Why doesn't SONY combat this issue by offering mail in rebates on Video Games, or (more likely) movies? Wouldn't that spur sales if I knew I'd get 1 free game or maybe a free BVD Movie?
How about the first 3 BVD movies you buy you can mail in a rebate for $15 each? Rebates are great because not everyone does it after they buy at the cheaper post-rebate price.
Two rather obvious reasons. The first is that it *does* run fine with 512mb of RAM unless you're multitasking many several applications that are processor intensive. The second is that RAM is cheap, just as you state, and Apple makes a song when you don't bother to do the upgrade yourself. Since only power oriented users will need the ram, it's unlikely they care much about the price as opposed to a value consumer.
Anti-SONY Alarmists: Remove your horse blinders and take a look around. Let's take a step back and look at this again.
Price:
While I will wholeheartedly agree that the price is about $100 too much on the PS3, is it really THAT big of a deal? Nope. Everyone planning on getting one before the announcement will continue to do so. They're early adopters who pay for the masses to buy at cheaper cost. How is this different from any other product launch?
Convergence:
My comment about horse blinders is appropriate here, because nobody is seeing the pink elephant in the room. Or, should I say blu-Elephant. Blu-ray is the next generation format for watch-at-home movies. So is HD-DVD, as some would argue. There's only one catch-- MILLIONS of blu-ray readers will already be in the clutches of PS3 owners. They'll get a next generation HD format with the bonus of a next-generation game machine. Stand alone players will cost $600 to $800 at the time the PS3 launches but you won't get a game machine with those. And because this all comes standard on BOTH the low and high end PS3, it's a winner. If this was optional equipment I wouldn't be singing the same tune. HD-DVD will not win the format war because SONY will have blu-ray standard on the PS3. End of story.
Proprietary what?
Some complaints have arisn about SONY's stance on proprietary technologies. Well taken. And while I am the last person to say ATRAC was a good idea, please point out the problems in the PS3 for me. I don't see them. Memory sticks come from many vendors. Bluetooth is a communication standard. Blu-ray is a movie standard backed by almost the entire movie industry. USB? Check. HDMI? Yep. Also a standard.
Market Timing
Microsoft has had a pretty good launch with the 360. They haven't done much wrong here. I'm amazed by that as much as anyone else. They have a cool UI, online distribution, etc. But so will SONY. The difference is that people with gaming PC's won't see much original (or better looking) content on a 360. They'll get unique titles on a PS3. SONY has sat back and looked at what was good and bad with the 360 (and Wii) and made their priorities known. While there may be a people who can't affor gaming rigs buying 360's, I would challenge that PS3 owners will own more games per console.
My point is that SONY isn't making a lot of mistakes with this launch aside from the costs of a blu-ray movie trojan horse. They'll have a great system, some great titles, and probably the same run-up time to first-class titles like any other new platform launch. Sure they could have better PR... but I don't think that matters as much as some people are claiming.
They designs all look nice. By no fault of their own, they were required to keep the same outdated layout, the same horrible icons, and the same confusing IA.
Such are the issues when the client won't listen to it's customers.
These are the features that grabbed me the most about this keynote. Note that I think there are a lot of other goodies, but these are the "new" ones...
1) Karaoke. Laugh all you want but that's a killer app.
2) Motion detecting controller. This truly adds some interesting abilities to games you could never have before. Consider the ability to "lean" as you go around a corner on a bike. The possibilities are endless and it's truly cool.
3) Downloadable content.
4) STANDARD HARD DRIVE.
5) Integration with a portable unit (PSP.)
Now, the things that suck. The price. It's $100 too much at launch for each configuration, and Sony will sell out without a problem. I'm sure it'll go down 6 months after release, though. Maybe June 2007.
You can hack and slash defenseless citizens, steal your way to financial independance, and support demon-like creatures to enslave mankind.
Seeing a pair of tits seems a bit trivial, yes?
To the hypocrites at the ESRB who seem to think violence is fine and nudity is a crime... rethink your policies, and rethink your hidden agendas. Nudity is not sex, which could be misconstrued as a mature theme. Every female on the planet has a vagina and breasts. Every male has a penis. These are anatomical features. Science. Fact. They are not the subversive agendas being pushed by conservatives to have us back in the social dark ages.
I am a player of Oblivion and I don't think for a second that any of the fantasy provided by this game is not enough for a 13 year old to grasp. By rating it mature, we're taking a modification to a game and making a big mountain out of a mole hill.
Let's boil this down, folks. I'd be much more worried about my 12 year old kid murding all the townfolk, supporting the daedric lords, playing out their virtual life as a vampric character. Not that there is anything wrong with the fantasy of any of those, but I'd want to make sure they understood the difference.
Well, had you watched the commercials or just missed the points, here they are:
1) Less viruses on the mac. 2) Less prone to freezes and crashes. 3) They interoperate with Windows just fine, and hot asian chicks (or was is a Japanese digital camera...) 4) They come bundled with software that's as easy to use as iTunes. 5) They're easier to use.
And contrary to what seems to be flung around, this wasn't an agressively negative ad campaign. They appeared to be friends. Look, the Mac was being nice to his dorky friend. It's not like they were enemies.
The idea that you want to change the look and feel of the site but refuse to change the god awful icons is laughable. Try to consider some of these questions:
1) Why are there 150 icons? Methinks overkill. I'd propose you could get away far less granular categorization and no one would even notice. There are 101 creative ways to deal with this issue.
2) Why are transparent PNG's not acceptable given your target browser market? Without some conditional logic trickery IE6 can show the transparency. And even if it couldn't, it would still show a white background. Are you concerned about file size?
3) Why so opposed to changing the icons? They're ugly. You clearly get a lot of feedback about this or you wouldn't be so defensive about it. How about considering what your clients are telling you? Even in places where the kitch factor is appropriate, the drop shadow just isn't. *sigh* This isn't your fault, but you can fix it. You're not a designer. I wouldn't expect my dentist to be a great painter and I won't try to do a root canal.
As a TiVo share holder I'm more than happy to see my shares nearly double in the past couple weeks, given this verdict.
I think it goes to point out that TiVo really was shafted by a number of companies who thought they could take a look at what TiVo had done and just do it themselves. Well, good for TiVo.
If what this article is saying is true-- that I could get a buzz without the wretched hangover, I will buy that product. It won't even take me a second to think about it. The first retailer that has hangover free vodka or beer is going to be a bazillionaire.
Honestly, there are only a couple blatantly obvious inventions left in the world and this is one of them.
Your arguement is only half of the story. If there are more computers that come pre-installed with Mac OS X, those sales figures are passed on to publishers. With a wider audience, more games will be produced. The masses will not know how to use bootcamp anyway.
What's important to take from this article is the perception of drawing skill as a main criteria for a "true" artist. This started as soon as majors evolved that had a primary focus on the computer instead of studio arts. I have a BFA in Graphic Design with an Emphasis on Computer Art. My drawing skills are actually quite good... but they sure are getting rusty. The flip-side is that I can illustrate nearly anything I can conceive in Illustrator and I can doctor a photo in ways few people would beleive possible if they weren't in the industry.
The important thing to recognize is the nature of the design arts and how traditional studio arts always hold on to the idea of "selling out" for the commercial / computer arts. Well, maybe that's true to some degree. Maybe I should paint in my spare time or draw nudes. But the reality is that my art is seen by millions of people every year and is USABLE. People interact with my art and that's not something a stuio artist can usually say. I don't think this dynamic is very different in other fields. In fact, I'm sure it's the same--the purists holding on to the past and the futurists embracing change.
If I can still hand render my designs on a computer (or a pad of paper with charcoals) then I'm simply acquiring a new set of skills based on the evolution of the profession.
Most people accept that postive thinking biochemically helps a person in various ways. If said person has good thoughts they may recover more quickly. Obviously these benefits are directly related to the placebo effect, which is directly related to a person's ability to heal themselves.
The real question comes when people ask if someone who does not know people are "sending good thoughts" to them will get better more than placebo (no good thoughts.) Doesn't seem like there's evidence either way on this, though I do find it within the real of possibility-- REMOTE possibility.
Luckily the article puts an asterisk on their findings to say they won't make a statement about relgion based on these findings. Nor should they. One has nothing to do with the other, and it's yet more proof to people willing to accept it, that there is no God and, dammit, they might have to fend for themselves.
While the basic facts may be right, your interpretation is decidedly jaded and anti-Apple. You should consider that most companies, regardless of the legality of returning products, either reject them anyway or make it difficult and painful. So, yes, this actually *is* Apple being more concerned with customer experience than than their competitors. Coincidentally, this is the point of the article.
I always thought Half Life 2 was strong because of the atmosphere it produces and the mystery they maintain in the story line. It's anything but shallow to me. In fact, I was drawn in hook, line, and sinker.
Most religious people who are otherwise clear thinkers will begin by letting the glaring obvious facts into their belief system. Slowly they begin to realize that empirical evidence is more important than faith, and that beliving in the goodness of someone can be it's own reward without the fear of an omnipotent being watching over you. Over time most will draw a line in the sand where their ingrained sense of importance will override their rational mind to say "I've reconciled religion with science." As you correctly point out, there is little that needs to be done to reconcile religion and science *IF* you take it to it's logical conclusion:
The universe and all knowable facts were either A) always present or B) had a beginning. Weather it was A or B is inconsequential except to prove a point-- If there was a creator it must have always existed. Why would a simple system evolve from the MOST complex possible? Since there is no necessity for a creator for the universe to have envolved the way it has, then the simplest solution is the most likely: the observable universe is all we will ever be capable of understanding and it IS the very fabric of everything that can, will, or ever existed. No creator needed or likely.
At this point, you must decide if the fables you've heard your entire life really stand as more than guidelines to interoperate with your fellow man, or if they were really the product of a divine story.
There is no creator, the stories are just fables, and religion will ultimately be a vestigial organ of our evolving understanding of the universe. In the future, we may keep some of the rituals or stories, but no one will be foolish enough to believe in the fables as literal truth.
We are in a transition period which will take some time. Look at the social evolution of religion as it already stands. We used to sacrifice and eat people (some tribes still do.) We used to believe literally the tradition of story passed on from generation to generation. It served as a excellent primer for our daily lives in a time when your average person was illiterate and the social structures did not promote individual learning. None of these are the case in socially evolved societies. Just as some will reject technology, some will reject empirical evidence-- but the majority will accept both because it is the logical conclusion to an end. This *is* our evolution and we are living it every day. Relgion will be a byproduct just like our tails or appendix.
Now if we can just manage not to annihilate ourselves before we create the next universe...
I have a MacBook Pro 2.16 / 2GB / 100GB 7200 RPM HD. Got one of the first ones. I know some people seem to be having a hissing issue but I can say that after a full month of usage surfing, ripping DVD's, coding, desiging, etc. that I haven't had an hardware related issues. No hissing. Nothing. Works like a champ.
And, yes, it's DAMN fast.
Now if I could ditch my desktop PC for gaming / proprietary apps.... mmmmmmm.
Let's not forget about the quality of the mating process. You left half of the equation out. You can't reproduce by yourself, after all. It requires a mate, and that mate is selected by a number of social and economic factors. Take, as a for instance, that most people interbreed within their own social-economic group. This is not new, and not specific to humans (at least socially.) It's also important to note that, in general, people breed with those at their similar attractiveness. Ugly breed with ugly and handsome with handsome far more often than not. Society does influence what is considered fashionable and handsome, but at it's core this is determined by hard coded (evolving) cocktail of rules: geometry and proportions, colors, scents, agression and personality, and intelligence.
Interestingly, it seems humans are a group that can use their "free will" to override natural pressures to choose outside some of these rules.
So, the *ability* to reproduce, along with the ability to reproduce *often*, are only 2 aspects. It's the people you're having those babies with that matter just as much. And, as some have suggested in this forum, it's not as simple as one aspect.
People love to simplify evolution and it's anything but simple.
Are you an engineer by any chance? It doesn't sound like you've even tried the iPod. And yes, I had an Archos before I had an iPod. NO COMPARISON. iPod wins hands down.
I would encourage you to try the iPod and iTunes for a month and see if you could possibly go back to the world of non-integration and manual copying.
Please. I WELCOME additions like this to products like iTunes. I don't even work in the advertising industry, I just seriously find it helpful. Can someone please explain to me why iTunes picking out an obscure band I've never heard of, but is similar to my tastes is bad? Who is it bad for? The newly discovered band that I *purchase* music from? Is it bad for me because I now have a cool new band I didn't know about? I'm missing something I guess.
The reality is that we are innudated with choice in our lives like never before. We suffer mentally and physically from this innundation. More choice is good, to a point, but study after study shows that pairing down choices in an intelligent manner (then making them without regret) actually reduces stress hormones and, in turn, can extend your damn life. I ain't just whistling Dixie! iTunes recommendations saved my life!
But seriously, selling product is a way of life. Advertising enables this. If someone can cut through the bullshit Celine Deion albums and get to the Franz Ferdinand for me, we all win.
Now, what will they do with this information on their servers? Well, ask Google, who does the same thing in their gMail application-- all it does is process this information to make recommendations. It doesn't decide you need to be on a government black list for exclusively listening to Death Metal.
You make some excellent points. This is the first generation that I would seriously consider a second console. Probably wouldn't go for a third, just for the clutter, but you're right. All the consoles cost roughy the same. I have the disposable income to purchase any and all of them over a reasonabe time frame. All games are about the same price. So, at this point it boils down to which one I purchase first, and which one comes in "second."
I have to admit I'm not as revolted by the 360 as I would normally be my Microsoft stuff. Still want the PS3 a lot more, but I'm warming up to it.:-)
I'm a Mac guy, but I have a PS2, PSP, and PC for gaming. (Actually the PC was for work but I got one that can play the latest games, but I digress.) I probably won't be buying an XBox 360... certinaly not until the PS3 comes out, but my decision boils down to games and my general disdain for Microsoft.
After reading this review, it covers a lot of the XBox live, marketplace, and home entertainment integration issues that other reviews fly by. To me, this is a deciding factor in a next gen console purchase. It would actually make me look at a 360 more closely as a second console. But, I think the game coverage speaks for it's self: lame and derivative. The XBox 360 games are nothing more than PC games. I already have a PC. I already have a 23" LCD to play them on. The OTHER stuff is what's interesting-- and being able to do it on my couch, socially. And, unless Sony has a way to get those kinds of integrated features in the PS3 I will be in Envy of them. So, props to the 360 for what seems to be a solid UI and Online experience.
However, the bottom line is that Sony has VASTLY more good quality original titles you will not see on any other platform. An XBox 360, speaking strictly for the games, will never outperform my PC and will never have unique games for it. If they do have "unique" games such as Halo (um, the ONLY one?) I don't really care so much because there are a hundred alternatives that are just as good elsewhere. Sports games? Ugh. Could care less. Titles you will never see on XBox 360:
God of War Ratchet and Clank Jak and Daxter Shadow of the Colossus Devil May Cry GTA (well, maybe very late)... and the list goes on.
So Sony easily beats XBox on good game titles IMO. They also have backward compatability which all people want and no one uses. And, if they can pull together some slick interface like the 360 with a good online purchasing system (like Steam), It'll be a knockout.
It's Standard Definition (SD) quality television. In fact, it can look a lot better than SD if you play it through an HD set with upsampling or other quality improving technologies.
For example, I have a Sony 50" LCD Projection HDTV (Love it, BTW.) I also have a PowerBook. All I do is plug the S-Video cable from my computer to my TV and play all those episode of LOST I love. I had never seen LOST prior to downloading on iTunes, so I thought I would DL a couple and try it out. I was really impressed by the quality. It's better than a normal SD broadcast, the colors are amazing, and the compression is almost never noticable.
So, yes, I would like HD quality downloads for video (nominal charge is fine for bandwidth) and I'd like higher quality AAC's (norminal charge fine) as an option. But this is a great start and will prove the validity of the concept.
Slashdot Mirror
Why doesn't SONY combat this issue by offering mail in rebates on Video Games, or (more likely) movies? Wouldn't that spur sales if I knew I'd get 1 free game or maybe a free BVD Movie?
How about the first 3 BVD movies you buy you can mail in a rebate for $15 each? Rebates are great because not everyone does it after they buy at the cheaper post-rebate price.
Two rather obvious reasons. The first is that it *does* run fine with 512mb of RAM unless you're multitasking many several applications that are processor intensive. The second is that RAM is cheap, just as you state, and Apple makes a song when you don't bother to do the upgrade yourself. Since only power oriented users will need the ram, it's unlikely they care much about the price as opposed to a value consumer.
Anti-SONY Alarmists: Remove your horse blinders and take a look around. Let's take a step back and look at this again.
Price:While I will wholeheartedly agree that the price is about $100 too much on the PS3, is it really THAT big of a deal? Nope. Everyone planning on getting one before the announcement will continue to do so. They're early adopters who pay for the masses to buy at cheaper cost. How is this different from any other product launch?
Convergence:My comment about horse blinders is appropriate here, because nobody is seeing the pink elephant in the room. Or, should I say blu-Elephant. Blu-ray is the next generation format for watch-at-home movies. So is HD-DVD, as some would argue. There's only one catch-- MILLIONS of blu-ray readers will already be in the clutches of PS3 owners. They'll get a next generation HD format with the bonus of a next-generation game machine. Stand alone players will cost $600 to $800 at the time the PS3 launches but you won't get a game machine with those. And because this all comes standard on BOTH the low and high end PS3, it's a winner. If this was optional equipment I wouldn't be singing the same tune. HD-DVD will not win the format war because SONY will have blu-ray standard on the PS3. End of story.
Proprietary what?Some complaints have arisn about SONY's stance on proprietary technologies. Well taken. And while I am the last person to say ATRAC was a good idea, please point out the problems in the PS3 for me. I don't see them. Memory sticks come from many vendors. Bluetooth is a communication standard. Blu-ray is a movie standard backed by almost the entire movie industry. USB? Check. HDMI? Yep. Also a standard.
Market TimingMicrosoft has had a pretty good launch with the 360. They haven't done much wrong here. I'm amazed by that as much as anyone else. They have a cool UI, online distribution, etc. But so will SONY. The difference is that people with gaming PC's won't see much original (or better looking) content on a 360. They'll get unique titles on a PS3. SONY has sat back and looked at what was good and bad with the 360 (and Wii) and made their priorities known. While there may be a people who can't affor gaming rigs buying 360's, I would challenge that PS3 owners will own more games per console.
My point is that SONY isn't making a lot of mistakes with this launch aside from the costs of a blu-ray movie trojan horse. They'll have a great system, some great titles, and probably the same run-up time to first-class titles like any other new platform launch. Sure they could have better PR ... but I don't think that matters as much as some people are claiming.
They designs all look nice. By no fault of their own, they were required to keep the same outdated layout, the same horrible icons, and the same confusing IA.
Such are the issues when the client won't listen to it's customers.
These are the features that grabbed me the most about this keynote. Note that I think there are a lot of other goodies, but these are the "new" ones ...
1) Karaoke. Laugh all you want but that's a killer app.
2) Motion detecting controller. This truly adds some interesting abilities to games you could never have before. Consider the ability to "lean" as you go around a corner on a bike. The possibilities are endless and it's truly cool.
3) Downloadable content.
4) STANDARD HARD DRIVE.
5) Integration with a portable unit (PSP.)
Now, the things that suck. The price. It's $100 too much at launch for each configuration, and Sony will sell out without a problem. I'm sure it'll go down 6 months after release, though. Maybe June 2007.
I'm buying one the nano second I can.
You can hack and slash defenseless citizens, steal your way to financial independance, and support demon-like creatures to enslave mankind.
Seeing a pair of tits seems a bit trivial, yes?
To the hypocrites at the ESRB who seem to think violence is fine and nudity is a crime... rethink your policies, and rethink your hidden agendas. Nudity is not sex, which could be misconstrued as a mature theme. Every female on the planet has a vagina and breasts. Every male has a penis. These are anatomical features. Science. Fact. They are not the subversive agendas being pushed by conservatives to have us back in the social dark ages.
I am a player of Oblivion and I don't think for a second that any of the fantasy provided by this game is not enough for a 13 year old to grasp. By rating it mature, we're taking a modification to a game and making a big mountain out of a mole hill.
Let's boil this down, folks. I'd be much more worried about my 12 year old kid murding all the townfolk, supporting the daedric lords, playing out their virtual life as a vampric character. Not that there is anything wrong with the fantasy of any of those, but I'd want to make sure they understood the difference.
Well, had you watched the commercials or just missed the points, here they are:
1) Less viruses on the mac.
2) Less prone to freezes and crashes.
3) They interoperate with Windows just fine, and hot asian chicks (or was is a Japanese digital camera...)
4) They come bundled with software that's as easy to use as iTunes.
5) They're easier to use.
And contrary to what seems to be flung around, this wasn't an agressively negative ad campaign. They appeared to be friends. Look, the Mac was being nice to his dorky friend. It's not like they were enemies.
The idea that you want to change the look and feel of the site but refuse to change the god awful icons is laughable. Try to consider some of these questions:
1) Why are there 150 icons? Methinks overkill. I'd propose you could get away far less granular categorization and no one would even notice. There are 101 creative ways to deal with this issue.
2) Why are transparent PNG's not acceptable given your target browser market? Without some conditional logic trickery IE6 can show the transparency. And even if it couldn't, it would still show a white background. Are you concerned about file size?
3) Why so opposed to changing the icons? They're ugly. You clearly get a lot of feedback about this or you wouldn't be so defensive about it. How about considering what your clients are telling you? Even in places where the kitch factor is appropriate, the drop shadow just isn't. *sigh* This isn't your fault, but you can fix it. You're not a designer. I wouldn't expect my dentist to be a great painter and I won't try to do a root canal.
As a TiVo share holder I'm more than happy to see my shares nearly double in the past couple weeks, given this verdict.
I think it goes to point out that TiVo really was shafted by a number of companies who thought they could take a look at what TiVo had done and just do it themselves. Well, good for TiVo.
If what this article is saying is true-- that I could get a buzz without the wretched hangover, I will buy that product. It won't even take me a second to think about it. The first retailer that has hangover free vodka or beer is going to be a bazillionaire.
Honestly, there are only a couple blatantly obvious inventions left in the world and this is one of them.
Your arguement is only half of the story. If there are more computers that come pre-installed with Mac OS X, those sales figures are passed on to publishers. With a wider audience, more games will be produced. The masses will not know how to use bootcamp anyway.
More Macs = More Mac games.
What's important to take from this article is the perception of drawing skill as a main criteria for a "true" artist. This started as soon as majors evolved that had a primary focus on the computer instead of studio arts. I have a BFA in Graphic Design with an Emphasis on Computer Art. My drawing skills are actually quite good ... but they sure are getting rusty. The flip-side is that I can illustrate nearly anything I can conceive in Illustrator and I can doctor a photo in ways few people would beleive possible if they weren't in the industry.
The important thing to recognize is the nature of the design arts and how traditional studio arts always hold on to the idea of "selling out" for the commercial / computer arts. Well, maybe that's true to some degree. Maybe I should paint in my spare time or draw nudes. But the reality is that my art is seen by millions of people every year and is USABLE. People interact with my art and that's not something a stuio artist can usually say. I don't think this dynamic is very different in other fields. In fact, I'm sure it's the same--the purists holding on to the past and the futurists embracing change.
If I can still hand render my designs on a computer (or a pad of paper with charcoals) then I'm simply acquiring a new set of skills based on the evolution of the profession.
Most people accept that postive thinking biochemically helps a person in various ways. If said person has good thoughts they may recover more quickly. Obviously these benefits are directly related to the placebo effect, which is directly related to a person's ability to heal themselves.
The real question comes when people ask if someone who does not know people are "sending good thoughts" to them will get better more than placebo (no good thoughts.) Doesn't seem like there's evidence either way on this, though I do find it within the real of possibility-- REMOTE possibility.
Luckily the article puts an asterisk on their findings to say they won't make a statement about relgion based on these findings. Nor should they. One has nothing to do with the other, and it's yet more proof to people willing to accept it, that there is no God and, dammit, they might have to fend for themselves.
While the basic facts may be right, your interpretation is decidedly jaded and anti-Apple. You should consider that most companies, regardless of the legality of returning products, either reject them anyway or make it difficult and painful. So, yes, this actually *is* Apple being more concerned with customer experience than than their competitors. Coincidentally, this is the point of the article.
I always thought Half Life 2 was strong because of the atmosphere it produces and the mystery they maintain in the story line. It's anything but shallow to me. In fact, I was drawn in hook, line, and sinker.
Most religious people who are otherwise clear thinkers will begin by letting the glaring obvious facts into their belief system. Slowly they begin to realize that empirical evidence is more important than faith, and that beliving in the goodness of someone can be it's own reward without the fear of an omnipotent being watching over you. Over time most will draw a line in the sand where their ingrained sense of importance will override their rational mind to say "I've reconciled religion with science." As you correctly point out, there is little that needs to be done to reconcile religion and science *IF* you take it to it's logical conclusion:
The universe and all knowable facts were either A) always present or B) had a beginning. Weather it was A or B is inconsequential except to prove a point-- If there was a creator it must have always existed. Why would a simple system evolve from the MOST complex possible? Since there is no necessity for a creator for the universe to have envolved the way it has, then the simplest solution is the most likely: the observable universe is all we will ever be capable of understanding and it IS the very fabric of everything that can, will, or ever existed. No creator needed or likely.
At this point, you must decide if the fables you've heard your entire life really stand as more than guidelines to interoperate with your fellow man, or if they were really the product of a divine story.
There is no creator, the stories are just fables, and religion will ultimately be a vestigial organ of our evolving understanding of the universe. In the future, we may keep some of the rituals or stories, but no one will be foolish enough to believe in the fables as literal truth.
We are in a transition period which will take some time. Look at the social evolution of religion as it already stands. We used to sacrifice and eat people (some tribes still do.) We used to believe literally the tradition of story passed on from generation to generation. It served as a excellent primer for our daily lives in a time when your average person was illiterate and the social structures did not promote individual learning. None of these are the case in socially evolved societies. Just as some will reject technology, some will reject empirical evidence-- but the majority will accept both because it is the logical conclusion to an end. This *is* our evolution and we are living it every day. Relgion will be a byproduct just like our tails or appendix.
Now if we can just manage not to annihilate ourselves before we create the next universe...
I have a MacBook Pro 2.16 / 2GB / 100GB 7200 RPM HD. Got one of the first ones. I know some people seem to be having a hissing issue but I can say that after a full month of usage surfing, ripping DVD's, coding, desiging, etc. that I haven't had an hardware related issues. No hissing. Nothing. Works like a champ.
.... mmmmmmm.
And, yes, it's DAMN fast.
Now if I could ditch my desktop PC for gaming / proprietary apps
Let's not forget about the quality of the mating process. You left half of the equation out. You can't reproduce by yourself, after all. It requires a mate, and that mate is selected by a number of social and economic factors. Take, as a for instance, that most people interbreed within their own social-economic group. This is not new, and not specific to humans (at least socially.) It's also important to note that, in general, people breed with those at their similar attractiveness. Ugly breed with ugly and handsome with handsome far more often than not. Society does influence what is considered fashionable and handsome, but at it's core this is determined by hard coded (evolving) cocktail of rules: geometry and proportions, colors, scents, agression and personality, and intelligence.
Interestingly, it seems humans are a group that can use their "free will" to override natural pressures to choose outside some of these rules.
So, the *ability* to reproduce, along with the ability to reproduce *often*, are only 2 aspects. It's the people you're having those babies with that matter just as much. And, as some have suggested in this forum, it's not as simple as one aspect.
People love to simplify evolution and it's anything but simple.
I have a MBPro 2.16 GHz, 2GB Ram, 100 GB 7200RPM drive and and older 1.67 GHz G4, 1GB, 80GB 5400 RPM drive. I ran Cinebench 9.5 on both:
MacBook Pro 2.16:
Rendering (Single CPU): 330 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 610 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.85
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 371 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 830 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1422 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 3.84
PowerBook G4 1.67:
Rendering (Single CPU): 172 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 184 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 504 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 940 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 5.10
Are you an engineer by any chance? It doesn't sound like you've even tried the iPod. And yes, I had an Archos before I had an iPod. NO COMPARISON. iPod wins hands down.
I would encourage you to try the iPod and iTunes for a month and see if you could possibly go back to the world of non-integration and manual copying.
*ahem*
Apple's already got that covered. The basic Mac mini is $499, and will likely come with a Core Solo processor soon:
http://www.apple.com/macmini/
Please. I WELCOME additions like this to products like iTunes. I don't even work in the advertising industry, I just seriously find it helpful. Can someone please explain to me why iTunes picking out an obscure band I've never heard of, but is similar to my tastes is bad? Who is it bad for? The newly discovered band that I *purchase* music from? Is it bad for me because I now have a cool new band I didn't know about? I'm missing something I guess.
The reality is that we are innudated with choice in our lives like never before. We suffer mentally and physically from this innundation. More choice is good, to a point, but study after study shows that pairing down choices in an intelligent manner (then making them without regret) actually reduces stress hormones and, in turn, can extend your damn life. I ain't just whistling Dixie! iTunes recommendations saved my life!
But seriously, selling product is a way of life. Advertising enables this. If someone can cut through the bullshit Celine Deion albums and get to the Franz Ferdinand for me, we all win.
Now, what will they do with this information on their servers? Well, ask Google, who does the same thing in their gMail application-- all it does is process this information to make recommendations. It doesn't decide you need to be on a government black list for exclusively listening to Death Metal.
You make some excellent points. This is the first generation that I would seriously consider a second console. Probably wouldn't go for a third, just for the clutter, but you're right. All the consoles cost roughy the same. I have the disposable income to purchase any and all of them over a reasonabe time frame. All games are about the same price. So, at this point it boils down to which one I purchase first, and which one comes in "second."
:-)
I have to admit I'm not as revolted by the 360 as I would normally be my Microsoft stuff. Still want the PS3 a lot more, but I'm warming up to it.
I'm a Mac guy, but I have a PS2, PSP, and PC for gaming. (Actually the PC was for work but I got one that can play the latest games, but I digress.) I probably won't be buying an XBox 360 ... certinaly not until the PS3 comes out, but my decision boils down to games and my general disdain for Microsoft.
... and the list goes on.
After reading this review, it covers a lot of the XBox live, marketplace, and home entertainment integration issues that other reviews fly by. To me, this is a deciding factor in a next gen console purchase. It would actually make me look at a 360 more closely as a second console. But, I think the game coverage speaks for it's self: lame and derivative. The XBox 360 games are nothing more than PC games. I already have a PC. I already have a 23" LCD to play them on. The OTHER stuff is what's interesting-- and being able to do it on my couch, socially. And, unless Sony has a way to get those kinds of integrated features in the PS3 I will be in Envy of them. So, props to the 360 for what seems to be a solid UI and Online experience.
However, the bottom line is that Sony has VASTLY more good quality original titles you will not see on any other platform. An XBox 360, speaking strictly for the games, will never outperform my PC and will never have unique games for it. If they do have "unique" games such as Halo (um, the ONLY one?) I don't really care so much because there are a hundred alternatives that are just as good elsewhere. Sports games? Ugh. Could care less. Titles you will never see on XBox 360:
God of War
Ratchet and Clank
Jak and Daxter
Shadow of the Colossus
Devil May Cry
GTA (well, maybe very late)
So Sony easily beats XBox on good game titles IMO. They also have backward compatability which all people want and no one uses. And, if they can pull together some slick interface like the 360 with a good online purchasing system (like Steam), It'll be a knockout.
It's Standard Definition (SD) quality television. In fact, it can look a lot better than SD if you play it through an HD set with upsampling or other quality improving technologies.
For example, I have a Sony 50" LCD Projection HDTV (Love it, BTW.) I also have a PowerBook. All I do is plug the S-Video cable from my computer to my TV and play all those episode of LOST I love. I had never seen LOST prior to downloading on iTunes, so I thought I would DL a couple and try it out. I was really impressed by the quality. It's better than a normal SD broadcast, the colors are amazing, and the compression is almost never noticable.
So, yes, I would like HD quality downloads for video (nominal charge is fine for bandwidth) and I'd like higher quality AAC's (norminal charge fine) as an option. But this is a great start and will prove the validity of the concept.