The Genesis launched with Altered Beast as the pack-in, and no real good games beyond that. Sonic didn't come along until quite a bit later, like almost two years later.
One good example you left off was the original NES, which launched with Super Mario Bros., perhaps the best launch game of all time.
The people who bought a playstation 2 this holiday season are a completely different market than people who bought any of the new consoles. You cannot reasonably compare them.
All the new consoles are over $250. What is they playstation? $120?
I agree that the winner has yet to be decided, but the notion that PS2 sales somehow says something about how Sony is doing doesn't hold up.
I second the TI love. I bought my TI-81 as a required element of a high school Algebra 2 course in 1991. I used it incessantly in every Math and CS class in both high school and college.
Just the other day I found it in a box and tried to dust it off to use it for some of my PhD cousework. Of course, the batteries were beyond corroded, so I had to pull them out and brush off the corrosion. Once I popped in a new set of batteries, it fired right up and has been working great for a week.
It's a great calculator, and is very, very easy to use. I love the fact that I can type out an equation fully using the familiar notation and initiate the calculation when I'm happy with it.
Go with the TI, and use it until it breaks in 25 years. Heck, maybe your kids will use it their algebra courses.
Such deliberate misunderstanding of the text. It boggles the mind.
1) Jesus was crucified to cleanse humanity of sin so that they would be capable of being in God's presence. In the process He created a new set of rules that stood in place of the old set of rules, because He Himself satisfied the old covenant.
2) This is a much longer discussion on Free Will versus Determinism, and I don't have adequate answers for it.
3) This was discussed in another part of this thread. You've misunderstood the meaning of the text, but that's not surprising, since it is hyperbole translated from an ancient language and missing the historical context. He's basically saying that you must love God so much more that all those other people in your life that it would seem like hate in comparison.
In summary, no, the new testament is nothing like the old.
If you don't adhere to ALL of what the bible says and you're cherry picking, then you're admitting that your morals stem from something else than the bible. That's ridiculous, and you know it. There is a very great distinction between the old and new testaments, and to ignore that distinction is just intellectually dishonest.
Progressive Christians apparently attempt to live according to the rules set forth in the NEW testament, which is a second covenant that superceded the first covenant laid out in the OLD testament.
So they can safely ignore the tribal survival nonsense found in the old testament AND claim to do what the Bible prescribes without being wrong or hypocritical.
However, I would argue that those people who selectively use passages from the old testament to condemn others are the worst kind of assholes, and will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
1) Jesus (or whoever) really is suggesting that people hate their relatives, even while saying the exact opposite many more times, even in the same book.
2) The meaning and context of this one statement has been distorted slightly over time, and/or is hyperbole anyway.
Occam's razor suggests to me that the simpler good explanation is #2. No, we will never know for sure. But that's how historical research differs from scientific research. It's inherently unrepeatable. So it is necessary to make best guesses from what we know, and I can't see how a "best guess" could include option #1.
True enough, but I'm guessing that the nature of this particular hyperbole is clearer if you're an ancient Jew reading the text in Hebrew or Greek.
In fact, the "Living Bible" apparently removes the attempt entirely, and replaces it with something like "To be my disciple, you must love me far greater than your parents, siblings, etc."
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple." Lk 14:26, words of Christ. The word "hate" is a clear mis-translation typical of a text that has had to forge the muddy waters of several languages, 2,000 years, and numerous cultural misunderstandings. We haven't done a good job over the years of making idiomatic meanings accessible.
There are so many instances like this in the modern bible that it is no wonder that we have such trouble gleaning anything meaningful from it.
I worked in science education for many years, have worked as a professional, and now am a dedicated amateur astronomer, and have been a head over heels fanatic for space exploration my whole life. Appeal for authority by an AC.
The worst part of it is that EVERY TIME NASA tries to do a mission on the cheep[sic], it FAILS. Ummm... I recall this mission being hailed for its success at a reasonable budget. However, your point, in principle, is understood. Bear in mind, though, that the typical government response to a problem is to throw money at it, allow asshats to build kingdoms, and rob a project of any genius it once had by forcing every last decision through five committees, all at great taxpayer expense. I'm not sure you can really point to budget, first and foremost, as the real problem. Think of what the shuttle cost compared to what was originally budgeted.
Challenger blew up when NASA management pushed for launch because they were more afraid of how another abort would look to Congress and how much it would cost to cycle the spacecraft again rather than the out of limits conditions for launch. Columbia broke up on reentry because NASA didn't have the money to fix the foam problem and didn't want to spend the money to check the heat shield while on orbit. The problems with the space shuttle cannot be reduced to budgetary issues. The shuttle was an interesting idea in 1975, but in reality was significantly worse than earlier, simpler alternatives. You could just as easily say that Challenger and Columbia were destroyed due to an inherently faulty design that made it essentially impossible to adequately mitigate risk due to sheer complexity. Regardless of budget. I don't think you could create a worthy shuttle fleet with an annual budget of $1 trillion.
"In order to accept and practice the religion you must submit to the dogmata and in respect of those dogmata give up personal control."
That is absolutely untrue. Just look at all the practicing Catholics across the world who hear what the Pope says but live an entirely different way. Birth control, anyone?
Religious authority figures present an idealize (by their standards) way of life, and not even the figures themselves are capable of following their doctrine, except in strange cases.
Admittedly, there DO exist people who devote their lives to a particular brand of Christianity to the extent that they *try* to offload all decision-making duties to the dogma or to some notion of divine intervention and guidance. However, in the case of these people, is it really religion that causes them to do this, or are they the type of people who were going to be sheep no matter what, and religion just swooped in to give them their most convenient opportunity?
So your solution to the usual tactic of attacking the person, not the argument, is to attack the person, not the argument? For your own pleasure? And because you feel like logical discourse is a waste of your time, but attacking them and creating anger and hostility toward your own viewpoints is a good use of your time?
Are you some kind of Neo-con think-tank agent sent to undermine the collective credibility of everybody who's against the war?
'Cause, if you're not, you should see if they're hiring. You might as well get paid for it.
1) Saddam's aid to AQ, and the fact that AQ is in Iraq right now.
You COULD have responded by noting that Saddam's aid to AQ was no greater than any other leader in the middle east, and that the only reason AQ is in Iraq now is because the US attacked Iraq, creating a West/Middle East cultural clashing point and drawing in AQ.
Instead, you pretended that his politics were so flawed that you couldn't even respond.
2) Saddam DID have WMDs.
You COULD have responded by saying that Saddam's WMDs were left over from 15 years ago, and the bio nature of them had long since rendered them useless. You could have further noted that no viable WMDs were found, and certainly not any that could have justified the Iraq war in and of themselves, as was the original justification. In addition, it had long been noted by weapons inspectors that Iraq's WMD development capabilities appeared to have long been destroyed or dismantled.
Instead, you offered a worthless post. Actually, less than worthless. Counterproductive.
I could go on, but the point is, this poster served you up a perfect opportunity to refute what you consider FUD point by point, but you passed on that and decided to attack him.
Congratulations, you are part of what's wrong with discourse in the world today.
I can't speak for anyone else, but in my book 8.65 million in sales doesn't equal "sold very poorly."
I recall the Game Gear being a very cool system. I owned the original GameBoy and the original, VHS-cassette-sized Atari Lynx, and I remember wishing I had a Game Gear. At that time, the ability to play Sonic the Hedgehog on a handheld was unbelievably cool.
It should be obvious that the GP is referring to making OS features (of which IE is, arguably, one) available on other platforms for free.
The "Office" example is an entirely separate product, sold separately for cash, and unrelated to the operating system, except that, in this case, the same parent company owns both products.
Incorrect. The price of currently-illegal drugs is already *artificially* inflated, due to the corruption, risk, and difficulty involved in trafficking illegal drugs. The "Spain" example is not what we're discussing.
If you remove the risk associated with the manufacture, distribution, and sale of drugs, then the price becomes:
Cost to manufacture + competitive profit margin...because suddenly drug manufacturers must price their product to compete with other manufacturer's offerings.
For example, let's be outrageous and say a kilogram of cocain might cost $50 to make, though, since it's just an agricultural product with some processing, I bet it's more like $10. Fifty dollars per kilogram implies 5 cents per gram. Tack on some additional distribution and sales costs, and we'll say $0.25 per gram, on the VERY high side.
Right now cocaine sells from between $40 and $80 per gram on the street, according to Wikipedia. That's 40 to 80 thousand dollars per kilo.
Somehow that doesn't pass the smell test. Are you counting profits from software licensing fees? I'd be interested to see a link that discusses this issue.
If Sony actually lost money on the PS2, why would they bother making a PS3? I mean, PS2 sold more than any console in HISTORY, and it's not done yet. If Sony couldn't at least eke out a profit on it, what possible motivation would there be to release yet ANOTHER console, in what will surely be an even more competitive 2006-2012 gaming environment? Sony is in no position to throw money down a drain.
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that, all told, and hidden revenues counted, Sony turned a very nice profit on their console gaming division and wants to try to do it again starting this November.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, your information is incorrect.
In the U.S., at least, both Super Mario Bros. and the NES released on October 18, 1985.
I agree that Japan did not launch with SMB, however we did seem to be talking about the U.S. market.
Just to clarify:
The Genesis launched with Altered Beast as the pack-in, and no real good games beyond that. Sonic didn't come along until quite a bit later, like almost two years later.
One good example you left off was the original NES, which launched with Super Mario Bros., perhaps the best launch game of all time.
The people who bought a playstation 2 this holiday season are a completely different market than people who bought any of the new consoles. You cannot reasonably compare them.
All the new consoles are over $250. What is they playstation? $120?
I agree that the winner has yet to be decided, but the notion that PS2 sales somehow says something about how Sony is doing doesn't hold up.
I second the TI love. I bought my TI-81 as a required element of a high school Algebra 2 course in 1991. I used it incessantly in every Math and CS class in both high school and college.
Just the other day I found it in a box and tried to dust it off to use it for some of my PhD cousework. Of course, the batteries were beyond corroded, so I had to pull them out and brush off the corrosion. Once I popped in a new set of batteries, it fired right up and has been working great for a week.
It's a great calculator, and is very, very easy to use. I love the fact that I can type out an equation fully using the familiar notation and initiate the calculation when I'm happy with it.
Go with the TI, and use it until it breaks in 25 years. Heck, maybe your kids will use it their algebra courses.
No way, MS will have a patch for Outlook to handle that shortly.
The Wright brothers developed POWERED flight. That is a hugely different thing than a glider that can ride thermals.
Powered flight = birds
Non-powered flight = flying squirrel
Both are impressive achievements, but be real. The Wright brothers fathered modern air travel.
I really thought you were going to link to this: Night of the Lepus!
Such deliberate misunderstanding of the text. It boggles the mind.
1) Jesus was crucified to cleanse humanity of sin so that they would be capable of being in God's presence. In the process He created a new set of rules that stood in place of the old set of rules, because He Himself satisfied the old covenant.
2) This is a much longer discussion on Free Will versus Determinism, and I don't have adequate answers for it.
3) This was discussed in another part of this thread. You've misunderstood the meaning of the text, but that's not surprising, since it is hyperbole translated from an ancient language and missing the historical context. He's basically saying that you must love God so much more that all those other people in your life that it would seem like hate in comparison.
In summary, no, the new testament is nothing like the old.
Progressive Christians apparently attempt to live according to the rules set forth in the NEW testament, which is a second covenant that superceded the first covenant laid out in the OLD testament.
So they can safely ignore the tribal survival nonsense found in the old testament AND claim to do what the Bible prescribes without being wrong or hypocritical.
However, I would argue that those people who selectively use passages from the old testament to condemn others are the worst kind of assholes, and will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Ignoring that your option #3 is basically my option #1, we seem to be saying the same thing.
Specifically, that over time the bible has changed from its original oral tradition to some flawed approximation, due to various factors.
Which is more likely:
1) Jesus (or whoever) really is suggesting that people hate their relatives, even while saying the exact opposite many more times, even in the same book.
2) The meaning and context of this one statement has been distorted slightly over time, and/or is hyperbole anyway.
Occam's razor suggests to me that the simpler good explanation is #2. No, we will never know for sure. But that's how historical research differs from scientific research. It's inherently unrepeatable. So it is necessary to make best guesses from what we know, and I can't see how a "best guess" could include option #1.
True enough, but I'm guessing that the nature of this particular hyperbole is clearer if you're an ancient Jew reading the text in Hebrew or Greek.
In fact, the "Living Bible" apparently removes the attempt entirely, and replaces it with something like "To be my disciple, you must love me far greater than your parents, siblings, etc."
There are so many instances like this in the modern bible that it is no wonder that we have such trouble gleaning anything meaningful from it.
No, you misunderstood. There are two apparent functions that are totally separate:
1) Extract heat and use heat differential to generate electricity.
2) Use electricity supply to cool down to -200.
Either one or the other, but not both at the same time.
"In order to accept and practice the religion you must submit to the dogmata and in respect of those dogmata give up personal control."
That is absolutely untrue. Just look at all the practicing Catholics across the world who hear what the Pope says but live an entirely different way. Birth control, anyone?
Religious authority figures present an idealize (by their standards) way of life, and not even the figures themselves are capable of following their doctrine, except in strange cases.
Admittedly, there DO exist people who devote their lives to a particular brand of Christianity to the extent that they *try* to offload all decision-making duties to the dogma or to some notion of divine intervention and guidance. However, in the case of these people, is it really religion that causes them to do this, or are they the type of people who were going to be sheep no matter what, and religion just swooped in to give them their most convenient opportunity?
So your solution to the usual tactic of attacking the person, not the argument, is to attack the person, not the argument? For your own pleasure? And because you feel like logical discourse is a waste of your time, but attacking them and creating anger and hostility toward your own viewpoints is a good use of your time?
Are you some kind of Neo-con think-tank agent sent to undermine the collective credibility of everybody who's against the war?
'Cause, if you're not, you should see if they're hiring. You might as well get paid for it.
Ok, how about responding to:
1) Saddam's aid to AQ, and the fact that AQ is in Iraq right now.
You COULD have responded by noting that Saddam's aid to AQ was no greater than any other leader in the middle east, and that the only reason AQ is in Iraq now is because the US attacked Iraq, creating a West/Middle East cultural clashing point and drawing in AQ.
Instead, you pretended that his politics were so flawed that you couldn't even respond.
2) Saddam DID have WMDs.
You COULD have responded by saying that Saddam's WMDs were left over from 15 years ago, and the bio nature of them had long since rendered them useless. You could have further noted that no viable WMDs were found, and certainly not any that could have justified the Iraq war in and of themselves, as was the original justification. In addition, it had long been noted by weapons inspectors that Iraq's WMD development capabilities appeared to have long been destroyed or dismantled.
Instead, you offered a worthless post. Actually, less than worthless. Counterproductive.
I could go on, but the point is, this poster served you up a perfect opportunity to refute what you consider FUD point by point, but you passed on that and decided to attack him.
Congratulations, you are part of what's wrong with discourse in the world today.
Would you consider refuting his points, as opposed to attacking his politics?
I can't speak for anyone else, but in my book 8.65 million in sales doesn't equal "sold very poorly."
I recall the Game Gear being a very cool system. I owned the original GameBoy and the original, VHS-cassette-sized Atari Lynx, and I remember wishing I had a Game Gear. At that time, the ability to play Sonic the Hedgehog on a handheld was unbelievably cool.
It should be obvious that the GP is referring to making OS features (of which IE is, arguably, one) available on other platforms for free.
The "Office" example is an entirely separate product, sold separately for cash, and unrelated to the operating system, except that, in this case, the same parent company owns both products.
Incorrect. The price of currently-illegal drugs is already *artificially* inflated, due to the corruption, risk, and difficulty involved in trafficking illegal drugs. The "Spain" example is not what we're discussing.
...because suddenly drug manufacturers must price their product to compete with other manufacturer's offerings.
If you remove the risk associated with the manufacture, distribution, and sale of drugs, then the price becomes:
Cost to manufacture + competitive profit margin
For example, let's be outrageous and say a kilogram of cocain might cost $50 to make, though, since it's just an agricultural product with some processing, I bet it's more like $10. Fifty dollars per kilogram implies 5 cents per gram. Tack on some additional distribution and sales costs, and we'll say $0.25 per gram, on the VERY high side.
Right now cocaine sells from between $40 and $80 per gram on the street, according to Wikipedia. That's 40 to 80 thousand dollars per kilo.
Somehow that doesn't pass the smell test. Are you counting profits from software licensing fees? I'd be interested to see a link that discusses this issue.
If Sony actually lost money on the PS2, why would they bother making a PS3? I mean, PS2 sold more than any console in HISTORY, and it's not done yet. If Sony couldn't at least eke out a profit on it, what possible motivation would there be to release yet ANOTHER console, in what will surely be an even more competitive 2006-2012 gaming environment? Sony is in no position to throw money down a drain.
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that, all told, and hidden revenues counted, Sony turned a very nice profit on their console gaming division and wants to try to do it again starting this November.
Your point is taken about Gamecube's success, though I'd imagine Sony also made quite a bundle off the PS2...
Are you kidding? It's almost exactly the opposite!
You've never heard of "creative accounting", I take it. It was in all the papers a few years back.