The person was saying that some apartments in Finland don't have ways to ring a particular apartment from the outside so people just use cell phones to call the person in the apartment.
Yeah, the person in the apartment can have a landline. How is the person who is waiting outside supposed to reach that landline if he doesn't have a cell phone? I think you misunderstood THE POST.
"My own opinion is that if you continue to read Gamespot that you should take note any game that is prominently advertised on their site, by means of flash ads, wallpaper or whatever. Then go read the review of that game and automatically deduct 2 points from that game when considering to buy it. A 10 means 8, an 8 means 6 and so on."
I think your second suggestion is the proper one. Just because a publisher isn't paying Gamespot to run ads all over their site doesn't mean the publisher hasn't paid Gamespot to run a positive review. You can't trust Gamespot reviews at all.
I thought about replying to you point by point but I honestly don't see the point. It's pretty obvious that you've bought into the whole "liberal vs. conservative", "red state vs. blue state" nonsense. Okay, that's great - you've found a team to root for.
I mean - I could make snide remarks like you (Why should the federal government fund education? Oh yeah, because that way the federal government can supersede local control of a child's education.) but instead of doing that, I try to discuss issues with people. I don't discuss issues with a person that I've attached a label to, I treat everyone as a person with an opinion. If you try to talk to people a little more and demonize people a little less, you might find that others with differing opinions still have something interesting to say to you.
The only label I would apply to people is when someone demonstrates they just aren't worth talking to because they aren't open to discussion. You got that label with your hateful rhetoric. Congrats.
Oh - Kennedy didn't want the federal government funding education. Did he care about his money more than kids? But he was a Democrat??? What's going on?! SHOCK AND HORROR! ABORT ABORT! [Or maybe it's that issues are more complicated than your little labeling system allows for. I'm never going to reply to you ever again but maybe you can evaluate how open you are to differing opinions. I'd say not only are you currently completely closed off but you don't even have that much knowledge of the world. You have my sympathy. The education system has failed you.]
"I've also taken it to mean that when you're 40, you have money and property you want to be greedy about and protect, and so don't care as much about the welfare of your fellow man. Likewise I'm better off than at 18, and it sure doesn't deter me from wanting to make the world better overall."
Here's the thing; conservatives who use that quote are insulting the intelligence of those they disagree with. It's not making a point, just attacking others who disagree with your philosophy on government. But the statement I've quoted from your post is just as poor. Do you actually have this idea in your head that conservatives don't want the world to be a better place? Because that's absurd. Perhaps some want to maintain the status quo and keep people in their station but I would say that most people, conservative or liberal or whatever handy label you want/need to use, are not evil and would like to see the world prosper and become a better place. The difference between people is how they believe is the best way to get to that point - not whether people should have better lives. Come on...
"spooky silence for 5-10 seconds before they are hung up. The system logs the fact that you answered"
If you had read the article (yes, the NY Times is not slashdotted, it is available) you'd know that was fully mentioned in the article and that the auto-dialer must hang up within 2 seconds if no rep is around to take the call. What was the point of your post?
Why are you so angry? Looking at your posting history, you don't say anything positive - ever. Do you really hate Slashdot this much or are you dealing with some mental disorder that makes you act this way about everything and anything?
"not just whinging US war veterans (sorry, but I had to say it, with all due respect to them)"
I just watched a special on television last night which followed a group of veterans from D-Day on a trip back to Normandy. It hardly seems like your statement had to be said. I saw no whining whatsoever and I don't think you're giving due respect.
That's silly. To paint with such a broad brush on the entire male readership of Slashdot seems a little too broad, if you ask me. But then again, if I had such disdain for the overwhelming majority of a forum, I wouldn't bother taking part in that forum - so I don't think we are necessarily of like-minds. Life is too short.
"The rest of my post was in response to someone (not a CoX player, I assume) asking why players would intentionally run up debt in the first place."
Read my question in the context of the thread. I was not asking why someone would run up debt but why someone would run up debt in response to the debt-forgiveness that was announced. And the main point of my post wasn't to cull information, it was to point out that the poster I was responding to did not know as much as he thought he knew.
Could you cite a source that states this accomplishment that you gain from "running up debt"? [Not that accomplishment(s) for paying off debt, mind you - one where you gain an accomplishment for getting into debt.]
Presumably, when the debt is erased systematically for all players, accomplishments aren't going to be handed out for "paying off debt" since the erasure is coming from the system.
"Forgiving debts, giving away points, etc not so much. Smart players will exploit this and just run up debts."
Why would these "smart players" purposefully let themselves be defeated over and over again? What benefit do you see in running up debt? Please answer - I'm curious as to whether you will admit you didn't know what you were talking about regarding this game or if you'll make up some rationalization. I CAN'T WAIT!
"The *rest* of us are fine releasing M games, and AO games, and T games, and E games"
How do you propose that "we" are fine releasing AO games when the console manufacturers have stated time and time again that they will not license AO games to be released for their systems?
"So no, in an anarchist group of my devising, the whole group doesn't get to decide on anything except which abortion clinic to hit."
And that's what it comes down to; you're refuting my point with this hypothetical group that you believe to be very smart and realize that they should leave pieces of the plan to the members most fit to handle them. Even if such a group exists, I contend that there are groups out there that would not only lack a "bomb hiding" expert but also believe in the intelligence of the group.
The original post I was replying to said that groups are dumb and then contradicted that by saying groups are smart. You've done nothing to refute this other than say some groups might be smart (smart enough to delegate).
Again, if we buy the original poster's first statement that groups are dumb, why are we suddenly supposed to believe your assertion that groups are smart enough to delegate? There's a contradiction in the original poster's statement. I am right. You are wrong.
I can buy that they'd only have one bombmaker but as far as having one guy that knows about hiding bombs, I doubt it. Want to cite a source here? You don't think the entire group would come together to discuss how to plant the bomb and to take a look at it to determine how to disguise it?
Also, the anti-abortion group was just an example. Since we're talking about a situation where the explosive device could have come from anyone, there is most assuredly a very good chance that there exists a group that operates in the manner I described.
My main point was that the GP claimed that groups of people are stupid and then said that no one is dumb enough to plant a bomb out in the open without being disguised - ignoring the obvious problem with those two statements. Groups of people formulate plans to plant bombs. Simple fact.
I really can't believe you missed the point on this. And the idea that there's a single "bomb-hiding guy" is laughable. Want to cite your source on that one?
"What kind of dumb-ass does it take to have the knowledge to build a significant bomb, place it without getting caught in the process, but make it horrifyingly obvious that it is a bomb?"
So a group of people are stupid (your first statement) but the anti-abortion group that wants to bomb your building is smart enough to disguise their bombs properly (your second statement)?
Oh good, so I can have the final word here. Thank you for that.
As I have demonstrated, your comparison of first year 360 sales to first year PS3 sales is flawed because it in no way takes into account market conditions. If MS sold no 360s in the first year and then sold 16 million in the 2nd, then it wouldn't really matter if the PS3 completely destroyed the 360's first year sales. It is about installed user base. Your ignorance of this tells me that you're either foolish or you're a shill trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. I appreciate that you've yielded and allowed me to have the final word. This allows me to set the record straight.
"And getting back to the original point, the PS3 is selling quite well. You don't seem to be able to grasp that."
Oh, I can grasp that statement just fine. The reason I can do that is because it's so vague that it's completely without meaning. The PS3 is being beat by the 360 and does not look like it will catch up. This is not good for Sony. But then again, Sony did file predatory lawsuits against lik-sang and installed rootkits on the computers of paying customers, so I don't really care.
Again, you are hiding something. I am going to be monitoring your posts for further links to vgchartz. Your constant linking to that site is very telling.
Again, thank you for yielding and giving me the final word on this matter. I am the most intelligent one between us so I think that that was the appropriate action to take.
"You're right that it is different. And to anyone with half a brain it is obvious that the Xbox360 competing alone would be at an advantage. That is why MS did it. Therefore, if thing A has an advantage over thing B, but thing B is still selling at the same rate, then obviously thing B cannot be said to be not selling. Let's not lose sight over the point of this thread."
Your analysis of "things" is really interesting and all but try considering that the 360 was competing against the best of the previous generation. The PS2 was still going strong and many people won't buy a console in the next-gen until they've had a chance to see all the offerings. Sony's promises in regards to the PS2 made many hold off on buying a Dreamcast. Your analysis is terrible. You're the waste of time here.
The XBox 360 competing along on the "next-gen" market versus the PS3 competing against the 360 and the Wii is not looking at trends. It's comparing apples to oranges and any conclusion you're drawing from that is irrelevant.
The U.S. is actually pretty big and the population is fairly diverse. Is your entire post based on anecdotal evidence that you've gathered in your travels?
"people often say that the Xbox360 is tearing the PS3 apart in sales"
""no one bought a ps3 in the first place." That doesn't sound like he's talking about "last Saturday."
No, it doesn't sound like he is talking about last Saturday but that is not how you presented it. You are shifting the statement you made. You are being intellectually dishonest with that type of nonsense.
Of course, you're being dishonest in general by not disclosing what company you work for and the vested interests you have. You're not an impartial observer with no interest in console sales. You clear want to see a particular winner. Disclose it.
I don't believe you. You've got a vested interest here that you're not disclosing. Your behavior is too unusual.
"For example, people often say that the Xbox360 is tearing the PS3 apart in sales. But if you look at the first year of sales for the 360 and compare it to the PS3, then to say the PS3 isn't selling well, is to say the Xbox360 isn't selling well."
If someone says that the 360 is outselling the PS3, they're taking about the present. They most likely mean that on any given Saturday, more people are walking out the door of their local retailer with a 360 than a PS3. The fact that the PS3 is selling at a similar rate as the 360 sold in its first year does not refute that statement.
Basically, in your example, someone is saying: More 360s were sold last Saturday than PS3s. Your amazing reply to such a statement is: "If you look at last Saturday, the number of PS3s sold is the same as the number of 360s sold at a similar time in the 360s lifetime."
It does nothing to refute the point that more people are buying 360s.
There's something strange about you. Disclose who you work for.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the person in the apartment can have a landline. How is the person who is waiting outside supposed to reach that landline if he doesn't have a cell phone? I think you misunderstood THE POST.
I'm just going to avoid the site entirely.
I mean - I could make snide remarks like you (Why should the federal government fund education? Oh yeah, because that way the federal government can supersede local control of a child's education.) but instead of doing that, I try to discuss issues with people. I don't discuss issues with a person that I've attached a label to, I treat everyone as a person with an opinion. If you try to talk to people a little more and demonize people a little less, you might find that others with differing opinions still have something interesting to say to you.
The only label I would apply to people is when someone demonstrates they just aren't worth talking to because they aren't open to discussion. You got that label with your hateful rhetoric. Congrats.
Oh - Kennedy didn't want the federal government funding education. Did he care about his money more than kids? But he was a Democrat??? What's going on?! SHOCK AND HORROR! ABORT ABORT! [Or maybe it's that issues are more complicated than your little labeling system allows for. I'm never going to reply to you ever again but maybe you can evaluate how open you are to differing opinions. I'd say not only are you currently completely closed off but you don't even have that much knowledge of the world. You have my sympathy. The education system has failed you.]
Why are you so angry? Looking at your posting history, you don't say anything positive - ever. Do you really hate Slashdot this much or are you dealing with some mental disorder that makes you act this way about everything and anything?
That's silly. To paint with such a broad brush on the entire male readership of Slashdot seems a little too broad, if you ask me. But then again, if I had such disdain for the overwhelming majority of a forum, I wouldn't bother taking part in that forum - so I don't think we are necessarily of like-minds. Life is too short.
Presumably, when the debt is erased systematically for all players, accomplishments aren't going to be handed out for "paying off debt" since the erasure is coming from the system.
The original post I was replying to said that groups are dumb and then contradicted that by saying groups are smart. You've done nothing to refute this other than say some groups might be smart (smart enough to delegate).
Again, if we buy the original poster's first statement that groups are dumb, why are we suddenly supposed to believe your assertion that groups are smart enough to delegate? There's a contradiction in the original poster's statement. I am right. You are wrong.
Also, the anti-abortion group was just an example. Since we're talking about a situation where the explosive device could have come from anyone, there is most assuredly a very good chance that there exists a group that operates in the manner I described.
My main point was that the GP claimed that groups of people are stupid and then said that no one is dumb enough to plant a bomb out in the open without being disguised - ignoring the obvious problem with those two statements. Groups of people formulate plans to plant bombs. Simple fact.
I really can't believe you missed the point on this. And the idea that there's a single "bomb-hiding guy" is laughable. Want to cite your source on that one?
As I have demonstrated, your comparison of first year 360 sales to first year PS3 sales is flawed because it in no way takes into account market conditions. If MS sold no 360s in the first year and then sold 16 million in the 2nd, then it wouldn't really matter if the PS3 completely destroyed the 360's first year sales. It is about installed user base. Your ignorance of this tells me that you're either foolish or you're a shill trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. I appreciate that you've yielded and allowed me to have the final word. This allows me to set the record straight.
Oh, I can grasp that statement just fine. The reason I can do that is because it's so vague that it's completely without meaning. The PS3 is being beat by the 360 and does not look like it will catch up. This is not good for Sony. But then again, Sony did file predatory lawsuits against lik-sang and installed rootkits on the computers of paying customers, so I don't really care.Again, you are hiding something. I am going to be monitoring your posts for further links to vgchartz. Your constant linking to that site is very telling.
Again, thank you for yielding and giving me the final word on this matter. I am the most intelligent one between us so I think that that was the appropriate action to take.
What company do you work for?
The U.S. is actually pretty big and the population is fairly diverse. Is your entire post based on anecdotal evidence that you've gathered in your travels?
Of course, you're being dishonest in general by not disclosing what company you work for and the vested interests you have. You're not an impartial observer with no interest in console sales. You clear want to see a particular winner. Disclose it.
What company do you work for?
Basically, in your example, someone is saying: More 360s were sold last Saturday than PS3s. Your amazing reply to such a statement is: "If you look at last Saturday, the number of PS3s sold is the same as the number of 360s sold at a similar time in the 360s lifetime."
It does nothing to refute the point that more people are buying 360s.
There's something strange about you. Disclose who you work for.
Why do you make so many posts with links to vgchartz?