There's an abundance of utterly hideous equipment on the market, ranging from mobile phones to desktop computers to anything designed by a collection of stale engineers. Sometimes it's a subtle flaw, such as an upside-down logo on your laptop lid. Other times you'll come across something that's so insanely blemished, that you struggle to comprehend the fact that a living human being produced and released this device to the market - at least, not with a straight face.

With the aim of outing the design flaws which plague the consumer tech industry, I've written a few specific examples which clearly explain why some 'features' are best left to concept art.

Gloss
Perhaps the most prevalent, glossy paint jobs are used anywhere there's a need to cover cheap plastic and subpar design choices. It's as if designers look at the product, know it sucks, and think that gloss is the magical solution to the whole mess. Well, it isn't.
Glossy hardware is a magnet for body oils, including figerprints or residue from your lunch. It looks cheap when it's clean, and revolting when it's been used for five minutes. If a manufacturer is keen to go at a design with a gloss covered brush, at least make it resistant to prints. Otherwise, stick to matte.

Chrome, real and fake
Chrome is another ugly trend. Both real and fake scratch into an awful palette of circular scarring, the latter looking like a knock-off from the local two dollar shop. As with gloss, it attracts fingerprints, and breeds compulsive shirt wiping. And don't get me started on fake carbon fibre - c'mon, these things ain't cars!

Screen border
This one is a problem with portable devices, and to an extent, monitors. So many touch screen phones have an insane amount of plastic framing around the screen. With the advent of capacitive screens, your entire attention when using a modern phone is directed to the screen itself. Both control and display are all in one, so perhaps manufacturers should build the phone around the screen, not just shove it where it'll fit. An excellent example of this is the HTC Evo 4G.

An example of good screen usage

Regarding monitors, the frame gets in the way of multi-monitor setups. For example, using Eyefinity for gaming would be much more attractive if the gap between screens was minimal.

Stickers
No one cares about what fancy features are part of their device - we already know, we bought it! At least make them remove easily, leaving a sticky mess isn't going to win you any favours.

Branding
If you're a small company, and want to make a name for yourself, don't plaster it all over your product! Sure, put it on there, but be subtle about it. If you're not a household name, then you'll probably find excessively branding your products will do more damage than good. There's only so many times people will put up with "What the heck is VuvuzelaTec?" every time they take their device out in public.

Cheap build
No one wants to pick up a product and feel it buckle under their moderate grip. It might be cheaper to skimp on structural integrity, but customers hate it. Are you building a product for people, or margins? It's particularly bad when you can see the warping of the frame, thanks to reflections in the glossy exterior!

There's a lot of odd design choices when creating products. What irritates you? Put your response in the comment section below! :)

It's the age old argument. What platform is most secure, Windows, MacOS or Linux? Apple wants you to believe that their OS, MacOSX, is the best option, which is evident by their ad campaigns featuring two men depicting a 'PC' and a 'Mac' respectively. Perhaps the most relevant skit can be found here. Linux, on the other hand, is known to take security very seriously. Some would say too seriously, with constant nagging not unlike the infamous Vista UAC. Of course, it's arguable that security is a lot more important than avoiding the incessant tending to security dialogues. Then there's Windows. It has a reputation for being riddled with viruses, spyware, or just malware in general. This mentality may have started in 1986, five years after the first virus was deployed on the Apple II. Since Microsoft's software was so popular, it became the obvious target for future attacks.

Think to how operating systems are labelled in terms of common stereotypes. You've got Linux, the one that only the most hardened of 'nerds' can master, where problems can be fixed easily - if you know how the whole OS works from top to bottom - and it's locked down to nasties. MacOS, the virus free virgin OS where everything is simple and pure, and everything is creative and fun. Then there's Windows, the master of spreadsheets, and the one that's compatible with most software/hardware; but it's always chucking a sickie. Fortunately, stereotypes aren't my thing, so I find these attitudes quite amusing. Unfortunately, it only takes a few minutes of browsing an active forum or comment section of a news site to hear this nonsense spout as gospel. To the credit of online communities, most people have wised up; perhaps due to the introduction of 'rank' based comments and online reputation.

Your everyday computer user is often influenced by these lingering stereotypes. Not only have they been around for several years, but they require little explanation. To teach people the truth, or at least, put these claims into perspective, would require a fair amount of technical explanation; most of which people just don't care about. Herein lies a problem, one that boggles the minds of those competent enough to understand. Security is no longer a question of OS platform, but the product of user awareness. You see, a criminal can just as easily obtain your bank account details whether you're on a PC, Mac or multi-million dollar mainframe running a Linux distro. The platform that's going to cause you trouble isn't the OS - it's the Internet.

Viruses and spyware are old-hat. Sure, they're not extinct, but they're far from the preferred method of obtaining personal details. The Internet allows criminals to obtain your personal information the old fashioned way, by scamming you through trickery. I'm sure many of you have had friends initiate a chat session with something along the lines of "Hey, I found this funny picture of you: *insert link here*". Looks innocent enough to most people, so you click it. At this stage you're met with a site similar to the sign-in page of your awesome-newfangled-social-networking account. An experienced user would probably notice that the link is odd, or that asking for details is suspicious. The everyday user would probably think "Urghh, it always asks me to login", and would then proceed to enter their details. Naturally, this would leave the owner of the fake site with access to all your details associated with said account. This phenomenon is called 'phishing'. It's not a new occurrence, but it's definitely the hardest to combat. Whilst viruses can be tracked via software, phishing requires the user to employ common sense. Your 'secure' OS can't do a thing about it.

Whilst many phishing sites use your details to spam your friends with advertisements, others do a lot more damage. Many people share private data on sites such as Facebook, to the extent where obtaining that data can lead to identify theft. In addition, phishing attempts for your bank details is a common occurrence. For example, there's been official-looking e-mails sent out requesting updated bank details; banks will never e-mail you asking for sensitive data.

So what can users do to protect themselves? The obvious thing is to be vigilant when using the Internet. If something looks suspicious, don't use it. Common aspects to look out for are odd or misspelt URLs, inaccurate page layout, improper English, or a missing/invalid security certificate (if applicable). You can obtain software to help detect phishing sites, but these are not foolproof, so don't rely on them as your sole line of defence. Modern browsers may have inbuilt tools which will warn you if they detect a known phishing site.

The bottom line is, you can't choose an OS based on the assumption that one is infallible. In a day and age where the Internet is a larger platform than all the major OSs combined, it only makes sense for nasties to shift their focus online instead of a smaller section of the market. Each OS has their share of nasties, it's up to the user to implement the appropriate safeguards to avoid them. This includes installing software from trusted sources, avoiding illegal software, and steering clear of suspect sites. In addition, an OS can only block what you let it, so the next time you're asked "do you want to allow xyz to have access to your system", think about what's being installed, and whether you initiated it. That's not to say that each OS is equally vulnerable. Some OSs are better at dealing with malware than others. That being said, the reality is that they all have a consistent exploit - the end user.

Piracy. There are many excuses for it. Some are seemingly legit, others are blatant bullshit. The end result is the same. Piracy is driving the industry away. To put this into perspective, let's delve into some of the reasons why piracy is so popular in this day and age.

The most obvious is that free stuff is, well, free. It's not uncommon to have an innocent conversation with acquaintances regarding music collections, and how large each others are. Many people download every song they know illegitimately, then add it to their collection, regardless of their musical tastes. It's like the musical equivalent to e-peen, short of being a dedicated audiophile with myriads of $600 digital audio cables. They're very much alike - being obsessed with something that makes no sense - and on the other hand, very different, since one pays a fortune for their passion, while the other refuses to spend a cent. Despite this, music is the least of our concerns. Music isn't restricted to any particular platform, and as reckless as the music industry likes to be, the lack of DRM has kept the legit buyers happy so far.

There's also 'demo'ing' or testing a piece of software before purchasing. Sometimes there are no official demos for a piece of software, and it's unclear whether it'll be suitable. A torrent later, and it's all settled. Is that a legit cause? Maybe so. But who determines what a "demo" encompasses? And when do we finally say, "hey, I think I'll now part with my hard earned cash"?

Notwithstanding, the main reason for piracy is lack of availability at reasonable prices. Countries such as Pakistan and Brazil do not have an array of legit games at their mercy. Much of what is sold is illegitimate copies from dodgy dealers at a fraction of retail cost. Or, users decide to torrent the software to avoid paying full stop. To put this into context, Brazil has only very recently launched the Playstation 2. Yes, the console prior to the current PS3. And not cheaply either, at $461USD. This is why piracy and the grey market are so huge in these countries.

For years the PC has been the epitome of all gaming platforms for 'serious' gamers. The graphics are superior, the controls are flexible, and the choice of games is massive. Unfortunately, this may all change due to piracy.

Recently the game 'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2' was released. The game caused a huge stir before it had even been released, for one major reason.  No more dedicated servers. That's a massive drawback for a FPS in general, not to mention a full fledged realistic combat game. Expectations were high, after all, this franchise has been a crowd favourite for years. So why would they tell PC gamers to go shove it? Their reason was piracy. "Pssh!" I hear people hissing. Let's look at the figures for COD:MW:

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare: 830,000

That's a fuck load of downloads. Let's assume each copy is worth $50 retail. If my maths is correct, we're looking at a staggering $41,500,000. And that's just the PC torrent figures.

But if these people wouldn't have bought it anyway, then they didn't really lose any money, did they?
True. If you put everyone in the one basket. The fact of the matter is, some people feel that they're entitled to obtain software for free, despite their financial status. Sure, a huge chunk of that 41.5 million dollars wouldn't have made it to the publisher with or without the advent of piracy. But that's still millions of dollars of lost revenue. Now look at these figures from the viewpoint of the developer and publisher. They're businesses, just like any other in this world. Their aim is to make the most amount of money possible. They don't have to care about the consumer, provided they make a profit. It's not hard to see why Infinity Ward, the developer of COD:MW2, decided to handle the games release the way they did. Instead of catering for the PC market by tweaking the game for optimum PC use (no, not just mouse control), they made a direct bare-bones console port. Fast and cost effective.

This outraged gamers far and wide. Partitions were formed, pre-orders were cancelled, and a bad reputation was smeared across the pages of high traffic communities. No one wanted a "console port", especially at the price of $100. The game was effectively ditched completely by the online masses. The developer snubbed PC gamers, and they were snubbed back. There were even calls of people proudly proclaiming their intention to pirate the game. A recipe for disaster right? Surely the PC market is worth enough in revenue that these quality issues are a concern?

Apparently not. In fact, COD:MW2 has become the best selling game of all time. $550 million dollars was made in the first five days of release. But how can a seemingly flawed game possibly make that much money? Contrary to seemingly fallible logic, it actually makes perfect sense.

Hit them where it hurts
Infinity Ward knew their franchise was very popular. A fair amount of people were going to buy this game no matter what. This, and the fact that there was a lot of controversy about a very violent scene, was a guarantee for good revenue. But record breaking revenue? There was more to that. You see, most people have both a PC and a modern gaming console. Interestingly enough, only the PC version was getting all the bad press. So most of the consumers who opted to 'boycott' the game ended up getting the console version. Because let's be honest, who wants a game that's cut down? Conveniently, piracy on the PS3 platform is not yet feasible. And as for the Xbox 360, piracy is a sure fire way to get yourself banned from Xbox Live. Infinity Ward played their hand correctly, and pushed a fair amount of players to the comforts of two tightly controlled platforms. There's no arguing that the reason was piracy, they even said it themselves.

The end of PC gaming?
This question is on the lips of a significant amount of gamers. I mean, think about it. How many PC exclusive games have been released recently that are worth buying? Heck, how many aren't console ports? Not as many as you'd expect. The sad reality is that consoles are getting priority. Not only are they easier to develop for, but they're the main source of revenue for developers and publishers. Why port a game to PC when it costs time and money to do so, for a small piece of market share, of which many steal the games?

But does this really translate to the demise of PC gaming as we know it? If a developer such as Infinity Ward is capable of raking in record amounts of money with little appreciation for the PC platform, it's only to be expected that other companies will follow suit. Whether they do so is another story, one which I, for one, will follow with great interest.

What does this mean for legitimate PC gamers? It's hard to tell. Nonetheless, it's safe to say that it's going to result in an interesting turn of events. To who's advantage, is the concern.

Consistency is key. That's what my high school English teachers used to tell me. If you're going to produce mediocre work, at least be consistent about it. There's nothing like a wave of marks which show that you're not only incompetent, but lazy. Do well, do shit, do well, do shit. It reeks of 'I can't be fucked'. So when I heard that Australia's 'Classification Review Board', now known as the 'epitome of incompetence' released their revised stance on the yet to be released game Left4Dead 2, I couldn't help but notice the lack of consistency that this board appears to thrive on.

Ignoring the fact that Australia doesn't have an R18 classification due to pure stupidity, Australia classifies games into one of either G, PG, M15+, MA15+, and our favourite, RC (refused classification). What bothers me is that those on the classification board find it increasingly difficult to make up their mind. What makes a game M, MA15+ or RC? They quite simply couldn't tell you. Well, they could, but you'd get 3 different answers, depending on the time space continuum and the curvature of its travel.

Now, you're probably thinking, "This guy is just ranting! Surely they'd be capable of correct judgement!" I wish that were so. But it isn't, and this can be simply seen by the complete lack of consistency between classification of past (and current) decisions. To get some perspective, lets quickly take a look at the reason for Left4Dead's refusal by the CRB:

"...it was the Review Board’s opinion that there was insufficient delineation between the depiction of general zombie figures and the human figures, as opposed to the clearly fictional ‘infected’ characters. This was a major consideration of the Review Board in determining the impact of this game on minors."

Umm, they're zombies. Yes, they're based on human figures. That's what zombies are, risen-from-the-dead run-of-the-mill humans. But let's play Devil's advocate, and say that this was a fair call. The game is very bloody, and violent, and to inflict mass murder on human-like pixel structures would be a bit too much for "minors". The question is, why would a minor be playing a MA15+ game? Unless their parents allowed them to do so, which is ultimately their choice, the classification clearly states it's for those who are of the age of 15 or greater. The fact of the matter is, what's to stop a parent from giving their child alcohol? Nothing. It's bad, sure, but it's not up to the government to ban alcohol from the population, is it?

But let's assume that the CRB has a reasonable answer to that point. Technically a 17 year old is still a minor. Which, in my opinion, is silly in this context since most 10 year olds know the difference between a game and reality; including applicable ethics. But I digress. Let's take a look at another game that the CRB recently classified under MA15+, named Wolfenstein. This is CRB's official stance on the game. Keep in mind the reasons for L4D2's ban whilst you watch this in-game video of Wolfenstein:

Gore? Check!
Dismemberment? Check!
Human enemies? Check!
Melee and gun based weaponry? Check!
RC classification? Whoops!

I guess they accidentally let this one slip though. Nope! They did the same with Fallout 3, another MA15+ classified game. Take a look:

Gore? Check!
Dismemberment? Check!
Human enemies? Check!
Fictional enemies? Check!
Melee and gun based weaponry? Check!
RC classification? Again, whoops!

Finally, to add salt to the wound, there's the original L4D! Which, you guessed it, is also MA15+. Apart from the added melee weaponry, L4D2 is very similar to its predecessor. Not to mention that this is only a fraction of MA15+ games that are similar, if not more violent, than L4D2. It begs the question, if these games are allowed through, why is L4D2 any different? Inconsistency. Plain and simple.

And that's not all, our favourite senator Michael Atkinson, sole campaigner against the R18+ classification, doesn't trust the CRB either! So it would appear that both sides are in agreement that there's something very very wrong with the classification board. For the click impaired, a quote from Atkinson:

"There are many games that are ultra-violent and accessible to minors. I accept that one can't always trust the Office of Film & Literature Classification to apply the guidelines in their plain meaning - it will stretch them to get things through for the industry."

Indeed. And they do it ever so inconsistently! On another note, why refuse an R18+ rating if they're apparently letting them through anyway? Hmm...

When you look at the situation, it becomes clear that it's one giant catch 22 situation. The CRB needs an R18+ classification so it doesn't have to make excuses to allow otherwise R18+ games to be classified under MA15+, or RC. On the other hand, Mr Atkinson isn't willing to trust the CRB until they RC almost every game on the market. So, as usual, the consumer loses. Until Atkinson moves on, of course.

Until then, for the sake of adult gamers (i.e. the majority), it's clear that the CRB need to review another product - themselves. Perhaps three times, and take an average.

Journalism is a broad area of literature aimed at providing audiences with information, entertainment, and opinion. The journalists who create these pieces of writing for the masses are often closely scrutinised. That is, there will always be readers ready to pounce at the smallest of errors.

Many journalists, myself included, strive to produce work to the highest of their ability. References to trustworthy sources, clear differentiation between opinion and fact, and a passion to produce content as close to perfection as humanly possible, are traits that separate professionals from novices.

As much as one tries to create a functional written work, the introduction of subtle errors cannot always be identified before publishing. On occasion, such errors will slip by with little disruption to the flow and feedback of the piece. On the other hand, the mistake may be large, or has a close association with the audience. The result? Death by swarms of fanatic driven comments. It's like watching a tidal wave of text consume your written piece, thereby smashing it into small delectable parts - ready for 'expert' analysis.

And of course, by experts, I mean random unidentifiable inhabitants of the Internet. Equipped with Wikipedia quotes from the depths of the all-knowing information highway itself. Whether these zealots have reason to refute the article, or not, is hardly the concern. Whether they're zealots at all is also completely irrelevant. The concern lies with the original piece of writing, the author, and the publisher. Or to be more specific, their intentions.

The unfortunate reality when it comes to journalism is that not everyone cares about fact. Some journalists will intentionally mislead their readers by omitting information, taking aspects out of context, or by integrating far fetched opinions to otherwise analytical write-ups. It may look like an innocent mistake, or a lack of decent sources, and sometimes this may be the case - but the reality is, there are those who are doing it to piss you off.

Now why would a well known website, with many readers, want to intentionally aggravate people? It almost sounds counterproductive! The reason it's performed, and often, is to attract a response. I like to call this intriguing, yet unethical writing style 'journalistic trolling'.

It works much like a double edged sword. The initial error, manipulation, or whatever nasty trick the writer decides to play on, excites users who relate to the story at hand. A great example was the recent praise for Google OS, which according to some journalists, would be free of all the malicious entities which traditionally plague Windows. Apart from the fact that the OS is currently vapourware, Google themselves did not claim that the product would feature such immaculate security. To get back to the point, the readers become frenzied with a state of awe. Everyone wants to see the underdog succeed (if you can consider Google an underdog, but that's another matter altogether). And with this awe, comes the likeliness that the article will be referenced throughout the Internet.

Forums, social bookmaking services, news reels etc. all start to report the amazing 'news', which at the core is based on the very real fact that Google, to continue the example, are creating a new OS. Unfortunately, like a parasite to a host, the sneaky addition of these false claims get thrown into the mix. This is where it gets interesting.

Once the story has become moderately saturated throughout popular streams, the enthusiasts and zealots get involved. It's the nature of informed persons to combat red herrings so that they are hastily corrected, and in effect, dissected to great extent. This means going back to the original source of the false claims. Comments are thrown around, forums are informed to provoke discussion, and before you know it, the dodgy site/author which mutilated fact to create this alternate 'truth' is getting enough hits to make advertisers go gaga!

Meanwhile, legit sources get into action to dispel the false rumours. Eventually, those who actually care (i.e. the enthusiasts and zealots) read these reports to their satisfaction. But the news regarding Google OS is already old now! The ship has set sail, and there's not enough crazed hot air to propel the correction to the aforementioned social sites. Once the underlying news has died down, the scope of reachable users follows suit.

It leaves a nasty aftertaste of misinformation. One which lingers throughout the Internet, until misinformed users encounter the truth - typically in the form of forum users calling 'n00b', and eventually redirecting them to the correction. Which is where the double edged sword reference makes a return. The author/site/publisher gets their reputation tarnished by those in the know. Cry wolf too many times, and the industry will treat you like an immature child. Journalists are no exception.

In the end, it's a matter of locating trustworthy sources. Many sites will have an aura associated with them, just ask any reputable forum, and they'll point you to those which are worth their weight in silicon.

Beware of the trolls. And by all means, please don't feed them. :)

Brand loyalty is generally a no-no in the computing world. The aim is to identify and select the products that will do the job best, or rather, with utmost quality. Unfortunately, the bias nature of brand loyalty can infect the most hardened of professionals - and most don't even realise it. What am I talking about? It's the perception of quality associated with a particular brand, or perhaps a smaller element such as a feature or algorithm.

Enthusiasts can become attached to a product, whether it's because of its feature set or overall performance. The quality of output becomes a given, they become familiar with what they expect from a product. Because of this, the user will consciously link the quality of the output with the traits and features of which the product holds. These links may not reflect the truth, the quality of the output may well be a result from a particular feature, or a component which is unknown (or concealed) to the owner.

What does this mean? When the user compares his product to another, he/she will notice that some elements may be absent. Even if they have no bearing on the output, whatever this may be. They then conclude that the output/performance is inferior.

Using a music player as an example, differing people expect different results from playback. One person may prefer heavy bass over sensitivity and accuracy reproduction. On the other hand, another may be concerned with having utmost clarity without excess bass. These two consumers will infer that the other has the inferior player. Again, the perception of quality.

Continuing with the audio example, the selection of audio products becomes difficult. Being objective is often muddied by the sheer subjectivity of audio quality. The difference between a highly compressed sample of music, and one that is in high quality wave is obvious. However, when it comes to comparing two high end audio formats, the difference becomes almost impossible.

Another interesting element is placebo. People can be easily fooled by being told a product is high quality, when in fact it may be mediocre.

The easist way to avoid falling into the trap of subjectivity is to critically analyse the products being compared. Locate the components which actively contribute to the desired output. Compare them from a technical level. Read reviews, look at forums, and perhaps look at white papers. Make an informed decision, then if possible, test them yourself in an attempt to confirm your findings. Try to discard any bias you may have from an existing product you own - not all products from the same company, or all products with a particular feature, will perform similarly.

In the end it's all about what you like. A product is not necessarily worse if it performs in a different way to what you're accustomed to. But if you prefer it a paricular way, by all means, seek that quality. Be mindful that others may conclude differently. Food for thought.

The cheapest Killer NIC card on StaticICE is $220AUD, which makes it far from a cheap upgrade considering every motherboard comes with 1 to 2 inbuilt Ethernet connections. With this considered, you would expect that such a device will be accompanied by a high end system. No one in their right mind would bundle this with a low end machine. Which brings me to my next point, if this was put in a higher end machine, it's automatically made redundant! A high end CPU is more than capable of running games and network tasks concurrently without affecting performance. And if it was used with a low end CPU, you'd be better off upgrading the CPU than splashing out $220 on a card that will give you an extra 1 or 2 FPS at best. And ping? Even if it does save you half a dozen ms you won't see the difference. The physical distance between you and the game server is what determines a higher ping, not the NIC you're using.

There's also the popular demand for gaming keyboards. Before I delve into this, the only reason I'd buy such a keyboard is if it offered extra function keys which were required for gameplay. Otherwise, why do people pay in excess of $100 for a 'gaming' keyboard? It's a device with buttons, which by their very nature have a Boolean value (on or off, true or false). There's no sensitivity involved, or any extra accuracy. It's lunacy. Unless, of course, you honestly find features such as keyboard LCDs, back-lights, pretty patterns and bragging rights worth the extra money.

Paying extra for a mouse I can understand. It makes sense since the shape and sensitivity are vital for both gaming and regular use. When it comes to keyboards, a nice simple ergonomic keyboard with a comfortable mould is all that is required. $50 will get you a keyboard that performs as well as any of the gaming alternatives, with added ergonomic features.

Lastly is the trend for companies to offer factory overclocked GPUs. Sometimes the overclock is so minimal, that the price increase over stock versions is plain silly! The latest HD4890 GPUs are famous for their overclock potential. It doesn't take much for a company to raise the clock setting in the BIOS, test them, and increment the price for those who want 'the best'.

Sometimes an overclocked card will indicate that it is hand picked from a better batch. I'd be weary of this. Unless the overclock is significant, the likelihood of a higher-binned card is small.

With all this being said, the aforementioned products are not without their advantages. The Killer NIC range is now capable of offloading P2P tasks such as BitTorrent. Gaming keyboards may be useful if small features such as add-on LCD screen is essential. And overclocked cards give you piece of mind and a valid warranty (not that they can prove you overclocked the card anyway, but that's a different story). However, their claims of being vastly superior (in terms of performance) compared to products of significantly less cost is completely unfounded.

The moral of the story is, don't believe the hype. If you want the best without spending needlessly, do the research.

During my travels in the radioactive wastelands I had come across an issue to do with my characters strength. It would appear that he struggled to carry the large amounts of looted kit I was scavenging, resulting in the ever irritating 'over-encumbered' status. This would then mean sorting though my Pip-Boy 3000 and consuming whatever I could to lower the overwhelming weight. Unfortunately, this also meant dumping whatever weapons I could not carry.

The issue with this process is the value of such items. Do I dump the items which are cool but are of little or no use to me? Do I dump the items that are worth the most, but are also the heaviest? Do I just suffer and waddle excruciatingly slow to the nearest place of trade? It may seem obvious, but the decision often left me stumped.

So I had to learn to deal with sacrifice. This meant weighing up items of market value against items of quest value. The tough choice had to be made, the quest items were to stay. After all, the purpose of the game isn't to accumulate the most money. Nope. It's about experiencing what the developers intended to offer. So if I'm there constantly conceiving ways to make the most profit possible in a make believe world, who really benefits? The game becomes as slow and dull as watching royal Englishmen play polo, except the horse is an aged tortoise, and the rider is the Michelin man on anaesthetics.

I know what you're probably thinking, 'how is this a life lesson?' I tend to horde old items well beyond any sense of value. Sometimes I throw them out, but often I convince myself that I'll use them at a later date. What Fallout 3 has identified is the difference between perceived and true value. More often than not, an item which you think will be useful for a ridiculously rare occurrence is actually ripe and ready for the trash.

Now when it comes to clearing up the clutter, where clutter clearing is due, I take care to only keep the items that I require. This ensures a cleaner working environment so I can get work done without worrying about where everything should be. Bits of scavenged paper with old overclock trials on them --> trash. Sticky notes with required behaviours for my now completed NXT robotics project --> binned.

It could also be argued that this game, amongst several others, identifies the differences between 'good' and 'evil'. A karma rating in the game determines whether particular elements of the game are available to use. Act like a complete scum bag and you attract characters of that same nature. However this also comes at a price. You're then alienated by several non playable characters (NPCs). In short, treat those the way you wish to be treated.

Of course, this doesn't stop you acting the fool in the game! It's quite enjoyable playing an evil character, but by no means would you relate this wild behaviour to reality. Unless you happen to be one of many violent game induced crazed gunmen that Attorney General Michael Atkinson has warned us about!

Fortunately, being an evil villain in reality is quickly met by tazers to the chest. The fact that there's no save file to load once you've been sentenced to life in jail for activating a stray nuke in your local city is also a slight deterrent. Not to mention that you don't have a Pip-Boy 3000 to guide you through the whole affair. By that logic, it's probably best to run with the positive values of your gaming experience. Don't let that karma level sway the wrong way!

'iPhone killer', 'iPod killer', 'Mac killer', you name it, it's been used. It so happens that the term is often wielded by those who have a gripe with the Apple camp. And with this in mind, such activists insist on implementing it into any comparison between the two platforms. What makes this so intriguing is how counter-productive this is. Ignoring the fact that arguing in the first place is pretty petty, calling a device an killer is admitting that Apple have produced a superior product in the first place! Why would such a device need to be 'killed' if it posed no thread to the defending platform? The fact is, most of the time the product is a threat, and the PC zealots will find any way to undermine the opposition - even if they're clearly in the wrong.

What bothers me is not that there is feud between the two platforms, but the means of which arguments are constructed. Apple products are not made for top-notch performance. It's not what they're built for. Rather, they're designed to be compact, elegant, high quality, quiet and simple to use. Their target market differs - they're not aimed at enthusiasts. This applies to majority of their offerings. On the other hand, PCs are suited to those who require cost effective, modifiable performance machines. There are exceptions to this, but for the most part, these descriptions typically define each platform.

With this in mind, I find it almost humorous that people still use the 'killer' suffix. To be quite honest, the way the term is used merely draws attention to the silliness of the situation. For instance, "This product is a iPhone killer because it has a faster processor!" So what? Does the iPhone do what its users require? If not, is this the fault of the CPU? Doubt it. The device is perfectly capable of running applications developed for it. You also have to put it into perspective. Does this 'killer' device provide the same attributes, features, ecosystem and software range? It's important to make a decision on the product as a whole, not pin point a select few aspects that trump the opposition and flaunt them like a huge eWang. The only loser in that situation is the one who buys the inferior product, not the one who cops the most baseless tripe.

The same could be said in reverse, in particular with Windows Vista. The amount of rants that contributed to its ungodly reputation was (and still is) uncanny. The sad thing is, most of those people had never used it! Some of it was deserved initially, despite the fact that hardware vendors were too lazy to create compatible drivers. However it does become irritating when people regurgitate claims from its initial release and apply them to the current product. To a professional or informed enthusiast, such accusations immediately flag 'ignorant' in their minds and possible responses. It hardly makes you look any more informed - it achieves the complete opposite.

Then there's the journalists that use the term wherever they can. I asked myself, 'Why would a journalist resort to such a term?' The answer was clear, it's simply because it attracts people. The Apple guild will read it so they have ammo to bitch about it, and rest are there to fuel the flame. The result is a nice influx of hits to the site, which ultimately means an increase of ad revenue. Sneaky.

To conclude, I feel that the term is overused and too commonly wrongly implemented. If anything, even with the best of intentions, it's going to attract people who dedicate their lives to arguing for a side. I hear they call it 'brand loyalty'. But in reality, all these companies want to do is take you cash. They really couldn't care less about you. In short, get what suits your needs, rather than your allegiance.

Game demos are provided for the purpose of evaluation. Gamers tend to be picky when it comes purchasing new games, and rightly so. Investing $100 in entertainment is only justifiable if you are truly entertained as a result. Reviews, peer assessment, and genre may perk an interest, but there needs to be a solid foundation to seal the deal. Demonstration releases do this well.

Perhaps it's merely my mind playing tricks, but I've noticed that game demos are becoming less prevalent lately. It appears that every time I seek a demo to decide whether a game is worth purchasing, I end up left empty-handed. A quick web search finds results such as "demo rumours dismissed" for games from large game studios. So why aren't these companies offering potential buyers a piece of the action? If rumours were started in the first place, surely there's still a demand?

In an effort to work out why the lack of demos has become a common affair, I've looked at the alternative options. Probably the most obvious is the humble torrent. It's often that I hear people claim that their use of an illegal copy of a game was in order to 'see if they like it'. Whether this is truly the case is dependant on the person. Nonetheless, the saturation of torrents amongst Internet savvy users may well be the reason why game studios refuse to waste resources on releasing a demo. Unfortunately, if this is the case, it puts those who prefer not to take part in illicit activities in the dark.

Recently there's been an influx of beta releases of games. This provides those who want to try the game a chance to experience the gameplay, whilst helping the developer to iron out potential bugs. This is a win win situation, dispite the possibility that some bugs could render the experience differently to the final release. Alas, betas are still a minority in contrast to the array of game releases. If beta releases were to become mainstream, the need for a demo would become redundant. The only downside is that betas tend to be considerably larger in size than a demo. For those who have limited Internet quota, this can be off-putting.

Indie games are generally an exception to my observation. Most come with a demo to showcase why their game is worth it. Ironically, those games are also the cheapest to purchase. From this we can conclude that peoples perception of a publisher/game studio has an effect on sales. An indie game team is yet to prove their worth, whilst big players such as Electronic Arts are already popular. Is this why the need for game demos has since passed consideration?

Another aspect is the sheer amount of squeals being offered. It's assumed that people who enjoyed the previous games will feel compelled to purchase the next, and therefore no need for a demo becomes apparent. Unluckily, many gamers are becoming intollerant with the quality of popular game sequals which bare no resemblance to their predecessors. But that's grounds for another discussion altogether!

What would be a nice change is to see an influx of beta releases. Demo's are great, but betas are better. Bugs can be patched quicker, the user gets to muck around and get a feel for the game, and the final release is bound to be a better product as a result. Now, if only this would catch on, in addition to eradicating Digital Rights Management... :)

Gadgets, amongst others consumer products, are susceptible to the excessive pull of marketing. It's important for companies to make their products known to the masses. Without such coverage, most individuals would be unaware of their presence, and more importantly, the availability of their products. Marketing is a great way to provide this coverage, however it also leads to misinterpretation of facts, an alternate truth courtesy of  the mouth of a well-oiled marketing drone. Once the majority of a market is accustomed to one way of thinking, it's very difficult to change it. Thus, those who make an effort to remain up-to-date with their gadgets are bombarded by the overpowering mass market who name anything popular 'cool', and anything different 'crap'.

Cliques provide an outlet for those who take extra care to nab the best product for their needs. A good example are audiophiles. Audiophiles take great pleasure in obtaining the finest audio equipment, music, and acoustics they can afford to ensure that the best possible conditions are formed for optimal listening pleasure. Take the common MP3 player as an example, most people opt for Apple's iPod. This player is not without  its advantages, it's often the best value in terms of storage capacity, however the audio quality and compatibility often fall short of alternatives. Regardless, the main downfall with popular media devices in not so much the device itself, but the headphones. People pay hundreds of dollars to get the latest MP3 player, and yet they settle with the tinny low-end headphones provided.

A few months back I decided to invest in some decent audio equipment. My choices were the Cowon D2 (a favourite amongst the audiophile community) and a pair of Sennheiser CX500 canalphones. These were not cheap. The canalphones alone set me back $130. After placing a few of my favourite songs on the player (encoded in 320kbps MP3, no less), I plugged in the canalphones and started the D2. I selected a song at random and was instantly blown back with the sheer clarity. I knew my money was put to good use, all my music felt like it had an extra dimension. I didn't just pay for fancy equipment, I was also receiving an added quality to my existing and future music collection. This is the aspect that most people don't realise.

Impressed with what I was hearing, I naturally informed a group of friends. Expecting them to share in the awe, I instead received criticism! "Ha! You paid $130 for headphones. Ripped off!" was the gist of responses received. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disheartened, they refused to accept or offer legit reason. They were pawns to status quo's unproven infinite and undeniable logic. So I enjoyed my gear whilst they settled with their expensive shiny mp3 players, channelling audio through the most horrible headphones possible. If they upgraded the headphones instead of the player, they'd find themselves with greater improvement. But alas, the latest and greatest cannot apply to something as simple as headphones. Apparently.

Eventually a friend of mine asked to have a listen. I agreed, and he did so with my CX500's on his new iPod. He was also impressed with the difference in quality. I was glad that he recognised this. Finally, the ignorance of one person was banished. If only it were this easy to convince everyone!

When it comes down to it, music is only one  instance of the vast spectrum of gadgetry. This refusal to accept a better alternative spreads across all stretches of the market. Whether it be computing, with preference for the cheaper generic PSUs, or simple peripherals, such as the attraction to cheap USB drives with dismal build quality and transfer speeds. The idea of quality vs popularity escapes people's reasoning since it isn't common practise to question it. So I ask readers to think about it. Next time you are going to buy something new, do some research. You might end up with something magnitudes better for the same price as a common consumer product. It doesn't take much effort to search on the web after all. And if people judge your choice to justify their own purchase, just stand there and smile. Perhaps, eventually, people will get the point. :)