That's why it's nice having a physical keypad that you can learn based on feel. I can create a new message, type it, and send it, all without looking at my phone with no problem at all.
The chances of me doing that with little to no mistakes (much less in a way that it is readable) with just a solid smooth surface are VERY VERY small.
that's both suprising and not suprosing at the same time....on the one hand, it seems very much like microsoft to make things difficult by not giving them the wireless specs...on the other hand, what kind of sense does that make? All it does is encourage people to reverse-engineer their shit (which seems to be like their kryptonite)
I know, that's my point...if it's wired, then it's usb, which means (as the person above you posted and as I implied in my first post) someone somewhere will find a way to make it work with the PC....which makes me wonder if they are planning a port...I mean, if Microsoft can get it on 360, why couldn't they get it on Vista? (I've already accepted that in a very short time, new games on PC will require vista so I'm not even fooling myself anymroe at this point)
...for some reason unknown to me (although in a not very suprising developement) my firewall at work will not allow me to RTFA...can anyone tell me if it says in there (or if anyone knows anyway) if 1. the controller will be wireless or wired and 2. if it is wired....that would mean it uses USB...does that mean...a port could be coming to PC?
see, to me that is exactly the same reason why I don't like the iPod's interface: it looks like a toy, almost childish. Yes it's simple, yes it's clean and clear and colorful, but it looks like a toy. Now, nothing against things aimed at kids, some of them can be fun (I have been known to break out rock em sock em or even mouse trap every now and then) but still...I've never been a fan of any interface apple has put out, and this one is no exception.
See, what apple should have done is gotten liscense to use the touchscreen technology that alpine has where it still (kinda) feels like you are pushing a button...I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of trying to send a text message while driving with nothing to go on feel but a pane of plastic.
While I won't disagree with you that I flew a bit wild on that comment, I direct you to part of the parent post:
"The PS2 blew the competition away last time because it had backwards compatibility, multiple revisions, and impressive graphics."
While that sentence basically says "because of the COMBINATION of these things, it blew the competition away", one could argue that including that impressive graphics part implies it was beyond it's competitors in graphics. Overanalytical? Perhaps. Semantics? Definately. But still there, nontheless.
Everyone complains that Microsoft makes their own standards which are incompatible with others, thus causing lock-in to their "sub-standard formats."
How many people you know won't buy something other than an iPod because "it won't integrate with iTunes?"
Granted, people (for whatever reason) seem to like iTunes, but apparently so does 90% of the mass computing market like Windows. The lock-in is still the same: iTunes-branded/managed/converted mp3s only work with iPods and the software itself.
If I had mod points, I would have modded you funny:-)
I'm not envious of either apple or Steve Jobs. I don't like apple products (never really have, cept the IIe) and I don't care how much you pay me, my free time is priceless. I wouldn't take a position that takes away the vast majority of my free time. No, I would rather work a 9-5 with a "normal" salary. I can feed and clothe my family, and keep them warm.
...I sit corrected at my desk then. I have no excuse for the distortion of my time perception other than my ineptitude:-)
Regardless. there is NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING the iPod does (in my opinion, of course) that hasn't been done better...excluding appealing to the ignorant masses of course....which, from a buisness standpoint, you could say they have done better.
Still. Putting sugar on shit doesn't make it taste like something other than shit with sugar on it.
I challange you to name me 2 games that are on both ps2 and xbox in which the ps2 version looks better than the xbox version.
Look at fight night round 3 and the dynasty warriors series, pick up some wipes since your ass must be so sore from sitting on sony's cock, then get back to me.
PS2 had some amazingly AMAZINGLY good exclusives (shadow of the colossus, god of war, kingdom hearts, etc.) I'm not saying ps2 was a bad system, it was not; it had some great games on it, some of which had fantastic graphics for their time. However, I can assure you that if you had a ps2 and an xbox running side by side, each on the same model television, each running the same game, the xbox version would look better nearly every single time.
(I personally believe that it would look better EVERY time, but I'm not going to tie myself down to that, given the way slashdot can be with opinions and facts;-))
Using a Rio, I can select my music by not even LOOKING at the damn thing. It's that easy to memorize where you are in the system and where things are located.
How does that constitute as being clunky?
Oh well, to each his own...I guess I just have a problem navigating using a mutilated nipple.
first off, it's not that people aren't eating too much it's that they are too greedy. There is MORE than enough food and money in this world to feed, educate, and clothe every living man woman and child. It just isn't that high on the priority list of the people that are lucky enough to have those things.
Secondly, it is not a choice of who lives or dies. It's not like we are going "oh that embryo will have this name so we will use it", it's a finger pointed at a random name on a list. VERY different than killing off say only black embryos or only female embryos.
...is the bigger issue people seem to be ignoring.
I don't care if you are religious or not. I don't care where your ethics stand.
Are you hoenstly telling me that you don't think sacrificing a few hundred, maybe a few thousand people aren't worth it for the benefit of 6 BILLION?
I mean, let's be realistic here. You are talking about something which has done nothing, has no opinion, cannot survive on it's own, and is not in my phone book.
Yes. Let's give the unborn few more of a chance of survival than the ones that are already suffering. Because that makes complete sense./sarcasm
tell that to the homeless/poor person that has cancer who can't get treatment because they have no insurance and can't afford it. Or tell that to one of the hundreds of thousands of people around the world who cannot afford medication that they need such as blood pressure medication, IVIG, people who are bed ridden because they cannot afford shots for joints they have arthritis in...
Tell that to the millions that are on medicare part D and whose essential drugs are not covered because they aren't on the formulary. Tell that to the insomniac who can't get modafinil because the insurance company deems it is not "medically neccessary". These are all people that I deal with on a daily basis.
I'm happy that you got treatment and won the battle against your ailment. I deal with literally hundreds of people on a daily basis whom pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies do not give a FUCK about. From my position, I encouter way more people that they hurt than they help.
What is your bottom line argument here? Do you really think that the pharmaceutical companies aren't researching/won't allow cures for diseases because it goes against their bottom line? Are you really that cynical? Do you really think that "the man" is sticking it to us that badly?"
I'm not saying they aren't researching, I'm saying it is similar to a car company making a car that never needs maitnence. It does not follow along what their purpose is. I don't think that the man is sticking it to us that badly, I think that pharmeceutical companies are a bit evil; watch the constant gardner. That movie is dead on balls accurate.
perhaps I was too general. Pharmaceutical companies (especially in this day and age) would be less apt to allow something eat into their profits like that.
Your comparison is like saying "I remember when gas cost 15 cents a gallon!" People tend to forget that they were only making a few hundred-few thousand dollars per year.
The diseases you mention have long been vaccinated against. Name the last major disease that was "cured", and when it was. I assure you it was not only a couple years ago.
Insurance companies don't release products. They pay for us to obtain and use them, and often times don't even do that by coming up with reasons why "something is not on the formulary." Happy?
the super nintendo had that crazy stupid modem thing the XBand (at least I think that is what it was called). Granted, however, this is their first one with it from the start and integrated.
Simple. Based on what this research is showing, and as with most treatments, it will be released int he form of a drug. In order for that to happen, pharmeceutical companies need to release it and have FDA approval.
Ever heard of Actiq? It went the way of the dodo, and was replaced by Fentora...it is used primarily to treat breakthrough cancer pain in patients. Do you have any idea how much it costs?
I can assure you that pharmaceutical companies make exponentially more money off something that you have to take for a long time (if not the rest of your life) than a one-time use treatment.
That being said, if the so called "cure" was implented in such a way that it did need to be taken the rest of your life, then yes it would be brought to market very quickly. However, there is too much money being made by pharmaceuticals from treatments. I don't give a fuck what INSURANCE companies want, they have nothing to do with what does and does not get released in the form of medication and treatment. They just foot the bill.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why it's nice having a physical keypad that you can learn based on feel. I can create a new message, type it, and send it, all without looking at my phone with no problem at all.
The chances of me doing that with little to no mistakes (much less in a way that it is readable) with just a solid smooth surface are VERY VERY small.
that's both suprising and not suprosing at the same time....on the one hand, it seems very much like microsoft to make things difficult by not giving them the wireless specs...on the other hand, what kind of sense does that make? All it does is encourage people to reverse-engineer their shit (which seems to be like their kryptonite)
I know, that's my point...if it's wired, then it's usb, which means (as the person above you posted and as I implied in my first post) someone somewhere will find a way to make it work with the PC....which makes me wonder if they are planning a port...I mean, if Microsoft can get it on 360, why couldn't they get it on Vista? (I've already accepted that in a very short time, new games on PC will require vista so I'm not even fooling myself anymroe at this point)
...for some reason unknown to me (although in a not very suprising developement) my firewall at work will not allow me to RTFA...can anyone tell me if it says in there (or if anyone knows anyway) if 1. the controller will be wireless or wired and 2. if it is wired....that would mean it uses USB...does that mean...a port could be coming to PC?
see, to me that is exactly the same reason why I don't like the iPod's interface: it looks like a toy, almost childish. Yes it's simple, yes it's clean and clear and colorful, but it looks like a toy. Now, nothing against things aimed at kids, some of them can be fun (I have been known to break out rock em sock em or even mouse trap every now and then) but still...I've never been a fan of any interface apple has put out, and this one is no exception.
See, what apple should have done is gotten liscense to use the touchscreen technology that alpine has where it still (kinda) feels like you are pushing a button...I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of trying to send a text message while driving with nothing to go on feel but a pane of plastic.
While I won't disagree with you that I flew a bit wild on that comment, I direct you to part of the parent post:
"The PS2 blew the competition away last time because it had backwards compatibility, multiple revisions, and impressive graphics."
While that sentence basically says "because of the COMBINATION of these things, it blew the competition away", one could argue that including that impressive graphics part implies it was beyond it's competitors in graphics. Overanalytical? Perhaps. Semantics? Definately. But still there, nontheless.
I liken iTunes to Microsoft.
Everyone complains that Microsoft makes their own standards which are incompatible with others, thus causing lock-in to their "sub-standard formats."
How many people you know won't buy something other than an iPod because "it won't integrate with iTunes?"
Granted, people (for whatever reason) seem to like iTunes, but apparently so does 90% of the mass computing market like Windows. The lock-in is still the same: iTunes-branded/managed/converted mp3s only work with iPods and the software itself.
Sound familier?
If I had mod points, I would have modded you funny:-)
I'm not envious of either apple or Steve Jobs. I don't like apple products (never really have, cept the IIe) and I don't care how much you pay me, my free time is priceless. I wouldn't take a position that takes away the vast majority of my free time. No, I would rather work a 9-5 with a "normal" salary. I can feed and clothe my family, and keep them warm.
That's enough for me.
...I sit corrected at my desk then. I have no excuse for the distortion of my time perception other than my ineptitude:-)
Regardless. there is NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING the iPod does (in my opinion, of course) that hasn't been done better...excluding appealing to the ignorant masses of course....which, from a buisness standpoint, you could say they have done better.
Still. Putting sugar on shit doesn't make it taste like something other than shit with sugar on it.
I challange you to name me 2 games that are on both ps2 and xbox in which the ps2 version looks better than the xbox version.
Look at fight night round 3 and the dynasty warriors series, pick up some wipes since your ass must be so sore from sitting on sony's cock, then get back to me.
PS2 had some amazingly AMAZINGLY good exclusives (shadow of the colossus, god of war, kingdom hearts, etc.) I'm not saying ps2 was a bad system, it was not; it had some great games on it, some of which had fantastic graphics for their time. However, I can assure you that if you had a ps2 and an xbox running side by side, each on the same model television, each running the same game, the xbox version would look better nearly every single time.
(I personally believe that it would look better EVERY time, but I'm not going to tie myself down to that, given the way slashdot can be with opinions and facts;-))
Using a Rio, I can select my music by not even LOOKING at the damn thing. It's that easy to memorize where you are in the system and where things are located.
How does that constitute as being clunky?
Oh well, to each his own...I guess I just have a problem navigating using a mutilated nipple.
Rio Carbon and the Rio Karma. Two mp3 players that are WAY older than the iPod, and MUCH MUCH easier to use.
Actually, why am I hiding behind AC? No reason for it.
This is me. I made the parent post. Become my enemy, mod me down, I don't care.
You are still an ignorant consumer and still make me want to stab things.
small things you miss...you mean when you can't remember what happens when you stand in a meadow at dusk?
::wave:: gotta get back to my boathouse on arizona bay.
first off, it's not that people aren't eating too much it's that they are too greedy. There is MORE than enough food and money in this world to feed, educate, and clothe every living man woman and child. It just isn't that high on the priority list of the people that are lucky enough to have those things.
Secondly, it is not a choice of who lives or dies. It's not like we are going "oh that embryo will have this name so we will use it", it's a finger pointed at a random name on a list. VERY different than killing off say only black embryos or only female embryos.
...is the bigger issue people seem to be ignoring.
/sarcasm
I don't care if you are religious or not. I don't care where your ethics stand.
Are you hoenstly telling me that you don't think sacrificing a few hundred, maybe a few thousand people aren't worth it for the benefit of 6 BILLION?
I mean, let's be realistic here. You are talking about something which has done nothing, has no opinion, cannot survive on it's own, and is not in my phone book.
Yes. Let's give the unborn few more of a chance of survival than the ones that are already suffering. Because that makes complete sense.
tell that to the homeless/poor person that has cancer who can't get treatment because they have no insurance and can't afford it. Or tell that to one of the hundreds of thousands of people around the world who cannot afford medication that they need such as blood pressure medication, IVIG, people who are bed ridden because they cannot afford shots for joints they have arthritis in...
Tell that to the millions that are on medicare part D and whose essential drugs are not covered because they aren't on the formulary. Tell that to the insomniac who can't get modafinil because the insurance company deems it is not "medically neccessary". These are all people that I deal with on a daily basis.
I'm happy that you got treatment and won the battle against your ailment. I deal with literally hundreds of people on a daily basis whom pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies do not give a FUCK about. From my position, I encouter way more people that they hurt than they help.
What is your bottom line argument here? Do you really think that the pharmaceutical companies aren't researching/won't allow cures for diseases because it goes against their bottom line? Are you really that cynical? Do you really think that "the man" is sticking it to us that badly?"
I'm not saying they aren't researching, I'm saying it is similar to a car company making a car that never needs maitnence. It does not follow along what their purpose is. I don't think that the man is sticking it to us that badly, I think that pharmeceutical companies are a bit evil; watch the constant gardner. That movie is dead on balls accurate.
"Moral: Build a better PlayStation and the American consumer will forgive all else.'"
A more powerful playstation, yes. Better? Eh....that remains to be seen.
perhaps I was too general. Pharmaceutical companies (especially in this day and age) would be less apt to allow something eat into their profits like that.
Your comparison is like saying "I remember when gas cost 15 cents a gallon!" People tend to forget that they were only making a few hundred-few thousand dollars per year.
The diseases you mention have long been vaccinated against. Name the last major disease that was "cured", and when it was. I assure you it was not only a couple years ago.
Coem on. I know you aren't this stupid.
Insurance companies don't release products. They pay for us to obtain and use them, and often times don't even do that by coming up with reasons why "something is not on the formulary." Happy?
not COMPLETELY accurate...
the super nintendo had that crazy stupid modem thing the XBand (at least I think that is what it was called). Granted, however, this is their first one with it from the start and integrated.
Simple. Based on what this research is showing, and as with most treatments, it will be released int he form of a drug. In order for that to happen, pharmeceutical companies need to release it and have FDA approval.
Ever heard of Actiq? It went the way of the dodo, and was replaced by Fentora...it is used primarily to treat breakthrough cancer pain in patients. Do you have any idea how much it costs?
I can assure you that pharmaceutical companies make exponentially more money off something that you have to take for a long time (if not the rest of your life) than a one-time use treatment.
That being said, if the so called "cure" was implented in such a way that it did need to be taken the rest of your life, then yes it would be brought to market very quickly. However, there is too much money being made by pharmaceuticals from treatments. I don't give a fuck what INSURANCE companies want, they have nothing to do with what does and does not get released in the form of medication and treatment. They just foot the bill.
360 fans seem to have been bitten by something akin to the MMORPG "leveling obsession".
Good luck, my brothers. Good luck.