You see, Slashdot loves Google just a little too much. As such, they take comments like that way too seriously. However, Slashdot also hates Microsoft. So the exact same joke would be modded +5 Funny.
Don't worry, it'll be fashionable to hate Google soon enough. In the mean time, though, you have to be sensitive to those whose biases are challenged way too severely.
"Being stuck using *shudder* Outlook at work makes me wish we had GMail mailboxes at work."
I wouldn't mind it, either. However, I'd miss my Todo list, notes, and some of the collaborative stuff Exchange offers with OL. Google has more work to do.
"I disagree. The word "evidence" is in the sentence you quoted, and the state was trying to prove he was guilty. If it's not evidence of guilt, than what is it evidence of? How exactly are you parsing that quote?"
He's probably thinking "It may be evidence of intent, but not necessarily guilt." Though they are related to each other, they're not exactly the same.
I don't know if I'm right about what he meant, but what I just stated is what I think, so I'll go into more detail. (note: I don't really know the details of the case so I'm ONLY speaking hypothetically here.) Suppose they found child porn on his computer. There are some questions to ask. Did he download it deliberately? Did he know they were minors? (I bring that up because it can be difficult to ascertain the age of somebody based solely on physical appearance.) Did he knowingly do something wrong?
If it was clear he was trying to hide those files (i.e. by encrypting them...) then some of those questions have obvious answers. In that event, it's not to establish his guilt, but rather to establish his motive and how he should be punished.
It may sound like I'm splitting hairs here, and maybe that's true, but if the system is working as it should then he'll be judged by properly acquired evidence, not his behavior.
Heh. Well I'm not exactly being mr. innocent in this thread. I've had a short fuse with twerps who argue out of bias. Star Wars and video games both have given me a lot of trouble.
"Certainly 30 or 1000 runs of some benchmark to ascertain a statistical significance isn't too much to ask to back your claim that the XBox's hardware smokes the shit out of the PS2's hardware... is it?"
Games look better on XBOX than PS2. I don't know why you need statistics to compare the two.
"The bottom line is, They are packing a lot of punch into this system for a good price, and if that's not what you are looking for.... nobody is forcing you to buy it."
That's a great point, or at least it would be if I said I was being forced to buy anything.
"This is going nowhere, so this will be my last reply, regardless of what you say. Wasted too much time already."
Cute way of dodging my questions. So, why did you basically just repeat yourself, claim you're wasting time, then avoid answering my questions?
Personally, I think it's because you're an insecure fan-boy. I know because I'm like that about Nintendo. Prove me wrong.
You fucking Liar. Heh. You went straight into argue mode. Now I've got to repeat myself, yet again.
"Sounds to me like you want this to be a regular xbox & not an xbox 360. So buy a damn xbox!! I don't know about you, but I see no point in having to pay $199 for a new system that is exactly the same as what we already have."
Yeah, just like the GameCube wasn't much of an upgrade to the N64. Heh. You're trying just a little too hard to shoot me down here. (what's even funnier is that Nintendo didn't sell those at a loss.) Well, you know what they say about a fool and his money...
So, I gotta ask, why are you taking this so personally? Why are my views so threatening to you? Why are you going as far as putting words into my mouth? Why do you think I'm an idiot for wanting to keep my spending under control?
"They already sell it at a loss. What more do you want them to do?"
Cut down the specs a bit and make it AFFORDABLE.
" Gamers (in general) are the whiniest(sp?) people I've ever seen."
Um, okay. Thing is, I didn't say all that. $399 is out of my price range. I want less power for cheaper.
You're sick of people wanting too much, I'm sick of over zealous twerps intentionally ignoring what I'm saying. At the very beginning of this discussion, I was clear on my point that I wanted a cheaper system. Not a cheaper system without any sacrifice to it, a cheaper system with lower specs.
Before you hit reply, re-read what I said and LISTEN. I don't care if you agree with me or not, but for fuck's sake, LISTEN. I really am tired of arguing over things I didn't say and having what I did say tossed out the window. It's fucking irritating.
"but you're crying because you might have to spend $399."
Might? There is no might. I *won't*. I wouldn't spend that on a Nintendo console even though I'm an extreme Nintendo zealot. There's no crying about it. If you want to throw your money away, have at it.
"I thought GWTW was an overrated piece of trash, although with incredible scenery and costumes. I prefer movies with more of a plot and preferably with multi-dimensional characters. Failing that, I'd like the characters to at least be sympathetic, but the only one of the lot I liked was Melanie."
I don't think this list of movies were rated by 'stands the test of time', but rather the effects they had on people when they were released. At least that explains why A New Hope made it and Empire Strikes Back didn't.
"They list the inferior Star Wars (ANH) and don't give The Empire Strikes Back?"
Eh. Depends on how you measure it. If you're looking at it from the "quality movie" point of view, then yeah, Emp wins. But if you're looking at it from a "holy shit! I didn't know they could do that!" ANH wins.
I agree, these preferences aren't very scientific, but I wanted to nitpick that little detail. hehe.:)
"Being too fucking dense to read what you are replying to is bad enough, but being so arrogant as to pretend you are being ignored because you aren't participating in group think is beyond rediculous. "
Said the guy who tried to throw my entire post away.
"Why would you expect everyone to be complaining about Sony when they aren't doing this, and MS is?"
a.) Few people here actually understand the nature of the monopoly.
b.) Sony's getting close to creating a monopoly and doing what MS was doing.
c.) MS having a monopoly has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that Microsoft has deep pockets. Sony has deep pockets, same problem, but they're being ignored.
Heh. I actually said all this in the post you poo poo'd. Maybe you shouldn't reply while gritting your teeth.;)
"Not talking about graphics here. What don't you understand about "entire system"?"
I understand that the GameCube, an entire system, launched at $199. I also understand that the XBOX and the PS2 launched, as complete systems, for $299.
"$399 gets you better graphics AS WELLL AS... faster framerates, more intelligent AI, Better Physics, more realistic everything."
It gets you a LITTLE better. The change isn't all that drastic.
"If nobody cared about video quality or performance, we'd still be playing games like pong."
Funny, that sounds like a rebuttal, except it doesn't actually touch on anything I've said. However, I'll reply anyway: 3DO.
"How the heck do you expect them to build an entire system for less than the price of a decent PC Video Card?"
I imagine it's because they've been doing it for the last 2 generations.
"I'd say $399 is a steal!!"
That's a lot of money to spend on slightly prettier graphics that will be dated before too long anyway. I'd rather buy two Nintendo DS's with a copy of Mario Kart than a PS3 or XBOX at $399. Then again, I play games, not graphics.
"All three of these consoles are going to be wicked powerful, omfg just because ps3 is 1.32012535x faster then xbox360 doesn't mean that it sucks all of a sudden. Fanboys need to take some chill pills!"
I'm more worried about price than power. Sony and Microsoft can each bite my butt if the $399 rumor is true.
"My post was specifically saying that MS DOES HAVE A MONOPOLY, and that not managing to take over a totally seperate market on their first product doesn't magically remove the monopolies they do have in other markets."
Your post said that the monopoly was 'the problem'. That's what I replied to. I questioned the relevance of what you said, and I was well within my right to do so.
As for ignoring me, I really do not care. It wouldn't be the first time I was ignored because I didn't participate in Slashdot group-think.
"Because they are (illegally) using their monopoly profits to develop and then dump the xbox at below cost to the market. Other companies who do not have fat monopoly profits can not afford to do this."
Sony spent 2 billion dollars developing the PS2 AND sold it below cost. I guess money's really is spendable even when it's not from a monopoly!
"The problem with the xbox is that they are using the billions of dollars they made from their OS monopoly to push their way into other markets."
Despite that, they still didn't take the market over. At the end of the day, they still have to create a product that people want. If they succeed at that, that is NOT the definition of a monopoly.
Frankly, the assertion that MS used 'monopoly money' to fund the XBOX is dubious at best. It's based on the assumption that MS made every single penny off of Windows (or Office) because of a monopoly. This is not true by a long shot. MS had to become a monopoly before it could use that power to maintain a monopoly. Windows is a de-facto monopoly. (It's actually stated in the court ruling that MS wasn't guilty of creating a monopoly, just for trying to maintain it. Everybody around here seems to have skipped over that part.)
This isn't relevent anyway. The 'problem' isn't that MS has a monopoly in a different market, the problem is that Microsoft has deep pockets. Sony does, too. That's why they spent 2 billion dollars developing the PS2. That's nearly half the money Nintendo has in the bank. I can't believe you guys are all apeshit over the XBOX but you're completely ignoring the BIGGEST 'threat'. Sony is DOMINATING the market. Not only have they squeezed out Sega, but they've also put up a barrier that even MS couldn't crack. They put out the most inferior hardware, yet they sold the most. Where's the anti-Sony pitchforks, mmm? You're ALL so busy spelling MS with a dollar sign that you're not actually paying attention to what's really happening around you.
Don't tell me I don't understand what a monopoly is and that you do. Sony's creating one right under your nose, but you're all busy being led by your biases.
Slashdot Mirror
"What are you talking about TROLL????"
You see, Slashdot loves Google just a little too much. As such, they take comments like that way too seriously. However, Slashdot also hates Microsoft. So the exact same joke would be modded +5 Funny.
Don't worry, it'll be fashionable to hate Google soon enough. In the mean time, though, you have to be sensitive to those whose biases are challenged way too severely.
"Being stuck using *shudder* Outlook at work makes me wish we had GMail mailboxes at work."
I wouldn't mind it, either. However, I'd miss my Todo list, notes, and some of the collaborative stuff Exchange offers with OL. Google has more work to do.
"I disagree. The word "evidence" is in the sentence you quoted, and the state was trying to prove he was guilty. If it's not evidence of guilt, than what is it evidence of? How exactly are you parsing that quote?"
He's probably thinking "It may be evidence of intent, but not necessarily guilt." Though they are related to each other, they're not exactly the same.
I don't know if I'm right about what he meant, but what I just stated is what I think, so I'll go into more detail. (note: I don't really know the details of the case so I'm ONLY speaking hypothetically here.) Suppose they found child porn on his computer. There are some questions to ask. Did he download it deliberately? Did he know they were minors? (I bring that up because it can be difficult to ascertain the age of somebody based solely on physical appearance.) Did he knowingly do something wrong?
If it was clear he was trying to hide those files (i.e. by encrypting them...) then some of those questions have obvious answers. In that event, it's not to establish his guilt, but rather to establish his motive and how he should be punished.
It may sound like I'm splitting hairs here, and maybe that's true, but if the system is working as it should then he'll be judged by properly acquired evidence, not his behavior.
Heh. Well I'm not exactly being mr. innocent in this thread. I've had a short fuse with twerps who argue out of bias. Star Wars and video games both have given me a lot of trouble.
"Certainly 30 or 1000 runs of some benchmark to ascertain a statistical significance isn't too much to ask to back your claim that the XBox's hardware smokes the shit out of the PS2's hardware... is it?"
Games look better on XBOX than PS2. I don't know why you need statistics to compare the two.
"The bottom line is, They are packing a lot of punch into this system for a good price, and if that's not what you are looking for.... nobody is forcing you to buy it."
That's a great point, or at least it would be if I said I was being forced to buy anything.
"This is going nowhere, so this will be my last reply, regardless of what you say. Wasted too much time already."
Cute way of dodging my questions. So, why did you basically just repeat yourself, claim you're wasting time, then avoid answering my questions?
Personally, I think it's because you're an insecure fan-boy. I know because I'm like that about Nintendo. Prove me wrong.
"Back to reality"
Dwayne Dibbly? Oh thanks for reminding me!
"Maybe that's why I couldn't remember my girlfriends birthday."
You don't need to memorize it, just read it off the box!
"Two weeks ago I started attempting the puzzles again. My times have improved by more than 20 percent."
;)
Yeah, they go a lot quicker if you've done them already.
"Read once. Re-Read. Re-Read again....."
..
You fucking Liar. Heh. You went straight into argue mode. Now I've got to repeat myself, yet again.
"Sounds to me like you want this to be a regular xbox & not an xbox 360. So buy a damn xbox!! I don't know about you, but I see no point in having to pay $199 for a new system that is exactly the same as what we already have."
Yeah, just like the GameCube wasn't much of an upgrade to the N64. Heh. You're trying just a little too hard to shoot me down here. (what's even funnier is that Nintendo didn't sell those at a loss.) Well, you know what they say about a fool and his money.
So, I gotta ask, why are you taking this so personally? Why are my views so threatening to you? Why are you going as far as putting words into my mouth? Why do you think I'm an idiot for wanting to keep my spending under control?
"They already sell it at a loss. What more do you want them to do?"
Cut down the specs a bit and make it AFFORDABLE.
" Gamers (in general) are the whiniest(sp?) people I've ever seen."
Um, okay. Thing is, I didn't say all that. $399 is out of my price range. I want less power for cheaper.
You're sick of people wanting too much, I'm sick of over zealous twerps intentionally ignoring what I'm saying. At the very beginning of this discussion, I was clear on my point that I wanted a cheaper system. Not a cheaper system without any sacrifice to it, a cheaper system with lower specs.
Before you hit reply, re-read what I said and LISTEN. I don't care if you agree with me or not, but for fuck's sake, LISTEN. I really am tired of arguing over things I didn't say and having what I did say tossed out the window. It's fucking irritating.
"There is no movie called "A New Hope" on that list. What are you talking about?"
I dunno if I can really clarify that to somebody who's being too literal or unaware of context. Sorry.
"but you're crying because you might have to spend $399."
Might? There is no might. I *won't*. I wouldn't spend that on a Nintendo console even though I'm an extreme Nintendo zealot. There's no crying about it. If you want to throw your money away, have at it.
"The Ring" ... err could you please explain that?
"I thought GWTW was an overrated piece of trash, although with incredible scenery and costumes. I prefer movies with more of a plot and preferably with multi-dimensional characters. Failing that, I'd like the characters to at least be sympathetic, but the only one of the lot I liked was Melanie."
I don't think this list of movies were rated by 'stands the test of time', but rather the effects they had on people when they were released. At least that explains why A New Hope made it and Empire Strikes Back didn't.
"They list the inferior Star Wars (ANH) and don't give The Empire Strikes Back?"
:)
Eh. Depends on how you measure it. If you're looking at it from the "quality movie" point of view, then yeah, Emp wins. But if you're looking at it from a "holy shit! I didn't know they could do that!" ANH wins.
I agree, these preferences aren't very scientific, but I wanted to nitpick that little detail. hehe.
"Being too fucking dense to read what you are replying to is bad enough, but being so arrogant as to pretend you are being ignored because you aren't participating in group think is beyond rediculous. "
;)
Said the guy who tried to throw my entire post away.
"Why would you expect everyone to be complaining about Sony when they aren't doing this, and MS is?"
a.) Few people here actually understand the nature of the monopoly.
b.) Sony's getting close to creating a monopoly and doing what MS was doing.
c.) MS having a monopoly has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that Microsoft has deep pockets. Sony has deep pockets, same problem, but they're being ignored.
Heh. I actually said all this in the post you poo poo'd. Maybe you shouldn't reply while gritting your teeth.
"Wait till sealevels rise a few tens of metres..."
Yeah, then there'll be no such thing as coastlines anymore.
"Not talking about graphics here. What don't you understand about "entire system"?"
I understand that the GameCube, an entire system, launched at $199. I also understand that the XBOX and the PS2 launched, as complete systems, for $299.
"$399 gets you better graphics AS WELLL AS... faster framerates, more intelligent AI, Better Physics, more realistic everything."
It gets you a LITTLE better. The change isn't all that drastic.
"If nobody cared about video quality or performance, we'd still be playing games like pong."
Funny, that sounds like a rebuttal, except it doesn't actually touch on anything I've said. However, I'll reply anyway: 3DO.
"How the heck do you expect them to build an entire system for less than the price of a decent PC Video Card?"
I imagine it's because they've been doing it for the last 2 generations.
"I'd say $399 is a steal!!"
That's a lot of money to spend on slightly prettier graphics that will be dated before too long anyway. I'd rather buy two Nintendo DS's with a copy of Mario Kart than a PS3 or XBOX at $399. Then again, I play games, not graphics.
"Here's a hint... Don't touch that part of the disc."
I'm guessing you've never tried to remove a stubborn DVD from its case?
"All three of these consoles are going to be wicked powerful, omfg just because ps3 is 1.32012535x faster then xbox360 doesn't mean that it sucks all of a sudden. Fanboys need to take some chill pills!"
I'm more worried about price than power. Sony and Microsoft can each bite my butt if the $399 rumor is true.
"My post was specifically saying that MS DOES HAVE A MONOPOLY, and that not managing to take over a totally seperate market on their first product doesn't magically remove the monopolies they do have in other markets."
Your post said that the monopoly was 'the problem'. That's what I replied to. I questioned the relevance of what you said, and I was well within my right to do so.
As for ignoring me, I really do not care. It wouldn't be the first time I was ignored because I didn't participate in Slashdot group-think.
"Because they are (illegally) using their monopoly profits to develop and then dump the xbox at below cost to the market. Other companies who do not have fat monopoly profits can not afford to do this."
Sony spent 2 billion dollars developing the PS2 AND sold it below cost. I guess money's really is spendable even when it's not from a monopoly!
"The problem with the xbox is that they are using the billions of dollars they made from their OS monopoly to push their way into other markets."
Despite that, they still didn't take the market over. At the end of the day, they still have to create a product that people want. If they succeed at that, that is NOT the definition of a monopoly.
Frankly, the assertion that MS used 'monopoly money' to fund the XBOX is dubious at best. It's based on the assumption that MS made every single penny off of Windows (or Office) because of a monopoly. This is not true by a long shot. MS had to become a monopoly before it could use that power to maintain a monopoly. Windows is a de-facto monopoly. (It's actually stated in the court ruling that MS wasn't guilty of creating a monopoly, just for trying to maintain it. Everybody around here seems to have skipped over that part.)
This isn't relevent anyway. The 'problem' isn't that MS has a monopoly in a different market, the problem is that Microsoft has deep pockets. Sony does, too. That's why they spent 2 billion dollars developing the PS2. That's nearly half the money Nintendo has in the bank. I can't believe you guys are all apeshit over the XBOX but you're completely ignoring the BIGGEST 'threat'. Sony is DOMINATING the market. Not only have they squeezed out Sega, but they've also put up a barrier that even MS couldn't crack. They put out the most inferior hardware, yet they sold the most. Where's the anti-Sony pitchforks, mmm? You're ALL so busy spelling MS with a dollar sign that you're not actually paying attention to what's really happening around you.
Don't tell me I don't understand what a monopoly is and that you do. Sony's creating one right under your nose, but you're all busy being led by your biases.