But then, Yamauchi seems to hate lots of things.... Final Fantasy in particular (anyone else remember his "only loner basement-dwelling geeks would enjoy such depressing, boring games" comment?). Don't have a link for the actual quote for that one.... the above should be enough, though.
Interact was selling gold and silver plastic casing for the Gameboy Color that, knowing their affection for swapping their products between systems, will probably also be made for the GBA eventually.
They look hideous though, and alter the grip and size of the system.... not a lot, but enough to make it a strange experience. I have a feeling that chroming would have the same feel.
Anyway, I'm sure Nintendo'll flood the market with gold and silver styled GBAs eventually to promote the Pokemon series.
I think the real issue here isn't the poor choice of coloring method so much as the fact that the poor sucker put plastic (that they were obviously unfamiliar with) in warm water overnight).
From the last posting: "The worst part is that I wasn't careful, and warped the plastic."
Of course, there's also the issue of using nail polish remover to attempt to clear up DYE blotches!
Anyway, I think we all know that real men use duct tape for all their stylization needs, and I know a hardware store that sells in over 50 different colors. Stupid idea? At least it won't warp the actual casing.
I guess you could just use spray or car paint, but wouldn't that take the fun out of it?.... I mean, ya don't even get to melt anything!
One can't really condemn all those who would criticize computer generated graphics as fine art, simply because so many of them are simply naive when it comes to the actual process involved. When many traditional artists and art critics hear the word "computer," they immediately picture works being generated mathematically or through overuse of software facilitation. Many don't picture an individual sitting with graphic tablet in hand working with a digital canvas simply because this isn't the "traditional" view of computer generated artwork.
Then you have those hordes of young, untrained graphic designers who, thanks to the power of the internet, have far more voice than your casual hobbiest painter, and have acted to define the world of computer generated artwork as some massive sinkhole, acting as a medium solely for hacks and amateurs... the artistic equivalent of script kiddies one might say.
Frankly I don't mind computer generated artwork being considered seperate from the general classification of "fine art." As shows such as 010101 (http://www.sfmoma.com/) have taught us, there is some prestige in the medium without forcing further classification or specification. One day the lines will blur, then bend and break, and the computer will be accepted as a legitimate medium.
Of course, this all assumes that the majority of people actually want the lines to blur. For many, even those who champion the computer as a new art medium, "fine art" is a convenient classification for pieces of art specifically not generated through electronic means. If I were requested to include a piece of fine art in my portfolio at present, I would know immediately to avoid including any computer generated material.... and I've already been asked specifically not to include any works involving animal feces, so it need not come across as a bias.
The innovation is still there, it's just weird and scary.... at least to old time arcade gurus.
Seriously though, there really is quite a bit of innovation in a number of arcade games even these days.... the bar is just higher, as with everything else these days. Of course, a lot of the truly innovative games are just bad.... pure and simple.... because innovation and fresh ideas aren't always a good thing.
Oh, and media desensatization of the youth, yada yada yada. 10 years ago a few drops of blood in a game would be deemed innovative and daring, and 5 years ago a car game with "realistic" feedback was a revolution. I guess it's true that the arcade industry has been a bit dry lately if you're not looking for the more innovative forms of innovation... well.... you know what I mean (think DDR).
I hate to make light of this sad sad day.... but I'm sorry.... I can't resist....
HOORAY FOR NO MORE ARCADE MORTAL KOMBAT GAMES!
.... Ok, now that I've gotten that out of my system.... let us now mourn the swarm of Midway games that shall soon hit the console world....
Seriously though, Midway made some really great games in "the day," and while I dislike their clinging to certain franchises, it's their fight to keep innovative pinball games in production that kept the "genre" alive until the very end. For all their continued life in console gaming, no console game will ever compare to the true arcade experience, and there'll never be an emulator that can simulate the joy of real pinball.
Oh, and apologies to anyone who may have been offended by my making light of the situation. I just REALLY hate Mortal Kombat.
Ok, so I think the question posed here might just be "where would Steve Jobs be if not for Jef Raskin," correct?
How about this though: Where would Raskin be without Jobs? The Woz? The REST of the garage-junkies that actually got Apple off the ground in the first place?
Sure, Raskin did amazing things for Apple, I won't deny that, but just as it's wrong to claim that Jobs alone is the key to Apple's success, so is it wrong to deify Raskin in the same light.
As for PARC, I'm pretty sure the issue decided itself: Xerox already had commercials lined up praising their GUI project as the greatest innovation since the keyboard (contrary to their handling fo the actual PARC project that allowed Apple's "initiative" with the project). Claiming that Raskin is the sole reason that GUI met Mac is simple hyperbole. GUI = obviously good thing, and there was more communication within Apple than within Xerox over such cutting-edge technology.... Jobs wasn't about to make the same mistake as that which allowed him to "steal" the research in the first place.
Anyway, the point: It's hypocritical to put down jobs by putting Raskin on a pedestal. Personally I've always believed that the team is far more important than the individual.... well, the team, and the Woz, heh.... it's just that the team as a whole isn't as marketable. The difference between Raskin and Jobs is that Jobs too initiative to make himself a public icon from the very beginning, and no matter who's working behind the scenes, it's the figurehead that gets the attention (just as Gates gets all the blame for the numerous "sins" of Microsoft.... most of which I'm willing to bet are the contrivances of marketting groups and high-power executive lackeys rather than any lone perpetrator).
Stalin couldn't possibly be a "true" product of Communism in the sense that Russia was never able to reach a stable state of Communism before Lenin's death. Stalin's immediate actions upon seizing control were not to preserve Communism (by equalizing the classes) but rather destroy said equality, starting with the traditionally unstable urban areas and then having the nerve to target the rural farmers by turning them against each other (who had lived in a far more equitable state since long before Lenin's uprising). Of course, when Trotsky (true believer in Communism) attempted to reprimand Stalin for his butchering of Lenin's dream, he was forced to flee with the newly formed Gestapo-esque federal enforcers at his heels.
Stalin wormed his way into position and then snatched his position as leader from Lenin's funeral bed. He represents one of those individuals who prevent Communism's success by attempting to twist it to match his own self-serving vision. If Lenin had survived, and Trotsky not been forced into exile, a perfect three-pronged system could have been established in order to prevent one individual from gaining too much power.... "in theory."
Of course, to go off on a bit more of a tangent, one might simply identify that Stalin never fully embraced the concept of a "Communist leader," which requires quite a stretch from the conventional (western) idea of leadership. Under Communism, country "leader" is simply a job, not position of inherent status.... it's a position of social management and international relations.
Oh, and I know this is off topic, so mod-down away!
Communists? Killing themselves off? While I'll be the first to admit that the quality of life in China isn't on par with that in most major "first world" countries, the death rates aren't drastically different.
Maybe picking up a history book would make the population difference a little bit more clear for you: Communism came after Capitalism, and has existed in its current form for less than 50 years (modern Communism isn't pure Marxism).
At least check, Communism didn't end in the USSR because the entire population died out. One might even say that Russia would be worse off today if not for Communism having brought some equality between the classes that would carry over to their modern economic system (although I don't condone the specific actions of Stalin, who, as we all know, wasn't a Communist so much as a Totalitarian political leech).
Communist environmental degradation.... federal hydro-electric dams.... same thing, huh? I mean, environmentally friendly power sources couldn't POSSIBLY influence the level of water in such a small sea, right?
Oh, and the biggest polluter on the planet is still the US, which, at last check, isn't Communist, and produces ~6,503,800,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas yearly (as of 1997). China places second, of course, with ~4,964,800,000 tonnes and Russia (fourth, after India) produces ~1,980,300,000, although it is no longer Communist (amazing, huh?). Of course, these numbers alone don't suggest much, unless one considers the per person emissions. US: 24.3 tonnes. China: 4.0 tonnes. Russia: 13.4 tonnes. In fact, out of the top 10 polluters, China has the second lowest per-capita pollution level, falling behind India at 2.2 tonnes. Seems these Communist countries aren't faring so badly after all, huh?
Oh, and since when have all "commies" been Godless? The one thing I hate more than senselessly blaming others for off-topic issues are false generalizations. Last I checked, most major religions tend to encourage equality of some form or another, and is not Communism based on the hope for pure equality?
Last I checked there were more Godless capitalists worldwide than Godless communists, by simple virtue of there being far more capitalists.
"as do a thousand other pieces of historical information that archaeologists have uncovered over the years."
Hyperbole doesn't make an argument any stronger. The bible often makes reference to events that did take place, but there is absolutely no proof that its explanations for such events are correct. If I happen to scribble on a scrap of paper that nuclear waste is a product of the tears of god, and this scrap of paper one day gains some theological praise, it's still a falsity. Chariots at the bottom of Aquaba? sometimes floods DO occur, and we ARE discussing a gulf, and not some tiny inland sea that could only flood by miracle.
Of course, the real fun comes in asking for proof of your claims. While I don't consider Google of Yahoo the be-all and end-all of research sources, typing in "grantie halos" turns up a sole link to an outdated ezboard posting. Maybe them rascally liberals are up to their evil ways again, huh?
By the way, which church do you refer to? While I'm obviously not of sound faith, I do frequently attend church, as I have since early childhood, and can't recall me local pastor ever speaking out so violently against those views that don't directly concur with his own. You speak of "hateful lies," but I don't think that lies are the sources of hate in this case. My understanding has always been that most branches of Christianity will at least attempt to prove their points reasonably, without going out of their way to insult and condemn those that may only present minor contradiction.
There has been more than one Gameboy upgrade since its release back in the '80s. After the original clunky-greyGameboy came Gameboy Pocket, followed by Gameboy Pocket Light (Asian market only) and then, finally, the Gameboy Color. Regardless, even before the introduction of the Gameboy Color, the Gameboy line had established itself as the best selling gaming console worldwide... and anyone who wants to dispute the point is free to ask around amongst their friends as to whether they've owned a unit at one point or another
Something else I thought I'd point out: Backlight is bad for small, alkaline-powered portables. This has been proven any number of times in the past, but most notably with the Sega Gamegear, Atari Lynx, and Nintendo's own Gameboy Pocket Light. Certainly, the Gamegear and Lynx were fun, but both ate batteries with such finess that any family trip taking up more than a few hours would normally require some spare batteries on hand... not to mention the initial 4-6. This is also why Gameboy Pocket Light never saw the light of day in North America: it gobbled batteries, and while pleasantly backlit, consider what's more important to your average Joe Consumer Jr: backlighting or battery life.
All I know is that my old Gamegear gets roughly 3-4 hours at most on 4 AA batteries, while my Gameboy Color has managed to run for what I'd estimate to be around 18 hours on 2 AA batteries. While it's no easy task playing the Gameboy at night, most buses and planes offer overhead lighting that's always worked reasonably well for me personally (although rule out car-play... although I guess I shouldn't be playing while driving anyway, heh). I also know that cheap method of backlighting aren't preferable either... the Gamegear works great in dark atmospheres, but try playing outside on an average day, or under office lighting.
If worst comes to worst, Nintendo has revealed pictures of GBAs hooked up to Gamecubes. Who knows, maybe we will be able to play GBA games on the TV?
The survey claims that 86% of respondents claim to have downloaded free music online. What this immediately suggests is that almost none of those polled were non-internet users, which isn't terribly surprising as it seems the poll itself took place online. Why his this pertinent? Because it offers no comparison between traditional music buyers and those influenced by Napster. None of this is made terribly clear in actual writing, though.
Furthermore, both the article and poll itself identify that those polled were "music fans." What about those millions of casual Napster users who aren't "fans" to a significant degree that they would both download music files AND do the right thing and purchase the CDs?
"86% of all respondents said that they HAD purchased a CD album as a direct result of downloading free tracks from it."... so they've purchased "a" CD? I know very few people who've downloaded only music from a single CD while using Napster. A better question may ask respondents whether they purchase CDs for the MAJORITY of the music that they download online.
Heck, even the question as to whether music downloads have stopped users from purchasing CDs is silly. Napster doesn't stop people from purchasing, it merely offers another option.
Worst of all, this poll conflicts with almost every other poll discussing online purchasing trends, particularly among internet users under the age of 18 (which make up a good portion of those polled). While I do feel it's reasonable to blame those organizing the poll for the wording of some questions, they can't be blamed for not adjusting their results to adequately account for outside factors, which are almost always required with online polls. All I know is that there are countless other polls and surveys, performed by more reliable sources for the most part, that conflict what one may be assumed from face value analysis of this poll. Maybe if they'd offered some interpretation of their own along with the poll results, and some analysis of sources of error, I'd be more accepting.
Oh, and the article's HTML title mispells "dowqnload." Maybe that plays some roll in my misunderstanding, heh.
Normally I'd be willing to accept this as a PR stunt, but this is Yamauchi we're talking about. The same man who alienated 2/3 of the Japanese gaming market by not only insulting RPGs in general, but anyone who finds them entertaining. The same man who refuses developers on the basis that they run the risk of selling more units than Nintendo itself. The same man who, even after pressing fromm shareholders and industry bigwigs, still refuses to allow exceedingly violent content on any of his company's systems.
If it were some reasonable Nintendo spokesperson making such claims, I might believe them. ButYamauchi is a complete lunatic at his worst, which always seems to be when put in front of a microphone.
At least we can be assured that if the Gamecube doesn't show well at E3, we'll at least get some spectacular lashing fromYamauchi. Maybe he'll alienate the last third of Nintendo's key market by blaming it all on idiot kids and their moronic parents?
First issue: Which commandment is it that states "Thou shalt not rape!"? That edgy 23rd commandment, when exclaimation marks were introduced to drive the point home?
Seriously, I think we all know what broad interpretation of the words of the bible can lead to. Heck, stretch the definition of "covet" enough and you're a sinner if you admire your neighbor's lawn, which is particularly difficult considering how much greener grass is on their side of the fence.
Any who said that there isn't any love in pornography? Granted, I doubt most participants in pornographic videos have deep intimate relationships, but a very broad assumption is being made that not only is there no love, but that there's open hostility between participants in pornographic movies.
One might also question whether rape is occuring at all. Sure, one may put a feminazi (pardon the term, if it offends) spin on all sexual acts involving a man and a women, and define every such act as rape. From the legal perspective, there's one simple word that seperates lovemaking from rape: "No."
Of course, stretching again, if sex in pornographic films is considered rape by one definition, how is it any less rape than sex had between consentual and even married partners? When you fully dissect the scenarios, one isn't much different than the other, minus vows... or maybe not: a vow is just a contract of words, less writing.
Second Issue: Who said they were only selling pornography featuring women? What if it's men having sex with men? Or women having sex with women? In which case, which one is being subject to abuse if they're equal partners?
The fact that you also fail to acknowledge that various forms of pornography are directed toward female customers, and feature questionable and dangerous acts inflicted upon men makes it clear a certain bias.
Anyway, enough instigation, time to see how competitive Yahoo's pricing is. After all, online pornographic industry is huge and competitive.
Checking back to one of my old tests from grade 9 math, I actually lost marks for forgetting to use
negative
reciprocals while finding the perpendicular lines dividing the sides of a triangle. If only the Klehr-Bliss Theorem had come half a decade sooner, I might have earned an extra half mark somewhere.
I guess this just goes to show that most "great" discoveries start as simple mistakes. I guess the major difference is that his was in study hall, while mine was on a test, huh?
Still, I can't help making the point that it doesn't take a genius to realize that any 3 independant lines in two-space are bound to meet in a point. Just call me cynical, I guess.
...be the first to make angry comparisons to "Big Brother" and an Orwellian society when everyone's movements online are being tracked. Innocent Internet users and script kiddies alike will no doubt fight back against constant monitoring, but I have very little sympathy for any script kiddie attacking those who're only trying to make the internet more secure after they've already attacked so many others using less of their own skill than the documented skill of others.
It's comparable to Napster in a way. So many individuals think they're so clever to find means of dodging around the system without realizing that the harder they make it for Napster to filter their files, the more likely it'll be shut down when the final verdict is read.
Anyway, it's not so uncommon a situation. Aren't those who abuse their freedom most often those who force the restriction thereof, not only for them, but for everyone else? While part of me hopes that this system of DDoS tracking doesn't take off for the obvious privacy reasons, another part of me hopes that it will, so that script kiddies can be taught that society as a whole doesn't stand for such abuse of freedom.
Actually, it's called an Oligopoly. Oli-go-po-ly. Last I checked our heavily commercial society encourages them, so long as they're not "overly-friendly"... which is sadly what Napster's encouraged with the RIAA, by providing a common enemy.
I understand that there's a certain animosity toward the RIAA in the online community as a whole: that's to be expected. What I don't understand why, with this current decision on Napster's part to distribute music legally, people are screaming outrage over artists' rights, acting as if the RIAA is muscling around and essentially enslaving their artists.
Contrary to popular belief, members of the RIAA don't send agents to the houses of talented artists and threaten to break their legs unless they agree to be represented through them. I also find it very hard to believe that any artist expects that most of the revenue from their music will come back to them: I'm certain those members of the RIAA that they CHOOSE to deal with make this very clear. This in fact is fair: The artists put in their talents, but as history has shown, the excessive marketting and management provided by the RIAA are most costly and more effective in such a lemming market as North America (thus we have such successful groups as the Backstreet Boys and N*SYNC). Artists are also VERY rarely locked in dark basements and forced to make music without food or water while chained to microphones and handcuffed to instruments. Simply put: The artists who work within the RIAA aren't forced into unequitable treatment or abusive circumstances without some say of their own, and while all the money doesn't go to them, I can't think of many artists under the RIAA's overseeing that've resorted to an impoverish lifestyle without some poor decisions of their own.
Realize, of course, that if prices for CDs weren't "artificially inflated" as the FTC suggests, artists would make even MORE money and marketting would be almost nill, with most of the actual revenue going toward paying for meager marketing and standard expenses.
Anyway, back on topic, selling the rights to the distribution of their music isn't abuse of the artists on the RIAA's part, as I'm certain that such issues are covered in initial contracts. Heck, if people're opposed to the RIAA allowing distribution of music across Napster, than why aren't these same people protesting the use of artists' music on radio stations? Most of the time they have no say in that either! What injustice! Sure the situations are different at heart, but aren't the principles essentially the same?
Anyway, I'm sick of people acting as if this is some huge controversy and injustice on the part of the RIAA, both toward consumers and artists. There's nothing new in this scenario that hasn't been going on for decades within the industry: the only difference are the players... or rather, one of the players.
If you're so intent on defending the rights of the artists, stop attacking those few that actually voice their own opinions, such as Metallica. Otherwise you're simply a biased hypocrite.
That just a short while ago, Napster's representatives claimed it wasn't feasible to track specific files through their service for purposes such as removing copywritten material and compensating the copyright holders, but suddenly now that they're charging the consumer, and claiming to pay a little bit of compensation to the music owners, it's suddenly made to sound incredibly easy? Albeit after a few months...
I guess what they should have specified back when defending their inability to filter their content was that it isn't FINANCIALLY feasible. Poor Napster.... only seems able to take action when there are legal implications or considerable profit involved.
Sorry if this sounds trollish, I'm just sick of pro-Napster zealots refusing to admit that it's one of the smarmiest members of the online community, and frankly corrupts the very concept of online media distribution.
Something along the lines of: "Developers should stop asking 'Can we?' and start asking 'Should we?'"
While I know this may be slightly redundant, considering what existing technology already offers TDK's proposed CDRW plans seem rather unnecessary. Shouldn't we be instead looking toward the improvement of DVD burning technology? Or making already existent CD burners more reliable at high speeds?
I hate to come across sounding like a Troll, but TDK's point seems more to develop their own proprietary CD burning format than anything else. At the same time I question the reliability of this technology: Consumer CD burners aren't terribly reliable at high speeds, regardless of all the developments over the past while in burning technology. Now we're going to make it even easier to make errors in the burning process, by making the media even more sensative? On top of that, it's re-writable.... I rarely trust re-writable CDs as it is for anything terribly important, and combined with the potentially higher error rate, I doubt I'd actually ever trust one of these proposed burners for unless I'm forced to.
Of course, it's still possible they'll pull it off somehow. That doesn't change the fact, however, that this means another format that we, as consumers, will have to upgrade to take advantage of (even just to read these new CDs, as I assume it'll take more than a simple software upgrade). While I understand that progress dictates that there'll be more formats over time, I again sense this particular one being designed less for the progress of information storage technology, and more to provide TDK with their own unique storage format.
In the end, personally I'll keep hoping for some reliable form of DVDRW, and until then, I think normal CDRWs will suit most of my personal needs.
Slashdot Mirror
Yamauchi hates Square: http://www.thegia.com/news/0101/n29a.html
But then, Yamauchi seems to hate lots of things.... Final Fantasy in particular (anyone else remember his "only loner basement-dwelling geeks would enjoy such depressing, boring games" comment?). Don't have a link for the actual quote for that one.... the above should be enough, though.
Interact was selling gold and silver plastic casing for the Gameboy Color that, knowing their affection for swapping their products between systems, will probably also be made for the GBA eventually.
They look hideous though, and alter the grip and size of the system.... not a lot, but enough to make it a strange experience. I have a feeling that chroming would have the same feel.
Anyway, I'm sure Nintendo'll flood the market with gold and silver styled GBAs eventually to promote the Pokemon series.
I think the real issue here isn't the poor choice of coloring method so much as the fact that the poor sucker put plastic (that they were obviously unfamiliar with) in warm water overnight).
From the last posting: "The worst part is that I wasn't careful, and warped the plastic."
Of course, there's also the issue of using nail polish remover to attempt to clear up DYE blotches!
Anyway, I think we all know that real men use duct tape for all their stylization needs, and I know a hardware store that sells in over 50 different colors. Stupid idea? At least it won't warp the actual casing.
I guess you could just use spray or car paint, but wouldn't that take the fun out of it?.... I mean, ya don't even get to melt anything!
One can't really condemn all those who would criticize computer generated graphics as fine art, simply because so many of them are simply naive when it comes to the actual process involved. When many traditional artists and art critics hear the word "computer," they immediately picture works being generated mathematically or through overuse of software facilitation. Many don't picture an individual sitting with graphic tablet in hand working with a digital canvas simply because this isn't the "traditional" view of computer generated artwork. Then you have those hordes of young, untrained graphic designers who, thanks to the power of the internet, have far more voice than your casual hobbiest painter, and have acted to define the world of computer generated artwork as some massive sinkhole, acting as a medium solely for hacks and amateurs... the artistic equivalent of script kiddies one might say. Frankly I don't mind computer generated artwork being considered seperate from the general classification of "fine art." As shows such as 010101 (http://www.sfmoma.com/) have taught us, there is some prestige in the medium without forcing further classification or specification. One day the lines will blur, then bend and break, and the computer will be accepted as a legitimate medium. Of course, this all assumes that the majority of people actually want the lines to blur. For many, even those who champion the computer as a new art medium, "fine art" is a convenient classification for pieces of art specifically not generated through electronic means. If I were requested to include a piece of fine art in my portfolio at present, I would know immediately to avoid including any computer generated material.... and I've already been asked specifically not to include any works involving animal feces, so it need not come across as a bias.
Ever played Dance Dance Revolution?
The innovation is still there, it's just weird and scary.... at least to old time arcade gurus.
Seriously though, there really is quite a bit of innovation in a number of arcade games even these days.... the bar is just higher, as with everything else these days. Of course, a lot of the truly innovative games are just bad.... pure and simple.... because innovation and fresh ideas aren't always a good thing.
Oh, and media desensatization of the youth, yada yada yada. 10 years ago a few drops of blood in a game would be deemed innovative and daring, and 5 years ago a car game with "realistic" feedback was a revolution. I guess it's true that the arcade industry has been a bit dry lately if you're not looking for the more innovative forms of innovation... well.... you know what I mean (think DDR).
Ok, I'll shut up now.... I promise.
I hate to make light of this sad sad day.... but I'm sorry.... I can't resist....
HOORAY FOR NO MORE ARCADE MORTAL KOMBAT GAMES!
.... Ok, now that I've gotten that out of my system.... let us now mourn the swarm of Midway games that shall soon hit the console world....
Seriously though, Midway made some really great games in "the day," and while I dislike their clinging to certain franchises, it's their fight to keep innovative pinball games in production that kept the "genre" alive until the very end. For all their continued life in console gaming, no console game will ever compare to the true arcade experience, and there'll never be an emulator that can simulate the joy of real pinball.
Oh, and apologies to anyone who may have been offended by my making light of the situation. I just REALLY hate Mortal Kombat.
Ok, so I think the question posed here might just be "where would Steve Jobs be if not for Jef Raskin," correct?
How about this though: Where would Raskin be without Jobs? The Woz? The REST of the garage-junkies that actually got Apple off the ground in the first place?
Sure, Raskin did amazing things for Apple, I won't deny that, but just as it's wrong to claim that Jobs alone is the key to Apple's success, so is it wrong to deify Raskin in the same light.
As for PARC, I'm pretty sure the issue decided itself: Xerox already had commercials lined up praising their GUI project as the greatest innovation since the keyboard (contrary to their handling fo the actual PARC project that allowed Apple's "initiative" with the project). Claiming that Raskin is the sole reason that GUI met Mac is simple hyperbole. GUI = obviously good thing, and there was more communication within Apple than within Xerox over such cutting-edge technology.... Jobs wasn't about to make the same mistake as that which allowed him to "steal" the research in the first place.
Anyway, the point: It's hypocritical to put down jobs by putting Raskin on a pedestal. Personally I've always believed that the team is far more important than the individual.... well, the team, and the Woz, heh.... it's just that the team as a whole isn't as marketable. The difference between Raskin and Jobs is that Jobs too initiative to make himself a public icon from the very beginning, and no matter who's working behind the scenes, it's the figurehead that gets the attention (just as Gates gets all the blame for the numerous "sins" of Microsoft.... most of which I'm willing to bet are the contrivances of marketting groups and high-power executive lackeys rather than any lone perpetrator).
Stalin couldn't possibly be a "true" product of Communism in the sense that Russia was never able to reach a stable state of Communism before Lenin's death. Stalin's immediate actions upon seizing control were not to preserve Communism (by equalizing the classes) but rather destroy said equality, starting with the traditionally unstable urban areas and then having the nerve to target the rural farmers by turning them against each other (who had lived in a far more equitable state since long before Lenin's uprising). Of course, when Trotsky (true believer in Communism) attempted to reprimand Stalin for his butchering of Lenin's dream, he was forced to flee with the newly formed Gestapo-esque federal enforcers at his heels.
Stalin wormed his way into position and then snatched his position as leader from Lenin's funeral bed. He represents one of those individuals who prevent Communism's success by attempting to twist it to match his own self-serving vision. If Lenin had survived, and Trotsky not been forced into exile, a perfect three-pronged system could have been established in order to prevent one individual from gaining too much power.... "in theory."
Of course, to go off on a bit more of a tangent, one might simply identify that Stalin never fully embraced the concept of a "Communist leader," which requires quite a stretch from the conventional (western) idea of leadership. Under Communism, country "leader" is simply a job, not position of inherent status.... it's a position of social management and international relations.
Oh, and I know this is off topic, so mod-down away!
Communists? Killing themselves off? While I'll be the first to admit that the quality of life in China isn't on par with that in most major "first world" countries, the death rates aren't drastically different.
Maybe picking up a history book would make the population difference a little bit more clear for you: Communism came after Capitalism, and has existed in its current form for less than 50 years (modern Communism isn't pure Marxism).
At least check, Communism didn't end in the USSR because the entire population died out. One might even say that Russia would be worse off today if not for Communism having brought some equality between the classes that would carry over to their modern economic system (although I don't condone the specific actions of Stalin, who, as we all know, wasn't a Communist so much as a Totalitarian political leech).
Communist environmental degradation.... federal hydro-electric dams.... same thing, huh? I mean, environmentally friendly power sources couldn't POSSIBLY influence the level of water in such a small sea, right?
Oh, and the biggest polluter on the planet is still the US, which, at last check, isn't Communist, and produces ~6,503,800,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas yearly (as of 1997). China places second, of course, with ~4,964,800,000 tonnes and Russia (fourth, after India) produces ~1,980,300,000, although it is no longer Communist (amazing, huh?). Of course, these numbers alone don't suggest much, unless one considers the per person emissions. US: 24.3 tonnes. China: 4.0 tonnes. Russia: 13.4 tonnes. In fact, out of the top 10 polluters, China has the second lowest per-capita pollution level, falling behind India at 2.2 tonnes. Seems these Communist countries aren't faring so badly after all, huh?
Oh, and since when have all "commies" been Godless? The one thing I hate more than senselessly blaming others for off-topic issues are false generalizations. Last I checked, most major religions tend to encourage equality of some form or another, and is not Communism based on the hope for pure equality?
Last I checked there were more Godless capitalists worldwide than Godless communists, by simple virtue of there being far more capitalists.
"as do a thousand other pieces of historical information that archaeologists have uncovered over the years."
Hyperbole doesn't make an argument any stronger. The bible often makes reference to events that did take place, but there is absolutely no proof that its explanations for such events are correct. If I happen to scribble on a scrap of paper that nuclear waste is a product of the tears of god, and this scrap of paper one day gains some theological praise, it's still a falsity. Chariots at the bottom of Aquaba? sometimes floods DO occur, and we ARE discussing a gulf, and not some tiny inland sea that could only flood by miracle.
Of course, the real fun comes in asking for proof of your claims. While I don't consider Google of Yahoo the be-all and end-all of research sources, typing in "grantie halos" turns up a sole link to an outdated ezboard posting. Maybe them rascally liberals are up to their evil ways again, huh?
By the way, which church do you refer to? While I'm obviously not of sound faith, I do frequently attend church, as I have since early childhood, and can't recall me local pastor ever speaking out so violently against those views that don't directly concur with his own. You speak of "hateful lies," but I don't think that lies are the sources of hate in this case. My understanding has always been that most branches of Christianity will at least attempt to prove their points reasonably, without going out of their way to insult and condemn those that may only present minor contradiction.
Just clearing a few things up:
There has been more than one Gameboy upgrade since its release back in the '80s. After the original clunky-greyGameboy came Gameboy Pocket, followed by Gameboy Pocket Light (Asian market only) and then, finally, the Gameboy Color. Regardless, even before the introduction of the Gameboy Color, the Gameboy line had established itself as the best selling gaming console worldwide... and anyone who wants to dispute the point is free to ask around amongst their friends as to whether they've owned a unit at one point or another
Something else I thought I'd point out: Backlight is bad for small, alkaline-powered portables. This has been proven any number of times in the past, but most notably with the Sega Gamegear, Atari Lynx, and Nintendo's own Gameboy Pocket Light. Certainly, the Gamegear and Lynx were fun, but both ate batteries with such finess that any family trip taking up more than a few hours would normally require some spare batteries on hand... not to mention the initial 4-6. This is also why Gameboy Pocket Light never saw the light of day in North America: it gobbled batteries, and while pleasantly backlit, consider what's more important to your average Joe Consumer Jr: backlighting or battery life.
All I know is that my old Gamegear gets roughly 3-4 hours at most on 4 AA batteries, while my Gameboy Color has managed to run for what I'd estimate to be around 18 hours on 2 AA batteries. While it's no easy task playing the Gameboy at night, most buses and planes offer overhead lighting that's always worked reasonably well for me personally (although rule out car-play... although I guess I shouldn't be playing while driving anyway, heh). I also know that cheap method of backlighting aren't preferable either... the Gamegear works great in dark atmospheres, but try playing outside on an average day, or under office lighting.
If worst comes to worst, Nintendo has revealed pictures of GBAs hooked up to Gamecubes. Who knows, maybe we will be able to play GBA games on the TV?
The survey claims that 86% of respondents claim to have downloaded free music online. What this immediately suggests is that almost none of those polled were non-internet users, which isn't terribly surprising as it seems the poll itself took place online. Why his this pertinent? Because it offers no comparison between traditional music buyers and those influenced by Napster. None of this is made terribly clear in actual writing, though.
Furthermore, both the article and poll itself identify that those polled were "music fans." What about those millions of casual Napster users who aren't "fans" to a significant degree that they would both download music files AND do the right thing and purchase the CDs?
"86% of all respondents said that they HAD purchased a CD album as a direct result of downloading free tracks from it."... so they've purchased "a" CD? I know very few people who've downloaded only music from a single CD while using Napster. A better question may ask respondents whether they purchase CDs for the MAJORITY of the music that they download online.
Heck, even the question as to whether music downloads have stopped users from purchasing CDs is silly. Napster doesn't stop people from purchasing, it merely offers another option.
Worst of all, this poll conflicts with almost every other poll discussing online purchasing trends, particularly among internet users under the age of 18 (which make up a good portion of those polled). While I do feel it's reasonable to blame those organizing the poll for the wording of some questions, they can't be blamed for not adjusting their results to adequately account for outside factors, which are almost always required with online polls. All I know is that there are countless other polls and surveys, performed by more reliable sources for the most part, that conflict what one may be assumed from face value analysis of this poll. Maybe if they'd offered some interpretation of their own along with the poll results, and some analysis of sources of error, I'd be more accepting.
Oh, and the article's HTML title mispells "dowqnload." Maybe that plays some roll in my misunderstanding, heh.
Normally I'd be willing to accept this as a PR stunt, but this is Yamauchi we're talking about. The same man who alienated 2/3 of the Japanese gaming market by not only insulting RPGs in general, but anyone who finds them entertaining. The same man who refuses developers on the basis that they run the risk of selling more units than Nintendo itself. The same man who, even after pressing fromm shareholders and industry bigwigs, still refuses to allow exceedingly violent content on any of his company's systems.
If it were some reasonable Nintendo spokesperson making such claims, I might believe them. ButYamauchi is a complete lunatic at his worst, which always seems to be when put in front of a microphone.
At least we can be assured that if the Gamecube doesn't show well at E3, we'll at least get some spectacular lashing fromYamauchi. Maybe he'll alienate the last third of Nintendo's key market by blaming it all on idiot kids and their moronic parents?
First issue: Which commandment is it that states "Thou shalt not rape!"? That edgy 23rd commandment, when exclaimation marks were introduced to drive the point home?
Seriously, I think we all know what broad interpretation of the words of the bible can lead to. Heck, stretch the definition of "covet" enough and you're a sinner if you admire your neighbor's lawn, which is particularly difficult considering how much greener grass is on their side of the fence.
Any who said that there isn't any love in pornography? Granted, I doubt most participants in pornographic videos have deep intimate relationships, but a very broad assumption is being made that not only is there no love, but that there's open hostility between participants in pornographic movies.
One might also question whether rape is occuring at all. Sure, one may put a feminazi (pardon the term, if it offends) spin on all sexual acts involving a man and a women, and define every such act as rape. From the legal perspective, there's one simple word that seperates lovemaking from rape: "No."
Of course, stretching again, if sex in pornographic films is considered rape by one definition, how is it any less rape than sex had between consentual and even married partners? When you fully dissect the scenarios, one isn't much different than the other, minus vows... or maybe not: a vow is just a contract of words, less writing.
Second Issue: Who said they were only selling pornography featuring women? What if it's men having sex with men? Or women having sex with women? In which case, which one is being subject to abuse if they're equal partners?
The fact that you also fail to acknowledge that various forms of pornography are directed toward female customers, and feature questionable and dangerous acts inflicted upon men makes it clear a certain bias.
Anyway, enough instigation, time to see how competitive Yahoo's pricing is. After all, online pornographic industry is huge and competitive.
Checking back to one of my old tests from grade 9 math, I actually lost marks for forgetting to use
I guess this just goes to show that most "great" discoveries start as simple mistakes. I guess the major difference is that his was in study hall, while mine was on a test, huh?
Still, I can't help making the point that it doesn't take a genius to realize that any 3 independant lines in two-space are bound to meet in a point. Just call me cynical, I guess.
...be the first to make angry comparisons to "Big Brother" and an Orwellian society when everyone's movements online are being tracked. Innocent Internet users and script kiddies alike will no doubt fight back against constant monitoring, but I have very little sympathy for any script kiddie attacking those who're only trying to make the internet more secure after they've already attacked so many others using less of their own skill than the documented skill of others.
It's comparable to Napster in a way. So many individuals think they're so clever to find means of dodging around the system without realizing that the harder they make it for Napster to filter their files, the more likely it'll be shut down when the final verdict is read.
Anyway, it's not so uncommon a situation. Aren't those who abuse their freedom most often those who force the restriction thereof, not only for them, but for everyone else? While part of me hopes that this system of DDoS tracking doesn't take off for the obvious privacy reasons, another part of me hopes that it will, so that script kiddies can be taught that society as a whole doesn't stand for such abuse of freedom.
Actually, it's called an Oligopoly. Oli-go-po-ly. Last I checked our heavily commercial society encourages them, so long as they're not "overly-friendly"... which is sadly what Napster's encouraged with the RIAA, by providing a common enemy.
I understand that there's a certain animosity toward the RIAA in the online community as a whole: that's to be expected. What I don't understand why, with this current decision on Napster's part to distribute music legally, people are screaming outrage over artists' rights, acting as if the RIAA is muscling around and essentially enslaving their artists.
Contrary to popular belief, members of the RIAA don't send agents to the houses of talented artists and threaten to break their legs unless they agree to be represented through them. I also find it very hard to believe that any artist expects that most of the revenue from their music will come back to them: I'm certain those members of the RIAA that they CHOOSE to deal with make this very clear. This in fact is fair: The artists put in their talents, but as history has shown, the excessive marketting and management provided by the RIAA are most costly and more effective in such a lemming market as North America (thus we have such successful groups as the Backstreet Boys and N*SYNC). Artists are also VERY rarely locked in dark basements and forced to make music without food or water while chained to microphones and handcuffed to instruments. Simply put: The artists who work within the RIAA aren't forced into unequitable treatment or abusive circumstances without some say of their own, and while all the money doesn't go to them, I can't think of many artists under the RIAA's overseeing that've resorted to an impoverish lifestyle without some poor decisions of their own.
Realize, of course, that if prices for CDs weren't "artificially inflated" as the FTC suggests, artists would make even MORE money and marketting would be almost nill, with most of the actual revenue going toward paying for meager marketing and standard expenses.
Anyway, back on topic, selling the rights to the distribution of their music isn't abuse of the artists on the RIAA's part, as I'm certain that such issues are covered in initial contracts. Heck, if people're opposed to the RIAA allowing distribution of music across Napster, than why aren't these same people protesting the use of artists' music on radio stations? Most of the time they have no say in that either! What injustice! Sure the situations are different at heart, but aren't the principles essentially the same?
Anyway, I'm sick of people acting as if this is some huge controversy and injustice on the part of the RIAA, both toward consumers and artists. There's nothing new in this scenario that hasn't been going on for decades within the industry: the only difference are the players... or rather, one of the players.
If you're so intent on defending the rights of the artists, stop attacking those few that actually voice their own opinions, such as Metallica. Otherwise you're simply a biased hypocrite.
That just a short while ago, Napster's representatives claimed it wasn't feasible to track specific files through their service for purposes such as removing copywritten material and compensating the copyright holders, but suddenly now that they're charging the consumer, and claiming to pay a little bit of compensation to the music owners, it's suddenly made to sound incredibly easy? Albeit after a few months...
I guess what they should have specified back when defending their inability to filter their content was that it isn't FINANCIALLY feasible. Poor Napster.... only seems able to take action when there are legal implications or considerable profit involved.
Sorry if this sounds trollish, I'm just sick of pro-Napster zealots refusing to admit that it's one of the smarmiest members of the online community, and frankly corrupts the very concept of online media distribution.
Something along the lines of: "Developers should stop asking 'Can we?' and start asking 'Should we?'" While I know this may be slightly redundant, considering what existing technology already offers TDK's proposed CDRW plans seem rather unnecessary. Shouldn't we be instead looking toward the improvement of DVD burning technology? Or making already existent CD burners more reliable at high speeds? I hate to come across sounding like a Troll, but TDK's point seems more to develop their own proprietary CD burning format than anything else. At the same time I question the reliability of this technology: Consumer CD burners aren't terribly reliable at high speeds, regardless of all the developments over the past while in burning technology. Now we're going to make it even easier to make errors in the burning process, by making the media even more sensative? On top of that, it's re-writable.... I rarely trust re-writable CDs as it is for anything terribly important, and combined with the potentially higher error rate, I doubt I'd actually ever trust one of these proposed burners for unless I'm forced to. Of course, it's still possible they'll pull it off somehow. That doesn't change the fact, however, that this means another format that we, as consumers, will have to upgrade to take advantage of (even just to read these new CDs, as I assume it'll take more than a simple software upgrade). While I understand that progress dictates that there'll be more formats over time, I again sense this particular one being designed less for the progress of information storage technology, and more to provide TDK with their own unique storage format. In the end, personally I'll keep hoping for some reliable form of DVDRW, and until then, I think normal CDRWs will suit most of my personal needs.