"After all, what woman wants to play the "Super Steriod Man", where your character has a chest the size of a mack truck, blows up an entire city in one punch, and every woman in 50 miles runs up - with D cup breasts and clothes falling off - screaming "I love you Super Steroid Man!""
I as a guy am not all that interested in that game. It barely sounds rentable to me. Sure, it might sell well to the sacred 18-25 y.o. male demographic (fool, money, parted, etc.) for about a week, but as soon as the next T&A game comes along such a game would be sitting in the $9.99 bin (where it belongs, IMO).
Of course, a lot of the games I do like playing involve playing as a short, fat, mustachioed, coveralled plumber who's always trying to save a princess who never wears anything that stops above the knee except on a tennis court or golf course, so what do I know?
"every five minutes or so, she'd complain, "I told it my name is Sarah. Why the hell does it keep calling me a he?"
Because she doesn't understand what "role-playing" means. She's supposed to pretend to be a guy just as all the characters in the game pretend their in real situations.
If she's so uptight about gender identity in video games, try tossing her Metroid Fusion instead.
then it's the advertisements that ultimately did it in. If the commercials were half-way interesting or entertaining, people wouldn't want to change the channel or use the time as a bathroom break. All TiVo does it let consumers express their displeasure with incessant, inane advertising much more loudly.
Common rhretoric suggests an addiction to American Defense (TM). Supposedly they don't want to piss off the DoD or they might take their toys and go home.
Me, I don't care enough about intra-EU politics to bother checking the validity of this idea, but I've heard arguments like this from both sides of the "pond."
Know your own employees, ya idjits! Pre-release alphas do not make it into the wild all by themselves, and certainly the consumers had nothing to do with it because it's... well.. pre-release!
Or is this Microsoft using it as another excuse to support the MPAA's Terminator 3 theorem: that peer-to-peer networking will be the death of us all?
"why the asymmetry in the "cuckoo" rating for the pro and anti side? I might rate them both at a 2 myself."
Because measuring two things in relative terms to each other and measuring two things in an absolute scale are two very different things. Being 50% more "wrong" than the other group doesn't say anything about how far away from "correct" you are. In mathematical terms, you get a direction with no magnitude.
At any rate, is this guy related to the new Maryland governor?
I can remember the Bad Old Days of 14.4 modems and even 2400s. I would keep about half a dozen Lego pieces by the computer so that I'd have something to do while waiting for downloads. Multitasking was a no-no on the 286 running DOS 5.0 while even the P-90 running WfW was a little flakey, but then again I usually got out of Windows and used a DOS program for dialling up the BBSes anyway.
Nowadays I still wait as long since I'm downloading bigger things. But at least I can play Solitaire while waiting. Heck, I can even open a new browser tab! That, and the porn looks a heck of a lot better now that I'm no longer using EGA...
"But Amtrak it is not. 1st of all, Amtrak was created in the 1970's by mandate of congress long after the battle with cars was a forgone conclusion."
Amtrak's problem isn't cars, Amtrak's problem is that, whenever they want a passenger train to get from point A to point B, they have to say "Please Mr. Freight Train Company, sir, can we use your railroads for a moment?" Passenger jets can share airspace with cargo planes, busses can share roads with tractor-trailers, cruise ships can use the same ports as container ships, but you can't have more than one train on a stretch of track at the same time, and the owner of the track always gets priority.
So, going back to the analogy, maybe Nintendo should stay in the hardware business instead of going all Sega on us. Nintendo's abusive monopoly of the NES wasn't so bad since, when all was said and done, Nintendo's first-party games were still good. What happens when Sony or Microsoft gets such a monopoly?
Of course, part of the simulation is the built-in help featuers (command completion, etc.) as well as graying out all of the commands that don't work in that particular simulation. If you're vaguely familiar with *nix CLIs and are able to tell an IP address from an IRQ number, you can get through those simulations easily enough.
"Apparently, the best historical example of this is the railroad industry, who "...labeled themselves as being in the railroad business and not the transportation business, limiting themselves and causing their own downfall.""
Yeah, because we've all seen now how incredibly popular locomotives that also functioned as a tractor-trailer and a jumbo jet have been. I mean, who wouldn't want a train with wings?
"The industry has changed. Nintendo is no longer the biggest player in a relatively large niche market."
Whether it has changed for the better remains to be seen. The gaming industry is still far too young to make long-term predictions.
"They are in last place in a huge segment of the home entertainment sector"
Apparently he hasn't looked at the numbers since the $99 price drop.
But actually that's besides the point. Sony and Microsoft are jumping up and down about the 18-25 male market while Nintendo has never targeted so exclusively. Their main target market is still there and still churning out lots of cash for Nintendo.
"We've always been told that pirate games push prices up, but doesn't this news suggest that piracy in China has in fact pushed prices down?"
They've pushed game prices in China down. I'm sure these global compaines are making that money up by chargingus more.
At any rate, I'm wishing the iQue was released over here as well. That, or maybe (if Hell has frozen over) Nintendo's "not a console and not a handheld" release coming up is a downloadable ROM service for GCN.
"In a system using a straight majority vote, not runoffs or Concordate systems, you're going to get two real canidates. There'd be no more reason for your senator to vote for a canidate that can't win then there is for you to."
"because the framers of the articles of confederation didn't realize how small a world was and how small each state was, in a geopolitical sense. Since that time, with mass communications and high-speed transit, the effective size of the world has shrunk, and with it the importance of one government instead of fifty."
Except that modern geopolitical thought revolves around the concept of the right to self-determination of a people, which flies in the face of "one size fits all" national governments by stressing local control over local events. And even in modern times pure republics have been both unable and unwilling to grant minority interests any degree of autonomy. France, whose area and population are far smaller than those of the United States, is balely willing to let Corsicans teach their children their own language.
On the other hand our federal system, by recognizing the imortance of government of, by and for a specific people, has given us Maine, Vermont and (to an extent) West Virginia, none of whom felt they were treated fairly by the republican governments of Boston, Albany and Richmond respectively
"in taking many powers away from the states, sometimes vesting them in the court system (like defining due process.)"
Most of the victories of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s were won in the Supreme Court of the United States, where none of the justices are popularly elected or have any term limits beyond "good behavior." By your logic of the importance of direct popular elections and the ability of it to protect the rights of the minority and the ability of direct popular election to ensure the rights of the people, their best friend should have been Congress, not SCOTUS.
Also, you seem to be forgetting that with our entire legislature now elected by direct popular vote, our national government (as opposed to "federal") is able to propose constitutional amendments that would deny the states the right to marry gay couples without batting an eyelash. Before the Seventeenth Amendment, states jealous of their own power wouldn't let such a bill get anywhere near the United States Senate, but now things aren't so sure.
"In this century, both the Nazis and the Bolshiviks came to power openly despising the rights of the people."
The Nazis were a political party that came to prominence in the polls by appealing to nationalism and anti-communist sentiment. And if you think the Bolsheviks became popular by "despising the rights of the people," you obviously aren't familiar with Karl Marx's writings.
"the authors of your quote didn't approve of the popular election of the president or senators; as they set it up, appointed electors chose everything."
Those "appointed electors" you're talking about were called "state legislators." And they were "appointed" by the people by popular vote. And this indirect voting method was put into the mix because direct popular vote isn't always the best way to do things. Notice the way we still keep direct popular elections as far away from the courtroom as possible.
"Their distrust of popular democracy have proven largely baseless."
Are you sure?
The political parties short-circuited the Electoral College system in the Eighteenth Century. Since then, presidential races have been rife with party politics, cementing political parties into a permanent position of power with the Democrats being able to trace their direct lineage in presidential elections to 1800. Our presidential campaigns rarely focus on internatinal policy (even though that's half of the job description), limit our choices only to those the political parties see fit to give us, usually degrade to name calling more suitible to an episode of Jerry Springer than to the decision to our country's chief magistrate, and often result in presidents that can barely claim to have the consent of half of the people that even bother to vote. This is consent of the governed?
As for the changes brought about by the Seventeenth Amendment, do you think it mere conicidence the way political power has consolidated into the so-called "federal" government with the amendment's ratification moreso than even in 1787? Or did you think that giving the Senate exactly the same job description and point-of-view as the House of Representatives an improvement when the Senate too ovewhelmingly voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act? And lets not forget the greater role given to political parties in Senate politics now that the people "choose" their senators directly. "We've got both kinds of music here! Country AND Western!"
And for a group of people who despised direct popular vote, the framers sure took pains to ensure that the House of Representatives were chosen in just such a manner, over the objections of many notable men of the time.
"Their distrust of popular democracy have proven largely baseless."
Then you seem to be forgetting how both Hitler and Mussolini came to power to begin with: By direct popular vote.
Their distrust of direct popular election was well founded by their own personal experiences with the way the newly-founded state governments melted down with their over-reliance on direct popular vote. They took pains to devise a system that gave different points of view (improving the government's internal debugging algorithm) from direct popular vote but could still claim the consent of the governed. They chose the indirect election method for senators and the presidency because of the success of the system used by Maryland's senate. And they included a senate-like body because of the way some past republics had one and lived long lives and the way others lacked one (relying solely on direct popular vote) soon descended into despotry.
The way you're putting words in my mouth, automatically assuming that, by warning that voters should keep in mind the need to look below the "vote for me" exterior I am automatically a supporter of the "other" party... I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry.
This still isn't a new idea. Don't you think that, when mechanical voting machines and punchcards were first implemented, the politicians made sure that their selected watchers were mechanically inclined?
Or are you implying that these watchers can and would do something other than nodding to the Diebold technicians? Anything more than simply watching and observing the set-up and vote-counting processes will run afowl of vote tampering laws pretty damned quickly.
"Here's what we can do: we can organize in every community across this country into citizen groups of individuals with technical expertise in computer programming, systems design, and working knowledge of elections. These precinct activists can begin immediately to create a template for securing the 2004 vote. The elements of such a program might include: taking action to gain access to inspect the technology, to learn what safeguards have been put in place to make sure that no coflicts of interests are involved, and to make sure there are no problems with the chain of custody. What I'm advocating is monitoring the vote."
Yeah! I know, we could get party members in each municipality to observe and inspect the voting machines while they're being set up. And then on election day, we could have representative of the parties present at each polling station to keep track of who came in. We could even have party representatives present when the machines are queried for their official vote talleys!
In case you have difficulty seeing my sarcasm, this is exactly what has happened since at least the beginning of the Twentieth Century, and he as a politician should know this already since before the election each municipality mails him a letter spelling out where and when the machines will be established and inspected so that he can send his representatives to observe the process. The only new idea he has here is giving it a snazzy new catch-phrase name. And judging from your glowing response, the tactic is obviously working.
"Just last week, he blasted the FBI for stripping away the constitution."
You mean just like every other Democrat candidate so far? Not that that is anything new, since you get elected by showing the incumbent's administration in a negative light. Candidates for the presidency running against incumbents have been complaining about how their opponent's administration of the FBI has robbed us of our Blessed Constitutional Rights (/me genuflects) for as long as we've had an FBI.
"If there is ever a candidate for president who supports rights of netizens, and "we the people", this is him."
(A) dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
It'll never get there. So long as plaintiffs keep on dropping their cases five minutes before the trial starts, they'll be able to use the DMCA to intimidate and frighten as much as they want, just as the law was intended.
"You could probably argue that the e-mail experience (...) is probably going to be repeated--perhaps more quickly than last time because the Internet makes that kind of evolution easier."
Don't worry, IM spam won't last as long since, as you can see, the Internet makes the Internet faster!
It's all so clear to me now! And here I thought the solution was broadband...
Slashdot Mirror
"After all, what woman wants to play the "Super Steriod Man", where your character has a chest the size of a mack truck, blows up an entire city in one punch, and every woman in 50 miles runs up - with D cup breasts and clothes falling off - screaming "I love you Super Steroid Man!""
I as a guy am not all that interested in that game. It barely sounds rentable to me. Sure, it might sell well to the sacred 18-25 y.o. male demographic (fool, money, parted, etc.) for about a week, but as soon as the next T&A game comes along such a game would be sitting in the $9.99 bin (where it belongs, IMO).
Of course, a lot of the games I do like playing involve playing as a short, fat, mustachioed, coveralled plumber who's always trying to save a princess who never wears anything that stops above the knee except on a tennis court or golf course, so what do I know?
"every five minutes or so, she'd complain, "I told it my name is Sarah. Why the hell does it keep calling me a he?"
Because she doesn't understand what "role-playing" means. She's supposed to pretend to be a guy just as all the characters in the game pretend their in real situations.
If she's so uptight about gender identity in video games, try tossing her Metroid Fusion instead.
then it's the advertisements that ultimately did it in. If the commercials were half-way interesting or entertaining, people wouldn't want to change the channel or use the time as a bathroom break. All TiVo does it let consumers express their displeasure with incessant, inane advertising much more loudly.
"Besides which, why can't the EU "just say no"?"
Common rhretoric suggests an addiction to American Defense (TM). Supposedly they don't want to piss off the DoD or they might take their toys and go home.
Me, I don't care enough about intra-EU politics to bother checking the validity of this idea, but I've heard arguments like this from both sides of the "pond."
Know your own employees, ya idjits! Pre-release alphas do not make it into the wild all by themselves, and certainly the consumers had nothing to do with it because it's... well.. pre-release!
Or is this Microsoft using it as another excuse to support the MPAA's Terminator 3 theorem: that peer-to-peer networking will be the death of us all?
"why the asymmetry in the "cuckoo" rating for the pro and anti side? I might rate them both at a 2 myself."
Because measuring two things in relative terms to each other and measuring two things in an absolute scale are two very different things. Being 50% more "wrong" than the other group doesn't say anything about how far away from "correct" you are. In mathematical terms, you get a direction with no magnitude.
At any rate, is this guy related to the new Maryland governor?
I can remember the Bad Old Days of 14.4 modems and even 2400s. I would keep about half a dozen Lego pieces by the computer so that I'd have something to do while waiting for downloads. Multitasking was a no-no on the 286 running DOS 5.0 while even the P-90 running WfW was a little flakey, but then again I usually got out of Windows and used a DOS program for dialling up the BBSes anyway.
Nowadays I still wait as long since I'm downloading bigger things. But at least I can play Solitaire while waiting. Heck, I can even open a new browser tab! That, and the porn looks a heck of a lot better now that I'm no longer using EGA...
"Looks like somebody at Nintendojo's taken marketing 101, then..."
Maybe it's the same 'dojo staffer who took Japanese 101.
"But Amtrak it is not. 1st of all, Amtrak was created in the 1970's by mandate of congress long after the battle with cars was a forgone conclusion."
Amtrak's problem isn't cars, Amtrak's problem is that, whenever they want a passenger train to get from point A to point B, they have to say "Please Mr. Freight Train Company, sir, can we use your railroads for a moment?" Passenger jets can share airspace with cargo planes, busses can share roads with tractor-trailers, cruise ships can use the same ports as container ships, but you can't have more than one train on a stretch of track at the same time, and the owner of the track always gets priority.
So, going back to the analogy, maybe Nintendo should stay in the hardware business instead of going all Sega on us. Nintendo's abusive monopoly of the NES wasn't so bad since, when all was said and done, Nintendo's first-party games were still good. What happens when Sony or Microsoft gets such a monopoly?
"Common Criteria is about validating that the OS/Firewall/etc. etc. does what the VENDOR says it will do."
Microsoft: "This operating system has numerous vulnerability exploits and poor compatability with old drivers and applications."
CC board: "Well, whaddaya know, so it does!"
Of course, part of the simulation is the built-in help featuers (command completion, etc.) as well as graying out all of the commands that don't work in that particular simulation. If you're vaguely familiar with *nix CLIs and are able to tell an IP address from an IRQ number, you can get through those simulations easily enough.
"But the address was that of a sex-offender who hadn't lived at the home for months."
Now here's a question: Would it be "OK" if the vigilantes pounded the face of the person they were trying to get?
Kinda makes you wonder where the line between this and the so-called Nuremberg List is drawn.
"Apparently, the best historical example of this is the railroad industry, who "...labeled themselves as being in the railroad business and not the transportation business, limiting themselves and causing their own downfall.""
Yeah, because we've all seen now how incredibly popular locomotives that also functioned as a tractor-trailer and a jumbo jet have been. I mean, who wouldn't want a train with wings?
"The industry has changed. Nintendo is no longer the biggest player in a relatively large niche market."
Whether it has changed for the better remains to be seen. The gaming industry is still far too young to make long-term predictions.
"They are in last place in a huge segment of the home entertainment sector"
Apparently he hasn't looked at the numbers since the $99 price drop.
But actually that's besides the point. Sony and Microsoft are jumping up and down about the 18-25 male market while Nintendo has never targeted so exclusively. Their main target market is still there and still churning out lots of cash for Nintendo.
"We've always been told that pirate games push prices up, but doesn't this news suggest that piracy in China has in fact pushed prices down?"
They've pushed game prices in China down. I'm sure these global compaines are making that money up by chargingus more.
At any rate, I'm wishing the iQue was released over here as well. That, or maybe (if Hell has frozen over) Nintendo's "not a console and not a handheld" release coming up is a downloadable ROM service for GCN.
"In a system using a straight majority vote, not runoffs or Concordate systems, you're going to get two real canidates. There'd be no more reason for your senator to vote for a canidate that can't win then there is for you to."
"because the framers of the articles of confederation didn't realize how small a world was and how small each state was, in a geopolitical sense. Since that time, with mass communications and high-speed transit, the effective size of the world has shrunk, and with it the importance of one government instead of fifty."
Except that modern geopolitical thought revolves around the concept of the right to self-determination of a people, which flies in the face of "one size fits all" national governments by stressing local control over local events. And even in modern times pure republics have been both unable and unwilling to grant minority interests any degree of autonomy. France, whose area and population are far smaller than those of the United States, is balely willing to let Corsicans teach their children their own language.
On the other hand our federal system, by recognizing the imortance of government of, by and for a specific people, has given us Maine, Vermont and (to an extent) West Virginia, none of whom felt they were treated fairly by the republican governments of Boston, Albany and Richmond respectively
"in taking many powers away from the states, sometimes vesting them in the court system (like defining due process.)"
Most of the victories of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s were won in the Supreme Court of the United States, where none of the justices are popularly elected or have any term limits beyond "good behavior." By your logic of the importance of direct popular elections and the ability of it to protect the rights of the minority and the ability of direct popular election to ensure the rights of the people, their best friend should have been Congress, not SCOTUS.
Also, you seem to be forgetting that with our entire legislature now elected by direct popular vote, our national government (as opposed to "federal") is able to propose constitutional amendments that would deny the states the right to marry gay couples without batting an eyelash. Before the Seventeenth Amendment, states jealous of their own power wouldn't let such a bill get anywhere near the United States Senate, but now things aren't so sure.
"In this century, both the Nazis and the Bolshiviks came to power openly despising the rights of the people."
The Nazis were a political party that came to prominence in the polls by appealing to nationalism and anti-communist sentiment. And if you think the Bolsheviks became popular by "despising the rights of the people," you obviously aren't familiar with Karl Marx's writings.
"the authors of your quote didn't approve of the popular election of the president or senators; as they set it up, appointed electors chose everything."
Those "appointed electors" you're talking about were called "state legislators." And they were "appointed" by the people by popular vote. And this indirect voting method was put into the mix because direct popular vote isn't always the best way to do things. Notice the way we still keep direct popular elections as far away from the courtroom as possible.
"Their distrust of popular democracy have proven largely baseless."
Are you sure?
The political parties short-circuited the Electoral College system in the Eighteenth Century. Since then, presidential races have been rife with party politics, cementing political parties into a permanent position of power with the Democrats being able to trace their direct lineage in presidential elections to 1800. Our presidential campaigns rarely focus on internatinal policy (even though that's half of the job description), limit our choices only to those the political parties see fit to give us, usually degrade to name calling more suitible to an episode of Jerry Springer than to the decision to our country's chief magistrate, and often result in presidents that can barely claim to have the consent of half of the people that even bother to vote. This is consent of the governed?
As for the changes brought about by the Seventeenth Amendment, do you think it mere conicidence the way political power has consolidated into the so-called "federal" government with the amendment's ratification moreso than even in 1787? Or did you think that giving the Senate exactly the same job description and point-of-view as the House of Representatives an improvement when the Senate too ovewhelmingly voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act? And lets not forget the greater role given to political parties in Senate politics now that the people "choose" their senators directly. "We've got both kinds of music here! Country AND Western!"
And for a group of people who despised direct popular vote, the framers sure took pains to ensure that the House of Representatives were chosen in just such a manner, over the objections of many notable men of the time.
"Their distrust of popular democracy have proven largely baseless."
Then you seem to be forgetting how both Hitler and Mussolini came to power to begin with: By direct popular vote.
Their distrust of direct popular election was well founded by their own personal experiences with the way the newly-founded state governments melted down with their over-reliance on direct popular vote. They took pains to devise a system that gave different points of view (improving the government's internal debugging algorithm) from direct popular vote but could still claim the consent of the governed. They chose the indirect election method for senators and the presidency because of the success of the system used by Maryland's senate. And they included a senate-like body because of the way some past republics had one and lived long lives and the way others lacked one (relying solely on direct popular vote) soon descended into despotry.
The way you're putting words in my mouth, automatically assuming that, by warning that voters should keep in mind the need to look below the "vote for me" exterior I am automatically a supporter of the "other" party... I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry.
This still isn't a new idea. Don't you think that, when mechanical voting machines and punchcards were first implemented, the politicians made sure that their selected watchers were mechanically inclined?
Or are you implying that these watchers can and would do something other than nodding to the Diebold technicians? Anything more than simply watching and observing the set-up and vote-counting processes will run afowl of vote tampering laws pretty damned quickly.
"Why do break in's always have Nixon's name somewhere in the paragraph?"
Well I... uh... certainly wouldn't harm the child...
I'm meeting you half way, you damn hippies!
Yeah! I know, we could get party members in each municipality to observe and inspect the voting machines while they're being set up. And then on election day, we could have representative of the parties present at each polling station to keep track of who came in. We could even have party representatives present when the machines are queried for their official vote talleys!
In case you have difficulty seeing my sarcasm, this is exactly what has happened since at least the beginning of the Twentieth Century, and he as a politician should know this already since before the election each municipality mails him a letter spelling out where and when the machines will be established and inspected so that he can send his representatives to observe the process. The only new idea he has here is giving it a snazzy new catch-phrase name. And judging from your glowing response, the tactic is obviously working.
"Just last week, he blasted the FBI for stripping away the constitution."
You mean just like every other Democrat candidate so far? Not that that is anything new, since you get elected by showing the incumbent's administration in a negative light. Candidates for the presidency running against incumbents have been complaining about how their opponent's administration of the FBI has robbed us of our Blessed Constitutional Rights (/me genuflects) for as long as we've had an FBI.
"If there is ever a candidate for president who supports rights of netizens, and "we the people", this is him."
It'll never get there. So long as plaintiffs keep on dropping their cases five minutes before the trial starts, they'll be able to use the DMCA to intimidate and frighten as much as they want, just as the law was intended.
"This has to be one of the ultimate academic wish-fulfillment fantasies"
It has to be pure fantasy. In the real world, the math prof would quietly take credit for the solution himself.
"No, there's no problem with Linux! See this explanatory document? All code is approved by a penguin."
No, man! The penguin is just a metaphor! All code is actually approved by a nun.
"You could probably argue that the e-mail experience (...) is probably going to be repeated--perhaps more quickly than last time because the Internet makes that kind of evolution easier."
Don't worry, IM spam won't last as long since, as you can see, the Internet makes the Internet faster!
It's all so clear to me now! And here I thought the solution was broadband...
Sure, this premium content costs extra, but don't forget that MechCommander's exploitable overrun bug comes free with the price of the game!