Except none of Wow's existant is reliant on the economy. If everything cost 1 gold in Wow, people would still work on their toons just to level them up and try end game stuff. Essentially if I suddenly found 100 billion gold on Wow and gave it to everyone Blizzard wouldn't care if it was legit.
However in Second life, the economy is the only way second Life has to make money. There's no "game" underneath it. There's nothing but the economy to Linden Labs. People do stuff with the money but the only thing keeping the company running is the economy.
Any economy, real or otherwise will be traded for real dollars, however when the game world exists only because of the economy and there's nothing that you can't get truely get elsewhere, there's a problem. Want to say Second life is amazing go ahead. But it's a graphical version of IRC or Muds. Not that it's a bad thing, just that it's not as unique as they try to make it sound.
Uhh Yeah? Us in the industry, use that as an term. It's the same meaning as the retail industry, but that doesn't mean the games industry doesn't also use it in a very similar way.
Or have most of you guys forgot the Games industry deals with retail very closely at the end of a game's development cycle?
I never do this, but I must. The parent is correct. SKU is a game industry term, this is a story about the game industry, stop complaining about our vernacular. 3 SKU means there's three different versions of a product/game (3 platforms, 2 platforms, 1 special edition, or Halo 3's 1 normal, 1 special, and 1 uber special edition). Microsoft has 4 360 Console SKUs in america, meaning there's 4 different versions (core, premium, elite, and now halo 3).
Overinflated numbers, hostile fans, just regular stupidity?
Second life is real life with anonymity. Don't you think that breeds a culture that is more interested in sexual exploits and penal attacks (I mean the flying penises, not a second sexual action) than wholesome family fun where people can buy items.
The biggest problem is Second life tries to build an economy based off of real world money. It just doesn't work, people don't want to pay money to get virtual money. On the other hand World of Warcraft has an economy based off of fake money earned from doing spending time in the game. This way advertising in WoW could work (it shouldn't be done but could be there).
So someone please explain how advertisers would even start to invest in this idea with out looking before they leaped. It's an obvious bait and switch deal (high amounts of users, low amounts of ACTIVE users).
Sony's trying to get into the Second life front with Playstation Home, then expecting people to buy all sorts of virtual wares? I can't imagine that's going to turn out good for them too. That doesn't mean the virtual world idea is horrible. The problem is the cost of the virtual world has to be floated somewhere, and consumers are NOT the place to get it in a Second Life style enviroment. SL had a good idea at one point of charging people for land, and that could work, but nickle and diming them for everything or expecting people to spend huge amounts of time designing objects doesn't make a online experience for any company.
Instead give a monthly stipend so people can do stuff with it, have a couple LARGE add ons (more room/s) and charge the advertisers pay for the servers. There needs to be a reason for people to log on other than random hookups and spending there money. That's what the mall is for, though I still can't find the random hook up store.
I love this rational. We don't pass laws that are incomplete or "good enough" why pass Licensing agreements that everyone will have to be forced under at some point.
Elegant hacks should be in code, and hardware, not litigation, and not licensing. An elegant hack was the novell deal that we all hate. Let's not make an "elegant hack" out of a licensing agreement. Make it easier to read is a good thing, but because as you seem to think people who speak out against it don't understand it or disagree with it. Wow. you're a brain child there. Of course people who say it's viral and evil disagree with it. Do you know anyone sane who actually support ebola, the Aids Virus, or TB? The fact that people disagree with it is the problem. It's hardly perfect and needs to be rewritten if people want it to be fully accepted.
The fact that the founder of Linux one of the core components that will start being moved under GPL V3 thinks it's bad means we should at least listen. Stallman won't he's getting what he wants (power, his way, what ever he really wants) but we as consumers should be more careful.
If it's a fucking work of art hang it in the Louvre. If it's a good piece of licensing then people would be able to accept it without these nagging problems. But it's not, it's a waste of our resources at this point, a waste of people's time for those who support it making false claims (I've heard Linus is coming around.. apparently not) a waste of people's time who don't support it (Stallman isn't going to change it until normal people are happy, he's pushing his FSF agenda.)
After the 2006 elections it's obvious that the Democrats are just trying to get elected to get elected. They care less for this country than the average voter. The "try anything" to get elected seemed to work, until the public realized that the Democrats weren't even going to pretend to fulfill the promises they made. Why else is Congress' approval rating lower or the same as Bush's (not something I put trust in, but everyone else believes in it)?
Let's stop pulling our puds and realize a couple things. Bush won in 2004, that means people believed in him vs. Kerry. That means more people agreed that the Iraq war had to be fought rather than pulling out our troops. Kerry was a bad candidate and flip flopped but the main issue was the war on terror, and Kerry sounded like he might have pulled us out of the war. Even if there's a 50 percent chance he'd follow through there's a chance. People instead voted for Bush.
I'm sick of polls telling me people want to pull out of Iraq, that republicans in congress want to pull out, that Bush's support is eroding. Instead look at the facts. Democrats got into office in 2006 running on a variety of campaigns, and some of those campaigns were "pro-war". The term Republicrat came up, it stood for Democrats who acted like Republicans. If the democrats are right and people want out of the war why the hell would anyone pretend to be pro-war to be elected? Why is it that in a barely majority democratic senate the democrats are unable to even pass bills against bush's ideas even if Bush is going to veto them. Why is Bush still looking good if his support is all but out from under him.
The answer is the reports are wrong.
I'm not saying this country is good but instead of this "lesser of two evils" insult we give Bush, realize that no matter what way you cut it, Bush got into office for not one but two terms. Bush was elected over Kerry by a clear margin, and to try to discredit that is falsehood. Kerry sounded good, but when the Americans spoke the best way they know how (at the actual polls) Bush won.
But go ahead and believe that Obama and Hillary are going to win because the polls are telling you, and they might go to the main election, and besure to act surprised again when the polls are proven wrong. If anything the Democratic party relies to much on polling, and not enough on understanding and giving the people what they want.
I'm not going to bash the system, almost everyone understands the problems of the PS3. However the price drop is putting Sony into a different problem, and it's worse.
Sony has all but admited that they are removing the emotion engine from 60gb systems. The 80gb system have been confirmed not to have it. Instead they will be using software emulation (like the European systems) for backwards compatibility so anyone who wants a ps3 and the ability to play ps2 games are running out and picking up 60gb systems. They arn't buying games, they are getting 5 blu ray dvds free, and they are getting other tie ins (I got a second controller from circuit city). Assuming the system costs around 800 to make they still lose 300 on the system not counting the tie ins.
This means they are at least 300 dollars behind for each system they are selling now, and if more people run out buying 60 gb systems for the backwards compatibility and wait for later games, that's more and more money in the hole. It's not unlikely for people to do this (the backwards compatibility on the 360 is horrendous, the european ps3 emulation is weak at best).
So essentially you might see 1 million systems in a month sold but at the same time that's going to be somewhere around the neighborhood of 250 million dollars loss. I don't hear about many people running out and picking up 10 games with their systems either. And Sony's going to get a lot more desperate, methinks. They'll brag about their new numbers but I have a feeling they'll be scared once they realize how many games everyone is buying with their systems.
Oh and here's a beauty. Licensing for Sony systems is only a handful of dollars per system so 300 dollars could mean anything from 10 first party game to 30 third party games. So it's not just 5 games. Plus used games gives them 0 dollars, Blu-ray might help a bit but I don't know of anyone going out and replacing their old collection with new movies, and the rest of the system makes it sound like the PS3 will be hurting even more than before.
But personally I'm more interested in putting in my copy of Okami tonight for a little game session.
Considering Groklaw, pilsner.urquell, and Zonk all pretend to have "deep insight" to this problem, it's not unusualy for you to feel like you're wrong. But you're right. MS is unbound by GPL, and essentially have said their coupons are for GPLv2 only and thus they have nothing to do with GPLv3. This is true.
They may have worded it incorrectly in their title but they understand it. No matter what crap Groklaw has heaped at them. Stallman understands this, Gates understands this, Balmer understands this. They found the loophole on GPLv2, which means they can do are doing under v2. You can't retroactively upgrade a license so they are free and clear.
It's just... well not exactly "FUD" but a piss off the Slashdot community so they hate Microsoft more even though Microsoft isn't doing anything wrong here which sadly more than enough of these stories are becoming.
As long as the license creator didn't throw a fit when someone tried to make money off of the license in a way he didn't think of, and feels the need to write a new license that locks out those people. Oh yeah and basically acts like a spoiled baby.
I'm all for free software licensing. I just don't think the people at the forefront of the free software licensing are the people who should have any control over it at all.
I'd just like to point out the hypocrisy in that you have #3 yet you don't claim they are the exact same species, or we are an evolved form from them?
Just because they have mastered long distance space travel, doesn't make them superior to us. They just look smarter. What if there's 10 genius aliens who designed a space craft, 10 billion idiots who built it (after tons of oversight) and then those 10 flew off the planet.
Or let's imagine a planet where any dictator ended up ruling the earth. They could devote all their money to developing interstellar travel, while we still have to deal with the problems of a multinational front.
There's many reasons why Earthlings might not be stupider than a space traveler. but I just find it interesting that you assume we are the degenerate form.
That being said this new document just means tonight I'm going to continue to be afraid of their damn alien ass heads coming to visit me.
The first idea is IMax movies. I don't know if the rest of you know this but to even get a movie on IMax from a normal screen it has to be remastered at a higher bit rate. Well that's good for those movies that are currently in HD
Personally I prefer the 820 dollar setup I have a home. A 50 inch TV, a 5 disc dvd upconverter and a 5.1 surround sound system. Old movies that arn't remastered suffer, but imagine what they will look like on a imax projection?
Mouse in midair? We had that in the 90s. I actually had one. Here's the bad news. It didn't work well and was much more clunky and frustrating then on the desk. But the big thing is it's something no one wants. Want a better mouse? Touch screens, tablets. Period. Let's get away from these devices and make one or two necessary add ons (keyboard, touch screen monitor with mini speakers in it), rather then make fancier ones.
Then we get to quantum computer, man made brains, and p2p systems. All sound good but all probably would only add to the complexity of computing, not make anything that much simpler.
This is just like popular mechanics "technology of the future" We hear about it coming but when we actually get it (if we even do) the technology never lives up to the promises. Ever heard about what happens when the soldier of the future tech gets added to the army's units. Most of the time they try to ditch it at their first chance because it's heavy, and not as useful or reliable as their old tools. But it's the soldier of the future stuff right? Just more promises that never get fufilled. Personally I think the key is getting VR started and getting full virtual reality working. Once we have that you can have an IMAX, a full office, and a relaxation room in a 10' by 10' room and that's perfect. But VR is just another promise of the future that still hasn't materialized. Odd.
I know all cellular carriers are asses and try to screw you, but AT&T took special pride with this. In 3 years I was with them I never got a correct bill, buying the phone added tons of new options, next month I complained about options I didn't want, then I got others that I didn't want. Why would I get equipment coverage on a 20 dollar phone when the deductible is 20 dollars?
After a while I gave up on this because I had called 6 times and each time I never got a satisfactory resolution, then they joined with Cingular, I tried to solve my bill again, thinking the change would improve service, (haha)finally they started putting random servicecharges from companies I never did business with (such as downloading ring tones or such). Telling them about it got that charge removed for the next month (they claimed they couldn't do anything about the month before), and the next month I got two new charges on my bill, plus some unnecessary plans that I never asked for.
After 2 years of being screwed I tried to cancel the contact. That took almost 6 months to cancel correctly because apparently I was in a contract even though I pointed out that the contract was up, they claimed I signed a second one. Don't remember that. They finally relented after 6 months (during which I stopped paying of course and was on Tmobile. Oh yeah and they sounded so worried that my cell phone service was terminated, funny that.) and gave me a free disconnect. Sounds good until the next month I got another bill, Then I was hounded for that bill for another 4 months which phone calls going to them explaining that I didn't even use the phone and I had canceled it. You'd think this is the end. Now they claim they owe me 6 dollars, and are unwilling to "forget it" so they send me a 5 page bill every month informing me of this. Since then I've moved.
I had a 40 dollar plan, I never paid under 50 dollars (one month it was 70, they did give me partial refunds that month) before taxes. I never had a correct bill, I had over 20 calls into their service department, and every time they claimed to have it right. Since leaving them I went to Tmobile, I have yet to have an incorrect bill. So while they claim these prices I'm beyond skeptical, because AT&T likes to screw the customer because they are the biggest, and they can get away with it.
BTW I don't care if you got perfect service, that's great, however this is one occurrence where a customer was completely screwed by that carrier, and I'm far from the only one. Though I'm sure I got one of the worse "packages".
I'd like to say first thing first is we aren't going to get a perfect company. If you believe Stallman and believe FSF is the only way to roll, get out of my post. Period. I'm not here to entertain zealots.
Second Google has a lot going for it, they aren't "Evil" but they do cross the line at times. But the real question is are they a company or are they a humanitarian effort. Once you realize they are a company, also realize that they aren't crossing the line to limit people. They aren't trying to make a monopoly here. Hell they BOUGHT Youtube, knowing that with in 6 months they'd be in a law suit with the RIAA. If anything we should applaud them just for that.
But let's look at it this way. From what it looks like Microsoft is far worse than Google. That being said, Google left unchecked might not be the best thing but it could also be a good thing, and personally I'd take that option. We can assume Google is evil overlord number 2 but Google isn't looking that way. They look like a good company who while providing overly useful tools are also trying to turn a profit.
That is key however. They are a company. They want to make money. They do this at the same time as they benefit us. You'll never get something for nothing, but what Google has offered seems to be a fair trade. They do encroach a little on privacy issues. But let's also cut them a little slack. They don't hide this fact, and they don't force you to use their system. I'm willing to take a slight privacy hit if it generates advertising revenue for them. They're offering me a gig of space for Email, a fully functional search engine (no matter how I want to search) as well other features, personally I don't have anything to hide from Google. Go figure, I guess I haven't read 1984 as many times as some of the people here or perhaps I can think for myself rather than listen to what Orwell has to say.
We can't expect companies to run in a vacuum, we can't expect them not to make a profit especially when they give us the quality of service Google has, if you expect that then all you'll ever see is Evil Overlords. But at the same time if we don't attempt to replace Microsoft we'll always be stuck with Window's and while XP looked like a good step, Vista is just about as evil as you get. Personally I'd rather work with the company who's willing to fight against the RIAA versus the one who made a huge deal with them, and screwed their consumers to get a few more bullet points and probably some cash money deal under the table.
Trading Google for Microsoft sounds like a win win, and even if it turns around at worse this case will only make laws that allow more competition not less, so if that's not a win for the people, I really have no idea.
Let's see. The Palestine's who will blow themselves to murder innocent people in a worthless and meaningless act. Even when they are given a way to reclaim what they believe is "their" land they choose instead to murder civilians. Or the Israeli who must defend themselves from the Palestinians and must do so in dangerous manners since the Palestinian militants have no respect for human life that they'll use even their own people as human shields.
The Palestinian population have had MANY more chance for peace. What people like you believe is that Hamas is reasonable. If anything the Fatah, for all their faults were probably Palestine's best chance for peace because they were reasonable. Hamas is little more than a militant organization. If you think peace is coming because their gain in power I really don't know what to say.
Or are you one of those who believe Israel is wrong because they attacked first, who ignored the fact that Jordan, Syria, and Egypt were planning on removing Israel, not from the land, but from the map, erasing them essentially from history. If you think Israel is the aggressor, I'm sure you're siding with Iran's president in saying Israel will be erased from history as well.
The sad thing is even if you don't believe this. There are people who do. Let's stop pretending here. Syria is supplying militants with weapons. Palestine is using them to kill Israelis. Iranians are supplying them to the terrorists in Iraq. The Taliban are once again using weapons to kill Afghanistan people, and us Americans are trying to ignore it. Bush's big fault was to pretend we weren't at war and making it vague. We should be morally outraged at these acts, and the fact we aren't sickens me.
That's right because people aren't dying every day because of terrorist activities. We're kind of blessed right now because we are fighting a war in Iraq, so the main focus is in Iraq. But all those deaths could be anywhere. No one seems to care when a couple innocent Israelis die by a person blowing themselves up yet the scream bloody murder when the Israelis respond to it. We've had numerous attacks in Europe.
Yeah terrorism isn't a real threat, because no one dies in America because of it. Except the people in the WTC on 9/11. And there's no chance of them attacking us again, because they have no need?
Honestly, in western civilization we always look for excuses. I've got ADD, I've got no leg, I've got a drinking disorder. Then we get people who tell them "well it's ok that you arn't excelling then" I say screw that.
I've had numerous problems in my life, and the day I started being happy for myself and creating my own life is the day I said shut up to the people who say it's ok I have set backs, and started actually solving or working on my problems than just accepting them.
Maybe the first child is pushed harder to succeed, maybe the first child is actually a little smarter, but if anything 3 IQ points isn't going to change a grade on a paper. Einstein, who is considered one of the brightest geniuses on earth got bad grades. I'm sure the best scorer in his classes was far below him in any mark of intelligence.
My point is this doesn't mean anything. Acting like a second child is a predisposed to be less intellegent means nothing. Intelligence doesn't mark who you are or even how smart you are. What matters is what you do with your mind and how far you take it yourself. You might have a very slightly harder time in school (it might take you 31 minutes instead of 30 to solve that problem) but you still have the tools to do it.
First it doesn't really explain how they got this info. Did they ask people online, did they ask random people in the street, or in libraries? location and people matter.
Half the words they mentioned arn't "annoying" they just might not be interesting to the people who commented. Cookies, wiki, and blogs are pretty important terms, even if you don't like them. Netiquette was big in the 90s but has kinda died. The others I've never heard of.
The other big problem is TFA doesn't even have all 10 words, it has 7. Come on editors and moderators step up and get better articles, not some informationless piece that could easily be marked "flamebait" as "informative"
And how the hell could FTW not be on the most hated internet words list. Come on. Hell I've heard people say it in conversation (the actual letters).
Then if you found a white crow one day, you're theory is what? Some crows are white, but most are black. Then if you see more white crows "The white crow population is growing"
And if you start seeing less black crows for what ever reason (they flew away, someone is spray painting crows, White is a dominate gene for crows) the theory becomes "White crows are killing off black crows, we must kill white crows to avoid losing the black crows for ever"
However none of that is science. Those are just simple hypotheses, science most people have forgotten is the way to correctly study and prove our hypotheses. It's not a way to force political agenda, fiction, or subjective in any manner. To prove something in science you prove it with a verifiable proof that anyone can replicate. Claiming you have proof shouldn't be acceptable for anyone in scientific circles until the proof is available. Again something that seems to get ignored.
With the Ipod Apple tapped what virtually a unseen market. Creative labs was there, but no one else was doing mp3 players, and to my knowledge they were the first "large" mp3 player, or at least viable large mp3 player. They created easy to use software and easy to use sync, and over time minor improvements like the clickwheel. They tapped the unseen market, the same way the Wii and DS tapped unseen markets.
The Iphone is competing in an overly competitive market against three forces. On one side you have the Phones, Motorola, and Nokia as well as other phone suppliers are pretty locked in there. Then on the other you have blackberry, and side kicks and other office assistants. Finally and most importantly you have Ipods and Ipod Videos.
Apple's goal is to replace all of these with a cute efficient iPhone. Even worse is they seem to also be going after lap tops a bit as well. It doesn't contain the keyboard of a blackberry, the storage of the normal ipods, or the deals of the Motorola or Nokia phones.
Why does the iPod work? Because people think "I need an mp3 player, that one looks the best" however what the iPhone is expecting is someone to say "I need a new blackberry and an iPod, and a phone, oh look there's the iPhone". Personally I think we'll find the iPhone struggling for the first couple years at least. Essentially instead of filling a niche we're getting "yet another competitor". But that would explain why we are getting flooded with information about the iphone. It seems apple is asking "Why fill a niche, when you can just create one instead?"
So apparently the whole game tells me one thing, that if we take on the redistricting reform act that the game offers (forget the name, I played it yesterday, forgive me) that it's all going to be rolls of the dice. So instead of having equality, couple poor dice rolls and people are ignored, just like every election pretty much, except now it's random rather than obvious. There's a number of parts of the game that just feels "fake" to me, the politicians are all one sided, the complainers are annoying but inconsequential (they always lose unless you really screw up), the governor always sides on party lines, and so on.
That's great but it's like filibustering. The republicans could have removed filibustering before the election of the supreme court justices, and it would have been a good thing for them, and for america, however then when the next democrat gets into office they can't filibuster back. This is the game called politics, no one is going to fully support any gerrymandering reform that solve these problems because while it takes away a tool of the opposition, it also takes away a tool of the person's current party. Sadly that's the problem with a two party system. It doesn't mean it won't get votes, or people won't appear to support it, but the party as a whole knows that it's going to hurt as much as help them.
Slashdot Mirror
Except none of Wow's existant is reliant on the economy. If everything cost 1 gold in Wow, people would still work on their toons just to level them up and try end game stuff. Essentially if I suddenly found 100 billion gold on Wow and gave it to everyone Blizzard wouldn't care if it was legit.
However in Second life, the economy is the only way second Life has to make money. There's no "game" underneath it. There's nothing but the economy to Linden Labs. People do stuff with the money but the only thing keeping the company running is the economy.
Any economy, real or otherwise will be traded for real dollars, however when the game world exists only because of the economy and there's nothing that you can't get truely get elsewhere, there's a problem. Want to say Second life is amazing go ahead. But it's a graphical version of IRC or Muds. Not that it's a bad thing, just that it's not as unique as they try to make it sound.
Uhh Yeah? Us in the industry, use that as an term. It's the same meaning as the retail industry, but that doesn't mean the games industry doesn't also use it in a very similar way.
Or have most of you guys forgot the Games industry deals with retail very closely at the end of a game's development cycle?
I never do this, but I must. The parent is correct. SKU is a game industry term, this is a story about the game industry, stop complaining about our vernacular. 3 SKU means there's three different versions of a product/game (3 platforms, 2 platforms, 1 special edition, or Halo 3's 1 normal, 1 special, and 1 uber special edition). Microsoft has 4 360 Console SKUs in america, meaning there's 4 different versions (core, premium, elite, and now halo 3).
Overinflated numbers, hostile fans, just regular stupidity?
Second life is real life with anonymity. Don't you think that breeds a culture that is more interested in sexual exploits and penal attacks (I mean the flying penises, not a second sexual action) than wholesome family fun where people can buy items.
The biggest problem is Second life tries to build an economy based off of real world money. It just doesn't work, people don't want to pay money to get virtual money. On the other hand World of Warcraft has an economy based off of fake money earned from doing spending time in the game. This way advertising in WoW could work (it shouldn't be done but could be there).
So someone please explain how advertisers would even start to invest in this idea with out looking before they leaped. It's an obvious bait and switch deal (high amounts of users, low amounts of ACTIVE users).
Sony's trying to get into the Second life front with Playstation Home, then expecting people to buy all sorts of virtual wares? I can't imagine that's going to turn out good for them too. That doesn't mean the virtual world idea is horrible. The problem is the cost of the virtual world has to be floated somewhere, and consumers are NOT the place to get it in a Second Life style enviroment. SL had a good idea at one point of charging people for land, and that could work, but nickle and diming them for everything or expecting people to spend huge amounts of time designing objects doesn't make a online experience for any company.
Instead give a monthly stipend so people can do stuff with it, have a couple LARGE add ons (more room/s) and charge the advertisers pay for the servers. There needs to be a reason for people to log on other than random hookups and spending there money. That's what the mall is for, though I still can't find the random hook up store.
I love this rational. We don't pass laws that are incomplete or "good enough" why pass Licensing agreements that everyone will have to be forced under at some point.
Elegant hacks should be in code, and hardware, not litigation, and not licensing. An elegant hack was the novell deal that we all hate. Let's not make an "elegant hack" out of a licensing agreement. Make it easier to read is a good thing, but because as you seem to think people who speak out against it don't understand it or disagree with it. Wow. you're a brain child there. Of course people who say it's viral and evil disagree with it. Do you know anyone sane who actually support ebola, the Aids Virus, or TB? The fact that people disagree with it is the problem. It's hardly perfect and needs to be rewritten if people want it to be fully accepted.
The fact that the founder of Linux one of the core components that will start being moved under GPL V3 thinks it's bad means we should at least listen. Stallman won't he's getting what he wants (power, his way, what ever he really wants) but we as consumers should be more careful.
If it's a fucking work of art hang it in the Louvre. If it's a good piece of licensing then people would be able to accept it without these nagging problems. But it's not, it's a waste of our resources at this point, a waste of people's time for those who support it making false claims (I've heard Linus is coming around.. apparently not) a waste of people's time who don't support it (Stallman isn't going to change it until normal people are happy, he's pushing his FSF agenda.)
After the 2006 elections it's obvious that the Democrats are just trying to get elected to get elected. They care less for this country than the average voter. The "try anything" to get elected seemed to work, until the public realized that the Democrats weren't even going to pretend to fulfill the promises they made. Why else is Congress' approval rating lower or the same as Bush's (not something I put trust in, but everyone else believes in it)?
Let's stop pulling our puds and realize a couple things. Bush won in 2004, that means people believed in him vs. Kerry. That means more people agreed that the Iraq war had to be fought rather than pulling out our troops. Kerry was a bad candidate and flip flopped but the main issue was the war on terror, and Kerry sounded like he might have pulled us out of the war. Even if there's a 50 percent chance he'd follow through there's a chance. People instead voted for Bush.
I'm sick of polls telling me people want to pull out of Iraq, that republicans in congress want to pull out, that Bush's support is eroding. Instead look at the facts. Democrats got into office in 2006 running on a variety of campaigns, and some of those campaigns were "pro-war". The term Republicrat came up, it stood for Democrats who acted like Republicans. If the democrats are right and people want out of the war why the hell would anyone pretend to be pro-war to be elected? Why is it that in a barely majority democratic senate the democrats are unable to even pass bills against bush's ideas even if Bush is going to veto them. Why is Bush still looking good if his support is all but out from under him.
The answer is the reports are wrong.
I'm not saying this country is good but instead of this "lesser of two evils" insult we give Bush, realize that no matter what way you cut it, Bush got into office for not one but two terms. Bush was elected over Kerry by a clear margin, and to try to discredit that is falsehood. Kerry sounded good, but when the Americans spoke the best way they know how (at the actual polls) Bush won.
But go ahead and believe that Obama and Hillary are going to win because the polls are telling you, and they might go to the main election, and besure to act surprised again when the polls are proven wrong. If anything the Democratic party relies to much on polling, and not enough on understanding and giving the people what they want.
Don't like the election results, sue to change them.
I'm not going to bash the system, almost everyone understands the problems of the PS3. However the price drop is putting Sony into a different problem, and it's worse.
Sony has all but admited that they are removing the emotion engine from 60gb systems. The 80gb system have been confirmed not to have it. Instead they will be using software emulation (like the European systems) for backwards compatibility so anyone who wants a ps3 and the ability to play ps2 games are running out and picking up 60gb systems. They arn't buying games, they are getting 5 blu ray dvds free, and they are getting other tie ins (I got a second controller from circuit city). Assuming the system costs around 800 to make they still lose 300 on the system not counting the tie ins.
This means they are at least 300 dollars behind for each system they are selling now, and if more people run out buying 60 gb systems for the backwards compatibility and wait for later games, that's more and more money in the hole. It's not unlikely for people to do this (the backwards compatibility on the 360 is horrendous, the european ps3 emulation is weak at best).
So essentially you might see 1 million systems in a month sold but at the same time that's going to be somewhere around the neighborhood of 250 million dollars loss. I don't hear about many people running out and picking up 10 games with their systems either. And Sony's going to get a lot more desperate, methinks. They'll brag about their new numbers but I have a feeling they'll be scared once they realize how many games everyone is buying with their systems.
Oh and here's a beauty. Licensing for Sony systems is only a handful of dollars per system so 300 dollars could mean anything from 10 first party game to 30 third party games. So it's not just 5 games. Plus used games gives them 0 dollars, Blu-ray might help a bit but I don't know of anyone going out and replacing their old collection with new movies, and the rest of the system makes it sound like the PS3 will be hurting even more than before.
But personally I'm more interested in putting in my copy of Okami tonight for a little game session.
Considering Groklaw, pilsner.urquell, and Zonk all pretend to have "deep insight" to this problem, it's not unusualy for you to feel like you're wrong. But you're right. MS is unbound by GPL, and essentially have said their coupons are for GPLv2 only and thus they have nothing to do with GPLv3. This is true.
... well not exactly "FUD" but a piss off the Slashdot community so they hate Microsoft more even though Microsoft isn't doing anything wrong here which sadly more than enough of these stories are becoming.
They may have worded it incorrectly in their title but they understand it. No matter what crap Groklaw has heaped at them. Stallman understands this, Gates understands this, Balmer understands this. They found the loophole on GPLv2, which means they can do are doing under v2. You can't retroactively upgrade a license so they are free and clear.
It's just
As long as the license creator didn't throw a fit when someone tried to make money off of the license in a way he didn't think of, and feels the need to write a new license that locks out those people. Oh yeah and basically acts like a spoiled baby.
I'm all for free software licensing. I just don't think the people at the forefront of the free software licensing are the people who should have any control over it at all.
That never seemed to work for Bowser, no matter how many times he tried to brainwash Princess Peach.
And then we show them our flame thrower. Believe me, they'll be too busy to think of us as degenerated.
I'd just like to point out the hypocrisy in that you have #3 yet you don't claim they are the exact same species, or we are an evolved form from them?
Just because they have mastered long distance space travel, doesn't make them superior to us. They just look smarter. What if there's 10 genius aliens who designed a space craft, 10 billion idiots who built it (after tons of oversight) and then those 10 flew off the planet.
Or let's imagine a planet where any dictator ended up ruling the earth. They could devote all their money to developing interstellar travel, while we still have to deal with the problems of a multinational front.
There's many reasons why Earthlings might not be stupider than a space traveler. but I just find it interesting that you assume we are the degenerate form.
That being said this new document just means tonight I'm going to continue to be afraid of their damn alien ass heads coming to visit me.
The first idea is IMax movies. I don't know if the rest of you know this but to even get a movie on IMax from a normal screen it has to be remastered at a higher bit rate. Well that's good for those movies that are currently in HD
Personally I prefer the 820 dollar setup I have a home. A 50 inch TV, a 5 disc dvd upconverter and a 5.1 surround sound system. Old movies that arn't remastered suffer, but imagine what they will look like on a imax projection?
Mouse in midair? We had that in the 90s. I actually had one. Here's the bad news. It didn't work well and was much more clunky and frustrating then on the desk. But the big thing is it's something no one wants. Want a better mouse? Touch screens, tablets. Period. Let's get away from these devices and make one or two necessary add ons (keyboard, touch screen monitor with mini speakers in it), rather then make fancier ones.
Then we get to quantum computer, man made brains, and p2p systems. All sound good but all probably would only add to the complexity of computing, not make anything that much simpler.
This is just like popular mechanics "technology of the future" We hear about it coming but when we actually get it (if we even do) the technology never lives up to the promises. Ever heard about what happens when the soldier of the future tech gets added to the army's units. Most of the time they try to ditch it at their first chance because it's heavy, and not as useful or reliable as their old tools. But it's the soldier of the future stuff right? Just more promises that never get fufilled. Personally I think the key is getting VR started and getting full virtual reality working. Once we have that you can have an IMAX, a full office, and a relaxation room in a 10' by 10' room and that's perfect. But VR is just another promise of the future that still hasn't materialized. Odd.
I know all cellular carriers are asses and try to screw you, but AT&T took special pride with this. In 3 years I was with them I never got a correct bill, buying the phone added tons of new options, next month I complained about options I didn't want, then I got others that I didn't want. Why would I get equipment coverage on a 20 dollar phone when the deductible is 20 dollars?
After a while I gave up on this because I had called 6 times and each time I never got a satisfactory resolution, then they joined with Cingular, I tried to solve my bill again, thinking the change would improve service, (haha)finally they started putting random servicecharges from companies I never did business with (such as downloading ring tones or such). Telling them about it got that charge removed for the next month (they claimed they couldn't do anything about the month before), and the next month I got two new charges on my bill, plus some unnecessary plans that I never asked for.
After 2 years of being screwed I tried to cancel the contact. That took almost 6 months to cancel correctly because apparently I was in a contract even though I pointed out that the contract was up, they claimed I signed a second one. Don't remember that. They finally relented after 6 months (during which I stopped paying of course and was on Tmobile. Oh yeah and they sounded so worried that my cell phone service was terminated, funny that.) and gave me a free disconnect. Sounds good until the next month I got another bill, Then I was hounded for that bill for another 4 months which phone calls going to them explaining that I didn't even use the phone and I had canceled it. You'd think this is the end. Now they claim they owe me 6 dollars, and are unwilling to "forget it" so they send me a 5 page bill every month informing me of this. Since then I've moved.
I had a 40 dollar plan, I never paid under 50 dollars (one month it was 70, they did give me partial refunds that month) before taxes. I never had a correct bill, I had over 20 calls into their service department, and every time they claimed to have it right. Since leaving them I went to Tmobile, I have yet to have an incorrect bill. So while they claim these prices I'm beyond skeptical, because AT&T likes to screw the customer because they are the biggest, and they can get away with it.
BTW I don't care if you got perfect service, that's great, however this is one occurrence where a customer was completely screwed by that carrier, and I'm far from the only one. Though I'm sure I got one of the worse "packages".
I'd like to say first thing first is we aren't going to get a perfect company. If you believe Stallman and believe FSF is the only way to roll, get out of my post. Period. I'm not here to entertain zealots.
Second Google has a lot going for it, they aren't "Evil" but they do cross the line at times. But the real question is are they a company or are they a humanitarian effort. Once you realize they are a company, also realize that they aren't crossing the line to limit people. They aren't trying to make a monopoly here. Hell they BOUGHT Youtube, knowing that with in 6 months they'd be in a law suit with the RIAA. If anything we should applaud them just for that.
But let's look at it this way. From what it looks like Microsoft is far worse than Google. That being said, Google left unchecked might not be the best thing but it could also be a good thing, and personally I'd take that option. We can assume Google is evil overlord number 2 but Google isn't looking that way. They look like a good company who while providing overly useful tools are also trying to turn a profit.
That is key however. They are a company. They want to make money. They do this at the same time as they benefit us. You'll never get something for nothing, but what Google has offered seems to be a fair trade. They do encroach a little on privacy issues. But let's also cut them a little slack. They don't hide this fact, and they don't force you to use their system. I'm willing to take a slight privacy hit if it generates advertising revenue for them. They're offering me a gig of space for Email, a fully functional search engine (no matter how I want to search) as well other features, personally I don't have anything to hide from Google. Go figure, I guess I haven't read 1984 as many times as some of the people here or perhaps I can think for myself rather than listen to what Orwell has to say.
We can't expect companies to run in a vacuum, we can't expect them not to make a profit especially when they give us the quality of service Google has, if you expect that then all you'll ever see is Evil Overlords. But at the same time if we don't attempt to replace Microsoft we'll always be stuck with Window's and while XP looked like a good step, Vista is just about as evil as you get. Personally I'd rather work with the company who's willing to fight against the RIAA versus the one who made a huge deal with them, and screwed their consumers to get a few more bullet points and probably some cash money deal under the table.
Trading Google for Microsoft sounds like a win win, and even if it turns around at worse this case will only make laws that allow more competition not less, so if that's not a win for the people, I really have no idea.
Let's see. The Palestine's who will blow themselves to murder innocent people in a worthless and meaningless act. Even when they are given a way to reclaim what they believe is "their" land they choose instead to murder civilians. Or the Israeli who must defend themselves from the Palestinians and must do so in dangerous manners since the Palestinian militants have no respect for human life that they'll use even their own people as human shields.
The Palestinian population have had MANY more chance for peace. What people like you believe is that Hamas is reasonable. If anything the Fatah, for all their faults were probably Palestine's best chance for peace because they were reasonable. Hamas is little more than a militant organization. If you think peace is coming because their gain in power I really don't know what to say.
Or are you one of those who believe Israel is wrong because they attacked first, who ignored the fact that Jordan, Syria, and Egypt were planning on removing Israel, not from the land, but from the map, erasing them essentially from history. If you think Israel is the aggressor, I'm sure you're siding with Iran's president in saying Israel will be erased from history as well.
The sad thing is even if you don't believe this. There are people who do. Let's stop pretending here. Syria is supplying militants with weapons. Palestine is using them to kill Israelis. Iranians are supplying them to the terrorists in Iraq. The Taliban are once again using weapons to kill Afghanistan people, and us Americans are trying to ignore it. Bush's big fault was to pretend we weren't at war and making it vague. We should be morally outraged at these acts, and the fact we aren't sickens me.
That's right because people aren't dying every day because of terrorist activities. We're kind of blessed right now because we are fighting a war in Iraq, so the main focus is in Iraq. But all those deaths could be anywhere. No one seems to care when a couple innocent Israelis die by a person blowing themselves up yet the scream bloody murder when the Israelis respond to it. We've had numerous attacks in Europe.
Yeah terrorism isn't a real threat, because no one dies in America because of it. Except the people in the WTC on 9/11. And there's no chance of them attacking us again, because they have no need?
Honestly, in western civilization we always look for excuses. I've got ADD, I've got no leg, I've got a drinking disorder. Then we get people who tell them "well it's ok that you arn't excelling then" I say screw that.
I've had numerous problems in my life, and the day I started being happy for myself and creating my own life is the day I said shut up to the people who say it's ok I have set backs, and started actually solving or working on my problems than just accepting them.
Maybe the first child is pushed harder to succeed, maybe the first child is actually a little smarter, but if anything 3 IQ points isn't going to change a grade on a paper. Einstein, who is considered one of the brightest geniuses on earth got bad grades. I'm sure the best scorer in his classes was far below him in any mark of intelligence.
My point is this doesn't mean anything. Acting like a second child is a predisposed to be less intellegent means nothing. Intelligence doesn't mark who you are or even how smart you are. What matters is what you do with your mind and how far you take it yourself. You might have a very slightly harder time in school (it might take you 31 minutes instead of 30 to solve that problem) but you still have the tools to do it.
Well we need something else to keep after reading about 360s and iphone all days, don't we?
First it doesn't really explain how they got this info. Did they ask people online, did they ask random people in the street, or in libraries? location and people matter.
Half the words they mentioned arn't "annoying" they just might not be interesting to the people who commented. Cookies, wiki, and blogs are pretty important terms, even if you don't like them. Netiquette was big in the 90s but has kinda died. The others I've never heard of.
The other big problem is TFA doesn't even have all 10 words, it has 7. Come on editors and moderators step up and get better articles, not some informationless piece that could easily be marked "flamebait" as "informative"
And how the hell could FTW not be on the most hated internet words list. Come on. Hell I've heard people say it in conversation (the actual letters).
Then if you found a white crow one day, you're theory is what? Some crows are white, but most are black. Then if you see more white crows "The white crow population is growing"
And if you start seeing less black crows for what ever reason (they flew away, someone is spray painting crows, White is a dominate gene for crows) the theory becomes "White crows are killing off black crows, we must kill white crows to avoid losing the black crows for ever"
However none of that is science. Those are just simple hypotheses, science most people have forgotten is the way to correctly study and prove our hypotheses. It's not a way to force political agenda, fiction, or subjective in any manner. To prove something in science you prove it with a verifiable proof that anyone can replicate. Claiming you have proof shouldn't be acceptable for anyone in scientific circles until the proof is available. Again something that seems to get ignored.
I'm betting the Iphone will turn into a huge dud.
With the Ipod Apple tapped what virtually a unseen market. Creative labs was there, but no one else was doing mp3 players, and to my knowledge they were the first "large" mp3 player, or at least viable large mp3 player. They created easy to use software and easy to use sync, and over time minor improvements like the clickwheel. They tapped the unseen market, the same way the Wii and DS tapped unseen markets.
The Iphone is competing in an overly competitive market against three forces. On one side you have the Phones, Motorola, and Nokia as well as other phone suppliers are pretty locked in there. Then on the other you have blackberry, and side kicks and other office assistants. Finally and most importantly you have Ipods and Ipod Videos.
Apple's goal is to replace all of these with a cute efficient iPhone. Even worse is they seem to also be going after lap tops a bit as well. It doesn't contain the keyboard of a blackberry, the storage of the normal ipods, or the deals of the Motorola or Nokia phones.
Why does the iPod work? Because people think "I need an mp3 player, that one looks the best" however what the iPhone is expecting is someone to say "I need a new blackberry and an iPod, and a phone, oh look there's the iPhone". Personally I think we'll find the iPhone struggling for the first couple years at least. Essentially instead of filling a niche we're getting "yet another competitor". But that would explain why we are getting flooded with information about the iphone. It seems apple is asking "Why fill a niche, when you can just create one instead?"
So apparently the whole game tells me one thing, that if we take on the redistricting reform act that the game offers (forget the name, I played it yesterday, forgive me) that it's all going to be rolls of the dice. So instead of having equality, couple poor dice rolls and people are ignored, just like every election pretty much, except now it's random rather than obvious. There's a number of parts of the game that just feels "fake" to me, the politicians are all one sided, the complainers are annoying but inconsequential (they always lose unless you really screw up), the governor always sides on party lines, and so on.
That's great but it's like filibustering. The republicans could have removed filibustering before the election of the supreme court justices, and it would have been a good thing for them, and for america, however then when the next democrat gets into office they can't filibuster back. This is the game called politics, no one is going to fully support any gerrymandering reform that solve these problems because while it takes away a tool of the opposition, it also takes away a tool of the person's current party. Sadly that's the problem with a two party system. It doesn't mean it won't get votes, or people won't appear to support it, but the party as a whole knows that it's going to hurt as much as help them.
They didn't put in the Church of England, did they?