This review is just a horrible piece of journalism. It reads like it was written 2 weeks ago.
His first specific criticism is that there's no cable to hook up a PS3 to an HD TV. This is simply incorrect. Sony includes a cable that works fine. It doesn't do HD, but it does hook up and let you use the system. This kind of untruth is to be expected from the NY Times, which is more about an agenda than about accurately describing the factual situation.
The only thing he says about the games is that Resistence: FoM is fun and Blast Factor is "frantic".
There's a lot of "I like the Xbox360 better" in this review. Ok, great. Good luck with that. But this is supposed to be a PS3 review, not a console buying guide that compares the different features. Buy a 360 if you want one. I hear they're great. But "the PS3 is not an XBOX360" is not a valid criticism.
There are some things the reviewer found annoying. These are valid points. But it's the first weekend of the PS3. Did everything go perfectly on the first weekend for the XBOX360? Does everything ever go perfectly? This part of the review was not balanced, but it was useful and therefore adequate.
There's a paragraph about televisions and walkmans. Does that tell you if the PS3 is fun?
On a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is an extremely useful review and 1 is a completely false misleading and poorly written bird-cage liner, I'd give this review a 3.5. That's pretty good for the NY Times.
Could it be that cancer rates are increasing because people don't die of The Plague or Smallpox when they're 17 anymore? So they live a long time and eventually get the thing that we don't have a cure for yet: cancer.
I predict that when cancer is cured, the incidence of some other disease associated with age will start going up. It will be because oil companies are evil and want people to get the disease, of course.
Yeah, come on! Ad hominem attacks against people work great! They are super useful! And they're sooooo much easier than thinking.
We've had a lot more success since we started appealing to the fear and hatred of people than when we appealed to their intellect. Fund-raising is way up! And we can convince our followers of anything we want. We just tell them that Tobacco companies lied to promote the other side and the cash rolls in.
The press loves us too. You can't teach people economics in a 15-second sound byte, but you can scare them. "Why the tobacco companies lied about Peak Oil and DRM and how it'll kill your children tomorrow morning! Tonight on the 11 o'clock news. Don't miss it!"
You don't understand the argument. The argument is this:
Oil companies are evil. Their objective is to hurt people no matter how much it costs them.
Some of them are motivated by money. They are still evil. They are also extremely stupid and less informed about the oil business than your average Internet message board poster. The Internet message-board guys and the bloggers know more about how much oil is available than the oil company executives.
The oil price is going to skyrocket in the very near future because of Peak Oil (tm). The oil companies have oil in the ground. They could just stop pumping it for a year or two and sell it for $300 a barrel at that time. But they don't, because they're stupid and evil, unlike us message board posters and bloggers.
They don't get the supply curve right. They presume an extremely limited supply that can't increase with price (inelastic supply). This is incorrect. There are lots of substitute supplies of oil and other alternative fuels available as prices increase to the point it's profitable to exploit them.
They also presume demand is highly inelastic up to a very high price point and then falls off drastically afterwards.
It's just doomsday analysis. Get the press to listen to you by predicting a crisis. Then tell the media people that the solution is simple and inline with the agenda the drive-by press already has. Congrats, you're famous.
"I don't like what they're saying. Is there a way we can slur them with a phony conflict-of-interest implication or some other kind of ad hominem? Dealing with arguments on their merits is too hard."
It's not slashdot's fault. It's because "news" == "opinion with a few supporting factoids" now. So "news for nerds" has become "information supporting the editors' politics". The nature of "news" has changed forever.
You're supposed to agree that it's bad that corporations get to portray their point of view as news, BTW. At the same time, you're supposed to agree that it's good for left-wing activists to portray their point of view as news. If you don't, you're evil or ignorant (because you don't read the right "news") or stupid or on the payroll of one of these hated corporations.
Thinking for yourself is called Flamebait, and will be modded down accordingly. So just don't do it. Hate the people they tell you to hate and say the same things in your posts as everyone else.
Has anyone else noticed that at every turn corporations again and again attempt to subvert the powers of the state...
Has anyone noticed that the state continues to accumulate and use their powers to restrict the freedom of the people? Has anyone noticed that corporations are made up of groups of people?
That Guy: Let's cut to the chase. There are two kinds of people: Sheep and sharks. Anyone who's a sheep is fired. Who's a sheep?
Zoidberg: Uh, excuse me? Which is the one people like to hug?
That Guy: Gutsy question. You're a shark. Sharks are winners and they don't look back 'cause they don't have necks. Necks are for sheep. [Everyone sinks down and covers their necks.] I am proud to be the shepherd of this herd of sharks and I am gonna lead you to the top in this industry
--- It's on topic because it happens in the future and Zoidberg is a shellfish.
The point isn't that the research is wrong. The point is that the news is wrong.
News is so highly edited, dumbed-down, packaged, and selectively reported that it fails to represent the research (as it stands in the context with all other knowledge and research on a subject). The news is essentially wrong. And sometimes the research is wrong too.
Health news is a burden on people. It's false information and we'd be better off without it.
Then there will be another study in 2 years that contradicts that one and confirms the original study. That will be followed by a few more with various other conclusions.
Slashdot Mirror
This review is just a horrible piece of journalism. It reads like it was written 2 weeks ago.
His first specific criticism is that there's no cable to hook up a PS3 to an HD TV. This is simply incorrect. Sony includes a cable that works fine. It doesn't do HD, but it does hook up and let you use the system. This kind of untruth is to be expected from the NY Times, which is more about an agenda than about accurately describing the factual situation.
The only thing he says about the games is that Resistence: FoM is fun and Blast Factor is "frantic".
There's a lot of "I like the Xbox360 better" in this review. Ok, great. Good luck with that. But this is supposed to be a PS3 review, not a console buying guide that compares the different features. Buy a 360 if you want one. I hear they're great. But "the PS3 is not an XBOX360" is not a valid criticism.
There are some things the reviewer found annoying. These are valid points. But it's the first weekend of the PS3. Did everything go perfectly on the first weekend for the XBOX360? Does everything ever go perfectly? This part of the review was not balanced, but it was useful and therefore adequate.
There's a paragraph about televisions and walkmans. Does that tell you if the PS3 is fun?
On a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is an extremely useful review and 1 is a completely false misleading and poorly written bird-cage liner, I'd give this review a 3.5. That's pretty good for the NY Times.
A hundred thousand on eBay is probably only a little high.
Almost all of those people in line were going to eBay their PS3. There have been surveys.
They all start out in that range. The trend is that they hit $900 at about 1 minute left and then go to $1000-$1200 at the end.
I've been watching them all weekend because I want one but won't pay the amount they're selling for.
Could it be that cancer rates are increasing because people don't die of The Plague or Smallpox when they're 17 anymore? So they live a long time and eventually get the thing that we don't have a cure for yet: cancer.
I predict that when cancer is cured, the incidence of some other disease associated with age will start going up. It will be because oil companies are evil and want people to get the disease, of course.
It's most definatly usefull.
Yeah, come on! Ad hominem attacks against people work great! They are super useful! And they're sooooo much easier than thinking.
We've had a lot more success since we started appealing to the fear and hatred of people than when we appealed to their intellect. Fund-raising is way up! And we can convince our followers of anything we want. We just tell them that Tobacco companies lied to promote the other side and the cash rolls in.
The press loves us too. You can't teach people economics in a 15-second sound byte, but you can scare them. "Why the tobacco companies lied about Peak Oil and DRM and how it'll kill your children tomorrow morning! Tonight on the 11 o'clock news. Don't miss it!"
You don't understand the argument. The argument is this:
Oil companies are evil. Their objective is to hurt people no matter how much it costs them.
Some of them are motivated by money. They are still evil. They are also extremely stupid and less informed about the oil business than your average Internet message board poster. The Internet message-board guys and the bloggers know more about how much oil is available than the oil company executives.
The oil price is going to skyrocket in the very near future because of Peak Oil (tm). The oil companies have oil in the ground. They could just stop pumping it for a year or two and sell it for $300 a barrel at that time. But they don't, because they're stupid and evil, unlike us message board posters and bloggers.
Now do you understand?
They don't get the supply curve right. They presume an extremely limited supply that can't increase with price (inelastic supply). This is incorrect. There are lots of substitute supplies of oil and other alternative fuels available as prices increase to the point it's profitable to exploit them.
They also presume demand is highly inelastic up to a very high price point and then falls off drastically afterwards.
It's just doomsday analysis. Get the press to listen to you by predicting a crisis. Then tell the media people that the solution is simple and inline with the agenda the drive-by press already has. Congrats, you're famous.
In other words:
"I don't like what they're saying. Is there a way we can slur them with a phony conflict-of-interest implication or some other kind of ad hominem? Dealing with arguments on their merits is too hard."
Hello? The DNC is good and corporations are evil. Don't you watch the news?
It's not slashdot's fault. It's because "news" == "opinion with a few supporting factoids" now. So "news for nerds" has become "information supporting the editors' politics". The nature of "news" has changed forever.
You're supposed to agree that it's bad that corporations get to portray their point of view as news, BTW. At the same time, you're supposed to agree that it's good for left-wing activists to portray their point of view as news. If you don't, you're evil or ignorant (because you don't read the right "news") or stupid or on the payroll of one of these hated corporations.
Thinking for yourself is called Flamebait, and will be modded down accordingly. So just don't do it. Hate the people they tell you to hate and say the same things in your posts as everyone else.
Has anyone else noticed that at every turn corporations again and again attempt to subvert the powers of the state...
Has anyone noticed that the state continues to accumulate and use their powers to restrict the freedom of the people? Has anyone noticed that corporations are made up of groups of people?
People who want free stuff say: "give stuff away for free"
Everyone's already heard the hate-America message. No one's ever heard a solution to any problem from that crowd though.
Orson Scott Card was talking about the strategic goals of the war, which is a perspective lots of Slashdotters might not have heard.
Zell Miller is a "Democrat" too.
Yeah. So when he says something that disagrees with the majority of Democrats, he's not being partisan.
Orson Scott Card (who is a Democrat) talks about the war in this post.
He has a strategic perspective that Slashdottters might not be familiar with.
Futurama: Future Stock
That Guy: Let's cut to the chase. There are two kinds of people: Sheep and sharks. Anyone who's a sheep is fired. Who's a sheep?
Zoidberg: Uh, excuse me? Which is the one people like to hug?
That Guy: Gutsy question. You're a shark. Sharks are winners and they don't look back 'cause they don't have necks. Necks are for sheep. [Everyone sinks down and covers their necks.] I am proud to be the shepherd of this herd of sharks and I am gonna lead you to the top in this industry
---
It's on topic because it happens in the future and Zoidberg is a shellfish.
This has to be correct. Aren't predictions of what's going to happen 40 years in the future always correct? No?
Are they ever? Even once?
Vote for me on Nov 7 for the next Lik-Sang!
Thanks.
irony
I'm glad my rights to watch Comedy Central on the net have been restored. Yet another defeat for the fascist anti-Comedy police state. Free at last.
Yes. Wonder Woman.
Because no one who invented anything, let alone a tool that the FBI uses, could ever be dishonest. Not even one time.
I wonder if the FBI uses ReiserFS on any of their computers?
The point isn't that the research is wrong. The point is that the news is wrong.
News is so highly edited, dumbed-down, packaged, and selectively reported that it fails to represent the research (as it stands in the context with all other knowledge and research on a subject). The news is essentially wrong. And sometimes the research is wrong too.
Health news is a burden on people. It's false information and we'd be better off without it.
Then there will be another study in 2 years that contradicts that one and confirms the original study. That will be followed by a few more with various other conclusions.
Health-related news is almost always wrong. It'll get contradicted in another study next year.
Remember when everyone got that bird flu? (I was coughing up feathers for weeks.)