When one of my friends worked at Burger King just out of high school, his manager's name was Cindy Meadows, the most porn-star sounding name I've heard of since Keira Knightly.
The entire point of the Revolution and (to a lesser degree) the DS is to attract people who aren't traditionally gamers. Young people aren't what Nintendo is aiming at here. They're aiming at the people who normally stand back and say "That's too complicated for me, I don't want to play."
Ah, yes, aiming your product for those indivuduals who have spent thousands of dollars, or even tens of thousands on games and game systems in their lifetimes is quite silly. The smart thing is to hope that someone walking by who has never spent a dime on games will suddenly shell out hundreds of dollars for the "Wii". That's the ticket.
I disagree. Everybody is so hung up on how "wee" is a synonym for "urine."
I'm not. Didn't even occur to me when the name change announcment was made. What I am hung up on, is that they took a perfectly good name (Revolution) and changed it to something monumentally stupid (Wii).
No, it's not a good name. In case you were asleep, they already had a perfectly good one: Revolution. Now they've change it from that to something that is flat out fucking stupid.
it's more instructive to just look at how reporters vote
No, it's not. This old chestnut was put to bed a very, very, very long time ago. In the first place, these surveys are bullshit, because they (deliberatly) select a tiny sample. In the survey mentioned in your own link, they polled 240 journalists out of tens of thousands nationwide.
The second reason this argument is bullshit, is because in the words of Eric Alterman, "you are only as liberal as the man who ones you". The owners of big media are very conservative, and with consolidation explosion after the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the amount of media they control keeps getting larger and larger.
Furthermore, even longstanding, famously liberal media sources feel compelled to offer conservative voices an equal voice in their space, while conservative media sources wouldn't think for a second of returning the favor.
So, in summary: the media has never had a liberal bias; if it did, we'd be in the middle of Al Gore's second term right now. The supposition that it is, however, was the Devils gift to the Republican Party.
Bzzt, thanks for playing. As others have pointed out, people write viruses for two reasons: making money and recognition. The credit card information you can steal from Macs would be more valuable, and have fewer false positives, than PC's. This is because Macs cost more than bargin basement PC's, so the credit information you steal will be more valuable for indetity theft because your targets will have more money than people who own PC's with their old toaster oven converted into a power supply. There are also many millions of PC's in government and business that wont have personal credit information, and you'll just waste your time shifting through that data.
As far as recognition goes, what you rather be known for? The guy who writes the 100,000th show stopping Windows virus, or the one who writes the first showstopping Mac virus, ever?
Yes, I did specify which IE I was talking about, didn't I. It would have been clearer (and more elegant) if I had instead said "and Macs have never had a browser tied into the operating system".
Actually, Macs do (and did) have both Outlook and IE.
I don't think they've ever had Outlook...there is Entourage, however. It provides compatiblity with some Outlook features and Exchange servers, but isn't updated much. The important distinction between Outlook and Exchange is that Outlook would auto exec some attatchments; some viruses would spread if only only priviewed the message. That wasn't the case with Entourage.
As for IE, I did specify the PC version. I could have stated it more elegantly, however, if I had instead said "and Macs have never had a browser tied into the operating system".
Virus writers are writing viruses to make profit; either by stealing information, creating botnets, or proliferation of unwanted advertising. They make more profit by exploiting more machines, so it's no wonder that the most common OS is also the most targetted.
Bullshit for two reasons: you have many millions of computers in business and government that wont have credit card data to steal, as opposed to personal machines. The second reason: Macs cost more than your bargin basement PC's. So going after Macs would be a much better investment on your hacking dollar, because your number of false positives would be reduced enourmously, and the numbers you WOULD get would be from people with better finances (and credit ratings). Besides, if viruses writers go where the money is, why has IIS had far more exploits than Apache? Apache has more marketshare and runs commerce sites all over the globe.
Furthermore, the main reason people write viruses isn't to collect information, it's to make an impact on the world and for "props", as other posters have pointed out. Say you write a show stopping Windows virus that brings millions of Windows boxes to their knees. BFD. It's been done a thousand times before. However, if you wrote the first show stopping Mac virus, you'd go down in history as the first guy to do so.
So, once again: marketshare has nothing to do with it. If Apple had 95% of the industry, they still wouldn't have Outlook, Active X, piss poor privledge separation, or dozens of ports and services open by default. Microsoft would.
Nor even markedly more resistant. They have just been less targeted.
Nonsense. Microsoft is the target of viruses and spyware because of Microsofts moronic design decisions and security policies, not because of marketshare.
It's just that most virus writers don't give a crap about Macs.
And the fact that Macs never had Outlook, the PC version of Internet Explorer, Active X, ports and services open all over the place, or piss poor priveledge seperation. That is why Macs don't have viruses (Linux as well, for that matter), not because of market share.
Problems that just affected black voters, who generally vote Democratic. Blackwell, Ohio's Secretary of State, was in charge of the election while at the same time being co-chair of Bush's re-election committee for his state, a conflict of interest of astronomical, clusterfucking proportions.
brilliant logic (for slashdot)
For someone with your talent for missing the obvious, it probably is.
They are cheaper everywhere when subsidized, not just in the US.
The problem with the U.S., is that you are subsidizing phones when you sign up with a carrier, reguardless of wether you get one or not, so you might as well get one. i.e. Sprint will still charge you the same $45 a month if you get a phone with the plan or bring your own and go month to month. This effectivly kills the market for independant cell phones in the States, making them much more expensive.
I have no idea what you mean about how it's difficult to switch carriers. I have switched twice in 3 years. No problems. And if you have you own phone, it's even easier! I purchased my unlocked/unbranded phone and put it on Cingular myself.
The problem is that carriers only want to offer locked phones. To get around this involves jumping through hoops; you need to find an unlock code online or make up a story for Verizon about how you're traveling out of the country and need a code. Sure you can buy an equivilant phone of your own and not have to put up with this crap, but it will cost you a pretty penny to do so.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but right-wing moralizing busybodies outnumber Democrat busybodies 10 to 1. Here's a few, just off the top of my head: Jerry Fallwell, John Ashcroft, William Bennet, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, James Dobson, Orrin Hatch and Bill O'Reilly.
Slashdot Mirror
When one of my friends worked at Burger King just out of high school, his manager's name was Cindy Meadows, the most porn-star sounding name I've heard of since Keira Knightly.
The entire point of the Revolution and (to a lesser degree) the DS is to attract people who aren't traditionally gamers. Young people aren't what Nintendo is aiming at here. They're aiming at the people who normally stand back and say "That's too complicated for me, I don't want to play."
Ah, yes, aiming your product for those indivuduals who have spent thousands of dollars, or even tens of thousands on games and game systems in their lifetimes is quite silly. The smart thing is to hope that someone walking by who has never spent a dime on games will suddenly shell out hundreds of dollars for the "Wii". That's the ticket.
I disagree. Everybody is so hung up on how "wee" is a synonym for "urine."
I'm not. Didn't even occur to me when the name change announcment was made. What I am hung up on, is that they took a perfectly good name (Revolution) and changed it to something monumentally stupid (Wii).
It's a stupid name that deserves to be made fun of, just like the MacBook, for that matter.
I'm just going to keep calling them Powerbooks, which is what they went by when they had 68k processors, as well.
No, it's not a good name. In case you were asleep, they already had a perfectly good one: Revolution. Now they've change it from that to something that is flat out fucking stupid.
Apple - $.35
Not exactly. The CC company still has to take their chunk outta that 35 cents.
So which RIAA label are you with that you get 70 cents a song then?
If Apple was greedy, they would have been leading the charge to raise prices, not holding it back.
Ever hear that story? The RIAA wants to kill the goose to get at the golden eggs it thinks are inside.
it's more instructive to just look at how reporters vote
No, it's not. This old chestnut was put to bed a very, very, very long time ago. In the first place, these surveys are bullshit, because they (deliberatly) select a tiny sample. In the survey mentioned in your own link, they polled 240 journalists out of tens of thousands nationwide.
The second reason this argument is bullshit, is because in the words of Eric Alterman, "you are only as liberal as the man who ones you". The owners of big media are very conservative, and with consolidation explosion after the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the amount of media they control keeps getting larger and larger.
Furthermore, even longstanding, famously liberal media sources feel compelled to offer conservative voices an equal voice in their space, while conservative media sources wouldn't think for a second of returning the favor.
So, in summary: the media has never had a liberal bias; if it did, we'd be in the middle of Al Gore's second term right now. The supposition that it is, however, was the Devils gift to the Republican Party.
Not because Accords are better, but because they are more common.
No, not because they are more common. Because they are easy to break into (see other posts), and because Hondas hold their resale value very well.
Bzzt, thanks for playing. As others have pointed out, people write viruses for two reasons: making money and recognition. The credit card information you can steal from Macs would be more valuable, and have fewer false positives, than PC's. This is because Macs cost more than bargin basement PC's, so the credit information you steal will be more valuable for indetity theft because your targets will have more money than people who own PC's with their old toaster oven converted into a power supply. There are also many millions of PC's in government and business that wont have personal credit information, and you'll just waste your time shifting through that data.
As far as recognition goes, what you rather be known for? The guy who writes the 100,000th show stopping Windows virus, or the one who writes the first showstopping Mac virus, ever?
PC version of Internet Explorer
Yes, I did specify which IE I was talking about, didn't I. It would have been clearer (and more elegant) if I had instead said "and Macs have never had a browser tied into the operating system".
Actually, Macs do (and did) have both Outlook and IE.
I don't think they've ever had Outlook...there is Entourage, however. It provides compatiblity with some Outlook features and Exchange servers, but isn't updated much. The important distinction between Outlook and Exchange is that Outlook would auto exec some attatchments; some viruses would spread if only only priviewed the message. That wasn't the case with Entourage.
As for IE, I did specify the PC version. I could have stated it more elegantly, however, if I had instead said "and Macs have never had a browser tied into the operating system".
Virus writers are writing viruses to make profit; either by stealing information, creating botnets, or proliferation of unwanted advertising. They make more profit by exploiting more machines, so it's no wonder that the most common OS is also the most targetted.
Bullshit for two reasons: you have many millions of computers in business and government that wont have credit card data to steal, as opposed to personal machines. The second reason: Macs cost more than your bargin basement PC's. So going after Macs would be a much better investment on your hacking dollar, because your number of false positives would be reduced enourmously, and the numbers you WOULD get would be from people with better finances (and credit ratings). Besides, if viruses writers go where the money is, why has IIS had far more exploits than Apache? Apache has more marketshare and runs commerce sites all over the globe.
Furthermore, the main reason people write viruses isn't to collect information, it's to make an impact on the world and for "props", as other posters have pointed out. Say you write a show stopping Windows virus that brings millions of Windows boxes to their knees. BFD. It's been done a thousand times before. However, if you wrote the first show stopping Mac virus, you'd go down in history as the first guy to do so.
So, once again: marketshare has nothing to do with it. If Apple had 95% of the industry, they still wouldn't have Outlook, Active X, piss poor privledge separation, or dozens of ports and services open by default. Microsoft would.
Nor even markedly more resistant. They have just been less targeted.
Nonsense. Microsoft is the target of viruses and spyware because of Microsofts moronic design decisions and security policies, not because of marketshare.
It's just that most virus writers don't give a crap about Macs.
And the fact that Macs never had Outlook, the PC version of Internet Explorer, Active X, ports and services open all over the place, or piss poor priveledge seperation. That is why Macs don't have viruses (Linux as well, for that matter), not because of market share.
Why would only the liberal media be ignoring it?
You can't ignore something if you don't exist in the first place.
so because ohio had some problems
Problems that just affected black voters, who generally vote Democratic. Blackwell, Ohio's Secretary of State, was in charge of the election while at the same time being co-chair of Bush's re-election committee for his state, a conflict of interest of astronomical, clusterfucking proportions.
brilliant logic (for slashdot)
For someone with your talent for missing the obvious, it probably is.
They are cheaper everywhere when subsidized, not just in the US.
The problem with the U.S., is that you are subsidizing phones when you sign up with a carrier, reguardless of wether you get one or not, so you might as well get one. i.e. Sprint will still charge you the same $45 a month if you get a phone with the plan or bring your own and go month to month. This effectivly kills the market for independant cell phones in the States, making them much more expensive.
I have no idea what you mean about how it's difficult to switch carriers. I have switched twice in 3 years. No problems. And if you have you own phone, it's even easier! I purchased my unlocked/unbranded phone and put it on Cingular myself.
The problem is that carriers only want to offer locked phones. To get around this involves jumping through hoops; you need to find an unlock code online or make up a story for Verizon about how you're traveling out of the country and need a code. Sure you can buy an equivilant phone of your own and not have to put up with this crap, but it will cost you a pretty penny to do so.
Thanks. Much better than the two I found with Google video.
The vast majority of your list are pundits and windbags, not Congressmen.
1) But they do hold a great deal of power in the GOP political base.
2) That's never stopped you guys from bitching about Tipper Gore, has it?
I would say that, at least, qualifies as a war wouldn't you agree?
For Constitution-suspending-purposes, a war isn't a war until Congress delares it, which they haven't. This dog don't hunt.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but right-wing moralizing busybodies outnumber Democrat busybodies 10 to 1. Here's a few, just off the top of my head: Jerry Fallwell, John Ashcroft, William Bennet, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, James Dobson, Orrin Hatch and Bill O'Reilly.
Which administration proposed the DMCA again? Oh, yeah, you Democrats.
It was proposed by members of Congress, some of whome were Republicans, and passed by Congress, which was controlled by Republicans.
I guess you've already forgotten all the crazy shenanigans of the Clinton era.
All of Clintons real, imagined or outright invented shenanigans put together pale next to any number of Bush's individual shenanigans.