the RSS.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by @madeus ( 24818 )
        You could try playing sports in RL, the graphics are much higher resolution.

        Higher resolution yes, but not usually better looking!
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by tomstdenis ( 446163 )
          Don't see how. My comment applies to all those who crave uber detail in activities they could likely do themselves.

          OMG this dish washing game is 1080p @ 60fps!!! awesomes!!!

          I'm all for video games (though I don't really play them often) but for me the attraction is the fantasy. When I play Halo 2 [for instance] I don't want to be reminded that running full speed for 13 kilometers would actually be hard. I just want to blow up my friends with the rocket launcher.

          A lot of the incidentals like super high de

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Cauchy ( 61097 )
        You could try playing sports in RL, the graphics are much higher resolution. Unfortunately, playing RL sports frag grenades and carbines tends to get one arrested, and getting raped in prison is just a bit too graphic for me.
    • And a shitty game with great graphics... is still a shitty game. But sometimes it starts to look like a shitty movie.
    • Did anyone else just hear Madden's voice in their head at OP statement: "Seriously though, while a fun game is a fun game, a fun game with great graphics is even better"

      Think i've watched too many Madden impersonations by Frank Caliendo..

  • upconversion/upscaling... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    My HDTV does 1080p...but I've noticed that when I "stretch" the image from a videogame...upconversion smooths everything out, and makes it look 1080p...I expect that unless they sink time/money into coming up with dazzling textures, most folks will be disappointed.
  • I have a Dell 24" monitor and the 1080p titles mean that the PC equivalents will look quite nice. Marvel Ultimate Alliance looks and plays great on a PC with an XBox 360 wired controller. It is a cheap way to get a console beat um up experience for less than $100 if you have a good PC. The title is touted as 1080p and the visuals on the PC certain look great.
  • Uh, no. My TV only goes to 720p and the Wii only supports 480p (I do have the optional component cables).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ant P. ( 974313 )
      I've always wondered... is there actually a visible difference between 480p and plain S-Video/RGB input?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ivan256 ( 17499 )
        Yes. There is significantly less dot crawl.

        • Re:1080p Game for My Wii? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Dogtanian ( 588974 ) on Friday February 09, 2007 @11:02AM (#17948974) Homepage
          antp: I've always wondered... is there actually a visible difference between 480p and plain S-Video/RGB input?

          ivan256: Yes. There is significantly less dot crawl.

          Although they are different formats, neither RGB, nor S-Video should exhibit dot crawl.

          Dot crawl happens when separate colour and luminance signals are multiplexed (with colour modulated onto a high-frequency subcarrier). The sudden colour transition is (in effect) a high frequency signal which exceeds the safe bandwidth of the colour subcarrier and causes it to spill into the luminance signal, creating bogus detail.

          RGB shouldn't exhibit dot-crawl at all, because it carries separate R, G and B signals on separate wires. At any rate, I've never, ever seen dot crawl with an RGB connection (via SCART).

          Although S-Video *is* different, however, it still carries colour and luminance on separate wires, so it shouldn't show dot-crawl either(!); the Wikipedia article confirms this [wikipedia.org].

          Perhaps you meant composite video?
          • Additional: On reflection, I think what you had in mind is the flickering of fine lines caused by interlacing; this is a separate phenomenon to dot crawl.

          • Although S-Video *is* different, however, it still carries colour and luminance on separate wires, so it shouldn't show dot-crawl either(!)

            S-video doesn't have dot crawl in the same sense that composite does (where the Pr/Pb carrier bleeds onto the luma carrier), but the Pr and Pb components are still multiplexed onto one signal, and cheap decoders may produce effects similar to dot crawl but more subtle. Cheap interconnects might also cause some crosstalk between Y and Pr/Pb. In addition, S-video is still interlaced, and detailed textures scrolling up and down at some rates cause scanline crawl.

            • Okay, fair point; I don't use S-Video, so I can't comment on its performance (here in Europe, RGB via SCART is very common), or how similar the effect you describe is to dot crawl (Wikipedia does state that "The infamous dot crawl is eliminated"). Sometime after I'd posted the original message, I was idly wondering how they derived three colour signals from two wires without multiplexing, and should have realised that what you describe was a possibility.

              From what I understand of the WP article, the colour
      • Yes, there is.

        I was able to see a big difference in the Xbox (original) dashboard, when switching from 480i (default) to 480p. It looked a lot smoother and detailed.

        Technically, it should have 2x the resolution, since with 480i it's only rendering every other line (240 lines total) each frame, and with 480p it's rendering all 480 lines each frame.
    • Uh, no. My TV only goes to 720p and the Wii only supports 480p (I do have the optional component cables).

      Why would you want high res graphics on your Wii anyway?

      I thought that crappy looking games were more fun? That's what all the fanboys say and I can't think of any reason why they would lie about it.

      If you turn down the colour control on your TV so that everything's monochrome, do the games get better? I assume they do.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by abigor ( 540274 )
        Best of all is just to turn off the TV altogether. Then it's just pure gameplay! That's what the Wii is all about.

      • If you turn down the colour control on your TV so that everything's monochrome, do the games get better? I assume they do.


        Of COURSE it does! See that COLOR/B&W switch on my Atari 2600?
  • Honesly, on the current generation of consoles the focus on 1080p is excessive ...

    From my (very limited) understanding, only in the past 2 years have 1080p TVs come on the market and the vast majority of new HDTVs are still 720p/1080i TVs; seriously, how does targeting the 1% of the population who owns 1080p TVs benefit anyone else?
    • how does targeting the 1% of the population who owns 1080p TVs benefit anyone else?

      It doesn't, obviously the point is that it benefits that 1%, duh. As long as you're asking questions like this, why don't you ask how targeting the 1% of people who can afford a Mercedes with a Mercedes benefits those who can't? Or how targeting the 1% of people who own an hd-dvd/blu-ray player with hd-dvd/blu-ray movies benefits those who don't?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by bman08 ( 239376 )
        You're leaving out the critical 2-5% of the population with friends/roomates capable of 1080p. Not to mention the 20-30% who watch those screens with slack-jawed delight at the Best Buy. Supply side resolution. With all the recent talk of 120hz, I've become convinced that there's no such thing as hi-def, only higher than what you have.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by DJCacophony ( 832334 )
          Right, the point is that the parent is asking an incredibly stupid question, which is:
          "How does a product made for X benefit people who don't have X?"
           And the answer is obviously that it doesn't, it benefits people who DO have X.
      • As long as you're asking questions like this, why don't you ask how targeting the 1% of people who can afford a Mercedes with a Mercedes benefits those who can't?

        In the automobile market, if only 1% of consumers can afford a luxury car, then only 1% of the cars produced will be luxury models.

        The situation we have right now in the console game industry is something like 5% of gamers are currently 1080p-capable, but 40% of the games being published targeting that tiny segment of the market (all numbers courte
        • Those 40% of games work on 1080 and everything below that, too. It would be pretty stupid to make different releases of the same game for different resolutions.

          • Those 40% of games work on 1080 and everything below that, too.

            But do Xbox 360 games look significantly better on an Xbox 360 in 480i than Xbox games look on an Xbox in 480i? And what about Dead Rising, whose text is so small that it is just barely readable in 480i?

            It would be pretty stupid to make different releases of the same game for different resolutions.

            Unless (say in a first-person shooter) having 1080 lines gives the player an unfair advantage in sniping accuracy.

    • You're missing the point.
      These consoles are intended and expected to have life spans of 5 to 10 years. The push for 1080p is based on the idea that in a couple years, a much higher percentage of households will have HDTVs that support 1080p.
    • 1080p won't benefit too many people right now. But, by 2009, it'll probably benefit a lot more people - why not make a product that people can enjoy now, and enjoy more later?

      Personally I don't see the logic in buying anything less than a 1080p TV. I have a 1080p Westinghouse 42", while my parents have a 1080i Sony Bravia, and a 720p Samsung something-or-other. Gears Of War upscaled to 1080p still looks better (to me) than at 720p, and HD-DVD is dreamy at 1080p.
      • By 2009 'more' people will obviously own 1080p TVs but most people will still own 1080i/720p TVs or worse ...

        Also in 2009/2010 we will be hearing about the PS4, XBox 720 and (probably) the Wii 2 which will be released in 2010/2011.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ProppaT ( 557551 )
        "why not make a product that people can enjoy now, and enjoy more later?"

        Because I'd rather pay $300 for a product that can do what I have the ability to display now and then $300 for an even better system than today's $600 system 4-5 years from now when I actually have the ability to use said technology. I think 1080p out of the Xbox 360 is going to negatively affect games with complex graphics, because developers will have to cut back in poly count, effects, etc. that would run just fine in 720p just to
    • It clearly benefits anyone who will buy (or sell) 1080p TVs over the next 5 years.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by British ( 51765 )
      Honesly, on the current generation of consoles the focus on 1080p is excessive ...

      That's like saying anything past 320x200x256(MCGA) for a PC game 5/7 years ago is excessive. I honestly don't see anything wrong with moving up in resolution for console gaming.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cnettel ( 836611 )
        Do you mean 15-17? (That would be rather high, but 2D games did very fine in 1024x768 5-7 years ago, and there was certainly enough detail to do 800x600 in 16 or 32 bits in any 3D game and really lose stuff you went even lower.)
  • I don't think that there is really much of a reason not to push 1080p if it can run smoothly at that resolution- but I don't think it's a huge deal yet either. While a lot of the larger sets are starting to run at 1080p, I haven't personally seen anything less than 36" that runs 1080p. While I'm certain that there are gamers who are playing games on these larger sets, I think that there are still a lot of people, like me, who are playing on mid-sized screens that don't to 1080p yet. (as a side note, anyon

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dlZ ( 798734 )
      I have a Westinghouse in my bedroom that does 1080p, but it's still a bit larger than you're looking for at 32". I wasn't too sure because of the brand, but the picture on that TV is amazing. My main TV is a Sony 54" HDTV, but that only does up to 1080i (and I bought it before DLP was standard.) But it's also the TV with the game systems hooked up to it, and it doesn't look too bad at all.

    • I don't think that there is really much of a reason not to push 1080p

      I can think of several... namely that higher resolution doesn't necessarily net you a better looking image. In terms of movies and pre-recorded video, sure, but in terms of games it can actually make the picture look WORSE. Why? because it takes about 150-200% the pixel pushing power to reproduce an equivalent image in 1080p instead of 720p. To get that extra power it needs to come from somewhere which means that other areas must take a hi

    • I haven't personally seen anything less than 36" that runs 1080p. While I'm certain that there are gamers who are playing games on these larger sets, I think that there are still a lot of people, like me, who are playing on mid-sized screens that don't to 1080p yet.

      While it's true there are not that many smaller sets, a lot of people are hooking consoles up to these larger TV's - especially if they want to use them for the Blu-Ray or HD-DVD abilities. And sets are getting http://www.pricegrabber.com/search [slashdot.org]

  • 1080p will end up in obscurity. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hal2814 ( 725639 ) on Friday February 09, 2007 @09:50AM (#17947798)
    HD is finally starting to pick up some popularity largely in part to the cost of mid-sized HDTVs plummeting. There are decent 720p LCD monitors out there for $500 online now. It won't be too long before that price is reflected in places like Wal-Mart, Costco, etc. That will only further fuel people's desire to jump to HD, not because of the quality as much as the price. It no longer makes much sense to buy an standard def TV when the HD isn't that much more. An LCD or plasma set is starting to become necessary to keep up with the Jonses. NONE of the decently priced LCD, Plasma, whatever support 1080p right now and right now is the beginning of any semblance of mass adoption. By the time 1080p sets catch up in price, most folks will have their HDTVs and those HDTVs will mostly be 720p/1080i sets. If you thought it was hard to get the Average Joe to upgrade his SDTV for 720p, just try to convince them to upgrade their 720p/1080i for a 1080p.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hal2814 ( 725639 )
      "There are decent 720p LCD monitors out there for $500 online now."

      Hate to reply to myself, but I meant to say, "There are decent 32" 720p LCD monitors out there for $500 online now"
    • "Obscurity" is a bit strong, but your point is well taken. I paid $5000 for my 50" plasma TV less than two years ago, and now I've seen them online for as low as $1500. If someone had told me that essentially the same TV would drop in price by two-thirds within that time frame, I'd have thought them nuts. With that kind of dramatic price drop, 1080p units will likely become the defacto standard within a reasonable time frame. Right now though, you're right, it ain't worth the "upgrade"
    • NONE of the decently priced LCD, Plasma, whatever support 1080p right now

      Well, except for all of these [pricegrabber.com]. For a lot of people $1200 is not that much to spend on a large TV set because it's the center of most peoples entertainment time.

      "True" HD sets are coming down in price rapidly because now there is real demand for them now that there is more content, demand which is only going to ramp up this year rapidly.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hal2814 ( 725639 )
        This is from the CEA [ce.org] and it's pretty consistent with everything else I've seen on the subject: "On average, current owners paid $783 for the primary TV in their home, but plan to spend $966 on their next set." $1200 is still a lot to spend on a TV and will continue to be a lot to spend on a TV in the foreseeable future. And even if there are people a lot of people willing to spend $1200 on a new HDTV, I'd wager most of them opt for a larger 720p set over a smaller 1080p set at the price they're willing to
        • On average, current owners paid $783 for the primary TV in their home, but plan to spend $966 on their next set.

          Yes, on average - which mostly means a some people going for small cheap sets, and others going for much larger, more expensive sets. HD TV sales figures have been really good. Why do you think even that average has jumped so much? People are looking at getting large HD TV sets now.

          And even if there are people a lot of people willing to spend $1200 on a new HDTV, I'd wager most of them opt for
    • I remember when large flat panel plasmas cost $20K+, and that wasn't that long ago. Now the same sized plasmas can be had for $2K. It won't be long before 1080p TVs are below the 1K mark and well within the range of people looking to upgrade their main TVs. You're right that a lot people who have just bought or are about to buy 720p sets won't want to upgrade right away, but some will. Also, not everyone will have HD sets before the 1080p sets hit even more reasonable prices than they are now. Consoles

  • Vast majority (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GweeDo ( 127172 ) on Friday February 09, 2007 @09:52AM (#17947838) Homepage
    I think it is great that they support 1080p for the few that might be able to take advantage of it, but the issue for both the PS3 and Xbox360 in this arena is that most people just can't take advantage of it. In fact, pretty much all HDTV owners can't. The vast majority of HDTV's on the market right now are 32" and smaller. Most of these sets are 720p sets.

    • Re:Vast majority (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SuiteSisterMary ( 123932 ) <{slebrun} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday February 09, 2007 @10:58AM (#17948888) Journal

      Why does it always have to be the now now now? The original Xbox supported HDTV, all the way up to 1080i. When I got my Xbox, and plugged it into a small TV with composite cable, did it matter? No, not really.

      But, a few years later, when I got a 16:9 HDTV, I bought the HD AV unit for the Xbox, plugged it in, changed two settings in the Xbox dashboard, and damn, suddenly the vast majority of my Xbox games are playing in at least 480p, widescreen. It was that easy. And that universal.

      Over in PS2 land, some games support widescreen, some don't. Some support progressive, some don't. If they do, you have to tell each and every game if it should be widescreen or not. Some, you have to use a GD *cheat code* to flip it over correctly.

      So yeah. If you program your Xbox360 game correctly, then people who upgrade their televisions over the next five years are in for a treat.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ark42 ( 522144 )

      I dunno, I bought a 46" 1080p set *just because* I bought a Wii. Sure it only supports 480p and widescreen, but it is a ton better looking than on my old 27" CRT. So maybe if I buy an Xbox someday, I can take advantage of it. They might as well start supporting as high of a resolution as the systems will allow.

  • Minority of One (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Syncerus ( 213609 )
    I have a 61" 1080p television, and yes, I will look more closely at games and consoles that have the ability to use 1080p technology.
    • Me too, but only at 37". I'm probably not interested in those games though... Can hope that Mass Effect or Halo 3 support it. Actually now my games (on the xbox 360) do play at that resolution, so they must be up-scaled somehow.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Mondoz ( 672060 )
      I just got a Sony 70" LCoS TV, and have been a bit disappointed in the availability of consoles that display resolutions better than 480P...
      I thought the Wii would have a better resolution than the Gamecube... But alas, it does not.
      I thought the PS2 would be able to do better than 480i, but I have yet to find a setting for this. (Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong about this.)
      I don't have a 360, but I am not really interested in it.
      It appears that I must buy a PS3 just to get a decent picture...
      That'
    • I have a 61" 1080p television, and yes, I will look more closely at games and consoles that have the ability to use 1080p technology.

      "I bought a box of nails, and yes, I will look more closely at tools if they are hammers."

  • I've been told that it takes a larger HDTV (We're talking 50+ inches) to even see a noticeable difference between 720p and 1080p at normal viewing distances.
    • You're on the money from what I can find out. You might find this [carltonbale.com] interesting. It saved me from making the mistake of going for a 1080p set when I looked at the size of TV I could fit in my entertainment cabinet (46" or less) and my viewing distance (12 ft).
  • Do you have an HDTV that can even reach 1080p? If you do does reaching 1080p make you more like to buy a game?

    That's not the question for today. We already know most people don't have true 1080p x 1020 televisions. There haven't been that many of them sold. But over the life of the console itself it will matter. What will you own a year from now? Two years? A whole lot more people may have them by then, and like games that take full advantage.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Palshife ( 60519 )
      We already know most people don't have true 1080p x 1020 televisions.

      Did you mean 1920x1080? That's the true resolution of 1080p.
  • Do you have an HDTV that can even reach 1080p?

    My HDTV can do 1080i, but not 1080p. It also can't do 720p, which is one of the reasons that I have not purchased an XBOX 360.

    It's an RCA 32" CRT 4:3 HDTV which does not letterbox 1080i content either. I doubt I'm even getting full resolution from my anamorphic DVDs. I'm waiting for the prices in the 42-50" range to drop a bit more.

    • The 360 can output at 1080i (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Just FYI, you can set the XBox 360 to output 720p games at 1080i, so this shouldn't be an issue for you should you be interested in picking one up.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by |Cozmo| ( 20603 )
      Indeed as the AC mentioned, the xbox 360 will scale the output of everything to whatever resolutions your TV can handle. In the settings you can say yes or no to each resolution. Most old CRT HDTVs couldn't take 720p, and they kept that in mind during the design.

      AFAIK this is better than the way the PS3 does it, which I believe is to fall back to the next lower supported resolution.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )
        Would that be true also with using the VGA output adapter? It only lists 720p as an output, not 1080i. The HDTV is old enough to have VGA inputs and I'm running out of ports on my component video switch. (I'm already out of optical outputs.)
  • I purchased a 1080p LCD because I wanted to use it as a computer monitor as well as a TV and Xbox 360 display. 1920x1080 is just big enough to be usable as a desktop, and I can now program and web surf from my couch.

    The 360 looks gorgeous on it, as well.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ADRA ( 37398 )
      I'd be truly amazed if you could tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p (while watching a movie, and not pausing).

      The difference the two formats is incredibly small while watching the movie that its truly turning the term 'Videophile' (People who assume their overpriced equipment makes them important) into a reality.

      All that said, you will notice a gigantic difference with your PC experience. I've got a 50" Sony with an incredibly nice video renderer and I can say even though it supports 1080i, I still
  • Moreover, does the resolution of a title matter all that much to you yet? Do you have an HDTV that can even reach 1080p? If you do, does reaching 1080p make you more likely to buy a game?

    I don't have an HDTV, nor do I have any intention of getting one any time soon. But I think those that do have one will be more likely to buy 1080p games since a) 480 games look like balls on the TVs, at least on my brother's, and b) they will want to justify that purchase as much as possible.

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close