i'm thinking that the reason that the release date for the gamecube is delayed in NA is because of the origins of the product. it's much more practical to introduce the item into the surrounding market that the Nintendo is operating in. 1> it's cheaper, no overseas shipping and tariffs (boy do those get high!); 2> it probably gives the manufacturer a good gauge as to how well the product sells in japan before sending it to NA (though there's no doubt that the gamecube will be gone off the shelves within the hour that stores open with them when they do come); 3> nintendo is japanese, and a good number of games would be created in japanese (language in script and instructions), so it would take some time to reprogram the game to be translated into english, spanish, french, what have you, to be released into a different world market. do you remember the game that had the line 'all your base are belong to us' and 'someone set us up the bomb' for the N8 console? it was translated verbatim from japanese to english, it explains the reason why the sentences are so mucked up.
have you also ever seen those N64 games that were in japanese? yes, they do exist, if you bother to look hard for them, like bomberman.
anyway, sorry i digressed, but if you apply american movies as you do with the gamecube, it makes much more sense. i mean, most movies that are from movie distributors are mostly located in the US (universal, WB, FOX, USA, etc.), and after a couple of weeks to months after the initial release of the movie(s), the movies start to trickle overseas to canada, britan, france, hong kong, etc. if you've ever seen those bootleg movies that you get off IRC, you'd notice that some of the movies come directly off of recording rippoffs in the theaters and they have subtitles with the movie. (this explains the quasi-translation of movies.) movies are also dubbed over in voice, like Jet Li's Black Mask, and other said movies (especially from asia). these things take time to be made ready for overseas release.
movie editors and nintendo execs could adapt their said products to make them appropriate for a complete, synchronous world-wide release, but like all businessmen, they'd like to get returns as quickly as possible, and they just release their products in spurts, thus the delayed releases.
toting a gun and shooting it is a very bad idea. the bullet from the gun (if fired and misses the target) can pierce the airplane hull/window and cause depressurization. what's even worse is if larger holes result. the negative pressure caused by the flying aircraft would cause passengers who aren't strapped in to get sucked out of the plane. not pretty.
maybe tasers are more of a way to go? but then, any weapon carried can be used against you if s/he is disarmed. think a-la air force onen (the movie)
look beyond the planes. the WTC towers were supposed to withstand direct impact from a Boeing 707 craft, and, from what i've gathered, the main airfleets of commercial us airlines used craft of that size at the time and after the WTC was built. mentioning survival from a 767 would be a different barrel of monkeys, but would still understandably not topple a set of towers immediately.
i'd turn to the 1993 bombing as the true test of structure soundness. here's a quote i found from WNYF:
"The blast was centered on the B2 level. It was so intense that it caused the collapse of the steel reinforced concrete floor to the floor below (B3 level), which in turn caused more collapses. Tons of debris were piled onto the B6 level floor. A steel fire door that opens to the B2 level from a stairway from the B1 level was blown off it's hinges and embedded into a wall 35 feet away... The blast just so happened to be located at the point where it could do the most damage."
judging from the statement, i'd say that the blast had potential to toppled the building, and for a building to sustain damage like that, well, let's just say that the infrastructure was very very sound. had it failed then, many more deaths could have resulted, as there would have been no time to evacuate at all.
i'd give more kudos to the civil engineer for sustaining the bomb blast than the 767, more for the fact that from what i've heard, the building was built mainly to survive a collision with an airplane, and not on a bomb blast, though the plane incident is far more ghastly than the bomb, mostly because it ultimately destroyed the twin towers and killed many, many more people.
this may not be on topic, but i've noticed that the media, the government, and just about everyone, have called this event that happened to be a 'tragedy' this, 'tragedy' that. now, my question is this: is it really a 'tragedy'? how about catastrophe? i remembered back in the day of middle school english that 'tragedy' and 'catastrophe' have different connotations in their use. 'catastrophe' is a sudden disastrous event that occurs without warning, that could not be prevented because it could not be stopped because it completely came out of the blue. 'tragedy' is a disastrous event that occurs as a result as a domino effect, resulting from a buildup of events that are set into place, and are let loose to eventually spiral out of control, resulting in the disaster. perhaps the media and government body are misusing words? (i won't make any real criticism here).
If you want war against those who caused a national crisis, look at the assassination that lead to World War I. Retaliation, and pointing blame to third parties lead us to a war of trenches, mass-scale slaughters, and a war only to be supersceded by another war caused by World War I, also known as World War II.
Slashdot Mirror
you forgot the human ships (my personal favorite):
"Stop rocking the boat."
"You're making me seasick"
*hurling sound*
i'm thinking that the reason that the release date for the gamecube is delayed in NA is because of the origins of the product. it's much more practical to introduce the item into the surrounding market that the Nintendo is operating in. 1> it's cheaper, no overseas shipping and tariffs (boy do those get high!); 2> it probably gives the manufacturer a good gauge as to how well the product sells in japan before sending it to NA (though there's no doubt that the gamecube will be gone off the shelves within the hour that stores open with them when they do come); 3> nintendo is japanese, and a good number of games would be created in japanese (language in script and instructions), so it would take some time to reprogram the game to be translated into english, spanish, french, what have you, to be released into a different world market. do you remember the game that had the line 'all your base are belong to us' and 'someone set us up the bomb' for the N8 console? it was translated verbatim from japanese to english, it explains the reason why the sentences are so mucked up.
have you also ever seen those N64 games that were in japanese? yes, they do exist, if you bother to look hard for them, like bomberman.
anyway, sorry i digressed, but if you apply american movies as you do with the gamecube, it makes much more sense. i mean, most movies that are from movie distributors are mostly located in the US (universal, WB, FOX, USA, etc.), and after a couple of weeks to months after the initial release of the movie(s), the movies start to trickle overseas to canada, britan, france, hong kong, etc. if you've ever seen those bootleg movies that you get off IRC, you'd notice that some of the movies come directly off of recording rippoffs in the theaters and they have subtitles with the movie. (this explains the quasi-translation of movies.) movies are also dubbed over in voice, like Jet Li's Black Mask, and other said movies (especially from asia). these things take time to be made ready for overseas release.
movie editors and nintendo execs could adapt their said products to make them appropriate for a complete, synchronous world-wide release, but like all businessmen, they'd like to get returns as quickly as possible, and they just release their products in spurts, thus the delayed releases.
toting a gun and shooting it is a very bad idea. the bullet from the gun (if fired and misses the target) can pierce the airplane hull/window and cause depressurization. what's even worse is if larger holes result. the negative pressure caused by the flying aircraft would cause passengers who aren't strapped in to get sucked out of the plane. not pretty.
maybe tasers are more of a way to go? but then, any weapon carried can be used against you if s/he is disarmed. think a-la air force onen (the movie)
look beyond the planes. the WTC towers were supposed to withstand direct impact from a Boeing 707 craft, and, from what i've gathered, the main airfleets of commercial us airlines used craft of that size at the time and after the WTC was built. mentioning survival from a 767 would be a different barrel of monkeys, but would still understandably not topple a set of towers immediately. .. The blast just so happened to be located at the point where it could do the most damage."
i'd turn to the 1993 bombing as the true test of structure soundness. here's a quote i found from WNYF:
"The blast was centered on the B2 level. It was so intense that it caused the collapse of the steel reinforced concrete floor to the floor below (B3 level), which in turn caused more collapses. Tons of debris were piled onto the B6 level floor. A steel fire door that opens to the B2 level from a stairway from the B1 level was blown off it's hinges and embedded into a wall 35 feet away.
judging from the statement, i'd say that the blast had potential to toppled the building, and for a building to sustain damage like that, well, let's just say that the infrastructure was very very sound. had it failed then, many more deaths could have resulted, as there would have been no time to evacuate at all.
i'd give more kudos to the civil engineer for sustaining the bomb blast than the 767, more for the fact that from what i've heard, the building was built mainly to survive a collision with an airplane, and not on a bomb blast, though the plane incident is far more ghastly than the bomb, mostly because it ultimately destroyed the twin towers and killed many, many more people.
this may not be on topic, but i've noticed that the media, the government, and just about everyone, have called this event that happened to be a 'tragedy' this, 'tragedy' that. now, my question is this: is it really a 'tragedy'? how about catastrophe? i remembered back in the day of middle school english that 'tragedy' and 'catastrophe' have different connotations in their use. 'catastrophe' is a sudden disastrous event that occurs without warning, that could not be prevented because it could not be stopped because it completely came out of the blue. 'tragedy' is a disastrous event that occurs as a result as a domino effect, resulting from a buildup of events that are set into place, and are let loose to eventually spiral out of control, resulting in the disaster. perhaps the media and government body are misusing words? (i won't make any real criticism here).
If you want war against those who caused a national crisis, look at the assassination that lead to World War I. Retaliation, and pointing blame to third parties lead us to a war of trenches, mass-scale slaughters, and a war only to be supersceded by another war caused by World War I, also known as World War II.