This is not the first time MS has placed this kind of restriction. The MSDN, a large pack of software used by subscription and intended for developers, has had a similar restriction since well before 2000. It says, in a nutshell, that you can use the software to develop anything except a general purpose suite of office software.
It's kind of stupid to offer development tools and then restrict developers, especially if you're interested in convincing people that you're not using your monopoly improperly. It looks bad. But I gotta ask, why on Earth should open source developers care?
Do you want to be in Microsoft's shadow? Are you an "almost as good" substitute for MS, or are you actually better? Do you have origional ideas?
AMD didn't get where it is now by continuing to copy Intel. It got here by at some point realizing it could do better. Intel ended up following them. If you want to look, act and be just like Microsoft, then you should be upset over this. If you want to look and act like something better, then this is just a good reminder that that is your goal.
If you grab a hot iron, (because you wanted to), and burn yourself, I have not victimized you. If you complain about being burned, I still have not victimized you. Me pointing out that you are burned still has not victimized you, I am only stating the obvious. But if I ridicule you, then I have hurt you. But how you take all this, is still up to you. Same idea applies here. If you 'out' yourself, (whether gay, Jewish, 'Wicken,'or ), you must be willing to deal with the real effects. Are African Americans, blondes, and 'fat people' all in bad conditions worthy of ridicule? I don't think so, nor did I ridicule them. The first group chose their own lifestyle/belief system, I did not choose it for them.
See, this is the problem. There are certain things we should have the right to think, feel and express, without them being "hot irons." Some of this is guarenteed in the the constitution even, some of it is not, but regardless of it's legal status, it's just not nice to treat people poorly for these kinds of things.
Personally, I don't know if you've ever been unkind to any of the members of any of these groups. For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate that you haven't. But you appear quite guilty of the second form of victimization. It's the form where you say, "hey, if you play with fire, you get burned." It's the part where when someone gets robbed, you blame them for being in the wrong part of town. It's where a guy gets spit on, and you blame him for having his face in the way. It's vitimizing because of the implication that if someone wants a problem-free life, they should have just made different choices about what to believe and who to love, and whether or not they need to keep it all a big secret.
It's victimizing because it's inaction. It's victimizing because, like so many things in life, inaction is, in fact, action by default. Yes, in order to not be a victimizer here, you have to take action. You have to at least afirm that it's immoral to allow somone to be "burned" by others and that they have a right to not have that fire thrust in their face. You have to agree that it's just not their fault, in the same way that you agree that it's not a womans fault if she gets raped.
In short, you're not the guy that nailed Jesus to the cross, you're Pilot. You're washing your hands. If Jesus would have just kept his mouth shut, he wouldn't be in this position to begin with. Maybe you really believe that he was playing with fire and got burned. After all, didn't he have a choice whether to do all that preaching? So be it. I have no illusions that I'll change your mind. But you're going to find you have a very hard time with people who feel discrimination if you don't come to grips with the fact that it's the discriminator who's making the choice to do the burning, and not the victim chosing to get close to the flames.
Some (alot?) of your assumptions make sense. I was just pissed at the assertion that I made stuff up, especially when it was fairly obvious what I was working with.
I hate anecdotal evidence, but it might actually be better in some limited way in this case. Why? Because wild guesses about shipped numbers are almost certainly going to be worse, and if a proper reatio can be guessed, then it doesn't really matter what the total numbers were. I don't know how accurate the 1-2 or better ratios are, but even if you accept 1-3 (I'm not quite ready to accepte 1-5) then all it really proves is that Nintendo has enough fans to buy up the stock. It doesn't say much about how Wii sales will hold up (baring bad experiences, I'd expect "well") and it certainly doesn't say anything at all about the PS3 fanbase. It just says that their were enough buyers for stock on hand.
The evidence does not show at all, for example, that Sony wouldn't have been able to sell just as many units had they been available. Any assertions that Sony couldn't sell a million PS3s is wild speculation. Hell, it's downright guessing. I don't begrudge Wii fans their current success, but saying there's low demand for the PS3 at this point is silly.
I've heard all kinds of numbers from all kinds of people, but 80k is the smallest yet. It's super small. Please show some sources. Pretty please. You wouldn't take that number from me either if the situation was reversed.
This is a cheap shot. I used the post I replied to for the Nintendo numbers and the reported shipped units for the Sony. 400k is what the company reported. It may be less, for example some people have claimed 200k, but if I used those numbers I really would be making them up.
I don't have specific knowledge of either number, so the best I can do is rehash what's been reported to me. Of the Nintendo numbers I do know this; they're smaller than 1 million. That's what the rep said in TFA. If that's 500k or 999K, I couldn't tell you, but if a Nintendo fan-boy says it's 500K, I'm more than willing you use his numbers.
You're right about the economics of the situation, a small, inelastic demand can look like a big demmand if the3 supply is even smaller. However, if the numbers I've heard reported are correct, then the "small" fanbase of PS3 supporters certainly looks more impressive than the Wii fanbase. A 100k difference in units does not explain the leisurely approach of Wii fans compared to PS3 fans. You no more know that the Wii has a large fanbase than you know the PS3 fanbase is small. If they both had small fanbases and both supplies were small, then the Wii's fans were certainly small enough to not look anything at all like huge demand.
But what if the reported numbers are wrong? What if Sony shipped 200K units and Nintendo shipped 800K. That paints a different picture, right? Then show me. Don't make up numbers, but show me some good sources (no, tiny fanboy sites do not count). At least you know my sources. You quoted the 400k yourself and I showed you the 500k. Do me better and you'll have my respect. I'd love to have something closer to real myself. But don't claim I'm making stuff up when your best response is to say some unknown other numbers might be more accurate. If your numbers are better, then show me.
There actaully are different categories. I would explain them, but I'm sure I'd butcher them in the process. Search terms I'd recommend include "hard athiesm" "soft athiesm" and, of course "agnostic." I would recommend NOT using my shitty spelling though.
Athiesm is not cut and dry, but like so many other things in life people assume they understand things better than they really do. It's a very interesting read if you can find a good authoratative text, and well worth understanding if you proclaim to be one.
Since this post, I've seen new numbers. It appears Nintendo isn't crazy trouncing anything. If they only sold 500,000 units vs. Sony's 400,000, then it looks like Sony is doing very well for itself in mindshare. The numbers are the key, and if those aren't right than my analysis will obviously be wrong. But 500k is kind of small for Nintendo to sell out as leisurely as they have.
They're just random groups that have been looked down upon, whether justly (pickpocket) or unjustly (unwed mothers). In fact all the groups in the post share that distinction. Why would I worry about being higher or lower than any of them? The truth is, I worry only about Athiests being seen as lower than, say, the poplation as a whole and I only brought up the comparisons becaue the article in question used the same technique, and it seemed like a simple way of pointing out that Athiests are getting the shaft, too.
For the record, with the exception of terrorists and pickpockts, I'm more than a little concerned that any of these groups are still having problems in the 21st century. But they are. And we need to do what we can to stop it. It's also more than a little upsetting that while I use "terrorists" many people are thinking "Arabs." Rember the IRA and Timmy McVeigh? There's plenty of terrorism to go around.
I doubt the PS3 would accomplish this (1 million in sales by December) if the units were available.
Funny, you gave a lot of URLs for articles that say various negative things about the PS3, but not a single article to bolster your main point, that you believe they would have trouble with sales. On the other hand, Sony had 400k units go out the door in minutes on launch day (Please show me figures if you believe it's lower, because everything I read shows the higher number), with lots of frustrated people paying big bucks on eBay because of very high demand.
I had thought that the Wii was going to be 4 million units strong yesterday. I was impressed that they sold out that many units. As time goes on today, I find out that the true number was much lower. The leisurly sell-out of 500k units actually looks kind of bad for Nintendo in the demand are. Based on the launch day alone, it looks like there was much stonger demand for the PS3.
Once again, say all you want about how bad you think the PS3 is and how great the Wii. you may be wrong and you may be right. But don't try to tell me the Wii is more popular at lauch. Unless you got some cool numbers the rest of us have never seen, it's just fantasy talk. Even if you do have the numbers, you'd be hard pressed to tell me week long lines compare to breezing into the store and haveing no problem getting your box, even though the numbers were closer than everyone thought.
Many Religions folk base their "morality" on "God said so." What, pray tell, does an Atheist base his morality on?
Sometimes the public good. Sometimes a "gut" feeling of rightness and wrongness. Sometimes a respect for law. Sometimes patriotism. I personally find the golden rule to be quite nice, and I have a general dislike for harming others. YMMV.
Athiests are as different as forms of vegetarianism or sects of Christianity. They dont all do the same things for the same reasons.
I was very impressed that the Wii sold out. I didn't expect it. Then I read that they intend to release 4 million units by the end of the year, not on launch day.
Like it or not, I still had to be impressed, if for no other reason than pretty much all the fans got to get one. I'm happy for you all getting to enjoy your new toy. I'm pretty jealous because I wish the launch of the PS3 had gone as well.
On the profit thing: Starting out strong is great, but what really matters is who wins in the end. I think Sony has a great chance of making a great profit, espcially if you count the number of Blu-Ray discs that will be sold as a result of so many gamers owning a Blu-Ray player. That said, it's all about the games, and I loved playing Motor Storm at the kiosk.
I never said it's what all Christians believe. I never said it's what you believe. I think your personal use of the word "rtard," however, says quite alot about you. Not about all Christians. About you personally.
Who said I'm an outcast or that I publisize my lack of religion. This forum is actually a fairly rare self-outing, and was a relevant response to an article on the subject. The reason it's rare is simple, because the times when I've been open about it, I've had a tendency to get burned.
So, my question to you is: are blacks, gays, unwed mothers, jews, fat people, Wickens(sp?), and blondes somehow wrong for not wanting to get picked on?
Should gays, unwed mothers, jews and Wickens (all situations you can hide) just shut the fuck up and stay in the closet like good little boys and girls? Don't ask, don't tell? Only the straight married Christians get to lead an honest life?
Chill. You're victimizing these people twice. You're not gonna get me yelling about my rights, but I sure as hell support anyone who feels otherwise.
Forget Bill, the rest of article says something even more beautiful than his possible presidency.
I'm so happy that Atheists might possibly be able to achieve the lofy satus that homosexuals enjoy in our society, and might be even more respected than terrorists. Considering that I've been told by more than one Christian (true story here) that atheists do not have the capacity for morality, I absolutely love the idea that I might be able to catch up with gay people on the social pecking order. Now if only I had the chance of being less of an outcast than blacks in the south, but I'm sure unwed mothers and pickpockets will always beat out the both of us.
I was trying to put it on any group. It's just a numbers game. More people buy American Budweiser in America than any Belgian beer. However, that doesn't make Bud better, just more popular in the population as a whole. The same thing will happen with consoles. One will sell more than the others, but it doesn't neccessarily mean it's the best.
Thank you. Seriously. It seemed wrong at the time, but I had a massive brain cramp and couldn't remember (Belginians? Belginites? Belerinas? Damn!). Seriously, it's been bugging me for hourse:-)
I'm not arguing that you don't have those things and I do. I'm arguing that the sales of those other things far surpass the sales of the things you and I might prefer, even though virtually every person "in the know" would proclaim our choices superior. Similarly, it doesn't necessarily matter if the Wii is superior or not. The winner will be the one people actually buy.
I played a PS3 at Target last night. It was cool, but not revolutionary. Perhaps the only real revolutionary thing about it is all the stuff that's not a game (Blu-Ray, wireless, 1080p)
-I love Belgium beers. The U.S. buys Budweiser. -I loved Firefly. The world loves Desperate Houswives. -I have art over my mantlepiece. The suberbanites put a large mirror there. -I love that little place down the street. The U.S. loves Applebees.
It really doesn't matter what you think of the Wii. The lines waiting for teh PS3 this morning were completely full. The prices on eBay are already legendary. You won't see that with Sunday's launch of the Wii.
I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking that origionality or quality actually "count" in the grand scheme of things. But that doesn't mean that you can't enjoy your Wii anyway.
(I would caution those who champion the Wii to take a closer look at what they're doing. They're saying it's great before they've even seen a unit in person. Some guy in another thread insinuated that PS3 purchasers were acting like sheep. Proclaining the Wii as "superior" without haveing every played it is absolutely no better)
Tha'ts funny. I've been wanting to do the same thing. Only my sign would say "Slashdot." And I'd walk around in front of the line of guys who're waiting to find out from Slashdot whatever they should be hating next. Well, I guess there's no physical line, so my idea is kind of dumb. But not quite as dumb as being led like a sheep into thinking some other company is leading their fans like sheep.
See, the guys in the Sony line, even if they are sheep, are at least getting something they think they'll enjoy. You, on the other hand, are getting a bad attitude. Even if they don't enjoy their game $600 and three nights in the rain worth, at least they don't have the bad attitude. They win.
You mean to tell me that it only just now occurred to someone to send an entangled photon through a spool of fiber and see how it affects its twin, which took a direct path?
Maybe it just took this long for someone with a big check to stop laughing long enough to hear the full proposal for a"time machine"?
Lets face it, when "time travel" ends up on the cover of your proposal, you're going to find a lot of meetings get canceled, friends disappear, you fairly often hear strange giggling behind you and maybe even your rent checks starts bouncing.
Yeah, sure, there's Hawking, but he only writes books about theoretical wormholes no one can see. He never felt the need to borrow a spare billion to go look for them. But an actual experiment for time travel? Not only do you gotta produce, but anyone who gives you the money knows people are gonna start laughing at him if/when you fail.
It's a setup.
Next question: "You mean to tell me that it only just now occurred to someone to put servo motors on a corpse to animate it?" Well, maybe it did just now occur to someone, or maybe it's just taken a while to fund their little "Zombie" project.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not the first time MS has placed this kind of restriction. The MSDN, a large pack of software used by subscription and intended for developers, has had a similar restriction since well before 2000. It says, in a nutshell, that you can use the software to develop anything except a general purpose suite of office software.
It's kind of stupid to offer development tools and then restrict developers, especially if you're interested in convincing people that you're not using your monopoly improperly. It looks bad. But I gotta ask, why on Earth should open source developers care?
Do you want to be in Microsoft's shadow? Are you an "almost as good" substitute for MS, or are you actually better? Do you have origional ideas?
AMD didn't get where it is now by continuing to copy Intel. It got here by at some point realizing it could do better. Intel ended up following them. If you want to look, act and be just like Microsoft, then you should be upset over this. If you want to look and act like something better, then this is just a good reminder that that is your goal.
TW
See, this is the problem. There are certain things we should have the right to think, feel and express, without them being "hot irons." Some of this is guarenteed in the the constitution even, some of it is not, but regardless of it's legal status, it's just not nice to treat people poorly for these kinds of things.
Personally, I don't know if you've ever been unkind to any of the members of any of these groups. For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate that you haven't. But you appear quite guilty of the second form of victimization. It's the form where you say, "hey, if you play with fire, you get burned." It's the part where when someone gets robbed, you blame them for being in the wrong part of town. It's where a guy gets spit on, and you blame him for having his face in the way. It's vitimizing because of the implication that if someone wants a problem-free life, they should have just made different choices about what to believe and who to love, and whether or not they need to keep it all a big secret.
It's victimizing because it's inaction. It's victimizing because, like so many things in life, inaction is, in fact, action by default. Yes, in order to not be a victimizer here, you have to take action. You have to at least afirm that it's immoral to allow somone to be "burned" by others and that they have a right to not have that fire thrust in their face. You have to agree that it's just not their fault, in the same way that you agree that it's not a womans fault if she gets raped.
In short, you're not the guy that nailed Jesus to the cross, you're Pilot. You're washing your hands. If Jesus would have just kept his mouth shut, he wouldn't be in this position to begin with. Maybe you really believe that he was playing with fire and got burned. After all, didn't he have a choice whether to do all that preaching? So be it. I have no illusions that I'll change your mind. But you're going to find you have a very hard time with people who feel discrimination if you don't come to grips with the fact that it's the discriminator who's making the choice to do the burning, and not the victim chosing to get close to the flames.
TW
Some (alot?) of your assumptions make sense. I was just pissed at the assertion that I made stuff up, especially when it was fairly obvious what I was working with.
I hate anecdotal evidence, but it might actually be better in some limited way in this case. Why? Because wild guesses about shipped numbers are almost certainly going to be worse, and if a proper reatio can be guessed, then it doesn't really matter what the total numbers were. I don't know how accurate the 1-2 or better ratios are, but even if you accept 1-3 (I'm not quite ready to accepte 1-5) then all it really proves is that Nintendo has enough fans to buy up the stock. It doesn't say much about how Wii sales will hold up (baring bad experiences, I'd expect "well") and it certainly doesn't say anything at all about the PS3 fanbase. It just says that their were enough buyers for stock on hand.
The evidence does not show at all, for example, that Sony wouldn't have been able to sell just as many units had they been available. Any assertions that Sony couldn't sell a million PS3s is wild speculation. Hell, it's downright guessing. I don't begrudge Wii fans their current success, but saying there's low demand for the PS3 at this point is silly.
TW
That does help quite a lot. Thanks!
I've heard all kinds of numbers from all kinds of people, but 80k is the smallest yet. It's super small. Please show some sources. Pretty please. You wouldn't take that number from me either if the situation was reversed.
This is a cheap shot. I used the post I replied to for the Nintendo numbers and the reported shipped units for the Sony. 400k is what the company reported. It may be less, for example some people have claimed 200k, but if I used those numbers I really would be making them up.
I don't have specific knowledge of either number, so the best I can do is rehash what's been reported to me. Of the Nintendo numbers I do know this; they're smaller than 1 million. That's what the rep said in TFA. If that's 500k or 999K, I couldn't tell you, but if a Nintendo fan-boy says it's 500K, I'm more than willing you use his numbers.
You're right about the economics of the situation, a small, inelastic demand can look like a big demmand if the3 supply is even smaller. However, if the numbers I've heard reported are correct, then the "small" fanbase of PS3 supporters certainly looks more impressive than the Wii fanbase. A 100k difference in units does not explain the leisurely approach of Wii fans compared to PS3 fans. You no more know that the Wii has a large fanbase than you know the PS3 fanbase is small. If they both had small fanbases and both supplies were small, then the Wii's fans were certainly small enough to not look anything at all like huge demand.
But what if the reported numbers are wrong? What if Sony shipped 200K units and Nintendo shipped 800K. That paints a different picture, right? Then show me. Don't make up numbers, but show me some good sources (no, tiny fanboy sites do not count). At least you know my sources. You quoted the 400k yourself and I showed you the 500k. Do me better and you'll have my respect. I'd love to have something closer to real myself. But don't claim I'm making stuff up when your best response is to say some unknown other numbers might be more accurate. If your numbers are better, then show me.
TW
There actaully are different categories. I would explain them, but I'm sure I'd butcher them in the process. Search terms I'd recommend include "hard athiesm" "soft athiesm" and, of course "agnostic." I would recommend NOT using my shitty spelling though.
Athiesm is not cut and dry, but like so many other things in life people assume they understand things better than they really do. It's a very interesting read if you can find a good authoratative text, and well worth understanding if you proclaim to be one.
TW
Since this post, I've seen new numbers. It appears Nintendo isn't crazy trouncing anything. If they only sold 500,000 units vs. Sony's 400,000, then it looks like Sony is doing very well for itself in mindshare. The numbers are the key, and if those aren't right than my analysis will obviously be wrong. But 500k is kind of small for Nintendo to sell out as leisurely as they have.
TW
They're just random groups that have been looked down upon, whether justly (pickpocket) or unjustly (unwed mothers). In fact all the groups in the post share that distinction. Why would I worry about being higher or lower than any of them? The truth is, I worry only about Athiests being seen as lower than, say, the poplation as a whole and I only brought up the comparisons becaue the article in question used the same technique, and it seemed like a simple way of pointing out that Athiests are getting the shaft, too.
For the record, with the exception of terrorists and pickpockts, I'm more than a little concerned that any of these groups are still having problems in the 21st century. But they are. And we need to do what we can to stop it. It's also more than a little upsetting that while I use "terrorists" many people are thinking "Arabs." Rember the IRA and Timmy McVeigh? There's plenty of terrorism to go around.
TW
Funny, you gave a lot of URLs for articles that say various negative things about the PS3, but not a single article to bolster your main point, that you believe they would have trouble with sales. On the other hand, Sony had 400k units go out the door in minutes on launch day (Please show me figures if you believe it's lower, because everything I read shows the higher number), with lots of frustrated people paying big bucks on eBay because of very high demand.
I had thought that the Wii was going to be 4 million units strong yesterday. I was impressed that they sold out that many units. As time goes on today, I find out that the true number was much lower. The leisurly sell-out of 500k units actually looks kind of bad for Nintendo in the demand are. Based on the launch day alone, it looks like there was much stonger demand for the PS3.
Once again, say all you want about how bad you think the PS3 is and how great the Wii. you may be wrong and you may be right. But don't try to tell me the Wii is more popular at lauch. Unless you got some cool numbers the rest of us have never seen, it's just fantasy talk. Even if you do have the numbers, you'd be hard pressed to tell me week long lines compare to breezing into the store and haveing no problem getting your box, even though the numbers were closer than everyone thought.
TW
Sometimes the public good. Sometimes a "gut" feeling of rightness and wrongness. Sometimes a respect for law. Sometimes patriotism. I personally find the golden rule to be quite nice, and I have a general dislike for harming others. YMMV.
Athiests are as different as forms of vegetarianism or sects of Christianity. They dont all do the same things for the same reasons.
TW
I was very impressed that the Wii sold out. I didn't expect it. Then I read that they intend to release 4 million units by the end of the year, not on launch day.
Like it or not, I still had to be impressed, if for no other reason than pretty much all the fans got to get one. I'm happy for you all getting to enjoy your new toy. I'm pretty jealous because I wish the launch of the PS3 had gone as well.
On the profit thing: Starting out strong is great, but what really matters is who wins in the end. I think Sony has a great chance of making a great profit, espcially if you count the number of Blu-Ray discs that will be sold as a result of so many gamers owning a Blu-Ray player. That said, it's all about the games, and I loved playing Motor Storm at the kiosk.
TW
I never said it's what all Christians believe. I never said it's what you believe. I think your personal use of the word "rtard," however, says quite alot about you. Not about all Christians. About you personally.
TW
Who said I'm an outcast or that I publisize my lack of religion. This forum is actually a fairly rare self-outing, and was a relevant response to an article on the subject. The reason it's rare is simple, because the times when I've been open about it, I've had a tendency to get burned.
So, my question to you is: are blacks, gays, unwed mothers, jews, fat people, Wickens(sp?), and blondes somehow wrong for not wanting to get picked on?
Should gays, unwed mothers, jews and Wickens (all situations you can hide) just shut the fuck up and stay in the closet like good little boys and girls? Don't ask, don't tell? Only the straight married Christians get to lead an honest life?
Chill. You're victimizing these people twice. You're not gonna get me yelling about my rights, but I sure as hell support anyone who feels otherwise.
TW
Forget Bill, the rest of article says something even more beautiful than his possible presidency.
I'm so happy that Atheists might possibly be able to achieve the lofy satus that homosexuals enjoy in our society, and might be even more respected than terrorists. Considering that I've been told by more than one Christian (true story here) that atheists do not have the capacity for morality, I absolutely love the idea that I might be able to catch up with gay people on the social pecking order. Now if only I had the chance of being less of an outcast than blacks in the south, but I'm sure unwed mothers and pickpockets will always beat out the both of us.
Read the ariticle. It's hope (sniff).
TW
I was trying to put it on any group. It's just a numbers game. More people buy American Budweiser in America than any Belgian beer. However, that doesn't make Bud better, just more popular in the population as a whole. The same thing will happen with consoles. One will sell more than the others, but it doesn't neccessarily mean it's the best.
TW
Thank you. Seriously. It seemed wrong at the time, but I had a massive brain cramp and couldn't remember (Belginians? Belginites? Belerinas? Damn!). Seriously, it's been bugging me for hourse :-)
Did Sony lose money on the PS2?
I know what you were trying to say, but you gotta admit that typo is pretty funny
TW
Yoo r meen! I donet liik yor poynts ether.
I'm not arguing that you don't have those things and I do. I'm arguing that the sales of those other things far surpass the sales of the things you and I might prefer, even though virtually every person "in the know" would proclaim our choices superior. Similarly, it doesn't necessarily matter if the Wii is superior or not. The winner will be the one people actually buy.
TW
I played a PS3 at Target last night. It was cool, but not revolutionary. Perhaps the only real revolutionary thing about it is all the stuff that's not a game (Blu-Ray, wireless, 1080p)
TW
Yes, but not as much as you may think.
-I love Belgium beers. The U.S. buys Budweiser.
-I loved Firefly. The world loves Desperate Houswives.
-I have art over my mantlepiece. The suberbanites put a large mirror there.
-I love that little place down the street. The U.S. loves Applebees.
It really doesn't matter what you think of the Wii. The lines waiting for teh PS3 this morning were completely full. The prices on eBay are already legendary. You won't see that with Sunday's launch of the Wii.
I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking that origionality or quality actually "count" in the grand scheme of things. But that doesn't mean that you can't enjoy your Wii anyway.
(I would caution those who champion the Wii to take a closer look at what they're doing. They're saying it's great before they've even seen a unit in person. Some guy in another thread insinuated that PS3 purchasers were acting like sheep. Proclaining the Wii as "superior" without haveing every played it is absolutely no better)
TW
Tha'ts funny. I've been wanting to do the same thing. Only my sign would say "Slashdot." And I'd walk around in front of the line of guys who're waiting to find out from Slashdot whatever they should be hating next. Well, I guess there's no physical line, so my idea is kind of dumb. But not quite as dumb as being led like a sheep into thinking some other company is leading their fans like sheep.
See, the guys in the Sony line, even if they are sheep, are at least getting something they think they'll enjoy. You, on the other hand, are getting a bad attitude. Even if they don't enjoy their game $600 and three nights in the rain worth, at least they don't have the bad attitude. They win.
TW
Maybe it just took this long for someone with a big check to stop laughing long enough to hear the full proposal for a"time machine"?
Lets face it, when "time travel" ends up on the cover of your proposal, you're going to find a lot of meetings get canceled, friends disappear, you fairly often hear strange giggling behind you and maybe even your rent checks starts bouncing.
Yeah, sure, there's Hawking, but he only writes books about theoretical wormholes no one can see. He never felt the need to borrow a spare billion to go look for them. But an actual experiment for time travel? Not only do you gotta produce, but anyone who gives you the money knows people are gonna start laughing at him if/when you fail.
It's a setup.
Next question: "You mean to tell me that it only just now occurred to someone to put servo motors on a corpse to animate it?" Well, maybe it did just now occur to someone, or maybe it's just taken a while to fund their little "Zombie" project.
TW