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."
"Some of you may be anxious about finding a new job, or a new place to live. I know how you feel." President Bush, 2008
That is a funny sig line considering you're showing your ignorance of facsts. Blaming him on the current economic situation means you must also blame Clinton, Bush Senior, and Ronald Reagan. And if you want to be really specific, you can blame Clinton multiple times because had the not fucked up so badly, we would be in two of the three wars we're in right now. In turn, it would be very unlikely W would have won the second term. Even worse, had it not been for Clinton's deregulation effort, the financial melt down (fraud) would have never occurred.
But hey, if you want to irrationally and illogically blame the most visible party rather than the root cause, please feel free to continue your uninformed position.
Heck, Greenspan has more culpability in the current economic woe than does Bush.
"But hey, if you want to irrationally and illogically blame the most visible party rather than the root cause, please feel free to continue your uninformed position."
But hey, if you want to irrationally and illogically blame the party you don't like rather than the root cause, please feel free to continue your uninformed position.
Fixed it for you.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
I hate to agree with you, because I really don't like Bush on account of all the horribly immoral things his administration did, but he's not soley, or even substantially, to blame.
He DID make things harder longer by going with policies that kept the economy at pre-bust levels after the Y2K bubble burst, and he DID do his best to keep interest rates at record lows to defer the pain period from the bubbles bursting, and he DID send out "stimulus cheques", inflating the currency to further keep the economy going far past when it should've hit recession, but that's just firefighting.
Deregulation causes bubbles, even in industries that should be able to self-regulate. The best example is a garden hose. If you hire a person to put a kink in a hose and carefully control the flow, then one day realise the original flow was the right amount, you're still going to get a huge slug of water when you release the kink, because the system has been disturbed and needs to find equalibrium. The best example is gold. Private ownership of gold was illegal for 50 years. After ownership was legalized once again, prices spiked to levels we have never seen since, before stabilizing at a certain level that has more or less been stable with inflation.
The problem is, the prosperity of 1999 was caused by a series of bubbles. A bubble was caused by the deregulation of the banks through repealing Glass-Steagall. A bubble was caused by deregulation of the energy industry in California. A bubble was caused by record low interest rates, further destabilizing the loan industry. A bubble was caused by the disruptive effect of the Internet, paired with the massive capital inflow from Y2K.
Neither George Bush nor Al Gore realized it at the time, but they were inheriting an economy that was the equivilent to a house made out of glass. Under Bush, the bubbles collapsed one after another(Predictably), and no other politician would've done anything different than try to keep the bubble propped up as long as possible, even though what the economy needed was a pain period after each burst to find equalibrium.
It's been a long time.
Um, Clinton wasn't responsible for Iraq. That would be HW, had he disarmed the Iraqi military and deposed Saddam at that point, we wouldn't have had to go in later on. Yes, it's debatable as to whether or not we really needed to do so now, but it wouldn't have been an option.
But, take another step back, and HW wasn't really responsible because the US had already armed and supported him from about '81 on. Perhaps we should just be honest and admit that President Reagan fucked up big time on this one.
Saddam was largely armed and backed by the US when he came to power, perhaps blaming that administration for screwing up makes more sense than blaming Clinton.
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.