I didn't say that the people are well represented in the states, I said that the mirror system we have makes any difference (such as occasional corruption) highly obvious.
the detractors are actually proving my point. The level of anger over relatively minor acts of corruption shows very well what's going on. If it was DNC v KKK, there would be less incentive to get mad about Hsu or Craig.
Look at the level of corruption tolerated in the UK, France, Japan, etc. It is so much worse, unfortunately, less people are making hay about it (because they must have more party loyalty).
There's so much less to lose for dems to be ruled by GOP and vice versa, so we don't tolerate Nixon's BS or silly Lewinsky scandals.
I'm not surprised that people are mad about my comments, but it wasn't meant to troll or anything. US hatred is in vogue. No big deal, plenty to be mad about.
You don't seem to even understand what I'm saying.
Did you read the news today? Move-on admitted that this ad was legal parody. There is absolutely no legal ground for calling this ad trademark infringement. It was political speech that is at the very core of 1st amendment protection.
I don't know what court ruling you are talking about, since you apparently have no idea how to state its name, but I know there is no court dumb enough to misunderstand that political speech is not the same thing as violating trademark. Using the ABC logo on a movie you made yourself, putting Heinz on ketchup you made at home, putting "Move-on.org" on an ad you made yourself in a way that would confuse someone into thinking Moveon made that ad... that's violative.
Saying: these people I disagree with did this: [move-on ad], is utterly legal. My point was that, because the ad is legal, Google has a choice in the matter. A lot of the commenters in this thread think that this ad was illegal, and therefore google had no choice, and therefore this is not a story. We all know now (if we read the news) that this is untrue, and the ad is already back on screens all over the internet. Wasn't illegal in any way.
As far as your "liberal paranoia" comment: I already said I didn't have a problem with this kind of censorship very clearly. People who don't agree with you are not always conservatives who are afraid of liberal oppression. I think the word for your behavior is "projection". I don't give two shits about the obvious and totally ok censorship that Google News and Clear Channel and Foxnews, etc all practice. It's the idiots who pick the media that agrees with them and insists that any description of its preference is "paranoia" that irritate me. But not much, as they can't be helped, can they?
The US government is unbelievably not corrupt. We have a two party system, and if one party even gets slightly corrupt, it's a massive scandal. People who think the US has a corrupt government are invariably lacking real perspective.
Corruption is a massive problem in the USA. but it's in the corporate culture, not the government. The fact that we have two very similar parties pretty much ensures that corruption will be brought to light quickly. Larry Craig tapping his foot is a scandal in the US. Compare that to Putin.
Brazil is, indeed, a very nice country. But unhappiness in the US is always hyper inflated. Things are really really nice in the US, and if you really do travel, you should already know this.
how were you able to read my above comment? It was indecipherable!
Sony's not the king anymore, no doubt. But no one would say there were dumb to get into videogames in the first place, which is what some say about MS.
Thing is, we're in the now, so MS might as well stick with its winner.
You missed more than the decimal. Sony has made a ton of money on the playstation line. The PS3 itself hasn't, but the line in general Sony hasn't los tmoney but rather has made a ton of money. Also, Sony is probably profiting off the PS3 when you compare how their blu-ray project would have gone, but for the PS3. So the PS3 is a loss itself that made money in a convoluted way. Either way, the XBOX line has not made money, as a whole. It has lost billions, not less than 1.7 that is the hole Sony was in at one point according to your source.
It's just different.
But MS has the best system now, by far, and I think the fact that they had the worst system last generation doesn't mean anything at all.
piggybacking by criticizing it. pumping it for attention... that she is opposed to move-on politically. That's legit speech. How would democracy work if we couldn't do that?
The ad in question uses a photo of a General that was probably not taken by move-on. Suppose it was from CSPAN or the DOD. Moveon is using it to show who and what they are opposed to... in a way that drives attention to them for their opposition.
you're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. There is no way you can dispute that the politician was criticizing move-on. You agree with me when you say that she did so for attention.
Look man, you did the right thing. Fans for each HDD probably saved you a lot of money. But the typical consumer wants a hard drive that is durable enough that it can be abused a bit more. That's all the parent means.
I don't have time to cool all my hard drives. In fact, I'm sure the one in this computer is covered in dust. It's a deskstar, and it's been making odd rattles for a while, so I know this system is headed south. Could I have babied it to where that wasn't going to happen? Yeah, but I don't want to. I could live with a ten gig drive that was robust.
We can have one 500 gig media server, even software servers to some extent. Those can have fans and stuff. Your huge hard drives probably have a lot of content overlap (if they are personally your drives). You probably only need one if you could access it wherever you were.
Ok, you're clearly being nutty, so I don't know why I'm bothering to respond, but google news's bias is extremely well documented and obvious. Just because you found one site that you believe is right wing fringe (it isn't, but oh well) doesn't mean there isn't a great deal of bias. Of course, bias is in the eye of the beholder (some people will think the Washington Post is rabidly conservative and some rapidly liberal), but your one example is particularly pathetic. The fact is, there are many major conservative news aggregates that are excluded from Google News, but many liberal aggregates that are very extreme remain. I think that's totally fine. Google can do whatever it likes.
I don't know what you mean about "Capitalizing on a trademark for campaign publicity" making something a violation. Do you dispute that the politician was criticizing Move-On's ad? No. Was the trademarked ad clearly being criticized? Yes. No one is confusing the politician for move-on. Trademarks are not intellectual property, they exist so that the public is not confused. No one was confused, because this was a criticism of Move-On. This is clearly not a trademark violation. What is your legal basis for insisting that the likelihood of publicity that a critique provides has something to do with the complain being a trademark violation?
Regardless, Ron Paul is a lefty (just look at his spending record). And I don't care that much. What point were you trying to make, anyway? Is every site that Ron Paul links appear at totally unbiased? You will find plenty of stuff about George Bush, even though he is extremely conservative, on any liberal news site.
The site that broke the Dan Rather forgery scandal is not a legitimate news source on google, even though it must have hundreds of thousands of views. It's very conservative, but not really even fringe. This same source has also proven that Reuters doctored some photos from Lebanon. It's a worthy and relatively major news source, but not for google news. This is one example of many conservative sites Google doesn't want on its news page. And that leads to weird headline such as "Gonzales confirmed: war criminal to head US Justice Department". That was an actual Google News headline.
Google's bias is well documented. I think it's a great part of American society to be biased and successful, so I like this, but still, the reasons for the ad ban are probably political.
Google allows all sorts of ridiculousness in. The site above had to post several times before google would remove new-nazi news. Liberal fringe folks have little trouble either. Antiwar.com is obviously antisemetic, but it's a google-news source. Michelle Malkin, a crazy ass conservative, doesn't get on google news, though her offensiveness is probably a but less than the anti-bush neonazis that google was ok with.
I'm not saying Google shouldn't be liberal, I'm saying that Google has a right to bias that they seem to exercise.
If you don't realize that, you aren't paying attention. Everything about Google speaks to multiculturalism and minimizes its American identity. You will see special google logos for Sputnik but not Memorial Day. Google is like Apple, a great company that wants to promote a certain way of thinking.
I'm not trying to troll here. Google's got a point of view. Why deny it? Politicians have to engage in these types of ideological arguments. They have to show the ads they are disputing. It's called discourse. Google has no obligation to show any ad they don't like, but this was a legal ad. You don't see move-on actually suing anybody, do you? Move-on has spent millions of dollars to fight this specific congresswoman. If she broke the law, they'd sue her into oblivion.
It's a judgment call since Google can do whatever the hell it wants, but there was no trademark violation.
Showing the actions of Moveon in order to criticize them is fair use. There is no question that this ad was not illegal.
Google is liberal. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's obvious. They filter information in a biased way, too. If you look at the fringe sites they allow onto google news, its matches their political views. No right wing nuts, plenty of left wing nuts.
Again, I don't have a problem with google choosing to be biased, but they do.
And maybe they give all trademark complaints instant credit, but I seriously doubt it. This was an invalid complaint and there was no legal reason to pull the ad.
Burden of proof was preponderance. Her claim that it was technically possible that someone did the highly unlikely isn't enough.
And I say that she should do what the law says. If people are outraged enough, the laws will change. But they won't, because the media is powerful, and it's powerful because our society wants them to be. We give them that power, so the huge fines for illegal downloads are where they are.
We do need some sort of control over distributing other people's art. That needs to be legally stopped. I hate that this lady has been held liable to such an absurd extreme, but these laws do need to exist. Until you can come up with a better idea that actually will prevent this type of behaivior, and you can convince the people to elect you, then this is the law.
And there is nothing loserish about wanting the law enforced equally. Everyone who cheered over Martha Stewart and is angry over this is being unfair. The law can be harsh, but it's our law.
For this? Jury nullification is for shams. She broke the law, and the penalty is just money. I think it's ridiculous that she pay this much money (and she won't), but just because a jury can go against the law doesn't mean that's half the purpose of a jury.
Wearing a seatbelt does not make you safer to other cars on the road.
You already know that your argument is ludicrous. You were arguing that seatbelts make hospitals less expensive and crowded, not that they make roads safer.
It's none of your business whether I eat a big man in my car or not, even though it wille ventually harm me. Same applies to seatbelts. The laws that demand it are not justice, but oppression, even if it's a very minor oppression that actually helps people.
I don't have a real problem with the seatbelt laws, but your argument is stupid.
Your concerns probably reflect popular opinion, but I want to point out that if a PS3 has 4 USB ports, it's a good one with good backwards compatibility. If it has two, it's a cheap one with no backwards compatibility. You will probably always have the option of buying a PS3 that is backwards compatible. At least, that's assuming Sony has a clue, which is not the best assumption I could make.
The wii isn't much cheaper than a $400 PS3, and its backwards compatibility is limited to the small number of gamecube games and a what's sold online. The PS3s with backward compatibility are compatible with nearly 10,000 games. Not ot mention that, frankly, the PS3 library already blows the wii out of the water (and the 360 blows the PS3 out of the water). Problem is, people are going to share your fears about which PS3 systems are good and which are not.
Sony is blowing a major advantage, again, largely in public relations.
Sony needs to make the cheap PS3s a different color.
Sony needs better names for these things. By 80 gig I meant the non EE having, but still Back Compat model, which is what the 60 gig is in Europe.
It's getting too confusing, I think. How many wives and moms are going to get a PS3 for a kid or hubby who immediately realizes it won't play Petal Gear 3 (or whatever PS2 game). Is that guy supposed to complain?
It's needlessly confusing. At least when MS has several editions, it's obvious which one sucks.
Once they run out of 60 gig models, you can buy an 80 gig if you want backwards compatibility.
I'm not wrong, am I? Sony's not killing this feature entirely, are they? Backwards compatibility has remained among the playstation's very finest features, and I can't understand this for the 40 gig, so surely the higher version off the ps3 will continue to have it, right?
How the hell much does the PS2 graphics, etc chips cost? 20$? 40$? Surely so little as to justify itself, right? Is there a single electronics component as fun and cost effective as a playstation 2? 8000 games for 40$.
No, we might lose an Apache or a C-130 might get chewed up a bit, and we have lost an F-16 or two.
But we haven't lost any stealth planes. And we aren't using them there either. Why would we use stealth in an environment when we already have air superiority (and in fact, the enemy doesn't actually have an air force)? Our enemy is using IEDs, they do not have Radar facilities. We would obviously destroy that kind of massive infrastructure.
GP was being a typical propogandist. Making up BS claims from "some guy I know" who has a pre-mission selection between f-117s and f-15s like he's playing Ace Combat 4. Just another idiot.
And maybe you didn't really read my comment before calling me one. The problem I cited was specifically functionality. IF you aren't aware that Office 2007 is severely unlike 2003 in ways that have nothing to do with graphics, then you just aren't informed about this stuff.
I said that I understand that people dig graphics and my beef is with less useful software. Vista has DRM and just does less than XP. Office 2007 is much much much less intuitive and simple type a fucking document on than Office 97 and 2003 (peas in a pod, in my opinion, like Windows 95 and 98, one is just a better version of the same idea).
You cannot "turn visual effects" off to get this new version of Office to behave well. This isn't like XP, where I really just want Windows 2000. Also, my laptop runs all this software quickly. The problem is that the software is trying too hard to be simplistic, and has reduced someone who is very competent with office programs to someone who has to click around with menus for ten minutes.
It's back to Office 2003.
Oh, did I mention that the default file saves do not work in Office 2003 without upgrading 2003? That's neat.
Anyway, you just don't seem to understand the issue. Go download the trial version of office and tyr to do something complicated in Excel or Word. Have fun!
China taxes at an enormous rate. So the connection between high margin items and China's ability to support this stuff is clear. If you have bought Chinese stuff, you have bought bullets that wound up in innocent people's heads. I'm not judging you for that; it's damn near impossible to avoid buying Chinese stuff, but it's still our reality. My three Lenovo laptops (I'm a thinkpad fan) gave hundreds of dollars to China's government.
It's not fair that Chinese workers have a crappy life. I think moving manufacturing to places with human rights will incentivize human rights. Wal-Mart, etc, and our nation's weak dollar and insistence on cheaper more disposable stuff is also making human life cheaper and more disposable. I'm not some douchebag hippie. I'm a normal man who can read the writing on the wall. If we do not start now with China, things are going to SUCK in the near future.
I have heard (And said) the typical complaints against MS for many years, but something very unique is going on here.
This new Office suite was supposed to be revolutionary... but it's just TERRIBLE. It's so unintuitive, and its predecessors are simply far superior. I'm actually using Word 97 on my old desktop until I get around to replacing Office 07 on my laptop. And Vista is similarly awful. All these needless pretty effects are fine and dandy, I understand that people dig that stuff, but the system is simply less versatile than XP or Win 2000.
XP was a step up from Win 98. For all the complaints, the upgrade was worth real money. And Win 95 from Win 3.1 was also a tangible improvement.
MS has lost its mojo (little that it had).
I was actually jealous of a mac today. My Thinkpad deserves better. (yeah, I have ubuntu, but I have to use SharePoint at work).
It would be great if Sony had been honest, but really, it would have made the PS3 look inferior to competitors. Sony had a fiduciary duty to pretend the lack of rumble was not a big deal.
Not that Sony sold many PS3s, but the attitude that they are fighting to make the PS3 better would not have helped. So Sony pretended one of the coolest features wasn't that cool.
For those that really care about this stuff, it was hopefully obvious (and arrogant and annoying to hear Sony distort reality)
But Sony just isn't the company that acts like it's scrapping by with an ok system: for Sony, everything is the ultimate. The PS2, to hear Sony, was some kind of supercomputer.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say that the people are well represented in the states, I said that the mirror system we have makes any difference (such as occasional corruption) highly obvious.
the detractors are actually proving my point. The level of anger over relatively minor acts of corruption shows very well what's going on. If it was DNC v KKK, there would be less incentive to get mad about Hsu or Craig.
Look at the level of corruption tolerated in the UK, France, Japan, etc. It is so much worse, unfortunately, less people are making hay about it (because they must have more party loyalty).
There's so much less to lose for dems to be ruled by GOP and vice versa, so we don't tolerate Nixon's BS or silly Lewinsky scandals.
I'm not surprised that people are mad about my comments, but it wasn't meant to troll or anything. US hatred is in vogue. No big deal, plenty to be mad about.
You don't seem to even understand what I'm saying.
Did you read the news today? Move-on admitted that this ad was legal parody. There is absolutely no legal ground for calling this ad trademark infringement. It was political speech that is at the very core of 1st amendment protection.
I don't know what court ruling you are talking about, since you apparently have no idea how to state its name, but I know there is no court dumb enough to misunderstand that political speech is not the same thing as violating trademark. Using the ABC logo on a movie you made yourself, putting Heinz on ketchup you made at home, putting "Move-on.org" on an ad you made yourself in a way that would confuse someone into thinking Moveon made that ad... that's violative.
Saying: these people I disagree with did this: [move-on ad], is utterly legal. My point was that, because the ad is legal, Google has a choice in the matter. A lot of the commenters in this thread think that this ad was illegal, and therefore google had no choice, and therefore this is not a story. We all know now (if we read the news) that this is untrue, and the ad is already back on screens all over the internet. Wasn't illegal in any way.
As far as your "liberal paranoia" comment: I already said I didn't have a problem with this kind of censorship very clearly. People who don't agree with you are not always conservatives who are afraid of liberal oppression. I think the word for your behavior is "projection". I don't give two shits about the obvious and totally ok censorship that Google News and Clear Channel and Foxnews, etc all practice. It's the idiots who pick the media that agrees with them and insists that any description of its preference is "paranoia" that irritate me. But not much, as they can't be helped, can they?
The US government is unbelievably not corrupt. We have a two party system, and if one party even gets slightly corrupt, it's a massive scandal. People who think the US has a corrupt government are invariably lacking real perspective.
Corruption is a massive problem in the USA. but it's in the corporate culture, not the government. The fact that we have two very similar parties pretty much ensures that corruption will be brought to light quickly. Larry Craig tapping his foot is a scandal in the US. Compare that to Putin.
Brazil is, indeed, a very nice country. But unhappiness in the US is always hyper inflated. Things are really really nice in the US, and if you really do travel, you should already know this.
how were you able to read my above comment? It was indecipherable!
Sony's not the king anymore, no doubt. But no one would say there were dumb to get into videogames in the first place, which is what some say about MS.
Thing is, we're in the now, so MS might as well stick with its winner.
You missed more than the decimal. Sony has made a ton of money on the playstation line. The PS3 itself hasn't, but the line in general Sony hasn't los tmoney but rather has made a ton of money. Also, Sony is probably profiting off the PS3 when you compare how their blu-ray project would have gone, but for the PS3. So the PS3 is a loss itself that made money in a convoluted way. Either way, the XBOX line has not made money, as a whole. It has lost billions, not less than 1.7 that is the hole Sony was in at one point according to your source.
It's just different.
But MS has the best system now, by far, and I think the fact that they had the worst system last generation doesn't mean anything at all.
piggybacking by criticizing it. pumping it for attention... that she is opposed to move-on politically. That's legit speech. How would democracy work if we couldn't do that?
The ad in question uses a photo of a General that was probably not taken by move-on. Suppose it was from CSPAN or the DOD. Moveon is using it to show who and what they are opposed to... in a way that drives attention to them for their opposition.
you're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. There is no way you can dispute that the politician was criticizing move-on. You agree with me when you say that she did so for attention.
Look man, you did the right thing. Fans for each HDD probably saved you a lot of money. But the typical consumer wants a hard drive that is durable enough that it can be abused a bit more. That's all the parent means.
I don't have time to cool all my hard drives. In fact, I'm sure the one in this computer is covered in dust. It's a deskstar, and it's been making odd rattles for a while, so I know this system is headed south. Could I have babied it to where that wasn't going to happen? Yeah, but I don't want to. I could live with a ten gig drive that was robust.
We can have one 500 gig media server, even software servers to some extent. Those can have fans and stuff. Your huge hard drives probably have a lot of content overlap (if they are personally your drives). You probably only need one if you could access it wherever you were.
Ok, you're clearly being nutty, so I don't know why I'm bothering to respond, but google news's bias is extremely well documented and obvious. Just because you found one site that you believe is right wing fringe (it isn't, but oh well) doesn't mean there isn't a great deal of bias. Of course, bias is in the eye of the beholder (some people will think the Washington Post is rabidly conservative and some rapidly liberal), but your one example is particularly pathetic. The fact is, there are many major conservative news aggregates that are excluded from Google News, but many liberal aggregates that are very extreme remain. I think that's totally fine. Google can do whatever it likes.
I don't know what you mean about "Capitalizing on a trademark for campaign publicity" making something a violation. Do you dispute that the politician was criticizing Move-On's ad? No. Was the trademarked ad clearly being criticized? Yes. No one is confusing the politician for move-on. Trademarks are not intellectual property, they exist so that the public is not confused. No one was confused, because this was a criticism of Move-On. This is clearly not a trademark violation. What is your legal basis for insisting that the likelihood of publicity that a critique provides has something to do with the complain being a trademark violation?
Regardless, Ron Paul is a lefty (just look at his spending record). And I don't care that much. What point were you trying to make, anyway? Is every site that Ron Paul links appear at totally unbiased? You will find plenty of stuff about George Bush, even though he is extremely conservative, on any liberal news site.
The site that broke the Dan Rather forgery scandal is not a legitimate news source on google, even though it must have hundreds of thousands of views. It's very conservative, but not really even fringe. This same source has also proven that Reuters doctored some photos from Lebanon. It's a worthy and relatively major news source, but not for google news. This is one example of many conservative sites Google doesn't want on its news page. And that leads to weird headline such as "Gonzales confirmed: war criminal to head US Justice Department". That was an actual Google News headline.
Google's bias is well documented. I think it's a great part of American society to be biased and successful, so I like this, but still, the reasons for the ad ban are probably political.
Google allows all sorts of ridiculousness in. The site above had to post several times before google would remove new-nazi news. Liberal fringe folks have little trouble either. Antiwar.com is obviously antisemetic, but it's a google-news source. Michelle Malkin, a crazy ass conservative, doesn't get on google news, though her offensiveness is probably a but less than the anti-bush neonazis that google was ok with.
I'm not saying Google shouldn't be liberal, I'm saying that Google has a right to bias that they seem to exercise.
If you don't realize that, you aren't paying attention. Everything about Google speaks to multiculturalism and minimizes its American identity. You will see special google logos for Sputnik but not Memorial Day. Google is like Apple, a great company that wants to promote a certain way of thinking.
I'm not trying to troll here. Google's got a point of view. Why deny it? Politicians have to engage in these types of ideological arguments. They have to show the ads they are disputing. It's called discourse. Google has no obligation to show any ad they don't like, but this was a legal ad. You don't see move-on actually suing anybody, do you? Move-on has spent millions of dollars to fight this specific congresswoman. If she broke the law, they'd sue her into oblivion.
It's a judgment call since Google can do whatever the hell it wants, but there was no trademark violation.
Showing the actions of Moveon in order to criticize them is fair use. There is no question that this ad was not illegal.
Google is liberal. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's obvious. They filter information in a biased way, too. If you look at the fringe sites they allow onto google news, its matches their political views. No right wing nuts, plenty of left wing nuts.
Again, I don't have a problem with google choosing to be biased, but they do.
And maybe they give all trademark complaints instant credit, but I seriously doubt it. This was an invalid complaint and there was no legal reason to pull the ad.
golly, that was quite a damn typo, 'eh? /parkinsons=typos
you can get a system that plays japanese ps3 discs in any electronic store in alabama
Burden of proof was preponderance. Her claim that it was technically possible that someone did the highly unlikely isn't enough.
And I say that she should do what the law says. If people are outraged enough, the laws will change. But they won't, because the media is powerful, and it's powerful because our society wants them to be. We give them that power, so the huge fines for illegal downloads are where they are.
We do need some sort of control over distributing other people's art. That needs to be legally stopped. I hate that this lady has been held liable to such an absurd extreme, but these laws do need to exist. Until you can come up with a better idea that actually will prevent this type of behaivior, and you can convince the people to elect you, then this is the law.
And there is nothing loserish about wanting the law enforced equally. Everyone who cheered over Martha Stewart and is angry over this is being unfair. The law can be harsh, but it's our law.
Jury Nullification?
For this? Jury nullification is for shams. She broke the law, and the penalty is just money. I think it's ridiculous that she pay this much money (and she won't), but just because a jury can go against the law doesn't mean that's half the purpose of a jury.
For some reason I thought the wii was $350.
Yeah, oops.
Wearing a seatbelt does not make you safer to other cars on the road.
You already know that your argument is ludicrous. You were arguing that seatbelts make hospitals less expensive and crowded, not that they make roads safer.
It's none of your business whether I eat a big man in my car or not, even though it wille ventually harm me. Same applies to seatbelts. The laws that demand it are not justice, but oppression, even if it's a very minor oppression that actually helps people.
I don't have a real problem with the seatbelt laws, but your argument is stupid.
Your concerns probably reflect popular opinion, but I want to point out that if a PS3 has 4 USB ports, it's a good one with good backwards compatibility. If it has two, it's a cheap one with no backwards compatibility. You will probably always have the option of buying a PS3 that is backwards compatible. At least, that's assuming Sony has a clue, which is not the best assumption I could make.
The wii isn't much cheaper than a $400 PS3, and its backwards compatibility is limited to the small number of gamecube games and a what's sold online. The PS3s with backward compatibility are compatible with nearly 10,000 games. Not ot mention that, frankly, the PS3 library already blows the wii out of the water (and the 360 blows the PS3 out of the water). Problem is, people are going to share your fears about which PS3 systems are good and which are not.
Sony is blowing a major advantage, again, largely in public relations.
Sony needs to make the cheap PS3s a different color.
Sony needs better names for these things. By 80 gig I meant the non EE having, but still Back Compat model, which is what the 60 gig is in Europe.
It's getting too confusing, I think. How many wives and moms are going to get a PS3 for a kid or hubby who immediately realizes it won't play Petal Gear 3 (or whatever PS2 game). Is that guy supposed to complain?
It's needlessly confusing. At least when MS has several editions, it's obvious which one sucks.
Once they run out of 60 gig models, you can buy an 80 gig if you want backwards compatibility.
I'm not wrong, am I? Sony's not killing this feature entirely, are they? Backwards compatibility has remained among the playstation's very finest features, and I can't understand this for the 40 gig, so surely the higher version off the ps3 will continue to have it, right?
How the hell much does the PS2 graphics, etc chips cost? 20$? 40$? Surely so little as to justify itself, right? Is there a single electronics component as fun and cost effective as a playstation 2? 8000 games for 40$.
Sony is getting so difficult to understand.
No, we might lose an Apache or a C-130 might get chewed up a bit, and we have lost an F-16 or two.
But we haven't lost any stealth planes. And we aren't using them there either. Why would we use stealth in an environment when we already have air superiority (and in fact, the enemy doesn't actually have an air force)? Our enemy is using IEDs, they do not have Radar facilities. We would obviously destroy that kind of massive infrastructure.
GP was being a typical propogandist. Making up BS claims from "some guy I know" who has a pre-mission selection between f-117s and f-15s like he's playing Ace Combat 4. Just another idiot.
Vista=DX10
Thus, the best operating system that you would use DX9 on is XP.
It's a simple concept. And in practice, it's obvious why they should have used the much more efficient XP for the performance comparisons.
yeah, I'm not a boob.
And maybe you didn't really read my comment before calling me one. The problem I cited was specifically functionality. IF you aren't aware that Office 2007 is severely unlike 2003 in ways that have nothing to do with graphics, then you just aren't informed about this stuff.
I said that I understand that people dig graphics and my beef is with less useful software. Vista has DRM and just does less than XP. Office 2007 is much much much less intuitive and simple type a fucking document on than Office 97 and 2003 (peas in a pod, in my opinion, like Windows 95 and 98, one is just a better version of the same idea).
You cannot "turn visual effects" off to get this new version of Office to behave well. This isn't like XP, where I really just want Windows 2000. Also, my laptop runs all this software quickly. The problem is that the software is trying too hard to be simplistic, and has reduced someone who is very competent with office programs to someone who has to click around with menus for ten minutes.
It's back to Office 2003.
Oh, did I mention that the default file saves do not work in Office 2003 without upgrading 2003? That's neat.
Anyway, you just don't seem to understand the issue. Go download the trial version of office and tyr to do something complicated in Excel or Word. Have fun!
China taxes at an enormous rate. So the connection between high margin items and China's ability to support this stuff is clear. If you have bought Chinese stuff, you have bought bullets that wound up in innocent people's heads. I'm not judging you for that; it's damn near impossible to avoid buying Chinese stuff, but it's still our reality. My three Lenovo laptops (I'm a thinkpad fan) gave hundreds of dollars to China's government.
It's not fair that Chinese workers have a crappy life. I think moving manufacturing to places with human rights will incentivize human rights. Wal-Mart, etc, and our nation's weak dollar and insistence on cheaper more disposable stuff is also making human life cheaper and more disposable. I'm not some douchebag hippie. I'm a normal man who can read the writing on the wall. If we do not start now with China, things are going to SUCK in the near future.
jeez.
That's not exactly a man's man.
I have heard (And said) the typical complaints against MS for many years, but something very unique is going on here.
This new Office suite was supposed to be revolutionary... but it's just TERRIBLE. It's so unintuitive, and its predecessors are simply far superior. I'm actually using Word 97 on my old desktop until I get around to replacing Office 07 on my laptop. And Vista is similarly awful. All these needless pretty effects are fine and dandy, I understand that people dig that stuff, but the system is simply less versatile than XP or Win 2000.
XP was a step up from Win 98. For all the complaints, the upgrade was worth real money. And Win 95 from Win 3.1 was also a tangible improvement.
MS has lost its mojo (little that it had).
I was actually jealous of a mac today. My Thinkpad deserves better. (yeah, I have ubuntu, but I have to use SharePoint at work).
It would be great if Sony had been honest, but really, it would have made the PS3 look inferior to competitors. Sony had a fiduciary duty to pretend the lack of rumble was not a big deal.
Not that Sony sold many PS3s, but the attitude that they are fighting to make the PS3 better would not have helped. So Sony pretended one of the coolest features wasn't that cool.
For those that really care about this stuff, it was hopefully obvious (and arrogant and annoying to hear Sony distort reality)
But Sony just isn't the company that acts like it's scrapping by with an ok system: for Sony, everything is the ultimate. The PS2, to hear Sony, was some kind of supercomputer.
The lie was lipstick on a pig.
this is true, but I can't stand the cable.
I wanted to add that you do not need to buy the proprietary adapter. Any Playstation controller->USB port adapter works fine on the PS3.
I have a couple I got for 5$ each for my laptop.