The news generates revenu for televesion and radio stations. It makes money by selling advertising, and the rate they can charge advertisers is determined by how many people watch as determined by the Nielson ratings. To keep and maintain ratings you have to be entertaining or shocking. It seems like a majority of Americans distrust science and become easily bored by numbers. Thus it is the best interest of the station for the news to be entertaining and shocking, not truthful or accurate.
Thus the news will never actually be about the truth and facts unless the current model is changed.
But they are guilty of that, quite frequently in fact, it's just no one expects Fox News to be honest. Hell, they won a court case by proving they had no legal duty to report the news accurately or truthfully and thus it didn't matter that they altered their news content to suit their advertisers.
That's true, the sequel definitely should not revolve around the main character from Torment. But then that begs the question, how do you adopt the immortal mechanic without making it seems a trite replay?
There will always be a divide between atheists and theists on these grounds. The theists believe it's reasonable to believe in a God, the athiests believe it's unreasonable to believe in a god. To each, the other's position is the one that requires more faith.
To a rational athiests, the supernatural doesn't exist. From this basic assumption, the existence of a supernatural entity, such as the Christian God is impossible. Of course, this belief can never be fully proven, because it is based on inductive reasoning and some deductive reasoning. Inductive, from the lack of evidence for any supernatural event occuring, and deductive from the point that if supernatural events occured frequently, it would make science unreliable (because it relies on the predicitability of natural laws), which obviously hasn't happened.
It's not a religion to ignore the foolishness of 1 person, it's still not a religion to ignore the foolishness of 100 people (or any other arbitrarily large number).
Meritocracy sounds good but will, inevitably, become an oligarchy. It is human nature for the people who determine merit to eventually promote their cronies over anyone else. We see merit in those who think like us, and tend to overvalue their merits as opposed to those who don't think like us. As time goes on, you'd essentially end up the an unchecked corrupt government that you can only remove through revolution.
You're comparing a car to a video game machine? Who's the dumb one now?
In the scheme of things, a couple of hundred dollars is relatively insignicant unless you make minimum wage. Beyond that you want other people to make decisions based on the criteria you choose for them. Most people just don't care about most of the reasons people give to not buy the PS3.
Rootkit from a music CD? The PS3 isn't a music CD. Sony's executives are assholes? All executives are assholes! PS2s break all the time? Their other friends say otherwise.
The genuine argument that most people will care about is that the argument that the Wii is even better than the PS3. The rest of it comes across as a grudge or fan boism.
I was talking from an industry perspective. HD-DVD would never have made it to consumers without Microsoft's intervention, it was all but abandoned, it's only thanks to Microsoft's name and their investment in the technology that it still exists.
No, the average consumer is selfish, not dumb. He doesn't want waste his life researching which companies in the world are evil and which are good, and which sides claiming which companies are where on the evil/good axis are really fan bois, shills, or dupes. It's all very exhausting and pointless work. It's a lot easier to buy what you want and enjoy your life. Leave the big issues to people who enjoy doing that endless research, and who have been apointed to take down the companies that break the laws.
You might not think that's the right attitude to have, but at some point, you've got to realize we all have limited time on this earth. It's too short to spend it all worrying about making the best possible choice at every single juncture, you end making no choices, and that's possibly the worst outcome.
Actually, that's not true. The fundamental assumption of a democracy is that "The majority is usually righter than any particular minority". Of course, I'm not aware of any true democracies. Most are representative democracries or republics, so the fundamental assumption is "It's better for the majority to be able to choose the people who are in charge".
I'm just curious what you think would be better than democracy: Despotism? Monarchy? Theocracy? Oligarchy? Something else?
Well, actually, if the Sony PS2 has 70% of the market, it makes a lot of sense to give them more shelf space than their competitors who a combined 30% of the market. I'm not saying Sony doesn't try to tell stores how to display their products, I'm just pointing out that a lot of the stuff you credit as being obvious manipulation is merely what you'd expect to happen any way. If 70% of your customers are buying one brand of product, you stock more of that brand and place it in the more convenient location.
No, he's not claiming Blu-Ray isn't a dead end, it's pretty obvious that HD-DVD is, though.
There's not much point in buying into HD-DVD, the only thing keeping it alive is Microsoft and then only as a weapon to use against Sony. Without Microsoft's money, HD-DVD would be already dead and gone.
Sounds like just another way for people to assure themselves that they're smart and important without actually have to do anything but tell everyone else what they should be doing.
No, Lik-Sang didn't go bankrupt. Sony filed the same lawsuit in multiple venues and rather than try to defend themselves, Lik Sang shut down. They didn't go bankrupt, instead they chose to take their money and run.
Just like they shut down and went out of business for a while when Nintendo sued them for breaking the law.
What Lik Sang was doing, is actually illegal. They were selling equipment that was certified for use in the european union. The counter point is that it was the same equipment as the european units, just a different product number. So while the equipment should be perfectly safe, it still hadn't been certified.
Lik Sang closed it doors because they knew they: A) Were in the wrong, even if only on a technicality B) Would have to spend money to defend themselves C) Would likely end up fined for breaking the law
They decided the potential losses on the lawsuit outweighed the potential gain of remaining in business and shut down their operations. There's plenty of blame to go around her (for Sony, Lik Sang, and the EU) but Sony's executives do have a fiduciary responsibility to it's shareholders to take legal action against a potential competitor who is illegally distributing their product.
Then again, I never bought anything from Lik Sang, I might actually care that they shut down if I had.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure it's a "fair and balanced" look at the issue.
Can't be done.
The news generates revenu for televesion and radio stations. It makes money by selling advertising, and the rate they can charge advertisers is determined by how many people watch as determined by the Nielson ratings. To keep and maintain ratings you have to be entertaining or shocking. It seems like a majority of Americans distrust science and become easily bored by numbers.
Thus it is the best interest of the station for the news to be entertaining and shocking, not truthful or accurate.
Thus the news will never actually be about the truth and facts unless the current model is changed.
But they are guilty of that, quite frequently in fact, it's just no one expects Fox News to be honest. Hell, they won a court case by proving they had no legal duty to report the news accurately or truthfully and thus it didn't matter that they altered their news content to suit their advertisers.
When two conservatives disagree, it doesn't make one of them liberal.
Ironically, to promote freedom you always have to restrict it.
That's why I'm not free to kill you for disagreeing with me.
That's true, the sequel definitely should not revolve around the main character from Torment. But then that begs the question, how do you adopt the immortal mechanic without making it seems a trite replay?
Stop using outlook for email.
And while we're at it, we should get everyone to agree to speak the same language and believe in the same religion!
You're thinking of an ansible. So far none of the theories on how one might work have panned out.
There will always be a divide between atheists and theists on these grounds. The theists believe it's reasonable to believe in a God, the athiests believe it's unreasonable to believe in a god. To each, the other's position is the one that requires more faith.
To a rational athiests, the supernatural doesn't exist. From this basic assumption, the existence of a supernatural entity, such as the Christian God is impossible. Of course, this belief can never be fully proven, because it is based on inductive reasoning and some deductive reasoning. Inductive, from the lack of evidence for any supernatural event occuring, and deductive from the point that if supernatural events occured frequently, it would make science unreliable (because it relies on the predicitability of natural laws), which obviously hasn't happened.
I don't think anyone's arguing that they're not both assholes.
However, being an asshole isn't a religion...
That is until the Church of the Latter Day Assholes takes off...
It's not a religion to ignore the foolishness of 1 person, it's still not a religion to ignore the foolishness of 100 people (or any other arbitrarily large number).
Not quite true, that'd be true if there were nothing else on the system he's interested AND there never will be, which seems "unlikely" at best.
Maybe you should use your brain a little, Sony's not as bad as Zonk would have you believe.
Let me explain this in simple words:
You stupid. Nobody care what you say.
Meritocracy sounds good but will, inevitably, become an oligarchy. It is human nature for the people who determine merit to eventually promote their cronies over anyone else. We see merit in those who think like us, and tend to overvalue their merits as opposed to those who don't think like us. As time goes on, you'd essentially end up the an unchecked corrupt government that you can only remove through revolution.
You're comparing a car to a video game machine? Who's the dumb one now?
In the scheme of things, a couple of hundred dollars is relatively insignicant unless you make minimum wage. Beyond that you want other people to make decisions based on the criteria you choose for them. Most people just don't care about most of the reasons people give to not buy the PS3.
Rootkit from a music CD? The PS3 isn't a music CD.
Sony's executives are assholes? All executives are assholes!
PS2s break all the time? Their other friends say otherwise.
The genuine argument that most people will care about is that the argument that the Wii is even better than the PS3. The rest of it comes across as a grudge or fan boism.
I was talking from an industry perspective. HD-DVD would never have made it to consumers without Microsoft's intervention, it was all but abandoned, it's only thanks to Microsoft's name and their investment in the technology that it still exists.
No, the average consumer is selfish, not dumb. He doesn't want waste his life researching which companies in the world are evil and which are good, and which sides claiming which companies are where on the evil/good axis are really fan bois, shills, or dupes. It's all very exhausting and pointless work. It's a lot easier to buy what you want and enjoy your life. Leave the big issues to people who enjoy doing that endless research, and who have been apointed to take down the companies that break the laws.
You might not think that's the right attitude to have, but at some point, you've got to realize we all have limited time on this earth. It's too short to spend it all worrying about making the best possible choice at every single juncture, you end making no choices, and that's possibly the worst outcome.
Actually, that's not true. The fundamental assumption of a democracy is that "The majority is usually righter than any particular minority". Of course, I'm not aware of any true democracies. Most are representative democracries or republics, so the fundamental assumption is "It's better for the majority to be able to choose the people who are in charge".
I'm just curious what you think would be better than democracy: Despotism? Monarchy? Theocracy? Oligarchy? Something else?
Well, actually, if the Sony PS2 has 70% of the market, it makes a lot of sense to give them more shelf space than their competitors who a combined 30% of the market. I'm not saying Sony doesn't try to tell stores how to display their products, I'm just pointing out that a lot of the stuff you credit as being obvious manipulation is merely what you'd expect to happen any way. If 70% of your customers are buying one brand of product, you stock more of that brand and place it in the more convenient location.
No, he's not claiming Blu-Ray isn't a dead end, it's pretty obvious that HD-DVD is, though.
There's not much point in buying into HD-DVD, the only thing keeping it alive is Microsoft and then only as a weapon to use against Sony. Without Microsoft's money, HD-DVD would be already dead and gone.
Sounds like just another way for people to assure themselves that they're smart and important without actually have to do anything but tell everyone else what they should be doing.
No, Lik-Sang didn't go bankrupt. Sony filed the same lawsuit in multiple venues and rather than try to defend themselves, Lik Sang shut down. They didn't go bankrupt, instead they chose to take their money and run.
Just like they shut down and went out of business for a while when Nintendo sued them for breaking the law.
What Lik Sang was doing, is actually illegal. They were selling equipment that was certified for use in the european union. The counter point is that it was the same equipment as the european units, just a different product number. So while the equipment should be perfectly safe, it still hadn't been certified.
Lik Sang closed it doors because they knew they:
A) Were in the wrong, even if only on a technicality
B) Would have to spend money to defend themselves
C) Would likely end up fined for breaking the law
They decided the potential losses on the lawsuit outweighed the potential gain of remaining in business and shut down their operations. There's plenty of blame to go around her (for Sony, Lik Sang, and the EU) but Sony's executives do have a fiduciary responsibility to it's shareholders to take legal action against a potential competitor who is illegally distributing their product.
Then again, I never bought anything from Lik Sang, I might actually care that they shut down if I had.
I'm sure firing two or three rounds of live ammo into your brain pan will improve your attitude, don't patronize me again until you've tried it.