Slashdot Mirror
Sony Makes It Hard To Develop For the PS3 On Purpose
adeelarshad82 writes "CNet reports on a bizarre comment from Sony's Computer Entertainment CEO in response to complaints from developers on how hard it is to develop games for the Playstation 3. 'We don't provide the "easy to program for" console that (developers) want, because "easy to program for" means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?' Given that games heavily drive console sales, and the fact that the PS3 is already 8 million units behind the Xbox 360, I think making a developer's job harder is the last thing Sony needs."
Whoosh.
The point of the sig was not to bash Bush (worthy cause though that is), it was ironic humor since Bush for once is telling the literal truth - he does know how it feels since he had to give up his job due to constitutional term limits and thus has to move out of the White House and find a new place to live. The humor is he has a family fortune, personal fortune, at least two other houses, whopping big pension and plenty of opportunities to make $100,000 a pop for speaking engagements and other forms of delayed bribery. Bush was speaking the truth, but he meant it humorously.
In other news, you have a new entry on your freak list. (It's so I can avoid reading the dumber posts.)
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
oh goober, you should listen to the people you disagree with occasionally.
Yes Greenspan is more culpable than W. Yes, I blame Clinton, HW, and more than anything Ronald Reagan (the only president before W dumb enough to take Milton Friedman seriously).
To be specific I blame Clinton twice - once for being suckered in by the globalization/deregulation buzz, and a second time for letting greenspan keep his job. But hey, without Newt playing wedge politics he might have made up for those errors by fixing healthcare a freaking decade ago - and he wouldn't have had deregulation nonsense shoved down his throat. But that's many, many times fewer than I blame Reagan, HW, and W.
As for the wars, the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the absentee Bush of 2000-2001. Who needs intelligence reports anyway - everything is just fine...
Your post is odd to say the least. You scold me for failure to listen, then you agree with me, then you disagree with me by professing what I can only assume is ignorance of the facts. Very odd to say the least.
Read my post about Clinton vs Bush above. Keep in mind, I'm not saying Bush has zero culpability here. I am say Bush is not the root cause. Most, especially the blind-eye, die hard, Democrates, seem truly shocked and surprised to learn the war situation could have been completely avoided, and thousands and thousands alive today, had Clinton simply done his job by allowing the military to do their job in the first place. Read my post above about Clinton's failure to act and act appropriately when he finally does.