Not surprised that I'm mistaken, because I've not yet been tainted by Vista and have no need to do the research. I'm one of the lucky ones at my company that runs Linux. I have an XP box at home, but it's the last Windows box I will ever own.
Maybe you need to exercise your capability for abstract thought and metaphor. I'm guessing you and the other AC have never spent much time with large operations departments. Any excuse not to upgrade will be leveraged to the limit, and the our-poor-sad-sick-infrastructure is the one I hear most.
This is the last time I'm going to justify my choice of words to an AC. If you want to engage me, post with your name.
Exactly. The corporate world is always miles behind. My company is just still malingering on 2K on a lot of boxes, just now getting to XP. Big companies are not known for leaping forward into new and unproven technologies, especially when most of the improvement is just user eye-candy.
Actually, I'm paying *middle* dollar for a system with a new control paradigm that is back-compatible with gamecube and a huge library of older titles via virtual console, has a web browser and messaging, SD card multimedia, and with on-line updates pretty much any other software option that will fit within its capabilities.
If your measure of gaming value is based strictly on horsepower, then sure, Wii is a broken-down old nag. I said before that I will probably end up owning a PS3 some day to play higher performance stuff. I'm not looking at this as an exclusive decision. All I took issue with was the whine from the spec-freaks that everyone who likes Wii is a Nintendo fanboy. That is prima facie nonsense. Wii is smoking PS3 and XBox 360 in sales, and the Cult of Nintendo isn't big enough to explain that. The answer has to be elsewhere, and the "elsewhere" is that Wii is damn fun to play.
What is it with this "fanboy" ad hominem nonsense? It must really sting to see wimpy Nintendo kicking your techno-powerhouse asses all over the schoolyard.
I have owned a PSX and PS2 and loved both. I considered myself a dedicated Sony customer until they tried to sell Blu-ray to me through an incremental-improvement (don't start citing the specs, I'm taking playability) game platform. If I was in the market for a Blu-ray player, I would consider PS3 a bargain. I'm not, though, so it looks to me like an overpriced boondoggle offering no real gains. I probably will buy a PS3 some day to get a bargain blu-ray player and keep my PSX/PS2 library playable. Plus there's bound to be some must-have game for the platform (probably the next Wipeout) that will drive me. Right now I simply have no reason.
I bought a Wii and I love it. I owned the original NES until around 1990, bought a GC to play Godzilla Destroy All Monsters Melee (before it was ported) but other than that have never been particularly partial to Nintendo. I bought a Wii because it looked like *fun* for me and my wife and kids to play together and it is!
So, if anyone needs to give the "fanboy bullshit" a rest, it's all you jackasses claiming the Wii is a fan phenomenon. It is winning because it is selling to fans and to new customers of all kinds, whether they are existing gamers or not. It is winning because it is a blast to play, just like Pac Man or Doom are still fun, in all their pixelated glory.
Generalization, guilt by association, straw man, ad hominem, non sequitur. You are absolutely as bad as "they" are.
If you still persist in basing your opinion of all religious people on the ravings of a few nut jobs pushing one interpretation of the most debated text in history, then this is going nowhere. You can return your attention to the slashdot atheist choir. I'll resume conversation with my atheist friends who can have divergent opinions without being hateful bigots.
And you have cherry picked one example of a person calling himself Christian to make your case against all of them. A wise friend of mine once said that the one thing all Christian denominations agree on is that all the others are wrong. You obviously know nothing about Christianity if you can make such sweeping claims about its true nature or origins.
Where I was trying to lead you, and where you stubbornly failed to follow, is that there is no definition of Christianity that comes from Christ. Christ is the invention of the followers of Jesus. Christianity per se did not even until decades after His (sic) death. Jesus was a radical Jewish reformer. What we call Christianity today is a melding of Judaism, the teachings of Jesus, and any number of other absorbed mythological systems, primarily Roman paganism.
So don't get so high and mighty about "true" Christians. It doesn't work for them, and it works even less for you.
There should be a corollary of Godwin's Law for the line pursued above, namely responding to theological or semantic debates on religious/scientific matters with a bash against religion based on the misbehavior of some of its practitioners. I wonder how SimHacker would respond if pointed to the body counts of the atheist regimes of the 20th century?
I can match one-for-one any abuse of religion with great works of charity, so let's not start down that road. If you look at it objectively, what currently passes for debate is nothing more than dogmatic shrieking on both sides; two camps convinced they have The Answer about unprovable assertions and that the other side is either a bunch of brainwashed, drooling cretins or a deliberate Satanic conspiracy to undermine the authority of God.
I am not an apologist for unscientific thinking. Neither am I an apologist for anti-religious hostility dressed up as intellectually superior atheism. I am an apologist for civil discourse, honest investigation, and recognizing the boundaries of both scientific theory and religious thought.
(Yeah, and sometimes I'm just a troll)
Funny, I don't recall this "enabler" thing being such a prominent theme before His Holiness Dawkins came out with his latest screed against religion. Some prior art on that is another citation I'd be interested in.
You are obviously a most erudite and advanced scholar of this topic, so why don't you back up your BS with some citations for "Christ's definition of Christianity"? .
"South Park has lampooned a multitude of religions since the first season. Last year Comedy Central (owned by Viacom) forced them to remove the image of Mohammad from an episode."
You're do realize that "censoring" Mohamed was part of the gag, do you not? The show wouldn't have been funny (to the extent that any episode of South Park is funny) without it.
Slashdot Mirror
Did somebody just post the subject "don't waste your time" with two links to YouTube videos? I can't even begin to tell you what's wrong with that!
we dont need your kind here, destroying our freedom.
Apparently someone already pried your shift key from your cold dead fingers.
Not surprised that I'm mistaken, because I've not yet been tainted by Vista and have no need to do the research. I'm one of the lucky ones at my company that runs Linux. I have an XP box at home, but it's the last Windows box I will ever own.
Maybe you need to exercise your capability for abstract thought and metaphor. I'm guessing you and the other AC have never spent much time with large operations departments. Any excuse not to upgrade will be leveraged to the limit, and the our-poor-sad-sick-infrastructure is the one I hear most.
This is the last time I'm going to justify my choice of words to an AC. If you want to engage me, post with your name.
No, AC. That is pretty much exactly what I meant.
Exactly. The corporate world is always miles behind. My company is just still malingering on 2K on a lot of boxes, just now getting to XP. Big companies are not known for leaping forward into new and unproven technologies, especially when most of the improvement is just user eye-candy.
I believe the parent is referring to the alcohol content of the beverage, not of the blood of the consumer.
Actually, I'm paying *middle* dollar for a system with a new control paradigm that is back-compatible with gamecube and a huge library of older titles via virtual console, has a web browser and messaging, SD card multimedia, and with on-line updates pretty much any other software option that will fit within its capabilities.
If your measure of gaming value is based strictly on horsepower, then sure, Wii is a broken-down old nag. I said before that I will probably end up owning a PS3 some day to play higher performance stuff. I'm not looking at this as an exclusive decision. All I took issue with was the whine from the spec-freaks that everyone who likes Wii is a Nintendo fanboy. That is prima facie nonsense. Wii is smoking PS3 and XBox 360 in sales, and the Cult of Nintendo isn't big enough to explain that. The answer has to be elsewhere, and the "elsewhere" is that Wii is damn fun to play.
First fanboy and now retard. I forget my place.
I resist my temptation to ignore AC...
"Oh give the fanboy bullshit a rest!"
What is it with this "fanboy" ad hominem nonsense? It must really sting to see wimpy Nintendo kicking your techno-powerhouse asses all over the schoolyard.
I have owned a PSX and PS2 and loved both. I considered myself a dedicated Sony customer until they tried to sell Blu-ray to me through an incremental-improvement (don't start citing the specs, I'm taking playability) game platform. If I was in the market for a Blu-ray player, I would consider PS3 a bargain. I'm not, though, so it looks to me like an overpriced boondoggle offering no real gains. I probably will buy a PS3 some day to get a bargain blu-ray player and keep my PSX/PS2 library playable. Plus there's bound to be some must-have game for the platform (probably the next Wipeout) that will drive me. Right now I simply have no reason.
I bought a Wii and I love it. I owned the original NES until around 1990, bought a GC to play Godzilla Destroy All Monsters Melee (before it was ported) but other than that have never been particularly partial to Nintendo. I bought a Wii because it looked like *fun* for me and my wife and kids to play together and it is!
So, if anyone needs to give the "fanboy bullshit" a rest, it's all you jackasses claiming the Wii is a fan phenomenon. It is winning because it is selling to fans and to new customers of all kinds, whether they are existing gamers or not. It is winning because it is a blast to play, just like Pac Man or Doom are still fun, in all their pixelated glory.
"Read all about it here"
Careful! They'll press charges on you for slashdotting them!
"or is it just that the three or four units the store gets every two weeks are flying off the shelf?"
I got mine a week ago Sunday at a Target that got ninety and sold them in a day.
From what I hear, all the Targets in the area got similarly large shipments of 60-90 that week and all sold out.
Generalization, guilt by association, straw man, ad hominem, non sequitur. You are absolutely as bad as "they" are.
If you still persist in basing your opinion of all religious people on the ravings of a few nut jobs pushing one interpretation of the most debated text in history, then this is going nowhere. You can return your attention to the slashdot atheist choir. I'll resume conversation with my atheist friends who can have divergent opinions without being hateful bigots.
And you have cherry picked one example of a person calling himself Christian to make your case against all of them. A wise friend of mine once said that the one thing all Christian denominations agree on is that all the others are wrong. You obviously know nothing about Christianity if you can make such sweeping claims about its true nature or origins.
Where I was trying to lead you, and where you stubbornly failed to follow, is that there is no definition of Christianity that comes from Christ. Christ is the invention of the followers of Jesus. Christianity per se did not even until decades after His (sic) death. Jesus was a radical Jewish reformer. What we call Christianity today is a melding of Judaism, the teachings of Jesus, and any number of other absorbed mythological systems, primarily Roman paganism.
So don't get so high and mighty about "true" Christians. It doesn't work for them, and it works even less for you.
There should be a corollary of Godwin's Law for the line pursued above, namely responding to theological or semantic debates on religious/scientific matters with a bash against religion based on the misbehavior of some of its practitioners. I wonder how SimHacker would respond if pointed to the body counts of the atheist regimes of the 20th century?
I can match one-for-one any abuse of religion with great works of charity, so let's not start down that road. If you look at it objectively, what currently passes for debate is nothing more than dogmatic shrieking on both sides; two camps convinced they have The Answer about unprovable assertions and that the other side is either a bunch of brainwashed, drooling cretins or a deliberate Satanic conspiracy to undermine the authority of God.
I am not an apologist for unscientific thinking. Neither am I an apologist for anti-religious hostility dressed up as intellectually superior atheism. I am an apologist for civil discourse, honest investigation, and recognizing the boundaries of both scientific theory and religious thought.
(Yeah, and sometimes I'm just a troll)
Funny, I don't recall this "enabler" thing being such a prominent theme before His Holiness Dawkins came out with his latest screed against religion. Some prior art on that is another citation I'd be interested in.
I don't see anything there about "Christ's definition of Christianity", which is what you were making claims about.
No less idiotic than failing to distinguish between lies and metaphors.
You are obviously a most erudite and advanced scholar of this topic, so why don't you back up your BS with some citations for "Christ's definition of Christianity"? .
OK. I stand corrected. In that case, the Comedy Central censors are funnier than SP's writers. They should put them in charge.
"South Park has lampooned a multitude of religions since the first season. Last year Comedy Central (owned by Viacom) forced them to remove the image of Mohammad from an episode."
You're do realize that "censoring" Mohamed was part of the gag, do you not? The show wouldn't have been funny (to the extent that any episode of South Park is funny) without it.
Ah, that clears it all up. Thanks!
"the poor are poor by choice doing stupid crap like this and its a failure of the education system not teaching financial responsibility"
Huh? Is it the poor's fault or the educational system's fault?
So fired...
This is just sick. Every time I hear this shrill siren about protecting the children I know they're coming for another liberty.
I, for one, don't want my kids growing up in a country run by the thought police.