But definitely Northrend would have seemed to be a better release to come before Outland. I mean after getting an alien world to explore, a frozen continent seems like a lacklustre follow up.
You seem a little naive, the court can not accept those charges unless there is some credible evidence that the orders were given.
As far as I remember the people who faced charges over Abu Ghraib did say "I was following orders". Of course, according to them the orders didn't go down the military chain of command but were delivered verbally by special agents. Thus the problem, without actual written proof that the orders were given. There is, of course, speculation that political pressure was applied to the investigation team to make sure that no corroborating evidence was found.
The circumstancial evidence all points to involvement by higher ups in the process. Especially considering Alberto Gonzales written opinions on torture, the extraordinary renditions and the abuse of prisoners at Guantanomo. Combined with claims of external influence from the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib it shows a pattern of behaviour that makes at least unofficial approval of Abu Ghraib's torture appear likely. The posting of pictures of the torture on the 'net, that was obviously never approved.
I'm not implying it's a conspiracy. A conspiracy implies there was some thought put into this, I'm quite sure that very little thought goes into anything Bush or his cronies do. This is simplify the attitude of Bush and co. Specifically they seem to believe that the U.S. government sits astride the world and directs it as it wishes because it can (Iraq, Domestic Spying, Signing Statements). The point isn't that there's some deliberate concerted action going on here, but that Bush keeps making new position for political masters to control and muzzle the agencies of the government to keep them "on message" even when the message has no relation to reality. Furthermore, he persists in appointing incompetent ignorami into positions of power in the very wrost sort of cronyism (Michael Brown, Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miere and many more).
They abuse people under them, not because they have some nefarious goal in mind, but simply because they can. This is an administration which is ok with using torture (Alberto Gonzales written opinion, extraordinary renditions, Guantanomo) as long as they don't get too much bad publicity over it (Abu Ghraib). Bush believes in the use of force first and foremost (Iraq, torture of prisoners for information) and if that doesn't work, then you didn't use enough force (Texas Execution record). He doesn't tolerate questions from his underlings (Colin Powell) or any type of disagreement (see the treatment of NASA, the Pentagon, and the Surgeon General). I've heard people describe his behaviour at the white house, advisors who tell him things he doesn't want to hear get left out of future meetings and snubbed until they stop trying to think for themselves. If they don't stop asking questions or thinking, they end up isolated and powerless like Colin Powell before he resigned.
Bush actively encourages ignorance in his cronies and underlings because they shouldn't know or believe anything that contradicts the official Bush policy because it's dangerous to their careers. Parroting Bush is the way to stay in favour and get rewards. It's a little bit like the Office only instead of running a small division of a company the completely incompetent manager is running the worlds most powerful country. If the idea of Dilbert's pointy haired boss having nuclear weapons scares you, then you know what the rest of the world has been feeling for the last 6 years.
Well there's really two ways to look at the situation:
1) The people responsible were punished for their actions.
2) The people caught were scaped goated and punished for being caught.
Most reasonable people are inclined to believe the latter for the simple reason that the superiors who were supposed to be in charge of the people at Abu Ghraib escaped any punishment, and similar behaviour has long been alleged to be occuring at Guantanomo, and in other foreign countries at the U.S. behest (Have you ever heard of renditions?). Add in the fact the President's legal council wrote an opinion that it was legal to abuse prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo because legally war was not declared and thus prisoners were not, in fact, prisoners of war. It seems reasonable to believe, given the evidence, that the current administration condones and approves of the use of torture, as long as you don't post pictures of it on the internet.
The poster thing might seem trivial, but it's all the same thing. Government trampling the rights of people in the name of security. Abu Ghraib, the Russian Journalists, Habeas Corpus. It's all about government exerting it's power to control and manipulate the way people live. Russia's poisionings are just the logical extension of the paranoia that requires posters that the government itself sells to tourists be destroyed to protect national security.
The suspension of Habeas Corpus was done in the name of national security. Torture at Abu Ghraib was condoned and encouraged in the name of national security. Public information is being hidden in the name of national security. I'm sure the Russians have some national security reason for assassinating journalists.
This isn't an unrelated incident it's just part of the pattern of abuse, paranoia, and despotism that the U.S. government has been engaged in since 9-11.
When a man does evil, even for a reason he thinks is good, then it is right to call him and evil man. So too with nations.
In reality this has nothing to do with America's enemies and everything to do with making sure that NASA's contractors realize that NASA is boot upon their neck and that they will do everything NASA tells them to do or else. It's a fine example of fascism in action, and excusing that behaviour on the grounds that it might in some unsayable way help protect the country is an act of vast and unmitigated cowardice.
I see cowardice whenever someone tries to justify intolerable abuse of power on the basis that maybe it will make it harder for some unknown enemy to strike at us.
Brave men demand more than vague threats and hand waving before they surrender their basic rights, cowards don't.
They were confiscating and destroying posters purchased at the gift shop. These aren't technical specs, they're public relations fluff posters with a rough cut-away display of the interior of the rocket.
So you think it's reasonable in a free and just society for armed men to go into a private company's offices, rip publically available posters of 40+ year old technology off the walls and destroy them in the name of national security?
Think about this for a second. The Saturn didn't have computers on board, it's older than the computer age. When it was designed, you probably couldn't fit a computer into it's entire cargo area. It doesn't make sense on any level to try to even pretend that the technology should be classified, it's clearly a sign of massive incompetence on the part of the Bush cronies who were recently put in charge at NASA. These people have no relevent education or experience, hell one of the morons was the second in command at FEMA during Katrina and now's he's got a different plush job at NASA where he's screwing up just he did a FEMA.
It will probably take decades to clean up the mess that Bush is making of the U.S.
I think he's saying that if you honestly report your income but fail to pay the taxes you owe, the government will only fine you for not paying it.
He's not saying that there are no laws forcing you to pay, just that the teeth of the laws are all focused on propety rather than the "violence" of incarceration.
It's not true. I looked around a bit and it seems the government may law criminal charges with a penalty of up to 5 years in prison for deliberate failure to pay your tax bill. In most cases, I suspect the U.S. government would rather garnish your wages from your employer before resorting to a trial and jail time, though.
Frankly, you do sound partisan. The problem is that you are attempting to excuse monstrous behaviour by claiming everyone does it, but that is clearly not the case.
The fact that you assume that your being attacked because of anti-Bush zealotry, reinforces the image that you are a Bush apologist. There certainly are anti-Bush zealots, but I think you might just be pissing people off by defending him for no good reason. Please remember, he's has the high disapproval rating in history for a president. That means 71% of the people acively think he's doing something very wrong, saying it's just business as usual is going to provoke a few people to disagree with you.
Most politicians do not ignore reality, they may hide it, they may not understand it. They may fail to see the consequences of their actions, but very few are completely out of touch with it. The best examples of Bush like behaviour come not from politicians, but from Kings and Emperors who were killed in popular coups, revolts or revolutions.
Bush is really only in power now thanks the power of the Republican propaganda mill which managed to created enough FUD to muddy the last two elections into narrow victories for Bush and a series of suspicious electoral "flukes" that look a lot like organized attempts to cheat during the last two presidential elections.
There's a lot of a-typical stuff around Bush that makes it clear to most independent observers that this is not, as you claim, business as usual.
Evil becomes appropriate when enough negative adjectives become appropriate and few, if any positive ones are appropriate. Most of the time we hear evil used in fantasy, but there is a real definition of evil from ethics: behavior or thought which is hateful, cruel, violent, or devoid of conscience.
I mean: Avaracious Self-serving Torture supporting Lying Stealing Cheating
The best adjectives you can apply to Bush tend to be ethically neutral: Strong Personable
The actions of Bush and his associates fit the ethical definition of evil, and evil seems appropriate based on his lack of redeeming qualities. Of course, the problem with labelling Bush as evil is that it is divisive, at least for now. By calling Bush evil, you are calling his supporters evil as well, and that strengthens their resolve instead of weakening it.
I have no doubt that Bush will eventually be known as the evil president to history, barring the rise of an even greater tyrant.
I have to agree, I really think the only evil genius on the "President's team" is Carl Rove. I don't like saying anything good about the guy, but he does have a talent for perverting the systems of democracy.
No, Bush is certainly special. The U.S. is actually extremely lucky. Most of the time someone as incompetent and deluded as Bush would either cause a civil war or a coup. Take a close look at Thailand. They ousted their president for the appearance of a Haliburton type scandal. Personally, I think a major reason why Bush hasn't been assassinated or overthrown is the presidential term limit.
Everyone knows that Bush has to leave in a little over a year. It's a much safer bet to wait out the year, when he's mostly powerless anyway, than it is to risk your life trying to knock him off. The other large factor is that no one wants to see President Cheney because everyone expects him to be worse in every way than Bush.
Loyalty is only a virtue when the person you're loyal to is virtuous.
Bush doesn't value loyalty. Someone who values loyalty welcomes (in private, at least) criticism of his actions for his followers, he recognizes that loyalty provokes questions about questionable actions and that the criticism serves his interests in the long run as long.
From all reports, Bush ostracizes anyone who questions him or his actions whether in private or in public. He demands that his followers unilaterally support his decisions and carry out his orders without question or thought. This is obedience not loyalty.
Thus we can safely conclude that he values obedience and obedience only. They only call it "loyalty" because it conceals the truth about the pathetic nature of his cotterie of sycophants.
He may be referring to the "Microsoft Effect" where venture capitalists are very wary of funding any project that might end up competing against Microsoft. Since most technology firms tend to be funded by venture capitalists, a lack of access to funding for innovative products can certainly "kill innovation". Microsoft has made it very clear that they take competition very personally and aren't opposed to deliberately harming the backers of companies they don't like.
The charge isn't as unreasonable as it first may seem, but is still hyperbole.
So you never played cops and robbers or cowboys and indians as a kid?
Or had to pack the trunk of a car for a family vacation or pack your own groceries at the store?
There's no reason to be an asshole about disagreeing with someone. There are obviously new capabilities brought forth by video games, but many video games are merely digital replications of pre-existing games or even what would normally be considered to be "work". Many are not as new as you might think.
Just to correct myself, I double counted Q1-3 for 2007, so that's only a $7.6 billion dollar hole. I misread the $1.9 billion loss as Q4 instead of end of year.
No, they need about $8.4 billion dollars in profit for the console division to recoup it's losses. As I understand it the consoles (including games, live and peripherals) themselves have never turned a profit, though the entertainment division has had at least one miniscule profit.
Now there might be some overlap between Fiscal 2005, and the initial number but given the number's $8.6 billion, even an overlap of $200 million is insignificant to the final number. It is highly unlikely that the Xbox group will recoup those losses in this console generation.
This is an interesting idea, having a device which will automatically detect what you're watching but since it's based on an encoded signal, the underlying system would be extremly vulnerable. The user doesn't seem to be able to check what he's been recorded as watching/listening so if you had the device with you in any public area someone could play a signal for a tv show (for example) to artificially boost it's ratings.
Heck, you'd probably end up with some enthusiast writing a virus to change the signal on popular games to support their personal cause and once that happens it's only a matter of time before someone will make a business of artificially inflating ratings. It'd be SEO all over again, but for real money by artificially increasing the rates advertisers pay to advertise during a particular.
You might think the secrecy of who's a rater would protect them, but as well all know from spam, that people will go after the 0.001% who are in the program even if it means inconviencing the 99.999% who aren't.
As far as Sony goes, there's a variety of reasons:
1) Nintendo fanbois 2) Microsoft fanbois
These two groups have slagged the PS3 as an overly expensive piece of junk since it was announced. There hatred for anything that doesn't belong to their chosen company is nothing new.
3) Sony's bad behaviour
Sony's been a bad company recently, the copy protection software that hides itself on your computer is a prime example of a related area that has offended many more people that were actually affected by it. Generally speaking, the people who are still offended by this will use any excuse, whether true or not, to attack Sony to make them pay for offending them. There are other issues, such a Lik-Sang but the copy-protection "root kit" (even though it was produced by a third party) is the one that gets the most tears.
4) The PS3 price
The price of the PS3 is much higher than anticipated, this has angered people many people who intended to buy one, if they get a PS3 then they'll have less money for beer and porn. Therefore, in their minds, Sony is taking their beer and porn, and that's bad.
5) Sony's Executives
Sony's executive are, from all appearances, paid to be professional public assholes. They've tried to make light of the price difference but given that there's already a large group of people pissed off at them, see 1-4, stupid jokes fall flat and the teaming horde of angry people rip everything they say to shreds. Sony's executives are apparently unable to deal in a reasonable professional manner with a public that is not happy with them.
6) Everyone loves to see an arrogant titan fail.
As for the Wii:
1) Nintendo fanbois 2) Microsoft fanbois still view the PS3 as the real threat to the Xbox 360
3) The Wii is exactly the same as everyone other Nintendo console but now it has a new controller. It's the Malibu Stacey with a new hat phenomenom. It's different enough to be "new" but not different enough to be scary.
4) The Wii is doing well. Everyone loves to jump on the bandwagon of the new rising star.
That's what happens when you don't actually enforce a law, people don't follow it. Now if the government had cracked down on any non-SS use of SSNs when it started, they wouldn't be used like that...
I don't understand how online co-op play has significantly different challenges from splitscreen and lan play. I mean in theory can't you have 1 player in a warthog and another player a mile away in both of those modes? If not, then just apply the same restriction that prevents it from happening in those modes to the online co-op.
Actually, companies that are willing to "innovate" with the brand name are usually less likely to make significant changes to the branded product. They usually spend a lot of money on a new name rather than new features for the product.
However, it's Nintendo. Mostly likely the name "Gameboy" is being dropped because it's perceived to limit the console's appeal to girls and adults. They'll choose some new name doesn't include the word boy, I expect they're going to try to follow up on the Wii's runaway success by aiming for much more casual games in the next interation of their handhold.
Slashdot Mirror
If they're still playing the game...
But definitely Northrend would have seemed to be a better release to come before Outland. I mean after getting an alien world to explore, a frozen continent seems like a lacklustre follow up.
You seem a little naive, the court can not accept those charges unless there is some credible evidence that the orders were given.
As far as I remember the people who faced charges over Abu Ghraib did say "I was following orders". Of course, according to them the orders didn't go down the military chain of command but were delivered verbally by special agents. Thus the problem, without actual written proof that the orders were given. There is, of course, speculation that political pressure was applied to the investigation team to make sure that no corroborating evidence was found.
The circumstancial evidence all points to involvement by higher ups in the process. Especially considering Alberto Gonzales written opinions on torture, the extraordinary renditions and the abuse of prisoners at Guantanomo. Combined with claims of external influence from the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib it shows a pattern of behaviour that makes at least unofficial approval of Abu Ghraib's torture appear likely. The posting of pictures of the torture on the 'net, that was obviously never approved.
I'm not implying it's a conspiracy. A conspiracy implies there was some thought put into this, I'm quite sure that very little thought goes into anything Bush or his cronies do. This is simplify the attitude of Bush and co. Specifically they seem to believe that the U.S. government sits astride the world and directs it as it wishes because it can (Iraq, Domestic Spying, Signing Statements). The point isn't that there's some deliberate concerted action going on here, but that Bush keeps making new position for political masters to control and muzzle the agencies of the government to keep them "on message" even when the message has no relation to reality. Furthermore, he persists in appointing incompetent ignorami into positions of power in the very wrost sort of cronyism (Michael Brown, Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miere and many more).
They abuse people under them, not because they have some nefarious goal in mind, but simply because they can. This is an administration which is ok with using torture (Alberto Gonzales written opinion, extraordinary renditions, Guantanomo) as long as they don't get too much bad publicity over it (Abu Ghraib). Bush believes in the use of force first and foremost (Iraq, torture of prisoners for information) and if that doesn't work, then you didn't use enough force (Texas Execution record). He doesn't tolerate questions from his underlings (Colin Powell) or any type of disagreement (see the treatment of NASA, the Pentagon, and the Surgeon General). I've heard people describe his behaviour at the white house, advisors who tell him things he doesn't want to hear get left out of future meetings and snubbed until they stop trying to think for themselves. If they don't stop asking questions or thinking, they end up isolated and powerless like Colin Powell before he resigned.
Bush actively encourages ignorance in his cronies and underlings because they shouldn't know or believe anything that contradicts the official Bush policy because it's dangerous to their careers. Parroting Bush is the way to stay in favour and get rewards. It's a little bit like the Office only instead of running a small division of a company the completely incompetent manager is running the worlds most powerful country. If the idea of Dilbert's pointy haired boss having nuclear weapons scares you, then you know what the rest of the world has been feeling for the last 6 years.
Only if you're dumb enough to give away your citizenship, so you're probably safe... for now.
Well there's really two ways to look at the situation:
1) The people responsible were punished for their actions.
2) The people caught were scaped goated and punished for being caught.
Most reasonable people are inclined to believe the latter for the simple reason that the superiors who were supposed to be in charge of the people at Abu Ghraib escaped any punishment, and similar behaviour has long been alleged to be occuring at Guantanomo, and in other foreign countries at the U.S. behest (Have you ever heard of renditions?). Add in the fact the President's legal council wrote an opinion that it was legal to abuse prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo because legally war was not declared and thus prisoners were not, in fact, prisoners of war. It seems reasonable to believe, given the evidence, that the current administration condones and approves of the use of torture, as long as you don't post pictures of it on the internet.
The poster thing might seem trivial, but it's all the same thing. Government trampling the rights of people in the name of security. Abu Ghraib, the Russian Journalists, Habeas Corpus. It's all about government exerting it's power to control and manipulate the way people live. Russia's poisionings are just the logical extension of the paranoia that requires posters that the government itself sells to tourists be destroyed to protect national security.
The suspension of Habeas Corpus was done in the name of national security.
Torture at Abu Ghraib was condoned and encouraged in the name of national security.
Public information is being hidden in the name of national security.
I'm sure the Russians have some national security reason for assassinating journalists.
This isn't an unrelated incident it's just part of the pattern of abuse, paranoia, and despotism that the U.S. government has been engaged in since 9-11.
When a man does evil, even for a reason he thinks is good, then it is right to call him and evil man. So too with nations.
In reality this has nothing to do with America's enemies and everything to do with making sure that NASA's contractors realize that NASA is boot upon their neck and that they will do everything NASA tells them to do or else. It's a fine example of fascism in action, and excusing that behaviour on the grounds that it might in some unsayable way help protect the country is an act of vast and unmitigated cowardice.
'Where do you see "cowardice" here?'
I see cowardice whenever someone tries to justify intolerable abuse of power on the basis that maybe it will make it harder for some unknown enemy to strike at us.
Brave men demand more than vague threats and hand waving before they surrender their basic rights, cowards don't.
They were confiscating and destroying posters purchased at the gift shop. These aren't technical specs, they're public relations fluff posters with a rough cut-away display of the interior of the rocket.
So you think it's reasonable in a free and just society for armed men to go into a private company's offices, rip publically available posters of 40+ year old technology off the walls and destroy them in the name of national security?
Think about this for a second. The Saturn didn't have computers on board, it's older than the computer age. When it was designed, you probably couldn't fit a computer into it's entire cargo area. It doesn't make sense on any level to try to even pretend that the technology should be classified, it's clearly a sign of massive incompetence on the part of the Bush cronies who were recently put in charge at NASA. These people have no relevent education or experience, hell one of the morons was the second in command at FEMA during Katrina and now's he's got a different plush job at NASA where he's screwing up just he did a FEMA.
It will probably take decades to clean up the mess that Bush is making of the U.S.
I think he's saying that if you honestly report your income but fail to pay the taxes you owe, the government will only fine you for not paying it.
He's not saying that there are no laws forcing you to pay, just that the teeth of the laws are all focused on propety rather than the "violence" of incarceration.
It's not true. I looked around a bit and it seems the government may law criminal charges with a penalty of up to 5 years in prison for deliberate failure to pay your tax bill. In most cases, I suspect the U.S. government would rather garnish your wages from your employer before resorting to a trial and jail time, though.
Frankly, you do sound partisan. The problem is that you are attempting to excuse monstrous behaviour by claiming everyone does it, but that is clearly not the case.
The fact that you assume that your being attacked because of anti-Bush zealotry, reinforces the image that you are a Bush apologist. There certainly are anti-Bush zealots, but I think you might just be pissing people off by defending him for no good reason. Please remember, he's has the high disapproval rating in history for a president. That means 71% of the people acively think he's doing something very wrong, saying it's just business as usual is going to provoke a few people to disagree with you.
Most politicians do not ignore reality, they may hide it, they may not understand it. They may fail to see the consequences of their actions, but very few are completely out of touch with it. The best examples of Bush like behaviour come not from politicians, but from Kings and Emperors who were killed in popular coups, revolts or revolutions.
Bush is really only in power now thanks the power of the Republican propaganda mill which managed to created enough FUD to muddy the last two elections into narrow victories for Bush and a series of suspicious electoral "flukes" that look a lot like organized attempts to cheat during the last two presidential elections.
There's a lot of a-typical stuff around Bush that makes it clear to most independent observers that this is not, as you claim, business as usual.
Evil becomes appropriate when enough negative adjectives become appropriate and few, if any positive ones are appropriate. Most of the time we hear evil used in fantasy, but there is a real definition of evil from ethics: behavior or thought which is hateful, cruel, violent, or devoid of conscience.
I mean:
Avaracious
Self-serving
Torture supporting
Lying
Stealing
Cheating
The best adjectives you can apply to Bush tend to be ethically neutral:
Strong
Personable
The actions of Bush and his associates fit the ethical definition of evil, and evil seems appropriate based on his lack of redeeming qualities. Of course, the problem with labelling Bush as evil is that it is divisive, at least for now. By calling Bush evil, you are calling his supporters evil as well, and that strengthens their resolve instead of weakening it.
I have no doubt that Bush will eventually be known as the evil president to history, barring the rise of an even greater tyrant.
I have to agree, I really think the only evil genius on the "President's team" is Carl Rove. I don't like saying anything good about the guy, but he does have a talent for perverting the systems of democracy.
No, Bush is certainly special. The U.S. is actually extremely lucky. Most of the time someone as incompetent and deluded as Bush would either cause a civil war or a coup. Take a close look at Thailand. They ousted their president for the appearance of a Haliburton type scandal. Personally, I think a major reason why Bush hasn't been assassinated or overthrown is the presidential term limit.
Everyone knows that Bush has to leave in a little over a year. It's a much safer bet to wait out the year, when he's mostly powerless anyway, than it is to risk your life trying to knock him off. The other large factor is that no one wants to see President Cheney because everyone expects him to be worse in every way than Bush.
Loyalty is only a virtue when the person you're loyal to is virtuous.
Bush doesn't value loyalty. Someone who values loyalty welcomes (in private, at least) criticism of his actions for his followers, he recognizes that loyalty provokes questions about questionable actions and that the criticism serves his interests in the long run as long.
From all reports, Bush ostracizes anyone who questions him or his actions whether in private or in public. He demands that his followers unilaterally support his decisions and carry out his orders without question or thought. This is obedience not loyalty.
Thus we can safely conclude that he values obedience and obedience only. They only call it "loyalty" because it conceals the truth about the pathetic nature of his cotterie of sycophants.
He may be referring to the "Microsoft Effect" where venture capitalists are very wary of funding any project that might end up competing against Microsoft. Since most technology firms tend to be funded by venture capitalists, a lack of access to funding for innovative products can certainly "kill innovation". Microsoft has made it very clear that they take competition very personally and aren't opposed to deliberately harming the backers of companies they don't like.
The charge isn't as unreasonable as it first may seem, but is still hyperbole.
So you never played cops and robbers or cowboys and indians as a kid?
Or had to pack the trunk of a car for a family vacation or pack your own groceries at the store?
There's no reason to be an asshole about disagreeing with someone. There are obviously new capabilities brought forth by video games, but many video games are merely digital replications of pre-existing games or even what would normally be considered to be "work". Many are not as new as you might think.
Just to correct myself, I double counted Q1-3 for 2007, so that's only a $7.6 billion dollar hole. I misread the $1.9 billion loss as Q4 instead of end of year.
No, they need about $8.4 billion dollars in profit for the console division to recoup it's losses. As I understand it the consoles (including games, live and peripherals) themselves have never turned a profit, though the entertainment division has had at least one miniscule profit.
/ microsoft-management-software_cz_vm_0913microsoft. html)_ rel_q4_05.mspx)o soft-lost-126-billion-launching-the-xbox-360.htm)m icrosoft_fisca_6.html2 89-Million-in-Q2-With-Xbox-360-2544.html= 16432
That 8.4 billion comes from:
By 2005 the Xbox had lost $4 billion.
(http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2005/09/12
In 2005 the entertainment division lost 391 million.
(http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY05/earn
In 2006, the Xbox 360 lost $1.26 billion
(http://www.videogamesblogger.com/2006/10/13/micr
In 2007, Microsoft has lost $2.76 billion
http://www.microsoftmonitor.com/archives/2006/10/
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Microsoft-Loses-
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid
Now there might be some overlap between Fiscal 2005, and the initial number but given the number's $8.6 billion, even an overlap of $200 million is insignificant to the final number. It is highly unlikely that the Xbox group will recoup those losses in this console generation.
This is an interesting idea, having a device which will automatically detect what you're watching but since it's based on an encoded signal, the underlying system would be extremly vulnerable. The user doesn't seem to be able to check what he's been recorded as watching/listening so if you had the device with you in any public area someone could play a signal for a tv show (for example) to artificially boost it's ratings.
Heck, you'd probably end up with some enthusiast writing a virus to change the signal on popular games to support their personal cause and once that happens it's only a matter of time before someone will make a business of artificially inflating ratings. It'd be SEO all over again, but for real money by artificially increasing the rates advertisers pay to advertise during a particular.
You might think the secrecy of who's a rater would protect them, but as well all know from spam, that people will go after the 0.001% who are in the program even if it means inconviencing the 99.999% who aren't.
As far as Sony goes, there's a variety of reasons:
1) Nintendo fanbois
2) Microsoft fanbois
These two groups have slagged the PS3 as an overly expensive piece of junk since it was announced. There hatred for anything that doesn't belong to their chosen company is nothing new.
3) Sony's bad behaviour
Sony's been a bad company recently, the copy protection software that hides itself on your computer is a prime example of a related area that has offended many more people that were actually affected by it. Generally speaking, the people who are still offended by this will use any excuse, whether true or not, to attack Sony to make them pay for offending them. There are other issues, such a Lik-Sang but the copy-protection "root kit" (even though it was produced by a third party) is the one that gets the most tears.
4) The PS3 price
The price of the PS3 is much higher than anticipated, this has angered people many people who intended to buy one, if they get a PS3 then they'll have less money for beer and porn. Therefore, in their minds, Sony is taking their beer and porn, and that's bad.
5) Sony's Executives
Sony's executive are, from all appearances, paid to be professional public assholes. They've tried to make light of the price difference but given that there's already a large group of people pissed off at them, see 1-4, stupid jokes fall flat and the teaming horde of angry people rip everything they say to shreds. Sony's executives are apparently unable to deal in a reasonable professional manner with a public that is not happy with them.
6) Everyone loves to see an arrogant titan fail.
As for the Wii:
1) Nintendo fanbois
2) Microsoft fanbois still view the PS3 as the real threat to the Xbox 360
3) The Wii is exactly the same as everyone other Nintendo console but now it has a new controller. It's the Malibu Stacey with a new hat phenomenom. It's different enough to be "new" but not different enough to be scary.
4) The Wii is doing well. Everyone loves to jump on the bandwagon of the new rising star.
That's what happens when you don't actually enforce a law, people don't follow it. Now if the government had cracked down on any non-SS use of SSNs when it started, they wouldn't be used like that...
I don't understand how online co-op play has significantly different challenges from splitscreen and lan play. I mean in theory can't you have 1 player in a warthog and another player a mile away in both of those modes? If not, then just apply the same restriction that prevents it from happening in those modes to the online co-op.
No, I think you're smelling the hookers. The kickback's sealed in an airtight suitcase.
Actually, companies that are willing to "innovate" with the brand name are usually less likely to make significant changes to the branded product. They usually spend a lot of money on a new name rather than new features for the product.
However, it's Nintendo. Mostly likely the name "Gameboy" is being dropped because it's perceived to limit the console's appeal to girls and adults. They'll choose some new name doesn't include the word boy, I expect they're going to try to follow up on the Wii's runaway success by aiming for much more casual games in the next interation of their handhold.