first off, a disclaimer: I am a nintendo fanboy and own NES thru Gamecube
Gamecube, for some reason or another, simply does not want to support broadband. It's yet another powerpad/light gun/super scope accessory that they have avaiable for a game or two but never really pushed.
I had a theory when mario kart:dd was shown and "reviewed" at E3. I was wondering "OK, the new gamecube2 will be out in 2005. "We already had one great 3-d version of mario kart (mk64) and here's a new one to whet our appetities. We'll pay $50 since we haven't had new tracks in 4 years, the graphics are SHARP and this LAN thing is cute. But i don't see why i'll be paying $50 for ANOTHER 3d one in 2005 (assuming mario kart is a lunch title)." So therefore, i have the idea that Nintendo may be PURPOSELY withholding internet support, so that it can be the reason to buy Mario Kart 256 when it comes out in 2 years. (Sorta how the new features with madden every year likely could have been easily implimented with the previous year's version, but you kinda get the idea that they decided to hold "fantasy option" or something for 2005 so that they could have "internet play" as 2004's push.)
OK, i'm a child of the 80's, so in my lifetime, cable tv has basically always been there. However, I can only imagine that in the 1970's, when someone was like:
Person 1: we'll give the people more tv, and they'll pay us $X a month for it Person 2: But they already get lots of quality programming for free! Person 1: But we'll make it worth their while. They'll like the luxury
Same thing with bottled water. People got it for "free" for years (millenia!) but then were totally ok with handing over money for the exact same thing (which always surprised me here where, in new york city, the tap water is excellent).
Why would someone pay $1,500 for this when 1 Gigabyte cards have now dipped below $100? Besides the fact that these 4GB cards will be $500 or less in a year (ok, maybe 18 months), what possible advantage is there over four 1GB cards at a fraction of the cost (despite the convinience, which is certainly not worth $1000)?
does this remind anyone else of the usenet requests like "I need a cd-key for Microsoft Office XP because, um... I lost the cd case"
Why don't you at least say "can I download/burn ps2 and xbox games to dvd-r's so that i don't have to pay for them?" It's like those homeless guys that hold up the signs that say "Please give me money for liquor" - hey, at least he's honest:)
The quotes were NOT taken out of context. I KNEW you would say that, so that is why I specifically linked both of them so that you could re-read them. I am through with you. This is how I see this thread:
I was gonna say Memento, but it wasn't big-budgetted enough for your post. If we wanna go there, then Waiting for Guffman has one of the best endings ever too!:)
Please show me where you think I said that it is valiant to murder
OK... now when I show this to you, you'll find some way to deny/ignore this...
YOU wrote:The terrorists... act bravely
Then YOU wrote:'Brave' means... possessing or displaying courage, valiant. Therefore by your definition alone, "The terrorists act [bravely]" is equivilent with "The terrorists act [valiant]"
Come on, you fucked up here. It wasn't MY definition that I used above. I didn't go searching for the perfect dictionary definition that would support my argument. These are YOUR words. Admit you misspoke at least, because heaven knows you won't admit that you might have been wrong about anything else.
(for the record, read my past comments history, I admit when I am wrong when a reply points out a mistake of mine).
name a Hollywood blockbuster movie that has had a great ending that you didn't feel completely cheated out of? (Or get the distinct impression that they were going to completely ruin the movie-going experience you just had with a cheap knock-off sequel)?
Terminator 1 - Kick-ass movie, kick-ass ending, and it even has a NON-cheap knock-off awesome sequel (I didn't see T3) LOTR: 'nuff said Sixth Sense: I mean, come on... that ending was sick! (oh wait, it's cool to now say that this movie sucked, or that you saw the ending a mile away, right?):) Raiders of the Lost Ark - The ark being "lost" again? That ending ruled! The Lion King - Great wrap-up to the movie and encomasing the movie's "circle of life" theme Gladiator - very noble ending to a wonderful movie ...to name a few
But I do agree, these films are few and far-between (but don't bash a movie just because it has a $50+ million budget!)
First, thank you for your praise of my debating skill. I really do appreciate it
Now, your second paragraph gets back on track. You make a legitimate argument, but you do not back it up with any real data. I would more than welcome a (logical and on-topic) debate, but I would need something more substantial then what you give there. And by the way, the "left or forced to flee" quote from above is half of a sentence (re: Arabs in Israel pre-1948). Those that left simply left. Those that fought against Israel, yes, were forced to "flee."
Awww... am I not being "fair" when instead of the too-mundane "suicide bomber" I use the description "the guy who blows up innocent unarmed civilians?"
To use your own words against you... you, frane, therefore think it is "valiant" to murder. I don't mean self-defense. I don't mean a "him-or-me" scenario. You mean that it "displays courage" to slaughter innocent people (oops... I used the word "slaughter" - I should say "gives boo-boos and ouchies to the meanie israelis"). And I'm sorry I used the terms "pregnant women" and "schoolchildren," because it's so much easier to use terms like "Palestinian oppressors" and "Israeli War Machine." I didn't use nuns or nobel prize winners because simply put, no suicide bomber in israel has killed either of those. Schoolchildren, pregnant women and families, they have.
Bring on your counter-argument. This is rather amusing. Oh wait, better yet, reply also as an AC or another account of yours so that you can sound like you're being backed up.
What about when Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Sadaam
You obviously have never been in any debate circles. I did debate in HS and College, and what you have up there is pure spin, and you would receive zero if any points for anything you said after or beforehand. Basically, when one has no counter-argument, they make some off-topic "But what about _____!" rant. 6 nations attack Israel and lose. 40-some years later, you have a picture of an American who had nothing to do with that war shaking hands with a current country's leader who also had nothing to do with Iraq's entry into that war. Wow. What a logical debater you are.
that means that they act bravely and courageously (i.e. *not* cowardly)
Nope. Sorry. You made an idiotic statement when you said that suicide bombers are not cowards, and instead of retracting it, or simply posting a "well, maybe 'not cowards' isn't what I meant" you go even further by stating that "they act bravely and courageously."
I still think it's assinine, but I see the point if someone says that it takes courage/bravery to light yourself on fire to protest something (i.e. causing YOURSELF horrible pain and/or death), like that guy did in front of the U.N. years ago (was it the U.N.?). Yeah, that takes balls. But to say it takes bravery and courage to blow yourself up PLUS two pregnant women, 10 schoolchildren and 5 other civilians and send rusty nails and shrapnel into the necks, spines, faces and bodies of dozens of passerbies making them anywhere from disfigured to parapalegics while they are waiting for some pizza at Sbarro is totally assinine.
Do us a favor and quit while you only sound like a moron.
when we kicked those "terrorists" out of their houses and told them new people were living there, they have no right to fight back?
They were't kicked out. That is simply revisionist history. There are hundreds of thousands of "Israeli-Arabs" living within the State of Israel today. They have Israeli passports, Israeli citizenship, citizen benefits and there are numerous Arab members of the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) who are muslim.
How did these men, women and children get this status? Simple. They did NOT leave in 1948 when Israel was created. They did NOT join the 6-country attack on Israel (Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria) and are many are living in the same land that their families have lived on for centuries. many arabs living in British Palestine in 1947 were promised by the neighboring arab countries that they should leave the land, that war would be quick and they would return promptly. They gambled, they lost.
It is blind revisionism (and yes, I'll say it, likely blind anti-Israelism) to say that Israel did wrong here. If you decided to stay (you didn't to fight WITH Israel, but rather agreed to not fight AGAINST it), you were allowed to stay. It is very logical (unless, of course, you buy into the "Israeli-War-Machine" propaganda)
Suicide bombers are a lot of things, but they are not cowards
Murdering a defenseless, weaponless 5-year old girl is indeed cowardly. Killing a soldier, a man/woman who might have their weapon aimed at your head, is one thing. Blowing the arm off of a toddler wearing a Spongebob Squarepants backpack is another thing.
The reason why this is sick is because next time you read that some coward terrorist decided to blow himself up on a Tel Aviv bus, killing him/herself and 15 schoolchildren, a gambler somewhere will go make himself a cool $50 because he "bet" on this.
It is indeed a sick world when the response to a suicide bombing is "YES!"
I grew up outside New York City and in the east and west coast there is a supermarket chain called A&P
One of the local A&P's was opened in like 1980 and was called "A&P Future Store," meaning it was very futuristic. If you typed the name of a food at the door, it told you what aisle to go to (it was wrong more than half the time). There was an automatic bagging machine that in all the years there I never saw operate. There were all these electronic signs that could have easily been paper-ink signs, but I guess electronic is more "futuristic" (who needs a monitor to say "Deli?").
Anyway, as the/. posts from ~2000 showed, many futuristic predictions were WAY off (flying cars, Mars/Moon vacations), and most did not predict the actual major changes that we wound up with (Internet, DNA sequencing).
oh! I get it! because I used a descriptive phrase after the title (the nude patch...), and because you're so genius, I was of course being redundant! Thanks! And brilliant use of the brand-name "Range Rover!" You're right! "Nude Raider" DOES sound a lot like like "Range Rover!"
Tell ya what... I have a neuroanatomy exam coming up. You're such a GENIUS, I was hoping maybe you could help me study.
Seriously... I can't stop laughing and wiping away the tears! Nude Raider = SUV!
Slashdot Mirror
...12 years (back to the future II takes place in 2015)
first off, a disclaimer: I am a nintendo fanboy and own NES thru Gamecube
Gamecube, for some reason or another, simply does not want to support broadband. It's yet another powerpad/light gun/super scope accessory that they have avaiable for a game or two but never really pushed.
I had a theory when mario kart:dd was shown and "reviewed" at E3. I was wondering "OK, the new gamecube2 will be out in 2005. "We already had one great 3-d version of mario kart (mk64) and here's a new one to whet our appetities. We'll pay $50 since we haven't had new tracks in 4 years, the graphics are SHARP and this LAN thing is cute. But i don't see why i'll be paying $50 for ANOTHER 3d one in 2005 (assuming mario kart is a lunch title)." So therefore, i have the idea that Nintendo may be PURPOSELY withholding internet support, so that it can be the reason to buy Mario Kart 256 when it comes out in 2 years. (Sorta how the new features with madden every year likely could have been easily implimented with the previous year's version, but you kinda get the idea that they decided to hold "fantasy option" or something for 2005 so that they could have "internet play" as 2004's push.)
Just a theory...
So bushnell says "you could blow up a tank, a plane, a car - but you couldn't do violence against a human"
So then, what about sexually assaulting the village women in Custer's Revenge??? (as long as it's not fictional carjacking, it's ok i guess...)
OK, i'm a child of the 80's, so in my lifetime, cable tv has basically always been there. However, I can only imagine that in the 1970's, when someone was like:
Person 1: we'll give the people more tv, and they'll pay us $X a month for it
Person 2: But they already get lots of quality programming for free!
Person 1: But we'll make it worth their while. They'll like the luxury
Same thing with bottled water. People got it for "free" for years (millenia!) but then were totally ok with handing over money for the exact same thing (which always surprised me here where, in new york city, the tap water is excellent).
Well, just my $0.02
Gamecube does... what Grand_Theft_Au_DON'T!
(you're supercool if you get that reference)
samsung gamecube? can you please explain this?
Sorry, my bad. Not $100 - $171.99 after $40 mail in rebate. Huge difference. Oh and on ebay they've gone for $150 or less.
Why would someone pay $1,500 for this when 1 Gigabyte cards have now dipped below $100? Besides the fact that these 4GB cards will be $500 or less in a year (ok, maybe 18 months), what possible advantage is there over four 1GB cards at a fraction of the cost (despite the convinience, which is certainly not worth $1000)?
does this remind anyone else of the usenet requests like "I need a cd-key for Microsoft Office XP because, um... I lost the cd case"
:)
Why don't you at least say "can I download/burn ps2 and xbox games to dvd-r's so that i don't have to pay for them?" It's like those homeless guys that hold up the signs that say "Please give me money for liquor" - hey, at least he's honest
The quotes were NOT taken out of context. I KNEW you would say that, so that is why I specifically linked both of them so that you could re-read them. I am through with you. This is how I see this thread:
You: I believe in the idea of Fact X
Me: Fact X is so flawed
You: I never said Fact X
Me: (quotes: 'you: I believe... Fact X')
You: You're taking me out of context!
Bye.
I was gonna say Memento, but it wasn't big-budgetted enough for your post. If we wanna go there, then Waiting for Guffman has one of the best endings ever too! :)
Remember that guy in Superman IV that was like, solar-powered or something?
Man, that movie sucked...
Please show me where you think I said that it is valiant to murder
OK... now when I show this to you, you'll find some way to deny/ignore this...
YOU wrote:The terrorists... act bravely
Then YOU wrote:'Brave' means... possessing or displaying courage, valiant.
Therefore by your definition alone, "The terrorists act [bravely]" is equivilent with "The terrorists act [valiant]"
Come on, you fucked up here. It wasn't MY definition that I used above. I didn't go searching for the perfect dictionary definition that would support my argument. These are YOUR words. Admit you misspoke at least, because heaven knows you won't admit that you might have been wrong about anything else.
(for the record, read my past comments history, I admit when I am wrong when a reply points out a mistake of mine).
name a Hollywood blockbuster movie that has had a great ending that you didn't feel completely cheated out of? (Or get the distinct impression that they were going to completely ruin the movie-going experience you just had with a cheap knock-off sequel)?
:)
Terminator 1 - Kick-ass movie, kick-ass ending, and it even has a NON-cheap knock-off awesome sequel (I didn't see T3)
LOTR: 'nuff said
Sixth Sense: I mean, come on... that ending was sick! (oh wait, it's cool to now say that this movie sucked, or that you saw the ending a mile away, right?)
Raiders of the Lost Ark - The ark being "lost" again? That ending ruled!
The Lion King - Great wrap-up to the movie and encomasing the movie's "circle of life" theme
Gladiator - very noble ending to a wonderful movie
...to name a few
But I do agree, these films are few and far-between (but don't bash a movie just because it has a $50+ million budget!)
First, thank you for your praise of my debating skill. I really do appreciate it
Now, your second paragraph gets back on track. You make a legitimate argument, but you do not back it up with any real data. I would more than welcome a (logical and on-topic) debate, but I would need something more substantial then what you give there. And by the way, the "left or forced to flee" quote from above is half of a sentence (re: Arabs in Israel pre-1948). Those that left simply left. Those that fought against Israel, yes, were forced to "flee."
Awww... am I not being "fair" when instead of the too-mundane "suicide bomber" I use the description "the guy who blows up innocent unarmed civilians?"
To use your own words against you... you, frane, therefore think it is "valiant" to murder. I don't mean self-defense. I don't mean a "him-or-me" scenario. You mean that it "displays courage" to slaughter innocent people (oops... I used the word "slaughter" - I should say "gives boo-boos and ouchies to the meanie israelis"). And I'm sorry I used the terms "pregnant women" and "schoolchildren," because it's so much easier to use terms like "Palestinian oppressors" and "Israeli War Machine." I didn't use nuns or nobel prize winners because simply put, no suicide bomber in israel has killed either of those. Schoolchildren, pregnant women and families, they have.
Bring on your counter-argument. This is rather amusing. Oh wait, better yet, reply also as an AC or another account of yours so that you can sound like you're being backed up.
What about when Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Sadaam
You obviously have never been in any debate circles. I did debate in HS and College, and what you have up there is pure spin, and you would receive zero if any points for anything you said after or beforehand. Basically, when one has no counter-argument, they make some off-topic "But what about _____!" rant. 6 nations attack Israel and lose. 40-some years later, you have a picture of an American who had nothing to do with that war shaking hands with a current country's leader who also had nothing to do with Iraq's entry into that war. Wow. What a logical debater you are.
that means that they act bravely and courageously (i.e. *not* cowardly)
Nope. Sorry. You made an idiotic statement when you said that suicide bombers are not cowards, and instead of retracting it, or simply posting a "well, maybe 'not cowards' isn't what I meant" you go even further by stating that "they act bravely and courageously."
I still think it's assinine, but I see the point if someone says that it takes courage/bravery to light yourself on fire to protest something (i.e. causing YOURSELF horrible pain and/or death), like that guy did in front of the U.N. years ago (was it the U.N.?). Yeah, that takes balls. But to say it takes bravery and courage to blow yourself up PLUS two pregnant women, 10 schoolchildren and 5 other civilians and send rusty nails and shrapnel into the necks, spines, faces and bodies of dozens of passerbies making them anywhere from disfigured to parapalegics while they are waiting for some pizza at Sbarro is totally assinine.
Do us a favor and quit while you only sound like a moron.
when we kicked those "terrorists" out of their houses and told them new people were living there, they have no right to fight back?
They were't kicked out. That is simply revisionist history. There are hundreds of thousands of "Israeli-Arabs" living within the State of Israel today. They have Israeli passports, Israeli citizenship, citizen benefits and there are numerous Arab members of the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) who are muslim.
How did these men, women and children get this status? Simple. They did NOT leave in 1948 when Israel was created. They did NOT join the 6-country attack on Israel (Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria) and are many are living in the same land that their families have lived on for centuries. many arabs living in British Palestine in 1947 were promised by the neighboring arab countries that they should leave the land, that war would be quick and they would return promptly. They gambled, they lost.
It is blind revisionism (and yes, I'll say it, likely blind anti-Israelism) to say that Israel did wrong here. If you decided to stay (you didn't to fight WITH Israel, but rather agreed to not fight AGAINST it), you were allowed to stay. It is very logical (unless, of course, you buy into the "Israeli-War-Machine" propaganda)
Suicide bombers are a lot of things, but they are not cowards
Murdering a defenseless, weaponless 5-year old girl is indeed cowardly. Killing a soldier, a man/woman who might have their weapon aimed at your head, is one thing. Blowing the arm off of a toddler wearing a Spongebob Squarepants backpack is another thing.
The reason why this is sick is because next time you read that some coward terrorist decided to blow himself up on a Tel Aviv bus, killing him/herself and 15 schoolchildren, a gambler somewhere will go make himself a cool $50 because he "bet" on this.
It is indeed a sick world when the response to a suicide bombing is "YES!"
I grew up outside New York City and in the east and west coast there is a supermarket chain called A&P
/. posts from ~2000 showed, many futuristic predictions were WAY off (flying cars, Mars/Moon vacations), and most did not predict the actual major changes that we wound up with (Internet, DNA sequencing).
One of the local A&P's was opened in like 1980 and was called "A&P Future Store," meaning it was very futuristic. If you typed the name of a food at the door, it told you what aisle to go to (it was wrong more than half the time). There was an automatic bagging machine that in all the years there I never saw operate. There were all these electronic signs that could have easily been paper-ink signs, but I guess electronic is more "futuristic" (who needs a monitor to say "Deli?").
Anyway, as the
oh! I get it! because I used a descriptive phrase after the title (the nude patch...), and because you're so genius, I was of course being redundant! Thanks! And brilliant use of the brand-name "Range Rover!" You're right! "Nude Raider" DOES sound a lot like like "Range Rover!"
Tell ya what... I have a neuroanatomy exam coming up. You're such a GENIUS, I was hoping maybe you could help me study.
Seriously... I can't stop laughing and wiping away the tears! Nude Raider = SUV!
FUCKING BRILLIANT!!!
I guess you never downloaded Nude Raider, the naked patch to the original Tomb Raider
Mmmmm.... pixelated boobies...
and the parent is modded Flamebait because.... (?)