"There's also speculation that people want the Wii because the PS3s best game is Resistance: Fall of Man. This, of course, forget that there are plenty of cool PS3 games on the way,"
If "plenty of cool PS3 games" are coming later, wouldn't it make more sense to buy the PS3 later? The (crazy) people who got themselves a PS3 this Christmas wanted instant gratification, or else they wouldn't have spent all that money on eBay to begin with. They're not going to take kindly to waiting for things that are "on the way."
"and the PS3 has its own motion sensing technology, which, while not as good as the Wii, is still pretty cool and opens up Sony to emulate some of the Wii's successes.'"
"It's for everyone: if companies are forced to sell where wouldn't sell,"
You're forgetting the providers want to have their cake and eat it too. It's not that they're forced to offer service to all areas, but that they're required to offer service to all areas in exchange for eminent domain rights. I wouldn't have a problem with this decision if landowners themselves weren't still required to sell easements to the providers to run their wires.
"There are cases where even "evil monopolists" should be left to do certain aspects of their business without regulators messing in it."
Yes, those with a monopoly on their land should be able to do with it as they please, and if they want to charge each and every provider that wants to cross their lawn $1 per bit of information, it's their right.
"With the kind of laws regulating this industry, you wouldn't even be able to research *aspirin* today, let alone have it approved or sold."
"Aspirin" itself would likely still be a trademarked term in the United States had we not declared war on the country of origin. World War I and the ensuing revocation of Bayer's IP in the US was a boon to the generic drug industry.
I mean, couldn't you pull some bullshit Oscar Wilde quote out of your ass instead? Surely you could make something up and make it stick to him better than you can claim it came from a poem about a Slashdotter trying to meet women!
"If 3 stars is defined as having 2 gigs of ram and a video card with 256 megs of memory then:
A system with 4 gigs of ram and a video card with 256 megs of memory gets three stars, A system with 2 gigs of ram and a video card with 512 megs of memory gets three stars, etc."
And what of 1 gig of RAM and 512 MB of video memory?
If anybody reading this is having such a problem, I'd be more than willing to help you with your problem and take that defective console off your hands for you. I'm willing to take this burden in the spirit of Christmas.
"The increasingly enjoyable games coverage continues on the MTV site, despite the horrible flash interface. Stephen Totitilo sat down for a chat with Sony's Phil Harrison, and comes away with some interesting perspectives on the year."
An interview with an executive from a game company that hardly focuses on playing games any more on a music channel that hardly focuess on playing music any more. Perfect!
"The primary point of this whole thing is that people can look at how many stars their computer has, look at how many stars are on the box and tell easily whether or not they can play it."
Ignoring that this is December and that there are now potentially people buying games for other people's computers, such a point system still fails because you don't know why you got as many or as few points as you did, nor do you know what you can do to improve your score. Not all games require the same kinds of resources, one game may need more system memory while another needs more video memory, but if both are given "3 points," then going by the point system would not guarantee that a game would run on your particular system.
Additionally, there's the question of whether publishers are willing to limit themselves to a hypothetical ideal machine. If a game's requirements skews away from what Microsoft thinks is a game machine, they could either rate their game as needing more points than might strictly be necessary (limiting their potential customer base) or by rating as needing fewer points (potentially angering customers who thought it would work).
In the end, you're still going to need to be technologicaly savvy to shop for comptuer games, and while you might mitigate the need for the fine print on the packaging somewhat, you're never going to eliminate it and PC game shopping will always be a black art.
"Oops, Excalibur 2 is from FF9. I go through RPG very fast and you'd not even come close to hitting the required time in anything that remotely resembles normal play."
Except that, well... have you seen the official (North American) guide for FFIX? Visit PlayOnline.com and enter "YGAWDY" to learn more about it!
"and around 20 years (of modern games) for the PC."
Ehh... anything much beyond 10 will require some goofy application to slow down your CPU. And even then, it seems you're far more likely to find used console games from that period than used PC games, unless you want to go the warez route.
"As Famitsu is to Japan, Edge is to the U.S. and Britain."
Except that:
I've known of Famitsu for years, but have never heard of Edge, and
According to Wikipedia they're not published in the UK and the US, but the UK and Spain. Some of its content was carried in a US magazine that went defunct four years ago.
Really, the fact that you feel the need to make an analogy to try to show that something is well-known should itself demonstrate that it's not well-known.
On a tangent, I can't think of any gaming magazines available in the US worth paying money for.
"Redmond is requiring that all titles use similar packaging and a distinctive logo."
The inclusion of a distinctive logo doesn't change the need to turn the box over and read the fine print for "required" and "reccomended" hardware to play the game. Console gaming works because a Wii is a Wii is a Wii.
Many people need an authority that imposes a moral system because they aren't sufficiently intelligent to have a moral system otherwise.
Pick a side, unless you are trying to argue that humans are a "special case."
"Nope again. Consider Buddhism, which has no particular gods (though you're not forbidden to believe in one)."
A straw man, otherwise you wouldn't have deliberately deleted my parenthetical "regardless of whether or not those principles are truly divinely inspired." I tried to be careful to make no attempt to try to suggest that any sort of divinity was needed, and please note that the word "divinity" need not be referring to a deity (e. g. your example of Buddhism may not have a deity but it certainly describes a divine order).
"Many people have argued that a moral system is the main benefit of most religions. Others have argued that this is the only known benefit of religions, which are rather damaging to society otherwise."
I have made neither claim, either to the value of religion or any need for mandatory compliance. I simply tried to point out that the prevailing influence of any sort of structured moral system on a society will have an effect on a person's upbringing and lifestyle, regardless of whether or not a particular household ascribes to it or not, and that you seemed to be assuming that it had little or no effect with little to back up your claim.
Personally, I can point to examples ranging from slavery to genocide (or even war in general), actions universally deemed as amoral, but committed because a particular society was raised to believe that such acts were actually moral ("It's for their own good").
"Various people have pointed out that the most important rule in many moral and ethical systems is "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you|. Biologist can now explain why this is actually a survival strategy, in the evolutionary sense."
Over many generations, one obvious solution is for co-operators to evolve the ability to spot potential free riders in advance and refuse to enter into reciprocal arrangements with them. Then, the canonical free rider response is to evolve a more convincing disguise, fooling co-operators into co-operating after all. This can lead to an evolutionary arms races, with ever-more-sophisticated disguises and ever-more-sophisticated detectors.
It seems obvious to me that a codified, external moral code (regardless if it is religious in nature) functions as one of the "ever-more-sophisticated detectors," a measuring stick to identify such free-riders ("Does the subject abide by A, B and C?"). If a society has become accustomed to refrencing such an external moral code and their children are generally raised to not just "be good" but also (e. g.) "be law-abiding," how can you claim that an individual is capable of finding a similarly complex moral code from wholly internal sources without at least first finding an example of an individual raised in isolation?
"Note that some slavery was voluntary in those days"
You have a selective definition of "voluntary." Sure, one might choose to enter indentured servitude, but being able to leave was solely at the discretion of the debtor. You couldn't say "I don't like this any more, I'll find some other way to pay you back," for example.
That's why the words "nor involuntary servitude" are in the Thirteenth Amendment.
"Many people need an authority that imposes a moral system because they aren't sufficiently intelligent to have a moral system otherwise."
You're assuming that intelligence, in and of itself, is enough to formulate a moral system. Basically, it seems you're picking an answer in the nature vs. nurture debate, and assuming that being raised in a country based on Protestant principles (regardless of whether or not those principles are truly divinely inspired) had absolutely nothing to do with it.
I'm curious to see some links to some of the behavioral biology you've mentioned.
"That's exactly what anonymous is talking about, this false sense that Nintendo is somehow this holier than though company of the people. Sony and Nintendo are the same company."
Dead pixel on a DS at launch? Nintendo said "Here's your new DS."
Dead pixel on a PSP at launch? Sony said "Well, gee, that's just the nature of the beast, all LCDs do that. It's not covered by the warranty, you'll just have to put up with it. What? Our competitors are replacing theirs, no questions asked? Damn, guess we'll have to do the same to keep face. But don't even think about complaining about the triangle button, that just adds to the aesthetic appeal!"
Face it: people around here like Nintendo more than Sony because Nintendo has far superior customer relations. You may have some weird BDSM preference, but I actually like being respected by people I give money to.
Slashdot Mirror
"There are only Dreamcast fans who lament its early commercial demise."
While showing off their spindle full of burned games.
"Not enough people, unfortunately, since I got Zelda for christmas, and I have no Wii to play it on >."
Same here. Good thing I got the GameCube version, sucka!
"There's also speculation that people want the Wii because the PS3s best game is Resistance: Fall of Man. This, of course, forget that there are plenty of cool PS3 games on the way,"
If "plenty of cool PS3 games" are coming later, wouldn't it make more sense to buy the PS3 later? The (crazy) people who got themselves a PS3 this Christmas wanted instant gratification, or else they wouldn't have spent all that money on eBay to begin with. They're not going to take kindly to waiting for things that are "on the way."
"and the PS3 has its own motion sensing technology, which, while not as good as the Wii, is still pretty cool and opens up Sony to emulate some of the Wii's successes.'"
SIXAXIS: almost as good for twice the price!
"Unless, of course, I'm accelerating it such that the vector appears equal in all directions or something."
I believe in the business they refer to that as "freefall," and that's what the wrist^Wwarnings to hold on tight are supposed to be there for.
"It's for everyone: if companies are forced to sell where wouldn't sell,"
You're forgetting the providers want to have their cake and eat it too. It's not that they're forced to offer service to all areas, but that they're required to offer service to all areas in exchange for eminent domain rights. I wouldn't have a problem with this decision if landowners themselves weren't still required to sell easements to the providers to run their wires.
"There are cases where even "evil monopolists" should be left to do certain aspects of their business without regulators messing in it."
Yes, those with a monopoly on their land should be able to do with it as they please, and if they want to charge each and every provider that wants to cross their lawn $1 per bit of information, it's their right.
"With the kind of laws regulating this industry, you wouldn't even be able to research *aspirin* today, let alone have it approved or sold."
"Aspirin" itself would likely still be a trademarked term in the United States had we not declared war on the country of origin. World War I and the ensuing revocation of Bayer's IP in the US was a boon to the generic drug industry.
No game ever used all the power of the Dreamcast, either.
"The beloved J. Alfred Prufrock said it best: "And so your Constitution, your Laws. They are naught but derivatives of English Common Law.""
What the fuck?!
I mean, couldn't you pull some bullshit Oscar Wilde quote out of your ass instead? Surely you could make something up and make it stick to him better than you can claim it came from a poem about a Slashdotter trying to meet women!
"If 3 stars is defined as having 2 gigs of ram and a video card with 256 megs of memory then:
A system with 4 gigs of ram and a video card with 256 megs of memory gets three stars,
A system with 2 gigs of ram and a video card with 512 megs of memory gets three stars, etc."
And what of 1 gig of RAM and 512 MB of video memory?
If anybody reading this is having such a problem, I'd be more than willing to help you with your problem and take that defective console off your hands for you. I'm willing to take this burden in the spirit of Christmas.
"The increasingly enjoyable games coverage continues on the MTV site, despite the horrible flash interface. Stephen Totitilo sat down for a chat with Sony's Phil Harrison, and comes away with some interesting perspectives on the year."
An interview with an executive from a game company that hardly focuses on playing games any more on a music channel that hardly focuess on playing music any more. Perfect!
"The primary point of this whole thing is that people can look at how many stars their computer has, look at how many stars are on the box and tell easily whether or not they can play it."
Ignoring that this is December and that there are now potentially people buying games for other people's computers, such a point system still fails because you don't know why you got as many or as few points as you did, nor do you know what you can do to improve your score. Not all games require the same kinds of resources, one game may need more system memory while another needs more video memory, but if both are given "3 points," then going by the point system would not guarantee that a game would run on your particular system.
Additionally, there's the question of whether publishers are willing to limit themselves to a hypothetical ideal machine. If a game's requirements skews away from what Microsoft thinks is a game machine, they could either rate their game as needing more points than might strictly be necessary (limiting their potential customer base) or by rating as needing fewer points (potentially angering customers who thought it would work).
In the end, you're still going to need to be technologicaly savvy to shop for comptuer games, and while you might mitigate the need for the fine print on the packaging somewhat, you're never going to eliminate it and PC game shopping will always be a black art.
"Oops, Excalibur 2 is from FF9. I go through RPG very fast and you'd not even come close to hitting the required time in anything that remotely resembles normal play."
Except that, well... have you seen the official (North American) guide for FFIX? Visit PlayOnline.com and enter "YGAWDY" to learn more about it!
"and around 20 years (of modern games) for the PC."
Ehh... anything much beyond 10 will require some goofy application to slow down your CPU. And even then, it seems you're far more likely to find used console games from that period than used PC games, unless you want to go the warez route.
Except that:
- I've known of Famitsu for years, but have never heard of Edge, and
- According to Wikipedia they're not published in the UK and the US, but the UK and Spain. Some of its content was carried in a US magazine that went defunct four years ago.
Really, the fact that you feel the need to make an analogy to try to show that something is well-known should itself demonstrate that it's not well-known.On a tangent, I can't think of any gaming magazines available in the US worth paying money for.
"Redmond is requiring that all titles use similar packaging and a distinctive logo."
The inclusion of a distinctive logo doesn't change the need to turn the box over and read the fine print for "required" and "reccomended" hardware to play the game. Console gaming works because a Wii is a Wii is a Wii.
It's like how Nintendo Power used to be?
Oh yeah, well my anecdotal evidence is more convincing than your anecdotal evidence!
How about this: a non-negligible number of people changed the UI back to "Windows Classic," and others would if they knew how.
Your words (emphasis mine):Pick a side, unless you are trying to argue that humans are a "special case."
"Nope again. Consider Buddhism, which has no particular gods (though you're not forbidden to believe in one)."
A straw man, otherwise you wouldn't have deliberately deleted my parenthetical "regardless of whether or not those principles are truly divinely inspired." I tried to be careful to make no attempt to try to suggest that any sort of divinity was needed, and please note that the word "divinity" need not be referring to a deity (e. g. your example of Buddhism may not have a deity but it certainly describes a divine order).
"Many people have argued that a moral system is the main benefit of most religions. Others have argued that this is the only known benefit of religions, which are rather damaging to society otherwise."
I have made neither claim, either to the value of religion or any need for mandatory compliance. I simply tried to point out that the prevailing influence of any sort of structured moral system on a society will have an effect on a person's upbringing and lifestyle, regardless of whether or not a particular household ascribes to it or not, and that you seemed to be assuming that it had little or no effect with little to back up your claim.
Personally, I can point to examples ranging from slavery to genocide (or even war in general), actions universally deemed as amoral, but committed because a particular society was raised to believe that such acts were actually moral ("It's for their own good").
"Various people have pointed out that the most important rule in many moral and ethical systems is "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you|. Biologist can now explain why this is actually a survival strategy, in the evolutionary sense."
From Wikipedia:It seems obvious to me that a codified, external moral code (regardless if it is religious in nature) functions as one of the "ever-more-sophisticated detectors," a measuring stick to identify such free-riders ("Does the subject abide by A, B and C?"). If a society has become accustomed to refrencing such an external moral code and their children are generally raised to not just "be good" but also (e. g.) "be law-abiding," how can you claim that an individual is capable of finding a similarly complex moral code from wholly internal sources without at least first finding an example of an individual raised in isolation?
"How come there are no fanboys of soap and shampoo?"
Shampoo?
"Polowski?" Is that a crack at her Baltimore upbrining?
How much longer until the TSA implements the "Fifth Element" solution and forcibly sedates everybody on the plane?
"Note that some slavery was voluntary in those days"
You have a selective definition of "voluntary." Sure, one might choose to enter indentured servitude, but being able to leave was solely at the discretion of the debtor. You couldn't say "I don't like this any more, I'll find some other way to pay you back," for example.
That's why the words "nor involuntary servitude" are in the Thirteenth Amendment.
"Many people need an authority that imposes a moral system because they aren't sufficiently intelligent to have a moral system otherwise."
You're assuming that intelligence, in and of itself, is enough to formulate a moral system. Basically, it seems you're picking an answer in the nature vs. nurture debate, and assuming that being raised in a country based on Protestant principles (regardless of whether or not those principles are truly divinely inspired) had absolutely nothing to do with it.
I'm curious to see some links to some of the behavioral biology you've mentioned.
"That's exactly what anonymous is talking about, this false sense that Nintendo is somehow this holier than though company of the people. Sony and Nintendo are the same company."
Dead pixel on a DS at launch? Nintendo said "Here's your new DS."
Dead pixel on a PSP at launch? Sony said "Well, gee, that's just the nature of the beast, all LCDs do that. It's not covered by the warranty, you'll just have to put up with it. What? Our competitors are replacing theirs, no questions asked? Damn, guess we'll have to do the same to keep face. But don't even think about complaining about the triangle button, that just adds to the aesthetic appeal!"
Face it: people around here like Nintendo more than Sony because Nintendo has far superior customer relations. You may have some weird BDSM preference, but I actually like being respected by people I give money to.