This is not insightful. WTF? Office for Linux wouldn't kill competition unless it was so great and cheap that no one needed something else. And if that was the case then...duh you don't need something else.
So now it's okay to go 125 mph as long as you're rushing to the hospital? Risking the lives of everyone else on the way doesn't seem like the right thing to do. In fact, that's evil.
Microsoft has done a crappy job. It's true, and I put it down to management. The folks at the top at MS are not in touch with the market the way Sony and Nintendo are. This is unsurprising given each company's history. Microsoft is in a position where
a) Their console's graphics aren't good enough. Sure they're good, but they're in the same ballpark with PS2 and Gamecube so being a bit better on just a couple games ain't helping.
b) Their console costs a bunch more than PS2 or Gamecube to produce.
c) They are spending money on internet gaming for Xbox that is not going to take off anytime soon. It didn't work for Sega either. Mass-scale broadband is not a reality yet.
d) They have only one system selling game (Halo). They should have bought Rockstar and gotten GTA3 from the beginning, buying Rare now is too little, too late and Rare makes the wrong style of game for the Xbox target market!
Microsoft is totally floundering. I think it's sad actually.
The article talks about the following games: 1) Halo 2 (mentions only) 2) B.C. 3) Fable (was Project Ego) 4) Knights of the Old Republic (mentions only) 5) Splinter Cell 6) Sudeki 7) Steel Battalion 8) Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance (mentions only)
Personally I'm unimpressed. KotOR and Slinter Cell will be out for PC, so they won't help Xbox sales much. Of the others, well Steel Battalion is way expensive ($250?), and MGS2 is ancient history. Sudeki looks interesting but is a year off (e.g. no one's buying an Xbox for that).
Fable is a rather stupid name, and there already was a terrible game a few years ago also named Fable. It should be a good game but again, no reason to buy an Xbox now. B.C. looks slightly interesting but no system seller.
So after all the blathering is done, we're left with Fable, Sudeki and Halo 2 as the only attractions that are both unique and mainstream, and they're all a fair ways off from release anyway. (Halo 2 is gonna basically be like Halo 1 also). I'd rather be in Nintendo's shoes about now. Metroid and Zelda and 300+ million of Microsoft's dollars from Rare, and a cheaper console to boot. Halo remains the only system seller for Xbox, and it's coming for PC next summer.
Back in the early 90's there wasn't yet such hype and hoopla. It wasn't until the tech boom atmosphere and the IPOs that the media started babbling on about Linux. Before that, the media ignored Linux AND BSD.
considering gaming is all about GAMES, gee
on
Indrema No More
·
· Score: 1
Once again, the difference between geeks and normal people is that normal people just want to use the applications. Nobody cares if something uses Linux. They care if there are compelling games to play. Or compelling apps to use. There's a lesson for Indrema, Red Hat, Apple...
Sega was a victim of being late to market. They couldn't drum up enough 3rd party quality product. On top of this, the games are pitifully easy to pirate and burn to CD's. There are some excellent games, but a lot of really crappy ones too, thus the brand suffers. Playstation 2 has the Playstation momentum going with the blockbuster titles of Final Fantasy, GT3, and Metal Gear, plus other promising newcomers.
The X-Box I feel will lose out in the end because at this point I don't see the games. PS2 will have Final Fantasy, GT3, the top sports and fighter games, and most of X-Box's lineup. X-Box's only real unique draws are the higher quality DVD output and a couple PC-oriented Bungie games that will also be out for PC. The saving grace would be if Sega commits exclusively to X-Box.
Never mind the hacking. I think a decent percentage of DC owners pirate game isos. It's quite easy to find cd-burnable DC games despite Sega's feeble anti-piracy features. Pretty much every PSX owner I know pirates tons of games. PSX2 isn't immune either.
So just because you "don't want Gore's inflated government" you choose to ignore all the actual issues, all the actual credentials, all the actual abilities and character of the candidates who will helm the most powerful nation on the planet?
I'm sure that must make a lot of sense to you. Who cares about the fact that Bush and Gore BOTH will increase the size of the government? (Find some real facts. They exist. The difference between the two on this point is very small. Bush's stance on this is pure rhetoric, and Gore too provides the same rhetoric. And in fact, can claim to have eliminated thousands of government jobs).
Who cares that it is CONGRESS who would be the body that makes inflating decisions? Why deal with the real facts? Real facts are just Washington fuzzy math I guess, and Dubya's a good man to chug a beer with.
"...but he's a politician. Should we expect any more? "
YES, YOU SHOULD EXPECT A &$@#LOAD MORE. Ralph Nader does not evade questions and spout insultingly obvious attacks on opponents in order to deflect attention from himself. "Yet I'm voting for Bush."
The man is so clearly unfit for office it is scary. This is the man who will control the American nuclear arsenal. This is the man who would control negotiations with China should the Taiwan situation flare. This is the man who irresponsibly applies the death penalty while threatening Roe v Wade. This is the man whose rhetoric consistently appeals to shortsighted wealthy WASPs, with his emphasis on his tax cut, and his Christian posturing. This is the man who has little experience, has no noteworthy accomplishments, and has had a free ride through life in the old boy's club.
This candidate is clearly out of touch with the reality of drugs, trade, and the very things you mention regarding electoral/campaign reform. He is his father's shadow, and he is another corporate whore. How can you profess to want electoral reform and then support Bush? He completely dodged the related question here on/. He is a proven hypocrite. His speeches consist of prememorized responses that he utters regardless of whether it really addresses the question. He is a cardboard man, a straw dummy with a "republican agenda" recording on repeat behind that oh-so-sincere-and-heartful face. His posturing in speeches of "well I don't know much about that but I've got a good heart" makes me sick.
Gore would be a competent choice for the continuation of moderate policy that caters to the largest common denominator on most respects. But for a candidate you can believe in, Nader truly is the only one with any balls. His website has so much more clearly stated, non-obfuscated, non-pandering platform information compared to the big two. And his pro-choice, anti-death-penalty stance is so *right* for anyone who objectively reasons out the pros and cons of both situations.
Harry Browne's libertarian goals are well-intentioned and appealing but fundamentally flawed. Libertarianism conveniently and unacceptably dodges important issues regarding restraint of corporate power, the environment, and social welfare. Charity is not an acceptable substitute for those who honestly can't support themselves. Libertarians love to point to the "golden ages" before the goverment "messed everything up" but willfully ignore all the serious problems that lead to things like the FDA, USDA, etc.
The wasted vote is the one for a candidate you don't actually want. Nader addresses this issue on his site.
Think about it. How can a system ever improve if you only choose the lesser of two evils? Each election the two evils get more similar and more evil. All you do is slow the rate of the evil.
"...but he's a politician. Should we expect any more? "
YES YOU SHOULD EXPECT A &$@#LOAD MORE. Ralph Nader does not evade questions and spout insultingly obvious attacks on opponents in order to deflect attention from himself.
"Yet I'm voting for Bush."
The man is so clearly unfit for office it is scary. This is the man who will control the American nuclear arsenal. This is the man who would control negotiations with China should the Taiwan situation flare. This is the man who irresponsibly applies the death penalty while threatening Roe v Wade. This is the man whose rhetoric consistently appeals to shortsighted wealthy WASPs, with his emphasis on his tax cut, and his Christian posturing. This is the man who has little experience, has no noteworthy accomplishments, and has had a free ride through life in the old boy's club.
This candidate is clearly out of touch with the reality of drugs, trade, and the very things you mention regarding electoral/campaign reform. He is his father's shadow, and he is another corporate whore. How can you profess to want electoral reform and then support Bush? He completely dodged the related question here on/. He is a proven hypocrite. His speeches consist of prememorized responses that he utters regardless of whether it really addresses the question. He is a cardboard man, a straw dummy with a "republican agenda" recording on repeat behind that oh-so-sincere-and-heartful face.
His posturing in speeches of "well I don't know much about that but I've got a good heart" makes me sick.
Gore would be a competent choice for the continuation of moderate policy that caters to the largest common denominator on most respects. But for a candidate you can believe in, Nader truly is the only one with any balls. His website has so much more clearly stated, non-obfuscated, non-pandering platform information compared to the big two. And his pro-choice, anti-death penalty stance is so *right* for anyone who objectively reasons out the pros and cons of both situations.
Harry Browne's libertarian goals are well-intentioned and appealing but fundamentally flawed. Libertarianism conveniently and unacceptably dodges important issues regarding restraint of corporate power, the environment, and social welfare. Charity is not an acceptable substitute for those who honestly can't support themselves. Libertarians love to point to the "golden ages" before the goverment "messed everything up" but willfully ignore all the serious problems that lead to things like the FDA, USDA, etc.
While they may not manifest themselves in experimentaly verifieable ways our reactions to their wishes determine the fate of what religous people call our souls. Our inability to perceive such powers does not preclude their existance.
Since it doesn't manifest in any verifiable way, what then is the difference whether they exist or not? The net result is the same until such time as we die, at which point other undetectable things supposedly are affected.
The only interface we have to the universe is our five senses, and our ability to build tools that can talk to us using these senses. If there is anything else, it is as if it doesn't exist. For your hot iron example, touching it would have some result like the loss of hand function. Also, in your example one of the paties can see it and experience it, and tell the other. With the supernatural we have nothing more than one's imagination.
But ultimately we must believe that our senses are a reflection of reality solely on the basis of faith.
Sure. Like I/you said, we can't prove anything. I already acknowledged that. This line of thought basically leads to agnosticism, and I have no problem with that.
Note that science does not have to be taken as a belief system. It can be seen as a practical tool, as scientific theories provide a framework with which we can accomplish things. An operating assumption if you will. Like your computer was designed on the basis of scientific observation. If one day this basis isn't true anymore then the computer won't work, but as far as we know this hasn't happened and in the meantime we profit. This is the "logical argument" I was referring to. Also, science doesn't exclude possibilities; it is simply a collection of deductions based on observation.
With regard to the supernatural, the difference is that believing in something like evil deities controlling reality doesn't confer any practical benefit. These deities are presumably undetectable and can not be influenced by us. And what reason do we have to choose that belief over the Jehovah belief? It's valid to say that evil deities are a possibility, but there is no reasoning for actively believing in them. This is why organised religion is weak-minded: it involves a particular faith shared my many, whose only reasoning is a baseless assertion. Granted this describes science also. But at least within the framework of science, there aren't the sorts of inconsistencies and fallacies one sees in most religions, or absolute faith (scientific belief can and has been changed to fit new data). Christianity for instance is rooted in the bible, which is claimed to be a factual account written by humans (or at least definitely parts are) who describe witnessing supernatural events. Thus one can say that Christianity, like science, is based on empirical observation. However, in this case we have only the word of ancient "scientists" whose findings aren't reproducible and are in conflict with many other "witnessed" events. And so, given the data to the contrary, which is deemed more reliable, one can logically say that evidence points against the full beliefs of Christianity being correct.
Regardless, I doubt most people thought things out to this depth. If they did, and still chose their religion while acknowledging the possibility of being incorrect, I would not call them weak-minded. Perhaps a little strange.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not insightful. WTF? Office for Linux wouldn't kill competition unless it was so great and cheap that no one needed something else. And if that was the case then...duh you don't need something else.
I'm sorry, but you're a total retard.
Thanks for standing up to the idiots.
So now it's okay to go 125 mph as long as you're rushing to the hospital? Risking the lives of everyone else on the way doesn't seem like the right thing to do. In fact, that's evil.
Microsoft has done a crappy job. It's true, and I put it down to management. The folks at the top at MS are not in touch with the market the way Sony and Nintendo are. This is unsurprising given each company's history. Microsoft is in a position where
a) Their console's graphics aren't good enough. Sure they're good, but they're in the same ballpark with PS2 and Gamecube so being a bit better on just a couple games ain't helping.
b) Their console costs a bunch more than PS2 or Gamecube to produce.
c) They are spending money on internet gaming for Xbox that is not going to take off anytime soon. It didn't work for Sega either. Mass-scale broadband is not a reality yet.
d) They have only one system selling game (Halo). They should have bought Rockstar and gotten GTA3 from the beginning, buying Rare now is too little, too late and Rare makes the wrong style of game for the Xbox target market!
Microsoft is totally floundering. I think it's sad actually.
The article talks about the following games:
1) Halo 2 (mentions only)
2) B.C.
3) Fable (was Project Ego)
4) Knights of the Old Republic (mentions only)
5) Splinter Cell
6) Sudeki
7) Steel Battalion
8) Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance (mentions only)
Personally I'm unimpressed. KotOR and Slinter Cell will be out for PC, so they won't help Xbox sales much. Of the others, well Steel Battalion is way expensive ($250?), and MGS2 is ancient history. Sudeki looks interesting but is a year off (e.g. no one's buying an Xbox for that).
Fable is a rather stupid name, and there already was a terrible game a few years ago also named Fable. It should be a good game but again, no reason to buy an Xbox now. B.C. looks slightly interesting but no system seller.
So after all the blathering is done, we're left with Fable, Sudeki and Halo 2 as the only attractions that are both unique and mainstream, and they're all a fair ways off from release anyway. (Halo 2 is gonna basically be like Halo 1 also). I'd rather be in Nintendo's shoes about now. Metroid and Zelda and 300+ million of Microsoft's dollars from Rare, and a cheaper console to boot. Halo remains the only system seller for Xbox, and it's coming for PC next summer.
Back in the early 90's there wasn't yet such hype and hoopla. It wasn't until the tech boom atmosphere and the IPOs that the media started babbling on about Linux. Before that, the media ignored Linux AND BSD.
Once again, the difference between geeks and normal people is that normal people just want to use the applications. Nobody cares if something uses Linux. They care if there are compelling games to play. Or compelling apps to use. There's a lesson for Indrema, Red Hat, Apple...
Sega was a victim of being late to market. They couldn't drum up enough 3rd party quality product. On top of this, the games are pitifully easy to pirate and burn to CD's. There are some excellent games, but a lot of really crappy ones too, thus the brand suffers. Playstation 2 has the Playstation momentum going with the blockbuster titles of Final Fantasy, GT3, and Metal Gear, plus other promising newcomers.
The X-Box I feel will lose out in the end because at this point I don't see the games. PS2 will have Final Fantasy, GT3, the top sports and fighter games, and most of X-Box's lineup. X-Box's only real unique draws are the higher quality DVD output and a couple PC-oriented Bungie games that will also be out for PC. The saving grace would be if Sega commits exclusively to X-Box.
Never mind the hacking. I think a decent percentage of DC owners pirate game isos. It's quite easy to find cd-burnable DC games despite Sega's feeble anti-piracy features. Pretty much every PSX owner I know pirates tons of games. PSX2 isn't immune either.
So just because you "don't want Gore's inflated government" you choose to ignore all the actual issues, all the actual credentials, all the actual abilities and character of the candidates who will helm the most powerful nation on the planet?
I'm sure that must make a lot of sense to you. Who cares about the fact that Bush and Gore BOTH will increase the size of the government? (Find some real facts. They exist. The difference between the two on this point is very small. Bush's stance on this is pure rhetoric, and Gore too provides the same rhetoric. And in fact, can claim to have eliminated thousands of government jobs).
Who cares that it is CONGRESS who would be the body that makes inflating decisions? Why deal with the real facts? Real facts are just Washington fuzzy math I guess, and Dubya's a good man to chug a beer with.
Fully 50% of this country must be retarded.
"...but he's a politician. Should we expect any more? "
YES, YOU SHOULD EXPECT A &$@#LOAD MORE. Ralph Nader does not evade questions and spout insultingly obvious attacks on opponents in order to deflect attention from himself. "Yet I'm voting for Bush."
The man is so clearly unfit for office it is scary. This is the man who will control the American nuclear arsenal. This is the man who would control negotiations with China should the Taiwan situation flare. This is the man who irresponsibly applies the death penalty while threatening Roe v Wade. This is the man whose rhetoric consistently appeals to shortsighted wealthy WASPs, with his emphasis on his tax cut, and his Christian posturing. This is the man who has little experience, has no noteworthy accomplishments, and has had a free ride through life in the old boy's club.
This candidate is clearly out of touch with the reality of drugs, trade, and the very things you mention regarding electoral/campaign reform. He is his father's shadow, and he is another corporate whore. How can you profess to want electoral reform and then support Bush? He completely dodged the related question here on /. He is a proven hypocrite. His speeches consist of prememorized responses that he utters regardless of whether it really addresses the question. He is a cardboard man, a straw dummy with a "republican agenda" recording on repeat behind that oh-so-sincere-and-heartful face. His posturing in speeches of "well I don't know much about that but I've got a good heart" makes me sick.
Gore would be a competent choice for the continuation of moderate policy that caters to the largest common denominator on most respects. But for a candidate you can believe in, Nader truly is the only one with any balls. His website has so much more clearly stated, non-obfuscated, non-pandering platform information compared to the big two. And his pro-choice, anti-death-penalty stance is so *right* for anyone who objectively reasons out the pros and cons of both situations.
Harry Browne's libertarian goals are well-intentioned and appealing but fundamentally flawed. Libertarianism conveniently and unacceptably dodges important issues regarding restraint of corporate power, the environment, and social welfare. Charity is not an acceptable substitute for those who honestly can't support themselves. Libertarians love to point to the "golden ages" before the goverment "messed everything up" but willfully ignore all the serious problems that lead to things like the FDA, USDA, etc.
The wasted vote is the one for a candidate you don't actually want. Nader addresses this issue on his site.
Think about it. How can a system ever improve if you only choose the lesser of two evils? Each election the two evils get more similar and more evil. All you do is slow the rate of the evil.
"...but he's a politician. Should we expect any more? " YES YOU SHOULD EXPECT A &$@#LOAD MORE. Ralph Nader does not evade questions and spout insultingly obvious attacks on opponents in order to deflect attention from himself. "Yet I'm voting for Bush." The man is so clearly unfit for office it is scary. This is the man who will control the American nuclear arsenal. This is the man who would control negotiations with China should the Taiwan situation flare. This is the man who irresponsibly applies the death penalty while threatening Roe v Wade. This is the man whose rhetoric consistently appeals to shortsighted wealthy WASPs, with his emphasis on his tax cut, and his Christian posturing. This is the man who has little experience, has no noteworthy accomplishments, and has had a free ride through life in the old boy's club. This candidate is clearly out of touch with the reality of drugs, trade, and the very things you mention regarding electoral/campaign reform. He is his father's shadow, and he is another corporate whore. How can you profess to want electoral reform and then support Bush? He completely dodged the related question here on /. He is a proven hypocrite. His speeches consist of prememorized responses that he utters regardless of whether it really addresses the question. He is a cardboard man, a straw dummy with a "republican agenda" recording on repeat behind that oh-so-sincere-and-heartful face.
His posturing in speeches of "well I don't know much about that but I've got a good heart" makes me sick.
Gore would be a competent choice for the continuation of moderate policy that caters to the largest common denominator on most respects. But for a candidate you can believe in, Nader truly is the only one with any balls. His website has so much more clearly stated, non-obfuscated, non-pandering platform information compared to the big two. And his pro-choice, anti-death penalty stance is so *right* for anyone who objectively reasons out the pros and cons of both situations.
Harry Browne's libertarian goals are well-intentioned and appealing but fundamentally flawed. Libertarianism conveniently and unacceptably dodges important issues regarding restraint of corporate power, the environment, and social welfare. Charity is not an acceptable substitute for those who honestly can't support themselves. Libertarians love to point to the "golden ages" before the goverment "messed everything up" but willfully ignore all the serious problems that lead to things like the FDA, USDA, etc.
While they may not manifest themselves in experimentaly verifieable ways our reactions to their wishes determine the fate of what religous people call our souls. Our inability to perceive such powers does not preclude their existance.
Since it doesn't manifest in any verifiable way, what then is the difference whether they exist or not? The net result is the same until such time as we die, at which point other undetectable things supposedly are affected.
The only interface we have to the universe is our five senses, and our ability to build tools that can talk to us using these senses. If there is anything else, it is as if it doesn't exist. For your hot iron example, touching it would have some result like the loss of hand function. Also, in your example one of the paties can see it and experience it, and tell the other. With the supernatural we have nothing more than one's imagination.
But ultimately we must believe that our senses are a reflection of reality solely on the basis of faith.
Sure. Like I/you said, we can't prove anything. I already acknowledged that. This line of thought basically leads to agnosticism, and I have no problem with that.
Note that science does not have to be taken as a belief system. It can be seen as a practical tool, as scientific theories provide a framework with which we can accomplish things. An operating assumption if you will. Like your computer was designed on the basis of scientific observation. If one day this basis isn't true anymore then the computer won't work, but as far as we know this hasn't happened and in the meantime we profit. This is the "logical argument" I was referring to. Also, science doesn't exclude possibilities; it is simply a collection of deductions based on observation.
With regard to the supernatural, the difference is that believing in something like evil deities controlling reality doesn't confer any practical benefit. These deities are presumably undetectable and can not be influenced by us. And what reason do we have to choose that belief over the Jehovah belief? It's valid to say that evil deities are a possibility, but there is no reasoning for actively believing in them. This is why organised religion is weak-minded: it involves a particular faith shared my many, whose only reasoning is a baseless assertion. Granted this describes science also. But at least within the framework of science, there aren't the sorts of inconsistencies and fallacies one sees in most religions, or absolute faith (scientific belief can and has been changed to fit new data). Christianity for instance is rooted in the bible, which is claimed to be a factual account written by humans (or at least definitely parts are) who describe witnessing supernatural events. Thus one can say that Christianity, like science, is based on empirical observation. However, in this case we have only the word of ancient "scientists" whose findings aren't reproducible and are in conflict with many other "witnessed" events. And so, given the data to the contrary, which is deemed more reliable, one can logically say that evidence points against the full beliefs of Christianity being correct.
Regardless, I doubt most people thought things out to this depth. If they did, and still chose their religion while acknowledging the possibility of being incorrect, I would not call them weak-minded. Perhaps a little strange.